Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He made a consumeristic model work, finding new ways to expand profit. That is not remarkable or praiseworthy.
Now how does the current day production of Amazon all belong to Bezos. Ideas don’t produce outcomes, labor does.
so because someone came up with an idea and made it work, you think that they somehow should not reap the rewards of that? amazon started small as a clearing house, and bezo made it grow to where ti is today. businesses are there to make money, nor ifs ands buts or maybes about it. that is the only reason for a business to exist.
now in order to make that money after a certain point, they are going to have to hire people to do labor, but the labor does not have the same responsibilities that the owner does. bezos is teh one that has to make sure the payroll is met, that the bills are paid, that the customers are happy, etc. etc. etc. and if something goes wrong, the labor isnt the one that takes all the blame, the management and ownership does. so you go back to your hourly job, and think about the responsibilities you have in your job, and then realize that you take those responsibilities and multiply them by a factor of at least one hundred, depending on the size of the company you work for, and that approaches the owners responsibilities.
so because someone came up with an idea and made it work, you think that they somehow should not reap the rewards of that? amazon started small as a clearing house, and bezo made it grow to where ti is today. businesses are there to make money, nor ifs ands buts or maybes about it. that is the only reason for a business to exist.
The Wall Street welfare programs have made it what it is . Stock prices are NOT what they are today without those welfare programs.
It’s interesting how this thread is going, I explain the incentive motive, the concept of freedom outside of private property, the limits of greed by the limits of human abilities, free access to labor, etc.
Then another person comes in, I have to explain each point all over again, rinse repeat.
What does logic tell you. That should all be in the OP, who is going to read through 30+ pages of posts. Why dont you start a thread on anarcho-socialism. The problem is, I dont know of a single other person who agrees with your beliefs on this forum, so its more work for you to defend your beliefs.
I wouldnt count on gaining much support. The vast majority of people clearly see the problem of any form of anarchism.
Not quite. If you live and work with others, you have a say in how production is handled. It is mutually agreed.
Its a nice theory that it is mutually agreed but the reality is people do not agree on much. And if its majority rules the the minority is forced to go along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Excess production also goes to yourself. But besides that if you produce by yourself, then you can produce completely for yourself. If I start a garden farm, and operate by myself, all the food goes to me.
Say you work for some job and do so well you get a house built. Then you quit the job and just grow food for yourself. Your house has water and electricity I would assume so how is that paid for? By everyone else? Maintaining the roads, dealing with natural disasters, etc.
What if lots of people did that? Provided their own food, perhaps bartering some of it for things they needed. That would benefit the two who barter but not pay for the expenses of the community.
If you work with others you come to an agreed production level for each individual. You vote and agree with whatever decision is made.
What do you do with the plethora of people who fall short of their expected production level quota? The US spends over $1 trillion/year on means-tested social welfare programs because way too few people are producing enough to meet the share they should be contributing to society.
Its a nice theory that it is mutually agreed but the reality is people do not agree on much. And if its majority rules the the minority is forced to go along.
Say you work for some job and do so well you get a house built. Then you quit the job and just grow food for yourself. Your house has water and electricity I would assume so how is that paid for? By everyone else? Maintaining the roads, dealing with natural disasters, etc.
What if lots of people did that? Provided their own food, perhaps bartering some of it for things they needed. That would benefit the two who barter but not pay for the expenses of the community.
What happens when people are too old to work?
If you want to produce without working with others that is fine. You can even start a union with like minded people if space is available.
A.) There are self sustaining housing models where water is collected from rain/natural absorbents. Electricity could in theory be provided via solar/renewable energy.
That being said if town demands are being meet unions will form that would make and maintain an electric system that can be shared by houses who so choose to. Same with a water pipeline/system. Road maintenance and firefighters, etc. would be handled by a union who uses the public utilities for such reason (there what be a subsequent syndicate that would help teach/share resources to making fighting fires/maintaining roads easier on a wider scale).
Bartering would be very hard being as no one has pure ownership to a certain product. They can given special circumstances prioritize giving something to the next person who wants to use it over another. But still, the economy of bartering would naturally be limited.
What do you do with the plethora of people who fall short of their expected production level quota? The US spends over $1 trillion/year on means-tested social welfare programs because way too few people are producing enough to meet the share they should be contributing to society.
It's mutually agreed on. If someone is not producing enough at a union then what incentive would they have to continue working there. For one, they are not increasing supply to the community (for which they would benefit from) and neither would they receive any excess production.
If you want to produce without working with others that is fine. You can even start a union with like minded people if space is available.
A.) There are self sustaining housing models where water is collected from rain/natural absorbents. Electricity could in theory be provided via solar/renewable energy.
I have lived where there is a well and there is a water co-op. Just the cost of maintaining and running the well is the only cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
That being said if town demands are being meet unions will form that would make and maintain an electric system that can be shared by houses who so choose to. Same with a water pipeline/system. Road maintenance and firefighters, etc. would be handled by a union who uses the public utilities for such reason (there what be a subsequent syndicate that would help teach/share resources to making fighting fires/maintaining roads easier on a wider scale).
I would assume if this happened in America all of this is already in place. If people move elsewhere and start a new town then that would be an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Bartering would be very hard being as no one has pure ownership to a certain product. They can given special circumstances prioritize giving something to the next person who wants to use it over another. But still, the economy of bartering would naturally be limited.
Bartering services would be easy to do. Plus people will steal things to barter. People will have substance abuse issues. I know you thing drug addiction comes from being poor in a capitalist system but I know lots of people who were young and tried everything they could get their hands on. Middle class or above families. Then they spend the rest of their lives dealing with the addiction. That would not go away because capitalism goes away. In fact of all the people I have known who used illegal drugs being poor was never the motivation to try them.
People will barter what they have stolen or barter their body or other services. It flourishes in Cuba. I am sure it would flourish in your system. Look at the prison system. Its a closed system that does not require money to survive. And that is what causes a black market and bartering.
Never underestimate peoples ability and desire to work around whatever rules are in place.
It's mutually agreed on. If someone is not producing enough at a union then what incentive would they have to continue working there. For one, they are not increasing supply to the community (for which they would benefit from) and neither would they receive any excess production.
I did watch about 40 minutes of the video you recommended. When you look at these people as old its hard to imagine they actually did what they did. It did take courage. Subtitles wear on me. So I could not get through all of it in one sitting.
I have lived where there is a well and there is a water co-op. Just the cost of maintaining and running the well is the only cost.
I would assume if this happened in America all of this is already in place. If people move elsewhere and start a new town then that would be an issue.
Bartering services would be easy to do. Plus people will steal things to barter. People will have substance abuse issues. I know you thing drug addiction comes from being poor in a capitalist system but I know lots of people who were young and tried everything they could get their hands on. Middle class or above families. Then they spend the rest of their lives dealing with the addiction. That would not go away because capitalism goes away. In fact of all the people I have known who used illegal drugs being poor was never the motivation to try them.
People will barter what they have stolen or barter their body or other services. It flourishes in Cuba. I am sure it would flourish in your system. Look at the prison system. Its a closed system that does not require money to survive. And that is what causes a black market and bartering.
Never underestimate peoples ability and desire to work around whatever rules are in place.
Not true in my opinion. I never said that only poor people do drugs. But it is telling that most excessive drug use comes from opposite ends of the spectrum (per capita obviously). When you are poor or working middle class the stress of almost being a step away from housing or having food causes work to seem like a punishment rather than a free exercise in provision. Furthermore when your work has no direct impact on your needs (you get paid but what you are physically doing often times has little direct consequences on your needs), the work becomes more distant and less relevant.
The Middle class, even though I believe substance abuse is lower per capita here (though you can check me), suffers from excess consumerism and Marketing. When community based work and existence is disincentive, people look for other things to make them happy, As big business is so dedicate with affecting the markets through marketing and product placement (something you see everywhere) life (and the economy) needs excess consumption that more often times brings deep emptiness rather than social fulfillment. Furthermore excess consumption often times produces debt, and more stress.
There is little substantive arguments in this video, but I still think its a neat short film that visualizes the problem (it doesn't offer a solution or explanation of why things are like this but, still, a good video).
As for the rich to very rich, I believe real libertarian Marxism acknowledges this problem the most effectively. Rich people (generally speaking) have much more control over goods/services and production (and input) than they are physically capable of. This uneven dynamic causes major psychological contradictions (what one believes one can do versus what one can actually do). If you own more land than you can physically control or live on, you abilities and power often times appear beyond what they are. Furthermore if you are credited with other people's labor input then you produce a life style that you can not maintain and expectations that you cannot control.
I could go on but I think you get the point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
