"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[iolo]

What did they produce themselves? Like many confidence men they got the mugs to finance them.

Your illusions do not match up with reality.

1) Businesses do not start out with bank loans. It's always either personal assets or loans from friends.

2) While I have not been privy to the start of any of the businesses I have seen how the operate. The boss is always highly involved, probably working the longest hours. Bank loans only exist when secured by substantial physical assets. (Land, heavy machinery, vehicles.)

So are all con-men. They have to be acting full time.

 

[untermensche]

And I wrote something different?

You don't have a clue.

Wrong again. The only difference is that the communists took orders from Moscow. The Anarchists had long meetings where they voted about stuff.

The Russian Communists existed in a rigid top down dictatorship. A structure despised by Anarchists.

The two groups couldn't be more different.

That is why Orwell admired the Anarchists and condemned the Communists.

Try reading a book on the subject instead of pulling nonsense from your ass.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What did they produce themselves? Like many confidence men they got the mugs to finance them.

Your illusions do not match up with reality.

1) Businesses do not start out with bank loans. It's always either personal assets or loans from friends.

2) While I have not been privy to the start of any of the businesses I have seen how the operate. The boss is always highly involved, probably working the longest hours. Bank loans only exist when secured by substantial physical assets. (Land, heavy machinery, vehicles.)

1) They can start with bank loans. A person can also rob a bank and then launder the money into a business
2) It depends on how the boss is involved. In a large business he/she should be able to delegate. An unsecured loan can be secured on assets. However in reality a default can still be met with a lean on property.

 

[iolo]

Many people gain a few pennies gambling on the stock exchange, horses, the lottery or (here) football pools. The question is whether they can live on it.

It's bigger than you think with retirement plans, both individually, and from their company or government job. But you can always move to a country that doesn't have a stock exchange and see how good things are there.

Theoretically, capitalists can vote on the doings of companies in which they hold shares, which people paying into retirement plans can't. Anyway, as you know, pensions are part of the compromise the capitalists had to make with labour to avoid revolution, and they are now working all out to reduced them to nothing, as you also know. I don't think this makes much serious difference to what's been said.

 

[Canard DuJour]

In Town A he buys leather from the tanner. In Town B he commissions a cobbler to make shoes. In Town C he sells his crate of shoes to the owner of Town C Apparel Store. He also pays drivers to transit materials between towns. In all cases the transaction is to a mutually agreed upon price, and at the end he makes a tidy profit. I'm adding the Apparel Store to eliminate any excuses about his profits being derived from selling the shoes directly to willing customers one at a time.

Since they believe profits are all made by the actual workers and the capitalist contributes nothing, who did this investor rip off in order to make his profit?

​

But that was never the objection. "He" in your scenario is a merchant doing a load of legwork and admin. The objection arises when "he" hasn't the money to pay the various workers - including himself - and must approach an additional actor - called a capitalist - who stumps up money, does no work, and whose cut depends on how little the others will accept.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You don't have a clue.

Wrong again. The only difference is that the communists took orders from Moscow. The Anarchists had long meetings where they voted about stuff.

The Russian Communists existed in a rigid top down dictatorship. A structure despised by Anarchists.

The two groups couldn't be more different.

That is why Orwell admired the Anarchists and condemned the Communists.

Try reading a book on the subject instead of pulling nonsense from your ass.

I don't think we're going to get much further because I was about to suggest the same.

Perhaps reading up on Juan Montseny Carret/Federico Urales. He was one of the prominent figures in the Spanish anarchists known as "individualist anarchism"? He and they weren't influential. Most anarchists were collectivists.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Dictatorship is bad because there are no choices.

In the business world that isn't the case. If you don't like McDonalds, go to Jack in the Box.

The competition between businesses eliminates most of the problem of the dictatorial nature of the business structure while retaining the efficiency that a dictatorship brings. (You have it backwards--a dictatorship is more efficient than a democracy.)

No. Dictatorship is inherently immoral in whatever form it takes.

It is the reduction of one human to the tool of another. It is a violation of human dignity and freedom.

Besides the fact that it is incredibly inefficient and an extreme waste of human intellectual capital.

Except the only way you would ever avoid that situation is to never allow a business to have more than one person. So every single business would have to be a sole proprietor. You would think we would be better off with that?

 

[untermensche]

You don't have a clue.



The Russian Communists existed in a rigid top down dictatorship. A structure despised by Anarchists.

The two groups couldn't be more different.

That is why Orwell admired the Anarchists and condemned the Communists.

Try reading a book on the subject instead of pulling nonsense from your ass.

I don't think we're going to get much further because I was about to suggest the same.

Perhaps reading up on Juan Montseny Carret/Federico Urales. He was one of the prominent figures in the Spanish anarchists known as "individualist anarchism"? He and they weren't influential. Most anarchists were collectivists.

I'd love to read what Carret had to say. I can't find anything in English.

Give me your links to his words. Not your characterizations.

And you might start by reading 'Homage to Catalonia'. Orwell had a great affection for the Anarchists.

 

[untermensche]

No. Dictatorship is inherently immoral in whatever form it takes.

It is the reduction of one human to the tool of another. It is a violation of human dignity and freedom.

Besides the fact that it is incredibly inefficient and an extreme waste of human intellectual capital.

Except the only way you would ever avoid that situation is to never allow a business to have more than one person. So every single business would have to be a sole proprietor. You would think we would be better off with that?

Your lack of imagination is not an argument.

Where have you been?

The answer is worker ownership and control through democratic methods.

Of course people could always put themselves in an inferior role by choice, but if actually given the choice most would not chose to be the tool of another.

Many raised in a capitalist system would fear giving up their inferior role. But after a generation or two these imaginary fears would disappear.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except the only way you would ever avoid that situation is to never allow a business to have more than one person. So every single business would have to be a sole proprietor. You would think we would be better off with that?

Your lack of imagination is not an argument.

Where have you been?

The answer is worker ownership and control through democratic methods.

Of course people could always put themselves in an inferior role by choice, but if actually given the choice most would not chose to be the tool of another.

Many raised in a capitalist system would fear giving up their inferior role. But after a generation or two these imaginary fears would disappear.

People can imagine a lot of things but that doesn't make it true. It comes from real experience. People will dominate each other when in a group. The only way to stop that is not allow groups to form.

 

[Elixir]

After this success he turns around and hires the tanner, cobbler and driver. They're still doing what they were but now they're slaves who are being oppressed. How, though, their lot isn't any worse.

God knows they're going to sleep better - except the new owner.
Yeah, that "mental work" might not be work according to the anarchists, but it can certainly keep you up at night. In my limited experience of course.
I tire of people who have never tried to run a business or create a startup telling me how it "should be". If one of them would lead by example, that would be instructive.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But that was never the objection. "He" in your scenario is a merchant doing a load of legwork and admin. The objection arises when "he" hasn't the money to pay the various workers - including himself - and must approach an additional actor - called a capitalist - who stumps up money, does no work, and whose cut depends on how little the others will accept.

Hm. So, changing the scenario a little to account for your objection - the guy who conducted these transactions didn't have the upfront money to buy the leather or pay the cobbler or drivers, so he asked a wealthy person for a loan to make these transactions possible. It is your opinion that the lender did absolutely nothing.

According to what I read here, the investor or lender just throws money at projects and reaps rewards for doing so. Of course if a project fails, they do not get a return on their money. They only get paid back if the project succeeds. It might be in their best interest to actually take the time to learn about the business models they are investing in, to take the time to analyze the risk of failure and the potential margin of success. They might need to take some time to say "I see a flaw with your business model here, at this step, you might want to address this in order to make your endeavor more successful."

None of that is work though.

All they are doing is soaking the person doing the actual work.

If they fund a venture because they think the risk/reward ratio is favorable, they are villains. And if they fail to fund a venture because they think the risk/reward ratio is unfavorable, they are villains. So they are villains whether they fund ventures or not.

The issue is if they make any profit off their funding. I mean there is a time preference with money, having money to day is better than the promise of having it tomorrow, so there needs to be a reason why some one would part with their money today. A promise of more money tomorrow would do, but that is the essence of sheer evil apparently. It is also the essence of paying someone to do a job, they are selling their labor in the promise of a paycheck at the end of the week - more money later - but we don't count that.

If we remove profit, what motive is there for investors? Especially investors who don't conform to your stereotype of blindly flinging money at ventures that always succeed.

 

[Elixir]

If we remove profit, what motive is there for investors? Especially investors who don't conform to your stereotype of blindly flinging money at ventures that always succeed.

I think the tacit proposal is to not let anyone have enough money to be an investor, and thereby everyone will be wealthy enough to underwrite their own ventures. Put two or three of them together and they could start a space exploration company, build interstate highways or whatever they want.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If we remove profit, what motive is there for investors? Especially investors who don't conform to your stereotype of blindly flinging money at ventures that always succeed.

I think the tacit proposal is to not let anyone have enough money to be an investor, and thereby everyone will be wealthy enough to underwrite their own ventures. Put two or three of them together and they could start a space exploration company, build interstate highways or whatever they want.

The infinite wisdom of the government will decide every project and decide what every workers best interest is.

 

[Elixir]

I think the tacit proposal is to not let anyone have enough money to be an investor, and thereby everyone will be wealthy enough to underwrite their own ventures. Put two or three of them together and they could start a space exploration company, build interstate highways or whatever they want.

The infinite wisdom of the government will decide every project and decide what every workers best interest is.

Only if they have the money. In the utopian anarchist model, that doesn't happen. Everyone is well-intended, there are no conflicts and everyone lives happily ever after in well-earned luxury.

 

[untermensche]

Your lack of imagination is not an argument.

Where have you been?

The answer is worker ownership and control through democratic methods.

Of course people could always put themselves in an inferior role by choice, but if actually given the choice most would not chose to be the tool of another.

Many raised in a capitalist system would fear giving up their inferior role. But after a generation or two these imaginary fears would disappear.

People can imagine a lot of things but that doesn't make it true. It comes from real experience. People will dominate each other when in a group. The only way to stop that is not allow groups to form.

Mondragon Corporation

By 2015, 74,335 people were employed.

This framework of business culture has been structured based on a common culture derived from the 10 Basic Co-operative Principles, in which Mondragon is rooted: Open Admission, Democratic Organisation, the Sovereignty of Labour, Instrumental and Subordinate Nature of Capital, Participatory Management, Payment Solidarity, Inter-cooperation, Social Transformation, Universality and Education.[20]

This philosophy is complemented by four corporate values: Co-operation, acting as owners and protagonists; Participation, which takes shape as a commitment to management; Social Responsibility, by means of the distribution of wealth based on solidarity; and Innovation, focusing on constant renewal in all areas.[21]

This business culture translates into compliance with a number of Basic Objectives (Customer Focus, Development, Innovation, Profitability, People in Co-operation and Involvement in the Community) and General Policies approved by the Co-operative Congress, which are taken on board at all the corporation’s organisational levels and incorporated into the four-year strategic plans and the annual business plans of the individual co-operatives, divisions, and the corporation as a whole.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

This and things like it are the future or there is no future.

Capitalism leads to destruction and collapse.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The infinite wisdom of the government will decide every project and decide what every workers best interest is.

Only if they have the money. In the utopian anarchist model, that doesn't happen. Everyone is well-intended, there are no conflicts and everyone lives happily ever after in well-earned luxury.

Yep. They try and do that by shooting everyone who disagrees, but that's okay. If they want to implement their model just go Star Trek where they have the Hologram and the replicator.

 

[untermensche]

Yep. They try and do that by shooting everyone who disagrees, but that's okay. If they want to implement their model just go Star Trek where they have the Hologram and the replicator.

You look pretty foolish with evidence of a large scale successful cooperative right above this.

You not only lack imagination you can't see what is right before your eyes.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yep. They try and do that by shooting everyone who disagrees, but that's okay. If they want to implement their model just go Star Trek where they have the Hologram and the replicator.

You look pretty foolish with evidence of a large scale successful cooperative right above this.

You not only lack imagination you can't see what is right before your eyes.

And we've asked you to prove your point. Go out and start another Mondago with 50,000 people and let us know how it goes.

 

[untermensche]

You look pretty foolish with evidence of a large scale successful cooperative right above this.

You not only lack imagination you can't see what is right before your eyes.

And we've asked you to prove your point. Go out and start another Mondago with 50,000 people and let us know how it goes.

It is there, thriving.

It is not figment of the imagination.

You are a child refusing to see what is clearly in front of you.

Damaged by an immoral system.