Why Socialism?

[Axulus]

No, enjoying those things is not exploitative in and of itself. It's how you currently get the means to be able to enjoy those things that can be exploitative.

Using ownership of the means of production to exploit workers with sub-optimal wages is one example.

And how about working in the oil patch and using the proceeds from selling the oil to obtain the benefit of those things?

Because in the society I'm talking about there is no profit. Production is done for use not for generating profit.

Why wouldn't there be? Do the workers in the industry own the means of production or not? Part of the rights of ownership entails using those assets in the manner one desires. If the desire is to make profits, then they'll obviously make decisions to accomplish that goal.

Do they own the means of production but not the products they produce? If they own the products they produce, then they could trade/barter those products with the highest bidder and optimize their production levels to maximize the proceeds received from trading/bartering for a given amount of risk and effort.

 

[untermensche]

That's an oversimplification, and Anarchist thinking is incredibly diverse.

But an Anarchist society could include societal ownership and control of resources and lots of planning.

Anarchist thinking may be diverse, but if a thought is "hey, let's have a government" it ain't anarchist.

You confuse wanting to abolish "the state" and all the religion that goes with it and wanting to abolish government.

Did the Spanish Anarchists have no government?

 

[Axulus]

What sort of maths tell you how much someone wants a cell phone that does not yet exist or a banana or a car or a Britney Spears CD?

How did money and price signals tell how much people wanted cell phones before cell phones were invented? Or transistors? Or the internet? Or Tang?

Price signals told people how much it cost for R&D and various materials.

Price signals of substitutes (satellite phones, for example, or perhaps market research) give insight into willingness to pay.

Bananas didn't have to be invented it just took someone to figure out that you could peel them and eat them without dying a horrible death.

You demonstrate your ignorance here.

The modern banana was bred over many generations. A plant like this is believed to have been the ancestor of the modern banana:

And as for cars I believe they are completely a product of private enterprise but they've really been terrible for society.

And whose beliefs get to win out? If 60% of people think Brittany Spears' music is terrible and 40% do not, does that mean majority wins and those 40% get no Brittany Spears CD?

 

[ksen]

Because in the society I'm talking about there is no profit. Production is done for use not for generating profit.

Why wouldn't there be?

Because we're talking about my vision of society and that's my vision.

Do the workers in the industry own the means of production or not? Part of the rights of ownership entails using those assets in the manner one desires. If the desire is to make profits, then they'll obviously make decisions to accomplish that goal.

Only as long as those desires don't cross lines set by society. I own property in Florida. I could not run a meth den from my private property if that were my desire.

Do they own the means of production but not the products they produce? If they own the products they produce, then they could trade/barter those products with the highest bidder and optimize their production levels to maximize the proceeds received from trading/bartering for a given amount of risk and effort.

Since production is done for immediate, or near immediate use, then there would be no products to hoard. There would be no overproduction.

 

[untermensche]

If 60% of people think Brittany Spears' music is terrible and 40% do not, does that mean majority wins and those 40% get no Brittany Spears CD?

Who is proposing enforcing things like that?

But if a majority of the people want something, like national health insurance, that most of the civilized world already has, then a nation should have it.

It shouldn't necessarily be a national referendum, but the will of the majority should find expression in representatives.

If those representatives actually represent the people and not a minority of special interests.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If 60% of people think Brittany Spears' music is terrible and 40% do not, does that mean majority wins and those 40% get no Brittany Spears CD?

Who is proposing enforcing things like that?

But if a majority of the people want something, like national health insurance, that most of the civilized world already has, then a nation should have it.

It shouldn't necessarily be a national referendum, but the will of the majority should find expression in representatives.

If those representatives actually represent the people and not a minority of special interests.

So when a majority of people wanted slavery, Jim Crow laws, and not allow gays to marry now it's okay because the majority wanted it?

 

[dismal]

What sort of maths tell you how much someone wants a cell phone that does not yet exist or a banana or a car or a Britney Spears CD?

How did money and price signals tell how much people wanted cell phones before cell phones were invented? Or transistors? Or the internet? Or Tang?

You do realize, don't you, that cell phones and cd technology were invented by the government and then later adapted for consumer use?

Bananas didn't have to be invented it just took someone to figure out that you could peel them and eat them without dying a horrible death.

And as for cars I believe they are completely a product of private enterprise but they've really been terrible for society.

It's good to know that in soviet ksentopia there will be panels of elites telling us what we want.

Sure is a lot of concern about muh wealth and muh power itt.

What makes you think I won't be on the panel of elites that tells everyone what they want?

I'd be better at it than you.

 

[dismal]

Anarchist thinking may be diverse, but if a thought is "hey, let's have a government" it ain't anarchist.

You confuse wanting to abolish "the state" and all the religion that goes with it and wanting to abolish government.

Did the Spanish Anarchists have no government?

Dude, "anarchy" literally means "without government."

 

[ksen]

How did money and price signals tell how much people wanted cell phones before cell phones were invented? Or transistors? Or the internet? Or Tang?

You do realize, don't you, that cell phones and cd technology were invented by the government and then later adapted for consumer use?

Bananas didn't have to be invented it just took someone to figure out that you could peel them and eat them without dying a horrible death.

And as for cars I believe they are completely a product of private enterprise but they've really been terrible for society.

It's good to know that in soviet ksentopia there will be panels of elites telling us what we want.

Is that what you got out of that?

Sure is a lot of concern about muh wealth and muh power itt.

What makes you think I won't be on the panel of elites that tells everyone what they want?

I'd be better at it than you.

You probably would!!

 

[Trausti]

It's good to know that in soviet ksentopia there will be panels of elites telling us what we want.

Is that what you got out of that?

Sure is a lot of concern about muh wealth and muh power itt.

What makes you think I won't be on the panel of elites that tells everyone what they want?

I'd be better at it than you.

You probably would!!

Dismal for Kommissar!

 

[untermensche]

You confuse wanting to abolish "the state" and all the religion that goes with it and wanting to abolish government.

Did the Spanish Anarchists have no government?

Dude, "anarchy" literally means "without government."

Anarchism and anarchy are not the same thing.

Have you ever read one Anarchist writer?

 

[dismal]

Dude, "anarchy" literally means "without government."

Anarchism and anarchy are not the same thing.

Have you ever read one Anarchist writer?

Let's go over a little etymology:

"An-" prefix from the Greek meaning "without" as in "anaerobic" or "anoxic".
"arch" root word from the Greek meaning leader(s) as in "Monarch" or "Oligarch"
"-ism" suffix from the Greek meaning a distinctive doctrine or theory

Put it all together and what do you got?

A doctrine in which there are no leaders/government.

 

[dismal]

It's good to know that in soviet ksentopia there will be panels of elites telling us what we want.

Is that what you got out of that?

What I'm starting to get out of this is ksentopia sounds a bit like the Soviet Union.

In what ways would you say it would be different?

Other than the fact you expect to condition the desire the desire for money and power out of humanity so there will be no Joe Stalin.

 

[Axulus]

Because we're talking about my vision of society and that's my vision.

Is this a fantasy society full of non-humans? If not, then why wouldn't you incorporate typical human desires and motivations? One such typical desire is to improve one's own quality of life. That can be accomplished via working in industries with large amounts of capital - you can produce far more value with fewer workers that way. You don't have to split the value with that many people that way.

Only as long as those desires don't cross lines set by society. I own property in Florida. I could not run a meth den from my private property if that were my desire.

I'm not talking about illegal drug operations. I'm talking about normal economic goods and services and decisions to set production at the desired level and keep other workers out of the industry so that you don't have to split the economic value gained from production with as many people.

Since production is done for immediate, or near immediate use, then there would be no products to hoard. There would be no overproduction.

Why not? I thought they controlled the means of production? They could choose to do produce and hoard however much they want, and their customers could do they same, couldn't they? Also, are you saying that inventories would be kept at a knife's edge level? Just one disaster or unexpected and inventory gets wiped out and the society has to suffer through an extreme shortage?

 

[Togo]

Anarchism and anarchy are not the same thing.

Have you ever read one Anarchist writer?

Let's go over a little etymology:

"An-" prefix from the Greek meaning "without" as in "anaerobic" or "anoxic".
"arch" root word from the Greek meaning leader(s) as in "Monarch" or "Oligarch"
"-ism" suffix from the Greek meaning a distinctive doctrine or theory

Put it all together and what do you got?

A doctrine in which there are no leaders/government.

Which unfortunately, is not what the term means. Etymology is a very useful tool, but it doesn't replace knowing what you're talking about.

For example the phrase "could care less" to mean not caring.

In the UK the phrase is "couldn't care less", which makes a certain amount of sense. The only situation in which you couldn't care less, is if your amount of caring is so small as to be effectively zero. There is no amount of caring that could be less than the amount you actually care, and thus the meaning of 'couldn't care less' is that you don't care at all.

However, in the US the phrase is 'could care less', which makes no sense at all. The only situation in which you could care less, is if the amount that you care is above zero, which is the precise opposite of the sentiment that the speaker is trying to convey.

(Go to Youtube and search for 'David Mitchel's soapbox' for some straight to internet broadcasts in which he explains this with graphs, in considerable detail.)

The point here is that the sense being conveyed does not necessarily match the etymology of the words employed. All Americans are not literally self-deluded, actually meaning something totally at odds with what they said. They're conveying a particular meaning with their words, which may not match a close breakdown of each word's literal definition.

Similarly, here, Anarchism and anarchy are not the same thing, and despite your excellent and precise etymology, it's still useful to know something about a subject before dismissing it out of hand.

 

[dismal]

Let's go over a little etymology:

"An-" prefix from the Greek meaning "without" as in "anaerobic" or "anoxic".
"arch" root word from the Greek meaning leader(s) as in "Monarch" or "Oligarch"
"-ism" suffix from the Greek meaning a distinctive doctrine or theory

Put it all together and what do you got?

A doctrine in which there are no leaders/government.

Which unfortunately, is not what the term means.

Yeah, it is. Ideological zeal doesn't entitle you to make up new meanings for Ancient Greek words on the fly.

 

[Togo]

Which unfortunately, is not what the term means.

Yeah, it is. Ideological zeal doesn't entitle you to make up new meanings for Ancient Greek words on the fly.

No, but a hundred-odd years of literary tradition does. That's why you're using zeal to mean political fervour, rather than it's Ancient Greek meaning of envy, or desire to emulate another. It's going to be very hard to discuss the political tradition of Anarchism if you don't understand what it means.

 

[dismal]

No, but a hundred-odd years of literary tradition does.

You may have an argument that there are 100 years of people who don't know what the word means.

It's going to be very hard to discuss the political tradition of Anarchism if you don't understand what it means.

I do know what the word means.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

this is why ultimately socialism will never work: in order for it to exist on a society-wide scale, the powerful in that society have to give up their power, and that will never happen, period, end of discussion.
and even if somehow miraculously a singular body of humans managed to start up a socialist system on a smaller community scale, it would: A. only exist at the pleasure of non-socialists with more power who allow it to, and B. be sustainable until some member within the group got greedy, which would inevitably happen.

socialism is a pretty great idea in theory and about as realistic as "hey man, make love not peace" is realistic as a viable foreign policy.

More of an issue is that it's an unstable situation--there will always be people seeking power.

 

[untermensche]

Anarchism and anarchy are not the same thing.

Have you ever read one Anarchist writer?

Let's go over a little etymology:

"An-" prefix from the Greek meaning "without" as in "anaerobic" or "anoxic".
"arch" root word from the Greek meaning leader(s) as in "Monarch" or "Oligarch"
"-ism" suffix from the Greek meaning a distinctive doctrine or theory

Put it all together and what do you got?

A doctrine in which there are no leaders/government.

OK.

From this song and dance I take it you have not read any Anarchist writers.

It shows.