Do you know any Communists?

Iwasfrozen · 26-02-2014 06:15PM

Grolschevik wrote: »

("Succeeding", I presume.)

Anyway, the use of markets as a price-setting mechanism is not in principle incompatible with a socialist economy.

It's usually referred to as "market socialism", and people have been proposing versions of it since the '30s at least.

http://rdwolff.com/content/what-%E2%80%9Cmarket-socialism%E2%80%9D-can-markets-and-socialism-coexist

I'm not doubting the existence of market socialism as a theory. I was asking coolemon what his opinion on the matter is.

Grolschevik · 26-02-2014 07:03PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not doubting the existence of market socialism as a theory. I was asking coolemon what his opinion on the matter is.

Grand, so. Have been resisting taking part in this, as internet debates vex me!

Iwasfrozen · 26-02-2014 08:02PM

Grolschevik wrote: »

Grand, so. Have been resisting taking part in this, as internet debates vex me!

I know your pain but they're also insightful. I would have barely even considered post-keynesianism or dialectic materialism with out boards.

fr336 · 26-02-2014 08:05PM

That would be an ecumenical matter.

Grolschevik · 26-02-2014 08:41PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I know your pain but they're also insightful. I would have barely even considered post-keynesianism or dialectic materialism with out boards.

Accounts of what's called dialectical materialism can be a bit of a theoretical dead end.

However, I find more focused accounts of what's generally referred to as historical materialism, especially as espoused by GA Cohen, to be much more persuasive (Cohen bases his account on human ingenuity as the motor of history, essentially. As in, we humans constantly invent new and better ways to be productive [because doing so is an expression of our human essence], therefore the way in which we -- as a species -- produce evolves over centuries and millennia, and our social/political/legal/religious/ethical relations evolve to match, mirror, and support those evolving economic relations).

On market socialism specifically, I quite like David Miller. And a good chunk of his relevant book has handily been pillaged by Google Books:
http://books.google.ie/books?id=bPgv0pVSmIgC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Iwasfrozen · 26-02-2014 09:12PM

Grolschevik wrote: »

Accounts of what's called dialectical materialism can be a bit of a theoretical dead end.

However, I find more focused accounts of what's generally referred to as historical materialism, especially as espoused by GA Cohen, to be much more persuasive (Cohen bases his account on human ingenuity as the motor of history, essentially. As in, we humans constantly invent new and better ways to be productive [because doing so is an expression of our human essence], therefore the way in which we -- as a species -- produce evolves over centuries and millennia, and our social/political/legal/religious/ethical relations evolve to match, mirror, and support those evolving economic relations).

On market socialism specifically, I quite like David Miller. And a good chunk of his relevant book has handily been pillaged by Google Books:
http://books.google.ie/books?id=bPgv0pVSmIgC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

From my limited understanding it seems Historical materialism is a practical application of the more philosophical dialectical materialism.

Grolschevik · 26-02-2014 09:24PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

From my limited understanding it seems Historical materialism is a practical application of the more philosophical dialectical materialism.

The practical explanatory application is the key. The whole thesis/antithesis/synthesis thing is in both, but historical application makes it more immediate. I think, at least.

Iwasfrozen · 26-02-2014 09:26PM

Grolschevik wrote: »

The practical explanatory application is the key. The whole thesis/antithesis/synthesis thing is in both, but historical application makes it more immediate. I think, at least.

What do you mean?

Iwasfrozen · 26-02-2014 09:34PM

coolemon wrote: »

Socialism, in my view, would be a moneyless society. As I have stated, all values are subjective anyway.

There would be no 'prices'. There might be rational planning of resources in certain circumstances, but there are endless methods one might use to 'calculate' the utilitarian value of an intrinsically scarce resource.

Conservation and ethical guidelines, for example, on the rational use of Rhino Horn. Rather than whatever tom, dick and harry has the money to irrationally snort it up their nose in a free market economy. "Price" being a measure of nothing but social power relations.

EDIT NOTE: It must be remembered from where I am coming from with what appears to be these otherwise bizzare claims about 'price'.

Firstly, socialism removes the commodity. It makes free access of all material goods and services (within reason). By doing this it removes the bulk of social value from material objects and their production. That is, the removal of commodity fetishism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism) -> of the seeing of objects as something which embody a social interactional value -> such as prestige, social status, self worth, and so forth.

Capitalism 'creates' a scarcity of social value to continue its perpetual growth and the turnover of profit.

It enforces this scarcity through restriction and private property. Through private control of the means of production.

It is the contention of Marxists that we have the material productive capacity to meet all intrinsic human needs. But not those needs produced through the artificially created scarcity of social value through material production.

So rather than price being something reflective of an intrinsic material scarcity -> it actually reflects ownership and power relations.

Socialism would produce less, use less and share resources to a greater extent. It would be an incredibly efficient system of social reproduction. Unlike capitalism, which wastes resources on producing needless social value.

This is summed up in the quote by Marx: "Accumulation for accumulation’s sake, production for production’s sake: by this formula classical economy expressed the historical mission of the bourgeoisie"

It seems that you're saying prices and money will not exist in a world with unlimited free resources and free labour. I agree with what you're saying in principle. I agree with the psychological aspect of your post but surely you understand that short of Star Trek style replicators such a condition is impossible to meet.

Grolschevik · 26-02-2014 09:36PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What do you mean?

More accessible to the reader trying to understand it.

Grolschevik · 26-02-2014 09:41PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It seems that you're saying prices and money will not exist in a world with unlimited free resources and free labour. I agree with what you're saying in principle. I agree with the psychological aspect of your post but surely you understand that short of Star Trek style replicators such a condition is impossible to meet.

Marx did seem to believe that actual communism could only be predicated on a situation of literal material abundance.

But, in his defence, at the time he was writing, such abundance (in terms of material output) probably looked attainable for huge numbers of people (in terms of a decent mid/late 19th century standard of living).

What he failed to predict was the constant manipulation and ramping-up of consumer demand and expectations. Essentially, he failed to predict the advertising industry as we now know it.

Iwasfrozen · 26-02-2014 09:42PM

Grolschevik wrote: »

More accessible to the reader trying to understand it.

Oh yes definitely dialectical materialism is heavy going, It took me an hour over lunch to just get a very basic understanding of the concept and to be frank it's not something I'd go back to unless I was very bored.

Iwasfrozen · 26-02-2014 09:50PM

Grolschevik wrote: »

Marx did seem to believe that actual communism could only be predicated on a situation of literal material abundance.

But, in his defence, at the time he was writing, such abundance (in terms of material output) probably looked attainable for huge numbers of people (in terms of a decent mid/late 19th century standard of living).

What he failed to predict was the constant manipulation and ramping-up of consumer demand and expectations. Essentially, he failed to predict the advertising industry as we now know it.

Coolemon is saying socialism to him would be a totally moneyless society. But as far as I'm aware Marx only predicted this in he case of a fully communistic society. I've never read any of his books so I'm just going off stuff I find on the internet here.

I don't believe such a state of unlimited material abundance is possible in reality. At least I can't see any way that it could be.

I don't think Marx didn't predict increased consumption in the future in a more productive society. I just think he grossly over-predicted how much more productive we would be.

sin_city · 26-02-2014 09:56PM

coolemon wrote: »

Everyone is ideological. Including yourself.

Analytical and ideological are not the same.

Grolschevik · 26-02-2014 10:03PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Coolemon is saying socialism to him would be a totally moneyless society. But as far as I'm aware Marx only predicted this in he case of a fully communistic society. I've never read any of his books so I'm just going off stuff I find on the internet here.

I don't believe such a state of unlimited material abundance is possible in reality. At least I can't see any way that it could be.

I don't think Marx didn't predict increased consumption in the future in a more productive society. I just think he grossly over-predicted how much more productive we would be.

a) Marx actually wrote surprisingly little (virtually nothing worth going on) about what a future communist society might be like.

b) You never know! 150 years ago, an iPad would've been unimaginable. 1,000 years ago, your Zippo would've probably gotten you burned at the stake. Humans are great at doing stuff; that's actually central to Marx's conception of human nature.

c) Possibly. It could be that the cycle of this mode of production is taking longer than he thought it would. He explicitly said that capitalism was the most productive mode of production in human history so far. And that capitalism, capitalist development, and its productive capacity was an essential prerequisite to any possible communist future. (That's why there were huge debates among Marxists about the fact that Russia, China etc weren't ready for the transition to socialism; they simply didn't have the requisite economic base).

Frank Lee Midere · 26-02-2014 10:07PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh yes definitely dialectical materialism is heavy going, It took me an hour over lunch to just get a very basic understanding of the concept and to be frank it's not something I'd go back to unless I was very bored.

The real question is not difficulty but correctness. Nostradamus is a famously difficult read.

Frank Lee Midere · 26-02-2014 10:17PM

Grolschevik wrote: »

a) Marx actually wrote surprisingly little (virtually nothing worth going on) about what a future communist society might be like.

b) You never know! 150 years ago, an iPad would've been unimaginable. 1,000 years ago, your Zippo would've probably gotten you burned at the stake. Humans are great at doing stuff; that's actually central to Marx's conception of human nature.

c) Possibly. It could be that the cycle of this mode of production is taking longer than he thought it would. He explicitly said that capitalism was the most productive mode of production in human history so far. And that capitalism, capitalist development, and its productive capacity was an essential prerequisite to any possible communist future. (That's why there were huge debates among Marxists about the fact that Russia, China etc weren't ready for the transition to socialism; they simply didn't have the requisite economic base).

A) quite. Which allows his followers to say "that's not real communism". For any version including those mentioned here.

Humans independently doing stuff is more an argument for the market than not. And the past may not have predicted the radical difference of our present but that doesn't guarantee the inevitability of your radical future.
C) an easier answer is Marx was wrong.

Given A) of course we can't verify anything here. The Chinese might go back to communism after their new capitalism because Marx got the timeline of when capitalism collapses wrong but to what communism and how? We're told that Stalinism, and Maoism, and Pol Potism are not it, but what it is can't be defined (see a) so whatever is attempted is never actually it.

Popper called this infalsibility.

Iwasfrozen · 26-02-2014 10:35PM

Grolschevik wrote: »

a) Marx actually wrote surprisingly little (virtually nothing worth going on) about what a future communist society might be like.

b) You never know! 150 years ago, an iPad would've been unimaginable. 1,000 years ago, your Zippo would've probably gotten you burned at the stake. Humans are great at doing stuff; that's actually central to Marx's conception of human nature.

c) Possibly. It could be that the cycle of this mode of production is taking longer than he thought it would. He explicitly said that capitalism was the most productive mode of production in human history so far. And that capitalism, capitalist development, and its productive capacity was an essential prerequisite to any possible communist future. (That's why there were huge debates among Marxists about the fact that Russia, China etc weren't ready for the transition to socialism; they simply didn't have the requisite economic base).

A) But he did write broad overviews of how he seen the society constructed "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need".

Short of Star Trek style replicators there is no way unlimited material abundance is possible. The energy consumption of these machines would be so vast the thermal energy they give off would literally cook the planet. Here's a link to a very interesting article that explains more on the subject: https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

C) Perhaps but I doubt it, Our society is currently very productive. Parents can afford to support their children living at home well into adulthood and society can support an entire generation of it's younger citizens in college. But yet we haven't seen any of the evolution Marx talked about.

Iwasfrozen · 26-02-2014 10:37PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

The real question is not difficulty but correctness. Nostradamus is a famously difficult read.

*shrug* it's philosophy, it's all about perspective. There is no objective "truth" in philosophy, it's all about exploring different ways of perceiving reality.

coolemon · 26-02-2014 11:03PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A) But he did write broad overviews of how he seen the society constructed "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need".

Short of Star Trek style replicators there is no way unlimited material abundance is possible. The energy consumption of these machines would be so vast the thermal energy they give off would literally cook the planet. Here's a link to a very interesting article that explains more on the subject: https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

C) Perhaps but I doubt it, Our society is currently very productive. Parents can afford to support their children living at home well into adulthood and society can support an entire generation of it's younger citizens in college. But yet we haven't seen any of the evolution Marx talked about.

I don't think communism would necessarily need unlimited material abundance - that would be capitalism!

The point is that, when we produce for use-value, rather than for social value, the actual quantities of materials used for otherwise needless production would be much, much lower.

Planned obsolescence, and the incredible waste of resources therein, would be gone. The construction of super yachts, disposable cars, Segway's (as social value), palaces/mansions, Range Rovers (and their accompanying oil consumption), disposable mobile phones (as social value) - would not take place. Now im only just scratching the surface of the waste that exists.

Our standard of living is a needless one cultivated by the demands and requirements of capitalism. We know that we would need four or five earths to maintain such a standard of living for everyone on earth anyway.

Communism is about putting people in such a situation where they would consume solely on use-value. It would not require star-trek like abundance in my opinion.

Iwasfrozen · 27-02-2014 12:23AM

coolemon wrote: »

I don't think communism would necessarily need unlimited material abundance - that would be capitalism!

The point is that, when we produce for use-value, rather than for social value, the actual quantities of materials used for otherwise needless production would be much, much lower.

Planned obsolescence, and the incredible waste of resources therein, would be gone. The construction of super yachts, disposable cars, Segway's (as social value), palaces/mansions, Range Rovers (and their accompanying oil consumption), disposable mobile phones (as social value) - would not take place. Now im only just scratching the surface of the waste that exists.

Our standard of living is a needless one cultivated by the demands and requirements of capitalism. We know that we would need four or five earths to maintain such a standard of living for everyone on earth anyway.

Communism is about putting people in such a situation where they would consume solely on use-value. It would not require star-trek like abundance in my opinion.

The change in attitudes and values you base your assertions on are conditional on the unlimited abundance of materials. The only things that are truely undesirable are things that appear naturally in abundance. Things you can pick up off the ground, a dead leaf, a rock, a blade of grass are all free because they require neither cost in labor or capital, to procure one simply has to pick it up off the ground.

The cost of production of any commodity is a factor of labor and capital, even if there was a way of making the cost of labor zero there would still be the cost of capital.

Given this a commodity will vary in price dependent on how capital intensive its production is. Higher capital intensive goods will be seen as desirable because they're scarce. This is the origin of "status" goods.

The only way to make the price of the commodity zero is to have literally zero cost of capital and given that every natural resource is limited capital can never be unlimited.

Edit: Frankly I find your focus on societies needs while ignoring its wants disturbing. There are lots of things I posses and/or consume that aren't a requirement to sustain my life, I don't need but I posses/consume them because I enjoy them. I find the thought of someone else deciding what my needs are to be very dark.

coolemon · 27-02-2014 12:44AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The change in attitudes and values you base your assertions on are conditional on the unlimited abundance of materials. The only things that are truely undesirable are things that appear naturally in abundance. Things you can pick up off the ground, a dead leaf, a rock, a blade of grass are all free because they require neither cost in labor or capital, to procure one simply has to pick it up off the ground.

Access - rather than abundance - would be an important feature in 'changing attitudes'.

That when an object is accessible - rather than restricted - the social value of that object is crippled -> even though the object itself is not materially abundant or natural. [This is an EDIT: Perhaps an example of museums might help picture this process. The amenities we have in Ireland - despite being free and often expensive to maintain them as such - are taken for granted and neglected by Irish people themselves. A type of cultural form has arisen where social value is attained by visiting amenities in other countries, rather than our own. "Travelling abroad" and visiting foreign destinations seems to confer some type of social value. Visiting Kilmainham Jail? - nah, nothing to be gained there. Anyone can do that. It is too easily accessible to confer social value. Traveling to Thailand, China, Australia, South America and visiting similar historical sites particular to those countries on the other hand is a pretty restricted activity. One not everyone can do. - labour intensivity or scarcity doesn't come into it. There is only one Kilmainham Jail and it probably has the same staffing and cost requirements as many other foreign destinations].

There are lots of things 'truly undesirable' irrespective of whether they are naturally occurring or produced by labour. I am surrounded by 'truly undesirable' things all the time. My 'desires' not formed or shaped towards desiring them, despite affording them.

Given this a commodity will vary in price dependent on how capital intensive its production is. Higher capital intensive goods will be seen as desirable because they're scarce.

See above. I think to reduce 'desires' down to scarcity alone is incorrect.

Jewellery, for example, is not desired because of how scarce the materials are, or because of how labour intensive it is to extract the material - but for a whole myriad of historical, cultural and social reasons. Women, for example, are known to wear and have more jewellery than men - despite an equal intrinsic scarcity to both. I myself have no jewellery. Never wanted it. Never desired it. Wanting and desiring jewellery is more a product of an historically transmitted culture which was rooted in social power relations - > than of scarcity and labour intensity.

Edit: Frankly I find your focus on societies needs while ignoring its wants disturbing. There are lots of things I posses and/or consume that aren't a requirement to sustain my life, I don't need but I posses/consume them because I enjoy them. I find the thought of someone else deciding what my needs are to be very dark.

Call it dark all you want. I think your needs and what you enjoy are not some random or intrinsic subjective view rapped up with your own 'nature'. At least for the most part.

Rather, that if we are to understand 'what is possible', and what is nature, then these 'desires' need to be understood and explained. Not taken for granted or as self standing occurrences.

EDIT: I just realise now that I have been conflating needs with wants quite a lot (and you picked me up on that). But I think you will get the general jist of what I am saying anyway.

Grolschevik · 27-02-2014 01:00AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The change in attitudes and values you base your assertions on are conditional on the unlimited abundance of materials. The only things that are truely undesirable are things that appear naturally in abundance. Things you can pick up off the ground, a dead leaf, a rock, a blade of grass are all free because they require neither cost in labor or capital, to procure one simply has to pick it up off the ground.
.

I think the point relates to the idea of an essential revaluation of the nature of needs and wants. We all have definite absolute needs, but they're a primitive minimum when abstracted from the nature of the society you inhabit.

Relative needs will always be society-dependent. But this shades into wants at its boundaries. Even Rawls recognised this when he mentioned the social bases of self-respect as part of what underlies his second principle.

Essentially, I think the argument comes down to this: how much do we need in order to live comfortable and fulfilled and active and responsible lives?

For example, do we need that Playstation 4 and all the R&D resources and marketing and all the other stuff bound up in its production? Even if we all love Playstation, can there a moral argument that we deserve the resources dedicated to eventually producing PS4 rather than sticking with 1? Or Commodore 64? Or Battleship? (All my favourite games are PS1 games anyway!).

If we want to argue that we do need that, then we need a good argument as to why all those resources shouldn't have gone to different projects that might have made someone somewhere better off, or many people. And economic efficiency doesn't cut it as an argument. We need an essentially moral argument. Which is a tad ironic, as that's exactly what Marx was trying to avoid.

When is a good standard of living enough? Is there enough wealth in the world that, if redistributed according to the need principle, it would allow everyone alive right now to have a decent English 1950s standard of living? That'd be a massive step up for most members of the human race, but a significant step back for us Playstation generation.

It's an empirical question, but it's related to a fundamentally philosophical issue. It's a moral question: How much do we need to have before equitable distribution occurs?

One answer is the Star Trek one: when we can literally make anything we want out of the molecules in the air for free.

But if that is impossible, maybe we should be saying, "yeah, we have enough; let's think about distributive justice seriously".

sin_city · 27-02-2014 04:08AM

Human desires are endless....If someone works hard to get something, no one has the right to take from him/her to give to someone else that has not worked for anything....

This is theft.

Redistribution of wealth is only not theft when the person who has built up the wealth redistributes in the manner they choose.

Everyone would have a decent living if we were taxed less and if money was not debt...since a huge portion goes to pay the debt which incidentally has been created out of nothing and backed by nothing.

The deck of cards will fall soon when interest rates rise or when the currencies of the world hyper inflate.

Let's hope enough people are educated enough by looking at recent history to know that less government and not more government is the answer.

coolemon · 27-02-2014 04:36AM

sin_city wrote: »

Human desires are endless....If someone works hard to get something, no one has the right to take from him/her to give to someone else that has not worked for anything....

This is theft.

Redistribution of wealth is only not theft when the person who has built up the wealth redistributes in the manner they choose.

Your post is charged with ideological assumptions. Ideological assumptions which, from my own experience and encounters, are incredibly shallow and accepting of existing culturally hegemonic dogma.

Like "work hard" -> meaning what? Meaning nothing at all. Vast amounts of wealth is inherited by people who did not "work hard" for it, let alone earn it. Vast amounts of people work extremely hard and get little to nothing by virtue of the place and time they were born. The term to "work hard" itself is a subjective immeasurable value that means nothing in concrete terms.

Like "Theft"? - property is only a right so long as it is established as such by a state. If a state taxes you, or confiscates property, it has a right to do that. Why? - because whether we like it or not, property rights are enforced and established by the state itself. Not by some natural law or a god.

Why the dogmatism? Why the charged ideology?

I wouldn't mind if it made some coherent sense. But it dosnt. Its a theological belief you hold right there.

sin_city · 27-02-2014 05:57AM

I own no land. If I work and save my earnings and then wish to exchange them for land...why should you or anyone else get involved?

I can donate my money or spend it as I please....why should you get involved and steal my earnings to do what YOU want to do with it?

Who made YOU the master of knowing what to do with money.

Parents work hard to save money to leave to their kids...Do you have a problem with this?

If their was an inheritance tax of 100%...what do you think people would do?

Do you wear glasses?

KyussBishop · 27-02-2014 07:53AM

Grolschevik wrote: »

For example, do we need that Playstation 4 and all the R&D resources and marketing and all the other stuff bound up in its production? Even if we all love Playstation, can there a moral argument that we deserve the resources dedicated to eventually producing PS4 rather than sticking with 1? Or Commodore 64? Or Battleship? (All my favourite games are PS1 games anyway!).

If we want to argue that we do need that, then we need a good argument as to why all those resources shouldn't have gone to different projects that might have made someone somewhere better off, or many people. And economic efficiency doesn't cut it as an argument. We need an essentially moral argument. Which is a tad ironic, as that's exactly what Marx was trying to avoid.

This stifles creativity - because the Playstation 4 is essentially just a PC, and arguably your line of thought here, leads to the entire history of leisure on home computers being (initially) unjustifiable - until, unpredicted, all of a sudden people see that it's actually incredibly (socially) valuable, and has spurred the advancement of all sorts of technology, and has given rise to public use of the Internet.

There's a strong argument for not stripping down society just to its bare needs - just like there's a strong argument to not strip down scientific R&D only to those projects that look like they have definite benefit:
By stripping down society to needs, you stifle a wide range of creativity (doesn't matter if that creativity can be fulfilled with other things, it still stifles certain kinds of creativity), which can deprive society of cultural and even technological advancements that can be spurred by the need to feed those wants/desires, just like the way you can miss out on a whole host of intellectual/scientific/knowledge advancements, by stripping down scientific R&D to what only looks to provide a known practical benefit.

I would argue, that we have all the resources we need - in abundance - right now (though with a coming crunch in energy resources), to create a world which can provide equitable distribution of resources, to provide essential needs for everyone on the planet, but:
This is prevented by politics, because when you create more equal societies, you have to first remove power from the local oligarchy or local class of powerful people (or from foreign countries/businesses exploiting a certain country/area/region), and put that back in local democratic hands (and hope that democracy stays stable - which in many regions, it often does not).

So inequality isn't really a problem of adequate resources at all (EDIT: obviously it can be though, if there is no abundance), but of distribution of economic/social/political power - which I think is in agreement with what you've said, except you seem to focus a lot on availability of resources (which contradicts that a bit).

Once you have enough abundance of resources to meet needs, then (so long as it's ecologically sustainable) I don't think there is a lack of justification for resources put into social wants/desires too.

KyussBishop · 27-02-2014 08:08AM

sin_city wrote: »

Human desires are endless....If someone works hard to get something, no one has the right to take from him/her to give to someone else that has not worked for anything....

This is theft.

Redistribution of wealth is only not theft when the person who has built up the wealth redistributes in the manner they choose.

Everyone would have a decent living if we were taxed less and if money was not debt...since a huge portion goes to pay the debt which incidentally has been created out of nothing and backed by nothing.

The deck of cards will fall soon when interest rates rise or when the currencies of the world hyper inflate.

Let's hope enough people are educated enough by looking at recent history to know that less government and not more government is the answer.

Hold up: You already agreed earlier that you desire some kind of state, this means you desire some kind of taxes, and by your logic here you views taxes as theft.
You're in contradiction with yourself, that is hypocrisy: You - by your own standards - support theft.

Unless you advocate 100% complete abolition of the state, the 'taxes/redistribution = theft' argument is just meaningless, self-contradicting hyperbole/gibberish.
By that argument, all of your wealth - by using services and infrastructure built by the state to generate it, i.e. built by theft - is itself all just thievery, allowed by the proceeds of theft.

Now stop and think about what this means about Libertarian ideology: It takes all of 2 seconds thought to see the faults in that 'theft' statement, yet that is one of the most prevalent Libertarian hyperbole statements out there.

Why is something so obviously wrong, spread so wide? It is because the movement leaders who created/spread that hyperbole know it's bullshít, and treat Libertarian supporters as useful idiots for propagating views that benefit them, the movement leaders, economically/politically.

The people controlling the Libertarian movement are the most un-Libertarian people out there (like the Koch's - gigantic corporate welfarists who accept huge subsidies from the state - among much else contradicting their supposed 'Libertarianism'), and arguably - judging by their actions - don't believe a word of what they get their Libertarian army to spout.

Also, the hyperinflation scaremongers, like Peter Schiff: People who have invested with him have lost anywhere between 40%-70% of their money betting on impending hyperinflation, and his father went to prison for fraud - he's not the most credible guy around, and is just a (pretty much proven at this stage) scaremonger, who is wrong about hyperinflation.

27-02-2014 08:48AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

This stifles creativity - because the Playstation 4 is essentially just a PC, and arguably your line of thought here, leads to the entire history of leisure on home computers being (initially) unjustifiable - until, unpredicted, all of a sudden people see that it's actually incredibly (socially) valuable, and has spurred the advancement of all sorts of technology, and has given rise to public use of the Internet.

There's a strong argument for not stripping down society just to its bare needs - just like there's a strong argument to not strip down scientific R&D only to those projects that look like they have definite benefit:
By stripping down society to needs, you stifle a wide range of creativity (doesn't matter if that creativity can be fulfilled with other things, it still stifles certain kinds of creativity), which can deprive society of cultural and even technological advancements that can be spurred by the need to feed those wants/desires, just like the way you can miss out on a whole host of intellectual/scientific/knowledge advancements, by stripping down scientific R&D to what only looks to provide a known practical benefit.

I would argue, that we have all the resources we need - in abundance - right now (though with a coming crunch in energy resources), to create a world which can provide equitable distribution of resources, to provide essential needs for everyone on the planet, but:
This is prevented by politics, because when you create more equal societies, you have to first remove power from the local oligarchy or local class of powerful people (or from foreign countries/businesses exploiting a certain country/area/region), and put that back in local democratic hands (and hope that democracy stays stable - which in many regions, it often does not).

So inequality isn't really a problem of adequate resources at all (EDIT: obviously it can be though, if there is no abundance), but of distribution of economic/social/political power - which I think is in agreement with what you've said, except you seem to focus a lot on availability of resources (which contradicts that a bit).

Once you have enough abundance of resources to meet needs, then (so long as it's ecologically sustainable) I don't think there is a lack of justification for resources put into social wants/desires too.

KyussBishop, I have to saw I admire you for never giving up on you belief that paradise for everyone, is just around the corner if only people could see it.

sin_city · 27-02-2014 10:22AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Hold up: You already agreed earlier that you desire some kind of state, this means you desire some kind of taxes, and by your logic here you views taxes as theft.

No it doesn't. Small tariffs could be be placed on various goods. It would be the choice of individuals whether or not they purchase these.

Not theft as the choice is with the individual.

NO INCOME TAX

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're in contradiction with yourself, that is hypocrisy: You - by your own standards - support theft.

Wrong - see above

KyussBishop wrote: »

Unless you advocate 100% complete abolition of the state, the 'taxes/redistribution = theft' argument is just meaningless, self-contradicting hyperbole/gibberish.
By that argument, all of your wealth - by using services and infrastructure built by the state to generate it, i.e. built by theft - is itself all just thievery, allowed by the proceeds of theft.

I wish we had no such thing as countries and states and that common law would be respected. If we did have them, then I'd prefer they were small small states.

Everything could be done privately in my opinion.

I don't believe people in general would accept anarchy and it has not been tried in the past so we cannot know it to be proven to be successful.

The most successful tried system is a small government system which from history, we can see has been the most appealing to people in comparison to any other system ever tried....Better to use logic and try this rather than to use ideology and try communism, which from history we can see runs the risk of millions dying....I respect life more than you perhaps?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Now stop and think about what this means about Libertarian ideology: It takes all of 2 seconds thought to see the faults in that 'theft' statement, yet that is one of the most prevalent Libertarian hyperbole statements out there.

I hope you understand the difference between forced taxation and goods with tarrifs.

Some libertarian are anarcho and some are not. I hope this has been cleared up for you.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Why is something so obviously wrong, spread so wide? It is because the movement leaders who created/spread that hyperbole know it's bullshít, and treat Libertarian supporters as useful idiots for propagating views that benefit them, the movement leaders, economically/politically.

Lol, I thought you were initially talking about communism......Well if you study history and economics you will see what is coming and understand there is no perfect system but that a small government republic has proved a sustainable and fruitful for the people of that society to live and better themselves.

KyussBishop wrote: »

The people controlling the Libertarian movement are the most un-Libertarian people out there (like the Koch's - gigantic corporate welfarists who accept huge subsidies from the state - among much else contradicting their supposed 'Libertarianism'), and arguably - judging by their actions - don't believe a word of what they get their Libertarian army to spout.

The people I listen to are people like Ron Paul and the teachings of Austrian economists.....Is there something about Ron Paul's movement you disagree with?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Also, the hyperinflation scaremongers, like Peter Schiff: People who have invested with him have lost anywhere between 40%-70% of their money betting on impending hyperinflation, and his father went to prison for fraud - he's not the most credible guy around, and is just a (pretty much proven at this stage) scaremonger, who is wrong about hyperinflation.

Peter Schiff does not think hyperinflation will occur. He thinks we will have high inflation like the 1970s or slightly worse.

Schiff recommended gold at $300...Its now $1400.....If you knew about history and fundamentals you'd know you should be buying gold and silver.

His father went to prison for questioning the income tax...It is not a lawful tax and if you investigate you will see this.

Schiff can be seen years in advance of the crash in 2008 being made fun of for predicting the crash....His credentials are very strong and only an ill informed person would say otherwise.

mariaalice wrote: »

KyussBishop, I have to saw I admire you for never giving up on you belief that paradise for everyone, is just around the corner if only people could see it.

As long as he knows I and many others want nothing to do with it..

Non aggression and respect for private property...that's all I ask.

Do you know any Communists?

Comments