Question for strident capitalists...

It's starting to become clear to me that we are not talking about any real effects of one systems or another but people's reactions to different systems based on their personal preferences. Some people are just going to want a moneyless cooperative system and some people won't. And each will be more comfortable and do best within the system they prefer. If you're not happy in one system, you don't need to be there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Finally a reasonable post - No longer pushing the postulate that society's problems are caused by the existence of money and would not exist, if money were abolished. I.e. if all worked for the benefit of all and shared equally in what they could create.

This is not a new idea. It has been tried at least a 1000 times, all ended in collapse, but perhaps 20 religious based ones were transformed to use money, the efficient means for letting people choose what they wanted to gain as a result of their labors, instead of having some governing body tell them what was needed for the health and happiness and what they need to produce for communal sharing. (The work people freely chose to do, does not naturally produce those goods and services needed.)

So many of these societies assigned the jobs, often with periodic rotation to be fair, as no one wanted to clean out the out house when it became full, etc. The larger, money using societies, use greater pay or the need to eat (when person lacks skill to do more pleasant job) to assure all needed work gets done.

As John Smith of Jamestown said to the elite, who did not think it their job to do manual labor:
"Ok, but those who don't work, don't eat." (They did not have money, but this worked too for few years, in their "equal sharing" society, until it collapsed.)

Here from Forbes is a brief review, that ends by noting the three main reasons why all these utopian "equal sharing" societies died or a few transformed to integrate back into the larger society with the use of money:

I quote Santa Anna now:
"Those who can not remember history, are condemned to repeat it." Cosmictotem is trying to prove him correct.

I bet even Cosmictotem thinks equal sharing of female's sexual services, like the Oneidans who practiced group marriage did, is not a good idea; but it would be interesting to see where he draws the line. For example, why should I wash my dirty underware when Joe has two clean pair? Or: My car is out of gas, so I'll use's Tom's. Or: I'm taking the group's TV to my room as I'll be watching some hot porn, the kids should not see. - What do you mean "my room"? It is to be shared.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll bet you agree that is a better idea than allocating them by capitalist purchase in a market.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Certainly, but probably not for the reason you believe. I don't condone selling what you don't own. Once women were owned by some man, but not now. The vestiges of this period are still evident in some marriage ceremonies, when the father "gives" his daughter to her husband to be.

Before my two daughters were to married. I had told them that if I was asked: "Who gives this child in marriage?" I would say: "No one owns her." Some how they made sure the question was not asked. I said, yes, I would be proud to walk down the isle with them; but that was all. I would not "give them away."

I'll also note that here, in "Catholic Brazil" prostitution is NOT illegal, but pimping is. If an attractive woman want to rent her body for sex, she can.

 

I think they should be allocated by whatever means the woman chooses.

 

Completely agree - as is legal in Brazil; however, knowingly passing VDs by prostitute to her customers is a crime

 

I always found that it was interesting that in places in the US where prostitution is legal, there is almost zero incidence of any sort of VD, since prostitutes are perfectly free to require condom use and/or reject customers. In places where prostitution is illegal, the incidence of VD of all sorts is considerably higher.

 

Billy T,

You've erroneously attributed the text quoted below to me:

"
cosmictotem said: ↑
Secular societies fared even worse, many of them repeating the lessons of Plymouth. Josiah Warren, a member of the celebrated New Harmony commune that collapsed under collectivist strains, went on to found societies based on a decidedly more individualistic premise, including utopia in Ohio and Modern Times on Long Island. While economically successful, boundaries between the true believers and their neighbors dissolved over time. Today, the hamlet of Brentwood, N.Y., where Modern Times used to be, looks like the rest of its Long Island surroundings–pleasant enough, but no utopia.
The long series of failed experiments yields some interesting lessons. The first is that internal power grabs are even more poisonous to utopian dreams than external threats. The gold standard of utopian leadership, the benevolent prince or philosopher king, is inherently unstable. The competition for succession invariably favors not the wise, but the ruthless.
A second lesson is that ideals are constraints, and the more constraints one tries to impose, the less viable the community will be. It’s hard enough for a private company–an organization focused exclusively on economic success–to survive intact for multiple generations. The best bet is to run utopia as a business, which is exactly what many communities concluded.
Finally, if you’re going to suppress your members’ worldly desires, you need a mechanism for self-selection. Several religious sects, like the Old Order Amish, have successfully stifled material interests over multiple generations. Their people are happy because they don’t require much stuff. But they know that everyone can’t be kept in the fold. The 10% of Amish who don’t stay allow the other 90% to maintain their culture.
While many people believe that utopias are doomed to failure because of human nature, it’s much more useful to approach utopia as the ultimate governance challenge. The U.S., itself, was a far more successful experiment because of that approach, expressed in James Madison’s view that, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

It seems to me your failure to fully understand my approach stems from not holding two ideas in your mind simultaneously. This is not an insult. I'm sure you could do it. You just don't want to.

There's a difference between biological needs and personal preferences and when critiquing my proposed approach it's important to constantly stay aware of the difference.

Although we like to tell ourselves recreational sex is a biological necessity, it's really just an activity preference. It is just one way humans think is required to intimately connect with another. Those connections can be made through other, less personally threatening and more inclusive, behaviors, we just choose to grant sex a dominant role in our activity preferences. And while there is an instinctual component to this choice, we could easily override it through the application of our intellect, if we ever wanted.

You also seem to be having trouble understanding that once someone is given possession of something, it's theirs to do with within the rules and laws of the state under my proposed approach. Someone can't take your car, your tv or your underwear unless they have your approval.

 

true. sorry about that, but it should be clear to all that I was continuing my quote of Forbes article. (When my quotes are long and most parts can be see only by "Click to expand" I end the part that can be seen with a [/quote] and start new quote but messed up this time by copy of your, not forbes' link.

I understand you well, and have several times re-stated what you advocate as: "There should be no money and all will work for the common good and receive the same value in standard, tradable items (a barter system) supplies packages." but even if I did not, the point of my post quoting Forbes was a history lesson for you. Summrized by:

Your ideas are not new. They have been tried more than 1000 times and all but about 20 failed. Those survivors dropped the collective approach to production (had their farm land divided and placed under one family's ownership and control) and adopted money to flexibly allocate the goods that were produced in accordance with the buyer's wishes (or let him save and invest; buy a new tractor, etc.). Or to repeat part of the Forbes article:

" Most schoolchildren know that the Mayflower pilgrims came to America to escape the persecution they encountered in Europe. A more obscure fact was that the Plymouth Colony was originally organized as a communal society, with an equal sharing of the fruits of everyone’s labor. At least, that was the plan.* Their governor, William Bradford, documented how this degenerated over the next two years into “injustice,” “indignity” and “a kind of slavery.” Productivity was shot, and the community starved. ... They abandoned communal ownership and, lo and behold, the fields sprouted with life.

As Bradford writes: “They had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn. … By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the faces of things were changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many.”

Hundreds of utopian experiments followed Plymouth–religious and secular, communist and individualistic, radical and moderate. But all had to make impossible sacrifices in the service of their ideals. ... Many religious societies declined or disbanded after the loss of their founder. ... Secular societies fared even worse, many of them repeating the lessons of Plymouth. Josiah Warren, a member of the celebrated New Harmony commune that collapsed under collectivist strains, went on to found societies based on a decidedly more individualistic premise, including utopia in Ohio and Modern Times on Long Island. While economically successful, boundaries between the true believers and their neighbors dissolved over time. Today, the hamlet of Brentwood, N.Y., where Modern Times used to be, looks like the rest of its Long Island surroundings–pleasant enough, but no utopia.

The long series of failed experiments yields some interesting lessons. The first is that internal power grabs are even more poisonous to utopian dreams than external threats. The gold standard of utopian leadership, the benevolent prince or philosopher king, is inherently unstable. "
- - - - - -
You have not even learned this first "lesson" but want to do what Santa Anna warn not to:
Don't learn from history, but repeat its failures.

It is of no import who understand your POV.
You like all the 1000 or so before you, ignore human nature, and the problems of how the "no money, communal" society can be governed.

* I made this text red as Forbes notes the most lethal thing to these idealistic societies is some how the goods produced must be distributed. - Your ideas are the foundation of a very corrupt, money-free, society. I.e. pretty girl who sleeps with male distributor gets the better cut of meat, the fresher vegetables, etc. and that is just the minor level of corruption that destroyed Plymouth Colony in less than two years. Nice thing about money, is that the beautify saint can't buy more with it than the ugly sinner can - it treats all equally. A goal you aspire to but produce un-fair corrupt quickly collapsing societies, if history if a guide.

 

I asked about what was private and what was communal to see where and how you would draw the division line. You have said nothing can be sold so when my eyes fail who gets my car and how is that decided, etc. without huge potential for corruption? You don't allow me to fairly auction it off.

 

Why is money required to decide that? Maybe my mind just works differently but I find that a strange question.

 

Need I remind you that Capitalism is not devoid of corruption.

So the question we have to ask is what is the difference between Capitalism and those many other socialist inspired economies that people seem to naturally fall back into the corruption in Capitalism as opposed to the corruption of those other idealistic systems?

I think it could be this:

It's the difference between following our instincts vs. our consciously deliberated plans.

Individualism is closer to our primitive instincts and so it is easier to fall back into a system that reinforces those individualistic instincts.

Whereas a socialist system requires the contsant exercise of our deliberative conscious attention to a cooperative plan.

Capitalism, on the other hand, allows us to indulge our primitive and selfish competitive instincts.

Sorry if this post is a little poorly worded. I was being constantly interrupted while trying to respond.

 

That is true. For example, Brazil has had serious and continuous corruption for at least 350 years but unlike 1000 or so idealist societies, that abandon money and private owner ship of production facilities, especially agricultural land, it has not quickly collapsed. Most of those idealistic societies collapse in about three years or less!

Counting both China and USSR, collective farms have starved about 10 million people to death, in less than 40 years (under Mau & Stalin) ! Certainly, more than two million per year, but most men, other than you, seem to have learned from history. I. e. Neither Russia nor China want anything even resembling a collective farm now.

BTW, your post was not "poorly worded" but as it contradicts most of your earlier post (is correct, for a change) I can understand why you may think there is something wrong with it.

 

Did collective farming do that or was that done by brutal dictators at the mercy of their own competitive instincts?

 

In both cases, the same "brutal dictators" were still in power for years after mass starvation DUE TO COLLECTIVE FARMS, had been replaced with private market based systems.

For example with market economy and private for profit management, Russia not only feeds its self, but is the world's third largest exporter of wheat - draw you own conclusions.

 

I thought you said the reason for the failures of cooperative movements was human nature?

That doesn't seem to imply that cooperative farming had anything to do with it.

 

Because of human nature: At the collective farms, the seeds were planted with the least effort possible; the allotted fertilizer was distributed quickly over fertilizing some areas to use it up without as much walking or time on the tractor, leaving other areas with none; weeding was badly done, and certainly no bending over to pull out a stubborn root; pesticide were applied like the fertilizer was (quickly used up by over dosing some areas, and running out, saves effort); at harvest time, what was collected was not all (don't bend over too much, you'll get tired or even back pain); and when crop was being loaded into waiting trucks it was just thrown in, so bottom meter of soft items, like tomatoes, were smashed. - All this as their salary would not be reduced and they would not get so tired. I.e. because of that constant salary they did the least effort to "earn" it - human nature.

Contrast this with long hours of loving care city dwellers gave their tiny private plots their apartment complex had divided the land behind their apartment building into. Although these "urban gardens" were much less than 1% of the collective farms in size, they provided more than half of the vegetables eaten in Moscow!
Human nature again:
If you get more reward for more production, you work harder.
If you get the standard supply package, regardless of your job or how well you do it, YOU DO THE MINIMUM required.

 

Alright, so the Ukrainians starved themselves because they weren't getting paid? Well, I'm afraid the whole edifice of your argument just collapsed. It seems the threat of starvation would be a greater motivator for increased production in both volume and quality than even the threat of going without a pay check.

And here, you omit the fact that the Ukrainians weren't getting the standard supply package, or obviously one not calibrated to be enough... allowing for the possibility they were indeed providing the minimum of energy input. Hence, they starved. So again, your argument boils down to the Ukrainians starved themselves on purpose. It seems more likely the Ukrainians or the Soviet government miscalculated how much food they would need to produce for their population and Stalin's tyrannical psychology didn't help. This doesn't point to anything inherently wrong with cooperative farming.

You are claiming that the lesser threat of losing out on obtaining more resources for your comfort is more of a motivator for production than starving or losing access to all resources or enough resources required for one's survival. So the answer to the threat of not receiving the amount of resources you want is to cease or sabotage production so that you starve?

Your argument doesn't add up. Many people, under Capitalism no less, still work and put in their 8 hours a day, even though they are not happy with their pay check and feel it doesn't allow them to make ends meet. So to cite that as a reason for the collapse of production is disingenuous.

 

No it is strengthen by the historical facts, that you again are ignorant of:

The correct lesson to be learned, is that Stalin's ruthless dedication to collective farming, turned the Ukraine from "the bread basket of Europe and especially Russia" into a land where millions forced onto non-productive collective farms, or killed, or starved because of the collectivization of formerly very production private farms.

You are like Stalin:
Dedicated to an idealistic, non-functional system, so you ignore the fact - that it has been tried more than 1000 times, in many different scales, and ALWAYS FAILS.

 

No, they worked as hard as they needed to to avoid getting in trouble (in your terms, to get their fair share of food from the depot.) That's why fertilizing was done poorly. That's why weeding was haphazard at best. That's why crops were crushed and destroyed during harvest.

If you are a weeder, you get just as much food if you end the day well-rested and happy as if you end the day with an aching back, raw fingers and filthy clothes. Why not choose to end the day well-rested and happy? You get just as much food in both cases. Let someone else get the rest of the weeds.

Why? You get the same amount of food no matter what you do. One person can't weed the entire farm, so even if you wanted to go all-out to save your farm, you could not compensate for the dozens of people who don't want to work. The end result is the same no matter what YOU do.

And yet all those people are better off than those Ukranians - and they work 8 hours a day. A good argument for capitalism.