Debunking Crapitalism

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Well, just as soon as you back up your claims I will sure give you your due.

When I make a claim that needs backing up, I do it. Some things are simply self-evidently true.

I agree, somebody has to direct the direction of the group.
In a productive setting somebody will keep the production on track while others actually produce.
This will be determined by consensus.

What a horrible idea. Why on Earth do you think that "consensus" (if one can even be reached in the first place, which is hardly a given) is a good way to choose who leads a firm? There is absolutely nothing meritocratic about the masses choosing who leads them, as history has thoroughly demonstrated.

However, that won't be a top down dictatorship as most hierarchies currently are.
Anyone not happy with the arrangements can seek work elsewhere and not have any bills to meet in the mean time.
Under crapitalism(and heathianism) if you are not happy with your job you live under a bridge and starve until you find another, hardly a free choice.

I hear this a lot from leftard libertarians, and your problem is not with capitalism, but with reality. To maintain one's existence, one must produce. This would be true in an anarcho-communist collective too, or the society would be eaten alive by free riders.

So, if Wikipedia is to be believed you want a central dictator to keep things rolling smoothly as the wealth migrates from the plebes to the ruling class?
Seriously?

Um, no. That's your strawman, plebe.

You don't see any problem with centralized dictators keeping non-rent payers from having a house?

Since I am a radical decentralist, there wouldn't be much in the way of non-rent payers, as the political unit would be as close to the organic community as possible. The right of exit would be respected at all times, and secession would be allowed if a business bought the land out from under the CEO. Also, Heathian corporations would compete with one another to provide the best service of law to the masses.

Moreover, a Heathian CEO is not a dictator. There is a more thorough balance of power within Heathianism than any state that has ever existed, or any mob rule advocated by left anarchists. The social contract would be transformed into an actual contract that is agreed upon by all who liv within the Heathian civilization.

Please stop calling yourself an anarchist,....you are giving us a bad name.

Fuck you. You don't have a monopoly on that term, plebe. Heathianism is a form of anarchism, whether you like it or not.

As for reactionary politics as defined by Wikipedia, good luck with that, I, and presumably anyone else that can't define heathianism, won't be submitting to your tyranny anytime soon.

Wikipedia scholars are so funny. Why not try actually reading the thinkers, instead of looking for cliff notes? I did with left anarchism. I ask too much, I know.

Well, perhaps, but at least I recognize the danger that is coercive control over others.

If the right of exit and secession are respected, there is no coercive control by any reasonable definition.

My proposal delivers on it's promise of utopia,

Ye Gods. Whenever someone seriously talking about utopia, RUN! Mass butchery is on the way very soon. You'd think someone who claims to question

whereas your heathianism is just the status quo on steroids.

First of all, saying something is "status quo" is not an argument. Secondly, there is nothing remotely status quo about Heathian anarchism. You either don't understand Heathianism, don't understand the status quo, or (more likely) both.

 

[FreeBornAngel]

When I make a claim that needs backing up, I do it. Some things are simply self-evidently true.

To whom?
Nothing is given a pass in good science.
Just as jurisdiction should always be challenged in law, so too should all 'self-evident' 'truths' be questioned.

There is absolutely nothing meritocratic about the masses choosing who leads them, as history has thoroughly demonstrated.

Right, those most willing to use violence have always drug us around by the hair.
It's time to change that, rule by force is wrong.
If you can't get a consensus do you think you can just push people around with your thugs?

To maintain one's existence, one must produce. This would be true in an anarcho-communist collective too, or the society would be eaten alive by free riders.

One must absolutely produce, you have read the proposal? It is better to carry a bum than to enslave him.
We have to have workers, we don't have to have dollars.
As long as the workers that worked today work tomorrow we can just stop paying at the pump and everything is free.
As long as you contribute in excess of what you consume the excess piles up to the benefit of all.

Um, no. That's your strawman, plebe.

Heathian,...The Heathian goal is to have cities and large land areas owned by single private corporations, which would own and rent out the land and housing over the area, and provide all conceivable "public services": police, fire, roads, courts, etc., out of the voluntarily-paid rent.

Hardly a strawman, you want a central dictator living from the rent he collects from the masses.
Whoever controls the corporations would control the planet.
Are you a paid troll?
You are certainly no anarchist and heathian anarchism is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.
No anarchist would advocate for a central corporation to control everything.

Also, Heathian corporations would compete with one another to provide the best service of law to the masses.

Your ignorance of anarchism is showing.
There is no need for law services in a society that cooperates for the betterment of all.
Only when using violence and/or deception brings more pleasure are laws needed.

and secession would be allowed if a business bought the land out from under the CEO.

So freedom is not inherent in my being born but is a condition that I can buy from my owner?

Moreover, a Heathian CEO is not a dictator.

He's going to have to be because any body that understands anarchists knows that they will not comply with this scheme, too much centralized power.

any mob rule advocated by left anarchists.

Any one that advocates rule by force is not an anarchist and needs to quit misusing the term.

Fuck you. You don't have a monopoly on that term, plebe. Heathianism is a form of anarchism, whether you like it or not.

Nor do you, and no it's not.
Just as what happened in the ussr was not communism.

Why not try actually reading the thinkers, instead of looking for cliff notes?

Ok, link to them, I am going to have some reading time soon.

If the right of exit and secession are respected, there is no coercive control by any reasonable definition.

Ok, as long as you don't send thugs to enforce your edicts.
What happens when I spend my money on whores and not rent?
Do my wages equate to the full value of my labor or does some boss take a profit?
Does my rent equal the cost of housing me or does the ceo take a profit and live from not working but collecting the rent?

Whenever someone seriously talking about utopia, RUN! Mass butchery is on the way very soon.

Well, I would agree, except that rule by force is ended under anarchism, and my proposal.
My proposal comes closest to utopia of all proposals that I have seen.
And then there were none, Frank Russell
Looking Backwards, Edward Bellamy
The Iron Heel, Jack London

You either don't understand Heathianism, don't understand the status quo, or (more likely) both.

Rule by force I understand just fine, but if you'll link to some authors I will give a good faith attempt to understand why your proposal comes with a central authority collecting rents and claims to be anarchism.

 

[FreeBornAngel]

What??
Was it something I said?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

What??
Was it something I said?

If it were not for it being a PITA to type on this phone I'd be in on this circular conversation.

What incentives would one have to say, TIG weld over bagging groceries? Or to crawl around in the desert heat changing oil over say, ordering the replenishment needed for grocery stores? Who decides who does what? You?

Would you concede that such a system is incredibly inefficient? That such a system is the epitome of totalitarianism?

Or are robots (that don't even exist yet and quite possibly will never exist) expected to perform the majority of work? An army of machines will require an army of workers to fix said machines. If it's all the same, I'd rather answer phones in the supreme leader's palace rather than fix robots. As would a large portion of society.

"No leaders", logic will be insulted with. As naive as that is (considering that some sort of central bureaucracy would need established to decide how many airplane mechanics 'we' need versus customer service representatives), all work is not equal.

 

[erowe1]

Crapitalism is the economic system preferred by dictators world wide, that should be your clue.

Let's use walmart as our example, though it could be any big box world wide distributor.

If the people that make the products and the people that distribute the goods show up to work then the goods will be on the shelves even if the accounting department jumps off a cliff.

The people that mine the minerals, refine the minerals into raw materials, fashion the raw materials into finished products, and those that distribute those products could care less if the corporation collects it's billions or not, as long as they continue to show up to do the work then the products continue to be on the shelves.

We have to have workers to produce the goods, we don't have to have dollars to make the goods available.

If the workers just take what they need from the shelves in order to continue producing the goods then the goods will continue to be produced.

They could just order what they need from the net and have it delivered to their door.

What I am asserting is that if the workers do the work the system continues to supply the shelves in the absence of an accounting department.​

Why would workers work when they don't get paid?

 

[erowe1]

Nothing is given a pass in good science.

That's not true. Science, like all searches for truth, must operate on the basis of certain assumptions. And these assumptions can't themselves be based on science, or else they would be circular, which is no different than giving them a pass.

 

[erowe1]

Ok, but why should we leave wage slavery in place?

What is "wage slavery"? And what is the alternative to leaving it in place?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, clearly my economics do not coincide with your economic views.
That doesn't invalidate my position.

Economics is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of logic and (if we're talking history) facts; your logic is unsound and your facts are wrong.

I am aware, however, that you will never change your mind (religious fanatics rarely do).

I never claimed to be socialist.

Putting feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.

In other words, it doesn't matter what you claim, your proposal is in fact a type of socialism.

If you don't want to be called a socialist, stop advocating socialism.

Complete nonsense. E.G. The average real wage of unskilled labor increased ~700% in the 19th century alone, long before any meaningful union activity or social welfare programs. Can you link to those numbers?

Can you link to those numbers?

Couldn't find my original source, but there are lots of estimates out there. All of them have real wages increasing by several hundred percent.

This one estimates nominal wages as increasing 233% while the CPI dropped 33%, for a increase in real wages of 249.5%.

And, again, that's for unskilled labor, the proletariat.

Any rise in wages came from the refusal of the worker to accept the lower wage.

Uh, duh.

Wages are a result of negotiation between employee and employer. The employer cannot pay more than the marginal revenue product of the laborer's work (i.e. how much additional revenue his brings in to the business), and the worker is going to go to the employer who offers him the most money - with the result that employers compete for workers so that wages hover at a level just below their marginal revenue product. Why do wages rise over time? Because the marginal revenue product of labor rises. Why? Because of capital investment (a worker sewing shirts by hand produces less shirts per hour than one working the shirt-sowing machine).

But I repeat myself...

Ah yes, the massive increase in living standards of the last two centuries - dwarfing the combined accomplishments of the preceding 10,000 years - was just a trick!

Something other than crapitalism is at work here, I assert that rising education levels are to blame.

We're talking about unskilled labor - education has nothing to do with it.

Sort of,...rational decisions are made by the shelves being empty.
The person reordering goods for walmart doesn't first consult the accounting department, she just reorders from the supplier.
Walmart's supply of goods continues in the absence of the accountant provided the workers continue to create and stock the goods.
We have to have workers, we don't have to have dollars.

In your system:

there is no incentive to produce anything,

no way to know what to produce or how much,

no way to know which is the most efficient way of producing it,

and no one tasked with trying to answer those questions (I guess it just comes to the workers in a dream or something...).

Your system, if actually adhered to for any length of time (which it wouldn't and couldn't be), would quickly result in death by starvation for virtually everyone on the planet (that's what happens when nothing is being produced). The Soviet Union would actually be preferable, as they managed to produce something (not very much, mind you, but something), because they used coercion. But you eliminate all incentives for voluntary production and also eschew coercion, the result being a bunch of confused people loafing about with rumbling bellies.

 

[Weston White]

Capitalism...Walmart

If Walmart engages in capitalism then why does it depend on government aid, though acquisitions of land, tax breaks, Obamacare exemptions, and social justice programs for their underpaid part-time employees?

 

[rg17]

Communism=Obamneycare, social security, taxed to death, political correctness and you know the rest.

 

[Traditionalist]

I'm not a Capitalist myself, at the moment my dream society would consist largely of Free Market Socialism, similar to Distributism. But the OP's post is just incoherent and too silly to really tackle. It seems they're proposing some market-less Anarcho-Communist society if I understand correctly.