"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[untermensche]

The dictator has far more freedom and ability to quit than the employee.

The only difference is one has the power to fire and the other does not.

Not a mutual agreement and not an agreement anybody with a brain would submit to willingly.

That doesn't address the point. You say that the power to unilaterally sever a mutual agreement is dictatorship if done by the employer. Consistency dictates that it is also dictatorship if done by the employee. Just as only the employer has the power to fire, only the employee has the power to quit. One has the power to quit and the other does not. If it is dictatorship for one side of a mutual agreement to dissolve the relationship, then employees are also dictators when they quit.

You think the ability to fire someone is dictatorship, which means they are firing them by execution. You are living in a fantasy world.

The employee has no power to fire anybody.

Leaving is not firing somebody.

Only the dictator can fire. It is not a mutual agreement. Not a free choice.

Something dictated by the conventions of the time.

Conventions that still allow some to dictate over others.

- - - Updated - - -

You've never met me.

All you know is I oppose human dictatorship in all forms.

"Government strong arm policy"?

You mean like sending people to Iraq because the oil dictators are worried?

Getting people killed, they're still dying, for corporate dictators is about as strong arm a policy as possible.

I only know what I see on this forum. On this forum you have defended every tyrannical act of government that flies in the face of basic human freedoms imaginable.

You do not support free speech, a free press, free association, private property, free markets, etc. The list goes on. There is no aspect of my life which you would not see subject to government authority.

This is a delusional rant, completely unsupported with any evidence.

Get help.

 

[dismal]

This is a delusional rant, completely unsupported with any evidence.

It's supported by reading what you write. I hope you do not imagine yourself a great champion of individual freedom. If so, you're doing it wrong.

 

[untermensche]

This is a delusional rant, completely unsupported with any evidence.

It's supported by reading what you write. I hope you do not imagine yourself a great champion of individual freedom. If so, you're doing it wrong.

Defending dictatorship is not defending the freedom of anyone but dictators.

You want to increase the freedom of dictators. Like a sycophantic fool.

Congratulations.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That doesn't address the point. You say that the power to unilaterally sever a mutual agreement is dictatorship if done by the employer. Consistency dictates that it is also dictatorship if done by the employee. Just as only the employer has the power to fire, only the employee has the power to quit. One has the power to quit and the other does not. If it is dictatorship for one side of a mutual agreement to dissolve the relationship, then employees are also dictators when they quit.

You think the ability to fire someone is dictatorship, which means they are firing them by execution. You are living in a fantasy world.

The employee has no power to fire anybody.

He has the power to unilaterally terminate the mutual agreement, which you consider dictatorship.

Leaving is not firing somebody.

It is unilaterally terminating a mutual agreement.

Only the dictator can fire. It is not a mutual agreement. Not a free choice.

Only the employee can quit. It is not a mutual agreement.

This is a delusional rant, completely unsupported with any evidence.

Your belief that if either party ends a mutual relationship makes it a dictatorship is a delusional rant, yes.

 

[untermensche]

The employee has no power to fire anybody.

He has the power to unilaterally terminate the mutual agreement, which you consider dictatorship.

He can quit but he can't fire anybody.

The dictator can also quit and can fire anybody.

Not a moral situation or a free association.

No matter how much you want to mindlessly babble the lie, "mutual agreement"

 

[dismal]

It's supported by reading what you write. I hope you do not imagine yourself a great champion of individual freedom. If so, you're doing it wrong.

Defending dictatorship is not defending the freedom of anyone but dictators.

You want to increase the freedom of dictators. Like a sycophantic fool.

Congratulations.

I'm against dictators. For free association.

I also use these words the same way 99.95% of people do, not your special way.

 

[untermensche]

Defending dictatorship is not defending the freedom of anyone but dictators.

You want to increase the freedom of dictators. Like a sycophantic fool.

Congratulations.

I'm against dictators. For free association.

I also use these words the same way 99.95% of people do, not your special way.

You use them the way capitalists use them.

A dictator is a dictator except when it comes to the workplace. Then they are miraculously something else.

I'm arguing that common usage is twisted and distorted beyond reason, by capitalist dictators.

And their sycophants.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

He has the power to unilaterally terminate the mutual agreement, which you consider dictatorship.

He can quit but he can't fire anybody.

Which means he can unilaterally terminate a mutual agreement, your definition of dictatorship.

Not a moral situation or a free association.

See, I consider free association to be moral, while you consider forced coercive association to be moral.

So let me guess. You were working at the Krusty Burger, and you got a customer wearing one of Trumps MAGA hats. You started yelling at him about how he was a racist sexist transphobe homophobe xenophobe and that Trump was worse than Hitler. The manager told you to knock it off, that you can't talk to the customers that way. You told the manager that you had a Masters Degree in Minority Studies and that made you qualified to do socially reconstruct systems of oppression, and if he tried to stop you that means he's oppressing you and is a dictator. The manager told you that you could do that on your own time and gave you all the time you could ever want to do that. Now you can't pay your student loan bills due to the dictatorship of that manager.

That's probably why you didn't answer when I asked what would be sufficient grounds to fire someone.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So let's take a scenerio

We have a McDonalds union and a Burger King union. Under each one their is a democracy. What happens if I don't like what the democracy at M deices and I want to work for BK, how can I do that?

 

[untermensche]

He can quit but he can't fire anybody.

Which means he can unilaterally terminate a mutual agreement, your definition of dictatorship.

He can also be terminated against his will. And it is not my definition.

My definition is: If one person can fire the other but the other cannot fire them then we are not dealing with a mutual relationship.

We are dealing with a a situation where one person has more power than the other.

We are looking at a dictatorship if the power to fire is absolute and cannot be questioned.

See, I consider free association to be moral, while you consider forced coercive association to be moral.

Nothing free about submission to capitalist dictators. People only do it because of limited choices and a need to survive.

It is a forced submission. Not a free choice.

That's probably why you didn't answer when I asked what would be sufficient grounds to fire someone.

Sufficient grounds are what workers agree to in a democratic manner. Where the rules are the same for everyone.

Not what some dictator decides on their own.

 

[untermensche]

So let's take a scenerio

We have a McDonalds union and a Burger King union. Under each one their is a democracy. What happens if I don't like what the democracy at M deices and I want to work for BK, how can I do that?

You apply for a job at BK.

And it is not unions. The only solution to dictators is worker ownership and control.

Unions are something that negotiate with dictators. When you eliminate the dictators you have no need for a union.

 

[Elixir]

The only solution to dictators is worker ownership and control.

Okay, I'll play along. I already (I think) related that my COO has earned a significant share of company ownership for her services, and I love the idea of being able to vest employees in the business. But there would be no business if not for the startup capital provided by my other partner and myself. And you have already admitted that it can't be done all at once.

So - what's the plan Stan? How do we get from here to there, or is your idea nothing but wishful thinking, beginning to end?

 

[coloradoatheist]

The only solution to dictators is worker ownership and control.

Okay, I'll play along. I already (I think) related that my COO has earned a significant share of company ownership for her services, and I love the idea of being able to vest employees in the business. But there would be no business if not for the startup capital provided by my other partner and myself. And you have already admitted that it can't be done all at once.

So - what's the plan Stan? How do we get from here to there, or is your idea nothing but wishful thinking, beginning to end?

There has been no details. The great Wizard of Oz will decide that a new business will need to be run and magically find as many people as needed along with all the materials and space to do it and and the Oz will be smart enough to know that nobody will ever change their buying habits.

 

[untermensche]

The only solution to dictators is worker ownership and control.

Okay, I'll play along. I already (I think) related that my COO has earned a significant share of company ownership for her services, and I love the idea of being able to vest employees in the business. But there would be no business if not for the startup capital provided by my other partner and myself. And you have already admitted that it can't be done all at once.

So - what's the plan Stan? How do we get from here to there, or is your idea nothing but wishful thinking, beginning to end?

The end result will be an elimination of top down dictatorial structures and replacing them with democratically controlled structures.

This is a huge advancement in human freedom.

How will it happen? I don't know. I am not a revolutionary leader. Are you? I will not be leading it.

Maybe slowly, maybe quickly.

But it either happens or humans will cease to exist. These dictatorships are driving us all over a cliff.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, I'll play along. I already (I think) related that my COO has earned a significant share of company ownership for her services, and I love the idea of being able to vest employees in the business. But there would be no business if not for the startup capital provided by my other partner and myself. And you have already admitted that it can't be done all at once.

So - what's the plan Stan? How do we get from here to there, or is your idea nothing but wishful thinking, beginning to end?

There has been no details. The great Wizard of Oz will decide that a new business will need to be run and magically find as many people as needed along with all the materials and space to do it and and the Oz will be smart enough to know that nobody will ever change their buying habits.

Go look at the history of Anarchism in Spain.

A lot of details.

But you somehow think you can ignore them because the system was crushed by external force.

 

[Elixir]

How do we get from here to there, or is your idea nothing but wishful thinking, beginning to end?

How will it happen? I don't know. I am not a revolutionary leader. Are you? I will not be leading it.

If only I could tell you about all the "idea guys" I've ever met...
Businesses are 1% inspiration and 99% implementation. But thanks for the 'idea'. Really. I love it. Always have.

 

[untermensche]

How do we get from here to there, or is your idea nothing but wishful thinking, beginning to end?

If only I could tell you about all the "idea guys" I've ever met...
Businesses are 1% inspiration and 99% implementation. But thanks for the 'idea'. Really. I love it. Always have.

You are desperate to find a way out of this.

You have no moral arguments.

You have no arguments at all. No ideas at all.

If I don't build it instantly right before your eyes you have a way out.

Because that is all you want.

A system is not moral because I can't replace it in an instant.

Dictatorship is not moral because I can't end it instantly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would an anarchist society have any less rape?

Sexually repressive societies can increase rape but there's no way a lack of power can eliminate it.

No Anarchist society is going to allow rape.

In terms of economic arrangements nobody allows slavery anymore.

A day will come, or humans will not continue, where dictatorship is not allowed either.

And how will that prevent rape?

 

[untermensche]

No Anarchist society is going to allow rape.

In terms of economic arrangements nobody allows slavery anymore.

A day will come, or humans will not continue, where dictatorship is not allowed either.

And how will that prevent rape?

How is it prevented now?

Anarchism is not a utopian plan. It does not claim to end all problems.

Just the many problems associated with dictatorship in the workplace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You stated that when an employer removes the reward of pay by ceasing the employment agreement, it is the same thing as applying a punishment. Only government and criminals apply punishment. Peaceful people have two options available to them, to either give reward or withhold reward. You pretend there is no difference between removal of a reward and application of a punishment. You pretend that there is no difference, and that is profoundly immoral.

A dictatorship is neither a reward or a punishment.

It is an immoral structure of power.

Dictators have the ability to apply punishment. You can't tell the difference between withholding a reward and applying a punishment.

You are a broken record.

Talk about glass houses!

Losing your job is a huge punishment, in the real world. The world that exists.

To claim it isn't is just childish nonsense and a flight into some fantasy world.

That is what is driving many in US capitalism. Fear because social services are so pitiful.

And your world magically avoids that somehow?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it is done at the caprice of some dictator it is.

A job is not a reward.

It is the way people survive.

And pay is not some "reward". It is what one is owed.

Your position only requires turning all of reality on it's head.

Implicit in your position is you are making employers slaves--they have to hire you.

So you believe it is acceptable for the employee to sever the agreement, but unacceptable for the employer to sever the agreement.

It is immoral for some dictator to have that power over others. The dictator is not doing something to themselves. They are doing something to somebody else.

You want to be a dictator over employers.