• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy deployed to Venezuela airports, seaports

Until Chavez dissolves the Republic, you cannot call him a dictator. And if the government voted for nationalization of the ports, then it is legal.

So what are you crying about?
 
Until Chavez dissolves the Republic, you cannot call him a dictator.

If you haven't seen The Revolution Will Not be Televised you should check it out.

There's this scene where the coup's self-declared Attorney General decree's that, in essence, all power is put into the hands of one man (a military man, big surprise there) and that all democratic institutions are done away with, ending with his own justice dept.

Then he goes on to say something like "We have saved freedom in Venezuela!"

One of the most ridiculous shams in my recollection, all caught on video. But what is truly surprising is that a man who signed the coup decree, Manual Rosales, went on to become Chavez's main opposition in the 2006 presidential election!!! Had that happened in the US, he would have been hung by his entrails when the govt was restored.

This latest attempt to label Mr Chavez as a dictator, simply because he disagrees with the neo-liberal dogma (which has had so much success in latin-america over the years :roll:), is getting pathetic and seems to be bordering on the obsessive.

Once again, proper definitions are done away with and a dictator is anyone who may interfere with the "free market" :roll:
 
Until Chavez dissolves the Republic, you cannot call him a dictator. And if the government voted for nationalization of the ports, then it is legal.

So what are you crying about?

I will continue calling him that until I see evidence otherwise.

I'm glad we are all comfortable with leaders doing things as long as someone voted for it.

I think that will be the new rally cry in this century.

It's ok to do evil things "He was democratically elected".




Joby said:
If you haven't seen The Revolution Will Not be Televised you should check it out.

There's this scene where the coup's self-declared Attorney General decree's that, in essence, all power is put into the hands of one man (a military man, big surprise there) and that all democratic institutions are done away with, ending with his own justice dept.

Then he goes on to say something like "We have saved freedom in Venezuela!"

One of the most ridiculous shams in my recollection, all caught on video. But what is truly surprising is that a man who signed the coup decree, Manual Rosales, went on to become Chavez's main opposition in the 2006 presidential election!!! Had that happened in the US, he would have been hung by his entrails when the govt was restored.

This latest attempt to label Mr Chavez as a dictator, simply because he disagrees with the neo-liberal dogma (which has had so much success in latin-america over the years ), is getting pathetic and seems to be bordering on the obsessive.

Once again, proper definitions are done away with and a dictator is anyone who may interfere with the "free market"

As before it will take time but you will see that he is indeed a dictator or tyrant.

Which ever you are more comfortable with.

At least he was democratically elected right?
 
Free market approaches are less Utopian than socialist ones because they directly infer human nature.

Socialism ignores the consequences of this.

That is a factually inaccurate claim. Firstly, the patently absurd nature of rational choice theory has been illustrated.

"'Can you direct me to the railway station?' asks the stranger. 'Certainly,' says the local, pointing, in the opposite direction, towards the post office, 'and would you post this letter for me on your way?' 'Certainly,' says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing." (McQuaig, 2001)

You have also failed to analyze the nature of cooperation as opposed to competition in fostering self-interest, a field of study that has been neglected ever since the emergence of social Darwinism. The major exception to this, as I mentioned previously, was Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid, a book regarding the nature of cooperation rather than competition in natural circumstances, based on his observations during his time in Siberia.

Moreover, the validity of Kropotkin's work on this topic was affirmed by no less an authority than the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould in Kropotkin Was No Crackpot.

The central logic of Kropotkin’s argument is simple, straightforward, and largely cogent...I would hold that Kropotkin’s basic argument is correct.

Gould did fault Kropotkin with not realizing that cooperation was primarily intended to benefit individual organisms, which was a common mistake at the time, but again, this misconception was not one isolated to Kropotkin. As a whole, his work is valid.

No matter which system you operate under information asymmetries always exist.

Capitalism recognizes this.

This assessment is factually inaccurate, not least because you continue to be dismissive of capitalism's ignorance of asymmetric information and its resulting problems. Comments such as "no matter which system you operate under information asymmetries always exist" fails to recognize the nature of the positive relation between equity and efficiency.

I understand clearly how the culture of Latin America operates.

What you do not understand is that under state sponsored and mandated education systems, the state domesticates the population at large with extreme non violence programs.

The Latin Americans as a whole are already on this path.

There are examples in antiquity and even modern times of revolt but that was before the introduction of state sponsored and mandated education systems which promote extreme non violence to authoritarianism.

This is curious because you first consider to fail the role of schooling in a capitalist society, in which authoritarian forms of hierarchy are utilized to form a submissive character that takes orders without question in the workplace, as evidence by reliance on the ultimate authority of teachers and administrators, the factory-like conditions, the emphasis on uniforms, etc. I would first advise you to have a look at the work of Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis in Schooling in Capitalist America, and then move on to some John Holt and Ivan Illich. Since I oppose compulsory schooling and the internal authoritarian elements within schools, perhaps you should devote greater analysis to this topic?

The purpose of the expansion of education in Venezuela has primarily been promotion of increased literacy. As again noted by Hahnel:

In addition to increasing spending dramatically on healthcare and food subsidies, the government launched a massive program of adult education. Millions of poor Venezuelans have now overcome illiteracy, and hundreds of thousands have received primary diplomas and secondary degrees studying in store-front schools named Mision Robinson I (literacy), Mision Robinson II (primary), and Mision Rivas (secondary).

What is your source? On what basis do you make contrary claims about the nature of Venezuelan education?

Humans by nature do inefficient things all the time, it will be no different under a socialist regime.

I do not promote existence "under a socialist regime." I promote social and economic organization in horizontal federations of non-hierarchical, decentralized collectives and communes operated through direct democracy. But your response still constitutes a failure to apply political economy correctly and analyze the nature of the positive relation between equity and efficiency.

That is all well and good but they are short term examples.

You don't measure the success of a program over the short term because nearly all the results will be positive.

With the human mind diminished returns follow over the long term.

It's not even a matter of "short term" gains, as worker-owned enterprises have a long tradition of existence. For instance, we could refer to the 53 year old Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, one of the largest co-operatives in the world and the largest corporation in the Basque region. As last year's annual report of the year prior noted:

MONDRAGON provided 3.9% of the total employment in the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country, and 9.1% of industrial employment. At the close of 2007, of the 103,371 people employed by the Mondragón Corporation in its cooperatives and portfolio companies, 38,335 carried out their activity in the Basque Autonomous Community and 4,848 in Navarra.

Workers' management is a critical element in the success of the MCC, a fact that they themselves proudly attest to.

It is not easy to explain the reason for the success of our co-operative and business movement in just a few words. However, we can highlight the following key points:

· The vital role played by Arizmendiarrieta, the driving force behind the Experience, with his grand vision of the future and his influence over both students and disciples when putting his ideas into practice.

· The personal nature of the co-operatives, in which people are given priority over capital, an attitude which results in a high level of worker involvement in the company, through direct participation in both the capital and the management. All this contributes to creating a positive atmosphere of consensus and collaboration.

· A decidedly business-like approach to the co-operative phenomenon, in which company profitability and planned, rigorous and demanding management efficiency are seen as basic principles.

· Re-investment of practically all resources generated.

· Ongoing adaptation to the changes taking place in the environment.

· Creation of efficient inter-cooperation instruments: both in the financial field and as regards social welfare, innovation and R&D, co-ordinated job management and situations of crisis.

· Finally, another key element in the success of the Mondragón Experience, both initially and today, is the importance attached to training, both as regards formal education, such as that provided by our University Faculties and Professional Schools, and as regards Lifelong Training linked to professional refresher courses and advanced courses.

Hence, this merely serves to provide more evidence of the pure pragmatism of worker-owned and managed enterprises, which have the capacity to generate large gains in efficiency and productivity.
 
And you have failed to apply the role of global goods and services in this regard.

No industry is permanent to a nation it can not permanent anchor a job to a specific area ever.

I don't recall claiming anything to the contrary. However, I don't believe you want to venture into the area of trade liberalization, lest you be confronted by the infant industry argument again.

A single owner has more at stake to regulating and promoting efficiency than does a collective.

As a collective grows the less efficient it gets, that is the beauty of capitalism, it recognizes this and openly understands that in the end corporations and all private entities will fail giving rise to new and smaller private businesses.

Yet another failure to apply political economy correctly because you evidently don't understand the nature of decentralized management. The traditional capitalist firm is subject to a Hayekian critique inasmuch as it relies on wide-scale centralization and hierarchy, whereas the collective is necessarily decentralized and can produce efficiency gains through the resulting elimination of the principal-agent problem.

The state is not supposed to serve as a stabilizing agent. It exists to promote Justice among individuals.

Stability can not be guaranteed by any state.

Of course the state isn't supposed to serve as a stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy, but it effectively does, the reason for this being that the free market utopia that you conceptualize is nonexistent outside of the textbook. However, I believe this is the third time that you have ignored the infant industry argument. Here's how to start: Infant industry argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hierarchies are destined to exist for quite some time as humans develop differently from each other assuming different qualities that others don't develop.

You're not accurately understanding the distinction between natural and unnatural forms of authority. As put by Erich Fromm, authority is "a broad term with two entirely different meanings: it can be either 'rational' or 'irrational' authority. Rational authority is based on competence, and it helps the person who leans on it to grow. Irrational authority is based on power and serves to exploit the person subjected to it." Hence, the "authority" that you speak of is a form of greater natural authority brought on by competence or expertise, not hierarchical authority brought on by structural empowerment. This isn't to say that a person with hierarchical authority lacks "natural authority," (though they often will), but that the former is often beneficial, while the latter is often harmful, and serves to inhibit development of traits of the former for those subordinated under hierarchy. There certainly are innate human differences in skills and ability, but there are also certainly differences in skills and ability wrought by manmade institutions, the subordination under the state and capitalism not being the least of these.

What happens when one of the collective members starts to accumulate more capital than the others?

What if they can buy out another member?

Such traits are typically elements of American ESOPs. In my opinion, they don't serve to foster democracy, inasmuch as one or several workers with greater wealth or access to productive assets can simply buy all or a majority of the shares, thus obtaining more votes and preventing legitimate democratic management from occurring. Ultimately, I don't support the existence of "one share, one vote" rules, preferring the integral "one person, one vote" rule.

That is completely false.

They can form a new entity to compete with the old one but they have to offer greater efficiency and innovation.

No one is being forced to work for a lesser organization, it is not coercion.

Again, your utopian conception of political economy shines through unabated. Why not opt for reliance on empirical evidence, especially since you lack the means to even rebut a simply analogy?

And your example represents the tyranny of democracy, the tyranny of mob rule.

One in your example is forced to be a member of a collective when they may have no desire to do so, they are forced to do so because of your restrictive economic policies.

In my "restrictive" economic policies, or those of Venezuela? Because in my preferred economic scheme, individuals are granted sufficient productive assets to survive on their own if they do not want to join a collective or commune, though they obviously are denied access to the resources of the collective or commune. Indeed, such a method was adopted in the anarchist collectives of the Spanish Revolution, and continues to be practiced to some extent in the Chiapas municipalities controlled by the EZLN.

I have read your explanation and it is completely short sighted.

You measure gains in the span of years, I measure it in the span of decades.

That's not the case. I do measure gains in "the span of years" to measure the reality of immediate benefits, not to indicate the long-term desirability of any particular economic system. Indeed, that's better indicated by other varieties of empirical evidence, such as the survival of the aforementioned Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, the Israeli kibbutzim, or the Chiapas municipalities controlled by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

There are no perfect economic situations anywhere.

Capitalism has a greater chance of furthering human evolution than does collectivist socialism.

"Furthering human evolution"? This isn't related to your social Darwinist misunderstanding again, is it?

I'm not hostile to empirical evidence, I'm hostile to people who cite short term gains to illustrate success.

I can pull up tons of examples that over the short term something is a success or failure, just as you have.

This is growing tiresome. Your complaints here are clearly unsustainable, as my reliance is not on "short term gains." I've referred to gains made over the course of a few years to illustrate the immediate economic benefits of socialism, yes, but I've never claimed that those functioned as illustrations of its longevity.

Whether you believe it or not we have very similar ideologies.

It is how we get there that is different.

I personally think the most free and efficient model of human success was in the Indian tribal communities.

I wouldn't be surprised if your primitivist approach is related to your current hostility to empirical evidence, since forms of social and economic organization in outdated rural settings obviously have some degree of inapplicability to industrialized urban settings. Indeed, this problem also has some relation to anti-socialists' misappropriation of Adam Smith, whose free market advocacy was rendered obsolete by industrial development. Were he alive today, he would be openly egalitarian.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
What happens when one of the collective members starts to accumulate more capital than the others?

What if they can buy out another member?

Agnapostate said:
Such traits are typically elements of American ESOPs. In my opinion, they don't serve to foster democracy, inasmuch as one or several workers with greater wealth or access to productive assets can simply buy all or a majority of the shares, thus obtaining more votes and preventing legitimate democratic management from occurring. Ultimately, I don't support the existence of "one share, one vote" rules, preferring the integral "one person, one vote" rule.

And this is more or less what I was looking for.

Your philosophy hings on altruism, which doesn't exist universally with man.
It doesn't matter how many votes or what you think it is typical of.

When one cooperative member has more resources than another their increase in capital will hold influence over another.

You have yet to reconcile this with your master plan for social success.

What happens when that member has more capital than others?

What if they gain more resources to gain excess capital after that?

How can you sit here and tell me that your system is anymore democratic when it is a breath away from capitalism as any other system is?

How will there not be an irrational hierarchy that develops when that member with excess resources and excess capital needs to hire subordinates to help manage those resources?

Agnapostate said:
This is growing tiresome. Your complaints here are clearly unsustainable, as my reliance is not on "short term gains." I've referred to gains made over the course of a few years to illustrate the immediate economic benefits of socialism, yes, but I've never claimed that those functioned as illustrations of its longevity.

Take a break, I have plenty more.

I don't run away from challenges, I'll address the rest of your post later though.
 
And this is more or less what I was looking for.

Your philosophy hings on altruism, which doesn't exist universally with man.
It doesn't matter how many votes or what you think it is typical of.

Nothing but a mendacious depiction, and a crudely disguised one at that. If anything, socialism in general favors the adjustment of wage norms to adequately satisfy supply and demand criteria, a condition not met in a capitalist economy.

When one cooperative member has more resources than another their increase in capital will hold influence over another.

You have yet to reconcile this with your master plan for social success.

What happens when that member has more capital than others?

What if they gain more resources to gain excess capital after that?

How can you sit here and tell me that your system is anymore democratic when it is a breath away from capitalism as any other system is?

How will there not be an irrational hierarchy that develops when that member with excess resources and excess capital needs to hire subordinates to help manage those resources?

Of course there will be an excessive degree of influence held by an individual or small grouping in such a scenario (though I'd still hesitate to call it a "hierarchy"), but what point do you attempt to make in mentioning it? Since I don't support such an organizational scheme, what relevance does this have?

Take a break, I have plenty more.

I don't run away from challenges, I'll address the rest of your post later though.

You don't run away so much as you post inaccuracies riddled with insufficient analyses of political economy, such as with your ignorance of the thrice mentioned infant industry argument.
 
No rebuttal that you'd find the least bit interesting, I'm sure.

If you don't mind a personal question... what is it you do for a living?

:2wave:

Much as we're agonized by the lack of what would undoubtedly be thrilling insights from you, you might note that the conventional debater uses what we amateurs call "arguments" to support a favored conclusion.

:2wave:
 
.


Checks and balances depend on the individuals involved and if one powerful class, like the uneducated poor in Venezuela gain power they invariably support fallacious policies because it sounds good not because it is economically sound.

This is where the hubris of your ilk really becomes aparent. The "uneducated poor" are educated enough to understand that the washington consensus model doesnt work [indeed I,ld imagine they are educated all too well in this respect] which is why they are voteing against it and for an alternative. Given that the washington consensus model had to be implemented by violence during the "cold war" and is failing all over the continent you should not be surprised if the backlash to this comes with an extremity you find unpaletable.

Even a cursory look at the stats will demonstrate that Chavez has alot of support in the country because he has improved the situation there. I would ask you to look healthcare, infant mortality, literacy and access to higher education in venuzuela. I would ask you to look at how the relatively free market policies used in Peru and Brazil have made a small section of the population rich and made no difference to the rest of the population, but few people on this forum are paying a great deal of attention to this all they care about is whether the country conforms to their very narrow ideological model.

As far as your concerned if the venuzuelans vote against this then their opinion becomes invalid because it doesnt conform to your own. Indeed as far as your concerned its the very fact that they can vote against policys that only benefit a tiny minority of the population that makes the country so undemocratic.
 
Nothing but a mendacious depiction, and a crudely disguised one at that. If anything, socialism in general favors the adjustment of wage norms to adequately satisfy supply and demand criteria, a condition not met in a capitalist economy.

That is hardly the case.

You assert that irrational hierarchies will not develop.

I assert that based on the man naturally pools his own resrouces and capital that your assertion is complete bunk.

What you don't understand is that with in socialism there is a class of people who naturally develop a sedentary lifestyle in favor of actually producing something.

Of course there will be an excessive degree of influence held by an individual or small grouping in such a scenario (though I'd still hesitate to call it a "hierarchy"), but what point do you attempt to make in mentioning it? Since I don't support such an organizational scheme, what relevance does this have?

It doesn't matter if you support it or not.

Your assertion is that an irrational one won't develop, that is just crap.
Over time as one group or individual amasses this capital an irrational hierarchy develops.

You still haven't reconciled this, instead you say what you think will happen and not what will happen or you refrain from calling it what it is.

You don't run away so much as you post inaccuracies riddled with insufficient analyses of political economy, such as with your ignorance of the thrice mentioned infant industry argument.

Not inaccuracies they are the truths outside of your textbook perfect society.

You can post all the short term examples of greatness with social programs etc etc, it still doesn't prove that your perfect society will develop with minimal irrational hierarchy developments.

It won't happen, man is selfish whether you want to believe it or not, irrational hierarchies will develop as they have for the whole of history.
All your plan does is leave a power vacuum for a centralist charismatic leader that appeals to the group think of your "horizontal democracy"(laugh).

It is a joke to even suggest that this perfect democracy would stand the test of any measure of time.

Your clearly ignore psychology in favor of tired old false arguments like your lame train station example. Humans do mean things all the time for self, personal comedic fulfillment.

Would your perfect society not do this?
Would the members of your perfect society not express the cruelness or group think, the follow the leader syndrome that humans possess?

I just don't understand why you keep trying to distract me from the crux of your argument with the infant industry argument when a company that is less efficient than the old shouldn't develop, Infant industry be damned if it can't compete.
 
I assert that based on the man naturally pools his own resrouces and capital that your assertion is complete bunk.

Yet this argument has already been disproven by myself, to which you agreed.

Also, as an aside, the ability to "pool capital" necessitates the existence of capital.
 
This is where the hubris of your ilk really becomes aparent. The "uneducated poor" are educated enough to understand that the washington consensus model doesnt work [indeed I,ld imagine they are educated all too well in this respect] which is why they are voteing against it and for an alternative. Given that the washington consensus model had to be implemented by violence during the "cold war" and is failing all over the continent you should not be surprised if the backlash to this comes with an extremity you find unpaletable.

Sigh, I never said I agreed with the Washington consensus.

These uneducated poor people are subject to the rules of group think just as much as anyone else is.

They have a charismatic leader, (unsustainable) social policy, and an enemy in which they have to defeat.

Even a cursory look at the stats will demonstrate that Chavez has alot of support in the country because he has improved the situation there. I would ask you to look healthcare, infant mortality, literacy and access to higher education in venuzuela. I would ask you to look at how the relatively free market policies used in Peru and Brazil have made a small section of the population rich and made no difference to the rest of the population, but few people on this forum are paying a great deal of attention to this all they care about is whether the country conforms to their very narrow ideological model.

Non of you socialist, communists believe in social Darwinism/evolution so my argument will fall on deaf ears.

As far as your concerned if the venuzuelans vote against this then their opinion becomes invalid because it doesnt conform to your own. Indeed as far as your concerned its the very fact that they can vote against policys that only benefit a tiny minority of the population that makes the country so undemocratic.


My opinion is that strong centralized government shouldn't exist.

I don't want anyone having anymore sway over government than anyone else.
I want everyone to leave everyone else alone.

Democracy is a joke when everyone can't be counted on to review information objectively.
 
Yet this argument has already been disproven by myself, to which you agreed.

Also, as an aside, the ability to "pool capital" necessitates the existence of capital.

You never proved me wrong.

I said there are no absolutes.

What I know is that man is selfish, suicide is a selfish act.
Your pretending to not agree only because you can't reconcile this with your perfect government, social Utopia.
 
What I know is that man is selfish, suicide is a selfish act.
Your pretending to not agree only because you can't reconcile this with your perfect government, social Utopia.

Animals enter into relationships in order to further the survival of their species; this can either be in cooperation or competition. Certainly, though, one does not by nature take precedent over the other; these relationships are determined by the environment in which one lives.

So I agree with your statement, but would qualify it with a second: Competition is done because something is easier to get than if it was done through cooperation.

Following from this, any such view that the socialization of production "goes against human nature" does not have a leg on which to stand, for if human consciousness is determined by the environment in which it develops then there is no inherent barrier in transforming to one conducive with socialization (aside from one's environment, which is exactly why the Utopian Socialists were incorrect in their outlook).
 
Animals enter into relationships in order to further the survival of their species; this can either be in cooperation or competition. Certainly, though, one does not by nature take precedent over the other; these relationships are determined by the environment in which one lives.

So I agree with your statement, but would qualify it with a second: Competition is done because something is easier to get than if it was done through cooperation.

Following from this, any such view that the socialization of production "goes against human nature" does not have a leg on which to stand, for if human consciousness is determined by the environment in which it develops then there is no inherent barrier in transforming to one conducive with socialization (aside from one's environment, which is exactly why the Utopian Socialists were incorrect in their outlook).

It does not go against human nature to act in cooperation or act in competition.

What I said was that those acts are inherently selfish.
You are failing to see this. They are doing it because it is easier for them to achieve their goals, if another easier move advantageous way of achieving their goals comes around they will choose that path.

That is why your entire argument is bunk. You are failing to recognize that your system is not perfect and that another system will invariably develop to replace it or a person of questionable intent will take power from the collective.

The whole argument you two are presenting hings on self perpetuation which is impossible.
 
That is hardly the case.

You assert that irrational hierarchies will not develop.

I assert that based on the man naturally pools his own resrouces and capital that your assertion is complete bunk.

Is there a reason you're still prattling on about this? I've already made it quite clear that I don't favor the "one share, one vote" scheme practiced in some ESOPs. I favor a "one person, one vote" scheme so as to maximize the practice of direct democracy in worker-owned and managed enterprises.

What you don't understand is that with in socialism there is a class of people who naturally develop a sedentary lifestyle in favor of actually producing something.

I would hope that this isn't related to a fallacious belief regarding an alleged "lack of incentive" in a socialist economy. It isn't, is it?

It doesn't matter if you support it or not.

Your assertion is that an irrational one won't develop, that is just crap.
Over time as one group or individual amasses this capital an irrational hierarchy develops.

You still haven't reconciled this, instead you say what you think will happen and not what will happen or you refrain from calling it what it is.

Of course it matters. If no "one share, one vote" scheme exists in a worker-owned enterprise, there's no capacity for mere share accumulation to result in greater decision-making power. A very basic and elementary fact, yet you have somehow proven capable of badly misunderstanding it...

Not inaccuracies they are the truths outside of your textbook perfect society.

What's most amusing here is that the only person advocating a "textbook perfect" society is you, inasmuch as advocacy of "free markets" fails to analyze numerous aforementioned issues, such as the prevalence of information asymmetries, agency costs, etc.

You can post all the short term examples of greatness with social programs etc etc, it still doesn't prove that your perfect society will develop with minimal irrational hierarchy developments.

We have again encountered several fallacious claims by you. Not only have I not pointed to "short term examples" to indicate long term gains (I note your continued ignorance of the mentions of the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, the Israeli kibbutzim, and EZLN-controlled Chiapas, incidentally), I never claimed to favor the existence of a "perfect society." Indeed, such a belief would require the utopianism possessed by supporters of free market capitalism. In reference to "minimal irrational hierarchy," there are obviously existing examples of this, such as the anarchist collectives of the Spanish Revolution or the Free Territory of Ukraine. We could also point to the brief existence of the Paris Commune and the later French student/worker uprising of 1968, though your mendacious criticisms would likely be revived. We could also point to smaller "colonies" of sorts such as the Whiteway Colony and Freetown Christiania, though they're of limited value when discussing the implementation of large scale libertarian socialism. In reference to the expansion of worker-owned and managed enterprises, we could also indicate the Argentine "factory recovery" movement and the autogestion in Titoist Yugoslavia. And all this, of course, is merely a sampling.

It won't happen, man is selfish whether you want to believe it or not, irrational hierarchies will develop as they have for the whole of history.
All your plan does is leave a power vacuum for a centralist charismatic leader that appeals to the group think of your "horizontal democracy"(laugh).

As usual, you have failed to substantiate your claims with any relevant commentary. You might first note that the power-hungry have already seized control in current societal and economic conditions, but that would likely not be disingenuous enough for your purposes. Regardless, your analysis fails to comprehend the active nature of direct participation that has existed throughout the anarchist tradition and in essentially every anarchist society that has ever come into existence. It was put best by Kropotkin:

The only way in which a state of Anarchy can be obtained is for each man [or woman] who is oppressed to act as if he [or she] were at liberty, in defiance of all authority to the contrary . . . In practical fact, territorial extension is necessary to ensure permanency to any given individual revolution. In speaking of the Revolution, we signify the aggregate of so many successful individual and group revolts as will enable every person within the revolutionized territory to act in perfect freedom . . . without having to constantly dread the prevention or the vengeance of an opposing power upholding the former system . . . Under these circumstance it is obvious that any visible reprisal could and would be met by a resumption of the same revolutionary action on the part of the individuals or groups affected, and that the maintenance of a state of Anarchy in this manner would be far easier than the gaining of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in the face of hitherto unshaken opposition . . . They have it in their power to apply a prompt check by boycotting such a person and refusing to help him with their labor or to willing supply him with any articles in their possession. They have it in their power to use force against him. They have these powers individually as well as collectively. Being either past rebels who have been inspired with the spirit of liberty, or else habituated to enjoy freedom from their infancy, they are hardly to rest passive in view of what they feel to be wrong.

Just as the Spanish anarchists resisted the pretensions of the Republican government, and of Caballero, Companys, Comorera, etc., so will a legitimately anarchist population resist an imposition of hierarchy or statist mandates, even if they initially come from within. Empirical evidence has indicated the veracity of this.

It is a joke to even suggest that this perfect democracy would stand the test of any measure of time.

No one has spoken of "perfect democracy." Regardless, your argument constitutes an appeal to ignorance, because while there have not been long-lasting anarchist communities or societies on an especially large scale, neither have there been large-scale anarchist communities or societies that collapsed of their own accord, as the result of an internal failure of anarchist principles. Throughout the existence of the Spanish anarchist collectives, their progress was hampered not by the failure of direct democracy or collectivization, but by external sabotage from Leninist and Stalinist opponents. (Inaccurately called "socialists" today.)

Your clearly ignore psychology in favor of tired old false arguments like your lame train station example. Humans do mean things all the time for self, personal comedic fulfillment.

Certainly. The analogy was merely intended to illustrate the absurdity of rational choice theory, since the reality is that self-interested behaviors have a tendency to manifest themselves on the social and collective level rather than on the purely individual level. If each individual attempted to maximize their own self-interest with no regard for that of others, the result would be a chaotic absurdity, similar to that of Hardin's inaccurately applied "tragedy of the commons."

Would your perfect society not do this? Would the members of your perfect society not express the cruelness or group think, the follow the leader syndrome that humans possess?

Of course such conditions would likely manifest themselves from time to time, as hierarchical organization is a biologically natural tendency, in my opinion. But there is also a degree of subservience to hierarchy manufactured by present societal and economic conditions, as in the aforementioned example of schools functioning as a component of the capitalist mode of production. Hence, it is not unlikely that hierarchical organization patterns can be consciously overcome, as was the case in the aforementioned anarchist societies that enjoyed a prosperous record of existence, just as biologically natural proclivities to rape, assault, and kill can be overcome.

I just don't understand why you keep trying to distract me from the crux of your argument with the infant industry argument when a company that is less efficient than the old shouldn't develop, Infant industry be damned if it can't compete.

There is no "distraction" involved. I noted that the state functioned as a necessary stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy, contrary to free marketers' bleating about "government intervention." I pointed to the infant industry argument to support this claim. You did not and have not replied, which lends one to believe that you likely don't understand the argument and possibly don't even know the infant industry argument is. If so, I would recommend having a look at Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder.

As noted therein, trade liberalization promotes adverse socioeconomic impacts as long as heavily industrialized countries entice poorer and underdeveloped countries into remaining dependent on trade with them rather than utilizing their productive assets into forming a viable manufacturing and industrial sector of their own, much the same way that capitalism necessitates worker dependence on the wage provider, so that he may deprive them of the products of their labor.

It does not go against human nature to act in cooperation or act in competition.

What I said was that those acts are inherently selfish.
You are failing to see this. They are doing it because it is easier for them to achieve their goals, if another easier move advantageous way of achieving their goals comes around they will choose that path.

Nobody has denied the reality of this. Indeed, as I said before, socialism simply ensures that wage and/or compensation norms are altered to accurately reflect supply and demand criteria, a condition not present in a capitalist economy.
 
What I said was that those acts are inherently selfish.

The problem is that attributing this to selfishness effectively hollows out the word; it becomes meaningless. All you're really saying is that people do what they choose to do.

You are failing to see this. They are doing it because it is easier for them to achieve their goals, if another easier move advantageous way of achieving their goals comes around they will choose that path.

That is why your entire argument is bunk. You are failing to recognize that your system is not perfect

What part of my argument has been disproven by anything you have said? Where have I said that "my" system is perfect?

and that another system will invariably develop to replace it or a person of questionable intent will take power from the collective.

This is not really an argument at all. In order for one to accumulate capital, for example, capital must first exist. In a society where capital does not exist (or money, or government, or the state) this simply is not possible. As I have said earlier, social being determines consciousness; in order for someone to develop such a consciousness, their social being must necessitate that development. As I said earlier (and you agreed), one's consciousness is determined by the environment in which one lives.

Your argument shows your complete ignorance of the interconnections between social being and consciousness, and how both are formed, perpetuated, evolve, change, adapt, etc...
 
The bottom line is that Venezuelan nationalism is a threat to American globalization and neo-liberalization. That's where the anti-Communist rhetoric stems from.

If the Venezuelans choose this road, then it's their choice as it's their country. Popular protest, to my knowledge, has not been suppressed by Chavez recently. If people were so against what he was doing we would already see a massive backlash. As it stands, the cabinet voted in agreement with him.

So there you go.
 
Much as we're agonized by the lack of what would undoubtedly be thrilling insights from you, you might note that the conventional debater uses what we amateurs call "arguments" to support a favored conclusion.

:2wave:

Does that mean you don't care to tell me what you do for a living?

Just to be fair... I'll go first. I'm a former aerospace engineer who now sells real estate.

And you?

:2wave:
 
Is there a reason you're still prattling on about this? I've already made it quite clear that I don't favor the "one share, one vote" scheme practiced in some ESOPs. I favor a "one person, one vote" scheme so as to maximize the practice of direct democracy in worker-owned and managed enterprises.

You are failing to understand that what you favor has no bearing on reality.
It is what will develop.

What can you propose that can assure no one will collectivize power?

Your direct democracy can itself become very inefficient all alone affecting the multiple worker owned "businesses" of course that depends on the size of such collectives.

I would hope that this isn't related to a fallacious belief regarding an alleged "lack of incentive" in a socialist economy. It isn't, is it?

Do you assert that there is more incentive? How and why?
If one is left to do as they wish inside the worker collective what incentive is left if they have acquired all that they need?

Of course it matters. If no "one share, one vote" scheme exists in a worker-owned enterprise, there's no capacity for mere share accumulation to result in greater decision-making power. A very basic and elementary fact, yet you have somehow proven capable of badly misunderstanding it...

Sigh, for you being an elitist academic you ignore the most obvious fallacies that exist in your argument.

Is share accumulation the only way to achieve more power?
Its sad I have to ask this.

Funny though is that while you go one about how bad irrational hierarchies are your words present you as an elitist academic, I wonder if that is an irrational hierarchical role?

What's most amusing here is that the only person advocating a "textbook perfect" society is you, inasmuch as advocacy of "free markets" fails to analyze numerous aforementioned issues, such as the prevalence of information asymmetries, agency costs, etc.

What you fail to realize is that I completely recognize asymmetrical information and I support its existence.

Pure Capitalism can't exist without asymmetrical information.

We have again encountered several fallacious claims by you. Not only have I not pointed to "short term examples" to indicate long term gains (I note your continued ignorance of the mentions of the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, the Israeli kibbutzim, and EZLN-controlled Chiapas, incidentally), I never claimed to favor the existence of a "perfect society." Indeed, such a belief would require the utopianism possessed by supporters of free market capitalism. In reference to "minimal irrational hierarchy," there are obviously existing examples of this, such as the anarchist collectives of the Spanish Revolution or the Free Territory of Ukraine. We could also point to the brief existence of the Paris Commune and the later French student/worker uprising of 1968, though your mendacious criticisms would likely be revived. We could also point to smaller "colonies" of sorts such as the Whiteway Colony and Freetown Christiania, though they're of limited value when discussing the implementation of large scale libertarian socialism. In reference to the expansion of worker-owned and managed enterprises, we could also indicate the Argentine "factory recovery" movement and the autogestion in Titoist Yugoslavia. And all this, of course, is merely a sampling.

Yes yes, your examples.

What were conditions like prior to the establishment of these collectives?

What your saying is that, before they built the factory production was flat, but after they built it production went up 100%.

No matter what form of governance took place there is almost a guarantee that efficiency would go up because of the prior instability.

As usual, you have failed to substantiate your claims with any relevant commentary. You might first note that the power-hungry have already seized control in current societal and economic conditions, but that would likely not be disingenuous enough for your purposes. Regardless, your analysis fails to comprehend the active nature of direct participation that has existed throughout the anarchist tradition and in essentially every anarchist society that has ever come into existence. It was put best by Kropotkin:

Just as the Spanish anarchists resisted the pretensions of the Republican government, and of Caballero, Companys, Comorera, etc., so will a legitimately anarchist population resist an imposition of hierarchy or statist mandates, even if they initially come from within. Empirical evidence has indicated the veracity of this.

Is this your proof a logical fallacy? Appeal to authority?

Your empirical evidence doesn't include prior instability before the establishment of these short lived utopia's.

No one has spoken of "perfect democracy." Regardless, your argument constitutes an appeal to ignorance, because while there have not been long-lasting anarchist communities or societies on an especially large scale, neither have there been large-scale anarchist communities or societies that collapsed of their own accord, as the result of an internal failure of anarchist principles. Throughout the existence of the Spanish anarchist collectives, their progress was hampered not by the failure of direct democracy or collectivization, but by external sabotage from Leninist and Stalinist opponents. (Inaccurately called "socialists" today.)

Right so there lack of long term existence means that they will exist long term?

Certainly. The analogy was merely intended to illustrate the absurdity of rational choice theory, since the reality is that self-interested behaviors have a tendency to manifest themselves on the social and collective level rather than on the purely individual level. If each individual attempted to maximize their own self-interest with no regard for that of others, the result would be a chaotic absurdity, similar to that of Hardin's inaccurately applied "tragedy of the commons."

So do you agree with the behaviorist theory?

If so you are completely ignoring the findings of all the other schools of psychology.
Some choices are made in regards to the social community at large, others are made for self.

Are you ignoring genetics in psychological development?


Of course such conditions would likely manifest themselves from time to time, as hierarchical organization is a biologically natural tendency, in my opinion. But there is also a degree of subservience to hierarchy manufactured by present societal and economic conditions, as in the aforementioned example of schools functioning as a component of the capitalist mode of production. Hence, it is not unlikely that hierarchical organization patterns can be consciously overcome, as was the case in the aforementioned anarchist societies that enjoyed a prosperous record of existence, just as biologically natural proclivities to rape, assault, and kill can be overcome.

You must be forgetting the bell curve.

There is no "distraction" involved. I noted that the state functioned as a necessary stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy, contrary to free marketers' bleating about "government intervention." I pointed to the infant industry argument to support this claim. You did not and have not replied, which lends one to believe that you likely don't understand the argument and possibly don't even know the infant industry argument is. If so, I would recommend having a look at Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder.

An industry can develop without government assistance or protectionism.

If the government does intervene to protect or nuture industry that is mercantilism or protectionism not capitalism.

As noted therein, trade liberalization promotes adverse socioeconomic impacts as long as heavily industrialized countries entice poorer and underdeveloped countries into remaining dependent on trade with them rather than utilizing their productive assets into forming a viable manufacturing and industrial sector of their own, much the same way that capitalism necessitates worker dependence on the wage provider, so that he may deprive them of the products of their labor.

That is subjective opinion, what you call adverse another calls prosperous.

Seeing as no country can produce everything it needs, trade must happen.

Unless of course you believe in complete primitive economies.

Your subjective view of deprivation, what you call deprivation another would call prosperous.

But I guess if they don't agree with you they're wrong.

Nobody has denied the reality of this. Indeed, as I said before, socialism simply ensures that wage and/or compensation norms are altered to accurately reflect supply and demand criteria, a condition not present in a capitalist economy.

What you fail to comprehend is that socialism can not accurately reflect supply and demand.

Asymmetric information and all that you were railing on.
 
The problem is that attributing this to selfishness effectively hollows out the word; it becomes meaningless. All you're really saying is that people do what they choose to do.

And is that not selfish? I never said selfishness was bad or good.

It just is.

What part of my argument has been disproven by anything you have said? Where have I said that "my" system is perfect?

If your assumptions are just like that of Agnapostate it implies that it is perfect.

This is not really an argument at all. In order for one to accumulate capital, for example, capital must first exist. In a society where capital does not exist (or money, or government, or the state) this simply is not possible. As I have said earlier, social being determines consciousness; in order for someone to develop such a consciousness, their social being must necessitate that development. As I said earlier (and you agreed), one's consciousness is determined by the environment in which one lives.

Are you really going to argue that some form of capital won't develop?
Are you sure you want to do that?

So your an entrenched behaviorist? What about genetics in psychological development?

Are you sure you want to dismiss the findings by other schools of psychology?

Your argument shows your complete ignorance of the interconnections between social being and consciousness, and how both are formed, perpetuated, evolve, change, adapt, etc...

I know a lot more than you think.
 
Does that mean you don't care to tell me what you do for a living?

Just to be fair... I'll go first. I'm a former aerospace engineer who now sells real estate.

And you?

:2wave:

I'm an executive officer of a nonprofit corporation.

But does this mean that you don't care to share even a pretense of legitimate argument with us? You could at least have a shadow of credence for a brief moment until actual debate wisps that puff of smoke away.

:2wave:
 
And is that not selfish? I never said selfishness was bad or good.

It just is.

Selfishness is defined not simply by the fact that people choose what they do; as I've already said, that would hollow out the word, because everyone chooses what they do. Selfishness has meaning because it is defined as people choosing what they wish to do without regard to its effect on others, or with only secondary concern to others. It is the placing of one's own interests over those of others.

It is only in this sense that the word really has any meaning.

If your assumptions are just like that of Agnapostate it implies that it is perfect.

I have not seen Agnapostate put forward any such assertion, implied or otherwise.

Are you really going to argue that some form of capital won't develop?
Are you sure you want to do that?

Capital is a social relation. It can't develop unless it is recognized as such.

Marx once made a good analogy to this effect. Why is a king a king? It is not simply because he holds a certain position within a caste system; quite the opposite, actually. A king only becomes a king when he is viewed by his followers to be one; in the same way followers only become followers when they view themselves as such, which is realized only when they recognize someone or someones as a leader. A king cannot simply take power and proclaim himself to be so, as if he has no followers then people will simply laugh at him. You could try this yourself, if you want, and see how it goes.

Capital works in much the same way, as capital necessarily implies the existence of both a capitalist class and a working class. In actuality, the word "implies" does not fit correctly here (I was using it to better communicate my point), as capital is not a separate entity from both a capitalist and a working class. These are necessarily bound up within the concept of capital itself. So it would be more accurate to say that capital is a capitalist and a working class - namely, capitalist society. Capital is capitalism.

What you are saying, then, is that capitalist society will inevitably wind up developing. However, returning to my king analogy, this is not the case, for it necessitates the acceptance of capital on a societal scale, which simply would not happen for the same reason that feudalism is rejected on a societal scale today.

So your an entrenched behaviorist? What about genetics in psychological development?

What point are you trying to make here? How does this in any way apply to anything being said?

Are you sure you want to dismiss the findings by other schools of psychology?

For me to dismiss such findings I would have to be aware of them.

Of course, I could easily assume that you are referring to findings that have "concluded" that people are "naturally greedy" (the dollar bills in a bowl study is a good example of what is commonly offered as "conclusive proof" of this). This is quite easy to respond to, as the subjects of such studies have developed in capitalist society and obviously their consciousness has developed due to that environment.

Unless you reject the notion that consciousness is determined by one's social being - by one's environment - then you cannot argue such a point, as it would be hypocritical.
 
Selfishness is defined not simply by the fact that people choose what they do; as I've already said, that would hollow out the word, because everyone chooses what they do. Selfishness has meaning because it is defined as people choosing what they wish to do without regard to its effect on others, or with only secondary concern to others. It is the placing of one's own interests over those of others.

It is only in this sense that the word really has any meaning.

What would a person acting concert both for themselves and to a lesser extent someone else be defined as?

Would their act still not be considered selfish?

I have not seen Agnapostate put forward any such assertion, implied or otherwise.

I have, both you and Agnapostate assume that individuals inside a community like the one described before will not act in their own self interest against the community at large.

Agnepostate has made the assumption that the horizontal democracy will not be subject to hierarchical structures much the same every other part of the world is.

These assumptions have been made on an appeal to authority by the statements that "Kropotkin" has made with no reciprocal evidence to prove otherwise.

Capital is a social relation. It can't develop unless it is recognized as such.

Marx once made a good analogy to this effect. Why is a king a king? It is not simply because he holds a certain position within a caste system; quite the opposite, actually. A king only becomes a king when he is viewed by his followers to be one; in the same way followers only become followers when they view themselves as such, which is realized only when they recognize someone or someones as a leader. A king cannot simply take power and proclaim himself to be so, as if he has no followers then people will simply laugh at him. You could try this yourself, if you want, and see how it goes.

Capital works in much the same way, as capital necessarily implies the existence of both a capitalist class and a working class. In actuality, the word "implies" does not fit correctly here (I was using it to better communicate my point), as capital is not a separate entity from both a capitalist and a working class. These are necessarily bound up within the concept of capital itself. So it would be more accurate to say that capital is a capitalist and a working class - namely, capitalist society. Capital is capitalism.

What you are saying, then, is that capitalist society will inevitably wind up developing. However, returning to my king analogy, this is not the case, for it necessitates the acceptance of capital on a societal scale, which simply would not happen for the same reason that feudalism is rejected on a societal scale today.

A with a breath of reason and history your claim has been debunked.

Can a king not come to power through militant means?
Seeing as how this has happened so many times in the past, I'm surprised you ignored it.
Marx needs to study his theory more, there are to many holes in it.

Capital has developed in societies not built on the academic recognition of capitalism.

Domesticated animals were used as capital, as had gold, shells, beads, etc etc.

Do you think all of these cultures are defined as capitalist?
Do you think they even knew what capitalism was?

What point are you trying to make here? How does this in any way apply to anything being said?


For me to dismiss such findings I would have to be aware of them.

Of course, I could easily assume that you are referring to findings that have "concluded" that people are "naturally greedy" (the dollar bills in a bowl study is a good example of what is commonly offered as "conclusive proof" of this). This is quite easy to respond to, as the subjects of such studies have developed in capitalist society and obviously their consciousness has developed due to that environment.

Unless you reject the notion that consciousness is determined by one's social being - by one's environment - then you cannot argue such a point, as it would be hypocritical.

You have made claims about the findings of psychology but are only relying on one school of thought to make those claims.
(Edit: only some portions of an individuals development rely on environment)

I guess I expected you to know a bit about psychology before making them.

One's social being is defined by more than environment alone.
 
Last edited:
I'm an executive officer of a nonprofit corporation.

Thanks. :2wave:

But does this mean that you don't care to share even a pretense of legitimate argument with us? You could at least have a shadow of credence for a brief moment until actual debate wisps that puff of smoke away.

:2wave:

I dunno... we might end up discussing whether Murray Rothbard kicked Murray Bookchin out of his house. Not topics I'm particularly interested in.

:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom