Nostr Web Client

You said earlier that employers don't allocate labor capital efficiently, but here you're saying it's on the balance sheet, which implies it is being allocated properly to create the highest value output. How do you square these seemingly conflicting points?

Are they allocating labor inefficiently (and therefore losing on the balance) or are they using it to maximal efficiency (and winning on the balance)?

Or by "efficiently" did you mean - earlier - "not for the common good but rather for their own purposes"? This "efficiently" seems ambiguous and I suspect you mean "they're not being efficient relative to the good of all". Do I have you right?

miggymofongo ☆彡 1y ago

the only thing being on a balance sheet implies is that you are being coerced into being an ecomonic imput into the profit equation of a capitalist who is in cahoots with the state to make it harder and harder for you to accumulate enough wealth to comfortably raise a communiy. unless its the balance sheet of a commie cooperatively owned and operated enterprise that splits profits justly among the workers and is accountable to its community vs shareholders, its the balance sheet of a facist dictator capitalist who weaponizes the state/court system through minimum wage, right to work, taking out the labor board, police enforcing private property rights, rolling back of social safety nets, etc to maintain control of the game. corporations have a whole separate court system they are tried in just to subvert the will of the masses they exploit. look it up.

united states capitalism and the american dream is a grift and facism/neoliberal economics is capitalism in decline and trying to save the profits for the CEO and maintain u.s. hegemoney. our global system of production doesnt have to be this way. its destroying families and making life for the majority of us in the rest of the Americas and Global South. like george carlin said its the american dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

vinney...axkl 1y ago

All of your critiques of State-backed crony capitalism are basically on point and I agree with all of them.

None of your critiques of purely free markets land for me.

Most of your bolstering of communist-style ideas don't appeal to me, but in a web of anarchist communities (some being capitalist some being communist) the communists would be free to try their experiments (and I support their freedom to do so) and the ancaps would be free to try theirs. Your hypothesis is that the ancaps would fail and the ancoms would succeed. I feel the opposite. Maybe some day we'll get to see who's right.

I think maybe one difference between us (you tell me) is that I wouldnt force the ancoms to be ancaps, while I suspect you would want to force the ancaps to be ancoms. As long as you agree that people should be free to try their own things and stay out of each other's voluntarily communities, we actually have no disagreement whatsoever in practice.

miggymofongo ☆彡 1y ago

we won't have to force anybody to leave their current situation for something better like the capitalists create a state that forces folk into selling their labor for a wage. after a few months of wage slavery in anarchocapitalist village, a Marcos Xiorro or Nat Turner is gonna lead a rebellion and bring his crew to kick it with the commies where laborers work for OWNERSHIP.

man as long as you don't try to hire me or any of my anarchocommie homies with your "voLunTarY eMpLoYmEnT cOnTrACts" we will aways serve you a cup of cooporately farmed and ethically grown coffee when you visit our commune

vinney...axkl 1y ago

Sounds rad, I'm down to visit often. I love good coffee

vinney...axkl 1y ago

And if I'm convinced, I'm not opposed to the idea of staying and joining the collective. I just don't suppose that'll happen, but I'm open to being convinced always.

vinney...axkl 1y ago

One thing that interests me that I'd like to hear your opinion on: in the "ancap village" it's not like there would be a prohibition on collective ownership. If some coffee farm wanted to operate the way you're describing, it doesn't violate anyone's property rights or coerce anyone, so it would be just fine.

But I'm not sure the opposite is true. In "ancom village" if someone wanted to operate a "wage slave" company that employees chose to work at, I suspect such a thing would be forbidden and forceably stopped.

Am I right about that?

If so, what do you think about the fact that one design allows for the other to operate within it, while the other design forbids its counterpart from existing?

miggymofongo ☆彡 1y ago

it depends on whether or not you consider labor laws protecting an employee against being enslaved into a wage system by a capitalist an infringment on that capitalist's "private property rights".

which brings us back to my first question, is someone's labor and the product of it considered the private property of a single fascist capitalist that has ultimately supreme authority of that person during their shift? i think i know what trump, bezos, musk, and all the usamerikkkan oligarchs would say. the need for an employee to be efficient with their (most amount of wage for least amount of their time) is at odds with the capitalist need to minimize expenditures that eat away at their profit. how is this tension reconciled in ancap??

which brings up another question...why would someone slave themselves for crumb wages when they could work in their community for ownership/split profits of what they are producing doing whatever it is that makes them feel the most fullfilled? what do they need crumbs for when they have wealth at home in the form of support around things like child care, health, school, and all the other things commodified under capitalism for private ownership to profit off of without having to do any actual physical labor or be accountable to their communities??