Comments on: Breaking The Spell: Modern Revolutionary Theory

By: jortylbro

jortylbro — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:37:05 +0000

“Lions claim …
“Lions claim territory and squirrels gather and hoard nuts. ”

They defend the resources they use for themselves. They don’t defend arbitrary “investments”.

“The lack of price signals is a problem anti-capitalists have never solved.”

Not a problem anti-capitalists need to worry about.

“This also alone leads to stewardship and the best possible allocation of scarce resources. ”

The best allocation of scarce resources isn’t excessive production and consumption.

By: GBanville

GBanville — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:37:05 +0000

Property is natural …
Property is natural. Lions claim territory and squirrels gather and hoard nuts. Resources that you alone can use are fundamentally vital to survival. This also alone leads to stewardship and the best possible allocation of scarce resources. The lack of price signals is a problem anti-capitalists have never solved. Differences in wealth do not by themselves signal or lead to exploitation. Many of the worlds richest have risen from poverty proving property alone doesn’t determine opportunity.

By: GBanville

GBanville — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:37:04 +0000

My squirrel example …
My squirrel example already refutes your lion response. Just because you are not aware of the economic calculation problem doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious problem. Without such a mechanism excessive production is just an assumption. History shows that more wealth is created by competitive capitalism than otherwise. Even the poor are better off in these rich countries. Disparity isn’t oppression.
A forum with a 500 character limit is no place for serious debate. Care to take this elsewhere?

By: jortylbro

jortylbro — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:37:04 +0000

“Differences in …
“Differences in wealth do not by themselves signal or lead to exploitation.”

Being part of a market economy, it does. Those with nothing have to sell their lives away.

“Many of the worlds richest have risen from poverty proving property alone doesn’t determine opportunity. ”

Most don’t become successful. There is always a loser in capitalism due to its competitive nature.

By: GBanville

GBanville — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:37:03 +0000

The problem of …
The problem of economic calculation, and the necessity of pricing as a signal of the relative value of a resource is obviously something that you are simply unaware of. It does not apply only to a capitalist society, it is necessary to any attempt to allocate resources, all of which are finite and likely to become scarce if not rationally valued. Go read an F. A. Hayek book and quit asserting as fact what you are simply ignorant about.

By: GBanville

GBanville — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:37:03 +0000

A squirrel trades …
A squirrel trades time now, for something he doesn’t need now, nuts to get him through the winter. A central American mouse gathers grass for hay. Bees collect pollen and with extra effort tun it into honey. Leaf cutter ants likewise gather resources that they use to farm and store food. But we might forget that investment, though natural is beside the point that property is necessary for life. In our case, we need in 20 years to accumulate what will sustain one for 30 to 90 years more.

By: jortylbro

jortylbro — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:37:03 +0000

“My squirrel …
“My squirrel example already refutes your lion response.”

No, my response applies to both.

“Just because you are not aware of the economic calculation problem doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious problem.”

They are only relevant in a capitaist society.

“Disparity isn’t oppression.”

Disparity enforced by violence is.

By: bedsbronco75

bedsbronco75 — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:37:02 +0000

1) this video is a …
1) this video is a look at what the world would look like without any real authority
2) prices are a tool of allocating reasources, hence those that earn money earn the right to what they buy (their choice)
3) the government, or those with the guns become the tools of allocation in systems without discrete prices, hence in anarchy those with the biggest guns allocate the resources (not our choice) sounds a of a lot more violent then now…

By: GBanville

GBanville — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:37:02 +0000

If violence is bad …
If violence is bad than the attempt to use it to appropriate the justly gotten property of another is also bad.

In my original response to you I asked, how you imagined that capitalism necessarily presupposes violence? What economic system do you imagine by contrast does not?

I’m still puzzled as I wait for an answer, because without coercion, I do not see how people will allow the product of their labor to be used by those who have given them nothing they value in exchange. Even apes trade.

By: jortylbro

jortylbro — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:37:01 +0000

The necessity of …
The necessity of pricing is only relevant in a market economy, which is a direct consequence of private property, which I am opposed to.

And your assertion that it is necessary to prevent wasting scarce resources is questionable, considering the overabundance of useless products, increasing scarcity of vital resources like oil, and the number of people who seem to lack some essentials like food and housing in capitalist societies.