debate

@songofsisyphus 3 / 4 - On 'Communist Utopia' Yeah, able-bodied adults could conceivably choose not to work under communism. Any such person would not be denied the food or resources necessary to maintain their existence. Now, you raise a question of incentives, but if I recall one of your earlier posts, you said that "people want to work"; I see no reason why this would change were they not forced to work else starve (and if you insisted that it did then you would be arguing against your own point once again that wage-labour is voluntary). In fact there are many studies that have been done into the nature of motivation such that intrinsic motivation is a *far* more effective indicator for productivity than extrinsic motivation. Not everyone will simply stop working the moment they don't get a wage, some people really like what they do, and others still really wish they could do what they like as work. Many people who have experienced unemployment will likely be able to tell you that, even if they personally were never at immediate risk of starvation, they felt like their lives were stagnating because they were not doing anything. I think a drive to exert change on one's world in broad philosophical terms is very important to the human condition. I will also say, that for as long as there is a sense of existing within a community, a positive desire to contribute to that community is capable of occurring. This is one thing that made me quite respect the old Council Communists (though sadly it appears the vast majority of them were purged by people who were not fond of their take on things, throughout the years), because a focus on community (and of course free association) is very important to any actually communist project. I motion that under communism, the productivity and quality of labour undertaken would be on average higher than under capitalism. It is certainly possible that on the whole, productivity output of society might even fall a little though due to people working less hours overall, but under communism this isn't actually a huge problem, because having all of the wealth that we do and using it in the way that we would under communism would mean that there wouldn't be this incessant and misanthropic drive towards an ever-increasing productivity (such that capitalism has created jobs that do not even need to exist, but are just a way to get people on the payroll and keep the system churning). Regarding Needs: Interesting you raise this, actually, yes there are many different people each with their own needs, wants and desires. Indeed, the state would not exist and consequently could not decide what does and does not constitute need. No one institution can *impose* a rigid and unchanging definition of need on anyone, and any sense of need must be collectively agreed and specific to the people whose specific needs are in question. I think that this must be decided wholly voluntarily on a local level without hierarchy, and through federation between different communes. Now, as we're envisioning 'utopia' at this point (which I do not often do, as it is quite far off in any case, and it's important to work out the road to getting there than the absolute specifics of the endpoint - which as I've already said will necessarily vary depending on the material circumstances in which it arises), In our minds we've already moved beyond labour vouchers, as those are very much a transitionary measure (with which I still have concerns depending on approach, being honest) and would be unnecessary under a society that had reached this hypothetical endpoint. In order to answer the question regarding why people would trade things, we'd have to look at why people trade commodities in human society in general, so we're going to get into exchange. The reason why one trades a commodity away is because that commodity does not satisfy a want, need or desire of theirs (that is, to them it does not represent a use-value), and the reason why one trades for a commodity is that that commodity to them does satisfy a want, need or desire (to them, it *does* represent a use-value). The reason why one trades for money is not for the money itself, but in the relation that that money represents to different commodities, their exchange-values (which are in a certain sense an abstraction of use-value); I.E. the reason why you would exchange one commodity for money, is so that you can exchange that money for another commodity which *does* serve a useful purpose to you. As money would no longer exist, most trades would be on a thing-for-thing basis, or on a needs and wants basis. If for example I see someone who could really go for a curry, and I've just made a piping hot curry but then remember that I hate curry, it would make sense for me to give them the curry I just made, as I am secure in the knowledge that my needs will be looked after, and all I lose is something that I would not have enjoyed anyway. Or for a different example, he receives my curry and then remembers that he too has a foodstuff he made earlier but doesn't like, a tuna-based pasta bake, he also loses nothing of value to him in and of itself by giving that to me, and might choose to do so in the knowledge that this shared exchange might beget further exchanges in the future from which he might benefit such that he is able to satisfy a need, want or desire. I will also reiterate in response to a point you make later in the paragraph that money is also a socially-determined relation and has no inherent value in and of itself. Regarding "Why would anyone make movies, anime, video games etc etc. if not paid" - I think I've already explained this, but just to be sure. Even in today's society, with all of its pressures and incentives, there are some people who make these things and distribute them for no cost to consumers. In fact I would argue that the reason why working conditions in the anime and video games industries are so bad is because these companies mercilessly exploit the enthusiasm and creative drive that many bright-faced young workers come in with, and over time wear down that creative passion until there is nothing left. Things like crunch time and authoritarian management structures are very effective at killing off creative drives as well as negatively impacting the health of employees, and serve only to limit the types of media that we are able to see (ever wonder why there's so much darn Isekai that's practically been homogenised into a smooth spreadable paste ideal for burnt toast by this point? So much for 'freedom of choice' if all of the choices are the same anyway). Creative drive for art especially is limited by market relations, not assisted by them. The purpose of providing everybody with their needs is not to expressly deny them also their wants and desires. With regards to flatscreen TVs, if they have been produced, and people agree that there is merit in you having one, then you would get one (you know, or you engaged in a willing exchange with someone who owned a flatscreen TV but would prefer the thing you trade for it); actually the underlying logic is similar in a capitalist system, it's just the 'socially agreed threshold of merit' is having the money to buy a flatscreen TV, and of course in a capitalist system that socially-agreed threshold of merit is not really meaningfully voluntarily decided in the grand scheme of things. If you have a hankering for books, libraries would also exist under Communism (as they have existed long before) and they would be free on the point of use, and I'm sure if you desired specifically a copy of a book there could be a printing arrangement that could be reached on a wholly voluntary basis. An example of a use-value raised by Marx in Kapital would be 20 yards of linen. In fact, simply referring back to the definition he uses might help clearing this up, but it's pretty long, so I'll just quote "It is, moreover, determined not only qualitatively but also quantitatively". In other words, quantities are already accounted for. But if we're talking like *real* endpoints here, in a fully communist society people will have abolished the commodity form, which would take a very long time to explain so I'll leave you hanging on that one for now.

@songofsisyphus 4/4 - Closing Statement and further reading Also, of course a communist system would collapse if enough people decided not to work. The exact same thing is true of a capitalist system. Why do you think the history of police in the US in particular featured an awful lot of union-busting? However, in a communist society, it would be even more in people's rational self-interest to not crash their own economic system by nobody working. To close out, I forget precisely how we got onto capitalism-vs-socialism and I think it's obvious neither of us will see eye-to-eye on this, but I'm pretty confident in the rationality of my analysis and approach. Of course any thing can be intimidating if one stubbornly tautologically defines it as "the thing I don't like which is bad" and then complains of people critiquing that definition. I'd implore anyone with a real interest in understanding both capitalism and socialism more to read the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation by David Ricardo, and then Das Kapital by Karl Marx, and come to your own informed conclusions. Now, as reading economics can be very dry I will also point out someone who might serve as an interesting entry point into actually understanding socialist thought rather than simply dismissing it without actually knowing it. Richard Wolff is a notable Marxian economist, and puts things forth quite plainly from what little I've heard from him. He seems to put a fair amount of content up on Youtube.

@momoichi Heheh, might have to do a good bit of preparation myself for that one of I were to say yes, and if I did you might still get the better of me without much contest because it's very difficult to argue against Vegan (or at the very least Vegetarian) ethics without throwing any and all sense of common decency to the wind xD. The position I hold is that veganism is more ethical than eating meat, although unfortunately I don't actually put my money where my mouth is and live a vegan lifestyle. I can imagine if I was going to throw something out I'd quickly be pushed into the "Okay, but what is it about animals that we value, and why for example is an animal worthy of more moral consideration than plants to the point that they should be given a threshold cutoff for consideration" road, so it'd get dicey for me pretty fast. There might be some nutritional edge cases for certain people with eating disorders or damage to digestive systems, but that doesn't really affect broad arguments. Yeah, it's a really tricky argument to have from the pro-meat consumption position. Personally, I simply hope that lab-grown meat becomes a thing so I can become retroactively not as much of a hypocrite on this particular position of mine.

vegetarianism is easy to debate against because its littered in hypocracy because you say your against animal exploitation but will give money to dairy and egg farms, which are also massively cruel a vegetarian would have to appeal to futility or some other kind of fallacy to justify their complacency when debating veganism i contest that not everyone on earth can go vegan, and that it is ethical to kill an animal so you yourself can live, but that doesn't count for the majority of people ;P when i debate veganism my goals are to either point out hypocracy or sociopathy. in a previous debate someone appealed to social contract and in the end i got him to agree that hes fine with mentally handicap people being raped and murdered. id love to have a debate on the side of morality with you, i think it would be a challenge if you came prepared! we could start off on name the trait; what trait or set of traits does an animal lack that allows you to forgo their moral consideration? (and with lab grown meat the issue is some labs use the fetal tissue of a calf to replicate the cells, which isn't cruelty free, but i suppose could be justified as an ends justify the means type of situation depending on how many fetal calfs have to be sacrificed)

So, just to reiterate to anyone reading, my actual position is that veganism is more ethical than eating meat (and I accept based on that that my behaviour in eating meat is necessarily hypocritical), but I'm playing devil's advocate for the purposes of debate, so let's get the ball rolling while I try and figure out how I'm going to develop this: Initially I had thought to address these traits as negations to common traits that people seem to cite (so, things like "the ability to feel pain" or "the capacity for intelligence of a certain threshold") in arguments for the moral value of nonhuman animals, but for one that would leave me in a difficult place with regards to the ethical value of humans also, and for two it wasn't the question I was actually asked, so I will instead attempt to select a trait that nonhuman animals lack that humans do not, generally speaking (there is no 'absolute trait' because there really isn't an absolute metaphysical or categorical divide between humans and nonhuman animals). One I considered using would have been tool use and the ability to act intentionally about one's own environment, to act on it such that it is changed and the actor is also changed in turn, but the problem I arrive at here is that there are absolutely nonhuman animals that can do that (such as orangutans and certain species of corvid). The capacity to create art is by no means a wholly human invention, either; Elephants are capable of this, also, as I'm sure a number of other species are. So a trait that I arrive at that seems at first glance to satisfy these conditions, although it pains me to try and use in argumentation, is a slight modification: "The abstract ability to devise formal moral or ethical systems, and to act with intentionality based upon those systems(, and in the process of so doing, become more morally consistent themselves)." I struggle to think of anything else that humans are capable of that, in principle, certain nonhuman animals do not also experience or exhibit to an extent. It also does seem to me to be quite an important good, as far as the cause of morality is concerned EDIT: [; that is to say it seems that an ability to formulate moral or ethical systems and act based on them, even if they do not agree with the separate set of normative ethics that we might hold in individual instances, on the whole will increase utility.] (regarding lab-grown meat. Yeah, I'll readily accept the foetal tissue bit, as in general with regards to abortion even for humans I am pro-choice to the point where I think that before a certain point in a pregnancy -- admittedly I haven't spared a great deal of thought where to hammer this out specifically, but I imagine it'd be reasonably late in the pregnancy -- the foetus should not be given moral consideration. There are a couple reasons for this, but they're a little off-topic right now, though of course I'll try to respond if called up on it) EDIT: [The position it appears necessary for me to argue, after a little bit of casual thinking, is "One shouldn't *not* eat meat", or that eating meat is morally neutral relative to other forms of consumption. The argument I will be making is not then that "One should eat meat", but that "One shouldn't *not* eat meat".]

Just a quick point of clarification on principle 1 of the communist utopia. It is true that if enough people decide not to work. Then any economic system collapses. But that is not the point. You completely missed the point. You went into a what aboutism argument. You have continuously argued that under capitalism. People are forced to work under some so called implicit threat of violence. You cannot then argue the what aboutism if people decided not to work under capitalism. As it would be a contradiction to the forced work that you continuously argued. If the communist utopia can collapse under principle 1. What about capitalism collapsing under principle 1? Yes, capitalism can collapse. However, capitalism abides by different economic principles. Principle 1 of the communist utopia does not exist under capitalism. You misunderstood the collapsing loopholes in the communist utopia. In your own words. People cannot really stop working under capitalism. Hence they'll starve to death. Because in your own words. People are forced to work or otherwise face starvation. The communist utopia eliminates the so called implicit violence of forced work. People can stop working under a communist utopia and still get fed. For if you do not feed people that do not work. Then it will be destitute to violence. Which violates principle 1 of the communist utopia. A loophole exist in the communist utopia, which does not exist under capitalism. I do not have to work to be fed under a communist utopia. If enough people choose not to work under the communist utopia. Because they'll know that they'll be fed regardless if they work or not. The whole communist utopia collapses. Principle 1 can collapse the communist utopia. Principle 1 does not exist in capitalism. I do have to work to be fed under capitalism. Hence it cannot collapse under the same logic. Worse case scenario happens where enough people decide not to work? How do you solve that? I do not buy this notion of "voluntarily on a local level without hierarchy and through federation between different communes". A federation is hierarchy. A commune is the local government. The hierarchy still exist. The state still exist. Even assuming that no hierarchy(no police) existed. Then no law and order can be enforced. For if you enforce laws. Then a hierarchy exist. You gave a lot of grandiose ideas about having the perfect caring society. The communist utopia sounds like fairy tale lala land where people just decide to be nice to each other and voluntary exchange goods and services. Who are these people agreeing that I have merit in having something? It can't be state. People, somehow determine my worth. I cannot simply buy a TV. No, I must have the merit to have it. Does not sound like a free society where people determine your merit and worth. Something as simple as book. How much would it cost under a communist utopia? Who knows? It is an ill defined not well thought out system. I do see a lot of logically reason to actually buy into the communist utopia. @songofsisyphus

I sometimes read and study random shit. When I have loads of free time and I'm really bored. I might eventually look into the books you recommended. As I like to analyze and critique both sides of the coin. I am not stuck on one dogmatic side of the coin. I recommend reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. As far economic textbooks being dry. That's more of a matter of opinion. Some people think that math is dry as hell. But it's one of my favorite subjects. I've read a book on engineering economics. In my quest to understand the federal reserve system. I also delved into the basic mathematics of inflation, velocity of money and money supply. If you really want to know who controls the capitalist system. Study the federal reserve (central banking). Though we didn't agree much. I did actual enjoy our little talk. Ok for real this time, Lol. That is all. Deuces!!

I won't tag you because you said you're done with the discussion, and I don't want to accidentally drag you back in, but a couple things I think could use a response: Both systems would be subject to reality; the thing is, even under a 'communist utopia', it remains fact that if food is not produced then people cannot be fed, if housing is not built then people cannot be housed, and if energy is not produced then people cannot use energy. So although there is no coercive force from any hierarchy, people's behaviour will of course be influenced by the set of material circumstances in which they live, and I find it a very odd proposition to think that a significant number of people (enough to cause a widespread collapse of society) will simply just sort of sit exactly where they are in some weirdly solipsistic glee while society collapses around them. I must ask you precisely which principles change betwixt capitalism and communism the moment you stop requiring workers to work or starve that would cause there to be such a difference? How is it that it can be people's free will to work under capitalism (which I maintain that it isn't, but I don't think you ever conceded this), but not their free will to work under communism? I haven't really seen any arguments to justify that we would see a vast number of people just not working at all, you sort of just asserted without any evidence that it would happen when people are no longer being forced to work in order to meet their basic needs. People have lived and worked in the past, before capitalism, before feudalism, and before slavery. There is no real reason to assert that everyone will simply stop working forever the moment they're no longer being threatened and forced to work by somebody else. Do you just think that people with actually free will would never choose to work? Also, as you seem to note, there are conditions under which capitalism can absolutely still collapse. See, the threat of work or starve still applies under capitalism, even in cases where starvation follows a little bit of a time lag. When people organise collectively and cooperatively, and pool their resources and skills between themselves, they tend to be able to keep themselves going just a little while longer. Are you familiar with the concept of a strike? Wherein workers withdraw labour in order to force concessions from their employers? Back when radical labour unions were a much bigger thing in the US, at around the turn of the 20th century, many instances of collective action by workers to achieve better conditions and resist the coercive authority of their bosses occurred. Sadly, these unions were subject to actually explicit violence from the police on a considerable number of occasions (I refer you to the Wikipedia article on the History of Union Busting in the United States). There has been for a very long time the concept of a General Strike, which is strike action in which a substantial proportion of the population's workforce participates. This would effectively bring a halt to the machine by which the wealth that workers produce is expropriated. If one were ever to occur widely enough and in big enough numbers, capitalism would most certainly collapse. It is highly unlikely that this will happen, but in principle it could, which seems analogous to the thing that you were saying about a 'communist utopia'. Of course, the actual big threats to capitalism as a system right now are the externalities which it cannot really cope with. The effects of accelerated climate change come to mind. That's really a front on which the system itself has managed to engineer a big problem for itself that it might not be able to solve. Indeed, there can be no 'laws' in a 'communist utopia', as laws are enforced by police, who are an arm of the state (which in a communist society does not exist) and act with a legal monopoly of violence. Now, I could probably talk all day about the nature of delegation versus authority, how it is possible to have government without a state, prefiguration of societies and how doing that will progressively change the social relations between people and how people will generally choose to do things, but I suspect people have long since got bored of me rambling on here about this topic, so I'll merely say that I have many more responses and a lot more theory at my disposal, were I to choose to use them. And once again, kind of the reason why this 'utopia' seems so fuzzy is that communists very rarely actually spare time thinking about the specifics of utopias (plus, you're the one who insisted I define a 'communist utopia' in the first place, it seems like I just can't satisfy some people), because it is more important to get there to communists than to worry about every excruciatingly specific detail; it is a thing that must become realised through human development, we cannot simply prescribe an ideal world from the position we currently occupy, we can only sort of vaguely gesture at it in that sort of way until such a time as it becomes realised (in a similar way to how a serf or peasant in the 1200s would likely not have been able to envision liberal capitalism). For example, the most well-known communist theorist, Marx was explicitly anti-utopian, and often argued against Utopian Socialists. I am sorry if the idea that other people also have an input on the value that society outside of yourself generally places on you is a problem for you, but humans are quite fundamentally social animals, and we cannot exist totally free of social relations entirely. You do not exist outside of society, as well as being an individual you are also a part of society and exist inside it, as do all of those other people. A communist society would exist for the freedom of you and also all of those other people (who are also individuals), but at some point we have to weigh up one person's freedom against another person's, against another person's. Freedom cannot just be the freedom of one person over everybody else's individual freedoms.