• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Debate over socialism, anarchism

As is any other sentence someone utters. We can continue to discuss, though, if we come up with a common conception of what it is for a politico-economic system to function effectively.
Click to expand...

okay

Okay. You, for some inexplicable reason, have been quoting a scrap of this sentence out of context in a way that completely reverses its meaning.

The full blurb is actually the following:

"Libertarian socialists in conjunction with Marxists dispute the notion that capitalist economic relations arise spontaneously in the absence of suppression, but in fact require active political suppression in the form of property law that is enforced either by a state or by private force "
Click to expand...

1. These are not authorities. They are strict and temporary representational tools recruited only for tasks that require such representation.
2. Their power is kept in check by the populace at large.
Click to expand...

potato, potato.
 
regardless of what we call the individuals involved in the mechanism of administration in this hypothetical anarchist society, I still answered your question.

ebola
 
TruthSpeaker1 said:
That explains a lot ;). The last sentence in the quote is strictly your own opinion.
Click to expand...

An opinion backed up by the realities faced by those in poverty. Clearly, capitalism is not working for them. At least, not this system.
 
An opinion backed up by the realities faced by those in poverty.
Click to expand...

There has to be a social structure in every system. Only in the most successful nations do we see a rise in the middle class and a diminishing of the lower and upper classes. There are going to be poor people in every nation.
 
>>There has to be a social structure in every system. >>

No kidding.

>>Only in the most successful nations do we see a rise in the middle class and a diminishing of the lower and upper classes.>>

You are making the mistake of viewing the world in terms of nation-states with separate economies. The world-economy actually functions as a systemic whole. In this way, the relative degree of wealth afforded in the first world (and accordingly high levels of equality) is built of the history of colonialism and continuing exploitation in the third world.

>>There are going to be poor people in every nation.>>

It's this kind of attitude that is helping keep people poor.

ebola
 
TruthSpeaker1 said:
There has to be a social structure in every system.
Click to expand...

And one may argue that a capitalistic society is structurely chaotic.

TruthSpeaker1 said:
Only in the most successful nations do we see a rise in the middle class and a diminishing of the lower and upper classes.
Click to expand...

As ebola noted, my concern extends beyond the country I live in. Also, and I keep reiterating this, why settle for less?

TruthSpeaker1 said:
There are going to be poor people in every nation.
Click to expand...

Only so long as they are denied the resources that all humans are entitled to. The Earth is more than capable of sustaining 6.5 billion people. Do you realize the relative wealth of the US compared to the rest of the world? We consume a lot of shit that we really don't need.
 
And one may argue that a capitalistic society is structurely chaotic.
Click to expand...

possibly, but this chaos doesn't consume the whole nation. Meaning that most people in the US do relatively well as far as income.

As ebola noted, my concern extends beyond the country I live in. Also, and I keep reiterating this, why settle for less?
Click to expand...

okay

Only so long as they are denied the resources that all humans are entitled to. The Earth is more than capable of sustaining 6.5 billion people. Do you realize the relative wealth of the US compared to the rest of the world? We consume a lot of shit that we really don't need.
Click to expand...

right, but this takes me back to my original point. We are trying to change human nature when we force the wealthy to give to the needy. Most wealthy people worked for their money, why should they be forced to give it away. We shouldn't punish people for their dispositions, positive or negative.
 
>>possibly, but this chaos doesn't consume the whole nation. Meaning that most people in the US do relatively well as far as income.>>

Many, many people are not doing well.

>>We are trying to change human nature when we force the wealthy to give to the needy.>>

We reject your conception of human nature as narrowly defined economic self-interest.

>>Most wealthy people worked for their money, why should they be forced to give it away. >>

Did they work in proportion to the rewards they have reaped? What is the origin of profit? Hard work, or the use of capital to extract the capacity to labor from other workers?

ebola
 
ebola? said:
Did they work in proportion to the rewards they have reaped? What is the origin of profit? Hard work, or the use of capital to extract the capacity to labor from other workers?
Click to expand...

Precisely. A corporate executive's job is much more desirable than, say, a coal-miner's job. The former requires significantly less physical exertion and is a lot less risky. It doesn't make much sense that the individual doing the more undesirable job that has a much more direct benefit to society is receiving much lower wages.

It's not punishment. It's the people taking back what belongs to them.
 
atlas said:
The barriers to becomming a CEO are far greater to those of becomming a coal miner.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Someone with a coal mining job has little hope of moving very far up the economic ladder. How is that a good thing?
 
Precisely. A corporate executive's job is much more desirable than, say, a coal-miner's job. The former requires significantly less physical exertion and is a lot less risky. It doesn't make much sense that the individual doing the more undesirable job that has a much more direct benefit to society is receiving much lower wages.
Click to expand...
It does make sense though, in the context of a capitalist economy. Pretty much anybody can mine coal, given the proper training.

The weakness in your argument stems from the fact that a coal-miner *could* quit his job and start his own company (and be CEO).

Is this likely? No...but that isn't the point.
 
>>It does make sense though, in the context of a capitalist economy. Pretty much anybody can mine coal, given the proper training.>>

Of course it makes sense in an economy based on the expropriation of labor from others.

>>The weakness in your argument stems from the fact that a coal-miner *could* quit his job and start his own company (and be CEO).>>

You're extending the concept "could" pretty fucking far.
What IS your point?

ebola
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top