— SteemCN

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

freebornangel (73) · 7 years ago (edited)

Sorry, i dont subscribe to any dogmas.

Either the shelf has enough shoes to meet demand or a reorder is in order.
If the factory cant keep up with the reorders, expansion is in order.
If the shoes sit on the shelf despite being free for the taking, its a clue.

Now, all the people that used to work in accounting need to find something productive to do.
If they are under 50.

joesal (45) · 7 years ago (edited)

You are already subscribed to the dogma of the 'shelf'.

We haven't even got to the point of discussing efficient allocation of resources in production.

freebornangel (73) · 7 years ago (edited)

Again, dogma created to keep the slaves from thinking outside the proscribed box doesnt appeal to me.

If i can motivate the workers to continue doing the work your ballon pops.

I think access to whatever the worker could desire and halving her work hours while assuring her of a home and food will do that.
Retirement at 50 to a jetset lifestyle is certainly more appealing to me than the trailer park and catfood sandwiches at 67.

Besides, what do you do with the starving workers replaced by automation?
My buddy was a tv master controller for 35 years and got replaced by a computer 3 years before his check kicked in.
He bagged groceries for a couple months but his back wouldnt take it.
Luckily he kept up his medical insurance long enough to pay a doctor to get him a disability check, or he would've lost the house he'd been paying on for twelve years.
All because the billionaires need another billion?
No thanks, that is indefensible, to me.
Better to find another way.
Lucky for us the plan was mapped out in 1887!

joesal (45) · 7 years ago (edited)

There is no dogma in saying people have preferences in quality, price and speed of delivery. It's just reality.

I don't think you are ready to have a sincere discussion.

There are solutions to automation, and rent seeking billionaires. Communism, or Collective Shelfism is not an answer.
(Was that the book that started your communism venture? Government will solve everything......that's the plan, seriously?)

freebornangel (73) · 7 years ago

Yep, but i dont need economic theory to keep the shelves stocked, either.

Just the outline, he gets wrapped up in details better left to the locals.
There is nothing that crapitaliusm does that cant be done without banksters and their dollars.

Call it communism, but know that it is the pre-marxian definition i am using.
Emma discusses the differences here:
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia

lucylin (67) · 7 years ago

There is nothing that crapitaliusm does that cant be done without banksters and their dollars.

100% correct. crapitilasim (crony capitalism) needs dismantling/destroying.

Thanks for this link - a fascinating read.

What is your definition (not thesis!lol) of communism..?

freebornangel (73) · 7 years ago

We all work together for the common good.

$0.00

joesal (45) · 7 years ago (edited)

Emma was a good apple for sure. She was one of the few who attempted to pull Lenins head out of his ass.

There continues to be problems even pre-marxian in that incentives become a problem when people do not own their means of existence/production.

Subjective value exchanges can be traced back to hunter gatherer times. The model worked before their were banksters or fiat currency.

Private property can go back as far as hammer stones used to knapp flint. The makers of the time found subjective value in ownership of their own means of production.

At least Emma came from a position that communism needed to be voluntary. The problem is no communism model, however pure to the idea, lasts. There has to be a answer to why it doesn't.

I think we are looking for something very similar, the divergence is between whether property should be held socially or individually.

I look at banks as a social construct. I look at fiat currency as a social construct. I look at corporatism as a social construct. State Capitalism, as Emma puts it....a social construct.

Much of the stuff that is hated about capitalism isn't capitalism, it's the social constructs built in and around capitalism. With that in mind, when I make the decision of whether property should be held by social constructs, or individuals, I make a discernment that social ownership leads to the very things I dislike.

So what are the things I like about capitalism? Do individuals have a preference to build things with their own tools? Do individuals have a preference(and incentive) to benefit from the full value of their production? Do individuals like to exchange goods and services without coercion?

I find it difficult to make a case against owner operator types of capitalism where the individuals maintain sovereignty over their own individual production and exchanges.

freebornangel (73) · 7 years ago

Yes, perhaps i should clarify.
I dont see any need to disposess people.
I do see a need to change the power dynamic in collective endeavors.

On any given tuesday, the workers can continue to do the work while refusing to pay for anything.
By adopting this pattern the work keeps getting done while nobody is denied what they want.
Call it what you like.

The workers at the bigbox stores supply the world now, as long as that continues we can short circuit the bankster dystopia by simply refusing to pay.

That sounds like ancom to me.
But we can call it what we want since the idea is not exactly what those that coined the term had in mind.

It really is as simple as keep working, stop paying.
People between 20 and 50 will have a standard and if most meet that standard the kids prepare for what they want to do, and those over 50 do as they please.
If Kropotkin got the math right, 20k hours is all that will be expected to meet the standard.
Though we can assume most folks will stay busy longer.

Now, whatever economic theories anybody wants to use to make sure the shelves are stocked to meet contingencies is fine with me.
As long as nobody is denied what they want, im good.
They will simply pickup what they need locally, or make a special order online.
When supply meets demand, it appears at the getting place, maybe a warehouse, dock, or your driveway.
It will be a mark of shame on all workers to fail to supply the demand.
This is the 21st century, nobody should be doing without whatever they desire.
We should have orbiting retirement homes, but good luck financing that when paying half the money to profit and doubling the price with interest.

joesal (45) · 7 years ago

The term communism typically is inherent with force to deny individual(s) the ownership of the means of production/existence.

It's not operational without force and coercion.

If people on a voluntary basis opt in or out of the social construct, and the construct doesn't violate individual sovereignty, then it is more in line with voluntaryism.

Which again, just labels, but what is contained in those labels, is whether a system will use violence and coercion or not. Distinctions like that matter.

So if I am seeing this correctly, the proposed idea is a public shelf system where people on a voluntary basis work to fill the shelves, then as they need things, they go to the shelves and remove the products they need.

Is that accurate?