News Stability of Anarchy: Let's Continue Here, Smurf

[Townsend]

For a completely socialist society to function, they'd have to give you no choice. You either work, or it's off to the re-education center.

As far as I can tell you're exactly right. So basically the government would have to violate my most basic human rights in order to make a socialist society work.

Why not just have labor camps then? Just as good, right? If someone doesn't obey then we just take away their food and water and health care until they either die or capitulate...

 

[Townsend]

Its easy to find problems in anything. i see no point in trying to explain these concepts to you any more until you have researched them further. It seems like i keep saying the same thing in different ways.

Violating my civil rights in much more than a problem...it is unacceptable in any form and for whatever reason and at all times.

 

[Smurf]

As far as I can tell you're exactly right. So basically the government would have to violate my most basic human rights in order to make a socialist society work.

Food for thought: What's the difference between a government forcing you to work and a market letting you choose between working and dying of starvation?

 

[Townsend]

Maybe there would be less to no need to give to charity?

Maybe there wouldn't be a need for it, or maybe everyone can be rich and yet still want to work at a crappy job that nobody wants or would take in their right mind, or maybe the martins will invade...in any case what is the point in making a bunch of unlikely 'maybe' scenarios?

 

[Anttech]

Maybe there wouldn't be a need for it, or maybe everyone can be rich and yet still want to work at a crappy job that nobody wants or would take in their right mind, or maybe the martins will invade...in any case what is the point in making a bunch of unlikely 'maybe' scenarios?

Solid arguement.. would it make you feel better if I removed the "maybe" you seem to be a bit hung up on it... shhs

 

[Townsend]

Food for thought: What's the difference between a government forcing you to work and a market letting you choose between working and dying of starvation?

Freedom baby...that is the difference and all the difference in the world...

Come on Smurf...OK>>>>

Let's pretend there is a socialist society here at PF...I'll be your despotic leader and assign duties and make sure everyone gets an equal amount of everything. To start with, Smurf...you are to be to work at 4:00 AM and work until 4:00 PM checking each and every post made here at PF for spelling and grammar errors and then fixing them. You get no lunch break and you get paid 1.50 and hour. But I will take care of your medical needs and make sure that after you have been doing this job for the next 60 years (you don't get to retire until your 89 years old) you can relax and get your 500 dollars a month in government retirement check. Enjoy your life...

 

[Smurf]

Freedom baby...that is the difference and all the difference in the world...

Come on Smurf...OK>>>>

Let's pretend there is a socialist society here at PF...I'll be your despotic leader and assign duties and make sure everyone gets an equal amount of everything. To start with, Smurf...you are to be to work at 4:00 AM and work until 4:00 PM checking each and every post made here at PF for spelling and grammar errors and then fixing them. You get no lunch break and you get paid 1.50 and hour. But I will take care of your medical needs and make sure that after you have been doing this job for the next 60 years (you don't get to retire until your 89 years old) you can relax and get your 500 dollars a month in government retirement check. Enjoy your life...

Just what do you think we're advocating here? We're not ****ing fascists or corporates!

 

[Smurf]

On a side note, has anyone here yet tried looking at an example of one of the more socialist countries? Like Cuba? And seeing how they do it? You know, instead of jumping to conclusions that the country will become one big nazi labour camp.

 

[Townsend]

Just what do you think we're advocating here? We're not ****ing fascists or corporates!

A simple question...what will the state do for me if I refuse to work? I could just as easily break my leg if I need a medical excuse cause I can PROMISE you, that if I was not working to get rich so I don't have to work then I would not work at all. NO and's if's or but's about it.

So I want to know how I will be taken care of when I refuse to work. In a capitalist society I am free to make those choices and I am responsible for my own actions and so I can't complain if I end up screwing myself. Am I responsible for my own actions if I live in a socialist society too?

 

[Smurf]

A simple question...what will the state do for me if I refuse to work? I could just as easily break my leg if I need a medical excuse cause I can PROMISE you, that if I was not working to get rich so I don't have to work then I would not work at all. NO and's if's or but's about it.

So I want to know how I will be taken care of when I refuse to work. In a capitalist society I am free to make those choices and I am responsible for my own actions and so I can't complain if I end up screwing myself. Am I responsible for my own actions if I live in a socialist society too?

I think an interesting idea would be that if a person did choose not to work you could lower his standard of living. The state would assign you a less nice house, give you fewer rations - but enough to survive, not give you a car (if there are cars at all), ect. And then they would reward the harder workers with other priviledges.

One of the biggest misonceptions about command economies is that they don't follow typical business rules. Now, I obviously can't say that they all do and will, but they certainly have the capacity to.

Say townsend, can you tell me the name of that company? The cosmetics seller people, Kay-something or what not? It's that american company that has a reputation for "corrupting" house wives into fanatical sales women? What are they called again? They have big annual celebrations where the best sales persons get wicked rewards like pink SUVs and cadillacs (always pink) what's that name.. that name...?

 

[Townsend]

Like Smurf suggested let's look at Cuba. What a great example of the good times people can look forward to in a socialist society.

For native-born Cubans, however, this free health care system offers little more than what they pay for. Hospitals are short-staffed especially in regards to nurses, orderlies, and janitors, and also doctors during mass deployments of doctors abroad, and are perpetually under-maintained, under-equipped, under-supplied, and unhygienic. Horrific conditions were documented by reporters Carlos Wotzkow and María Elena Morejón [6] in a visit in 2005. Cubans have to supply their own food, bed linen, and basic medicines when they go to hospital, to bring friends along to try to clean, and on Cubanet [7] there are frequent stories of doctors and surgeons resorting to grotesque improvisations to address shortages of surgical supplies.

Supply and demand issues to no end is really something to look forward too...

 

[Smurf]

No More Socialism Here Thank You - I'm An Anarchist And So Is This Thread

OKAY! MOVING HERE!

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=756906#post756906

(damn hijackers)

 

[Townsend]

I think an interesting idea would be that if a person did choose not to work you could lower his standard of living. The state would assign you a less nice house, give you fewer rations - but enough to survive, not give you a car (if there are cars at all), ect. And then they would reward the harder workers with other priviledges.

That is exactly what capitalism DOES do now...

One of the biggest misonceptions about command economies is that they don't follow typical business rules. Now, I obviously can't say that they all do and will, but they certainly have the capacity to.

Price controls are terrible business practices and every government is inefficent. Combine the two and you get conditions exactly like in Cuba's hospitals...hell!

Say townsend, can you tell me the name of that company? The cosmetics seller people, Kay-something or what not? It's that american company that has a reputation for "corrupting" house wives into fanatical sales women? What are they called again? They have big annual celebrations where the best sales persons get wicked rewards like pink SUVs and cadillacs (always pink) what's that name.. that name...?

I have no idea...maybe you mean Avon or something...sorry, maybe someone else can offer you more help.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

OKAY! MOVING HERE!

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=756906#post756906

(damn hijackers)

Considering that the version of Anarchism you advocate has many parallels to socialism/communism I don't think it was that unexpected for them to be brought into the discussion. I've been adressing both in my posts, it seems I can adress both rather effectively with the same questions and arguements.
At any rate...

I think an interesting idea would be that if a person did choose not to work you could lower his standard of living. The state would assign you a less nice house, give you fewer rations - but enough to survive, not give you a car (if there are cars at all), ect. And then they would reward the harder workers with other priviledges.

This is easily the beginings of a class system. The next thing you know workers with skills that are rare and more valuable than most will stop working until they receive more and better "priviledges" than the others. If you intend to keep progressing then you will have to make sure to keep the more valuable workers happy and you will have to give into their demands. And what of the physicists that decide that they like gardening and one day quite their job in the physics lab to be a gardener or some such thing instead? And why shouldn't they? They receive just as much for either job right? So they might as well do the thing that they enjoy more. Then we'll have great physicists and doctors and engineers working in gardens or trying to start rock bands because they have no incentive to do the more difficult work other than self satisfaction which they can easily get elsewhere.
Any way... This brings us right back to a class system if you intend to give more valuable workers more benefits for their work but the point of your system is to abolish the class system. So what now?

 

[Smurf]

Any way... This brings us right back to a class system if you intend to give more valuable workers more benefits for their work but the point of your system is to abolish the class system. So what now?

Hmmm good point. Oh well. I still want to know more about Cuba, I'm frighteningly uninformed about the details of their system. It's a shame too because it's just so different.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Hmmm good point. Oh well. I still want to know more about Cuba, I'm frighteningly uninformed about the details of their system. It's a shame too because it's just so different.

Oh my... are really conceeding a point or just tired of the debate? lol

Since it's been mentioned I've been intending to read up some more myself. Also those examples of Anarchist societies that have been mentioned.
I read once about a man who studied a small island tribe. Supposely they had never had an instance of theft, murder, or rape until missionaries came along and saved their godless souls from damnation. I haven't been able to find material on this though since I read about it. I've forgetton the specifics but I'll let you know if I come across it. They were more or less tribal anarchist/socialist types from what I understand. So it's possible that Jerkus is real to some extent but that remains to be seen.

 

[Smurf]

Oh my... are really conceeding a point or just tired of the debate? lol

No I'm conceeding. That was an over simplification.

 

[loseyourname]

Say townsend, can you tell me the name of that company? The cosmetics seller people, Kay-something or what not? It's that american company that has a reputation for "corrupting" house wives into fanatical sales women? What are they called again? They have big annual celebrations where the best sales persons get wicked rewards like pink SUVs and cadillacs (always pink) what's that name.. that name...?

Mary Kay. They've created more female millionaires than any other company ever.

 

[Anttech]

Freedom baby...that is the difference and all the difference in the world...

Capitalism (I assume you are a pure capitalist) in the end takes away consumer choice... As multinationals get bigger and bigger, they eat up smaller companies, or eventually muscle them out of the market... In the end you end up with a few very big companies, who dictate the market, (and thus the economy)... And it leaves you and me with no choice, and therefore no freedom... Socialism prevents this by representing me and you (as consumers) stopping these multinationals from killing a "free and fair economy"

There are example of this right now... You are most probably using it right now.. Microsoft windows... If you arent looking at it, then you probably should be (unless you are a funny mac user , becuase Linux is "Socialism" in the works)

Business is NOT socially conscientious, the ends are to make more and more money.. the means are whatever way they can get away!

 

[Anttech]

I cared little about this thread until a few days ago. But now it's back to reiterating that the only reason people still believe in the various flavors of socialism/marxism/communism/anarchism is because they don't understand how/why economics works. Ie:

I understand the ecconomy thank you very much! I just don't believe it is healthy for the global ecconomy to have these Bloated bigger than belief companies,who basically can print there own money becuase they have cornered a certain market... as I said before it takes away our scope of choice, and it can lead to stagnation of products development... **Pure** Capitialism can't be trusted for our future because the ideal prays to money and doesn't give a ****e about social values...

 

[Art]

Like Smurf suggested let's look at Cuba. What a great example of the good times people can look forward to in a socialist society.


Supply and demand issues to no end is really something to look forward too...

If you look at the revision history for Cuba on wikipedia you will see there are a few dorks who keep editing the page with anti-Castro nonsense for the craic. I looked at the blog site of one of the worst offenders and it appears he thinks he is being funny.

 

[Townsend]

If you look at the revision history for Cuba on wikipedia you will see there are a few dorks who keep editing the page with anti-Castro nonsense for the craic. I looked at the blog site of one of the worst offenders and it appears he thinks he is being funny.

Yeah...I see that now. I won't be making that mistake twice...

 

[loseyourname]

I understand the ecconomy thank you very much! I just don't believe it is healthy for the global ecconomy to have these Bloated bigger than belief companies,who basically can print there own money becuase they have cornered a certain market... as I said before it takes away our scope of choice, and it can lead to stagnation of products development... **Pure** Capitialism can't be trusted for our future because the ideal prays to money and doesn't give a ****e about social values...

I don't think there is anybody here that is pro-corporate monopoly. The difference seems to be that you think these things are inevitable given capitalism. Russ and Townsend and I do not. We see that, historically speaking, corporations have only been able to grow to their ridiculous sizes and market shares with help from governments. Corporations are legal entities that would not even exist in a pure capitalist state. Essentially, you are arguing with a strawman, something that pure capitalism does not either sanction or result in (at least theoretically - in practice, we have never experienced pure capitalism and so cannot know for certain).

About Microsoft: They do not have a monopoly. There are plenty of operating systems out there, many of which are available for free, many of which can use file formats that work across all platforms. People don't have to buy a computer with windows preinstalled and use only Microsoft programs. They're just too lazy to look around for a better option. I've never used a Microsoft program or OS (on my own computer, anyway) and it has hurt me none. People do have choices, many choices. They simply choose not to exercise that faculty.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Capitalism doesn not produce monopolies, but it does produce oligopolies. Contrary to the Austrian school of economics (who only site the misleading case of Germany), it is a natural evolution, not something promoted by government.

It is in the interests of the larger competitors in an Adam Smith landscape to buy out the smaller, so as to reduce competition. This will go on until the smallest competitors are all gone, and eventually until only a few huge competitors remain. These can well arrange to lower competition between themselves under the table, and this is apparently a stable condition. Look how many products you depend on, from fruit juice to automobiles are from industries with just three biggies and maybe a handful of pigmies.

 

[Anttech]

About Microsoft: They do not have a monopoly

I have to say I think they do, when you have more than 90% share of the desktop market, it is fair to say you have a monopoly in that sector, isn't it?

I use Linux too, but I am a Network Engineer so I know my way around, for a novice to intermediate use Linux is NOT an alternative...

There are 2 Major player in the desktop Market Mac and Windows... Linux right now just isn't user friendly enough for it to be used in this environment (server sector : yes)..

This is Capitalism in work, the consumer looses..

Selfadjoint hit the nail on the head to be honest, and communicated what I was getting at more elegantly

 

[loseyourname]

I have to say I think they do, when you have more than 90% share of the desktop market, it is fair to say you have a monopoly in that sector, isn't it?

I use Linux too, but I am a Network Engineer so I know my way around, for a novice to intermediate use Linux is NOT an alternative...

I actually rarely use Linux. My primary OS is Mac OS X. The main point I'm trying to make is that while you might say that Microsoft has a de facto monopoly, they do not have a stable monopoly. There are increasingly more options out there and non-Microsoft products are becoming more and more popular. They were simply the first ones there. Not too long ago, AOL had a de facto monopoly on internet service, with very few people using alternatives like Prodigy or Compuserve (which was bought by AOL anyway). What we see in the software market is a move away from concentration in the area of further choice. It is pretty much inevitable in a market where anyone with a computer can write a program. This isn't like the airline industry, where you must invest hundreds of millions of dollars to get off the ground. A new software venture can be launched with pocket change.

This is Capitalism in work, the consumer looses..

Come on, the consumer loses? How spoiled must one be to say that? What industry has ever advanced faster than the software industry? Consumers have thousands of times the choices, performance, and ability that they had just ten years ago. There wasn't even a public internet until 15 years ago, and now half the world is fully wired. Sound mixing, video editing, online conferencing, can all be done by anyone that is willing to invest several hours to learn how to do it, at least at an amateur level. A teenager sitting in the basement can do things that government-trained PhD's could not dream of when I was a kid, and you want to tell me that the consumer is losing?

 

[Anttech]

The main point I'm trying to make is that while you might say that Microsoft has a de facto monopoly, they do not have a stable monopoly

There "Monopoly" maybe under threat in the Long term, BUT as a corp they are under no threat, sure there share will decrease, but who will take it? Linux maybe, Mac more probably.. So you come to what selfadjointed said, we will have 2 (a few) very large companies splitting a huge market 2 (a few) ways, which is an "oligopoly" ... this equates to far less choice for us...

I am talking only about the Operating System Sector.

Software is a different Animal, however within this sector we see the same things, take Adobe.. You know who they just bought out? Macromedia.. Well you see what will happen there, don't you.. Two companies offering the same sort of software, both geared towards multimedia, the bigger company just ate the smaller one, and will merge the products and give us less independent choice...

Another example Databases/ERP, Oracle a huge company, has just swallowed whole one of its main competitor, Siebel... what does this mean for us, well we will soon enough has less ERP choice, I can think of only two other serious main competitors in the ERP field (I am sure there are a few more) SAP, and Peoplesoft... Ohh wait Oracle also eat Peoplesoft.. Ok 1 main competitor, SAP... Not much choice is it?

We really don't have that much choice, and as these huge corps get bigger and bigger we are going to have less and less choice...

 

[Townsend]

We really don't have that much choice, and as these huge corps get bigger and bigger we are going to have less and less choice...

I feel as though if a corporation gets too big it should be broken up to keep competition going. This has worked with AT&T twice...I don't understand why they haven't broken up MS yet? I think they need to. Make one section the OS, one section the office and business software and one section for games.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There "Monopoly" maybe under threat in the Long term, BUT as a corp they are under no threat, sure there share will decrease, but who will take it? Linux maybe, Mac more probably.. So you come to what selfadjointed said, we will have 2 (a few) very large companies splitting a huge market 2 (a few) ways, which is an "oligopoly" ... this equates to far less choice for us...

Do you seriously think that you would have any more freedom of choice in a system other than capitalism? If a community or state owned the means of production why would they waste resources on multiple projects with the same end goals?
Remember that the creators of Linux hadthe benefit of a capitalist system where they could own means of production and use them as they saw fit. Just because they don't make a profit doesn't mean it isn't a capitalist endevour. If you look up capitalism you will find that profit is not required for a system to be capitalist.

 

[Smurf]

Do you seriously think that you would have any more freedom of choice in a system other than capitalism?

Yes, of course. Well, maybe not *I* (actually definitely not me, I'm pretty well off on account of my family) but more people would have more freedom of choice, yes.