zn wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

zn, don’t you think it’s time to change the log in page so it says “Los Angeles” rather than “St. Louis?”

That’s a good point!

No it is not!

I can’t see how that could happen. Such a being would be inherently non kosher. Was recently in Everglades National Park and watched dolphins doing it. Always in threesomes that they called a pod. Unfortunately from my perspective its always dude-gal-dude for the pod. Good news is calf support is nonexistent.

“Conservatives can at least say, “Yeah, I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t care because other people aren’t my problem. I’m in it for me.”

I would say I don’t want other people making their problems, mine. Especially if they choose to live what I consider an immoral, extravagant, reckless life. That definitely should not be my problem.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

“The Patriots opted to cut their losses due to Easley’s philosophical differences with the organization’s injury program, CSN New England’s Tom Curran reported at the time.”

What does this mean?

He wanted to do the training and physical therapy on his injuries his own way. Patz wanted him doing it in the building, their way.

Then unless he is an experienced PT he seems like trouble to me. Who is going to step up in the locker room to counteract such behavior?

DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION

Billy_T wrote:

Capitalism itself sparked a revolution in division of labor, which was perhaps THE single biggest reason for this skyrocketing hierarchy. Never before in human history were we separated so much simply due to our jobs, and never before in human history were those jobs broken up into hyper-specialization. Again, this is all quite recent in human history. Capitalism is the aberration, not communal groups with fairly flat hierarchical structures.

Well we’re now in the 21st century. Machines and technology replace human labor at an ever increasing rate. There is no return to the pre industrial society given a world population of 7 billion to feed, clothe, shelter, educate etc.

“The Patriots opted to cut their losses due to Easley’s philosophical differences with the organization’s injury program, CSN New England’s Tom Curran reported at the time.”

What does this mean?

Mackeyser wrote:

I’m giggling a bit at this convo…

I love it. That and the notion that Hillary Clinton is or ever was on the Left or a Progressive… Hahahahaha.

I see where you’re going Billy T, but also understand the questions asked by bnw.

Even if the aims of a cooperative group aren’t capitalistic, structurally, not every endeavor is suited to totally flat organizational structure. I know in engineering, while it would probably be better for ideas to be democratized, there are moments when groups are incapable of making every decision. Sometimes a moment requires an expert. Others, it requires some ok to make a decision because it is inappropriate.

Moreover, humans are hard wired for a few things. We need other humans. We respond to base needs powerfully like air, food, water, sleep, evacuation and sex. Our brains respond dramatically to what we now call entrepreneurial pursuits. That’s pure brain chemistry and it’s been seen in scans.

I’m far from arguing for capitalism. However, I think any alternative has to acknowledge that most people aren’t altruistic. Most people are basically interested in survival and have both the capacity to be decent or horrible and that line is pretty slim (see Nazi Germany: after the war, many Germans said it was like waking up from a national nightmare and they always saw themselves as moral people, until…)

Any system must have an ability to control because criminals will always exist in any society.

So, how does this system deal with the barely engaged, the disabled (since they can’t build up credits with labor), criminals and situations where totally flat organizational structures aren’t feasible or entirely apropos?

Great post!

Reading this piece it seems to make the case that trading draft picks for an NFL experienced QB or signing one via free agency is the better percentage play. Let some other team put all the cost and effort and risk in developing an NFL QB. If the Rams end up 2 time losers with first taken overall QBs that will be tough to endure.

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

Haiti ,Honduras, Libya ,Syria , Iraq and the Ukraine. Every thing she touches goes to shit and she wants a do-over ?She has sold weapons to despots , dictators and psychopaths, her next mistake could very well come in the form of a mushroom cloud and she is currently under investigation by the FBI !!!!’The absolute worst candidate in my lifetime,nothing incremental about it.

Exacty! Selling influence as Sec of State through the Clinton Foundation to dictators with the most atrocious record of human rights towards women and gays, yet claims she is fighting for womens rights? Fast and Furious gun running scandal is now looking far more sinister than first thought. Direct tie in with Benghazi too? US military in SW US transfers military grade weapons of all sorts to arm ISIS through the embassy in Libya. Ambassador Stevens refuses to turn over the weapons and is denied protection and when attacked denied assistance. ISIS continues to destabilize Libya and then with the weapons via Fast and Furious invades Syria. Hillary is a lying war mongering nightmare.

The PSL lawsuit is in federal court. I hope StanK loses that too. Lying StanK.

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

There is no “produce to order”. You try to maximize the yield of the crop you planted. Everyone does the same. Sometimes crops don’t meet expectations or outright fail.

Yes, there is a produce to order here. When the sole purpose is to fulfill need, to produce use value, not make a profit, you can do just that. You’re still thinking within the context of capitalism.

Capitalism is dead and buried in this context, and absolutely none of its rules apply. It’s as if it never existed. There is no more M-C-M and exchange value. There are no more employers. There are no more employees. No one appropriates surplus value for him or herself. No one steals the production of workers for themselves, or gets rich off the backs of others. It’s all publicly owned, managed, controlled, distributed and conceived of — by the public. There is no one unified market, much less a globalized market. Local markets are autonomous, cooperative, democratic, and federated with other local, autonomous, cooperative, democratic markets.

You can’t critique this alternative accurately until you get out of the capitalist mindset. It’s like bashing a move in Chess based on your understanding of the game of Risk. The rules of Risk are absolutely, 110% irrelevant.

Capitalist mindset? OK it is obvious you do not understand. There is no “produce to order” since as I wrote before you plant as much as you can because agricultural yield is far from a given. Since no other trade or economic activity can exist without a stable food supply you always plant as much as you can because you have to. You then have to get value for your surplus from someone else most likely not in your community since the surrounding communities frequently have the same surplus.

Now lets look at your “public” enterprise. Who is the labor? Who is the management? Who decides? Who decides compensation? Who is on the tractor? Who is in the field? Is there a tractor? Was the tractor a one off creation of the community? Or is there a tractor building community? Who gets the cubicle and who gets the corner office? Corner office with a window? Three bedroom house vs. a two or one bedroom house? Or no house? How do you address disparate production by like class workers? Unions have this difficulty and the result is a drag on production. Communism tried it for society as a whole and it failed. Failed because it wasn’t responsive to real world conditions of weather and natural resource production and individual human want and need.

The rules of Risk are sacrosanct. Chess is a battle. Risk is war.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by bnw.

With food you can’t “produce to order” because of all the variables that can go wrong in bringing a crop to market. You still don’t answer how disparate items can be obtained for each other. There are always centers of power.

OK so my community has a surplus of sweet corn and all the surrounding communities have a surplus of sweet corn with only 5 days before its no longer sweet and no one wants it. My community really needs antibiotics and oil filters. How does your system make it happen?

That is nothing new. That has been done before in communes and Co-ops. It can work reasonably well at a small scale for some time. Given your example lets say you and I contribute our work and bumper crop while our neighbors plan to do less or nothing at all? What then? Peoples wants and needs. You will never get past it. Reality isn’t people with identical work ethic and no systems remain static so bumper crops are not the norm. No system can last long under such circumstance.