Erik Haugen @ech@qoto.org

@RD4Anarchy @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @mmclark @pixelpusher220 @HeavenlyPossum Yeah, I think you're right – it did seem a bit on the statist side and I was having trouble finding material in it about fundamental stuff like how resource allocation decisions could be made better. Alright – thanks for the pointer!

@neonsnake @RD4Anarchy @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @mmclark @pixelpusher220 @HeavenlyPossum

This is a good point – and how risky a job is is something I think a lot about when I look for a job.

I guess the difference here is theoretically the non-investing employee just has to find a new job, while investors lose their invested savings. (And some investors lose a lot more than you're making it sound like here – lots of people borrow against their house or whatever to start a business.)

But your point remains, of course – that oftentimes doesn't work out so great for employees of companies that go under.

(Fixing this doesn't seem straightforward to me, though, and investors diversify.)

@HeavenlyPossum @pixelpusher220 @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @mmclark @RD4Anarchy Right; the ownership doesn't contribute directly; I get that.

IIUC with capitalism ownership is the mechanism for deciding investment allocation. If you have capital, you decide how that capital is to be used for productivity. (As noted in this thread the state can do that, too, in which case it's in some ways the same thing, which is something I hadn't really thought about before.)

Obviously any system needs a way to solve this problem of allocating resources – and "whoever happens to 'own' stuff" is obviously sub-optimal. I am aware of a few different answers to this problem; the part I'm trying to wrap my head around is how they might be better in ways like less coercion/etc.

@HeavenlyPossum @mmclark @pixelpusher220 @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @RD4Anarchy

> How did you even stumble on this conversation?

The OP has a bunch of boosts so it shows up on /explore. (The "algorithm", I guess?)

The lede was intriguing – obviously the fact that hobbies exist and can be useful for others doesn't quite answer all my questions about a world without capital, but it's a good intuition pump. A lot of comments were super interesting and I was learning a lot, then I asked a question about a claim that I didn't understand.

@RD4Anarchy @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @mmclark @pixelpusher220 @HeavenlyPossum The failures and shortcomings of capitalism are well documented, and I don't dispute them. I'm trying to learn about possible alternatives; I think the lament in this broader thread is accurate – unless people try pretty hard, they're going to only learn about a silly clown version of what Socialism is, either whatever Sweden is doing right now, or something about sharing toothbrushes. I appreciate threads like this – I learned a ton just reading the comments here, and got pointers to other materials like ABCs (I read some of that just now) etc.

So: Thanks!

I've read a bit about the righty version of anarchy – a lot of it appeals to me, but it seems ultimately unworkable or basically indistinguishable from what we have now. (They like to talk about "neighborhoods", but ultimately it seems like those are just "states", complete with coercive violence.)

@williamgunn @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space It does have quite a track record. It is interesting to explore whether we could do even better, though.

@neonsnake @RD4Anarchy @messaroundmarx @HeavenlyPossum @pixelpusher220 @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space I think ancaps do actually want to pay explicitly and directly for police protection. (e.g. "Chaos Theory" by Robert Murphy talks about everyone hiring "insurance companies", which are basically private security.) (I'm maybe not using the same definition of "ancap" as you are, though, if so beg pardon.)

The claim that security would be unaffordable is interesting, but I don't think that's the main problem with this approach.

@HeavenlyPossum @pixelpusher220 @RD4Anarchy @mmclark @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space Thanks!

Heh, I definitely think of it as mine the whole time.

I like how you put it: "pay your employer for permission to work." Most firms have infrastructure that I am paying for when I work there. If I get a job scooping ice cream, I have to pay my employer for equipment, supply chains it set up, marketing, risk of not enough customers (insurance, effectively), etc. (Of course, as we've been talking about, all of this is done, practically, in the form of (value I add) - (my wages).)

This feels reasonable; my ice cream scooping wouldn't happen without those things. (Of course, some businesses are collectively owned by the workers, which is maybe nice because then you're paying yourself rent as a worker, but I suspect that doesn't meet the bar here? – workers still need to buy in (with capital) or starve.)

I think I need to educate myself more about alternatives: without *some* ownership of those things who would make decisions about investment? A coop would mean you're stuck in the same spot if you disagree with the outcome of the vote or whatever, or you opt out and starve. The ABCs of Socialism mentioned in this thread talks about state-run banks, so anyone wanting something different there would be subject to the same kind of coercive violence we're discussing in this broader thread, or starve.

I like the ABCs of Socialism for dispelling some of the silly caricatures of Socialism, like toothbrushes and iPhones, or that it is necessarily statist.

@RD4Anarchy @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @mmclark @pixelpusher220 @HeavenlyPossum It's definitely good faith? I mean, I have a job where I get wages/salary – it doesn't feel coerced or unpaid, so I'm trying to understand that point of view. I guess yeah – theoretically/ideally some percentage of the value I add isn't paid to me in compensation, so if that's what is meant then I can see the point there.

I don't feel too bad about it, though, because I'm not taking on any of the risk, and my work is taking advantage of the infra/etc that was at the firm before I got there, and so on. (heh – I'm still weirded out by how much my CEO makes, though!)

In your virus scenario, I guess the standard retort would be that workers wouldn't work as hard and it would be unclear how means of production are allocated?

Is that what you mean by coercion – that we're coerced by need for money that makes us work? (I'm just guessing here.)

> Should I be telling you to fuck off?

Up to you, I guess; or just don't respond – I won't pester you.

@RD4Anarchy @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @mmclark @pixelpusher220 @HeavenlyPossum heh to me it seems funny to talk about any of that being coercion.

@RD4Anarchy @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @mmclark @pixelpusher220

> 3. The exploitation of wage labour, the source of profit being the unpaid labour of the producers.

Would someone please help me understand what is meant by "unpaid labour"? Is it this:

unpaid labor = (net value of labor) - wages

?

@tezoatlipoca @glennf @augieray Yeah, I appreciate the ubiquitous sanitizers thing at work.

@glennf @augieray I think air filtration/etc would be a lot more effective than masks, but yeah.

@com @augieray The quote is "in the leading causes", not "the leading cause". I guess that's true?

(Ranking causes of death and getting precise numbers like "4th" is meaningless, of course – but generally it always looks like this: ~40% CVD, ~40% cancer, then the remainder is dominated by things like accidents and respiratory illnesses (flu/cold/covid/etc) – that was the case before covid, during covid, and now)

@pixel The hilarious part to me here is that stux of all people is complaining about getting defederated or whatever: https://mstdn.social/@stux/110570709034574825 #PotMeetKettle

@freemo @mk Yeah, I always wondered why there was so much emphasis recently (like the last 15 years) on wealth disparity in the US rather than quality of life for lowest X% of wealth.