Bailouts or Cooperatives?
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081128140559546
Bailouts or co-operatives?
By Anarcho
Anarcho Writers
November 18, 2008
As capitalism goes into crisis (again), there have been bailouts of the
financial sector as well as calls for the bailing out of certain
industries. In America, the big three car companies having been asking
for state help. There are many reasons for rejecting this:
‘When it comes to bailing out the auto industry, count me in the “let
them starve” camp. The auto industry has been outsourcing American jobs
for 25 years now with little regard for the devastated communities
they’ve left in their wake (seriously, re-watch Roger & Me sometime).
The big three have also used their lobbying might to oppose every
environmental regulation in their sights. And on top of all of that,
their cars suck.’
As true as this is, the problem is that the workers who are left will be
harmed by this. As such, I think it is wise for anarchists to have some
practical suggestion on what to do – beyond, of course, calls for social
revolution (which is correct, but fails to take into account where we
are now and is, as a result, abstract sloganeering).
May I suggest that in return for any bailouts, the company is turned
into a co-operative? This is a libertarian alternative to just throwing
money at capitalists or nationalising workplaces.
For example, Proudhon argued in 1848 he “did not want to see the State
confiscate the mines, canals and railways; that would add to monarchy,
and more wage slavery. We want the mines, canals, railways handed over
to democratically organised workers' associations . . . these
associations [will] be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the
pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies woven
into the common cloth of the democratic social Republic.” (No Gods, No
Masters, vol. 1, p. 62)
In his classic work, The General Idea of the Revolution, he made a
similar suggestion as part of his general critique of capitalism:
“That is why I said one day, in February or March, 1849, at a meeting of
patriots, that I rejected equally the construction and management of
railroads by companies of capitalists and by the State. In my opinion,
railroads are in the field of workmen's companies, which are different
from the present commercial companies, as they must be independent of
the State. A railroad, a mine, a factory, a ship, are to the workers who
use them what a hive is to the bees, at once their tool and their home,
their country, their territory, their property. It is surprising that
they who so zealously maintain the principle of association should have
failed to see that such was its normal application.”
Proudhon’s support for workers’ associations (or co-operatives) should
be well known. It influenced the Communards, who applied these ideas by
turning empty workplaces into co-operatives (which makes Engels’ later
attempts to distance the Communards from Proudhon seem a tad dishonest).
In 1912, Kropotkin argued along similar lines. He noted that the “State
phases which we are traversing now seems to be unavoidable.” However,
aiding “the Labour Unions to enter into a temporary possession of the
industrial concerns” anarchists would provide “an effective means to
check the State Nationalisation.” (quoted by Ruth Kinna, “Fields of
Vision: Kropotkin and Revolutionary Change”, pp. 67-86, SubStance, Vol.
36, No. 2, p. 77)
So there is a history of making this kind of demand in the anarchist
tradition. In terms of Marxism, in the 1880s Engels suggested as a
reform the putting of public works and state-owned land into the hands
of workers' co-operatives rather than capitalists. (Collected Works,
vol. 47, p. 239) So, there is nothing anti-socialist in this demand.
What of the obvious objection, namely that this is not socialism and
just “worker capitalism.”
Yes, it is not socialism – but it contains more elements of socialism
than the alternatives of bailouts or nationalisation. It is a suggestion
that could be applied in the here and now, where a social revolution is
currently unlikely. If our position is one of revolutionary purity then
it will be unlikely that anyone will pay much attention to us and if a
revolt does break out then our influence will be smaller than it could
be if we addressed social issues today. If done in the right way, such
activity can be used to get us closer to our immediate aim – a
libertarian social movement which uses direct action and solidarity to
change society for the better.
What of the notion it is “worker capitalism”? This is confused. It is
not capitalist because workers own and control their own means of
production. If quoting Engels is not too out of place, the “object of
production – to produce commodities – does not import to the instrument
the character of capital” for the “production of commodities is one of
the preconditions for the existence of capital . . . as long as the
producer sells only what he himself produces, he is not a capitalist; he
becomes so only from the moment he makes use of his instrument to
exploit the wage labour of others.”(Collected Works, vol. 47, pp.
179-80) So workers’ associations are not capitalist, as Marx also made
clear:
“Let us suppose the workers are themselves in possession of their
respective means of production and exchange their commodities with one
another. These commodities would not be products of capital.” (Capital,
vol. 3, p. 276)
This is Proudhon’s distinction between property and possession and,
unsurprisingly, he (like all consistent libertarians) placed workers’
associations at the heart of his anarchism, considering them as “a
protest against the wage system” and a “denial of the rule of
capitalists.” Proudhon's aim was “Capitalistic and proprietary
exploitation, stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished, equal and
just exchange guaranteed.” (The General Idea of the Revolution)
As long as these associations remained democratic (i.e., all people who
work there are members) then this is a socialisation of the means of
life (albeit, currently within capitalism).
The key to understanding socialisation is to remember that it is
fundamentally about access. In other words, that every one has the same
rights to the means of life as everyone else. In contrast, a capitalist
society places the owner in the dominant position and new members of the
workforce are employees and so subordinate members of an “association”
which they have no say in.
The economies in which workplaces exist in the mutualism, collectivism
and communism forms of anarchism are different but rest on the same
principle of equal access and self-management. Thus when someone joins
an existing workers association they become full members of the
co-operative, with the same rights and duties as existing members. In
other words, they participate in the decisions on a basis of one person,
one vote. How the products of that association are distributed vary in
different types of anarchism, but the associations that create them are
rooted in an association of equals.
Unsurprisingly, this was Proudhon position. He argued that “every
individual employed in the association . . . has an undivided share in
the property of the company”, has “the right to fill any position, of
any grade, in the company, according to the suitability of sex, age,
skill, and length of employment” and that “all positions are elective,
and the by-laws subject to the approval of the members” (The General
Idea of the Revolution) Bakunin was also a firm supporter of
cooperatives, as was Kropotkin.
This should be the criteria for any bailouts demanded under capitalism –
the turning of the company into a co-operative which is run by its
members and which any new workers are automatically members with the
same rights as others.
Of course, it is unlikely that any government will agree to such a
socialisation of companies. Unless pressurised from below, they will
pick bailouts or (part/full) nationalisation in order to keep capitalism
going. If ignored then people should simply socialise their workplaces
themselves by occupying and running them directly. Nor should this be
limited to simply those firms seeking bailouts. All workplaces in danger
of being closed should be occupied – which will hopefully inspire all
workers to do the same.
This support for co-operatives should be seen as a practical response to
current events, a means of spreading the anarchist message and getting
people to act for themselves. As can be seen from the Argentine revolt
against neo-liberalism, the idea of occupation and co-operatives has
mass appeal and can work. At the very least, it helps people who are
suffering from the crisis while, at the same time, showing that another
world is possible. And it is doubtful that the people whose jobs and
communities are on the line because of the decisions of their bosses can
make any more of a mess than has already been inflicted on them!
But this is a short-term libertarian solution to the crisis, one that
can be used to help create something better. The longer term aim is end
capitalism once and for all. Wage slavery has failed. It is time to give
economic liberty a go!
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
Fred
The other message is sent to these groups which had the original from
Dan.
talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.noam-chomsky
Dan Clore wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
>
> http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081128140559546
> Bailouts or co-operatives?
> By Anarcho
> Anarcho Writers
> November 18, 2008
>
> As capitalism goes into crisis (again), there have been bailouts of
> the financial sector as well as calls for the bailing out of certain
> industries. In America, the big three car companies having been
> asking for state help. There are many reasons for rejecting this:
>
> ‘When it comes to bailing out the auto industry, count me in the
> “let them starve” camp. The auto industry has been outsourcing
> American jobs for 25 years now with little regard for the devastated
> communities they’ve left in their wake (seriously, re-watch Roger &
> Me sometime). The big three have also used their lobbying might to
> oppose every environmental regulation in their sights. And on top of
> all of that, their cars suck.’
>
I believe we should not reward their behaviour in this matter, but
workers have been doing that for decades. The economy has forced
workers to devote the fruits of their labour to the capitalist slave
masters, (for that's exactly what they are), and by the same token,
the masters have played their part because the economy demanded that
someone do it. It's an insane, inhuman system.
Yes we need change and workers cooperatives are a good start.
> As true as this is, the problem is that the workers who are left
> will be harmed by this. As such, I think it is wise for anarchists
> to have some practical suggestion on what to do – beyond, of course,
> calls for social revolution (which is correct, but fails to take
> into account where we are now and is, as a result, abstract
> sloganeering).
The Workers Coops are but a first step, and these can be organised
anywhere over a wide range of ventures, not just the auto industry
nor even corporations that are being bailed out. As time passes and
people become more educated about economic systems and what may be
possible, we need to take a good look at the very nature of money and
what "Plentiful Money" can do for us, as opposed to "Scarce Money"
which is what we've got now... except for the rich, of course.(;-))
<snip>
> What of the obvious objection, namely that this is not socialism and
> just “worker capitalism.”
>
> Yes, it is not socialism – but it contains more elements of
> socialism than the alternatives of bailouts or nationalisation. It
> is a suggestion that could be applied in the here and now, where a
> social revolution is currently unlikely. If our position is one of
> revolutionary purity then it will be unlikely that anyone will pay
> much attention to us and if a revolt does break out then our
> influence will be smaller than it could be if we addressed social
> issues today. If done in the right way, such activity can be used to
> get us closer to our immediate aim – a libertarian social movement
> which uses direct action and solidarity to change society for the
> better.
>
I'm going to say that I don't have a good understanding of
Libertarianism, my only example being a propagandist from years ago
who claimed to be one, but put forth the ultra right wing philosophy
of fascism and declared this to be Libertarianism. So I am a little
suspicious of anything with that label now.
I think the bottom line is that as long as money can make more money,
you have a situation where the rich will get richer and that is the
essence of runaway capitalism. It's unstable and destroys itself and
the present economic crisis is the most obvious example. It's in the
throes of death now and we really should have a solid plan in place
to offer as an alternative. There is a window of opportunity to
change the world for the better and that window will not be open too
long.
Know the tree by the fruit which it bears. If workers are exploited,
or there's an inequality in the distribution of wealth or an
exclusion of some people from access to participation in the economy,
then there is a problem. Yes we need these definitions and we should
be on the same page so that when we talk about them, others will
understand what we're saying.
I call these forms of cooperatives a "transition" to an economic
system that is yet again better, call it socialism or even something
beyond socialism, if you like. An expression of "Economic Equality"
meaning that everyone shares in the commodities produced,
and "Economic Democracy" meaning that everyone shares in the decision
making process about cooperative exploitation of resources and
conservation, etc.
These concepts do not exist in present "capitalism." Now the
dynamics of the economy are such that I have come to conclude that as
long as we have money as a "scarce commodity" we will have a
situation where money can make more money. Hence the rich can get
richer and more powerful, and we have runaway capitalism. Do people
agree on this? Have I made a mistake here? I don't think so.
So even communist countries are still susceptible to capitalist decay
in the fullness of time.(?)
What we have to do is change the nature of money itself into
something that cannot grow exponentially. "Plentiful Money" systems,
like the LETSystem, which is a local, limited "plentiful money
system," hold the key to the answer. The money is a measure of goods
or services produced and "sold," but it has no value in and of
itself. With everyone having the right to issue money in the system,
the concept of loans and interest becomes instantly obsolete. The
use of money as a weapon giving power over others, likewise. Any
large project must therefore become a cooperative effort.
> The key to understanding socialisation is to remember that it is
> fundamentally about access. In other words, that every one has the
> same rights to the means of life as everyone else. In contrast, a
> capitalist society places the owner in the dominant position and new
> members of the workforce are employees and so subordinate members of
> an “association” which they have no say in.
>
Yes, exactly. I call it "access to the economy." The ability to use
the economy rather than being used by it.
I'd very much like to see a workers coop here in Canada to
manufacture electric or hydrogen cars. It would be nice to be a part
of that.
--
Peace,
Fred
(Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).
Ron Peterson
> I am limited to 5 newsgroups, so I have to split this message in two.
Dan should try to limit his cross-posting.
> I believe we should not reward their behaviour in this matter, but
> workers have been doing that for decades. The economy has forced
> workers to devote the fruits of their labour to the capitalist slave
> masters, (for that's exactly what they are), and by the same token,
> the masters have played their part because the economy demanded that
> someone do it. It's an insane, inhuman system.
Capital, itself, is determining what happens, capitalists are
diversified and as individuals seldom control the activities of
corporations. Capital hires staff to maximize return on investment
(they don't always do a good job of it.)
> I'm going to say that I don't have a good understanding of
> Libertarianism, my only example being a propagandist from years ago
> who claimed to be one, but put forth the ultra right wing philosophy
> of fascism and declared this to be Libertarianism. So I am a little
> suspicious of anything with that label now.
American Libertarians are different having been under the influence of
Ayn Rand and having a juvenile platform (no taxes, no laws against
drugs, etc.) that panders to those that wish to allow individual
States to violate the liberties of individuals.
> I think the bottom line is that as long as money can make more money,
> you have a situation where the rich will get richer and that is the
> essence of runaway capitalism. It's unstable and destroys itself and
> the present economic crisis is the most obvious example. It's in the
> throes of death now and we really should have a solid plan in place
> to offer as an alternative. There is a window of opportunity to
> change the world for the better and that window will not be open too
> long.
Added regulation and a progressive tax system can alleviate some of
the disastrous aspects of capitalism. The extremely high national debt
is a big road block to changing the governance of the US economy and
paying off that national debt with some special taxes like a wealth
tax or value-added tax.
> These concepts do not exist in present "capitalism." Now the
> dynamics of the economy are such that I have come to conclude that as
> long as we have money as a "scarce commodity" we will have a
> situation where money can make more money. Hence the rich can get
> richer and more powerful, and we have runaway capitalism. Do people
> agree on this? Have I made a mistake here? I don't think so.
Money isn't capital, which will always be in short supply. The crisis
that the world is having now is based on the need to have cash (money)
to pay off debt. There isn't enough money to pay off debt, so people
are selling other assets to get cash which is in short supply. (Even
gold has gone down in price despite being one of the best things to
back the value of money.)
> ... The money is a measure of goods
> or services produced and "sold," but it has no value in and of
> itself. ...
Money has value, but there isn't enough of it to act as a storehouse
of value for the world's economy.
> I'd very much like to see a workers coop here in Canada to
> manufacture electric or hydrogen cars. It would be nice to be a part
> of that.
A coop to manufacture batteries for hybrid vehicles would be a good
start.
--
Ron
Dan Clore
> On Nov 29, 1:29 pm, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
>> I am limited to 5 newsgroups, so I have to split this message in
>> two.
>
> Dan should try to limit his cross-posting.
Crossposting is both less work and better netiquette than multi-posting.
>> I'm going to say that I don't have a good understanding of
>> Libertarianism, my only example being a propagandist from years ago
>> who claimed to be one, but put forth the ultra right wing
>> philosophy of fascism and declared this to be Libertarianism. So I
>> am a little suspicious of anything with that label now.
>
> American Libertarians are different having been under the influence
> of Ayn Rand and having a juvenile platform (no taxes, no laws against
> drugs, etc.) that panders to those that wish to allow individual
> States to violate the liberties of individuals.
The article uses the term in the sense of the traditional anarchist
movement (note references to Proudhon and Kropotkin), not the later
"capitalist" variety a la the US Libertarian Party.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Ron Peterson
> Ron Peterson wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 1:29 pm, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
> >> I am limited to 5 newsgroups, so I have to split this message in
> >> two.
> > Dan should try to limit his cross-posting.
> Crossposting is both less work and better netiquette than multi-posting.
When you cross post to more than 5 groups, those of us restricted to 5
groups have trouble responding.
> > American Libertarians are different having been under the influence
> > of Ayn Rand and having a juvenile platform (no taxes, no laws against
> > drugs, etc.) that panders to those that wish to allow individual
> > States to violate the liberties of individuals.
> The article uses the term in the sense of the traditional anarchist
> movement (note references to Proudhon and Kropotkin), not the later
> "capitalist" variety a la the US Libertarian Party.
I believe that the libertarian groups you were posting to were more
connected to the US Libertrarian Party.
--
Ron
Fred
> On Nov 29, 1:29 pm, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
>> I am limited to 5 newsgroups, so I have to split this message in
>> two.
>
> Dan should try to limit his cross-posting.
>
>> I believe we should not reward their behaviour in this matter, but
>> workers have been doing that for decades. The economy has forced
>> workers to devote the fruits of their labour to the capitalist
>> slave masters, (for that's exactly what they are), and by the same
>> token, the masters have played their part because the economy
>> demanded that someone do it. It's an insane, inhuman system.
>
> Capital, itself, is determining what happens, capitalists are
> diversified and as individuals seldom control the activities of
> corporations. Capital hires staff to maximize return on investment
> (they don't always do a good job of it.)
>
In this case they've done too good a job of it. The maldistribution
of wealth is what is driving this collapse. The rich get richer
until something breaks. This is what that breakage looks like.
>
>> I'm going to say that I don't have a good understanding of
>> Libertarianism, my only example being a propagandist from years ago
>> who claimed to be one, but put forth the ultra right wing
>> philosophy of fascism and declared this to be Libertarianism. So I
>> am a little suspicious of anything with that label now.
>
> American Libertarians are different having been under the influence
> of Ayn Rand and having a juvenile platform (no taxes, no laws
> against drugs, etc.) that panders to those that wish to allow
> individual States to violate the liberties of individuals.
>
I see. What it boils down to is fascism.
>> I think the bottom line is that as long as money can make more
>> money, you have a situation where the rich will get richer and that
>> is the essence of runaway capitalism. It's unstable and destroys
>> itself and the present economic crisis is the most obvious example.
>> It's in the throes of death now and we really should have a solid
>> plan in place to offer as an alternative. There is a window of
>> opportunity to change the world for the better and that window will
>> not be open too long.
>
> Added regulation and a progressive tax system can alleviate some of
> the disastrous aspects of capitalism. The extremely high national
> debt is a big road block to changing the governance of the US
> economy and paying off that national debt with some special taxes
> like a wealth tax or value-added tax.
>
Instead, they are trying to solve the problem by throwing money at
the already too wealthy corporations. They need to bail out the poor
to keep the system going, but it still has that fatal flaw in the
design. Capitalism contains the seeds of it's own destruction. I
believe that any economy where money can make more money will behave
the same way.
>
>
>> These concepts do not exist in present "capitalism." Now the
>> dynamics of the economy are such that I have come to conclude that
>> as long as we have money as a "scarce commodity" we will have a
>> situation where money can make more money. Hence the rich can get
>> richer and more powerful, and we have runaway capitalism. Do
>> people agree on this? Have I made a mistake here? I don't think
>> so.
>
> Money isn't capital, which will always be in short supply. The
> crisis that the world is having now is based on the need to have
> cash (money) to pay off debt. There isn't enough money to pay off
> debt, so people are selling other assets to get cash which is in
> short supply. (Even gold has gone down in price despite being one of
> the best things to back the value of money.)
>
Money may not be the only "capital," but it seems the effect is still
there. Power and money can be interchanged and the experienced and
well connected capitalists make huge profits on every exchange.
>> ... The money is a measure of goods
>> or services produced and "sold," but it has no value in and of
>> itself. ...
>
> Money has value, but there isn't enough of it to act as a storehouse
> of value for the world's economy.
>
You have taken me out of context. I was talking about money under
a "plentiful money system" like the LETSystem. The dynamics are
totally different. I'm not sure I agree with you even about regular
money. Certainly the working class people don't get paid what their
labour is worth, but then the rich turn around and try to sell it to
them at a profit, calling them "consumers."
>> I'd very much like to see a workers coop here in Canada to
>> manufacture electric or hydrogen cars. It would be nice to be a
>> part of that.
>
> A coop to manufacture batteries for hybrid vehicles would be a good
> start.
>
It would have to be a simultaneous and the infrastructure to change
gas stations over to charging stations or battery replacement depots.
It's long overdue.
Dan Clore
> On Nov 29, 6:45 pm, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>>> On Nov 29, 1:29 pm, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
>>>> I am limited to 5 newsgroups, so I have to split this message
>>>> in two.
>
>>> Dan should try to limit his cross-posting.
>
>> Crossposting is both less work and better netiquette than
>> multi-posting.
>
> When you cross post to more than 5 groups, those of us restricted to
> 5 groups have trouble responding.
That's not my problem, now is it? I pay about $10 a year for a Usenet
service on top of my regular ISP, so that, among other things, I can
crosspost.
>>> American Libertarians are different having been under the
>>> influence of Ayn Rand and having a juvenile platform (no taxes,
>>> no laws against drugs, etc.) that panders to those that wish to
>>> allow individual States to violate the liberties of individuals.
>
>> The article uses the term in the sense of the traditional anarchist
>> movement (note references to Proudhon and Kropotkin), not the
>> later "capitalist" variety a la the US Libertarian Party.
>
> I believe that the libertarian groups you were posting to were more
> connected to the US Libertrarian Party.
Yes, but as they chose to take a word that had been in use for over a
hundred years, and give it a new meaning, that again is not my problem.
*Anarcissie*
> Ron Peterson wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 6:45 pm, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >> Ron Peterson wrote:
> >>> On Nov 29, 1:29 pm, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
> >>>> I am limited to 5 newsgroups, so I have to split this message
> >>>> in two.
>
> >>> Dan should try to limit his cross-posting.
>
> >> Crossposting is both less work and better netiquette than
> >> multi-posting.
>
> > When you cross post to more than 5 groups, those of us restricted to
> > 5 groups have trouble responding.
>
> That's not my problem, now is it? I pay about $10 a year for a Usenet
> service on top of my regular ISP, so that, among other things, I can
> crosspost.
You're not being very cooperative!
Dan Clore
Am so!
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Ron Peterson
> Ron Peterson wrote:
> > Capital, itself, is determining what happens, capitalists are
> > diversified and as individuals seldom control the activities of
> > corporations. Capital hires staff to maximize return on investment
> > (they don't always do a good job of it.)
> In this case they've done too good a job of it. The maldistribution
> of wealth is what is driving this collapse. The rich get richer
> until something breaks. This is what that breakage looks like.
I am skeptical that a mere redistribution of wealth would solve the
problem. I think that a more sophisticated approach is needed.
> > Added regulation and a progressive tax system can alleviate some of
> > the disastrous aspects of capitalism. The extremely high national
> > debt is a big road block to changing the governance of the US
> > economy and paying off that national debt with some special taxes
> > like a wealth tax or value-added tax.
> Instead, they are trying to solve the problem by throwing money at
> the already too wealthy corporations. They need to bail out the poor
> to keep the system going, but it still has that fatal flaw in the
> design. Capitalism contains the seeds of it's own destruction. I
> believe that any economy where money can make more money will behave
> the same way.
Capitalism has one attribute that needs to be preserved as society
moves away from it. The means of production are continually improved,
and that function somehow needs to be maintained.
> > Money has value, but there isn't enough of it to act as a storehouse
> > of value for the world's economy.
> You have taken me out of context. I was talking about money under
> a "plentiful money system" like the LETSystem. The dynamics are
> totally different. I'm not sure I agree with you even about regular
> money. Certainly the working class people don't get paid what their
> labour is worth, but then the rich turn around and try to sell it to
> them at a profit, calling them "consumers."
Sure, in a closed economy, profits + taxes + wages is equal to the
price of all goods sold.
> > A coop to manufacture batteries for hybrid vehicles would be a good
> > start.
> It would have to be a simultaneous and the infrastructure to change
> gas stations over to charging stations or battery replacement depots.
> It's long overdue.
Although electric cars need to be recharged or have batteries
replaced, hybrids don't and use their batteries and electric motors to
improve the performance and efficiency of conventional vehicles.
--
Ron
*Anarcissie*
On Nov 30, 4:40 am, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
> > Capitalism contains the seeds of it's own destruction. I
> > believe that any economy where money can make more money will behave
> > the same way.
Everything contains the seeds of its own destruction.
On Dec 1, 5:11 pm, Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote:
> Capitalism has one attribute that needs to be preserved as society
> moves away from it. The means of production are continually improved,
> and that function somehow needs to be maintained.
Why? Why couldn't people reach a point where they decided they
had enough stuff and as good stuff as they wanted, and do
something else?
Fred
> On Nov 30, 4:40 am, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>
>> > Capital, itself, is determining what happens, capitalists are
>> > diversified and as individuals seldom control the activities of
>> > corporations. Capital hires staff to maximize return on
>> > investment (they don't always do a good job of it.)
>
>> In this case they've done too good a job of it. The
>> maldistribution of wealth is what is driving this collapse. The
>> rich get richer until something breaks. This is what that breakage
>> looks like.
>
> I am skeptical that a mere redistribution of wealth would solve the
> problem. I think that a more sophisticated approach is needed.
>
Quite right. A simple redistribution of wealth would only "reset"
the system, it would not correct the inherent flaws that cause the
maldistribution of wealth in the first place.
>> > Added regulation and a progressive tax system can alleviate some
>> > of the disastrous aspects of capitalism. The extremely high
>> > national debt is a big road block to changing the governance of
>> > the US economy and paying off that national debt with some
>> > special taxes like a wealth tax or value-added tax.
>
>> Instead, they are trying to solve the problem by throwing money at
>> the already too wealthy corporations. They need to bail out the
>> poor to keep the system going, but it still has that fatal flaw in
>> the design. Capitalism contains the seeds of it's own destruction.
>> I believe that any economy where money can make more money will
>> behave the same way.
>
> Capitalism has one attribute that needs to be preserved as society
> moves away from it. The means of production are continually
> improved, and that function somehow needs to be maintained.
>
That's up to people. I think people will always be innovative unless
they are repressed. High educational standards will help speed that
along, and so will open communications, like the internet.
>> > Money has value, but there isn't enough of it to act as a
>> > storehouse of value for the world's economy.
>
>> You have taken me out of context. I was talking about money under
>> a "plentiful money system" like the LETSystem. The dynamics are
>> totally different. I'm not sure I agree with you even about
>> regular money. Certainly the working class people don't get paid
>> what their labour is worth, but then the rich turn around and try
>> to sell it to them at a profit, calling them "consumers."
>
> Sure, in a closed economy, profits + taxes + wages is equal to the
> price of all goods sold.
>
So the people earning the wages cannot afford to but the goods they
produce. Such a system will collapse in time.
>> > A coop to manufacture batteries for hybrid vehicles would be a
>> > good start.
>
>> It would have to be a simultaneous and the infrastructure to change
>> gas stations over to charging stations or battery replacement
>> depots. It's long overdue.
>
> Although electric cars need to be recharged or have batteries
> replaced, hybrids don't and use their batteries and electric motors
> to improve the performance and efficiency of conventional vehicles.
>
I'm doubtful that this is entirely accurate. However I think a
hybrid electric and hydrogen vehicle would be a good idea.
Fred
>
> On Nov 30, 4:40 am, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
>> > Capitalism contains the seeds of it's own
>> > destruction. I
>> > believe that any economy where money can make more money will
>> > behave the same way.
>
> Everything contains the seeds of its own destruction.
>
That's a sweeping generality. Are you meaning that nothing lasts
forever? That may be true and is a different statement than
something containing the seeds of it's own destruction.
> On Dec 1, 5:11 pm, Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote:
>> Capitalism has one attribute that needs to be preserved as society
>> moves away from it. The means of production are continually
>> improved, and that function somehow needs to be maintained.
>
> Why? Why couldn't people reach a point where they decided they
> had enough stuff and as good stuff as they wanted, and do
> something else?
Presumably that something else would be an improvement, I guess.
Certainly ever expanding consumerism would be senseless, but I think
Ron was talking about innovation and efficiency. I may be wrong on
this, but that was my understanding of his post.
I don't see a problem with it. It's only capitalist propaganda that
says such improvements are limited to their system.
*Anarcissie*
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 4:40 am, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
> >> > Capitalism contains the seeds of it's own
> >> > destruction. I
> >> > believe that any economy where money can make more money will
> >> > behave the same way.
>
> > Everything contains the seeds of its own destruction.
>
> That's a sweeping generality. Are you meaning that nothing lasts
> forever? That may be true and is a different statement than
> something containing the seeds of it's own destruction.
I like sweeping generalities. I saw you-all's sweeping generalities
and raised. You gonna bet or fold?
> > On Dec 1, 5:11 pm, Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote:
> >> Capitalism has one attribute that needs to be preserved as society
> >> moves away from it. The means of production are continually
> >> improved, and that function somehow needs to be maintained.
>
> > Why? Why couldn't people reach a point where they decided they
> > had enough stuff and as good stuff as they wanted, and do
> > something else?
>
> Presumably that something else would be an improvement, I guess.
> Certainly ever expanding consumerism would be senseless, but I think
> Ron was talking about innovation and efficiency. I may be wrong on
> this, but that was my understanding of his post.
> I don't see a problem with it. It's only capitalist propaganda that
> says such improvements are limited to their system.
I am sure Ron was talking about innovation and efficiency. I am
asking whether people might not get tired of always having newer
and more efficient stuff and choose to do something better with
their time than work, shop and consume No doubt they can
work, shop and consume under a variety of economic systems,
although some will enable them to shop faster than others.
Ron Peterson
> Ron Peterson wrote:
> > Sure, in a closed economy, profits + taxes + wages is equal to the
> > price of all goods sold.
> So the people earning the wages cannot afford to but the goods they
> produce. Such a system will collapse in time.
That's not obvious. If it were, it would be easier to change things.
> > Although electric cars need to be recharged or have batteries
> > replaced, hybrids don't and use their batteries and electric motors
> > to improve the performance and efficiency of conventional vehicles.
> I'm doubtful that this is entirely accurate. However I think a
> hybrid electric and hydrogen vehicle would be a good idea.
Hydrogen was a bad idea of GM's to stall getting hybrid vehicles. In
the Fed's testing center, bales of straw are put above the hydrogen
vehicles to make any fire obvious.
The battery shortage is real.
--
Ron