RE: Moving to hive

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Moving to hive

in centralizedshitcoin •  6 years ago 

Capitalism actually has the inverse reaction on all those topics. Those are a thing because of technological improvements, of which capitalism holds back from many places around the world such as Africa for example. You are on the opposite side of correct.

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:  

such as Africa for example

You mean that continent where high levels of state control forestalled any kind of progress? That place? Pretty crap example of capitalism failing, chief.

Global capitalism affects the entire world, lol. States existing and enforcing things and controlling this is inherently capitalistic as they own the land and enforce laws. Ideal world system would be globalized anarcho communism where everyone works together and builds together. Nationalism and "this is mine!" mentality is poison.

Lmao. Right, cause exclusive use of natural resources doesn't reduce conflict.

Two people want to make use of the same plot of land. No one can own anything, so neither can exclude the other. How is this problem resolved via anarcho-communism?

Why would those two people want to use the same space when there's enough space of equal value for everyone to use at their own leisure?

Maybe they both just particularly like that plot of land. Maybe one of them likes it for its particularly favorable soil conditions re: farming. Maybe the other likes the view to the southwest re: building a house on it. Who are you to question their choice?

More importantly: how does anarcho-communism resolve this dispute where no one can exclusively control any natural resource?

Again, the dispute can't really happen if there are multiple plots that meet the exact same criteria. Note, also, that ancomm isn't really a realistic goal until we can work toward regulating and eventually abolishing the current system of toxic global capitalism, which will take a long time. I don't have a problem with regulated captalist-lite placeholders until we further research and develop the technology to fully realize an idealized world. It's a roadmap, not going from 1-100. Robotic control of production and automation will assist greatly in this goal.

Again, the dispute can't really happen

So you mean to tell me that two people cannot want the same plot of land simultaneously? Who are you to decide what two people may or may not want?

I'm referring to when you said there would be reasons as to them wanting it (better soil n shit), that wouldn't occur in this idealized world view.

Also, please read the rest of my answer, thanks.

There is no enough space of equal value for everyone - unless you want the value to be zero. Then you can have land worth of equal value for everyone.

Or otherwise by killing most of people.

...not really.

Yes.

Care to open up? As the markets are more and more free, the people have been prosperous and living better. If you're claiming capitalism has been only holding these back, I could be interested on how you have anything to back this up.

Again, that's technology. Also, the markets in current times aren't free, they are owned and manipulated by corporations. Hence the reason why wages have been going down in America for the past 30-40 years.

Of course markets aren't free, but people are free to make choices in the market and this determines the success of corporations.

In socialism, the people can't choose and thus people can't make better choices.

But about the wages.. this is data regarding average wages in the US:

Do you not understand how inflation and lack of minimum wage tie works? "averages" are up because big money CEOs make more money but the actual middle class median worker makes the same, and the dollar inflates and becomes less valuable, so people making $10/h for a decade lose value over time. This chart is meaningless as it doesn't factor literally anything.

In socialism, people can choose whatever they want, people are just compensated by the value of their work instead of the CEOs stealing it all. Please try a bit harder.

In other words, the problems we're seeing are because of state intervention in the market place vis-a-vis monetary inflation. CEOs don't steal anything. You literally contract your time and energy out in exchange for compensation via a medium of exchange (in most cases). No one is stealing anything, unless you think voluntary contracts are theft. Which, of course, is absurd nonsense and invalidates human beings choosing anything.

Take your pick, chief. Either way, socialism is garbage. It's only less garbage compared to communism, which is downright evil and denies humanity.

CEOs steal all of the profit from labor, and give you a small slice of what the total value is. That's evil garbage. If someone can sit on a chair for 3 minutes and make more money than an entire nation does in a day, then there is a problem. Licking the boots of rich people won't make you rich, it makes you brainwashed.

It is theft because it is the only option presented.

It is theft because it is the only option presented.

In nature, you work or you starve to death. Is nature stealing from you, too?

We are civilized, nature is irrelevant. Ancap (assuming you're ancap as your username has anarcho in it and you're entirely ignorant of actual anarchist principals) is a fundamentally unstable and unmanageable form of society, it will not and cannot happen under any circumstance unless there's some nuclear war (see: The Fallout Franchise).

The way you see the world is very unfortunate. By default, your worldview automatically declares disabled people as worthless, which is pretty horrifying to think. Just because somebody cannot "work" doesn't mean they are useless. An automated society unburdened by labor is free to prosper in the creative and intellectual pursuits indefinitely, which creates a much brighter society.

Well according to global statistics, people with the lowest income have improved their situation the most and rich less than them.

I'm baffled by the sheer amount of CEOs if they can affect the average income statistics like this.

Well lucky for us, the situation of the poor has been improving, so it's hard to be upset at the system.

situation for the poor has been improving

where do you live?

Why would it matter?
Just some global poverty data https://ourworldindata.org/poverty-at-higher-poverty-lines

You can find smoe extremely interesting data, total amount of poverty over the past decades. Just this one chart:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-by-per-capita-household-consumption

You can see that in start of 1980's there were over a billion people earning less than $1.25 per day. 2013 it was less than half a billion.
The markets have become increasingly free and poverty has dropped. Povety doesn't decrease alone with technology.

If you are not American, I can understand being ignorant to the ways of what I'm mostly discussing, for more European countries, global capitalism doesn't affect them as directly and as harshly as it does here.

Give this article a read for me.
https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/