- Capitalism and Alternatives -

I could say 'Best', 'Most Perfect', What would you suggest?

Posted by: Lark on November 05, 1999 at 15:44:10:

In Reply to: Problem indeed!---a Farewell to Lark posted by Stoller on October 31, 1999 at 17:36:47:

: Where did you get that?

I mean that many Libertarian Marxists or Literal Communists consider co-operatives or central planning or anything that incorporates a wage system, that isnt to each according to their need, is a from of capitalism, self managed or whatever but capitalism none the less.

: I was pointing out that ALL forms of payment are essentially arbitrary.

Oh, OK.

: Ad hocary?

Just trying different ways to organise production etc. where the consistant and premeditated element is the principles of equality, communism-socialism and liberty.

: : ... as the order of the day and the system in which people find the real maximisation...

: 'Maximisation'---the language of the capitalist!

Oh, I'm sorry what type of official newspeak is being operated today. I could say "Best", "Most Perfect", What would you suggest?

: : ...of liberty and equality, the exercise of the freewill...

: Freedom to or freedom from?

Both, either by themselves is a bit useless but definitely Freedom to, Barry I dont like where this is going....

: : In this way you can have mutualism/market socialism existing alongside minature command economies...

: Market socialism?

Yugoslavian Socialism or Co-operative Socialism/Communities.

Or the Socialism of Proudhon or Benjamin Tucker.

: Are you kidding?

No, I'd prefer to live in a Communist or Syndicalist region but other people might not want to.

: The market first commodifies labor. That IS capitalism.

Well I dont think it's perfect, given the choice I dont favour it but it's better than the present system Barry.

: : ...collectivist wage systems or even complete communism with the only precondition being that each acknowledge that the others "order" is their free choice. The only concern I'd have is to ensure that one region wasnt impoverished or overly subsidised at the expense of another.

: Not possible as long as 'the market' exists.

Not while "the Market" is a mighty market anyway.

: : However I personally believe communism, receiving according to need, is impossible because who defines need? If someone is a junkie or an alcoholic wouldnt they just exist in some hedonistic orgy to no ones benefit and to everyones expense?

: So what form of payment---if all forms are arbitrary---DO you advocate?

Well, I assume that Communism is like what Kropotkin suggested in Fields, Factories and Workshops, Central stores of goods and commodities are created that people can draw on as they wish. I'm not advocating this because you might go to pick up some drink for a party or something and town drunk has swallowed the lot. Proudhon advocated payment according to hours laboured and democratic socialists advocating the maintaining of the current arrangement only modified, EG money doesnt dominate, or want doesnt dominate, I'd be sympathetic to these positions.

: Or shall we just fall back on ad hocary?

I, er, think your making fun of me Barry, ad hoc isnt disorder it's organised diversity and prepared spontaneuity.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup