|
11:53 AM Alex: hello? 11:57 AM me: hey 11:58 AM Alex: are you busy? me: not really 12:00 PM Alex: I gave up social democracy recently 12:01 PM me: oh? what system do you presently favor? and what made you let that go? 12:02 PM Alex: answer to q2 is reading Zizek, Debord and Kropotkin 12:03 PM me: I can def get behind anarcho communism much more than state communism Alex: how is that not the complete antithesis of anarcho-capitalism? 12:04 PM me: "no government; private property" is more the opposite of "total government; public properry" 12:05 PM I think that anarcho communist communities and anarcho capitalist communitites could peacefully coexist, with a healthy respect for one another's borders 12:06 PM Alex: the capitalists wouldn't allow it me: although it is certainly correct for people like you and I to talk about the merits of public vs private property Capitalism is not corporatism it's not about coercion, it's about trade 12:07 PM Alex: you can stop things without ever being coercive 12:08 PM eg, the way the American media has villanized communism and restricted political debate without ever doing anything forceful me: I won't accuse the workers of wanting to cross the border and murder the factory owner if you won't accuse the factory owner of wanting to cross the border and "enslave the workers" 12:09 PM I submit that the american media has villainized captialism Alex: capitalists do not have a historical record of being kind towards revolutionaries 12:10 PM me: first of all captialists are not all one group second of all revolutionaries are not all one group 12:11 PM if it is the case that there are abundant historical examples of capitalists opposing revolutionaries, and there almost certainly is, I can tell you why but the answer is predicated on the notion of private property 12:12 PM they recognized that a violent insurrection was likely to devalue their property through nationalization or outright desctruction in many cases you may see this as moral or correct, but I do not 12:13 PM I trust you have found through your reading that a state is more likely to result in oppression and coercion than equality of opportunity or justice I agree with this Alex: It's one thing to say something isn't moral, and another to actually prevent it from happening me: well, if you believe something to be immoral, do you not have an incentive to stop it? 12:14 PM Alex: It's one thing to want to stop something, and another to actually stop it 12:15 PM me: please elaborate Alex: I can say that some corporation should have better overseas labor practices 12:16 PM but I can't make nike pay them more me: well, this is a question of power if you could, you would. 12:17 PM Alex: point is I can't me: consider the following statement: revolutionaries do not have a historical record of being kind towards capitalists 12:18 PM Alex: because they are the main source of oppresion in the world in which revolutionaries spring up me: interesting I disagree Alex: states are an extension of bourgeois interests 12:19 PM me: I think that your notions of class were outdated shortly after they were coined. Alex: bourgeois/proletarian? me: yeah Alex: the latter has gotten much more ambiguous, but the former still holds its meaning 12:20 PM bourgeois interests don't necessarily mean interests of an individual 12:21 PM the main problem I see with "buying a commune space" is that there likely won't be sufficient capital to do so. 12:22 PM me: Marx himself did not understand how the capitalism against which he railed would foster an environment in which the most productive would reap the greatest rewards, and that prices for all goods would obey a sharp downward trend over time, making all things accessible to the least in society, especially provided they work hard. There have been and are a number of communes in america and the world 12:23 PM capital is much easier to come by than you think. Alex: only proving the ineffectiveness of such communes it isn't about establishing a plot of land where 100 hippies can practice subsistence farming 12:25 PM I am almost certain marx understood that, and simply found it irrelevant. I don't have a source to point to, but I am absolutely positive his predeccesors did 12:27 PM critique of capitalism goes beyond simply poverty me: tell me more, then 12:28 PM Alex: capitalism defines every aspect of our life because every aspect of our life is economic 12:29 PM consider a specific point, eating disorders 12:30 PM In a lot of cases, they are a result of a desire to achieve some sort of unachievable image, which has been created by advertising, media, cultural standards, etc 12:31 PM here's a point out of the zizek book I'm reading: the poor are more satisfied with life than the middle class because the poor compare themselves with the middle class, easily attainable, while the middle class compares themselves with the super-rich, difficult to attain 12:32 PM guy debord makes a point about consumerism, let me see if I can find the quote 12:34 PM not the quote I was looking for, but more relevant: "Economic growth has liberated societies from the natural pressures that forced them into an immediate struggle for survival; but they have not yet been liberated from their liberator." 12:35 PM me: I read that debord quote differently Alex: "The spectacle is a permanent opium war designed to force people to equate goods with commodities and to equate satisfaction with a survival that expands according to its own laws. Consumable survival must constantly expand because it never ceases to include privation. If augmented survival never comes to a resolution, if there is no point where it might stop expanding, this is because it is itself stuck in the realm of privation. It may gild poverty, but it cannot transcend it. " me: "capitalism has provided the means for us to improve our lot. let us do away with it" 12:36 PM Alex: capitalism has given us means to survive, but not freedom ' me: "the poor are more satisfied with life than the middle class
because the poor compare themselves with the middle class, easily attainable, while the middle class compares themselves with the super-rich, difficult to attain" I do not see a problem with this arrangement. 12:37 PM what is freedom, then? Alex: not being forced to sell your labor in exchange for goods me: whence cometh goods if not from labor? 12:38 PM Alex: The point of the poor/middle/rich is that greater wealth does not equate greater satisfaction or greater happines me: capitalism is the name we have given to the system of private property and trade. it has been coopted by the left in some instances to mean big businesss interests Alex: so to say that capitalism has increased wealth, and therefore is good, misses the point 12:39 PM me: nearly everyone knows that more wealth does not equate to more happiness, that's why most people work shorter hours rather than longer Alex: debord talks about that too 12:40 PM me: I have a point to make about economics sometime I will wait for your answer first 12:41 PM Alex: to which one? (12:37:49 PM) Josh Smith: whence cometh goods if not from labor? from labor, yes me: no, I want to know what debord says about people choosing how much to work and how hard 12:42 PM Alex: this one takes a while to explain, i'll try to find some key quotes me: while you compile that I will make my case for econ economics is not the study of how to get rich, or how companies can be best run. 12:43 PM it is the study of scarcity and choice. we face limited resources on this planet limited food, air and water. limited manpower, limited minerals and lumber one of the main limits is location 12:44 PM virtually every population center is built around a water source or on a coast because for hundreds of years, overland transportation was so expensive that it couldn't really compete with aquatic travel so people shipped everything by "ship" 12:45 PM this scarcity of location is but one example of the need to perform cost-benefit analysis what do we gain by founding our city in the desert or on the plain far from a river or sea, and what will it cost? 12:46 PM there are all manner of questions of this nature that people are faced with at every turn scarcity and choice Alex: long quote, I read everything you wrote so far This perspective is obviously linked to the continual and rapid increase of leisure time resulting from the level of productive forces our era has attained. It is also linked to the recognition of the fact that a battle of leisure is taking place before our eyes, a battle whose importance in the class struggle has not been sufficiently analyzed. So far, the ruling class has succeeded in using the leisure the revolutionary proletariat wrested from it by developing a vast industrial sector of leisure activities that is an incomparable instrument for stupefying the proletariat with by-products of mystifying ideology and bourgeois tastes. The abundance of televised imbecilities is probably one of the reasons for the American working class’s inability to develop any political consciousness. By obtaining through collective pressure a slight rise in the price of its labor above the minimum necessary for the production of that labor, the proletariat not only extends its power of struggle, it also extends the terrain of the struggle. New forms of this struggle then arise alongside directly economic and political conflicts. It can be said that up till now revolutionary propaganda has been constantly overcome within these new forms of struggle in all the countries where advanced industrial development has introduced them. 12:47 PM me: I get the point, though by a heavy hand 12:48 PM the question who's answer is taken for granted by the author is "what would the masses stand to gain be armed revolution?" be=by* he assumes the answer is something like "freedom" or "awakening" I say the answer is "a new set of chains" 12:49 PM back to my discourse every day, individuals living in any form of society face a question: "how shall I spend my time" 12:50 PM it is hoped that they will spend their time doing what makes them most happy, or leads them closer to personal fulfillment. unfortunately, this comes at a cost. after all, each person has many wants and needs food, clothing and shelter are merely the beginning, but it is obvious that these alone require much work to obtain 12:51 PM "how shall these things be produced and distributed?" is a legitimate question worth asking. 12:52 PM economists recognize an important tenet which is almost certainly tautological, but nevertheless needs careful consideration for it's policy implications are vast and penetrating People respond to incentives. 12:53 PM when something is free, people over-consume or over-use it. When something is expensive, people forego consumption or economize their use. 12:54 PM Alex: only in a capitalist society me: what? 12:55 PM Alex: in a capitalist society, you have interest only in yourself. That is what is economically rational when something is free, people will only over-consume or overuse it if they are acting in their own material self-interest 12:56 PM In a more collectivist society, people consider the implications that their actions have on others. 12:57 PM me: what incentivizes people to do so? Alex: empathy 12:58 PM me: are you suggesting that living in a communist society will cause people to exhibit more empathy? Alex: yes me: there is another problem 12:59 PM the problem of what to produce and how much, and using which resources. 1:00 PM this problem has never seen a better solution than the system of prices to allocate resources. Mises and Hayek criticized the communists in the early twentieth century as having no satisfactory answer to the Economic Calculation Problem 1:01 PM since then not only has no satisfactory answer been found, but every communist group that was not religious in nature and thus viewed poverty as virtuous, has suffered from dramatic shortages of basic necessities and other goods 1:02 PM Alex: I wasn't aware there have been wide-scale communist groups that existed for an extended period of time 1:03 PM me: soviets? chinese? Alex: they were state capitalist means of production were moved from private individuals to the state 1:06 PM me: my mistake 1:07 PM lack of historical datapoints in no way detracts from the problem that firms and individuals will have no incentive to economize even slightly or switch to substitutes in the absence of prices. This goes beyond mere empathy 1:08 PM Alex: people like doing things well. If there's a more efficient way to do something, they will find it 1:19 PM me: some people like doing new things other people like sticking with what they know 1:20 PM Alex: In what way? 1:21 PM me: ever wonder why hospitals don't have more elaborate technology in terms of records? they still do most things on paper. because doctors are used to it and it works it's less efficient, but they don't want to change 1:22 PM there are countless examples of similar things throughout the history of industry Alex: and capitalist society forces them to be more effiicient? me: in fact, the chief job of capitalists is to risk their personal wealth trying new methods 1:23 PM if they succeed, they gain market share and the old way of doing things type businesses either adapt or go out of business most workers are not inclined to change production methods Alex: One of the reasons people are conservative is because they cannot make risks conservative in their methods 1:24 PM me: they can, but they don't want to face the consequences of loss 1:25 PM Alex: right, because the consequences are larger than they need to be me: for every successful innovator in the history of business, there are at least 2 and probably more like 10 guys you won't hear about because they lost their shirt that's a value judgment need is relative different people rank different things differently 1:26 PM I would rather sleep outside than drink milk, but this is a meaningless preference some people would rather risk homelessness at a chance to live comfortable 1:27 PM or above that Alex: the consequence of going out of business in a capitalist society is your liveliness me: right livelihood* Alex: in a communist society, the consequence is simply the fact that we've lost a business or, that the new method of doing things turned out to be less efficient 1:28 PM what risks are we talking about? me: realize that businesses exist to produce wealth losing one may have bigger consequences than you think, especially when the incentives to start a new one are not closely tied to the costs and benefits the business entails 1:30 PM Alex: what kind of risks? 1:38 PM me: when you inquire after risks are you wondering "what is lost if the risked venture fails" "what is gained if it succeeds" or "what sorts of ventures are risks taken on"? 1:39 PM Alex: what causes a venture to fail? 1:40 PM me: expenditures exceed revenues? 1:43 PM Alex: 1 sec, watching the daily show 1:51 PM Alex: expenditures and revenues would not exist in a communist society 1:52 PM me: scarcity and preference would 1:53 PM expenditures and revenue are a reflection of supply and demand Alex: I don't really see what kind of risks you're talking about can you give a specific example? 1:55 PM me: clipper ships steam engines building any particular road or bridge opening another pants factory 1:56 PM every business decision that exists is balancing risk vs reward Alex: there would be no risk to individuals only risks to communities, which would be very small 1:57 PM people would look to improve methods whenever possible me: why? Alex: empathy me: and why should the community, which stands to lose the most, listen? that is not an answer 1:58 PM Alex: all decisions would be a collective action. 1:59 PM why do people volunteer for, say, habitat for humanity? me: because they don't realize they would be more productively employed elsewhere in the economy? 2:00 PM Alex: Are you saying altruism doesn't play any role? me: it does that is why they do it that and a lack of understanding of economics Alex: er? 2:01 PM me: well prices allocate things in the absence of a superior system of allocation, prices are our most efficient means of allocation 2:02 PM profits are the chief price signal for allocation this is why non-profits are inherently inefficient 2:04 PM Alex: do you agree that it is degrading to put a monetary value on work? me: no I don't do you think it is? 2:05 PM Alex: yes consider a band that "sells out" me: go on Alex: they create music not to be artistic, but to be most popular 2:06 PM me: what's wrong with that? I don't want to make music other people won't like either I also don't make very much music is it degrading to put a monetary value on potatoes? Alex: let me try and explain this 2:07 PM me: let me instead money is not a chain, it is a useful yardstick it gives us a measure of things 2:08 PM if a farmer works all year and sells his produce for a certain amount of money, and the next year it sells for more, he can get more things Alex: I understand that me: if he instead traded his produce directly for things, he would not necessarily know that he had produced more total value, as it would be difficult to compare the things he got in each year side-by-side 2:09 PM Alex: the barter system is also degrading me: when we see that he worked all year and created some number of pounds of potatoes and corn and meat, approximately ex nihilo, this tells us the value of his labor 2:10 PM if he had instead produced a concerto, we could say that society gave up that much food to gain a concerto life on earth is defined by such tradeoffs Alex: i understand that me: economists call it opportunity cost 2:11 PM the advantage to putting prices on things is that people show their preferences by buying and selling thus if people pay him to hear the concerto, then we can compare the value of the concerto to the value of the food and see if society is better served by him farming or him composing 2:12 PM Alex: ok I'll start with something more basic you agree there are things of value that people do they shouldn't be paid for, correct? 2:13 PM me: I doubt it give me an example Alex: being a nice person complimenting someone giving someone a present, doing someone a favor 2:14 PM me: yes, but I can't penalize someone for not acting that way Alex: you would if you could? 2:15 PM me: no Alex: why not? me: most people act nice because they want other people to do the same that's not how resource allocation works Alex: that is absolutely not why people act nice 2:16 PM me: enlighten me because of christ or buddha or mohammed? Alex: no because they are born with empathy and altruism me: yeah Alex: both are legitimate emotions which influence their actions me: most 2-year olds exhibit plenty of both 2:17 PM "born with" really? you think that? Alex: yes, they are born with the capacity to be empathetic 2:18 PM me: they are also born with the capacity to voluntarily enslave themselves to serving as a whip-driven laborer most people won't do that capacity and tendency are two VERY different things 2:19 PM Alex: the former is intrinsic, the latter is a result of society and environment me: agreed there is a problem here 2:20 PM I can agree that society may be structured in such a way, not by design, but naturally, to praise self-sacrifice and virtue. THIS WILL NOT BEGET ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY economic efficiency is about being stingy. so that you do not WASTE precious resources 2:21 PM Alex: it isn't even about self-sacrifice 2:22 PM it's about altruism. People all have an interest in an economically efficient society, thus they will seek to create it me: but without prices, they won't know how to do it this is an information problem and you don't seem to understand that 2:23 PM Alex: there are ways to determine demand without prices me: yes, and they are less precise same with supply 2:24 PM Alex: I could notice that my store is out of bananas, and inform the supplier also, wants are determined by opportunity some people may just be happy with whatever is available me: very true 2:25 PM I refuse to hinge my belief on what is proper on whether people can be happy living at 14th century subsistence Alex: prices are not precise either me: true they are merely the best tool we have 2:26 PM studying a little price theory may help you to understand this Alex: price theory necessitates capitalism which makes them horrible measures in theory, price theory is great, but that ignores the other aspects of capitalism which influence an individual's perception of value 2:27 PM conspicuous consumption, for example 2:28 PM me: conspicuous consumption is a narrow region of the total market hardly a damning encapsulation of captialism Alex: the fact that advertisement influences desires as well as comparison to others 2:29 PM me: I submit that you underestimate the net depressionary effect on standard of living of abandoning a price system moreover, if you want a better life in a capitalist society, you have but to work harder. If you want the same in a communist society, it is not to be had at any price 2:30 PM Alex: I submit that you underestimate how much more efficient communism would be than capitalism me: wow Alex: consider all the jobs which exist simply to enforce capitalism grocery store clerks 2:31 PM security guards lawyers me: how would one enforce murder in ancom? 2:32 PM Alex: and how many jobs involve middlemen trying to decrease price, while not actually creating wealth. and how many jobs could simply be performed by small collective ation, cleaning for example me: i submit that under communism people would work a LOT less, and would by and large produce what they like or what they think others would like, not what people want to buy. 2:33 PM small collective action is not as efficient as specialization Alex: first off, motivation to commit murder would be significantly reduced me: doctors should not be sweeping. 2:34 PM Alex: I'm not suggesting they do I am suggesting people keep their floors cleaner in the first place me: for the record, you have said that in a communist system, people will be less likely to commit murder Alex: yes me: ok
after this I blocked him. | 
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
zaxec's journal
