tomblikebomb

tomblikebomb

49p

110 comments posted · 0 followers · following 1

530 weeks ago @ A Division by Zer0 - What would an Anarchis... · 0 replies · +1 points

And how libertarian are the “organic ways”? “Social stigma”. How does that work? By hurting others’ emotions. How is that any less a form of compulsion than hurting their pocket books? The difference is, Pareconian effort is decided by the time card and the co-workers equally, not whatever asshole is such a “slacker” himself that he can waste time making some other poor guy’s life miserable. And spontaneous reward. In other words, the reward will come at the expense of those who recognize the effort, thus penalizing thoughtfulness, or, if of the collective, the unlucky and non-aggressive. Neither social stigma, of course, nor spontaneous reward (judging by the examples) could be effectively applied on a once-yearly basis, so the amount of time dedicated to rewarding and punishing would obviously be much more under libcom.

530 weeks ago @ A Division by Zer0 - What would an Anarchis... · 0 replies · +1 points

Yes, these libcoms suggested that replacing wage-labor with labor-credit would cause “significant” unemployment, but they didn’t say how. Can you? Granted, most people would have the luxury of working less, but the underemployed would finally have the motivation to work (if, under capitalism, rich) and the option (if poor) of working more. Admittedly, this convergence would likely be at a lower, more natural level. But how do the libcoms propose to prevent general slack? “Organically”--that is, ways available to all systems; as the degree to which labor hours and effort ratings mediate access is socially determined, the sufficiency of organic ways will prove themselves through hours and ratings’ reduction to non-factors, which could occur automatically if the effort factor is made a mathematical function of change-in-it’s change-in-effort.

530 weeks ago @ A Division by Zer0 - What would an Anarchis... · 2 replies · +1 points

No, I was talking about leisure under Parecon and only mentioned leisure under capitalism for comparison. Obviously, in that I mentioned myself, I meant unemployment in the temporary sense, which your silence indicates you agree is at least partly a choice for many decidedly underprivileged, not that you know shit about the third world or anything else. But even permanent unemployment can be part choice for some of the poorest people, and your claiming their nonexistence is really quite insulting, not only to them, given their options, but to immediate (familial) and other charity. Your problem is you're still stuck in the rut of bifurcation (free or coerced), with not the synapses to comprehend range. That’s probably how you can say “wage slavery” and “voluntary collectivization” both with a straight face under silken mask.

530 weeks ago @ A Division by Zer0 - What would an Anarchis... · 0 replies · +1 points

It's oxymoronic to speak of pareconists as a special cast. The par stands for participatory. Now, you even said people would have to cooperate in order to deal with scarcity. Well, food is scarce. Nature doesn't offer it on a silver platter, but humans have to work hard to wring it out of her. You evidently wouldn't, then, allow free access. You would have them cooperate in some vague way, with no reliable information regarding need. When you can give an example of such cooperation that wouldn't be coercive, I'll believe you're not a Trotskyist, Social Democrat, or worse.

530 weeks ago @ A Division by Zer0 - What would an Anarchis... · 0 replies · +1 points

Universal healthcare isn't the issue, free and unlimited access is. In fact, the very reason the two are often equated is that people don't often abuse the system. I understand that you were trying to equate healthcare with food in order to make a case for free and unlimited access thereto, but in the process you underestimated patients. If it was instrumental as opposed to genuine, fine, but that's your fuckup for not just focusing on the thing you wanted to focus on.

530 weeks ago @ A Division by Zer0 - What would an Anarchis... · 0 replies · +1 points

In fact, he’s having the only say in things that affect others as well (control of the means). Now, you can try to correct that in crude, centrally planned ways like giving community and society an undetermined say and an undetermined way of expressing it, or you can simply allow people to prove their affectedness through the price mechanism.

530 weeks ago @ A Division by Zer0 - What would an Anarchis... · 0 replies · +1 points

It's not a "claim" of need, it's proof in the form of credits. Why would someone waste their limited consumption power on something they didn't need? Do you want to make consumers' decisions for them? As for producers, they‘re more powerful than consumers. They can refuse to respond to the demand, which will automatically increase its price, thus decreasing demand. Eventually, demand will disappear, certainly after price exceeds capacity to pay.

530 weeks ago @ A Division by Zer0 - What would an Anarchis... · 0 replies · +1 points

You say you don’t have to familiarize yourself with a theory in order to reject it, and then you continue making things up about Parecon. The sizes of the collectives are determined by the collectives, not the facilitators. As for competition, your faith in it is astounding. It can’t produce an infinite workforce, can it? Because that’s what would be needed for the need for “quality” to effect an optimal distribution of labor-to-capital ratios. From what I understand, communism’s non-competition and mutualism’s competition will save the day. How’s that work? Is there a medium level of competition that wouldn’t?

530 weeks ago @ A Division by Zer0 - What would an Anarchis... · 0 replies · +1 points

Part of the imperfection is that it’s only temporary, pre-monopoly. And while increased competition would increase the demand for labor, it would seem to do so rather generally, not specific to capital-intensive industry, hence the problem I identified holds.

As for the “communal way“, labor would generally be immobilized by the absence of wages and currency (not coupled with abolition of property) and, if you’re correct, generally mobilized by possessors’ newfound love of company and disregard for profit, but that would not solve the specific problem of, again, the polarization of industry into very capital-intensive and very labor-intensive sectors.

530 weeks ago @ A Division by Zer0 - What would an Anarchis... · 0 replies · +1 points

I meant he could barter the service, not the plane. He could barter the plane, too, though, without losing his job, particularly if he bartered it for membership in a collective, thereby reducing competition, unfortunately for passengers and their dependents. Even if he did lose his job, many pilots would quit their careers this instant in exchange for what a plane could get them.