Cowbee @ Cowbee @lemm.ee

This town, in fact, has more than enough room for the two of us

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

413

Joined

2 yr. ago

Republicans are a minority, but the right is the overwhelming majority. America has no mainstream left, its firmly center-right with a center-right party and a fascist party.

There are numerous critical flaws of what you just said.

1. Why would Guards support you? If you become a robber-baron, hiring muscle to protect your factories from the Workers, you have to deal with the fact that either you don't actually control and own your factories, the mercenaries do, or accept that you have become a micro-state.
2. What is preventing any of these micro-states from absorbing others and becoming a full state? Nothing.
3. Why would anyone willingly work for you, unless it already reached the point where you are essentially a state? They could make more money simply by working cooperatively.

Private Property cannot maintain itself unless you have a monopoly on violence and thus a state.

Cooperatively owned property, on the other hand, supports itself and is maintained cooperatively. There are no avenues to realistically overturn it.

It's also good to not use it, if you can afford to keep it and spend normally. HSA space is extremely limited, because it's by far the best retirement account available. FSAs are fantastic for spending, as they don't have as many restrictions and don't carry over year over year.

You actually don't have to spend money with an HSA, ever. You can invest it, and it rolls over. FSAs must be spent within the year you contribute, though.

Anarcho-Capitalism cannot exist, it would cease to exist the very second it did.

Anarcho-Communism is a lofty goal, but is fully capable of existing.

That's the fundamental difference, what you consider to be Private Property simply wouldn't be, it would either be personal property or you wouldn't have it. It is only through threat of violence that one can own the products of tools despite not doing the labor.

You cannot seriously believe in a might makes right society, can you?

If everyone has equal ownership, there is no "mono"poly.

Private ownership requires a monopoly on violence to exist, if you can't defend it there are no rights.

Yes, absolutely. How would one win over with individual ownership? One dude with a couple guns vs an entire community?

Nah, might makes right for them, lol

Private Property cannot exist without a state. That which gives private property legitimacy is a monopoly of violence, otherwise you have a winner-takes-all might makes right system.

Collective ownership of property can be enforced via the collective itself, without a need for a governing body.

Anarchism is certainly idealistic, but Anarcho-Capitalism is pure fantasy.

It can only happen at a global scale. There are numerous answers to your question, but again, it isn't as simple as removing all incentives. Read theory, Marx never pretends to know what Communism must look like, which is why Communists focus on achieving Socialism first, as we can very well transition to that now.

Nope, just like it doesn't require unlimited resources and automation to get you to do your chores. However, at a societal scale, its definitely a futuristic goal, which is why Communism is only achievable after Socialism, which is similar to modern society except industry is collectively, rather than individually owned.

People don't get everything for free until productivity is so high that it's practical, which comes from development. The distribution is handled by the Socialist State, typically, until it becomes vestigial and no longer necessary.

Neither. It's a replacement for money, based on hours worked. The difference between money and LVs are that LVs are destroyed upon first use, ie you create 4 hours of Value, then trade that for 4 different hours of Value.

Not a hexbear, but the leftist "Biden bad" narrative wouldn't demonize investing in infrastructure, they would call out shit like unconditional support for Israel or failing to meaningfully improve social safety nets via Medicare for All, or other such measures. Biden is a Liberal, at the end of the day, and that's not going to please any leftist except by not being a fascist.

Abolishing money is a very gradual process, not an immediate one. In lower stages, Labor Vouchers would be paid, and these represent an hour of labor. The difference is that labor Vouchers are destroyed upon first use.

Secondly, difficult, unpleasant, or otherwise undesirable labor would either be paid at a higher ratio, or require less labor per week to make the same amount of labor Vouchers. Alternatively, these dirty jobs may require rotation, so nobody is stuck working them. There are many ways of handling this, with more proposals than you would expect.

They are.

To argue for Capitalism over Socialism, you must reject the idea of democratizing control of productuon in favor of dictatorial control. You can whitewash it into "meritocracy," and pretend that ownership is a mystical concept that chooses those with the highest competency, but ultimately Capitalism is a rejection of Worker Control, and thus an affirmation of control in the hands of the few.

Similarly, to believe that this dictatorial control is worth it, you typically must also believe that growth is either non-existant if the Workers direct it, or pales in comparison to when Capitalists control production.

Therefore, you are rejecting the concepts of decentralization and democratization of production in favor of the "good men" theory, putting all your chips on Capitalists either being good people or being replaced by better Capitalists without input from the Workers.

Did I deliberately highlight the flaws of your thinking without putting the kid gloves on? Yes, and I won't apologize for it, as the claims are logically a necessity to hold your beliefs.

Development did, not Capitalism. The countries that developed the most in the 1900s were the ones rejecting Capitalism in favor of some form of Socialism.

Do you think that people get richer when a group of people decide they have no rights of ownership and one person owns everything, or do you acknowledge that democracy and decentralization are good?

You're continuing to compare a fully developed superpower that never had skin in WWII with a developing country the rest of the world tried to oppose at every step, that's still completely disingenuous. The graph was volatile because the USSR was founded in Civil War, had a famine in the 30s during the horribly botched collectivization of agriculture, then had their bread basket invaded during WWII while they took on the majority of combat against the Nazis. After that, steady!

Decentralization is firmly a Socialist ideal, and is incompatible with Capitalism. Capitalism requires that workers have no power, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

You then go on to completely butcher the definitions of Socialism by assuming it means state control, rather than collective control, of the means of production. State control is merely one path of Socialism.

Private Property requires a monopoly of violence to enforce, ie a state. You cannot have private property without threat of violence via a state, even your example proves this.

All in all, you're frustratingly bad at arguing anything coherent, and it's clear you don't actually care about proper definitions.

Theory is a plan for reality. If you can prove that tools have a mystical property that causes people to turn evil if they share them, be my guest. You can't actually tie that absurd claim to reality though, so you won't.

Personally, I love the idea of decentralization, collaboration, and democratization, which is why I love FOSS and am on Lemmy rather than Reddit.