Buses - Strike Coming?

[Sebrof]

And how does a "normal human being" take part in the thread. All I know is that the majority of people have more respect for the forum than to quote great chunks of a previous post before adding a short and irrelevant comment. It wouldn't be so bad but you seem to do it in every thread and yet despite this your contribution never adds any insight to the thread. Show some respect.

 

 

Same old Declan.

 

A little while ago, you were complaing that I had derailed the thread. How about getting back onto it?

 

S

[gazza]

so no wagers, so u go from earning something for your work to not getting anything, ok then, so how would u buy say your daily food!!!!,

 

You wouldn't BUY anything. There would be no wages and no money. There would be no money because there would be no need for it. If you are interested, have a read of these. I won't write anything epic.

 

http://libcom.org/library/what-socialism-a...ist-perspective

 

http://everything2.com/e2node/ABC%2520of%2...20Chapter%25202

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

 

 

there is allways somebody in charge, even if u think there aint, out of a mass of ppl a leader will always happin, because some ppl need leaders to live

 

http://struggle.ws/ws93/leader38.html

 

 

so u trade goods for goods then

[spermann]

fuck the buses, lets use hot air ballon's and see where the wind takes us!

[Declan]

so u trade goods for goods then

 

No the goods are distributed centrally.

 

You donate your labour into the central pot (if you like) and the things you need are given to you.

 

I'm not sure how this encourages people to work in sewers, though.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

so u trade goods for goods then

 

No the goods are distributed centrally.

 

You donate your labour into the central pot (if you like) and the things you need are given to you.

 

I'm not sure how this encourages people to work in sewers, though.

 

Good point, and the same can be said about a lot of 'dirty' and hard jobs. Though sewer work will be mainly done remotely using remote controlled machines. I know this is how it is done in London.

And this is one of the biggest problems with the theory, which anarchists recognise. Some believe that the shittier jobs will gain greater respect from others in society and will not have the attached stigma that menial and dirty jobs have today. Not so sure about this myself. Others belief that people should take turns to do such tasks and this is attached by encouragment.

[gazza]

right got that,

 

so what happins if your a lazy sod and dont want to give goods

[La_Dolce_Vita]

right got that,

 

so what happins if your a lazy sod and dont want to give goods

 

That's fine, be a lazy sod. But if you do not contribute in such a society you won't be looked upon too favourably, and why would you want to be a lazy sod when you can do a job that can make best use of your talents and creativity?

[Freggyragh]

Even worse than being a lazy sod - what if you chose to devote all your energy to droning on and on about a political ideology until you drove the rest of your commune totally insane?

[oldmanxfella]

You wouldn't BUY anything. There would be no wages and no money. There would be no money because there would be no need for it. If you are interested, have a read of these. I won't write anything epic.

 

Oh God our own wonderfully naive Citizen Smith is still jabbering on about anarchism in a thread about bus inspectors. This is an ideology that cannot possibly function in real life when will you ever realise this?

 

Lets just ignore 'money' for a second. You are advocating some form of barter system, fair enough, but even in a barter system 'money' exists as some goods naturally aquire more value than others based on usage and demand. If you swap one good for another; say swap some food for a shovel, or swap a shovel for an item of clothing, someone has to make that item and if everyone needs shovels to dig the ground and produce food then over time the value of a shovel might grow to become worth several items of clothing so all those making shovels get more goods and food than those making clothing. This is still currency or 'money' as the value of that item is relative to other items that you need to benefit from to survive and feed your family. So by making shovels you are in fact creating currency that can be used to bring you more and more clothing, or food, or fire wood or whatever is deemed less useful or important as a shovel.

 

Also how does techological progress happen in a barter system? For instance how would you complete the Euro Tunnel? What would the workers do to make up for the tens of thousands of hours of labour required, or contribute to a co-op to provide the massive amounts of tooling you need, or what benefit to society would the finished item even offer?

 

Your a daydream believer I'm afraid. Even if money did not exist some form of currency would always emerge based upon the strategic importance of any item created.

[gazza]

You wouldn't BUY anything. There would be no wages and no money. There would be no money because there would be no need for it. If you are interested, have a read of these. I won't write anything epic.

 

Oh God our own wonderfully naive Citizen Smith is still jabbering on about anarchism in a thread about bus inspectors. This is an ideology that cannot possibly function in real life when will you ever realise this?

 

Lets just ignore 'money' for a second. You are advocating some form of barter system, fair enough, but even in a barter system 'money' exists as some goods naturally aquire more value than others based on usage and demand. If you swap one good for another; say swap some food for a shovel, or swap a shovel for an item of clothing, someone has to make that item and if everyone needs shovels to dig the ground and produce food then over time the value of a shovel might grow to become worth several items of clothing so all those making shovels get more goods and food than those making clothing. This is still currency or 'money' as the value of that item is relative to other items that you need to benefit from to survive and feed your family. So by making shovels you are in fact creating currency that can be used to bring you more and more clothing, or food, or fire wood or whatever is deemed less useful or important as a shovel.

 

Also how does techological progress happen in a barter system? For instance how would you complete the Euro Tunnel? What would the workers do to make up for the tens of thousands of hours of labour required, or contribute to a co-op to provide the massive amounts of tooling you need, or what benefit to society would the finished item even offer?

 

Your a daydream believer I'm afraid. Even if money did not exist some form of currency would always emerge based upon the strategic importance of any item created.

 

damit u beat me to it,

 

i was just makeing him feel like somebody was intrested in what he said,

but you said it how i see it,

 

farmers would be king,

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Even worse than being a lazy sod - what if you chose to devote all your energy to droning on and on about a political ideology until you drove the rest of your commune totally insane?

 

I think that's unfair. I am being asked about it and so I have replied.

 

Lets just ignore 'money' for a second. You are advocating some form of barter system, fair enough, but even in a barter system 'money' exists as some goods naturally aquire more value than others based on usage and demand. If you swap one good for another; say swap some food for a shovel, or swap a shovel for an item of clothing, someone has to make that item and if everyone needs shovels to dig the ground and produce food then over time the value of a shovel might grow to become worth several items of clothing so all those making shovels get more goods and food than those making clothing. This is still currency or 'money' as the value of that item is relative to other items that you need to benefit from to survive and feed your family. So by making shovels you are in fact creating currency that can be used to bring you more and more clothing, or food, or fire wood or whatever is deemed less useful or important as a shovel.

 

That would be true of a simpy barter system, however, what is advocated by anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists is a gift economy.

 

i was just makeing him feel like somebody was intrested in what he said,

but you said it how i see it,

 

Don't believe you, I can make an anarchist of you yet, hehe.

[oldmanxfella]

That would be true of a simpy barter system, however, what is advocated by anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists is a gift economy.

 

I really wish that I cared what that jumble of words said.

[Slim]

That would be true of a simpy barter system, however, what is advocated by anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists is a gift economy.

 

You've got no idea, have you? In a gift economy, how would you allocate based on need? Everyone wants the best, but not everyone can have the best, so how do you choose who gets it?

 

How do you give incentive? How do you place values on things like research?

 

I'm not a fan of consumerism, and I advocate greater controls on both production and consumption to stop the waset, but I've no doubt that a complicated modern labour market to support our society needs a complicated financial market to match it. We're not all planting turnips and swapping them for chickens, we've moved on. You need to.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You've got no idea, have you? In a gift economy, how would you allocate based on need? Everyone wants the best, but not everyone can have the best, so how do you choose who gets it?

 

Based on need? Well what are needs? Food, housing, travel, etc. Why do you not think that such an economy could not produce an abundance of goods to meet needs?

 

How do you give incentive? How do you place values on things like research?

 

Incentive will come from producing goods from the pursuit and undertaking of creative work and work that satisfied a person's interests and at the same time their talents.

 

I'm not a fan of consumerism, and I advocate greater controls on both production and consumption to stop the waset, but I've no doubt that a complicated modern labour market to support our society needs a complicated financial market to match it. We're not all planting turnips and swapping them for chickens, we've moved on. You need to.

 

A gift economy need not be a return to basic bartering. It isn't a barter economy. And could continue on the shell of the capitalist system and develop from there. But nobody argues that such a system will be as efficient in all aspects as the market may be. But the freedoms that will come from the abolition of capitalism is in my eyes more important.

 

And I don't know about this idea of moving on, yes economic practices have 'moved on'. But it certainly isn't a story of simply progress. On whose backs has this progress been made? For all this progress the people who actually do the work do not own the means to produce.

[slinkydevil]

I have never put anyone on ignore on this forum as I'm pretty open to even the shitiest of posters, but I'm close with LDV. Complete and utter, blinkered claptrap.

 

Carry on.