Capital and Nature

[alloneword]

Evidently you've bailed.

Pretty sloppy stuff you're peddling.

How you cannot see your position as a reformist position of the Slavemaster should disturb any onlooker. It's okay. It's not an uncommon malaise.

The only thing I'm tempted to give up on, Chlamor, is the vain hope I have had that that you might engage your own capacity for critical thought, instead of merely regurgitating stale Marxist dogma. It is by now quite obvious that you have developed an almost religious conviction, or faith, regarding the Marxist analysis, which renders you somewhat incapable of any independent enquiry into the nature of it's basic precepts.

It's akin to arguing with a religious fundamentalist, who's only respose to any challenge to their faith consists of referring it's detractors to the 'Holy Book', or the words of it's high priests, treating the fact that a challenge has even been made as evidence that the challenger is Godless (hence inferior) heretic.

You have singularly demonstrated that you cannot even comprehend the argument put forth by Gesell, let alone engage it. Posting up irrelevent pictures somewhat belies this fact.

Eliminating the class struggle by destroying the classes themselves; making the economic struggle of individuals impossible and unnecessary by abolishing commodity production and the competition connected with it; briefly, putting an end to the struggle for existence between individuals, classes and whole societies, it renders unnecessary all those social organs which have developed as the weapons of that struggle during the many centuries it has been proceeding.

Again, what you appear unable to comprehend are the inevitable, logical consequences of making the fundamentally structural change to 'money' that Gesell proposes. What such a change 'renders unnecessary', impossible, even. Such a systemic change completely removes from the system the capability for such evils as Marx riles against from even being perpetrated - all without the need to go around 'enforcing' Marxist dogma in whatever way it is that you propose.

Without falling into utopian fantasies about the social and international organisation of the future...

Which is precisely what you are doing, but go on...

..we can already now foretell the abolition of the most important of the organs of chronic struggle inside society, namely, the state, as a political organisation opposed to society and safeguarding mainly the interests of its ruling section. In exactly the same way we can already now foresee the international character of the impending economic revolution. The contemporary development of international exchange of products necessitates the participation of all civilised societies in this revolution.

Ahhh, yes. Here we are at the point where the true nature of the Marxist proposition becomes clear.

"Everybody must do as we say, for if you don't, you must surely be 'uncivilised'! The logic of our doctrine is so obviously correct, any resistance to it's imposition could only be due to your inferiority or some moral flaw in your character! Speak against us and you are an enemy of the Revolution! Off to the Gulag you go!!!"

You'll have to forgive my reticence regarding your proposed imposition of flawed Marxist dogma on the entire planet - not just because it's a 'utopian fantasy', nor simply because it is so fundamentally flawed, due to it's inability to examine the cause of the problem.

Nay - it's because I (like the vast majority of people) would prefer not to replace one set of jackboots telling me what to do with another of a different colour, whatever their ideology and no matter how much they try to tell me it's 'for my own good'.

"...abolishing commodity production and the competition connected with it." The phrase has passed out of usage (probably because it was hard to explain), but many have thought about it since.

Well - I'm thinking about it now...

Abolish commodities, money, capital, buying, selling, property and with them, the state that maintains and enforces all of it.

Yep.

So... erm... care to actually explain exactly what - in your own words, rather than a C+P of Marx - you mean by 'abolishing commodities'?

I find it somewhat amusing how you can go to such lengths to explain the 'origin' of money (while steadfastly refusing to examine it's nature - refusing to acknowledge that such an examination is even warranted!) and then advocate it's 'abolition' with a vague wave of the totalitarian hand.

[erosoplier]

bf, I suspect that we're trying to say different things, full stop.

The bankers don't pretend to lend - they really do lend, fapp, and we really do repay every last red cent of it. And some poor sucker is left with less than nothing as a result. That is the mathematical certainty.

The politicians don't decide how fast the presses run. Money creation is controlled by the banking elite. They control the "treasury."

There are no rules other than what wealthy men decide.

[bean fidhleir]

bf, I suspect that we're trying to say different things, full stop.

The bankers don't pretend to lend - they really do lend, fapp, and we really do repay every last red cent of it. And some poor sucker is left with less than nothing as a result. That is the mathematical certainty.

The politicians don't decide how fast the presses run. Money creation is controlled by the banking elite. They control the "treasury."

There are no rules other than what wealthy men decide.

I wonder why I agree with you, then, if we're trying to say different things.

[erosoplier]

For appearances, I think.

[alloneword]

You can't just handwave a dismissal, Chlamor...

..As a1w says, what you're trying to do with your marxist stuff is orthogonal to this very basic issue.

Nail squarely on the head, Bean.

...while ever we have fractional-reserve for-private-profit banking (read "privatised money printing"), looking at any of the finer details is pointless. With the current system it is mathematically impossible for everyone to prosper.

To be clear, utilisation of a currency as envisioned by Gesell would render this (and the practice of usury) impossible.

'Stamp scrip' is the antithesis of usury, in that hoarding it affords the holder absolutely no advantage - quite the opposite!

Wow, 130,000 views for Money as Debt at google video. That's not an insignificant number.

*Alloneword does a little dance*

-

Seriously, though, folks - thanks for the debate... it's good to be forced to explain this stuff... even in the face of such reluctance to ingest thses ideas as yours, chlamor!

I've got a load of stuff to do this weekend, so don't take my apparent disappearence to be a 'bail'.

[chlamor]

You can't just handwave a dismissal, Chlamor...

..As a1w says, what you're trying to do with your marxist stuff is orthogonal to this very basic issue.

Nail squarely on the head, Bean.

...while ever we have fractional-reserve for-private-profit banking (read "privatised money printing"), looking at any of the finer details is pointless. With the current system it is mathematically impossible for everyone to prosper.

To be clear, utilisation of a currency as envisioned by Gesell would render this (and the practice of usury) impossible.

'Stamp scrip' is the antithesis of usury, in that hoarding it affords the holder absolutely no advantage - quite the opposite!

Wow, 130,000 views for Money as Debt at google video. That's not an insignificant number.

*Alloneword does a little dance*

-

Seriously, though, folks - thanks for the debate... it's good to be forced to explain this stuff... even in the face of such reluctance to ingest thses ideas as yours, chlamor!

I've got a load of stuff to do this weekend, so don't take my apparent disappearence to be a 'bail'.

No problem. I'm sure you'll return. By the way don't mistake my disgust for insidious ideas as reluctance.

Are you sure Ayn Rand and Gessell aren't past-present incarnations?

Look what your espousing is quite simply the foundation for neo-liberal economics with only a few slight twists. Nasty stuff all around.

About The Natural Economic Order:

Gesell's celebrated work on monetary and social reform is a modern attempt to provide a solid basis for economic liberalism, the creed of Adam Smith and almost all the great nineteenth century economists in contrast to the twentieth century trend of collectivism and planned economy - accompanied by 'austerity', 'import restriction', 'dollar shortage', 'pegging the exchanges' and 'credit squeeze'. Silvio GesellThere is now again trend toward economic liberalism: private initiative, free trade and free exchanges. Economic liberalism, believed to have been strongly influenced by Gesell's book, has produced the "West German miracle", the quickest and by far most complete recovery of any country that had been under the bombs.

You gotta admit that this is some really nasty stuff here:

Silvio Gesell: The Natural Economic Order
Part 1: Distribution



PREFACE
(Preface to the third edition, 1918)

Magna quies in magna spe.

The economic order here discussed is a natural order only in the sense that it is adapted to the nature of man. It is not an order which arises spontaneously as a natural product. Such an order does not, indeed, exist, for the order which we impose upon ourselves is always an act, an act consciously willed.

The proof that an economic order is suited to the nature of man is furnished by observation of mankind's development. The economic order under which men thrive is the most natural economic order. Whether an economic order which stands this test is at the same time technically the most efficient order, whether it provides the bureau of trade statistics with record figures is a matter of secondary importance. At the present day it is easy to imagine an economic system of high technical efficiency coupled with gradual exhaustion of the human material. It may, however, be taken for granted that an economic order under which mankind thrives will also prove its technical superiority. For human work can, ultimately, only advance with the advance of the human race. "Man is the measure of all things" including the economic system under which he lives.


The prosperity of mankind, as of all living beings, depends in the main upon whether selection takes place under natural laws. But these laws demand competition. Only through competition, chiefly competition in the economic sphere, is right evolution, eugenesis, possible. Those who wish to ensure the full miraculous effects of the laws of natural selection must base their economic order upon competition under the conditions really decreed by nature, that is, with the weapons furnished by nature after the exclusion of all privileges. Success in competition must be exclusively determined by inborn characteristics, for only so are the causes of the success transmitted to the offspring and added to the common characteristics of mankind. Children must owe their success, not to money, not to paper privileges, but to the ability, strength, love and wisdom of their parents. Only then shall we be justified in hoping that humanity may in time shake off the burden of inferior individuals imposed upon it by thousands of years of unnatural selection - selection vitiated by money and privileges. And we may also hope that in this way supremacy may pass from the hands of the privileged, and that mankind, led by the noblest sons of men, may resume its long-interrupted ascent towards divine aims.

But the economic order which we are about to discuss has another claim to the title of a natural order.

Human beings, to prosper, must be able under all circumstances to give themselves out for what they are. A man must be something, not appear something; he must be able to stride through life with head erect-to speak the truth without incurring the risk Of hardship or injury. Sincerity must not remain the privilege of heroes. The economic order must be so framed that a man may combine sincerity with the highest degree of economic success. The dependence inseparable from economic life should affect things only, not men.

If a man is to be free to act as his nature dictates, religion, custom and law must extend him their protection when, in his economic life, he is guided by justified egoism-when he obeys the impulse of self- preservation given him by nature. If a malls actions conflict with religious opinions, and if the man, nevertheless, is morally thriving, the religious opinions should be examined afresh on the presumption that a tree cannot be evil which bears good fruit. We must avoid the fate of a Christian reduced to beggary and disarmed in the economic trial of strength by the logical application of his creed-with the result that he and his brood go under in the process of natural selection. Humanity gains nothing if the finest individuals it produces are crucified. Eugenic selection requires the direct contrary. The best of mankind must be allowed to develop, for only then can we hope that the inexhaustible treasures latent in man will gradually be brought to light.

The Natural Economic Order must, therefore, be founded upon self-interest. Economic life makes painful demands upon the will, for great natural indolence must be overcome; it requires, therefore, strong impulses, and the only impulse of sufficient strength and constancy is egoism. The economist who calculates and builds upon egoism, calculates correctly and builds for all time. The religious precepts of Christianity must not, therefore, be transferred to economic life, where their only effect is to produce hypocrisy. Spiritual needs arise only when bodily needs have been satisfied, and economic effort should satisfy the bodily needs. It would be preposterous to start work with a prayer or poem. " The mother of the useful arts is want; the mother of the fine arts is superfluity " says Schopenhauer. In other words, we beg when hungry and pray when fed.

<snip>

http://www.systemfehler.de/en/neo/preface.htm

It's not Teen Spirit I'm smelling.

BTW I don't fetishize small business. I'm not into kinder-gentler forms of capitalism and see the absurdity of the premise. Same goes for local currencies, a close friend, Paul Glover, is pretty much the founding father of US local currencies as we know them today. He too sees the limitations of this. It took a lot of years for him to realize his baby wasn't ever going to be the creature he had hoped. For a variety of reasons.

Do we get "The Truly FREE" Free Market and the quasi-left version of Libertarianism next?

[bean fidhleir]

this is some really nasty stuff here

Hitler was responsible for the VW and the Autobahn, Clamor. Margaret Sanger was a racist, classist eugenics lunatic as well as a hardworking champion of women's reproductive rights.

People aren't only one thing. Someone's ideas about A don't discredit hir ideas about B except among people for whom ideology trumps truth.

[chlamor]

this is some really nasty stuff here

Hitler was responsible for the VW and the Autobahn, Clamor. Margaret Sanger was a racist, classist eugenics lunatic as well as a hardworking champion of women's reproductive rights.

People aren't only one thing. Someone's ideas about A don't discredit hir ideas about B except among people for whom ideology trumps truth.

Hold on now. What we are talking about here are the underpinnings of Gessell's economic philosophy. It's not like we've taken a side journey into a persons pecadillo's (sp?) or other hobbies. What is quoted is from his "seminal" work on economics and one might be inclined to see a dose of social Darwinism in this crap.

BTW there is nothing difficult to comprehend about Gessell's, uh, "ideas."

As for the urban myth of Hitler inventing the VW Hitler did not have any part in designing the Beetle. He COMMISSIONED it. He asked Porsche to design the car. Porsche and his team designed and built the first Beetles, not Hitler, though he did make suggestions. And after that was done, Hitler unveiled it.

The VW Beetle was invented by Ferdinand Porsche in Stuttgart, Germany in 1931. Dr. Porsche was already famous for designing racing cars and his new small car design went through a number of permutations before he informed Adolf Hitler that this new vehicle would be perfect for the new roads being built in Germany. Hitler ordered test cars to be made ready for the 1938 car exhibition in Berlin. The specifications called for a vehicle that was small, inexpensive, and fast. Porsche built three prototypes, the V1, V2 and V3. The V3 had a round body, 4 cylinders, a rear-mounted 1.5 liter engine and a split-screen rear window. In 1938 the Volkswagen ("People's Car") GmbH factory was built and a town, populated by factory workers and built with state money, grew up around it. It was called Kraft Durch Freude Stadt which was Hitler's motto, "Joy through Strength". The car was named the KDF-Wagen and a mass production was planned, but the onset of war converted all factories to military use.

Please read up on things.

[robert d reed]

Reducing the complexities of human social existence to economic schematics is such a fundamental logical flaw that I've never been able to follow any line of reasoning that is built on such a premise- especially the "scientific materialism" of Marxism, the most ambitiously single-minded theory of social organization of all the ones I've encountered.

Marx has some very acute insights as a social critic. He should never have striven so mightily to make an all-encompassing theory- an "ism"- out of them. Alas, he did.

The crackpot precepts of Marxism can't even begin to deal with the most elementary practical ramifications of how human transact business in a complex society.

For instance, chlamor, consider the concept of "individual free time"... in your vision of a Marxist society, what happens to an able-bodied person who decides that they simply don't feel like working henceforth, for an unspecified period of time?

Or perhaps they're tired or bored with working five days a week, or four, and prefer to work only one. Maybe they want to work on a book. Maybe they want to paint. Maybe they just want to loaf, and go fishing.

They don't have to clear that decision with someone else, do they? After all, a free human being can do that, right?

Will their material needs still be taken care of, by the sweeping provisions for the collective welfare that I gather comprises one of the cornerstone tenets of a society governed by Marxian principles?

If not- exactly who is going to say "no" to them? And what are they going to do about it?

Presuming that the vision of Marxism seeks to rid human society of disparities of wealth, and provide for people on an egalitarian basis- is there to be any difference in material rewards between those who work five days a week- and those who work only one?

[chlamor]

Reducing the complexities of human social existence to economic schematics is such a fundamental logical flaw that I've never been able to follow any line of reasoning that is built on such a premise- especially the "scientific materialism" of Marxism, the most ambitiously single-minded theory of social organization of all the ones I've encountered.

Marx has some very acute insights as a social critic. He should never have striven so mightily to make an all-encompassing theory- an "ism"- out of them. Alas, he did.

The crackpot precepts of Marxism can't even begin to deal with the most elementary practical ramifications of how human transact business in a complex society.

For instance, chlamor, consider the concept of "individual free time"... in your vision of a Marxist society, what happens to an able-bodied person who decides that they simply don't feel like working henceforth, for an unspecified period of time?

Or perhaps they're tired or bored with working five days a week, or four, and prefer to work only one. Maybe they want to work on a book. Maybe they want to paint. Maybe they just want to loaf, and go fishing.

They don't have to clear that decision with someone else, do they? After all, a free human being can do that, right?

Will their material needs still be taken care of, by the sweeping provisions for the collective welfare that I gather comprises one of the cornerstone tenets of a society governed by Marxian principles?

If not- exactly who is going to say "no" to them? And what are they going to do about it?

Presuming that the vision of Marxism seeks to rid human society of disparities of wealth, and provide for people on an egalitarian basis- is there to be any difference in material rewards between those who work five days a week- and those who work only one?

It's understandable that at this point you may have the mistaken impression that I am a Marxist or believe in Marxism. Too bad to say that this is completely wrong and it's better to contest the very salient points which are involved anyway even if they are, uh-shock Marxist! eww run kids!!!, rather than regurgitating a tired version of the oppressor class' mantra.

Now to a few particulars but before doing so since when did humans become immersed in "transacting business?" Ooh the language of the business class. A full and detailed anthropological report is expected on my end. Hint: It varies from region to region.

Now to the silliness that can only come from the notion of the leisure class:

Or perhaps they're tired or bored with working five days a week, or four, and prefer to work only one. Maybe they want to work on a book. Maybe they want to paint. Maybe they just want to loaf, and go fishing.

They don't have to clear that decision with someone else, do they? After all, a free human being can do that, right?

In most instances it wouldn't be a matter of clearing it or needing to or wanting to with anybody. It would be understood.

What do you mean "don't feel like working", what's up with that? Sorry I know we need to plant some seeds and milk the cows but "I don't feel like it."

Well quite simply if you don't do it you perish. Unless you are able to find a way to bear the fruits of others labor. We know that's possible.

Overall you're talkin' about certain folks loafin' and reapin' the benefits from others labor as far as I can tell. We're all familiar with that concept. Entire nations have been built on it.

Since when did "fishing" become a hobby?

And about that complex society?

[bean fidhleir]

this is some really nasty stuff here

Hitler was responsible for the VW and the Autobahn, Clamor. Margaret Sanger was a racist, classist eugenics lunatic as well as a hardworking champion of women's reproductive rights.

People aren't only one thing. Someone's ideas about A don't discredit hir ideas about B except among people for whom ideology trumps truth.

Hold on now. What we are talking about here are the underpinnings of Gessell's economic philosophy. It's not like we've taken a side journey into a persons pecadillo's (sp?) or other hobbies. What is quoted is from his "seminal" work on economics and one might be inclined to see a dose of social Darwinism in this crap.

Au contraire. What we're talking about is one idea of his, namely making money rot so as to keep it from piling up. That seems to be a good idea regardless of whatever else he believed.

BTW there is nothing difficult to comprehend about Gessell's, uh, "ideas."

Why try to discredit his one good idea, then? Particularly in a way that's not especially honest?

As for the urban myth of Hitler inventing the VW Hitler did not have any part in designing the Beetle. He COMMISSIONED it. He asked Porsche to design the car. Porsche and his team designed and built the first Beetles, not Hitler, though he did make suggestions. And after that was done, Hitler unveiled it.

...

Please read up on things.

Should I now say "please read more carefully"? Where did I suggest that Hitler had anything to do with the design? The word I used was "responsible", which doesn't imply involvement in the design.

I'm well aware of the history of the VW, my first 4 cars having all been from Wolfsburg, beginning with a clapped-out split-window with semaphore turnsignals and a crank for emergency starting.

[robert d reed]

"Transacting business"...whoa, was that ever a term bound to cause a derisive reaction within the context of this discussion.

I should have simply used the word "act", which would have conveyed my intended meaning roughly as suitably, without resort to the dreaded "b-word."

Similarly, I should have omitted the "and go fishing" from my remark about loafing. Presumably, fishing should only be LABOR, otherwise it's wrong...a product of the false consciousness of the "leisure class."

There are a lot of ways to define the "leisure class", but I read from your comments that you seem to be tacitly defining it in the sense of "the set of all people who like to have some free time for themselves without being overtly involved in productive efforts for the larger society."

I'm not misconstruing your words, am I? After all, it sounds to me as if you're deriding the entire "notion of the leisure class", as if it were evidence of the worst sort of social transgression, one available only to the sinful wealthy.

The writings of Marx and Engels address this topic only in passing, obsessed as they are with their model of the Common Man as Worker/Economic Production Unit, and when they do, their comments often contain contradictions...like a lot of one-stop theory-of-everything models. But in one of their most-quoted sentences, I find the implicit meaning to be clear:

from each according to his abilities,

("As long as you can lift one more crate, the greater good of society demands it")

to each according to his needs

("2000 calories a day is plenty. Now, eat your porridge, protein bars, and your vitamin pills. It's free, just like your pre-designed, equal square footage-per person apartments. The toilets will be fixed as soon as enough plumbers are trained- we're having a hard time recruiting them, most workers prefer other jobs- but we're finding ways to sort out those with the most ability, and assign them to that occupation...")

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"...interesting statement, being as it begs the question of who is doing the assessment of "abilities" and demand for the activations of its potential in the first instance, and who is assessing "needs" and providing for them in the second.

Never have figured that one out.

Marx and Engels also say

Workers of the world, arise! You have noting to lose but your chains!

?

But, of course, you've stated that you aren't a Marxist, so perhaps my quoting Marx and Engels by way of reply is talking out of turn- notwithstanding the fact that you've been quoting Marx and the writings of Marxists pretty much exclusively in the course of your comments, without- correct me if I'm wrong- without giving any evidence of how your own ideas differ from theirs, in any substantive respect.

In most instances [deciding whether or not to work. ed.] wouldn't be a matter of clearing it or needing to or wanting to with anybody. It would be understood.

What do you mean "don't feel like working", what's up with that? Sorry I know we need to plant some seeds and milk the cows but "I don't feel like it."

There's a valid point nested within that statement. As a rule, at any given time and place, there is some work that needs to be done. Entropy reversal requires a maintenance regime.

But- by everybody? All of the time?

You're questioning the notion that someone- or, apparently, that anyone- might not feel like working? I'm not sure how to offer a response that you could possibly find convincing.

For that matter, what kind of work? Who says? Sometimes what appears to others to be a carefree soul hiking in the woods is actually a man lost in intense mental effort, later to bear productive fruit- although whether or not that eventually happens depends primarily on the individual in question.

What do you think of that?

Well quite simply if you don't do it you perish. Unless you are able to find a way to bear the fruits of others labor. We know that's possible.

I submit that it's also possible to do it by several other means- such as by saving a portion of one's own personal income, accrued through thrift and a self-assessment of ones own "needs", and living off of the stored surplus during the time spent at leisure.

Or is that simply a stealthy way of "bearing the fruits of others labor"? If it is, by all means expound of how that is so.

It's also possible to request what's known as a "vacation" from ones employer. The "vacation" is a concept about which you seem to deny any familiarity...it consists of scheduled leave from work, for the purpose of a temporary period of "leisure."

Or is that, in your interpretation, merely a gift from the Slavemaster, to perpetuate the illusion that the Worker has a measure of freedom?

Except that I know for a fact that it's possible for almost all Workers- (principally those not conscripted by the military) in this society to leave on a vacation, and never return to their old employer. For that matter, Workers in American society can simply decide to not show up at their job at all, one day. No Slave-catchers will call.

Overall you're talkin' about certain folks loafin' and reapin' the benefits from others labor as far as I can tell.

"As far as you can tell"...there's only so much that I can do to inform that process.

I'll say this much: in a mixed-economy society such as the one in this country, in many regions it's possible for some people to simply live without any of the demands of conventional labor at all, by panhandling, sleeping outdoors, sleeping in shelters, obtaining free meals from charities, and other social welfare programs, and free health care from clinics and emergency rooms. No one is coerced to work in this society under threat of imprisonment- or, for that matter, by the threat of starvation.

Admittedly, one has to be an able-bodied male free of the demands of family, and living in a part of the country with a beneficient climate, in order to make much of an advantage out of this option. But I've met a lot of people who fit that description, and they like it just fine. I've never heard one complain that they weren't able to find work...I've heard almost no complaints from them about anything, in fact.

I doubt that it's what you had in mind, but these guys do fit your description of "certain folks loafin' and reapin' the benefits from others labor."

How do you propose to deal with them, instead?

As for the case of the "capitalist exploiters of labor": now, this is a fine point that Marx was never quite clear on, and it's caused a lot of confusion. Because even the most tyrannical, overcompensated, and rapacious bosses do, in fact, work.

The work is often (but by no means always) arguably minimal, compared to what their employees do for wages. But in the usual case, even rich investors have to show up on schedules, occasionally have to be places that they don't want to be, have persistent demands on their time and attention that they cannot afford to ignore. Say what you will, that isn't "loafing."

I anticipate that you'll take my comments as apologism for the investment class. In fact, I'm not offering any comments about such people as a class at all. I'm simply pointing out the fact that few of them devote their lives to leisure, and many of them live under practical constraints imposed by engagement in the working world.

There are the exceptions, who share the same leisure concept as much of the lumpenproletariat. But if such people were actually running things, presumably it would be much easier to displace them...

But to return to the original topic of contention: the fact that you're evidently unable to imagine the concept of individual leisure time in any other way than to characterize it as "loafin' and reaping the benefits of others labor" speaks volumes to me.

[chlamor]

"Transacting business"...whoa, was that ever a term bound to cause a derisive reaction within the context of this discussion.

I should have simply used the word "act", which would have conveyed my intended meaning roughly as suitably, without resort to the dreaded "b-word."

Similarly, I should have omitted the "and go fishing" from my remark about loafing. Presumably, fishing should only be LABOR, otherwise it's wrong...a product of the false consciousness of the "leisure class."

There are a lot of ways to define the "leisure class", but I read from your comments that you seem to be tacitly defining it in the sense of "the set of all people who like to have some free time for themselves without being overtly involved in productive efforts for the larger society."

I'm not misconstruing your words, am I? After all, it sounds to me as if you're deriding the entire "notion of the leisure class", as if it were evidence of the worst sort of social transgression, one available only to the sinful wealthy.

The writings of Marx and Engels address this topic only in passing, obsessed as they are with their model of the Common Man as Worker/Economic Production Unit, and when they do, their comments often contain contradictions...like a lot of one-stop theory-of-everything models. But in one of their most-quoted sentences, I find the implicit meaning to be clear:

from each according to his abilities,

("As long as you can lift one more crate, the greater good of society demands it")

to each according to his needs

("2000 calories a day is plenty. Now, eat your porridge, protein bars, and your vitamin pills. It's free, just like your pre-designed, equal square footage-per person apartments. The toilets will be fixed as soon as enough plumbers are trained- we're having a hard time recruiting them, most workers prefer other jobs- but we're finding ways to sort out those with the most ability, and assign them to that occupation...")

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"...interesting statement, being as it begs the question of who is doing the assessment of "abilities" and demand for the activations of its potential in the first instance, and who is assessing "needs" and providing for them in the second.

Never have figured that one out.

Marx and Engels also say

Workers of the world, arise! You have noting to lose but your chains!

?

But, of course, you've stated that you aren't a Marxist, so perhaps my quoting Marx and Engels by way of reply is talking out of turn- notwithstanding the fact that you've been quoting Marx and the writings of Marxists pretty much exclusively in the course of your comments, without- correct me if I'm wrong- without giving any evidence of how your own ideas differ from theirs, in any substantive respect.

In most instances [deciding whether or not to work. ed.] wouldn't be a matter of clearing it or needing to or wanting to with anybody. It would be understood.

What do you mean "don't feel like working", what's up with that? Sorry I know we need to plant some seeds and milk the cows but "I don't feel like it."

There's a valid point nested within that statement. As a rule, at any given time and place, there is some work that needs to be done. Entropy reversal requires a maintenance regime.

But- by everybody? All of the time?

You're questioning the notion that someone- or, apparently, that anyone- might not feel like working? I'm not sure how to offer a response that you could possibly find convincing.

For that matter, what kind of work? Who says? Sometimes what appears to others to be a carefree soul hiking in the woods is actually a man lost in intense mental effort, later to bear productive fruit- although whether or not that eventually happens depends primarily on the individual in question.

What do you think of that?

Well quite simply if you don't do it you perish. Unless you are able to find a way to bear the fruits of others labor. We know that's possible.

I submit that it's also possible to do it by several other means- such as by saving a portion of one's own personal income, accrued through thrift and a self-assessment of ones own "needs", and living off of the stored surplus during the time spent at leisure.

Or is that simply a stealthy way of "bearing the fruits of others labor"? If it is, by all means expound of how that is so.

It's also possible to request what's known as a "vacation" from ones employer. The "vacation" is a concept about which you seem to deny any familiarity...it consists of scheduled leave from work, for the purpose of a temporary period of "leisure."

Or is that, in your interpretation, merely a gift from the Slavemaster, to perpetuate the illusion that the Worker has a measure of freedom?

Except that I know for a fact that it's possible for almost all Workers- (principally those not conscripted by the military) in this society to leave on a vacation, and never return to their old employer. For that matter, Workers in American society can simply decide to not show up at their job at all, one day. No Slave-catchers will call.

Overall you're talkin' about certain folks loafin' and reapin' the benefits from others labor as far as I can tell.

"As far as you can tell"...there's only so much that I can do to inform that process.

I'll say this much: in a mixed-economy society such as the one in this country, in many regions it's possible for some people to simply live without any of the demands of conventional labor at all, by panhandling, sleeping outdoors, sleeping in shelters, obtaining free meals from charities, and other social welfare programs, and free health care from clinics and emergency rooms. No one is coerced to work in this society under threat of imprisonment- or, for that matter, by the threat of starvation.

Admittedly, one has to be an able-bodied male free of the demands of family, and living in a part of the country with a beneficient climate, in order to make much of an advantage out of this option. But I've met a lot of people who fit that description, and they like it just fine. I've never heard one complain that they weren't able to find work...I've heard almost no complaints from them about anything, in fact.

I doubt that it's what you had in mind, but these guys do fit your description of "certain folks loafin' and reapin' the benefits from others labor."

How do you propose to deal with them, instead?

As for the case of the "capitalist exploiters of labor": now, this is a fine point that Marx was never quite clear on, and it's caused a lot of confusion. Because even the most tyrannical, overcompensated, and rapacious bosses do, in fact, work.

The work is often (but by no means always) arguably minimal, compared to what their employees do for wages. But in the usual case, even rich investors have to show up on schedules, occasionally have to be places that they don't want to be, have persistent demands on their time and attention that they cannot afford to ignore. Say what you will, that isn't "loafing."

I anticipate that you'll take my comments as apologism for the investment class. In fact, I'm not offering any comments about such people as a class at all. I'm simply pointing out the fact that few of them devote their lives to leisure, and many of them live under practical constraints imposed by engagement in the working world.

There are the exceptions, who share the same leisure concept as much of the lumpenproletariat. But if such people were actually running things, presumably it would be much easier to displace them...

But to return to the original topic of contention: the fact that you're evidently unable to imagine the concept of individual leisure time in any other way than to characterize it as "loafin' and reaping the benefits of others labor" speaks volumes to me.

deserves a thread of it's own. What a monstrosity.

Oh what were we talking about?

Looks like Libertarian Social Darwinism, Ayn Rand & eugenics.

[Dreams End]

chlamor.

I was impressed with this thread, till I saw you were a ghostwriter. What the hell? It's not against forum rules to get your answers from someone else and then post them as your own..but it IS kinda weird. Credit for much of the above discussion should be given to someone name anaxarchos at a forum called populistindependent.

http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/vi ... sc&start=0

It's actually a little creepy. Chlamor would post a response from this thread, anaxarchos would comment and chlamor would cut and paste the response.

I just find that really strange.

Oh, I see other cut and pastes were from someone named pple.

seriously, go read the thread. chlamor posts, anaxarchos dictates, chlamor changes a few pronouns and then pastes it here.

Combine this with the Madsen quotes and the pro-nuke stuff...just fucking weird.

[philipacentaur]

Creepy. I also see "Kid of the Black Hole" posting over there, who is conspicuously missing on this thread.