Pyramid of Capitalism

[kılıç_mehmet]

You don't support anarchy because you're weak? How... Typical.

Well, if I were weak, would you throw me out to the dogs?
That's so much for the fairness of your worldview.

All that armies are is a group of thugs. If that bothers you then that's great. If it doesn't then why mention it? I dont like mercs. Others can use them, but if they think about attacking a place I live in: they will meet pain there.

Yes, you certainly talk big.

As for how well I would fare: quite. Did I mention that you miss less with explosives the more of them there are? and that poisons are easier to spread into supplies the more of them there are?

Yeah, you certainly watched either too many movies, or played too many video games.
You wouldn't even find the supplies that you need to carry out your current life if you were living *your world*.

Afraid you don't understand how tetchy coups are at first. The people are almost always split. A nation without its people's support is not a nation at all

Well, your nation is an artificial one, so maybe you're right on that one.
But mine has it's base on blood and history. That's why we have a country based on it.
And that's why it's going to carry on.

I have the power of being unconcerned with collateral, following only my own will, and a capacity to adapt and make the most of what I've got every step of the way. Those aren't light strengths... whether you respect me or not is irrelevant to my ability to gut you. May all governments die of a thousand paper cuts and may all of those who believe their people to be weak continue to do so. Governments should be afraid of their people

You are going to gut me? I don't think that you can even slaughter a chicken.
Governments are the people. What is a government without the people doing the paperwork? What is the government without the people who supply it's electricity? However, without governance, none of these would work in any kind of harmony. That is what a government should try to archieve. However, you seek to destroy harmony in your selfish pursuits.
Selfishness is not going to give you any kind of fulfillment, I can tell you that.

If you work for an ideal: how do you make money?

I make money for living. However, I live my life towards that goal, that ideal. It is uncertain if it'll be accomplished in my lifetime, but I strive for my sons and grandsons to see it become reality.
What do you strive for? Really?
You are, according to how you describe yourself, an outcast. Someone who is not deemed to be acceptable according to social norms. You are not fit to work in higher places, you are not fit to have children, you are not fit to do anything that makes society really progress.
Is that why you hate society? Is that why you have chosen the easier path?
I think so. And I still think that you can't hurt a fly.

[reverendjeremiah]

There is no order, no law. You propose that we go back to the stone age with modern technology.

No. That is a specific anarchism called "Anarcho-primitivism", which is not very popular. Anarcho-syndicalism is VERY technology friendly...it's even nicknamed "techno-anarchy". I will also point out that there is also another form of governing close to Syndicalism called "Technocracy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

Like I said before, Technocracy and Syndicalism are VERY closely related to each other. So much so that they tend to get along well when mixed together.

Many anarchists are very bright and educated and enjoy technology.

Not to mention you made yet ANOTHER mistake in your posting. You have equated law and order with technology.

Police and armies can exist without governments?

Yes they can and yes they do. A very quick example is mercenaries, or guns for hire. Of course, I dispise mercs. Any army system you can think of can exist without a government. In other words, military is MILITARY. They have their own comand structure. Surely you, being the military buff that you are, should understand this?

What are you going to have? Militias?

The militia won the American Revolutionary war and rubbed the king of Englands face in his own shit over 200 years ago. The government of America back in that day was barely starting, so they depended on individuals coming forward and doing what they could to revolt against the government that enthralled them.

The police protects everyone. You, and the guy next door.

LOL. You mean to tell me that a cop will take a bullet for me? LMFAO! That sentence was rather naive of you.

But what if the guy in the next door hates, say, people who hate ice-cream and founds a militia that is made up from people who hate ice-cream, and barres a portion of the neighborhood or begins to persecute, kill or torture ice-cream eaters, who are you going to turn to?

..and how will this differ if the guy next door to YOU, in your government run country, does the same thing and builds a militia big anough to split the country in half? In other words, how is that ANY different from the chances you are taking right now in your heavily governed state?

And it'll be the same for armies, fragmented, and seperate. You need to have a solid authority for things to work.

I point you back up to my original quote that a military has its own internal command structure independent of STATE government.

Besides, all companies and assorted things now run on the lines of the law.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...OMG....honestly. You think companies obey laws? You think wallstreet follows regulations? Look up East India Company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

They bacame their own government.

[Like if I knew that the police wouldn't take me in, what really stops me from having my own gang enter a company building and seizing all the assets inside?

then that basically means you are an asshole doesnt it? You are telling me that you would willing do horrible and bad things because there is no government to stop you.

Syndicalism gives everyone an equal share of the pie. they will have what they need. If someone wants more, how long do you think they will get before someone stops them? How about Germany? They went from decent republic to Fascism in leass than 5 years. What was the protection that their former government good for?

you speak of government as if it is something permanent and protective. Yet an elementary pass through the governments of history reveal that all governments fail, and are sometimes IMMEDIATELY usurped by unsavory folk like the Nazi's.

All you are doing is wringing your hands at me in that post. there is not one single guarentee for or against any type of government system.

Bodyguards? What if they try the same? It's what you want to call it, anarchy. IT's fucking anarchy everywhere. You cannot expect things to run on their own.

What if your neighbor decides to up and murder you in the night? Where was your government and law and order to help you then?

And, as usual, you completely get anarchy wrong. Have you even looked it up? Have you done ANY research on it? I think quite a few things will run on their own. If people are willing to do things, then it will get done. If people are NOT willing to do things, then I suggest slavery is being forced upon the masses if they are forced to do such things.

[kılıç_mehmet]

No. That is a specific anarchism called "Anarcho-primitivism", which is not very popular. Anarcho-syndicalism is VERY technology friendly...it's even nicknamed "techno-anarchy". I will also point out that there is also another form of governing close to Syndicalism called "Technocracy".

And really, how do you expect for technology to progress if there is no funding?
Who will fund technology? You?

Many anarchists are very bright and educated and enjoy technology.

Not to mention you made yet ANOTHER mistake in your posting. You have equated law and order with technology.

Well, we all enjoy technology. However without funding, technology won't really progress more than it has now.

Yes they can and yes they do. A very quick example is mercenaries, or guns for hire. Of course, I dispise mercs. Any army system you can think of can exist without a government. In other words, military is MILITARY. They have their own comand structure. Surely you, being the military buff that you are, should understand this?

Mercenaries are guns for hire. However, they are guns for hire. They are not loyal to any governments, people, or anyone besides their own pockets.
You expect such people to guard your property and lives?
Military is not simply military. My military is made up of my own people. Not by anyone elses. And those are the only ones I'd ever trust.

The militia won the American Revolutionary war and rubbed the king of Englands face in his own shit over 200 years ago. The government of America back in that day was barely starting, so they depended on individuals coming forward and doing what they could to revolt against the government that enthralled them.

And they worked towards the goal of setting up a government themselves.
Because they too knew that without governance, nothing will work in the first place.
They also wrote a bill of rights, amendments and etc, important documents that govern your law and governance even today.

LOL. You mean to tell me that a cop will take a bullet for me? LMFAO! That sentence was rather naive of you.

A cop might stop that person from firing a bullet however.
Like imagine yourself being raped. The rapist has a gun. No one comes to your help. However the police has to, because that's what they are for.
And again, these are the ones who bring offenders to justice.
Law and justice is the basis of property.
And the police are there to enforce it.

.and how will this differ if the guy next door to YOU, in your government run country, does the same thing and builds a militia big anough to split the country in half? In other words, how is that ANY different from the chances you are taking right now in your heavily governed state?

They split the country in half. Icecream eaters are on the one side, non-eaters are on the other. And they both will enact laws in accordance with eachother and set up different governments.
In any case, a government will be set up.
I'll give you an example from our own war of independence.
Before we started to really battle the invaders besides small gangs that fought them by means of guerilla warfare, which didn't really halt their advance by any margain, our founding fathers first set up a government to actually do things properly. This government provided the basis for the later Turkish government, after we won the war.
This would not have been possible if decisions were not made in an orderly fashion, and with good governance.

I point you back up to my original quote that a military has its own internal command structure independent of STATE government.

Indeed, however the military strives to protect the state and it's people. Not itself.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...OMG....honestly. You think companies obey laws? You think wallstreet follows regulations? Look up East India Company.

And this is the reason you want to abolish laws and regulations?
I think this is only the case where laws and regulations are not properly enforced, or are being lax, because of the selfish interests of others, like yourself. I'm sure you would also give a blind eye to any companies that would stuff your pockets with the green.
Corruption occurs when people flaunt the law. However, removing the law does not make corruption less corrupt because it's not defined by a law anymore.

then that basically means you are an asshole doesnt it? You are telling me that you would willing do horrible and bad things because there is no government to stop you.

Maybe not me. But someone would. And without laws, government and any assorted things that make them reconsider each of their moves, who can say how they will behave.

Syndicalism gives everyone an equal share of the pie. they will have what they need. If someone wants more, how long do you think they will get before someone stops them? How about Germany? They went from decent republic to Fascism in leass than 5 years. What was the protection that their former government good for?

Equal share? You think that you will have an equal share in a place with no law and order? You surely are delusional. Besides, what are you sharing, exactly? What is this pie you speak of? What are you trading?
What are you producing? What exactly is this pie?

you speak of government as if it is something permanent and protective. Yet an elementary pass through the governments of history reveal that all governments fail, and are sometimes IMMEDIATELY usurped by unsavory folk like the Nazi's.

However, the Nazis were aware of certain things like ethnic loyalties. And they built their country along these lines. And well, Germany did actually rise quickly after they gave the triple entente the finger.
This is because Germany was harmonized very, very quickly. A strict authority was set up, and the pure fire of nationalism too, drove people to work towards a common goal.

All you are doing is wringing your hands at me in that post. there is not one single guarentee for or against any type of government system.

And in your world, there is no guarantee for anything. Not even for running water, electricity, or food in grocery stores.
There is only the most base law of nature.
What if I own large foodstocks with my family, and you are forced to buy them from me so you can survive? And you are compelled to work in slaving conditions in the business of another family, and buy scarce food from me for outrageous prices? Do you hope for the free market to do it's magic on them?

What if your neighbor decides to up and murder you in the night? Where was your government and law and order to help you then?

He/she will be brought to justice. He/she will pay for that crime.
And in your world?
Who will bring the murderer to justice? A relative of yours? If your relatives are like you, I'm not sure if they'll even care if you get killed by anyone as to actually avenge your blood.

And, as usual, you completely get anarchy wrong. Have you even looked it up? Have you done ANY research on it? I think quite a few things will run on their own. If people are willing to do things, then it will get done. If people are NOT willing to do things, then I suggest slavery is being forced upon the masses if they are forced to do such things.

Whatever research I'll make about it, if it states an absurd, and far-fetched idea of removing the government, laws and state, and hope for people to act reasonably in a world where there is no guarantee for anything, is not going to change my mind.

Nothing will run on it's own. You can perhaps automatize major aspects of the industry. However you cannot do the same with major parts of the civil industry. You cannot do that without an environment with full abundance. And frankly, with the selfish worldview that you propagate, I'm not sure that we will ever see it either.

[reverendjeremiah]

And really, how do you expect for technology to progress if there is no funding?
Who will fund technology? You?

If I had an equal portion of the pie?
YES
I would also be a member of the electrical syndicate, which would mean that I would directly and actively be cooperating with other members of the same syndicate, and other syndicates to create new technology. I would have an equal share in all technological gizmos that you love to play with, and would work to build them.

Why is that hard for you to understand?

the word "funding" would have no meaning in a syndicalist system though, as money would be abolished. A syndicate is almost always NON-capitalist.

Well, we all enjoy technology. However without funding, technology won't really progress more than it has now.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not funding. You have been duped into the monetary system and believing that it is necessary for human progress even though it is directly responsible for poverty.

Mercenaries are guns for hire. However, they are guns for hire. They are not loyal to any governments, people, or anyone besides their own pockets.
You expect such people to guard your property and lives?

First off, I said I dont trust mercs. I was merely using them as an example that military and government can exist without each other,

Second, Syndicalists believe that property is theft. Why would they hire guards to watch their property when they think that way? Why would I also hire guards to watch something that everyone else equally owns? As far as my life... I have crossed nobody. capitalists require guards because they fuck people over all the time. A syndicalist is open armed. "Do you need food? Here, have some of mine." Why would I need guards in a syndicalist majority nation? Why would there be so much stealing in a nation where everyone owns an equal share of the pie? Why cant you understand this?

Military is not simply military. My military is made up of my own people. Not by anyone elses. And those are the only ones I'd ever trust.

I work with the military on a day to day basis, and I have even worked with NATO. Military has its own agenda and rules regardless of wether a government or state exists. why cant you understand this? If the american government fell to shit, the millitary could easily take over. Some citizens say the military has already taken over, since they make up the vast majority of our economy. I tend to agree with them. Its hard to hide that in a capitalist system, that the majority owners/controlers of wealth are the rulers.

And they worked towards the goal of setting up a government themselves.
Because they too knew that without governance, nothing will work in the first place.
They also wrote a bill of rights, amendments and etc, important documents that govern your law and governance even today.

Really? You knew what they were thinking back then? You must be a powerful psychic to read the minds of thousands of dead people from 200 years ago.

Tell me... what am I thinking right now?

They also bickered like hell over those bill of rights, and many of them distrusted each other in congress from what I have read from their autobiographies. It is also known that they boarded up the windows of the building they discussed their new found government in that was supposed to be "for the people, by the people." Benajmin Franklin wasnt trusted by anyone to be by himself, so he was spied upon because he openly spoke of what went on behind those borded up windows. And how about those slaves they all owned. Sure. those laws really helped those law makers get more wealthy didnt they?
Yeah. Just a handful of people come together representing everyone in the country. Sure... everyone agreed with them. Including the black people, women, non-christians, and the natives.

A cop might stop that person from firing a bullet however.
Like imagine yourself being raped. The rapist has a gun. No one comes to your help. However the police has to, because that's what they are for.
And again, these are the ones who bring offenders to justice.
Law and justice is the basis of property.
And the police are there to enforce it.

..and a spaceship may use its force fields to protect me from that bullet as well. You have WAY too much faith in the police. Ever seen a cop stand around and do nothing? ever seen a cop break the law? Honestly man, why do I even have to point this out to you.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but how old are you? Seriously, Im not trying to mock you. I just want to know your age.

And this is the reason you want to abolish laws and regulations?
I think this is only the case where laws and regulations are not properly enforced, or are being lax, because of the selfish interests of others, like yourself. I'm sure you would also give a blind eye to any companies that would stuff your pockets with the green.
Corruption occurs when people flaunt the law. However, removing the law does not make corruption less corrupt because it's not defined by a law anymore.

SELFISH?

Look man, if you are not going to pay attention to what I post then I will no longer discuss this with you. I have SEVERAL times posted that I believe that ALL people deserve an equal share of the pie. How is that selfish?

No, honestly. explain to me how that is selfish.

Maybe not me. But someone would. And without laws, government and any assorted things that make them reconsider each of their moves, who can say how they will behave.

Then you admit that someone would do these things regardless. Which means that government or no government it is going to happen regardless.

Did you remember that i said "equal share of the pie" when you made that? Or are you ignoring my posts?

Equal share? You think that you will have an equal share in a place with no law and order? You surely are delusional. Besides, what are you sharing, exactly? What is this pie you speak of? What are you trading?
What are you producing? What exactly is this pie?

After everything I have pointed out, including your blind faith in the police, you have very little ground to stand on calling someone delusional.
ALL property.
****Please pay CLOSE attention to me right now****
Property is theft.
Every human on this planet deserves an equal share of the planets resources along with the outcome of those resources.
There will ALWAYS be miscreants in society wether you have a government or not

However, the Nazis were aware of certain things like ethnic loyalties

...something you have expressed sympathies for. Syndicalists see ethnicity as a mere roll of the dice, something people cannot choose, and therefore a non-factor in societies determination.

And they built their country along these lines. And well, Germany did actually rise quickly after they gave the triple entente the finger.
This is because Germany was harmonized very, very quickly. A strict authority was set up, and the pure fire of nationalism too, drove people to work towards a common goal.

And they fell hard and fast as well. And yes they DROVE people in that direction. they FORCED them to do it.

I say again, if you arent willing to do it, then it is slavery.

If you are DRIVEN to do it, then you are not an individual. You are a puppet.

And in your world, there is no guarantee for anything. Not even for running water, electricity, or food in grocery stores.
There is only the most base law of nature.
What if I own large foodstocks with my family, and you are forced to buy them from me so you can survive? And you are compelled to work in slaving conditions in the business of another family, and buy scarce food from me for outrageous prices? Do you hope for the free market to do it's magic on them?

You didnt even read my examples of the syndicate did you? You are still using the words "buy", yet you speak of them as if they are in my world view. My world view has no want for money. How many times must I explain it to you?
I doubt I will respond to another post such as this. You have shown in this post that you didnt read and/or understand my last posts.

If you refuse to even read or understand what I post, then I will refuse to read and answer yours.

[theVOID]

If I had an equal portion of the pie?
YES

You should have a portion of the pie relative to the value of your contributions. The problem is your proposed system has no non-arbitrary way to assign value.

I would also be a member of the electrical syndicate, which would mean that I would directly and actively be cooperating with other members of the same syndicate, and other syndicates to create new technology. I would have an equal share in all technological gizmos that you love to play with, and would work to build them.

And who is going to pay you in the mean time? Who is going to provide the capital needed for the infrastructure and other initial costs? If you're getting a share of the value of the finished product then what of your wages before this venture yields some technology of value that other people are willing to trade resources for? You're going to need investors, some persons to lend you resources in the interim for start-up capital and wages, and the only reason any company, investor or syndicate is going to want to do that is if they get something in return for their loss of resources.

the word "funding" would have no meaning in a syndicalist system though, as money would be abolished. A syndicate is almost always NON-capitalist.

Oh, so someone giving you resources to start the venture and provide for the persons involved in the interim magically isn't funding if you've got a no-money system?

And what are you going to use to endow people with value to exchange for that which they desire? Is there going to be some arbitrator who decides what it is the people need, or do you have to write a letter with a request and see how much of the allotted pool of resources is available to provide you with the items you seek?

Syndicalists believe that property is theft.

Property is theft? So if you make a guitar and claim ownership of it then you've "stolen" from someone?

Why would they hire guards to watch their property when they think that way?

99.99% of people DO NOT think that way and telling them that they should or must is NEVER going to work. If someone spends their time working towards some material end, be that exchanging the proceeds of their productivity for other goods or crafting goods of their own then they will see that object as their property, you have absolutely no right to tell them otherwise.

Why would I also hire guards to watch something that everyone else equally owns? As far as my life... I have crossed nobody.

Oh right, because that's the only reason people ever get killed

capitalists require guards because they fuck people over all the time.

Sure, and no socialists ever had protection!

A syndicalist is open armed. "Do you need food? Here, have some of mine."

No, a generous person is open armed, it doesn't matter one iota what system of government they are operating under, the attitude of a person being such that they would freely give their own resources to another person is something that runs much deeper than the facade of politics. Encouraging more of this behavior is apolitical.

Why would I need guards in a syndicalist majority nation?

Maybe the people who can paint two walls in the time their colleague can do one but is no better off for it are pissed off. Maybe the people who have ideas for goods/services which improve the lives of a great number of people are pissed off when their ideas are stolen by the collective and given to other people.

Why would there be so much stealing in a nation where everyone owns an equal share of the pie?

Because some people want more, there are people who are inherently greedy who will steal, irrespective of their circumstances. Changing a political system will do absolutely nothing to change this fact of nature, the only appropriate response is to punish those who take resources from other people without consent.

I work with the military on a day to day basis, and I have even worked with NATO. Military has its own agenda and rules regardless of wether a government or state exists. why cant you understand this? If the american government fell to shit, the millitary could easily take over. Some citizens say the military has already taken over, since they make up the vast majority of our economy. I tend to agree with them. Its hard to hide that in a capitalist system, that the majority owners/controlers of wealth are the rulers.

I agree with this, but it has more to do with the level of centralized control that exists than anything else, when the government or a collective (and subsequently the military) have authority over the rights and lives of other people then there always exists the opportunity for such a thing.

[Violet]

Well, if I were weak, would you throw me out to the dogs?
That's so much for the fairness of your worldview.

No... I'd (smiling) invite you to the shelter of my syndicate. If you from there betrayed my trust: why should I pity you for receiving your just desserts?

Yes, you certainly talk big.

Of course. I am me, after all If you were looking for pathetic, it's everyone in pink who is restricted to the gauntlet

Yeah, you certainly watched either too many movies, or played too many video games.

Or played with explosives as a kid. Ever been to the boonies of alaska?

Nothing quite beats the fun of rolling a flaming gasoline-filled tire down a 130 foot bluff with a bomb in it. Give me some C4/<insert other strong explosive here>, and I promise you an invading army will be hurting real bad. Quite a rush, explosives.

You wouldn't even find the supplies that you need to carry out your current life if you were living *your world*.

Carry out my current life? You confuse me. I want not for food, for water, for shelter. All I require from others is my medical procedures and hormones. Everything else can go fuck itself

Well, your nation is an artificial one, so maybe you're right on that one.
But mine has it's base on blood and history. That's why we have a country based on it.
And that's why it's going to carry on.

Artificial? What nation is not artificial?

History is a fairytale. However bloody it be dependent only upon the author(s). The reason you have a country is that you currently have (or quite recently had) a force of power that deigns to call itself such a thing as a country. 'Tain't 'bout history 'tall, just about who's got it and who doesn't got it.

You are going to gut me? I don't think that you can even slaughter a chicken.
Governments are the people. What is a government without the people doing the paperwork? What is the government without the people who supply it's electricity? However, without governance, none of these would work in any kind of harmony. That is what a government should try to archieve. However, you seek to destroy harmony in your selfish pursuits.
Selfishness is not going to give you any kind of fulfillment, I can tell you that.

Much as I'd like to respond to your trollishness (I've assisted in the butchering of a pig, 2 moose, and a few rabbits), I simply don't give a fuck. It's only fun to respond to trolls while they're being fun. Otherwise: no point

[kılıç_mehmet]

No... I'd (smiling) invite you to the shelter of my syndicate. If you from there betrayed my trust: why should I pity you for receiving your just desserts?

Yeah, whatever dude. You speak just nonsense now.

Or played with explosives as a kid. Ever been to the boonies of alaska?

Nothing quite beats the fun of rolling a flaming gasoline-filled tire down a 130 foot bluff with a bomb in it. Give me some C4/<insert other strong explosive here>, and I promise you an invading army will be hurting real bad. Quite a rush, explosives.

Then go and build yourself your own empire somewhere in some lone mountains and declare anarchy. Let's see how you deal with anyone who wants to break your back.

Carry out my current life? You confuse me. I want not for food, for water, for shelter. All I require from others is my medical procedures and hormones. Everything else can go fuck itself

Good for you.

Artificial? What nation is not artificial?

Mine isn't.

History is a fairytale. However bloody it be dependent only upon the author(s). The reason you have a country is that you currently have (or quite recently had) a force of power that deigns to call itself such a thing as a country. 'Tain't 'bout history 'tall, just about who's got it and who doesn't got it.

That force is us. The people who see themselves as the people of this country.
If we didn't aspire for our own country, we wouldn't really have fought any invaders anyways. But we did. And most of us integrated from the lands we previously lived to this land which was the land of the Turks.

Much as I'd like to respond to your trollishness (I've assisted in the butchering of a pig, 2 moose, and a few rabbits), I simply don't give a fuck. It's only fun to respond to trolls while they're being fun. Otherwise: no point

Nice, you've assisted in the butchering of a few animals. But I still think that you're soft. And you are, as a matter of fact.

[bozo]

The workers make the guns, the food, run the silos, maintain the infrastructure, and keep things moving. If the workers altogether revolted: kings and popes would together be meaningless.

Brecht exressed it thus;-

http://chilaborarts.wordpress.com/2010/0...-april-11/

[reverendjeremiah]

You should have a portion of the pie relative to the value of your contributions. The problem is your proposed system has no non-arbitrary way to assign value.

Why? Why SHOULD it be that way? Nobody's name is on that gold, or on that food sitting in the storage bin.
Do you consider human life as valueable? I do. Syndicalists place human life as the value in their system. Human life is precious regardless of age, sex, race, and even religious beliefs and THAT is how they base their values system.

How does your proposed system assign value?

And who is going to pay you in the mean time? Who is going to provide the capital needed for the infrastructure and other initial costs? If you're getting a share of the value of the finished product then what of your wages before this venture yields some technology of value that other people are willing to trade resources for? You're going to need investors, some persons to lend you resources in the interim for start-up capital and wages, and the only reason any company, investor or syndicate is going to want to do that is if they get something in return for their loss of resources.

First off, pay as in "money" pay will usually be abolished in the system. Syndicalism can be run in many different ways, and some may very well use a monetary system. I personally am in favor of the ration system. And dont give me that heartache about rationing. rationing still exists in capitalist societies. the only difference is that someone who has a crap load of money can buy up the entire rationed stock and then jack the prices up and sell it for an inflated profit, which is cruel and anti-social. My proposed system has no need for investors and most especially money lenders. They are leeches of society who do nothing more than shuffle paper work, create slave wages, and are generally worthless and harmful to society. Syndicalism will come together with all trade unions in deciding where the raw materials will be used to create necesary items. Companies will no longer exist. Investors will no longer exist. Syndicates are NOT investors. The return is a happy life. Loss of resources are minimized through recycle programs.

Oh, so someone giving you resources to start the venture and provide for the persons involved in the interim magically isn't funding if you've got a no-money system?

And what are you going to use to endow people with value to exchange for that which they desire? Is there going to be some arbitrator who decides what it is the people need, or do you have to write a letter with a request and see how much of the allotted pool of resources is available to provide you with the items you seek?

Nope. I will have an equal vote in the process when it comes to the trade I am involved in. It is to ensure that those who are knowledgable have the say so in the direction of what is created from the result of their trade. Capitalism will let greedy, blood sucking investors fund medical research. because of that, medicine price are outrageous. In a syndicate, medical professionals form a group to decide what would best benefit humanity. Monetary profit is obsolete, and human happiness and well being becomes the value.

Property is theft? So if you make a guitar and claim ownership of it then you've "stolen" from someone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

99.99% of people DO NOT think that way and telling them that they should or must is NEVER going to work. If someone spends their time working towards some material end, be that exchanging the proceeds of their productivity for other goods or crafting goods of their own then they will see that object as their property, you have absolutely no right to tell them otherwise.
---
Oh right, because that's the only reason people ever get killed

So. Do you have a guard then?

I dont.

Sure, and no socialists ever had protection!

I'm sure they had to as well... and?

No, a generous person is open armed, it doesn't matter one iota what system of government they are operating under, the attitude of a person being such that they would freely give their own resources to another person is something that runs much deeper than the facade of politics. Encouraging more of this behavior is apolitical.

No, a syndicalist is a generous person, just like a generous person is a generous person. Lets not try to play word games here.

I like being accused of being "apolitical".... it's fitting.

Maybe the people who can paint two walls in the time their colleague can do one but is no better off for it are pissed off. Maybe the people who have ideas for goods/services which improve the lives of a great number of people are pissed off when their ideas are stolen by the collective and given to other people.

Maybe maybe maybe.... I have alot of maybes too. Maybe people steal because capitalism forces them to do so. Maybe people kill because their society values things more than human lives.

Because some people want more, there are people who are inherently greedy who will steal, irrespective of their circumstances. Changing a political system will do absolutely nothing to change this fact of nature, the only appropriate response is to punish those who take resources from other people without consent.

absolutely 100% correct. And I am not suggesting to change a political system. I am advocating abolishing the political system.

I agree with this, but it has more to do with the level of centralized control that exists than anything else, when the government or a collective (and subsequently the military) have authority over the rights and lives of other people then there always exists the opportunity for such a thing.

Syndicalism tries its best not to centralize power. Syndicalism deals in a diversification through co-operation.

BTW...thanks for the great discussion!

---

The workers make the guns, the food, run the silos, maintain the infrastructure, and keep things moving. If the workers altogether revolted: kings and popes would together be meaningless.

Brecht exressed it thus;-

http://chilaborarts.wordpress.com/2010/0...-april-11/

HERE HERE!

[theVOID]

You should have a portion of the pie relative to the value of your contributions. The problem is your proposed system has no non-arbitrary way to assign value.

Why? Why SHOULD it be that way? Nobody's name is on that gold, or on that food sitting in the storage bin.

So what if "nobody's name is on it"? I couldn't think of a more irrelevant point, it's like a thief stealing a car and saying "nobody was using it".

Imaging a situation with a barter system, people trade their resources for those that they believe to be of an equivalent value. A person hires two people to paint his house and he's willing to offer a chicken for each wall painted, one painter paints 3 walls, the other two, both in the same amount of time, do you think there is something "unfair" about the more efficient painter being rewarded for achieving more? Clearly his labor is objectively more valuable than the other painter, he can achieve more with the same resources, his contribution is one that results in a higher increase in net-value over the same period of time.

The unfair thing in my view would be both painters receiving 2.5 chickens even though one person contributed more.

Do you consider human life as valueable?

As long as their life is desired by themselves or someone else then, seeing as value is entirely a function of desire, they necessarily have value. In contrast, suppose there is a person living by themselves on an island whose existence is unknown to anyone AND this person does not desire to live, then their life objectively has no value - Without someone to desire something there simply cannot be any value placed on it. There is no intrinsic value, no value "as a matter of fact", only value contingent upon the existence of someone who desires it.

I do. Syndicalists place human life as the value in their system. Human life is precious regardless of age, sex, race, and even religious beliefs and THAT is how they base their values system.

So human life has special magic value that just is? Nonsense. That's no less mysterious and unexplained than God or pixies.

How does your proposed system assign value?

I'd ask you the same question, because other than asserting "all x are valuable" you haven't laid even the barest framework of any kind of value theory.

Value is entirely an emergent phenomenon, there is absolutely no way for any thing at all to have a value unless it is desired by some sentient creature, the more desired some thing is the more valuable it is.

First off, pay as in "money" pay will usually be abolished in the system.

So there is no medium of exchange? Suppose a person want's a guitar, how do they go about attaining it?

I personally am in favor of the ration system.

That says it all... "Hey Mr overlord, I've worked mighty hard, do you think you can give me a guitar, I would go buy it myself because I've contributed unredeemed value that surpasses the value of the guitar, but I have no medium of exchange! Please Mr. Overlord, would you be kind enough to appropriate me a guitar? I know you might need to contact the Luthier's syndicate and you'll have to promise them some other resources from various other syndicates in exchange but I really want it, pleeeeeeaaaaase!"

And dont give me that heartache about rationing. rationing still exists in capitalist societies.

Rationing, by definition, is when a government or other organizing body appropriates the sum of a type of resource and distributes this resource of their own accord. What a fucking messy system that would be, you would have the most backwards, inefficient and eventually BROKE society ever. What if someone want's coke rather than pepsi in their food supply, does someone need to go and check a spreadsheet to make sure that person x still has some rations left to redeem? And who decides the value of each of these products if you have no price system? In the USSR they had to get their prices FROM the market economies because they had absolutely no non-arbitrary way to endow objects with value - Unless you're able to devise a system that 50 years of Russian economists couldn't master you will fare no better.

Oh, and Rationing DOES NOT exist in a market economy, one where people instead are given a medium of exchange for their productivity and can use this to exchange for whatever resources they desire and are able to purchase.

the only difference is that someone who has a crap load of money can buy up the entire rationed stock

Go do some research on Rationing systems please, because you're speaking nonsense. A rationed stock CANNOT be attained entirely by a single individual, it is distributed such as to spread it as far as possible among a given population.

and then jack the prices up and sell it for an inflated profit, which is cruel and anti-social.

Again, not possible in a rationed system, but let's assume in a market economy someone does exchange their resources for the entirety of item x and then resells the items for a higher price. So what? Do you have a "right" to these objects? Has someone "stolen" from you? No and no. You might not like it, you might really want item x, but you have no right to dictate what other people can do with their own resources - doing so is pure authoritarianism.

Luckily these situations are essentially unfeasible, producers are always producing more, someone hoarding item x and raising the prices gives other people great opportunities to compete in the production of x.

My proposed system has no need for investors and most especially money lenders.

So then, suppose some people form a syndicate to produce a new product, there is no existing infrastructure for the production of this item, everything needs to be built from scratch, assuming that all people who participate in the production of this new product are given an equal share of the results, how do they (1) Attain the resources necessary to build the chain of production, (2) Get resources to live off in the mean time?

They are leeches of society who do nothing more than shuffle paper work, create slave wages, and are generally worthless and harmful to society.

There may be some lenders who are assholes, but in general lenders are given resources by parties who seek to invest and then find the most efficient opportunities for investment, lending money to people who will use the resources to add value to the system, a portion of which will be rewarded to those who lent the resources initially for their abstaining from consuming their own resources in the short term, and also to the broker who gave up their time to organize the affair.

And you can't exactly replace this model, rather than a broker working as an intermediary between the lender and the debtor you would have a bureaucracy of some kind in the same role, some organisation who takes resources from party x to deliver to party y - the intermediary performs the same function irrespective of the larger environment.

Syndicalism will come together with all trade unions in deciding where the raw materials will be used to create necesary items.

And this cooperative, just like the broker and lender, is going to deliver the resources to the party for which they believe will make best use of it and whom will later return the most value back to the syndicate. This is no different in principle, you still have lenders and brokers whether or not you wish to call them such.

Companies will no longer exist.

So if an individual decides he does not want to be a member of a syndicate and begins to product his own goods to exchange for other resources, much like any business does, then what happens to him? Do you use force to shut him down and steal his ideas and means of production?

Syndicates are NOT investors.

Yes, they are, among other things. Taking idle resources and putting them to work in the hopes of a net increase in value IS an investment, by definition, whether or not you want to call it one doesn't change that.

The return is a happy life. Loss of resources are minimized through recycle programs.

Oh, so perhaps your syndicate can give me some resources so I can throw endless drug/alcohol fueled parties and make people happy. After all, that's a lot of happy lives. We can recycle the beer bottles to minimize loss!

Nope. I will have an equal vote in the process when it comes to the trade I am involved in. It is to ensure that those who are knowledgable have the say so in the direction of what is created from the result of their trade. Capitalism will let greedy, blood sucking investors fund medical research. because of that, medicine price are outrageous. In a syndicate, medical professionals form a group to decide what would best benefit humanity. Monetary profit is obsolete, and human happiness and well being becomes the value.

Nice job not answering the question!

Please, explain to me from start to finish the process involved in a person attaining a guitar.

Property is theft? So if you make a guitar and claim ownership of it then you've "stolen" from someone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

In your own words, thanks. Explain to me how someone building and then owning a guitar is "theft".

So. Do you have a guard then?

No, but Aung San Suu Kyi does, last I checked she's not a capitalist, neither are the people who are after her.

Sure, and no socialists ever had protection!

I'm sure they had to as well... and?

That's my point, people see the need for protection for a large variety of reasons, saying that you won't need one because you live in a magical happy-fun-time syndicate is bullshit, someone could be out to get you for a wide number of reasons. Perhaps you banged the dude's wife?

No, a syndicalist is a generous person, just like a generous person is a generous person. Lets not try to play word games here.

What word games? Generous people exist in all circumstances and walks of life. Are you trying to pretend that people in a syndicalist system have a monopoly on generosity? Someone call Bill Gates, he's been doing it wrong!

And just being generous isn't a long term solution, it's a stop-gap, the best solution is to make people self sufficient, making the generosity that exists stretch further for those who need it.

I like being accused of being "apolitical".... it's fitting.

What are you smoking there revvy? Not only are you clearly not Apolitical, but you didn't pay close attention to what I wrote if that is your conclusion.

Maybe maybe maybe.... I have alot of maybes too. Maybe people steal because capitalism forces them to do so. Maybe people kill because their society values things more than human lives.

Care to be a little more careful with your terms? "Forces" for instance, implies that "Capitalism" threatened them unless they stole. It doesn't happen, of course.

People steal primarily because they want something they don't have, whether it's through desperation and poverty, lust for an unattainable item or the profit involved. If you have less people in poverty then I strongly suspect that rates of theft will decrease, but that's got nothing to do with Capitalism vs Syndicalism, it has to do with raising the standard of living, something that has happened FASTER in market economies than other systems. For all the bitching that the "99%" do they fail to recognize that they, and other people in market economies, are in the top 1% of the global population.

The best solution though has little to do with any economic system, it has to do with raising the value of young people, giving them skills that are more desirable so they can contribute more and receive more in exchange. It is the unskilled who fester the problem, people who can't contribute anything of much value and blame everyone else for this fact, demanding that they be endowed with value that they have no means of creating on their own - Furthermore, I read a study yesterday that demonstrated that education is by far the dominant factor in societal health, things like economic systems and incomes were trailing far behind in importance.

So education is easily the most important thing, and market-driven charter schools perform better than average in terms of the results per dollar spent, so the market solution to education already has stature to solve the problem. The market socialist economies like Denmark also perform well under a different model, this fact suggests that the more important considerations run deeper than the model and environment.

absolutely 100% correct. And I am not suggesting to change a political system. I am advocating abolishing the political system.

Same difference.

BTW...thanks for the great discussion!

You too sunshine. Btw, I like your new political groove much more than the previous one