By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What is "socialism"? - An attempt to clear up myths/misconceptions

VGPolyglot said:
DonFerrari said:

Easier way to put it.

Capitalism is of free trade. So even though a company manage all its people and how the production is made, people are free to enter or leave, buy or not, obey interal rules, negotiate wages and price, etc.
Socialism and government are about mandatory because mainly it goes against the individual wishes of individuals.

So, if it was voluntary why would we need laws and the courts for property rights, along with a police force and military to enforce them?

Trade is voluntary between involved stakeholders. Crimes usually have at least one stakeholder not agreeing, military protection the same.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Leadified said:
o_O.Q said:

 

"Maybe you don't live in a first world country but surprise, we do all of the things you listed here."

 

yeah i shouldn't have agreed with this entirely before that was my mistake, its just that these discussions have been so ridiculous that at some point it'd inevitable that i'd miss something anyway

using america as an example

in terms of healthcare have you missed the recent debates on that? (socialists have been advocating for socialised healthcare)

in terms of education i suppose you have a point there

in terms of putting everyone to work... that's not a policy america has (again socialists have been advocating for this)

gun control... again this not a policy (and again socialists have been advocating for this)

abortion... well yeah you have a point there

blaming all of the ills of society on the rich... well you know i'm sure you can see the pattern by now

 

"YOU equated social security with socialism when you listed Hitler's "socialist policies", somehow you didn't realise that most of those policies are also implemented in practically ever developed country today."

most countries have been going down a socialist path... and your point is? did i ever deny that? 


"Your definition of capitalism is a fantasy, it doesn't work like that in the real world, and it never did."

its ideal capitalism but yes it doesn't work like that because the social needs of the community exert some degree of control on how businesses operate and didn't say otherwise

as i said before what actually happens is that there is some compromise between both capitalism and socialism although many times thoughtout history things have tilted too far to the socialist end and resulted in situations like hitler's germany and soviet russia

 

"Are you in denial about Hitler privatizing the economy?"

how did hitler guarantee jobs for everyone in germany if the economy was privitised?

 

"Nice, which socialist literature did you read? Let us all know, I eagerly await to see."

i've studied the history of the jacobins and the illuminists all the way back to the knights templar... as i've said i'm sure i know more about the history of these ideas than you do but that's irrelevant

Yeah, we have social services because of the increasing demands of everyday life. But how you do it, whether it's private or government, doesn't really matter as long as it goes through the capitalist mode of production. Social services are provided by taxes, which come from people's wages from their jobs. Modern society is defined by capital accumulation and commodity production. Social democrats, a group of people who would agree with your definitions of socialism, like their social services by the government but also like the capitalist mode of production. But I don't, it's a weak definition.

The Nazis liked this system and effectively wanted to transformed the country into one giant state corporation, it's your boss with some benefits as long as you remain loyal to the Nazi regime. The Soviet system was based around workplace participation and democracy but eroded away from the increasing authoritarianism from the Soviet central leadership, but had eliminated the capitalist mode of production. You see the difference?

Authoritarianism is currently rising in the West as wealth becomes more concentrated in a few group of people and the government begins to serve their interests over everyone else. If the government acts in a way they don't like, they'll just move somewhere else and take everything with them, which is why governments are reluctant to act on radical policies.

I mean I was expecting at least some John Locke or Adam Smith or Rousseau, this wasn't unexpected by still somehow disappointing.

 

"The Nazis liked this system and effectively wanted to transformed the country into one giant state corporation"

so anyone in nazi germany could set up a business? you did just state that the nazi's liked the capitalist mode of production

 

and you haven't addressed my question, how did hitler guarantee jobs for everyone if the economy in  germany was privitised?

 

"The Soviet system was based around workplace participation and democracy but eroded away from the increasing authoritarianism from the Soviet central leadership"

well obviously, a ten year old would know right away that you cannot keep people at an equal level unless their environment is authoritarian

 

"had eliminated the capitalist mode of production. You see the difference?"

well germany wasn't capitalist so... 

and i'm sure that the millions of deaths, the famine, the complete fall off in terms of living standards etc etc etc was all worth it for those people once they were "equal"

because what really matters is equality not freedom to do whatever you want or being able to live comfortably

like what's happening in venezuela right now... at least the people there are equal right?

 

"I mean I was expecting at least some John Locke or Adam Smith or Rousseau, this wasn't unexpected by still somehow disappointing."

what wasn't unexpected?



sc94597 said:
o_O.Q said: 

1. sigh... i can't believe i have to expand on this but again due to our inherent differences some people in society are naturally going to be more privileged than others

2. this is not an aspect of social groupings that can be eliminated... a person with two legs for example is always going to be more privileged than someone who has no legs... this is obviously a very simplistic example but its far more profound and complex than this 

3. jesus christ... do you really believe that if we destroyed the state that the military sniper or professional boxer is going to have the same ability to induce violence as a fat person who spends all day drinking coke?

4. lol wtf? you do understand of course that rape and murder are against the law right?

that you could ever think that rapist and murderers would face less resistance outside of a system that outlaws both activities tells me that you aren't being rational

 

5. well its a good thing that i never stated that and you just pulled it out of your ass then

 

6. well i can since you haven't expanded upon how people will behave the same without an expressed consensus on what is appropriate

 

". Rather than assert that they're different, tell me why you think their difference creates a distinction. "

""Make an actual argument rather than asserting that they are different.""

7. i did i stated that you agree when employed to exchange your labour for money

how in the fuck are you comparing that to sex? are you talking about exchanging money for sex with prostitutes?

even if that is the case you stated that you should be able to extricate the products of your labour if you choose to quit your job... i mean the only way i can think of that being comparable is if you're talking about taking your secretions back or something

 

8. says the person actively disregarding that people are inherently different from each other across criteria such as ability to induce violence lol

 

9. its amazing to me how you give an example that contradicts your ending point and can't see it

you've never seen a woman who willingly chose to associate with an abusive partner? what do you make of that phenomenon?

 

10. again to repeat, you cannot be a moral relativist and then argue for an objective standard as you are attempting to do

the capitalist for example would argue that his way is right and who are you to tell him otherwise as a moral relativist?

furthermore who are you as a moral relativist to argue for the interests of the majority of people?

moral relativism means that all perspectives are valid and equal and no perspective can be valued over another... didn't you understand that?

 

11. lol we? you're jumping to collectivist jargon quite rapidly... now i've seen it all, an individualist arguing for what the collective needs to do

 

12. in the absence of the state you'd probably be rubbing two sticks together in a cave somewhere trying to get a fire started to save your toes from freezing off... lets be realistic here

 

13. this i agree with, you are correct that the dissolution of the state is an individualistic idea and i'd never deny that

 

14no its just that i don't have an abysmally simplistic understanding of how things work and also i support the existence of some type of state precisely for the opposite reasons ffs

that's the problem with ideologues, they tend to dismiss the complexity of how things work in order to push their ideas forwards

 

15. so you concede that your ideas are unrealistic?

 

16. look if you believe that gender roles are entirely socially constructed then that's fine i'll just agree to disagree with you, but i'm not wasting my time fishing for information to point out what should be obvious to anyone 

17. so why are women pushing for more maternal leave?

 

18. how can that be when feminist are still claiming there is a patriarchy actively suppressing women?

 

19. i did not say that social structures are insignificant i said that success is generally determined by individual qualities

 

20. nonsense, there are characteristics such as bravery, intelligence and willingness to engage with problems that almost universally predict success

21. so you truly believe that there are people that are common enough to be discussed that are successful only because they have money and provide no other service to society in return and i'm supposed to take you seriously?

 

22. as i said its not always the case but its quite obvious that it generally is the case because otherwise companies would (and this should be obvious) not function properly

if the person at the helm of the company is not doing their job properly what would you expect to happen to the company?

 

"Sure, but almost every distinguishing characteristics follows a similar distribution to intelligence."

23. based on what?

24. well yes... just because a system is not perfect does not mean that you turn it upside down

cars for example waste a lot of energy as pollution but we constantly iterate on the concept over time instead of simply saying fuck cars because of their problems

 

25. this is like saying that because cars aren't perfect we should blow them all up and go back to riding horses

 

" What does this have to do with the management of firms and capitalism? Einstein and Tesla weren't capitalists managing others to produce these ideas."

" Even if this is true though, you did not address my argument about the economic calculation problem of large, centralized, hierarchical firms. If these individual men are all we need, then why not just have them plan everything? Well, because there are limits to what individual men can do, regardless of how intelligent they are. "

26. if you can't see the connection, then i can't do much better tbh

 

27. well i suppose i could argue then that when an employer pays a worker that the worker gets the benefit of his/her wages and the employer gets the benefit of their labour

 

28. nonsense, as i said steve jobs started in his garage as many business owners do

furthermore your previous definition of capitalists as being people who exchange capital for labour would identify him as a capitalist anyway

 

29. you've refused to address the question for so long now that i've forgotten the context but i'm pretty sure that it has something to do with you stating that the only difference between steve jobs and his workers was that he has money

 

30. i have no problem with the term individualist anarchism... its you stating that its a subsection of socialism that makes me call it word salad... because you're pretty much combining two opposite concepts

31. like when people call themselves anarcho-communists for example 

32. oh and btw reading the works of other people does not by itself make you informed... its the use of your own individual discernment to reach a conclusion that makes you informed

33. becoming a puppet for the ideas of other people does nothing other than make you a puppet

 

34. this is an overly specific definition... food chains and webs in nature for example are hierarchies with the apex predator at the top 

and i could probably go on all day listing different types 

 

"everytime I say "hiearchy" implicit is the phrase "social hierarchy."  Considering that we were discussing socio-politics, I didn't think that was necessary, but I understand that hierarchy might be a new word for you.  "

35. that you think violence is the only thing that causes hierarchies to develop and that hierarchies rely on an authority to form is perhaps the funniest thing you've said and that's saying something

36. it shows where this ridiculously stupid idea that the heads of companies aren't generally competent, that all steve jobs has going for him is money etc etc etc is coming from... its not a healthy or realistic way to look at the world but whatever you do you

 

37. they don't, beyond training, there are people who struggle with the idea of killing others for example... again you have to leave variables like that out to push the idea forward

 

38. pushing the idea that the ability to perform violence can be equalised does in fact ignore individuality as you have done several times throughout this conversation

 

39. which resources?

 

40. aren't the privileges you are referring to protection of private property? which he benefits from also?

 

""If my choice is limited by unilateral violence it is less voluntary""

41. jesus fucking christ your choice is limited by violence WHENEVER YOU ARE IN THE PRESENCE OF OTHER PEOPLE REGARDLESS 

i mean what the fuck are you on dude? why bring up a fundamental fact of being a person in a group to argue against one type of grouping WHEN ITS PRESENT IN ALL GROUPINGS?

 

"Merely asserting it must make it true, right? "

42. i've had to deal with stating the obvious with you too much... its getting fucking tiring

 

"What state was formed by consensus? Can you provide me one example? Or are you using a particularly innovative meaning of consensus? For example, the United States of America was created by a very small minority of people who died centuries ago. The millions of other individuals who existed in that time did not consent"

43. they were representatives of their people... you understand what a representative is and does? apparently not

but again your only understanding of hierarchies is that they are predicated on violence... so how could you understand the concept of a representative? or a CEO? or a manager? or whatever

 

"Spooner explains this pretty clearly in his essay. "

44. well he gave his opinion... your job and mine is to use our brains to analyse what he said and come to our own conclusion rather than just parroting whatever his ideas are

 

45. for the obvious reason that for people to live together peacefully there must be some kind of consensus on what is appropriate and what is not appropriate

 

46. well obviously is it and it has a purpose

1. Being more capable at something is not the same thing as having more privilege. Privilege is a social phenomenon, granted by all other persons to a person or group. 

"a special right, advantage, or immunity granted only to a particular person or group of people."

2. Not necessarily. The disabled person might have capabilities which make up for their disability, or the society in which they exist might provide accommodations for disabled people which reduce the inequality. Dis-privilege due to having a disability is a social phenomena, even if general disadvantage doesn't have to be. Privilege =|= advantage. 

3. For starters a "military sniper" wouldn't exist without the state. Nobody's main profession would be to snipe. A boxer is pretty useless against a gun. For those people who are physically weak or incapable of defending themselves, they'd have the ability to form social bonds in order to have equal access to defense. So yes, the capacity to induce violence would generally be equal at a macro-level if it is not equal at the individual level. 

It is only through tax-rents that the state is able to gain a unilateral monopoly on the legitimization of violence which makes its effective power so disproportionate. 

4. That something is against the law doesn't mean it isn't protected. Drug cartels are against the law, but they only flourish because of the actions of the state. Rape in prisons is protected (or at least made possible) by the state. The legitimization of rape against spouses was only legitimated by the state punishing wives who took actions into their own hands, it's only been recently that Western countries have changed their laws to include rape against spouses. Even in western countries, rape against men is not recognized as rape unless they are penetrated by an object or penis. 

That something is illegal doesn't mean it isn't protected by the actions of the state in its enforcement (or lack thereof) with respect to other crimes. 

5. Then stop saying "no world is perfect" as a response to criticisms of the current system. What is the point of it if not to make such a facile argument? 

6. First I never said people would behave the same. Of course they won't. That doesn't mean people's actions can't be limited without statutes. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_normhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

7.  In both instances I make a promise to do something in the future with what is originally mine (my body or labor-product.) In the first instance I promise to have sex. In the employment scenario I promise to give up my labor-product for a wage. 

Suppose I have control over my labor-product and decide,"Hey, I don't want the wage they promised me, I want to keep that which I produced and sell it myself." I have reneged on my promise, just as what would had happened if I reneged on my promise to have sex.  

Both my labor-product and my body are mine to give and keep, and consequently a violation of either is the same violation -- that of my self-autonomy. 

Hence to stipulate that a laborer can't change the terms of their labor-contract at any time is to imply that a person partaking in sex can't change the terms of their sex-contract at any time. Both depend on consistent consent.

8. I have not denied people have different capabilities. You know that well, I have said it multiple times. It's intellectually dishonest to continually assert this. 

9. Where did you form that conclusion from? As I said, there is some degree to which people mistakenly surround themselves with people who are not in their interests. There is also a point where people surround themselves with people who are not in their interests because they have no other choice, even if they recognize that fact. The latter scenario is what can be diminished to a certain degree by giving people more autonomy and control over their lives. Most people don't join a gang thinking it is especially good for them. Instead they join a gang because it is the least bad option among many. 

10. I am not arguing moral relativism, I am arguing moral subjectivism. While they are similar to some extent, they are indeed different. Moral relativism holds no morality to be better than any other, while moral subjectivism does not necessarily have to hold all moralities to be of equal value, but it recognizes the fact that there is no objective morality, merely many different subjective moralities (as many as there are people.) I subjectively create and modify my own morality and impose my will to enforce it. The capitalist subjectively creates and modifies his morality and imposes his will. He is only better capable at imposing his will because the state privileges him with monopoly access to various social functions/resources: banking/money, the movement of labor/tariffs, access to land/natural resources, and the patent system to name just a few. By eliminating these state-functions I can further my own interests (my morality) much more easily. I recognize the capitalist has his own morality to justify his position, but I reject it as binding me, because my morality (which I define in terms of my interests) is better for me. 

11. When I used "we" I was using it to refer to people who see exploitation as wrong and whom I would associate with. It is just the same as your collective use of "their." So if I am a collectivist for using a collective pronoun, so are you for using a collective pronoun. That an individualist properly uses the pronoun does not make him/her a collectivist. That is such a silly thought. I can recognize that I share qualities with other people without recognizing that I share all qualities with other people. Just as one might recognize that most men have penises, and would say "we" when referring to men and their penises when discussing the probability of penile cancer doesn't make one a collectivist (at least not in a political sense of the word.) It just means they are making a generalization out of expediency. 

12. Right, because the nation-state has existed for how long? There was civilization before nation-states. There will be civilization after nation-states. 

13. Cool. 

14. Please expand on your "understanding" then. So far you haven't substantiated any of your assertions with evidence. If you're interested in me providing evidence of certain assertions I make, I'd happily provide them. 

15. Only in so much as any ideal is unrealistic. That doesn't make ideals useless though. You wouldn't say geometry has no real-world application because a perfect circle is "unrealistic"/can never exist. 

16. I never said they were "entirely" socially-constructed. This has been a trend of yours. Creating false-dichotomies and then assuming that because I reject the absolute statements you make that I believe the opposite absolute. There are degrees to which gender norms are biologically determinable, but since individual humans are complex animals biology manifests differently based on the environmental (including social) context. 

17. That has much more to do with their autonomy (or lack thereof) as a worker than their autonomy as a pregnant woman (I disagree with feminists here.) One could advocate having leave for a variety of reasons (woman or not.) In fact, in many countries men ask for parental leave after a baby is born. 

18. The feminists who say this are wrong, in my opinion. Heck I don't necessarily agree with most feminists about the patriarchy in today's world. Feminists aren't a hive-mind anyway. 

19. Then we don't disagree other than the proportions in which these different factors work in our current society. I'd also like to add that what constitutes success is defined by individuals. 

20. You need to define "intelligence", "bravery", etc and "success" in universal terms for this to be true. Which is an anti-individualist position. I can guarantee you that a Amazonian tribe has better chances of surviving in the Amazon than you do, even if you score higher on an IQ test. Another example is if we were to define success in terms of evolutionary success. There is no reason to believe that in certain ecological niches that these qualities would perpetuate your gene-pool. So I contest the idea that there is a universal metric of success and universal qualities which achieve it. 

21. In the specific setting of the workplace, I believe the capitalist only provides the capital. That is his role. Without the capital nobody would care to associate with him. Tell me, what else does the capitalist provide in this scenario? The capitalist isn't typically the person who sells the goods or services, isn't the person who makes them, isn't the person directly making management decisions, etc. He/she/they are the person(s) providing the money with the aim to gain profits through the work, innovation, and management of others. In other circumstances beyond the workplace? Sure, maybe the capitalist provides something other than capital.

By the way, capital =|= [money], capital = [money, fixed capital, natural resources, etc]

22. Why not? One doesn't need to be the best to adequately manage a firm.This isn't a binary scale between "best = success" and "anything less = failure." Plus plenty of companies last so long because they get special subsidies and privileges, hence the role of the state and its bailouts. Your statement might be true if all markets were perfectly competitive though, but then there would no longer be a super-normal profit-incentive (in a perfectly competitive market; price = marginal cost in the long run) and therefore capitalists would have less dominance (see: market-share of farming cooperatives as an example.) In other words, capitalism would dissolve into Tuckerite market-socialism. 

23. The shape of a normal distribution. 

24. In some circumstances. There are plenty of instances where starting anew is beneficial. Reform can work, but only to an extent. In order to have capitalist liberal democracies we had to destroy (or modify beyond recognition) the feudalism and absolutist institutions which preceded them, through concepts like: the separation of church and state, the elimination of any monarchy power, etc. The same holds true when talking about socialism with respect to liberal democracy. Fundamental characteristics of liberal society like: property, the state, humanism, etc need to be disentangled and modified, if not abolished outright, just as we abolished (in the United States) state churches in our liberal revolution/evolution. 

25. No, it's more like saying because cars aren't perfect we should develop a new, better mechanism of transportation that doesn't have the bad features of cars. Your analogy would work if I said, "We should abandon liberal democracy and go back to feudalism." I am saying, "we should better develop the fundamental enlightenment ideas of liberal democracy, abandon those which aren't that good, and live in a better system of social organization." 

26. lol :D, that is a concession of not having a point without actually admitting it, if I ever saw one. 

27. This would be a fair exchange if all of the coercion around them didn't lead to this dependency of the worker on the capitalist. If the woman (or man) were dependent on the man (or woman) because of coercion around them and they could have been in a better position without said coercion, then yes that would be exploitative. 

28. Sure he started in his garage, and without the capital he would've remained in his garage. He used his social connections (which not all people have) to persuade capitalists to give him capital in order to expand beyond his garage. The future of his business depended on the interests of the capitalist, which might (or might not) be contrary to his own in certain circumstances. 

You simplified my previous definition in order to build a straw man, which again is a typical mode of intellectual dishonesty which you took advantage of in our conversations. This is the definition of capitalist that I provided. 

 Capitalist = = "person who uses the privilege of capital to exploit the labor of others."

Merely exchanging one's capital for labor does not make a capitalist. If I don't make a profit off the exchange, then there is no exploitation. 

29. Nope, I never mentioned Steve Jobs. I spoke of capitalists. You were the one who brought up Steve Jobs. I told you that when Steve Jobs acted as an entrepreneur he was not acting as a capitalist but a worker, working on the behalf of capitalists. 

Just as I can be a producer and consumer in different contexts, so can I be a worker and a capitalist in different contexts. This is true of Steve Jobs too. He started as a worker, and produced value as a worker. When he acted as a capitalist the only thing he provided was capital, which is crucial to value-production, sure, but is in the hands of as few as possible mostly because of societal norms and state laws which bound them. 

30. Except I am not. One can believe that the individual is the fundamental moral agent and the basis from which all social institutions gain their legitimacy, while still believing that the individual worker should control his/her/their labor-product (or an equivalent.) The prior is individualism, the latter is socialism. This was (and is) the consistent and common view of all individualist anarchists. They are individualists because they believe in the primacy of the individual and they are socialists because they wish to solve what they denote as "the labor problem." 

31. Certainly you would agree that a society can be without hierarchy and natural resources can be held in common, right? If not, then what do you say of prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies? They did not have social hierarchies, and most things were held in common. Sure, they are not civilizations, but anarcho-communism is intelligible in at least that very context of primitive society, regardless of whether or not it can exist in a modern industrial society. I am personally not an anarcho-communist, and I think it would be unstable (revert into small-state communism or mutualism), but I can understand the concept fine without considering it to be an oxymoron. 

32. Being knowledgeable about the discourse that already exists, rather than reinventing the wheel is actually very important when discussing these topics. It is hubris to think otherwise. Sure you can add innovations and think critically about these works, but understanding what other people have said and believe rather than guessing or assuming (which is something you've done often in our conversations) is important. Just reading a label, and saying "yes that is an oxymoron" based on your internal prejudices of what is meant is very unintelligent. 

33. Citing other people's ideas rather than writing my own book on an internet forum does not make me a puppet. In fact, even if I were writing a book, I'd be doing a lot of citations for the very reason of not reinventing the wheel and being able to get to the point of my new (if any) additions to the discussion. This is a common thing to do whether we are talking about physics, philosophy, mathematics, etc. 

34. This is the definition that is relevant to our discussion. I see no reason why we'd use a different definition when speaking about social systems. 

35. Name a social hierarchy without violence then. Disproof by counter-example is one of the easiest proofs to make. 

36. When you simplify my arguments, sure it sounds silly and dumb. But that is the point of a strawman isn't it? 

37. This only poses a problem if you ignore the ability of people to associate into groups independent of being forced to. A pacifist can have others fight on his or her behalf (even if he doesn't wish them to.) There are also herd effects of reducing violence that benefit the pacifist independent of whether or not he personally fights. 

38. I never said it can be absolutely equalized at the local level, but it can be relatively equalized because it has been equalized in the past. For example, in the 10th century, securing the means to induce violence was dependent on 1. wealth and 2. physical capability. That is how knights had such disproportionate power, and it was the basis of the feudal system. It is no coincidence that once weapons became cheap, and more people were able to use them that feudalism was disposed of. 

It's why generally pro-monarchy philosophers like Thomas Hobbes believed that in the state of nature people had a generally equal capacity to induce violence. He knew this wasn't absolutely true, but it was true enough for his purposes of deriving what he believed to be a systematic political philosophy. 

Hobbes wished to solve this "problem" by declaring a single sovereign to which people were in awe of. The liberal philosophers which succeeded him switched this sovereign from being an individual person to being the collection of all persons in a society. The anarchist wishes for the sovereign to be the individual and doesn't see the equal capacity to do violence as a problem, because it internalizes the costs of violence to the individual. 

39. All natural resources, the creation of money, the movement of labor, and the patent system. 

40. Private property is more than a single right. Some of the rights he might benefit from, others he might not. Furthermore, the degree to which he benefits might be exceeded by the degree to which the capitalist gains a position of authority which externalizes the costs on to him, and therefore even if he benefits locally (assuming he has property) the capitalist uses his own position of benefiting more (by having more private property) to more easily impose his will in contractual agreements. 

Furthermore, it's not even true that everyone benefits from the appropriation of private property even locally. It was not true when the Native Americans' common property was stolen by colonists. It wasn't true when the common peasant lost their access to the common fields because their lord or a capitalist decided to enclose the property which they used to sustain themselves. It is not true today, when a renter is evicted by an absentee landlord or a laborer loses any bargaining power over his wages.

But private property isn't the only privilege the state grants anyway. It grants subsidies and regulations which help rent-seekers through regulatory capture. 

41. Yes, but who do I have a better chance of bolstering my position against? My neighbor Harry or the fucking federal government and its police/military? In which circumstance can I get more of my interests reconciled in any dispute resolution? Hence, the crucial adjective "unilateral" before the noun "violence." 

The reason why I bring it up is because in one group I have a greater say and more autonomy than I have in the other group. 

42. "Stating the obvious" is merely an excuse for being intellectually lazy and holding your sacred positions religiously. 

43. They were self-appointed representatives of the people, and so the religiously held myth goes. I have strong doubts that thirty people represented a population of almost four million. 

And they certainly didn't represent anybody born after the fact. Furthermore, where was the representation for women, black people, Native Americans, etc? Were the slave-holding southerners who counted black people among their population representing their slaves? And you want to lecture me about what is collectivism and individualism while holding representative democracy as legitimate. 

44. He gave some facts, and some opinions. You can dispute the truth-values of the facts, and discuss the viability of his opinions yes. 

45. Sure, but the state doesn't necessarily represent a consensus. It represents a majority at best, and more often than not a very small minority. Disputes over what is or is not appropriate still exist, and different laws in local contexts still exist. Anarchism is merely taking the ideas of (con)federalism, pluralism, individualism, and self-government seriously, rather than using them as religious reasons to support one particular state over another. 

46. Oh I don't deny it has a purpose. I deny its purpose is what you say it is. The state is there to extract tax-rents so that it can subsidize the costs of those whom control it. In so much as it does anything else, it is for this ultimate purpose. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

"Being more capable at something is not the same thing as having more privilege. Privilege is a social phenomenon, granted by all other persons to a person or group. "

so... you don't acknowledge that people tend to give more authority to people that are more capable in various fields? for example a carpenter obviously has more skill in building structures than a programmer right?

so which person do you wager gets more work in the construction industry?

this is a bad example but its that i struggling to even comprehend why i'd have to clarify how the differences between people lead to privilege...

 

"The disabled person might have capabilities which make up for their disability, or the society in which they exist might provide accommodations for disabled people which reduce the inequality."

ok lets take my example with the person with no legs, what capabilities would make up for that? do they sprout wings or some shit?

and yes our society currently accommodates for disabled people, not perfectly of course but society does

 

" Dis-privilege due to having a disability is a social phenomena"

lol i don't even know what to say to that

 

"Privilege =|= advantage. "

what? privileges are not advantages? what?

 

"For starters a "military sniper" wouldn't exist without the state. Nobody's main profession would be to snipe."

i thought you were an individualist? 

 

"For those people who are physically weak or incapable of defending themselves, they'd have the ability to form social bonds in order to have equal access to defense."

in modern society we call this the police

 

". So yes, the capacity to induce violence would generally be equal at a macro-level if it is not equal at the individual level. "

which assumes unrealistically that different groupings of people would have the same capacity for violence

i suppose all of the wars throughout history aren't enough of a demonstration that this idea is wrong

 

"It is only through tax-rents that the state is able to gain a unilateral monopoly on the legitimization of violence which makes its effective power so disproportionate. "

well no its more that most people support the government or at least believe that if its corrupted presently that it can be fixed eventually... 

 

"That something is against the law doesn't mean it isn't protected. Drug cartels are against the law, but they only flourish because of the actions of the state."

drug cartels are not what i referred to which was specifically murder and rape

can you logically explain how murder and rape within a country that has outlawed them are protected by the government?

 

"The legitimization of rape against spouses was only legitimated by the state punishing wives who took actions into their own hands, it's only been recently that Western countries have changed their laws to include rape against spouses."

well that's the past i figured we were actually talking about now, the present, linear time

 

" Even in western countries, rape against men is not recognized as rape unless they are penetrated by an object or penis. "

yes due to the definitions of rape that are used, can you explain logically how rape as it is described in the law is protected by the government?''

 

"That doesn't mean people's actions can't be limited without statutes. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_normhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism"

the point i'm making is that the people of the group have to agree on certain social rules in order to respond to an offender who violates them... which is pretty much the same thing

 

" In both instances I make a promise to do something in the future with what is originally mine (my body or labor-product.) In the first instance I promise to have sex."

huh? because you have sex with someone presently that automatically means you have promised to have sex with them in the future?

let me be generous and assume you are referring to the actually act itself... uh no starting to have sex with someone does not in anyway mean that there's a promise to continue...

 

"Suppose I have control over my labor-product and decide,"Hey, I don't want the wage they promised me, I want to keep that which I produced and sell it myself.""

again... when you work a job you consent to an agreement that your labour will be exchanged for money.... i don't see what's so hard to understand about that

 

"consequently a violation of either is the same violation -- that of my self-autonomy. "

you express autonomy when you consent to do the job on the employers terms... when you then turn around and claim that you're too stupid to understand those terms then that's on you not the employer

 

"Both my labor-product and my body are mine to give and keep"

no one is stopping you from establishing your own business but again as i said you agree to certain terms on a job using your autonomy to make that decision

 

"Hence to stipulate that a laborer can't change the terms of their labor-contract at any time "

of course they can but obviously it wouldn't be retroactive because then you'd be a double talking idiot for agreeing to certain terms initially

 

"is to imply that a person partaking in sex can't change the terms of their sex-contract at any time. "

ok lets do a proper comparison here - the man has inseminated the woman and he now feels that he wants his ejaculate back in his testicles... how is that going to work?

 

"I have not denied people have different capabilities."

you have on many occasions and i expect that you'll continue to do so because your ideology depends on this idea

 

"As I said, there is some degree to which people mistakenly surround themselves with people who are not in their interests. There is also a point where people surround themselves with people who are not in their interests because they have no other choice, even if they recognize that fact. "

and thirdly there are also people who WILLFULLY CHOOSE TO ASSOCIATE WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN THEIR INTERESTS... good i corrected that for you

 

"Most people don't join a gang thinking it is especially good for them. Instead they join a gang because it is the least bad option among many. "

and some do it because they want to feel like a big man

 

"The capitalist subjectively creates and modifies his morality and imposes his will. He is only better capable at imposing his will because the state privileges him with monopoly access to various social functions/resources: banking/money, the movement of labor/tariffs, access to land/natural resources, and the patent system to name just a few. "

yeah the state just gives all business owners their shit, they never have to work and strive towards anything 

and again with this bullshit about employers imposing their will on people who CONSENT

 

"When I used "we" I was using it to refer to people who see exploitation as wrong and whom I would associate with. "

how collectivist of you

 

"It is just the same as your collective use of "their." So if I am a collectivist for using a collective pronoun, so are you for using a collective pronoun. That an individualist properly uses the pronoun does not make him/her a collectivist."

it was not the pronoun but the context of the pronoun which you reiterated above

 

" I can recognize that I share qualities with other people without recognizing that I share all qualities with other people. Just as one might recognize that most men have penises, and would say "we" when referring to men and their penises when discussing the probability of penile cancer doesn't make one a collectivist"

men are a collective yes, thanks for establishing that for me

 

"I never said they were "entirely" socially-constructed."

and i didn't say you did i said "if"

 

" That has much more to do with their autonomy (or lack thereof) as a worker than their autonomy as a pregnant woman"

how is their autonomy as a worker affected?

 

" The feminists who say this are wrong, in my opinion."

that's strange, their "patriarchy" is the same boogie man as your government/capitalism

 

"Feminists aren't a hive-mind anyway. "

what makes a person a feminist?

 

" I'd also like to add that what constitutes success is defined by individuals. "

nonsense, people always define success by looking at what other people are doing and that's a fact

and furthermore i think that its this phenomenon that is pushing so many people towards this equality nonsense because they look at the people who are successful and resent them and just wish to pull them down while claiming that its really about helping the poor, that's my opinion

 

"You need to define "intelligence", "bravery", etc and "success" in universal terms for this to be true."

success does not need to be defined universally in that example since its relative to the environment

with regards to the traits if i really need to define what "bravery" for example is then this  discussion really has plummeted off the deep end

 

" I can guarantee you that a Amazonian tribe has better chances of surviving in the Amazon than you do"

yes, most likely, and that is because they went out into their environment and gained an understanding of it which requires firstly the bravery to move into unknown territory, then the willingness to interact with the various problems that arise such as venomous snakes or whatever and finally the intelligence to be able to come up with effective strategies

these traits are used at all times by all people when it comes to becoming successful in their environment and the opposite traits  -cowardice, withdrawal, stupidity do not ever lead to success  and that's a fact

ultimately the point is that these vary across people which causes differences in success rates between people and that is innate, its not something you can stop unless you control everyone

 

"Why not?"

lol i'm done

 

". The shape of a normal distribution. "

so the shape of a normal distribution proves that all traits are distributed the same way across all people?

 

"Fundamental characteristics of liberal society like: property, the state, humanism, etc need to be disentangled and modified"

you want to modify humanism in what way?

 

" This would be a fair exchange if all of the coercion around them didn't lead to this dependency of the worker on the capitalist. If the woman (or man) were dependent on the man (or woman) because of coercion around them and they could have been in a better position without said coercion, then yes that would be exploitative. "

lol this is a response to whether a man moving something for a woman is exploitative or not? are you trolling right now?

 

"Sure he started in his garage, and without the capital he would've remained in his garage."

no... he sold products, without investors his growth would've been slower but the point is that he had started a successful business

 

"He used his social connections (which not all people have)"

i'm proud, you're finally beginning to understand apparently

 

"The future of his business depended on the interests of the capitalist"

well this is just an assertion that you can't back

 

"Merely exchanging one's capital for labor does not make a capitalist. If I don't make a profit off the exchange, then there is no exploitation. "

and steve jobs did so according to you steve jobs was a capitalist from the start.... i'm glad that we were able to clear that up

 

"He started as a worker, and produced value as a worker. When he acted as a capitalist the only thing he provided was capital, which is crucial to value-production"

what incoherent nonsense

 

"while still believing that the individual worker should control his/her/their labor-product"

this is not socialism, you are saying that if i take a pile of wood and make a dog house out of it, then that is socialism 

 

"Certainly you would agree that a society can be without hierarchy and natural resources can be held in common, right?"

only in a society that suppresses individuality... but obviously such a society could never be anarchist

 

"then what do you say of prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies? "


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways

 

The hunter-gatherer version of equality meant that each person was equally entitled to food, regardless of his or her ability to find or capture it; so food was shared. It meant that nobody had more wealth than anyone else; so all material goods were shared.

 

so the stronger people were pretty much forced to support the weaker people... doesn't sound like anarchy to me

 

"The writings of anthropologists make it clear that hunter-gatherers were not passivelyegalitarian; they were actively so. Indeed, in the words of anthropologist Richard Lee, they were fiercely egalitarian.[2] They would not tolerate anyone's boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone--especially if some young man--attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown."

 

so pretty much individuality was discouraged, and passivity was forced on men

 

you couldn't have brought up a better example to bolster my point that its nonsense

 

"but anarcho-communism is intelligible in at least that very context of primitive society"

 

how you can say this while acknowledging that they relied on coercion to force sharing among other things while equating this with anarchy is baffling

 

"I am personally not an anarcho-communist"

 

what you've been saying sounds pretty much the same to me

 

". Just reading a label, and saying "yes that is an oxymoron" based on your internal prejudices of what is meant is very unintelligent. "

well its a good thing that i backed what i said up with your own example

 

" This is the definition that is relevant to our discussion. I see no reason why we'd use a different definition when speaking about socialsystems. "

look the idea that you are pushing that an authority is needed for hierarchies to form is stupid, just going out into the world and observing how people behave instantly destroys that idea

on a construction site for example workers naturally tend to follow the lead of the most skilled person and this applies to any situation where people attempt to perform some type of task

 

"Name a social hierarchy without violence then"

as i mentioned above people sort themselves into hierarchies based on skill as one example and this does not require an authority to tell them to do so

violence of course forms hierarchies under certain circumstances obviously but to claim that this is how all hierarchies form shows such a lack of understanding of people that its absolutely amazing to me

 

"This only poses a problem if you ignore the ability of people to associate into groups independent of being forced to. A pacifist can have others fight on his or her behalf (even if he doesn't wish them to.)"

suppose they refuse to fight for him? well he's fucked right?

again that's why we have a police force and laws


"Yes, but who do I have a better chance of bolstering my position against? My neighbor Harry"

how big is harry and how big are you?

 

"Furthermore, where was the representation for women, black people, Native Americans, etc? Were the slave-holding southerners who counted black people among their population representing their slaves?"

they declared that all men are equal and the civil war addressed the slavery problem and feminism addressed the problem for women

 

"And you want to lecture me about what is collectivism and individualism while holding representative democracy as legitimate. "

please tell me you are not american while claiming that america was founded as a democracy

 

" Sure, but the state doesn't necessarily represent a consensus."

no system does... again the world is not perfect, you will never be able to construct a system that appeals to every single person and that should be obvious... therefore your concern should be focused on certain fundamental rights everyone should have access to which is what happened



o_O.Q said:
sc94597 said:

1. Being more capable at something is not the same thing as having more privilege. Privilege is a social phenomenon, granted by all other persons to a person or group. 

"a special right, advantage, or immunity granted only to a particular person or group of people."

2. Not necessarily. The disabled person might have capabilities which make up for their disability, or the society in which they exist might provide accommodations for disabled people which reduce the inequality. Dis-privilege due to having a disability is a social phenomena, even if general disadvantage doesn't have to be. Privilege =|= advantage. 

3. For starters a "military sniper" wouldn't exist without the state. Nobody's main profession would be to snipe. A boxer is pretty useless against a gun. For those people who are physically weak or incapable of defending themselves, they'd have the ability to form social bonds in order to have equal access to defense. So yes, the capacity to induce violence would generally be equal at a macro-level if it is not equal at the individual level. 

It is only through tax-rents that the state is able to gain a unilateral monopoly on the legitimization of violence which makes its effective power so disproportionate. 

4. That something is against the law doesn't mean it isn't protected. Drug cartels are against the law, but they only flourish because of the actions of the state. Rape in prisons is protected (or at least made possible) by the state. The legitimization of rape against spouses was only legitimated by the state punishing wives who took actions into their own hands, it's only been recently that Western countries have changed their laws to include rape against spouses. Even in western countries, rape against men is not recognized as rape unless they are penetrated by an object or penis. 

That something is illegal doesn't mean it isn't protected by the actions of the state in its enforcement (or lack thereof) with respect to other crimes. 

5. Then stop saying "no world is perfect" as a response to criticisms of the current system. What is the point of it if not to make such a facile argument? 

6. First I never said people would behave the same. Of course they won't. That doesn't mean people's actions can't be limited without statutes. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_normhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

7.  In both instances I make a promise to do something in the future with what is originally mine (my body or labor-product.) In the first instance I promise to have sex. In the employment scenario I promise to give up my labor-product for a wage. 

Suppose I have control over my labor-product and decide,"Hey, I don't want the wage they promised me, I want to keep that which I produced and sell it myself." I have reneged on my promise, just as what would had happened if I reneged on my promise to have sex.  

Both my labor-product and my body are mine to give and keep, and consequently a violation of either is the same violation -- that of my self-autonomy. 

Hence to stipulate that a laborer can't change the terms of their labor-contract at any time is to imply that a person partaking in sex can't change the terms of their sex-contract at any time. Both depend on consistent consent.

8. I have not denied people have different capabilities. You know that well, I have said it multiple times. It's intellectually dishonest to continually assert this. 

9. Where did you form that conclusion from? As I said, there is some degree to which people mistakenly surround themselves with people who are not in their interests. There is also a point where people surround themselves with people who are not in their interests because they have no other choice, even if they recognize that fact. The latter scenario is what can be diminished to a certain degree by giving people more autonomy and control over their lives. Most people don't join a gang thinking it is especially good for them. Instead they join a gang because it is the least bad option among many. 

10. I am not arguing moral relativism, I am arguing moral subjectivism. While they are similar to some extent, they are indeed different. Moral relativism holds no morality to be better than any other, while moral subjectivism does not necessarily have to hold all moralities to be of equal value, but it recognizes the fact that there is no objective morality, merely many different subjective moralities (as many as there are people.) I subjectively create and modify my own morality and impose my will to enforce it. The capitalist subjectively creates and modifies his morality and imposes his will. He is only better capable at imposing his will because the state privileges him with monopoly access to various social functions/resources: banking/money, the movement of labor/tariffs, access to land/natural resources, and the patent system to name just a few. By eliminating these state-functions I can further my own interests (my morality) much more easily. I recognize the capitalist has his own morality to justify his position, but I reject it as binding me, because my morality (which I define in terms of my interests) is better for me. 

11. When I used "we" I was using it to refer to people who see exploitation as wrong and whom I would associate with. It is just the same as your collective use of "their." So if I am a collectivist for using a collective pronoun, so are you for using a collective pronoun. That an individualist properly uses the pronoun does not make him/her a collectivist. That is such a silly thought. I can recognize that I share qualities with other people without recognizing that I share all qualities with other people. Just as one might recognize that most men have penises, and would say "we" when referring to men and their penises when discussing the probability of penile cancer doesn't make one a collectivist (at least not in a political sense of the word.) It just means they are making a generalization out of expediency. 

12. Right, because the nation-state has existed for how long? There was civilization before nation-states. There will be civilization after nation-states. 

13. Cool. 

14. Please expand on your "understanding" then. So far you haven't substantiated any of your assertions with evidence. If you're interested in me providing evidence of certain assertions I make, I'd happily provide them. 

15. Only in so much as any ideal is unrealistic. That doesn't make ideals useless though. You wouldn't say geometry has no real-world application because a perfect circle is "unrealistic"/can never exist. 

16. I never said they were "entirely" socially-constructed. This has been a trend of yours. Creating false-dichotomies and then assuming that because I reject the absolute statements you make that I believe the opposite absolute. There are degrees to which gender norms are biologically determinable, but since individual humans are complex animals biology manifests differently based on the environmental (including social) context. 

17. That has much more to do with their autonomy (or lack thereof) as a worker than their autonomy as a pregnant woman (I disagree with feminists here.) One could advocate having leave for a variety of reasons (woman or not.) In fact, in many countries men ask for parental leave after a baby is born. 

18. The feminists who say this are wrong, in my opinion. Heck I don't necessarily agree with most feminists about the patriarchy in today's world. Feminists aren't a hive-mind anyway. 

19. Then we don't disagree other than the proportions in which these different factors work in our current society. I'd also like to add that what constitutes success is defined by individuals. 

20. You need to define "intelligence", "bravery", etc and "success" in universal terms for this to be true. Which is an anti-individualist position. I can guarantee you that a Amazonian tribe has better chances of surviving in the Amazon than you do, even if you score higher on an IQ test. Another example is if we were to define success in terms of evolutionary success. There is no reason to believe that in certain ecological niches that these qualities would perpetuate your gene-pool. So I contest the idea that there is a universal metric of success and universal qualities which achieve it. 

21. In the specific setting of the workplace, I believe the capitalist only provides the capital. That is his role. Without the capital nobody would care to associate with him. Tell me, what else does the capitalist provide in this scenario? The capitalist isn't typically the person who sells the goods or services, isn't the person who makes them, isn't the person directly making management decisions, etc. He/she/they are the person(s) providing the money with the aim to gain profits through the work, innovation, and management of others. In other circumstances beyond the workplace? Sure, maybe the capitalist provides something other than capital.

By the way, capital =|= [money], capital = [money, fixed capital, natural resources, etc]

22. Why not? One doesn't need to be the best to adequately manage a firm.This isn't a binary scale between "best = success" and "anything less = failure." Plus plenty of companies last so long because they get special subsidies and privileges, hence the role of the state and its bailouts. Your statement might be true if all markets were perfectly competitive though, but then there would no longer be a super-normal profit-incentive (in a perfectly competitive market; price = marginal cost in the long run) and therefore capitalists would have less dominance (see: market-share of farming cooperatives as an example.) In other words, capitalism would dissolve into Tuckerite market-socialism. 

23. The shape of a normal distribution. 

24. In some circumstances. There are plenty of instances where starting anew is beneficial. Reform can work, but only to an extent. In order to have capitalist liberal democracies we had to destroy (or modify beyond recognition) the feudalism and absolutist institutions which preceded them, through concepts like: the separation of church and state, the elimination of any monarchy power, etc. The same holds true when talking about socialism with respect to liberal democracy. Fundamental characteristics of liberal society like: property, the state, humanism, etc need to be disentangled and modified, if not abolished outright, just as we abolished (in the United States) state churches in our liberal revolution/evolution. 

25. No, it's more like saying because cars aren't perfect we should develop a new, better mechanism of transportation that doesn't have the bad features of cars. Your analogy would work if I said, "We should abandon liberal democracy and go back to feudalism." I am saying, "we should better develop the fundamental enlightenment ideas of liberal democracy, abandon those which aren't that good, and live in a better system of social organization." 

26. lol :D, that is a concession of not having a point without actually admitting it, if I ever saw one. 

27. This would be a fair exchange if all of the coercion around them didn't lead to this dependency of the worker on the capitalist. If the woman (or man) were dependent on the man (or woman) because of coercion around them and they could have been in a better position without said coercion, then yes that would be exploitative. 

28. Sure he started in his garage, and without the capital he would've remained in his garage. He used his social connections (which not all people have) to persuade capitalists to give him capital in order to expand beyond his garage. The future of his business depended on the interests of the capitalist, which might (or might not) be contrary to his own in certain circumstances. 

You simplified my previous definition in order to build a straw man, which again is a typical mode of intellectual dishonesty which you took advantage of in our conversations. This is the definition of capitalist that I provided. 

 Capitalist = = "person who uses the privilege of capital to exploit the labor of others."

Merely exchanging one's capital for labor does not make a capitalist. If I don't make a profit off the exchange, then there is no exploitation. 

29. Nope, I never mentioned Steve Jobs. I spoke of capitalists. You were the one who brought up Steve Jobs. I told you that when Steve Jobs acted as an entrepreneur he was not acting as a capitalist but a worker, working on the behalf of capitalists. 

Just as I can be a producer and consumer in different contexts, so can I be a worker and a capitalist in different contexts. This is true of Steve Jobs too. He started as a worker, and produced value as a worker. When he acted as a capitalist the only thing he provided was capital, which is crucial to value-production, sure, but is in the hands of as few as possible mostly because of societal norms and state laws which bound them. 

30. Except I am not. One can believe that the individual is the fundamental moral agent and the basis from which all social institutions gain their legitimacy, while still believing that the individual worker should control his/her/their labor-product (or an equivalent.) The prior is individualism, the latter is socialism. This was (and is) the consistent and common view of all individualist anarchists. They are individualists because they believe in the primacy of the individual and they are socialists because they wish to solve what they denote as "the labor problem." 

31. Certainly you would agree that a society can be without hierarchy and natural resources can be held in common, right? If not, then what do you say of prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies? They did not have social hierarchies, and most things were held in common. Sure, they are not civilizations, but anarcho-communism is intelligible in at least that very context of primitive society, regardless of whether or not it can exist in a modern industrial society. I am personally not an anarcho-communist, and I think it would be unstable (revert into small-state communism or mutualism), but I can understand the concept fine without considering it to be an oxymoron. 

32. Being knowledgeable about the discourse that already exists, rather than reinventing the wheel is actually very important when discussing these topics. It is hubris to think otherwise. Sure you can add innovations and think critically about these works, but understanding what other people have said and believe rather than guessing or assuming (which is something you've done often in our conversations) is important. Just reading a label, and saying "yes that is an oxymoron" based on your internal prejudices of what is meant is very unintelligent. 

33. Citing other people's ideas rather than writing my own book on an internet forum does not make me a puppet. In fact, even if I were writing a book, I'd be doing a lot of citations for the very reason of not reinventing the wheel and being able to get to the point of my new (if any) additions to the discussion. This is a common thing to do whether we are talking about physics, philosophy, mathematics, etc. 

34. This is the definition that is relevant to our discussion. I see no reason why we'd use a different definition when speaking about social systems. 

35. Name a social hierarchy without violence then. Disproof by counter-example is one of the easiest proofs to make. 

36. When you simplify my arguments, sure it sounds silly and dumb. But that is the point of a strawman isn't it? 

37. This only poses a problem if you ignore the ability of people to associate into groups independent of being forced to. A pacifist can have others fight on his or her behalf (even if he doesn't wish them to.) There are also herd effects of reducing violence that benefit the pacifist independent of whether or not he personally fights. 

38. I never said it can be absolutely equalized at the local level, but it can be relatively equalized because it has been equalized in the past. For example, in the 10th century, securing the means to induce violence was dependent on 1. wealth and 2. physical capability. That is how knights had such disproportionate power, and it was the basis of the feudal system. It is no coincidence that once weapons became cheap, and more people were able to use them that feudalism was disposed of. 

It's why generally pro-monarchy philosophers like Thomas Hobbes believed that in the state of nature people had a generally equal capacity to induce violence. He knew this wasn't absolutely true, but it was true enough for his purposes of deriving what he believed to be a systematic political philosophy. 

Hobbes wished to solve this "problem" by declaring a single sovereign to which people were in awe of. The liberal philosophers which succeeded him switched this sovereign from being an individual person to being the collection of all persons in a society. The anarchist wishes for the sovereign to be the individual and doesn't see the equal capacity to do violence as a problem, because it internalizes the costs of violence to the individual. 

39. All natural resources, the creation of money, the movement of labor, and the patent system. 

40. Private property is more than a single right. Some of the rights he might benefit from, others he might not. Furthermore, the degree to which he benefits might be exceeded by the degree to which the capitalist gains a position of authority which externalizes the costs on to him, and therefore even if he benefits locally (assuming he has property) the capitalist uses his own position of benefiting more (by having more private property) to more easily impose his will in contractual agreements. 

Furthermore, it's not even true that everyone benefits from the appropriation of private property even locally. It was not true when the Native Americans' common property was stolen by colonists. It wasn't true when the common peasant lost their access to the common fields because their lord or a capitalist decided to enclose the property which they used to sustain themselves. It is not true today, when a renter is evicted by an absentee landlord or a laborer loses any bargaining power over his wages.

But private property isn't the only privilege the state grants anyway. It grants subsidies and regulations which help rent-seekers through regulatory capture. 

41. Yes, but who do I have a better chance of bolstering my position against? My neighbor Harry or the fucking federal government and its police/military? In which circumstance can I get more of my interests reconciled in any dispute resolution? Hence, the crucial adjective "unilateral" before the noun "violence." 

The reason why I bring it up is because in one group I have a greater say and more autonomy than I have in the other group. 

42. "Stating the obvious" is merely an excuse for being intellectually lazy and holding your sacred positions religiously. 

43. They were self-appointed representatives of the people, and so the religiously held myth goes. I have strong doubts that thirty people represented a population of almost four million. 

And they certainly didn't represent anybody born after the fact. Furthermore, where was the representation for women, black people, Native Americans, etc? Were the slave-holding southerners who counted black people among their population representing their slaves? And you want to lecture me about what is collectivism and individualism while holding representative democracy as legitimate. 

44. He gave some facts, and some opinions. You can dispute the truth-values of the facts, and discuss the viability of his opinions yes. 

45. Sure, but the state doesn't necessarily represent a consensus. It represents a majority at best, and more often than not a very small minority. Disputes over what is or is not appropriate still exist, and different laws in local contexts still exist. Anarchism is merely taking the ideas of (con)federalism, pluralism, individualism, and self-government seriously, rather than using them as religious reasons to support one particular state over another. 

46. Oh I don't deny it has a purpose. I deny its purpose is what you say it is. The state is there to extract tax-rents so that it can subsidize the costs of those whom control it. In so much as it does anything else, it is for this ultimate purpose. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

"Being more capable at something is not the same thing as having more privilege. Privilege is a social phenomenon, granted by all other persons to a person or group. "

so... you don't acknowledge that people tend to give more authority to people that are more capable in various fields? for example a carpenter obviously has more skill in building structures than a programmer right?

so which person do you wager gets more work in the construction industry?

this is a bad example but its that i struggling to even comprehend why i'd have to clarify how the differences between people lead to privilege...

 

"The disabled person might have capabilities which make up for their disability, or the society in which they exist might provide accommodations for disabled people which reduce the inequality."

ok lets take my example with the person with no legs, what capabilities would make up for that? do they sprout wings or some shit?

and yes our society currently accommodates for disabled people, not perfectly of course but society does

 

" Dis-privilege due to having a disability is a social phenomena"

lol i don't even know what to say to that

 

"Privilege =|= advantage. "

what? privileges are not advantages? what?

 

"For starters a "military sniper" wouldn't exist without the state. Nobody's main profession would be to snipe."

i thought you were an individualist? 

 

"For those people who are physically weak or incapable of defending themselves, they'd have the ability to form social bonds in order to have equal access to defense."

in modern society we call this the police

 

". So yes, the capacity to induce violence would generally be equal at a macro-level if it is not equal at the individual level. "

which assumes unrealistically that different groupings of people would have the same capacity for violence

i suppose all of the wars throughout history aren't enough of a demonstration that this idea is wrong

 

"It is only through tax-rents that the state is able to gain a unilateral monopoly on the legitimization of violence which makes its effective power so disproportionate. "

well no its more that most people support the government or at least believe that if its corrupted presently that it can be fixed eventually... 

 

"That something is against the law doesn't mean it isn't protected. Drug cartels are against the law, but they only flourish because of the actions of the state."

drug cartels are not what i referred to which was specifically murder and rape

can you logically explain how murder and rape within a country that has outlawed them are protected by the government?

 

"The legitimization of rape against spouses was only legitimated by the state punishing wives who took actions into their own hands, it's only been recently that Western countries have changed their laws to include rape against spouses."

well that's the past i figured we were actually talking about now, the present, linear time

 

" Even in western countries, rape against men is not recognized as rape unless they are penetrated by an object or penis. "

yes due to the definitions of rape that are used, can you explain logically how rape as it is described in the law is protected by the government?''

 

"That doesn't mean people's actions can't be limited without statutes. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_normhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism"

the point i'm making is that the people of the group have to agree on certain social rules in order to respond to an offender who violates them... which is pretty much the same thing

 

" In both instances I make a promise to do something in the future with what is originally mine (my body or labor-product.) In the first instance I promise to have sex."

huh? because you have sex with someone presently that automatically means you have promised to have sex with them in the future?

let me be generous and assume you are referring to the actually act itself... uh no starting to have sex with someone does not in anyway mean that there's a promise to continue...

 

"Suppose I have control over my labor-product and decide,"Hey, I don't want the wage they promised me, I want to keep that which I produced and sell it myself.""

again... when you work a job you consent to an agreement that your labour will be exchanged for money.... i don't see what's so hard to understand about that

 

"consequently a violation of either is the same violation -- that of my self-autonomy. "

you express autonomy when you consent to do the job on the employers terms... when you then turn around and claim that you're too stupid to understand those terms then that's on you not the employer

 

"Both my labor-product and my body are mine to give and keep"

no one is stopping you from establishing your own business but again as i said you agree to certain terms on a job using your autonomy to make that decision

 

"Hence to stipulate that a laborer can't change the terms of their labor-contract at any time "

of course they can but obviously it wouldn't be retroactive because then you'd be a double talking idiot for agreeing to certain terms initially

 

"is to imply that a person partaking in sex can't change the terms of their sex-contract at any time. "

ok lets do a proper comparison here - the man has inseminated the woman and he now feels that he wants his ejaculate back in his testicles... how is that going to work?

 

"I have not denied people have different capabilities."

you have on many occasions and i expect that you'll continue to do so because your ideology depends on this idea

 

"As I said, there is some degree to which people mistakenly surround themselves with people who are not in their interests. There is also a point where people surround themselves with people who are not in their interests because they have no other choice, even if they recognize that fact. "

and thirdly there are also people who WILLFULLY CHOOSE TO ASSOCIATE WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN THEIR INTERESTS... good i corrected that for you

 

"Most people don't join a gang thinking it is especially good for them. Instead they join a gang because it is the least bad option among many. "

and some do it because they want to feel like a big man

 

"The capitalist subjectively creates and modifies his morality and imposes his will. He is only better capable at imposing his will because the state privileges him with monopoly access to various social functions/resources: banking/money, the movement of labor/tariffs, access to land/natural resources, and the patent system to name just a few. "

yeah the state just gives all business owners their shit, they never have to work and strive towards anything 

and again with this bullshit about employers imposing their will on people who CONSENT

 

"When I used "we" I was using it to refer to people who see exploitation as wrong and whom I would associate with. "

how collectivist of you

 

"It is just the same as your collective use of "their." So if I am a collectivist for using a collective pronoun, so are you for using a collective pronoun. That an individualist properly uses the pronoun does not make him/her a collectivist."

it was not the pronoun but the context of the pronoun which you reiterated above

 

" I can recognize that I share qualities with other people without recognizing that I share all qualities with other people. Just as one might recognize that most men have penises, and would say "we" when referring to men and their penises when discussing the probability of penile cancer doesn't make one a collectivist"

men are a collective yes, thanks for establishing that for me

 

"I never said they were "entirely" socially-constructed."

and i didn't say you did i said "if"

 

" That has much more to do with their autonomy (or lack thereof) as a worker than their autonomy as a pregnant woman"

how is their autonomy as a worker affected?

 

" The feminists who say this are wrong, in my opinion."

that's strange, their "patriarchy" is the same boogie man as your government/capitalism

 

"Feminists aren't a hive-mind anyway. "

what makes a person a feminist?

 

" I'd also like to add that what constitutes success is defined by individuals. "

nonsense, people always define success by looking at what other people are doing and that's a fact

and furthermore i think that its this phenomenon that is pushing so many people towards this equality nonsense because they look at the people who are successful and resent them and just wish to pull them down while claiming that its really about helping the poor, that's my opinion

 

"You need to define "intelligence", "bravery", etc and "success" in universal terms for this to be true."

success does not need to be defined universally in that example since its relative to the environment

with regards to the traits if i really need to define what "bravery" for example is then this  discussion really has plummeted off the deep end

 

" I can guarantee you that a Amazonian tribe has better chances of surviving in the Amazon than you do"

yes, most likely, and that is because they went out into their environment and gained an understanding of it which requires firstly the bravery to move into unknown territory, then the willingness to interact with the various problems that arise such as venomous snakes or whatever and finally the intelligence to be able to come up with effective strategies

these traits are used at all times by all people when it comes to becoming successful in their environment and the opposite traits  -cowardice, withdrawal, stupidity do not ever lead to success  and that's a fact

ultimately the point is that these vary across people which causes differences in success rates between people and that is innate, its not something you can stop unless you control everyone

 

"Why not?"

lol i'm done

 

". The shape of a normal distribution. "

so the shape of a normal distribution proves that all traits are distributed the same way across all people?

 

"Fundamental characteristics of liberal society like: property, the state, humanism, etc need to be disentangled and modified"

you want to modify humanism in what way?

 

" This would be a fair exchange if all of the coercion around them didn't lead to this dependency of the worker on the capitalist. If the woman (or man) were dependent on the man (or woman) because of coercion around them and they could have been in a better position without said coercion, then yes that would be exploitative. "

lol this is a response to whether a man moving something for a woman is exploitative or not? are you trolling right now?

 

"Sure he started in his garage, and without the capital he would've remained in his garage."

no... he sold products, without investors his growth would've been slower but the point is that he had started a successful business

 

"He used his social connections (which not all people have)"

i'm proud, you're finally beginning to understand apparently

 

"The future of his business depended on the interests of the capitalist"

well this is just an assertion that you can't back

 

"Merely exchanging one's capital for labor does not make a capitalist. If I don't make a profit off the exchange, then there is no exploitation. "

and steve jobs did so according to you steve jobs was a capitalist from the start.... i'm glad that we were able to clear that up

 

"He started as a worker, and produced value as a worker. When he acted as a capitalist the only thing he provided was capital, which is crucial to value-production"

what incoherent nonsense

 

"while still believing that the individual worker should control his/her/their labor-product"

this is not socialism, you are saying that if i take a pile of wood and make a dog house out of it, then that is socialism 

 

"Certainly you would agree that a society can be without hierarchy and natural resources can be held in common, right?"

only in a society that suppresses individuality... but obviously such a society could never be anarchist

 

"then what do you say of prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies? "


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways

 

The hunter-gatherer version of equality meant that each person was equally entitled to food, regardless of his or her ability to find or capture it; so food was shared. It meant that nobody had more wealth than anyone else; so all material goods were shared.

 

so the stronger people were pretty much forced to support the weaker people... doesn't sound like anarchy to me

 

"The writings of anthropologists make it clear that hunter-gatherers were not passivelyegalitarian; they were actively so. Indeed, in the words of anthropologist Richard Lee, they were fiercely egalitarian.[2] They would not tolerate anyone's boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone--especially if some young man--attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown."

 

so pretty much individuality was discouraged, and passivity was forced on men

 

you couldn't have brought up a better example to bolster my point that its nonsense

 

"but anarcho-communism is intelligible in at least that very context of primitive society"

 

how you can say this while acknowledging that they relied on coercion to force sharing among other things while equating this with anarchy is baffling

 

"I am personally not an anarcho-communist"

 

what you've been saying sounds pretty much the same to me

 

". Just reading a label, and saying "yes that is an oxymoron" based on your internal prejudices of what is meant is very unintelligent. "

well its a good thing that i backed what i said up with your own example

 

" This is the definition that is relevant to our discussion. I see no reason why we'd use a different definition when speaking about socialsystems. "

look the idea that you are pushing that an authority is needed for hierarchies to form is stupid, just going out into the world and observing how people behave instantly destroys that idea

on a construction site for example workers naturally tend to follow the lead of the most skilled person and this applies to any situation where people attempt to perform some type of task

 

"Name a social hierarchy without violence then"

as i mentioned above people sort themselves into hierarchies based on skill as one example and this does not require an authority to tell them to do so

violence of course forms hierarchies under certain circumstances obviously but to claim that this is how all hierarchies form shows such a lack of understanding of people that its absolutely amazing to me

 

"This only poses a problem if you ignore the ability of people to associate into groups independent of being forced to. A pacifist can have others fight on his or her behalf (even if he doesn't wish them to.)"

suppose they refuse to fight for him? well he's fucked right?

again that's why we have a police force and laws


"Yes, but who do I have a better chance of bolstering my position against? My neighbor Harry"

how big is harry and how big are you?

 

"Furthermore, where was the representation for women, black people, Native Americans, etc? Were the slave-holding southerners who counted black people among their population representing their slaves?"

they declared that all men are equal and the civil war addressed the slavery problem and feminism addressed the problem for women

 

"And you want to lecture me about what is collectivism and individualism while holding representative democracy as legitimate. "

please tell me you are not american while claiming that america was founded as a democracy

 

" Sure, but the state doesn't necessarily represent a consensus."

no system does... again the world is not perfect, you will never be able to construct a system that appeals to every single person and that should be obvious... therefore your concern should be focused on certain fundamental rights everyone should have access to which is what happened

Why do you always format your posts so that they're so hard to read?



VGPolyglot said:

Why do you always format your posts so that they're so hard to read?

it wasn't intentional but i didn't have much time



Around the Network
slab_of_bacon said:
First thing I ask people is: Do you like your roads, schools, and hospitals?........................ Some words are used to fuel an agenda and there are so many other things at play.

And health inspectors at restraints, so you don't get sick after eating there.

And the fire department will put out fires everywhere, not just at rich people's houses. 

And the military.  That usually gets them to stop and think for a bit. 

It doesn't work on the people that think Capitalism is their religion.  But on ones that can calm down and think about it, they usually realize it's not the big scary monster that politicians have used to help keep the very wealthy rich and in control. 



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!

vivster said:
Socialism is atheist propaganda to turn frogs gay.

I think the world needs more Fabulous Frogs!

 

 

Just look at that adorable froggy, look! 



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!

There has always been a system where the enlightened minority with wealth and power do what ever they can to retain their wealth and power. Capitalism is just a modern word to describe the wealth system maintained by the wealthy elites: monarchy, corporations, religious institutions, governments, wealthy individuals, banks, etc.



Dark_Lord_2008 said:
There has always been a system where the enlightened minority with wealth and power do what ever they can to retain their wealth and power. Capitalism is just a modern word to describe the wealth system maintained by the wealthy elites: monarchy, corporations, religious institutions, governments, wealthy individuals, banks, etc.

Just like USSR and other socialist countries then?

I got a better way to describe it... Socialist countries are those beautiful and amazing countries that people are running away to flee starvation, lack of democracy, censorship and lack of liberty. Usually even flee the countries are forbidden. Capitalist countries are those terrible and diseased countries that people usually try to flee to. It doesnt even need to be that good, considering the millions that fled from venezuela to brazil, colombia and argentina.



Social Democracy is a form of socialism.
As is Democratic socialism
Leninism/Sovietism
Trotskyism
Maoism
Communism
Marxist Communism
Anarchism Communism
Council/left Communism
State Communism
State Socialism
Utopian Socialism
Meritocracy
Anarchism
Social Anarchism/Libertarian Socialism
Collective Anarchism
Syndicalism
Anarcho Syndicalism
Autonomism
Mutualism
Liberal Socialism
Ethical Socialism
Christian Socialism
Islamic Socialism
Ba’athism
Eco Socialism
Green Anarchism


There are a ton of different types of socialism. You can’t define it as all one thing; no more than you can define religion as people who follow Jesus, or dieters as strictly people who eat only Jenny Craig shakes.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.