Spain's Communist Village Is Making The Rest Of The World Look Bad - Polidicks

[QUOTE=catbarf;43161267]People in the real world care about their pay being impacted in even the slightest ways because it affects their ability to provide for themselves. In a society with an unnecessary surplus of a profession, you bet people will be looking at what they don't have and wishing those effectively useless people were contributing in more useful ways. And what if it means starvation? What then? Are you willing to coerce someone into changing profession, or cut off their access to communal supplies? How a society deals with resource allocation is a fundamental question. You keep saying communities solve problems on their own without saying [i]how[/i] they could solve these problems short of enforcing a majority opinion by force, which you seem to label oppression.[/QUOTE] so what happens now? what if starvation is imminent and anyone who doesn't take part in growing food will die?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43160913]what sort of person would not be willing to feed someone who was providing a very useful service to the community? it isn't simply a matter of being "altruistic", it's realizing that if we don't want to live on sustinence farming, we need to provide food for people not directly involved in food production. it's realizing that if we want doctors, we need to provide for doctors. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] you aren't relying on someone's sheer "goodwill", you are relying on the idea that they know how useful your services are to the community and that the community wants to keep that service around.[/QUOTE] You are once again assuming that people won't be selfish/greedy/insert negative buzzword here. You are also once again assuming that people are educated enough to make intelligent choices. If one or both of these conditions is not met, your entire system collapses instantly. Then on top of that you need the people to care. The kicker is that your system provides no established methodology for enforcing that required education in the first place. Tell me. How often do you see news headlines with companies tanking because they fucked people over for short term profits? How often do you see people advocating not wearing seatbelts because they haven't been in an accident? Not taking vaccines because they haven't been sick? Not buying insurance because they are healthy? The rationale behind that is why waste money/effort on something you don't need right now. Let's make this simple. How, without bullshit like "I think", are you going to sustain current technology, let alone continue advancing? People will be greedy and refuse to support things that they don't deem necessary to them on a personal level right now. Not unanimously so, but the vast majority will behave like this. We have mountains of studies on human psychology that reinforces this. How are you going to account for this? Failing to do so means that any system you propose will fail.

and possibly doom others to starvation

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161348]so what happens now? what if starvation is imminent and anyone who doesn't take part in growing food will die?[/QUOTE] Prices of food skyrocket, wages of growing food go up, and more people go into the production of food and/or places with lots of food are incentivized to go out of their way to bring food because of the increased profit margin making the risk worth it. The high cost also causes people to not use an excess of food and only buy what is necessary.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43161467]Prices of food skyrocket, wages of growing food go up, and more people go into the production of food and/or places with lots of food are incentivized to go out of their way to bring food because of the increased profit margin making the risk worth it. The high cost also causes people to not use an excess of food and only buy what is necessary.[/QUOTE] so what happens when price skyrockets to the point where ordinary people can't afford food anymore?

[QUOTE=sgman91;43161467]Prices of food skyrocket, wages of growing food go up, and more people go into the production of food and/or places with lots of food are incentivized to go out of their way to bring food because of the increased profit margin making the risk worth it. The high cost also causes people to not use an excess of food and only buy what is necessary.[/QUOTE] so what happens if you have no money? you're shit out of luck?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161489]so what happens when price skyrockets to the point where ordinary people can't afford food anymore?[/QUOTE] A large industry like food production can't survive without the ordinary person being able to afford it's product. If there isn't enough food for everyone someone must go hungry. The choice isn't if, but who. This isn't an easy choice. The problem is that your system gives no incentive to not wasting food beyond altruism.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161489]so what happens when price skyrockets to the point where ordinary people can't afford food anymore?[/QUOTE] Well then a famine would ensue, the economy would shrink, a lot of people would die, and a lot of people would generally lose out.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43161513]A large industry like food production can't survive without the ordinary person being able to afford it's product. If there isn't enough food for everyone someone must go hungry. The choice isn't if, but who. This isn't an easy choice. The problem is that your system gives no incentive to not wasting food beyond altruism.[/QUOTE] even if there's enough food to feed everyone? somebody HAS to starve because people have to buy it no matter the circumstances?

[QUOTE=sgman91;43161513]An industry can't survive without the ordinary person being able to afford it's product. If there isn't enough food for everyone someone must go hungry. The choice isn't if, but who. This isn't an easy choice. The problem is that your system gives no incentive to not wasting food beyond altruism.[/QUOTE] so tell that to the people of india where the government throws tonnes of grain away to keep prices stable while other people starve.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43161530]even if there's enough food to feed everyone? somebody HAS to starve because people have to buy it no matter the circumstances?[/QUOTE] If there's left over food the price will come down and those people will be able to buy it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43161537]If there's left over food the price will come down and those people will be able to buy it.[/QUOTE] unless it gets thrown away to keep prices high.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161531]so tell that to the people of india where the government throws tonnes of grain away to keep prices stable while other people starve.[/QUOTE] Yes, government intervention often disrupts a free market, I agree. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;43161543]unless it gets thrown away to keep prices high.[/QUOTE] High prices =/= more profit.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43161544]High prices =/= more profit.[/QUOTE] except in the cases where it does.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161570]except in the cases where it does.[/QUOTE] '=' means equivalent to. High prices are not equivalent to more profit. The equilibrium point of supply meeting demand is the point of highest profit. In the cases where product is thrown out the cause is often linked to some sort of government intervention or regulation as opposed to actual market forces. If some company is regularly throwing out product then there is room for improvement in the efficiency of the industry. This improvement allows the creation of new competitors that will do a better job of creating the correct amount of product. There's a reason companies never last forever. The "too big to fail" companies of 100 years ago barely even exist today.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161489]so what happens when price skyrockets to the point where ordinary people can't afford food anymore?[/QUOTE] That's where government regulations and subsidies come in.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43161576]'=' means equivalent to. High prices are not equivalent to more profit. The equilibrium point of supply meeting demand is the point of highest profit. In the cases where product is thrown out the cause is often linked to some sort of government intervention or regulation as opposed to actual market forces.[/QUOTE] yea and that equilibrium inevitably ends with people who don't have the money and are unable to make ends meet.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43161518]Well then a famine would ensue, the economy would shrink, a lot of people would die, and a lot of people would generally lose out.[/QUOTE] sounds like a shitty system then. see, this is my beef with these hypotheticals. if the roles were switched and an anarchist answered a question with an answer like this, there'd be a mass lynching of how horrible this system is, how could you let this happen, etc.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;43161614]That's where government regulations and subsidies come in.[/QUOTE] Along with charity. Like I said earlier, the township system present in New England during the early years of the US provided help for the poor more consistently than their counterparts in Europe through nothing more than zeal for the common weal. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43161620]sounds like a shitty system then. see, this is my beef with these hypotheticals. if the roles were switched and an anarchist answered a question with an answer like this, there'd be a mass lynching of how horrible this system is, how could you let this happen, etc.[/QUOTE] Can you give an example where that has happened? The difference here is that having a lack/excess of resources is GOING to happen. The question is how to minimize the problems caused by that shortage/excess and how to quickly fix it. Capitalism provides many incentives for people to both provide more product and conserve it's use while your ideology provides none beyond an unrealistic expectation of altruism and perfect foresight of all involved.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43161620]sounds like a shitty system then. see, this is my beef with these hypotheticals. if the roles were switched and an anarchist answered a question with an answer like this, there'd be a mass lynching of how horrible this system is, how could you let this happen, etc.[/QUOTE] The thing is that there are established systems to prevent this from occurring. Even when they occur Capitalist systems have developed measures to mitigate their impact. Anarchism essentially by definition abolishes those safety nets. So yes, even when you put things to hypotheticals, your proposal is still outright inferior for the general well being of the people.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43161620]sounds like a shitty system then. see, this is my beef with these hypotheticals. if the roles were switched and an anarchist answered a question with an answer like this, there'd be a mass lynching of how horrible this system is, how could you let this happen, etc.[/QUOTE] Which is why rational and humane systems which aren't anarchist can exist.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43161576]The "too big to fail" companies of 100 years ago barely even exist today.[/QUOTE] have they really? bank of america started as bank of italy in 1904. exxon-mobil is a direct descendant of standard oil from the late 1800s. royal dutch shell has been around since 1907. ford is still around. these big companies have long histories.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43161666]have they really? bank of america started as bank of italy in 1904. exxon-mobil is a direct descendant of standard oil from the late 1800s. royal dutch shell has been around since 1907. ford is still around. these big companies have long histories.[/QUOTE] Notice how I said "barely" and not some absolute term. The vast majority of business are less than 100 years old.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43161627]Along with charity. Like I said earlier, the township system present in New England during the early years of the US provided help for the poor more consistently than their counterparts in Europe through nothing more than zeal for the common weal.[/quote] that isn't really charity, that's mutual aid. “The mutual-aid tendency in man has so remote an origin, and is so deeply interwoven with all the past evolution of the human race, that is has been maintained by mankind up to the present time, notwithstanding all vicissitudes of history.” - kropotkin charity is vertical, it flows from the top to the bottom. mutual aid is horizontal, it is the cooperation of individuals who see each other as equal.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161692]that isn't really charity, that's mutual aid. “The mutual-aid tendency in man has so remote an origin, and is so deeply interwoven with all the past evolution of the human race, that is has been maintained by mankind up to the present time, notwithstanding all vicissitudes of history.” - kropotkin charity is vertical, it flows from the top to the bottom. mutual aid is horizontal, it is the cooperation of individuals who see each other as equal.[/QUOTE] The poor-houses of the early towns were not horizontal in any way, shape, or form. Also, quotes from one guy is not an argument.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43161707]The poor-houses of the early towns were not horizontal in any way, shape, or form. Also, quotes from one guy is not an argument.[/QUOTE] can you tell me what exactly you are talking about? i was assuming you were talking about the proto-communism colonists practiced under the adventure company charters. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] " It is evident that it would be quite contrary to all that we know of nature if men were an exception to so general a rule: if a creature so defenceless as man was at his beginnings should have found his protection and his way to progress, not in mutual support, like other animals, but in a reckless competition for personal advantages, with no regard to the interests of the species. To a mind accustomed to the idea of unity in nature, such a proposition appears utterly indefensible. And yet, improbable and unphilosophical as it is, it has never found a lack of supporters. There always were writers who took a pessimistic view of mankind. They knew it, more or less superficially, through their own limited experience; they knew of history what the annalists, always watchful of wars, cruelty, and oppression, told of it, and little more besides; and they concluded that mankind is nothing but a loose aggregation of beings, always ready to fight with each other, and only prevented from so doing by the intervention of some authority." [url]http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidch3.html[/url]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161719]can you tell me what exactly you are talking about? i was assuming you were talking about the proto-communism colonists practiced under the adventure company charters.[/QUOTE] The township system lasted into the 1800's. It simply consisted of group of people (averaging around 2,000) living together in a fully autonomous town with democratically elected officers called selectmen who ran the every day business of the town (upkeep of roads, collecting of agreed upon taxes, running the poor-house, etc.) This system very consistently led to a set of poor-laws that provided for the basic needs of the poor in the town, not because those poor were necessary or helpful, but because a moral obligation was felt by the majority of constituents based, in that time, in their Christian belief system. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] Also, that "proto-communism" almost led to the starvation of the pilgrims. They worked communal fields, etc. and couldn't produce enough food to last the winter. As soon as the land was parceled into sections that were then given to individual families to work the colony thrived.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43161754] Also, that "proto-communism" almost led to the starvation of the pilgrims. They worked communal fields, etc. and couldn't produce enough food to last the winter. As soon as the land was parceled into sections that were then given to individual families to work the colony thrived.[/QUOTE] i'll just leave this here: [url]http://c4ss.org/content/22792[/url]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161719]"...if a creature so defenceless as man..."[/QUOTE] He starts right off with a false assumption. Humans are great hunters, can create tools, and are able to endurance hunt better than anything else.

I've given up, mainly because I've exhausted my points(and we started going around in circles when I was last involved). Can we agree to disagree at this point?