sgtz:
In your ideal society, would hobbies exist? Would I be able to go out whenever I wanted to ride my dirt bike? Or would I have to get permission from everyone before I could go the the motocross track? Could I even own a recreational vehicle? Or is this a “needs” only society?
Max, I don’t think the libertarian left (yes, it’s a thing that preceded Rothbard by about a hundred years and it is anarchism no matter what the people on this side of the isle say) wants to take away or control/limit anyone’s hobbies. But I understand that this was a genuine question and you wanted to know how individuals could make decisions in a collective environment, I guess. As far as I’m aware, they only differ with us on private property, capitalism, and advocate for a common rather than private ownership of the means of production. I’m sure somebody else (an actual anarcho-communist) would be able to explain it better because I only know the elementary things, as the ideology isn’t something I really focus on.
Anyway, I would imagine that you’d still be able to own and ride your dirt bike. As far as I am aware, they don’t really care to touch that and they differentiate between that (and other movable objects) and ‘private property,’ which is like a factory. Uh…right guys?
I’ll stop now actually and let them explain. From what I’ve learned so far, though, they’re not bad and I hate how people fight amongst themselves.
Oh, I know left libertarians quite well. You can’t ask a genuine question with out everyone being an asshole.
My question is how would I get the bike in the first place, if we’ve been in a socialistic society for hundreds of years. Where do new things come from? Is my love of my community enough motivation for me to create new things? There is no immediate response. All progress is small and on a macro scale instead of an individualistic one.
Quite frankly, I can’t answer the question of how things would come into being, how innovations would happen, where the motivation to create goods (without profits being the incentive) would come from etc., because I haven’t thought/read/learned about that yet. I’m very sorry.
Perhaps others can explain to both him and me?
What creates idleness and laziness? Would it be living in a society of freedom with your humanitarian needs met or would it be going to a job you hate for 8+ hours a day doing menial tasks to simply survive?
With that said, most anarcho-communists believe that the means of production is stifled due to too many mundane and useless tasks being expended on people with more ambition than simply putting pins in watches or laces in shoes. Giving people a 5 hour work day and nothing more would add time to the individuals interests, whether sciences, arts or other things. The motivation to create comes from being able to have the time and tools to learn, things that very much of the world craves but cannot acess simply because the system is rigged against them. When the worlds basic rights and needs are met, you open new doors and windows to the possibilities of creation because now people would have the chance to work and learn new things without simply just fighting for their paltry survival.
I know a few guys who, for a period of about a year, were on welfare and did not do anything productive with themselves. Why would they? Their ‘basic needs’ as you call them were being subsidized by the public. The time previously spent laboring to create sustenance for themselves was now converted to leisure, and instead of doing something fruitful with their time, they idled. Today, they’re working as waiters at a local restaurant. This is clearly not indicative of progress or innovation.
I am not suggesting that this would happen to everyone who had their ‘basic needs’ handed to them. What I am saying is that you cannot blame people’s idleness and laziness on the inconvenience that you deem having to work to survive.
I have nothing against anarcho-communism/socialism, since I assume (maybe incorrectly) that unlike in communism/socialism, in their anarcho-counterparts membership is voluntary. What I am dubious about, however, is the incentive scheme present in such an economic system. Why exactly would an individual or organization invest time trying to innovate if their was no profit or competition trying to do the same? Even if someone was to endeavor into scientific theory out of pure curiosity or passion, and given all 24 hours in the day to do so, who would convert the discoveries made by this person into useful mechanisms for people to enjoy? I only ask this because it is safe to say that, as thankful as I am for Isaac Newton (a person who was not motivated by profit) formulating the laws of motion, they certainly did not improve anyone’s life. But plenty of engineering firms—that are profit-driven—use these laws for useful ends. So my question is, what incentive do people have to create and innovate?
While I can’t necessarily speak for those doods you knew since I don’t know them personally, I do have an inkling of what their ‘laziness’ was caused by. I guess first and foremost I’d have to ask this question: What exactly were their options as far as employment?
Not to downgrade anyone who works a minimum wage monotonous job, but is that really a fulfilling role for someone? For those who don’t/can’t get their basic needs met, it’s not that they’re not lazy and are more than willing to take any job they can get, it’s more-so that they don’t really have another option, other than like die. Unless they turned down employment in an exciting and interesting field (relative to their interests), you can’t really blame them for not wanting to take low-end shit work; why would they when they don’t have to? I think if one were to do a comprehensive study (it prolly has been done, but idfk) a clear correlation would be found between how boring (mentally/physically) a job is and how lazy the person doing it is. So where I’m getting at is that, if it were me on welfare, I wouldn’t sign up to take a shit tier job like flipping burgers or standing in a musky warehouse doing the same task over and over and over again for 8 hours every day of the week. Why would I if I can survive without it? However, if I were in line for a job that is relevant to my interest, like programming some badbutt music production software, or take part in a space exploration mission (notice those are occupations that also advance society, as opposed to stagnant work) I would absolutely jump straight into that because it would cease to be work, but a worthwhile occupation. It’s not like all, if not most, mechanical repetitive jobs couldn’t be automated right now if society wanted them to. The reason we don’t is because there’s too much money at stake. People wouldn’t think it’s cool if machines took their jobs and they were left without a paycheck to get by off.
As far as Isaac Newton not improving anyone’s life, I have a problem with that because any inventions that were built upon his discoveries have to partially be credited to him for laying the groundwork. And this holds true for any invention that requires previous knowledge of basically anything, because without it then those inventions can’t come into existence.
I know a few people who have undoubtedly become idle because the state provides all basic needs. This isn’t an issue of what this person’s individual options were because education is accessible to anybody willing to go through the trouble of obtaining it. The resources to become successful are available, what isn’t widely available is the drive and dedication required to get there. You assume that low end jobs are responsible for people becoming lazy and that in order to eliminate this problem people should be given the opportunities to work at higher end jobs since they are more “exciting.” This follows that you are also assuming someone with no prior knowledge or skills in a field can be hired to work in the development of a space shuttle designed to orbit the earth. This couldn’t be any more of a fantasy than the belief that liberal social programs are designed to help the poor.The truth is that it is a whole lot easier to stay at home and play video games than it is to wake up at 6 a.m. everyday to go to work then school and spend countless hours at the library studying material that would one day give you the opportunity to have that “exciting job.” Low end jobs are only permanent if you do not work your way up the ladder.
It certainly is an issue of options. Even if someone can get an education in a field that is relevant to their interests, their options as far as future are potentially still limited. Some people’s interests lie in fields that the market does not appreciate. Journalism, music, human resources, theater, literature, psychology, mechanical engineering, etc. are areas which are in low demand by the market and those who are interested in studying that are discouraged from entering by economists or some of their more asshole-ish peers, with the reason that employment is scarce or have low monetary reward. The jist of it becomes ‘you’d better just suck it up and find a field that the market does want’. So it’s not only low wage jobs, but also a narrow spectrum of jobs that require advanced studies which lead to a job that is even worth the debt one accrues in attaining the degree to enter. There clearly are limits to what a person, even with their basic needs met, can do for employment whether the education is available or not. People aren’t motivated to go study and enter a field of work which they have no interest in? What a surprise.
As far as the low wage jobs not being permanent. Tell that to the person who was born into a life of poverty, who at a relatively early age has to choose between employment for subsistence or an education, regardless of quality. Who has to work eight hours 5 days a week at a minimum wage position just to clear the basic living expenses. <!—start_sarcasm—> Of course their low end status isn’t permanent at all. It’s not like the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against even if they don’t remain idle <!—end_sarcasm—>
stop with the bootstraps argument, some people don’t have them
