Also stopping by to say Hi.

Mac,

Lots of interesting discussion from you.

The what drives innovation is the free time to study. What allows that is the aggregation of capital. In a system that requires the contribution of work, is study considered work? If so, by whom? There have been many advances that were considered heretical at the time that were found to be seminal and important years later. In a fully democratized system, that research wouldn’t be allowed because the resources wouldn’t be allocated by the collective.

A response: That free time to study, and that aggregation of capital? In the modern world, for the vast majority, and for the vast majority of time, that option has been limited to the few — even more so if we just talk about capital aggregation. Which means the vast majority is left out, left behind, can’t get into the club. In recent decades, the percentage of students getting advanced degrees rose for a time, but it’s still a minority, and with exploding costs, that will soon be an ever smaller percentage and more a matter of privilege. But prior to that rise, the vast majority did not have the privilege of higher ed or special training, and even fewer could “aggregate capital.”

Our current system, with the capitalist engine in place, which is autocratic and necessarily exclusive and discriminatory, actually prevents the utilization of societal brain-power and the subsequent potential for great discoveries, art, science, etc. etc. It has always radically narrowed and limited the number of humans who could contribute in that way, or come close to reaching their fullest potential as humans. Imagine a system where no one was left behind, where there were no barriers to further study, because there were no costs involved. Everyone could continue their education, or their training, from cradle to grave, for free. No one is denied entrance into the club. That club is no longer even remotely exclusive or discriminatory. Everyone is included automatically.

As for group-think. I can’t think of any system that promotes it more than capitalism, and this comes out every time I get into these discussions. Almost everyone seems to believe it’s the only possible economic system, which is obviously the height of “groupthink.” And, because it’s an autocratic, anti-democratic system to its very core, it falls into the worst kind of group-think, as anyone who has ever worked in the private sector knows: Executives and management think inside their own little bubble, and they really don’t want to hear from the peons on the shop room floor. Yes, they talk with others in their own class, which just reinforces that group-think. But they ignore well 99% of the voices out there who might have something different to say. In the system I’m talking about, that could never happen. Everyone, by legal writ, has equal rights, equal ownership stakes, an equal voices, etc. etc. Rather than having less than 1% make all the calls and ignore everyone else, 100% of the people involved get to chime in. So you would go from the capitalist bubble to the wisdom of crowds.

More on that leisure time thing in the next post.

WV,

Thanks for the good words, and the good questions. As usual. I don’t have the answers, either, though I’m trying to think through some possibilities, etc.

Those profits (surplus) are necessary in any system. Without profit there isn’t opportunity for trade or reinvestment. The work day cut in half better have twice as many workers since that profit must be maintained or the enterprise will fail. It works the same in nature. The squirrel that puts up half as much nuts as another won’t have as good a chance surviving winter nor the ability to reinvest in the planting of new trees.

There is absolutely no need to make profits in the alternative. None. There is no profit in nature, obviously. I think you’re confusing “profit”
with the production of surplus goods, and there is a huge difference between these things. They’re not remotely the same.

Under capitalism, profits are generated by workers from the surplus value they create, which is then appropriated by capitalists for themselves. They can not produce a surplus value if their production matches their pay, so the capitalist must get them to work additional hours beyond that, additional unpaid hours, which is how the capitalist makes the majority of his/her own compensation. Collecting the most unpaid labor hours possible.

Think about a single builder of chairs. He builds and sells them himself. No employees. He is not a capitalist. He does not appropriate surplus value created by others. He takes payment for what he, himself, does, and no one else. If, however, he hires workers to build those chairs for him, and appropriates their surplus value, he is a capitalist. And they have to work hours in excess of their costs (including their pay), which also means in excess of what they would need to produce if they were their own boss.

In order for the capitalist to “profit,” his/her employees must work enough hours each day to produce surplus value in excess of their pay and overall costs. That always means more than they would have to work in any non-profit economy, or if they were on their own. In either case, it’s not “capitalism.”

Changing to a non-profit, publicly-owned economy would radically reduce hours worked for everyone. We only work as many as we do, under capitalism, to generate profits for others. It’s only “necessary” under capitalism. Not under the alternative under discussion.

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by Billy_T.

And this, from the same article:

The power created by private property is expressed most clearly in the labor market, where business owners get to decide who deserves a job and who doesn’t, and are able to impose working conditions that, if given a fair alternative, ordinary people would otherwise reject. And even though workers do most of the actual work at a job, owners have unilateral say over how profits are divided up and don’t compensate employees for all the value they produce. Socialists call this phenomenon exploitation.

Exploitation is not unique to capitalism. It’s around in any class society, and simply means that some people are compelled to labor under the direction of, and for the benefit of, others.

Basically, the difference between the surplus value workers create, and the pay they actually receive, is the “exploitation zone.” This is the pool of money capitalists/corporate management draw upon for their own compensation. If there is a one to one correspondence between surplus value generated and pay, there is nothing left over for capitalists/management to make their fortune. If they actually paid value for value, they could not possibly do what they want to do, what they go into business for: get rich.

So capitalism is based upon theft, direct theft. It’s just been legalized by the ruling class, on behalf of capitalists, the folks who fund their political careers. Morally, ethically, this should actually be illegal. I see it as immoral, theft and absolutely wrong.

So in the alternative, it would be illegal to do this. There would no longer be anyone being exploited by any “boss” in any way, shape or form, including “the state.” Public or private, no one can legally get rich off the backs of others.

IMO, this is key to a just, humane, moral and ethical society. It’s not the only component of this, obviously. But it’s fundamental, never the less.

bnw wrote:

I’ve never been a Kenny Loggins fan. But I watched a lot of Gilligan’s Island. That seems like what you want to do but out of those 7 stranded castaways 3 are the Howels and Gilligan.

Actually, no. The point would be to make sure no one is stranded. No one. No one left behind. Everyone gets the chance to achieve their fullest potential, primarily because there would no longer be any monetary barriers between them and their dreams. For the first time in history, everyone, simply by being a citizen, would have unhindered access to the full range of educational, cultural, health and fitness and environmental options available, with no entrance fees. Instead of these things being set aside for the Howells alone, or those who manage the wealth of the Howells, everyone could take advantage of all the fruits of society. No exclusion. No one stranded.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

I’ve never been a Kenny Loggins fan. But I watched a lot of Gilligan’s Island. That seems like what you want to do but out of those 7 stranded castaways 3 are the Howels and Gilligan.

Actually, no. The point would be to make sure no one is stranded. No one. No one left behind. Everyone gets the chance to achieve their fullest potential, primarily because there would no longer be any monetary barriers between them and their dreams. For the first time in history, everyone, simply by being a citizen, would have unhindered access to the full range of educational, cultural, health and fitness and environmental options available, with no entrance fees. Instead of these things being set aside for the Howells alone, or those who manage the wealth of the Howells, everyone could take advantage of all the fruits of society. No exclusion. No one stranded.

As long as they are not the square peg to be forced into the round hole. That square peg looks around the packed gifted and talented classroom and decides the work is so ridiculously easy as to be meaningless. Feigning sleep to daydream of a life lived fully elsewhere brings some solace for now.

You’re describing our current situation, not the alternative. The alternative wouldn’t be tasked with churning out good little capitalist cogs for the machine. Instead, the duty of our teachers in the alternative society would be to provoke and hone critical thinking skills, creativity, independence of mind and body. Study the Paris Commune. This was a really big deal to its theorists and practitioners. They sought to raise a new generation of independent minds, capable of self-provisioning, self-governance, no longer under the beck and call of capitalist bosses. No longer forced into the economic machine against their will, because they had no other option, not being members of the financial elite.

No gods, no masters. We’d teach our children this, and give them the tools to thrive in an open, democratic and cooperative society. No more dependence on capitalism, corporations, the state. No more class hierarchies. They’d have access to the widest possible array of avenues to explore, all of them without prices attached. And because every community would have the resources they needed to present that array, in full, no child would have to choose between fewer and fewer options, because rich people wanted their taxes cut and public goods and services slashed to pay for them.

No class system. No chance for the rich to demand tax cuts, paid for by slashing programs for the poor and the middle. Instead, everyone gets full access to the entire gamut of learning, with no one left out.

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by Billy_T.

bnw wrote:

Really? You ignored the G&T student predicament. So lets see what else. What if someone is ugly vs. gorgeous? Fat vs. fit? Extroverted vs. introverted? Still preaching equality or do you at all acknowledge human behavior and its undeniable effect?

I didn’t ignore anything. I said that you described the existing problems with society, thinking you had come up with some unique problem that would only apply to alternative systems. Again, the alternative wouldn’t have that problem, because the purpose of education in a socialist, left-anarchist society is completely different from a capitalist society. There is no need to create good little capitalist worker bees. There is no need to preach obedience to authority and mold young minds into mass children for a mass consumerist culture. There is no need to make sure kids surrender their own personal autonomy to the ruling class, to business owners, etc. Those things won’t exist.

As for individual differences? Why would any of that matter? We’re not looking for sameness in human beings, unlike the capitalist system, which depends upon sameness, teaches it, herds people into being compliant, complacent drones. It’s capitalism that couldn’t survive if everyone were actually free to do their own thing. It’s capitalism that couldn’t survive if people were taught to think for themselves, provide for themselves, self-govern, self-actuate.

So, again, who cares if people are radically diverse? In this alternative society, we celebrate, promote and do our best to provoke that.

I think you are seriously confused about the definition of “equality” in this context. It doesn’t mean individual to individual sameness. It means equal rights and all humans being equally valued. Our time being equally valued and valuable. It means equal say in one’s workplace, an equal voice in one’s community, and equal access to all the fruits of society, without hindrance. It means all citizens are co-owners of the means of production, with an equal share. It means everyone is entitled to personal autonomy and dignity, as citizens. No bosses. No masters. No slaves.

It doesn’t mean everyone acts alike or is expected to. It means quite the opposite. Because in this society, with everyone having all the tools they could possible need to achieve their potential, the diversity of individual human experience will be greater than in any previous system known to humankind. Rather than just a tiny fraction of society having the chance to pursue individuals dreams, everyone will have that chance.

Again, you seem to be critiquing this from the standpoint of how things work now, by the rules of capitalism and our existing system. That’s using the rules of Risk to say this or that Chess move can’t work.

In short, you have to think outside the box.

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by Billy_T.

Hey, Ozone.

Doing fine, all things considered.

Hope all is well with you and yours.

LA? Come on. The Rams won’t go back there in a million years!! People in LA are interested in too many other things to welcome back a football team.

;>)