- Capitalism and Alternatives -

When we support the market, we do so voluntarily.

Posted by: R. Jenkins ( USA ) on April 09, 1999 at 11:53:06:

In Reply to: Argh, its that 'mmmmm' song! posted by Red Deathy on April 07, 1999 at 12:48:09:

: : Free? If you have to work for the 'common good', you are far from free. Resources don't last, nor do businesses or any other profitable people or things.

: Pardon me, but currently we have to work for the 'common good' anyhow, as expressed through teh need to profuce for the market, the only way not to work for the common good is to be like Robinson Crusoe, and produce only for yourself, as soon as you begin exchanging, you are entering into a communal netwrok of production.

Some more clarity: When we support the market, we do so voluntarily. We buy what we want and we sell what we want. If the seller can't sell anything, he does something else. This is not the common good, it is for the good of the people that produce what you buy. Supporting the common good means involuntarily submitting all of your wealth so that what you work for is no longer yours, but many other peoples. You are suplied with what the government can give, and you have absolutely no choice in the matter.

:And as for free, as things stand now, we may only work when the owners of capital say we may, otehrwise its unemploymentsville.

When an owner of capital doesn't let you work, you find another capital owner that does.

:In a society of free association (a right which is impeded by the right to private property, as is the right to eat) production would be voluntary, and work would be whatever you wanted to do...

Why would anyone produce anything if they didn't have to? Society progresses because people have to produce things, and they figure that they might as well do it well. If you have no incentive to produce, you will not produce. A few nice guys pull everyone's dead weight for a while, but then they start to drop like flies, and a different revolution takes place.

: : OK, hopefully there won't be any more of that crap in governments, but if there does happen to be a strong communist government that just starts out, watch everyones needs increase, and then watch their abilities decrease.

: My, what a jaded view of human nature you have- its equally conceieveable, given the absence of advertising and the desire production industry, that people's needs may decrease.

OK, peoples needs decrease, as does their production. If people live off of the only the essentials, society will take a thousand years to move foward one year in advancement. Think what would happen if everyone in history though this way: We would all be living in our caves or tipis, we would hunt and gather for all of our short lives, 90% of us wouldn't be hear because of treatable diseases, etc. If society doesn't advance, we really have no reason to live.

: : Translation: The nightmare of anyone that produces a lot.

: No, we want to produce loads, and loads, and loads, and give all that wealth to the wealth creators- the workers.

I think that money should go to the workers. Workers are everyone that has a job. Those that don't have a job shouldn't get any of what those of us that work create.

: But to add to nikil's definition:

: Communism is a moneyless, stateless society of free and democratic association, and production for social needs, not proffits, where the condition for the advancement of each is the advancement of all. It must be world-wide.

I like that you want democracy and freedom, but only those that don't produce and those few that do produce that want this will vote this in, so it really can't be a democracy. Also, if society's only incentive is to enhance the world at large, they won't do nearly as well as they would in a situation where they have something to gain from it. Finally, you aren't really free if you can't escape(you said that it needs to be global).

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup