tripu @tripu@social.cleverlibre.org
Technologist, Spaniard, male, 42
Joined May 2020
(Not that I would trust one million dollars to the future state of a wiki page)
eg, #BalajiSrinivasan could arrange his 1 
= 1M $ bet without any intermediaries if the value of currencies were on Wikibase reliably
It seems to me that #web3 types should be the strongest supporters and adopters of the #SemanticWeb (#LinkedData), because machine-readable facts reduce the need for (human) #oracles when settling #SmartContracts.
(And for some reason I suspect #crypto people may be the least interested in that kind of thorough web hygiene.)
I think you guys keep on drawing arbitrary lines and making up definitions.
What's a capitalist? I own (pieces of) many private companies. Am I a capitalist, then? What about people who rent a room? If so, the vast majority of us are capitalists.
And what's wrong with that?
Accumulation of capital is not the same as absence of credit and debt. There's nothing contradictory there. Just look around: we have plenty of both in our capitalistic societies today. @gasull didn't claim that.
Also, it _is_ possible that all nations produce more than they consume. Surplus used to go to silos. Or pantries. States, corporations and individuals can have surplus. We know how to store goods and energy for the future. Perhaps you are mistaking economic surplus with trade balance (which indeed can't be all black or all red, because it's zero-sum).
What is your definition of "making it"? #Capitalism is not about, nor does it promise, that everybody would be a billionaire or at the apex (very easy to see: "everybody being at the apex of a hierarchy" is a contradiction).
If "making it" means being materially comfortable, physically safe, healthy and happy, then yes: "not everyone making it" is a feature
…of reality, of human nature, and of the law of large numbers. Can't get rid of that.
@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
With all respect: are you a chatbot?
I can't believe you are honestly satisfied with such fanciful ideas. You are trying to demonstrate that it is feasible to get from A to B, and that B would be wonderful in all possible ways, by writing down that it is feasible to get from A to B and by stating that B would be wonderful in all possible ways.
It is [a caricature](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/profit) of logic, philosophy or economics.
> _"Xenophobia and religious fanaticism [...] are the result of social and economic inequality"_
So before economic inequality, one tribe encountering another tribe of a different skin colour would be all welcoming and open to intermarriage and would treat those people exactly as their own?
/cc @crcollins
@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
> _"It will involve violence, but not coercion."_
I can't understand that sentence.
> _"The abolition of private property would be achieved through voluntary cooperation and mutual aid, rather than forced expropriation."_
Good. Since it'll be voluntary, and not through expropriation, what do you guys plan to do about us who are stubbornly attached to our property and will not cooperate? How can you abolish private property as long as there remains one person (or ten billion people) who rejects that "shift in values"?
Is everything that you own the means of subsistence of someone else? I don't understand that.
@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
Don't you see a massive hurdle right before step one?
How do you guys plan to get to the abolition of private property without using violence or coercion?
Where exactly in the theories behind #capitalism lies the inexorable march towards "massive concentration of resources, wealth inequality, regulatory capture, corruption"? And "massive", compared to what, exactly?
If we granted that capitalism increases wealth inequality and concentration of resources, for the sake of the argument, shouldn't we also accept that the absence of capitalism decreases competitiveness and material progress?
Are you "trying the different method" that @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social is outlining? If not, why not? What other method are you trying personally, if I may ask?
These are all honest questions. As I said, I'm terribly interested in the results of empirical tests. I read a lot of radical thought, but very little practice.
Again, @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social himself:
> _"All individuals would have **equal access to resources**. [...] Goods and services produced within each commune would be **shared equally among all members**. This would ensure that everyone has access to the resources needed to live fulfilling lives, **regardless of their level of contribution** to production."_
So, no. Not "asking for something of value to them in return for their work, for their creations, or for their ideas".
(I mean — sure. I guess they can ASK.)
I can't conceive of a better killer of ingenuity, industriousness and ambition than such a system.
I think the crux is this:
To me (and I would argue, to most people), the person (or organisation) that saved money for years and then bought a plot of land, a building or a machine, and then assumes the risk of lending it to someone else to use it, and maintains it in good working condition — that person or group of people is absolutely “producing value”.
Delaying gratification, being frugal, so that investments can be made, so that skilled workers in need of land or buildings or machines or vehicles can indeed work is “producing value” for society. It enriches all parts involved (the one who saves to buy the machine, the one who rents the machine, and the consumer or client at the end of the line).
/cc @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
I'm still sceptical of that definition. (Perhaps that's the definition in the mind of those _against_ #capitalism, and those of us _in favour of_ capitalism have a different working definition…)
In any case, I want to stress that there are at least two big leaps from “in favour of worker-owned enterprises” to “abolition of private property”.
To reiterate: worker-owned enterprises _are compatible with capitalism_. They do exist. They are legal. They're usually called cooperatives. There is no need to reform (let alone overthrow) capitalism to have cooperatives.
And then, there's a huge leap from “the workers of this company collectively own its assets” to “all people (workers of this company or not) collectively own all assets that exist”.
/cc @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
What @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social advocates “is the elimination of private property and the creation of a system in which resources are shared equally”.
And I said that under such system it would be impossible for a person “to ask for something of value to them in return for their work, for their creations, or for their ideas”.
Isn't it obvious?
How could anyone ask for something of value, or give away something of value, if nobody owns anything privately? How could person A “give” item X to person B, if both A and B (and C!) “share equally” X under that system?
> _"Capitalism is a system that enforces, generally with coercion, the transfer of value produced by people from those who produce it, to those who are registered with the state as the 'owner' of the means required to produce the value."_
I disagree. Merriam-Webster, Britannica and Wikipedia also disagree.
Private ownership of the means of production does not imply transfer of value, with or without coercion.
Someone who owns the means to produce something, the means required to produce value, of course that person will (and should) receive some value in return. It's almost a tautology.
/cc @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
I was not saying that #capitalism is defined by that (although capitalism _includes_ that).
What I meant is that the system that @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social described _forbids_ that.
@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
> _“Anarcho-Communists believe that genuine #communism can only be achieved through the voluntary participation of individuals in self-managed communities, with decision-making power distributed equally among all members. […] They believe that any means of achieving communism, which involves the suppression of individual freedom or the use of violence, is contradictory to the principles of socialism.”_
This part I like a lot, and I am very glad to read that.
I am relieved to know that there is no coercion or violence in your roadmap.
The good thing is that #capitalism already lets you and your comrades live in anarcho-communists bubbles. Capitalism does not prevent “the voluntary participation of individuals in self-managed communities, with decision-making power distributed equally among all members”. You can have communes and cooperatives. (Granted, you still have to pay taxes, and you have to respect the private property of those outside your voluntary community. But there's a lot of equality and sharing and cooperation that can happen _inside_ that community.)
A personal question, if I may: how exactly are you implementing your ideas? How are you repudiating all the property that the capitalist system (mistakenly) says is “yours”, and pooling it together with the “private property” of like-minded people in an egalitarian way?
(I assume that you have the courage of your convictions.)
I am honestly curious about the detailed results of such experiments.
@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
> _“Anarcho-Communists don't support the human rights violations and oppression that occur in state socialist and Marxist-Leninist countries because we prioritize individual freedom and autonomy”_
Yet you are against the “individual freedom and autonomy” of a person to ask for something of value to them in return for their work, for their creations, or for their ideas.
You are against the “individual freedom and autonomy” of a group of people to decide to pool their work, their creations, or their ideas to do something with them; like keep them for themselves, or ask for something specific in return.
Someone turns a useless rock into a tool, and they can't sell it. Someone writes the best novel ever, and they can't expect to be rewarded more than an illiterate amateur. (What incentive do I have to plow this little plot of land any harder than you work on yours, if your crop is not yours anyway but a shared resource?)
I see a lot of “human rights violations and oppression” there…
@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
> _“I don't know why you're asking me whether I want to live in a country like North Korea or Venezuela, as if I'm advocating such a thing, which I'm obviously not”_
Because you started this exchange criticising capitalism explicitly — not the existence of states.
@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
> _“Inequality is built into the capitalist system”_
Again, I'd posit to you that #inequality is not a feature of #capitalism, but a characteristic of reality itself. It's inescapable. What's more: it's not necessarily a bad thing. Personal identity is based on being different to others. It is through mutations that organisms evolve. It is trial and error what took us so far. Being able to test different lifestyles and types of organisations is vital.
It seems to me that you are privileging certain desirable aspects over others in a rather whimsical way. Why equality and cooperation over incentives for ingenuity and economic progress, exactly?
What would be the material wealth of the average person in a world where we had abolished private property long ago? Isn't that average what matters (billions of people find themselves near that average), much more than the very thin tails at both ends of the distribution?
Technologist, Spaniard, male, 42
Joined May 2020
