Okay. What do you think about distributism then? I'm trying to gauge how your position is different from mine.No. However, 'no state' presents a problem if a need for external defense or recovery from a cataclysmic event was necessary. Some kind of responsive structure would be needed for such purposes — Bitter Crank
Okay so what if I am a mechanic and I have my own tools and garage where I fix cars? Does that count as personal or private property? What if I design my own car and then start getting some factories to build it - do I get to keep rights to my invention? What if I go to India and bring good Cashmere Indian quality from there which I sell in a shop I setup? Do I get to own the store?If you are defining "private property" as clothing, a dog, a house... that's called personal property. — Bitter Crank
I would disagree with some of those being "private property". Railroads and such are public property.meaning railroads, factories, warehouses, stores, etc. — Bitter Crank
I don't think entrepreneurship can only exist in capitalism. Do you? I think many more people would be entrepreneurs under distributism for example.Because that is the way Marx referenced the class of people who are capitalists. Most people do not have a clue about how to use "class" properly. — Bitter Crank
Actually, you yourself have argued to me that morality is objective before, so I don't see why you're going back on it now. You sent me the Sam Harris video which argued that there are moral FACTS in the world, that are just as much facts as the facts studied by physics. So what happened? Did you change your mind or are you choosing what your position will be depending on what you want to argue against?I've gone far enough down the rabbit hole. — praxis
I'm pro-rich in the sense that people should have the opportunity to be rich and be economically powerful if they earn it fairly. — Agustino
Well what would economic power equate with then? Economic power means the power to decide how capital is allocated and to what uses it is allocated. If I have economic power, I decide if we're going to start making trains, or we're going to produce toys. I decide if we're going to build a hospital, or a school. I decide if a restaurant employing homeless people gets opened. And so on so forth. A lot of these activities require money to finance themselves before they can start pulling income to be self-sustaining. Without economic power, they are impossible to achieve.Why should being rich equate with (economic) power? — Benkei
Being bright and successful isn't sufficient to make you influential. For example, I think I am not that stupid of a person, but I generally don't have the patience to cultivate the long-term relationships and make the necessary compromises that are often required to be influential quickly. Influence is much more a factor of having the right connections - OR - having a lot of capital (economic power). That's why many people who enter politics end up corrupt for example, even if they start out honest. Gaining the right connections often requires compromise.I consider it natural that a bright and successful person has influence due to the fact that he's bright and seems to know what he's doing business wise. — Benkei
In terms of massive wealth (let's say $50 million+) you're quite correct, I would agree. But I think wealth in terms of $1-5 million is achievable by pretty much anyone who wants it and who works long enough on it assuming they are healthy and a circumstance like war and the like doesn't interfere with their wealth building.In a society where the "economic reality" trumps reality, economic power is too much to be awarded for the simple status of being rich (which, btw, more often than not is a matter of luck). — Benkei
Well what would economic power equate with then? Economic power means the power to decide how capital is allocated and to what uses it is allocated. — Agustino
Being bright and successful isn't sufficient to make you influential. For example, I think I am not that stupid of a person, but I generally don't have the patience to cultivate the long-term relationships and make the necessary compromises that are often required to be influential quickly. Influence is much more a factor of having the right connections - OR - having a lot of capital (economic power). That's why many people who enter politics end up corrupt for example, even if they start out honest. Gaining the right connections often requires compromise. — Agustino
Yes, exactly. The point is that if the capital is not your own - and it is the bank's, etc. etc. - then you don't really get to do what you want with it, and hence it's not a form of economic power. That's why being rich - as opposed to merely being able to influence how capital is allocated - is part of economic power in my view.Whose capital? Surely only your own? — Benkei
This is a different point, but yes, I agree that the costs should be borne by you, and not by others, especially if they haven't risked anything in the first place (for example if they haven't financed your project).But we see economic power expands itself and coerces other actors to accept the burden of costs that should reasonably not be borne by them. — Benkei
Ahh yes, I see what you mean. Yes I've come across similar practices quite frequently, and I think they should be illegal. Pretty much anyone who controls a distribution channel of some sort tends to set such unfair conditions. Supermarkets do it very frequently. If you don't like their conditions, take your product elsewhere. But of course, they already have the infrastructure set up, and it's very expensive to set it up yourself (not to mention it would take very long), so you're pretty much stuck with having to accept their terms if you want to get your product to market. It's a hard situation to fix - I'm not sure if merely implementing a law against it would be sufficient. Such practices can be masked in different, not so obvious, ways.Take for example Exxon Mobil's standard terms and conditions for contractors who supply and administer additives to increase the yield of oil fields. If the contractor discovers a better compound or a better method that increases the yield, the IP to that is owned by Exxon Mobil. If you don't accept the general terms and conditions, they'll go to another contractor. Not exactly fair or reasonable since its the contractors work and knowledge that is leveraged to develop the new compound or method but if you have sufficient economic power, fair and reasonable don't play a role any more. — Benkei
Yes, I agree with you.I suppose my choice of words that it's "natural" was bad. I mean to say that I would consider it far more appropriate that a bright and successful person has influence in his area of expertise because of his being bright and successful than because of the money he has (or the connections he might have). — Benkei
Indeed, this is another side of it as well. Money confers social status, the way other expertise quite frequently doesn't, and I think that's wrong too.Money has become the measure for all things but it's a bad one for most things that matter. — Benkei
:sHarris is no different to utilitarianism. He would have nothing but utter contempt for your Orthodox faith, he thinks it is a brain-destroying delusion. Choose your allies carefully. — Wayfarer
Okay. What do you think about distributism then? I'm trying to gauge how your position is different from mine. — Agustino
Okay so what if I am a mechanic and I have my own tools and garage where I fix cars? Does that count as personal or private property? What if I design my own car and then start getting some factories to build it - do I get to keep rights to my invention? What if I go to India and bring good Cashmere Indian quality from there which I sell in a shop I setup? Do I get to own the store? — Agustino
I would disagree with some of those being "private property". Railroads and such are public property. — Agustino
I don't think entrepreneurship can only exist in capitalism. Do you? I think many more people would be entrepreneurs under distributism for example. — Agustino
Well, first of all, I would suggest we get there by getting rid of democracy, which has become, and will continue to be ruled by politicians who are bought and sold by corporations. I think corporatism is the biggest obstacle to getting there. That includes both working for corporations, and the political mechanism that favours them and keeps things rigged in their favour. And to a large extent, corporations have taken on a life of their own - they're no longer controllable at the moment.How do we get there? — Bitter Crank
Okay, but can the mechanic own that income producing property?Technically, the mechanics tools are income producing property, not personal domestic property -- unless working on cars is a hobby. — Bitter Crank
This "collective coordination" sounds quite scary. It reminds me of communism in Eastern Europe. What is this "coordination" going to look like, and who will supervise it?As I said, production would be coordinated by producers and consumers, collectively. — Bitter Crank
Okay I think I see. But what if the collective decides that I shouldn't get to build that car, but I go to my garage and over time acquire the tools etc. necessary and build one myself. Is that allowed?You could design your car, but whether it got built or not would be a collective decision. — Bitter Crank
Ahh, but see I think this is a problem for it impinges upon individual liberty too much. Should I be coerced to be part of the product design group if I don't like it and want to work independently?If you were a car designer, you would need to be part of a product design group. The abolition of private property (factors, stores, railroads, etc.) also means the abolition of private income, and private entrepreneurship. — Bitter Crank
>:O >:O No no, I didn't mean to sell already made cashmere sweaters which were produced on the backbone of slave labour in India. What I meant is that I would go to India, buy the Cashmere WOOL, and then sell that wool back home to tailors and other people who needed it.Own the store where you sell imported cashmere sweaters? Are you out of your mind? Hell, no! — Bitter Crank
:-O What's this type of property?! I never heard of it before. Can you have that kind of property?pubic property — Bitter Crank
Right, you see, again the state is the problem. It is because the state is controlled by these corporate interests that strangle the small natural producer and the normal (not capitalist) exchange of goods.I don't think many miles of railroad were ever built on land which the rail companies actually bought from owners. Usually, the government granted the land to railroads as part of the drive for internal development. The survivor railroads (like Burlington Northern Santa Fe) which have been around more than a century, are still profiting from the land they were given, which is often forested or has coal, oil, or minerals. The railroads also sold off the land they were given in farm-sized lots to immigrants, so they would have customers along the road to ship from, and to. — Bitter Crank
In a distributist society there is no centralised control though (whether by the state or by the collective). Rather it is more like the aim is for the highest number of people to have access to economic freedom - not having to work as a wage slave for others. In other words, freedom to work as they desire.In a distributist economy entrepreneurship (within limits) would make sense. — Bitter Crank
I disagree here. I think capitalism as practiced today at least is profoundly anti-entrepreneurial. There is nothing that makes life more difficult for today's entrepreneur than the combination of state + corporations. Together these two entities create an octopus which strangles the small entrepreneur before he can even get started. It's hard to open a local fast food when McDonald's forces all suppliers not to supply to you if they want to work with them. Who makes all this possible? The state.Entrepreneurship is the trait par excellent of capitalism. Capitalist economies are organized around facilitating entrepreneurship (including small entrepreneurs being crushed by bigger entrepreneurs). — Bitter Crank
And this is even more true in less developed countries where the corruption is 10 times higher than in the US, and the state is 10 times more likely to be bought.And to a large extent, corporations have taken on a life of their own - they're no longer controllable at the moment. — Agustino
Well, first of all, I would suggest we get there by getting rid of democracy, which has become, and will continue to be ruled by politicians who are bought and sold by corporations. — Agustino
The usual colloquial meaning of 'buying' a politician is not to appoint them by voting them, but to induce them to campaign and vote in parliament for a measure in which they do not believe. The notion of buying a politician with money is about campaign donations that are implicitly conditional on the politician furthering the selfish aims of the donator. Sometimes it is also about bribes, although the boundary between large donations by rent-seekers and bribes seems blurry to me.Politicians should be bought and sold; that's their role. — Benkei
pubic property
— Bitter Crank
:-O What's this type of property?! I never heard of it before. — Agustino
The principle of subsidiarity which is central to distributism would require matters to be settled locally and among the people directly involved - not by some central committee of "the people". So that basically means that what me and my family produce isn't dictated by anyone else, but it's something we decide upon as a family. And similarly for you and for all other groups of people. Things that are the benefit of everyone in a community - I suppose public utilities would fit here - would obviously be decided at the local community level by such a thing as "cooperation" as you call it — Agustino
Distributism can and does include worker owned cooperatives, and other manufacturing businesses that can work on a larger scale. The scale isn't the problem. Distributism doesn't say that everything is to be produced by individuals.Didn't you say you liked the Shire from Lord of the Rings? Was that you or somebody else?
The shire -- a very low-population rural area--is ideal for distributism. It seems to look back to the English village of the 17th century and earlier, a time when many products were produced at home. There are two critical problems: First, very few people live in self-sufficient villages, these days. Most people don't produce many products at home. They still could, but it seems wildly inefficient. I could, for instance, make several kinds of bar soap--one for laundry and heavy cleaning, one for bathing, and possibly one for hair. But small batch soap making doesn't yield the kind of soap people like to use.
There are far too many people living without much (if any) connection to raw materials that can be turned into useful products. For instance, where would the several million residents of London obtain fiber to make so much as shoe strings for each other? Animal skin for leather? Vegetable or animal fat for soap making? Raw wool or raw cotton to clean, card, spin into yarn, and then weave into cloth? Hides to tan into leather? Food?
Distributism seems more difficult than socialism to implement.
Some people could live in a distributist economy. Most people would have to have died off to make it work (just in terms of the amount of raw material that could be turned into finished products" by highly decentralized household manufacturing. \ — Bitter Crank
That is easy for you to say, but my family lived through Communism, so I don't have many good things to say about it. If I were an adult during Communist times I probably would have had an extremely miserable life.Your comments on socialism indicate you did not understand the kind of socialism I was talking about.
The example of socialism that you are referencing is the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. Everyone except hard core soviet communists have repudiated--or never accepted--the USSR/PRC/Cuban model of socialism. — Bitter Crank
Okay, so where is the place of artists and creators in your type of socialism? An artist or a creator must create. Must make something new, something different - they must be independent. They cannot be told what to create. They must find it themselves.The whole business of wages and prices would largely be eliminated. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" might not work out well (it hasn't been tried in a secular setting) but there is no reason to presume that it would result in dictatorship or wage slavery. — Bitter Crank
Right but much more important than this is that the Malt-O-Meal workers must first get in touch with those who need cereal and find out how much they need. This is in a sense the job of the entrepreneur - to find out what people need and then provide it to them.The American socialist alternative model (developed towards the end of Marx's life) is democratic self-management, self-ownership of industry, where the workers for example of the Malt-O-Meal breakfast cereal plant would own and operate the now-privately-owned plant. The Malt-O-Meal workers would negotiate with distribution coops to determine what kinds, and how much, cereal to make. There is a difference in producing for human need and producing for profit. If there are orders for 100 tons of cereal, that's all they would make. They wouldn't make 200 tons and try to under cut Post or Kellogg workers; there wouldn't be any rationale to compete that way. — Bitter Crank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.