"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[Loren Pechtel]

Note that that article has a content warning on it.

The warning is that it was written by people who know what is going on. They are close to the thing they are writing about.

The warning is about likely bias. Of course Mondragon says Mondragon is good!

- - - Updated - - -

So you've never had a baby? Parent + baby = dictatorship.

All relationships are judged individually.

They are not all the same thing. Having no ability to discriminate between very different cases is no argument.

With a child you are dealing with someone that has undeveloped faculties. So they have to be told what to do many times.

But workers are not children and ordering them around in a top down dictatorship is immoral. Are you a child? Do you want to be treated as one?

It is forcing adults to be as if children. It is denying them full human expression at the workplace. Not only immoral but incredibly wasteful.

You said all dictatorships are wrong. I'm showing a dictatorship that you are accepting.

- - - Updated - - -

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

You really don't understand anything, do you? The government - any government - is the central committee of the ruling class, and serves its interest. The vast working majority won't need one after the first few years, while they are re-educating the invincibly selfish and the deeply brainwashed to behave like normal people.

We understand that you are regurgitating anarchist propaganda.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see the connection.

You are taking it on faith that all businessmen are evil so what we say just goes in one ear and out the other if it doesn't match your ideas.

What you forget is that these people own all the means of propaganda and have been brainwashing you since you were born. Try to think out where profit comes from! God doesn't send it down like manna, you know. I don't go in for terms like 'evil' - capitalism didn't intentionally slaughter all those Russians, Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and so on - it was just a means to protect their profits, as will be the destruction of the world unless we stop it pretty fast.

No profit = no money to build with = continued stone age lifestyle.

Profit is a portion of the efficiency gain someone provides. In a free market you can't make profit without improving things for the customer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You really don't understand anything, do you? The government - any government - is the central committee of the ruling class, and serves its interest. The vast working majority won't need one after the first few years, while they are re-educating the invincibly selfish and the deeply brainwashed to behave like normal people.

Thanks for the good laugh. So Pol Pot had it right that most people in the ocuntry should be six feet under and only people that should be alive are the ones who agree with you?

I don't think Pol Pot demanded that people agree with him, just that they not act on disagreement.

Millions died because they acted on their disagreement with being sent into a situation where survival was unlikely.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Thanks for the good laugh. So Pol Pot had it right that most people in the ocuntry should be six feet under and only people that should be alive are the ones who agree with you?

I don't think Pol Pot demanded that people agree with him, just that they not act on disagreement.

Millions died because they acted on their disagreement with being sent into a situation where survival was unlikely.

He killed intellectuals and he sent people to re-education camps. It's the "solution" to get people who don't believe like you do to confirm.

 

[untermensche]

The warning is that it was written by people who know what is going on. They are close to the thing they are writing about.

The warning is about likely bias. Of course Mondragon says Mondragon is good!

Mondragon is a well known cooperative.

You are desperately grasping at straws.

There is no evidence dictatorships are necessary or even efficient. They are merely a convenient way to steal from workers. That is why they exist.

Why a sane human would defend the structure is beyond me. It shows a real lack of integrity.

You said all dictatorships are wrong. I'm showing a dictatorship that you are accepting.

The parent/child relationship is not a dictatorship. It is an authoritarian relationship, for very good reasons, but not a dictatorship.

A dictatorship is more than giving orders. It is a relationship, really a malicious scheme, that mostly benefits the dictator.

The authoritarian nature of the parent/child relationship is done for the good of the child, not the parent.

 

[Elixir]

The warning is about likely bias. Of course Mondragon says Mondragon is good!

Mondragon is a well known cooperative.

And it doesn't rely on any government services or goods like say, roads, does it?

 

[untermensche]

Mondragon is a well known cooperative.

And it doesn't rely on any government services or goods like say, roads, does it?

I see no point.

The production of roads by the government is not capitalism. It is socialism.

When the government props up the system, like in the US, that is socialism.

If you want naked capitalism you have to go to places like Haiti or Guatemala.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The warning is about likely bias. Of course Mondragon says Mondragon is good!

Mondragon is a well known cooperative.

You are desperately grasping at straws.

There is no evidence dictatorships are necessary or even efficient. They are merely a convenient way to steal from workers. That is why they exist.

Why a sane human would defend the structure is beyond me. It shows a real lack of integrity.

You said all dictatorships are wrong. I'm showing a dictatorship that you are accepting.

The parent/child relationship is not a dictatorship. It is an authoritarian relationship, for very good reasons, but not a dictatorship.

A dictatorship is more than giving orders. It is a relationship, really a malicious scheme, that mostly benefits the dictator.

The authoritarian nature of the parent/child relationship is done for the good of the child, not the parent.

You say it's not necessary and praise its benefits but you won't create one of your own? I think that shows a lot.

I have shown you a multitude of reasons it works and it creates multiple parties symbiotic relationship.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think Pol Pot demanded that people agree with him, just that they not act on disagreement.

Millions died because they acted on their disagreement with being sent into a situation where survival was unlikely.

He killed intellectuals and he sent people to re-education camps. It's the "solution" to get people who don't believe like you do to confirm.

But he didn't kill them for being intellectual. He killed them for saying his grandiose plans wouldn't work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The warning is about likely bias. Of course Mondragon says Mondragon is good!

Mondragon is a well known cooperative.

Well known--debatable, a lot of people don't know about it.

Cooperative--sort of.

Note that you aren't proving how well it works!

There is no evidence dictatorships are necessary or even efficient. They are merely a convenient way to steal from workers. That is why they exist.

Efficient, certainly, because they don't waste time on politics.

Why a sane human would defend the structure is beyond me. It shows a real lack of integrity.

We defend it because it works. Most of the evils are from being a monopoly, not from being a dictatorship. (Nations are inevitably something akin to monopolies.)

You said all dictatorships are wrong. I'm showing a dictatorship that you are accepting.

The parent/child relationship is not a dictatorship. It is an authoritarian relationship, for very good reasons, but not a dictatorship.

When the baby is young enough it's a dictatorship.

A dictatorship is more than giving orders. It is a relationship, really a malicious scheme, that mostly benefits the dictator.

The authoritarian nature of the parent/child relationship is done for the good of the child, not the parent.

So it's not a dictatorship because it's not evil.

Sorry, but that's not a proper definition.

 

[untermensche]

A dictatorship is more than giving orders. It is a relationship, really a malicious scheme, that mostly benefits the dictator.

The authoritarian nature of the parent/child relationship is done for the good of the child, not the parent.

So it's not a dictatorship because it's not evil.

Sorry, but that's not a proper definition.

A child cannot just wander into the street at will. They will get killed. Somebody has to hold their hand and say, no, a car is coming.

It is dictatorship to protect the child from it's own naivete and ignorance.

Not a dictatorship to steal from it.

If you can't see a moral difference you have no moral compass.

If you can't see the difference between ordering somebody to save them and teach them and ordering somebody to serve your interests you have no moral compass.

But that is what capitalism does, corrupts everything.

 

[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.

So I reread Homage to Catalonia. I suggest rereading it in the light of this discussion. You'll read a completely different book. In the first chapter he confirms everything I've written in this thread. If that was your source... yeah. Your rose tinted spectacles are strong.

 

[iolo]

You really don't understand anything, do you? The government - any government - is the central committee of the ruling class, and serves its interest. The vast working majority won't need one after the first few years, while they are re-educating the invincibly selfish and the deeply brainwashed to behave like normal people.

And once the government is eliminated and we achieve the an-com paradise, the masses will assemble into a *blankout* that will make all the decisions the government used to make. This *blankout* won't actually be a government, because even though it does everything the government does it isn't the government because you say so.

I don't know what you are talking about, and nor do you. We will be hundreds, probably thousands of years clearing up the mess you pillocks have made of our world. People will negotiate through delegates elected for particular purposes, obviously.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So it's not a dictatorship because it's not evil.

Sorry, but that's not a proper definition.

A child cannot just wander into the street at will. They will get killed. Somebody has to hold their hand and say, no, a car is coming.

It is dictatorship to protect the child from it's own naivete and ignorance.

Not a dictatorship to steal from it.

If you can't see a moral difference you have no moral compass.

If you can't see the difference between ordering somebody to save them and teach them and ordering somebody to serve your interests you have no moral compass.

But that is what capitalism does, corrupts everything.

No. You are corrupting words.

 

[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.

So I reread Homage to Catalonia. I suggest rereading it in the light of this discussion. You'll read a completely different book. In the first chapter he confirms everything I've written in this thread. If that was your source... yeah. Your rose tinted spectacles are strong.

Yet you have no direct quote.

Orwell did not criticize the Anarchists. He criticized the Spanish Communists that had been infiltrated by the Russians.

 

[untermensche]

A child cannot just wander into the street at will. They will get killed. Somebody has to hold their hand and say, no, a car is coming.

It is dictatorship to protect the child from it's own naivete and ignorance.

Not a dictatorship to steal from it.

If you can't see a moral difference you have no moral compass.

If you can't see the difference between ordering somebody to save them and teach them and ordering somebody to serve your interests you have no moral compass.

But that is what capitalism does, corrupts everything.

No. You are corrupting words.

No, you understand words on a third grade level.

Dictatorship (for adults, it shouldn't have to be said) is reducing one human to the tool of another.

It is immoral and highly inefficient.

It is the complete waste of the intellectual capital of most.

 

[LordKiran]

A child cannot just wander into the street at will. They will get killed. Somebody has to hold their hand and say, no, a car is coming.

It is dictatorship to protect the child from it's own naivete and ignorance.

Not a dictatorship to steal from it.

If you can't see a moral difference you have no moral compass.

If you can't see the difference between ordering somebody to save them and teach them and ordering somebody to serve your interests you have no moral compass.

But that is what capitalism does, corrupts everything.

No. You are corrupting words.

To be fair LP, you're the one wasting everyone's time with shallow and pointless pedantry. The conversation shouldn't have to be put on hold just so unter can ammend his initial statement to exclude child/parent relationships when it's obvious to you and everyone else what he's actually saying.

The post you're responding to is about how human societies structure themselves and the moral implications there-of, not the interpersonal relationships between parent and child.

 

[untermensche]

No. You are corrupting words.

To be fair LP, you're the one wasting everyone's time with shallow and pointless pedantry. The conversation shouldn't have to be put on hold just so unter can ammend his initial statement to exclude child/parent relationships when it's obvious to you and everyone else what he's actually saying.

The post you're responding to is about how human societies structure themselves and the moral implications there-of, not the interpersonal relationships between parent and child.

There is no need for amending.

Anarchism is the examination of ALL human power relationships and making individual decisions on individual cases.

A teacher that forces a child to read a book or else get a poor grade is a dictator.

But not in a manner where the child is turned into a tool or a servant.

In a top down corporation the wage slaves at the bottom of the rigid dictatorial power structure are being used by those at the top. They are reduced to tools by those above them. To serve or leave.

It is an immoral power structure.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. You are corrupting words.

No, you understand words on a third grade level.

Dictatorship (for adults, it shouldn't have to be said) is reducing one human to the tool of another.

It is immoral and highly inefficient.

It is the complete waste of the intellectual capital of most.

No, you are adding implications to the word that do not exist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. You are corrupting words.

To be fair LP, you're the one wasting everyone's time with shallow and pointless pedantry. The conversation shouldn't have to be put on hold just so unter can ammend his initial statement to exclude child/parent relationships when it's obvious to you and everyone else what he's actually saying.

The post you're responding to is about how human societies structure themselves and the moral implications there-of, not the interpersonal relationships between parent and child.

No, the fundamental problem is he is attaching an evil connotation to the word where none exists. "Dictatorship" simply describes a power structure, it's carries no inherent good or evil.

Dictatorship => evil.

Since dictatorship is evil using is wrong.

A circular definition.

 

[untermensche]

To be fair LP, you're the one wasting everyone's time with shallow and pointless pedantry. The conversation shouldn't have to be put on hold just so unter can ammend his initial statement to exclude child/parent relationships when it's obvious to you and everyone else what he's actually saying.

The post you're responding to is about how human societies structure themselves and the moral implications there-of, not the interpersonal relationships between parent and child.

No, the fundamental problem is he is attaching an evil connotation to the word where none exists. "Dictatorship" simply describes a power structure, it's carries no inherent good or evil.

Dictatorship => evil.

Since dictatorship is evil using is wrong.

A circular definition.

Dictatorship HAS a negative connotation.

The parent/child relationship is not a dictatorship.

Children and the raising of children are special cases due to the undeveloped nature of children.

This is a discussion about what is best for adults, not children.

And being a wage slave in some dictatorship is not best for anyone except the dictators.

The system exists because capitalism is a baby step from slavery and feudalism and both those systems had dictatorship as the model of power.

When humans move away from dictatorship, in working life as well as government, then they will have progressed beyond slavery and feudalism.