Links on abolishing money:

[tman_ndsu08]

Goods will never be created or distributed without incentive.

It's never happened before, isn't happening now, and will never happen.

Sorry!

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Technosoul Liberate your self - abolish the money in your wallet by sending it all to me.

LOL!

Best post on the entire thread.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: grandpa Of course they do. But they are evidence of a different way of creating and distributring goods--

Not really. I'm guessing you don't know the first thing about these so-called "coops" you keep referring to. They are mainly purchasing and marketing schemes, not "different ways of creating and distributing goods".

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Goods will never be created or distributed without incentive. It's never happened before, isn't happening now, and will never happen. Sorry!

I'm not saying people will ever lack incentive to do things, T-man.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Not really. I'm guessing you don't know the first thing about these so-called "coops" you keep referring to. They are mainly purchasing and marketing schemes, not "different ways of creating and distributing goods".

But they are democratically controlled, Morgan Freemen. Which is too something I know about them. That, by itself, makes them different from what we typically see in America. They are also open to Are insults the only thing you have to go on Morgan?

Here's what I've noticed you claim so far in this discussion:
1. Co-ops cannot function adequately. I disproved this by providing resources and evidence as to how they can be (and often are) successful, especially in Europe and in Spain. Even in Michigan there are co-ops that have lasted for many years and some still kicking around. Never mind the fact that ANY project can fail under any system, the negative focus has to be on that which I promote.

2. You've indicated how you feel co-ops are very different from strict authoritarian ventures and cannot function for that reason. Then, when that argument gets shown as incorrect, you suggest co-ops must be very similar to the strict authoritarian arrangements common to America, which isn't necessarily true.

3. Because co-ops do not match perfectly with my own ideas, they are not evidence of a different model working.

Grandpa h.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa I'm not saying people will ever lack incentive to do things, T-man.

Marxism gives people no incentive to work other than "you ought to!".

By proxy, you advocate the same.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa Of course they do. But they are evidence of a different way of creating and distributring goods--proof that the very rigid, authoritarian structure you endorse is not absolutely necessary. Hence, other means you endorse are likely not as necessary as you claim they are. The point is, above all else, that what any project requires is effort and knowledge. Grandpa h.

They are not creating and distributing goods any differently. They still function the same way. They are producing goods and services based upon the capitalist system, using capitalist sources of information in making their decisions. It is simply not sufficient to say co-ops will change the world. They won't.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: grandpa But they are democratically controlled, Morgan Freemen. Which is too something I know about them. That, by itself, makes them different from what we typically see in America.

Not really. The fact that they are "democratically controlled" is pretty irrelevant, since if any producer didn't like the decisions the management was making, they could simply quit the coop.

Quote by: grandpa 1. Co-ops cannot function adequately. I disproved this by providing resources and evidence as to how they can be (and often are) successful, especially in Europe and in Spain.

The only thing you provided evidence of is that you have no idea how these real-world coops operate. When I said coops are inefficient, I was referring to true coops, where production is managed democratically. In these real-world "coops", that is not the case.

Quote by: grandpa 2. You've indicated how you feel co-ops are very different from strict authoritarian ventures and cannot function for that reason. Then, when that argument gets shown as incorrect, you suggest co-ops must be very similar to the strict authoritarian arrangements common to America, which isn't necessarily true.

That argument was not shown as "incorrect". Your examples of "functioning coops" are completely different from the description you were goving before.

Quote by: grandpa 3. Because co-ops do not match perfectly with my own ideas, they are not evidence of a different model working.

"do not match perfectly"? Try: "have no similarities whatsoever".

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Marxism gives people no incentive to work other than "you ought to!". By proxy, you advocate the same.

People ought to work. The alternative to not being active is to have no creativity, no results and stagnation.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO They are not creating and distributing goods any differently. They still function the same way. They are producing goods and services based upon the capitalist system, using capitalist sources of information in making their decisions. It is simply not sufficient to say co-ops will change the world. They won't.

The co-ops in existence cannot change everything, nor can anyone say for sure they would. But democracy in the workplace is far different from what we typically see in America. Co-ops simply abide by different principles, with money not being the only factor (though one can say money is never the only factor).

That aside, what do you mean by using capitalist sources of information? That some research is involved?

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Not really. The fact that they are "democratically controlled" is pretty irrelevant, since if any producer didn't like the decisions the management was making, they could simply quit the coop.

No, it is relevant. If people have a reasonable say in their own work, it does matter.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman The only thing you provided evidence of is that you have no idea how these real-world coops operate. When I said coops are inefficient, I was referring to true coops, where production is managed democratically. In these real-world "coops", that is not the case.

No, it is the case in contemporary co-operatives.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman "do not match perfectly"? Try: "have no similarities whatsoever".

If they had no similarities to what I desire, then I simply wouldn't endorse the idea, would I? As expected, you've provided zero evidence to show co-ops are not democratic in nature.
Here are case studies again:
http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/info/fra/case.html

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa The co-ops in existence cannot change everything, nor can anyone say for sure they would. But democracy in the workplace is far different from what we typically see in America. Co-ops simply abide by different principles, with money not being the only factor (though one can say money is never the only factor). That aside, what do you mean by using capitalist sources of information? That some research is involved? Grandpa h.

All workers have a say in the workplace in a capitalist- they can leave their employment and find more satisfactory employment. If sufficient people do so, the capitalist must adapt, or pay the consequences.

But I know this is not what you are talking about. You are saying that workers should decide what they will produce, how much to charge, how much to pay each other ect. That is "democracy" and that will make the workplace better, more productive, ect ect ect.
But this rests on a misunderstanding of capitalism specifically, and economics in general. The capitalists do not control production; the consumers do. What they want is what what the capitalist needs to produce. If he does not, then the capitalist goes bankrupt. The coops have to do the same, as it makes no rational sense for the workers to be determining what goods and services will be available to consume. So the reality is that the workers do not 'control" the coop; they simply must respond to what the consumers want. Nobody cares how a decision was made to produce "X" number of screwdrivers was made. All people care about is that a screwdriver is available for purchase when needed.

The capitalist, like the co-op, must have certain signals, certain information, to determine what is going to be produced, in what quanity, at what price ect. That's what i mean by "information." These sources of capitalist information are things like prices, interest rates, and the like. You can disagree that these are best sources of information, and of course capitalists can and do misread them and make mistakes. But a source of information is needed. Otherwhise production goes forth with no rhyme or reason. Production goes on a whim, somebody decides to build "X" number of screwdrivers for no aprticular reason (and perhaps it is not the right kind of screwdriver).

What i have been saying, a I think Morgan as well, is that there needs to be an objective rational for production. capitalism has a rationale which capitalists follow. But the socialist community, in proposing to abolish capitalism, must abolish that rationale as well. But something must take its place. saying the co-ops is not that something, the co-ops must have a rationale for making the decisions they would make. So far, all you have suggested is that people will just take what they need, or will work together, which still doesn't answer the question (how will people work together via the co-ops?)

I understand the dillema. Socialists tend to abhor even speculating on the problem and, when pressed, usually would pretend it does not exist, or that nobody knows. But it does exist, and it has to be confronted.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa The alternative to not being active is to have no creativity, no results and stagnation.

If that is the only incentive for people to work, your society is doomed.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO All workers have a say in the workplace in a capitalist- they can leave their employment and find more satisfactory employment. If sufficient people do so, the capitalist must adapt, or pay the consequences.

What if people cannot find any other work, as can certainly be the case? Because people obviously have to meet very rigid, often irrational standards sometime sto be employed. Co-ops are intended to be much more open than the more hierarchical workplaces.
In a co-op people can ponder why, if their jobs are harder, they get paid less.
This kind of thinking will be seen as a thought crime under capitalist practices.

Quote by: BobbyO But I know this is not what you are talking about. You are saying that workers should decide what they will produce, how much to charge, how much to pay each other ect. That is "democracy" and that will make the workplace better, more productive, ect ect ect. But this rests on a misunderstanding of capitalism specifically, and economics in general.

I don't think I've misunderstood. In just about any system, people will be living off productive people. I point this out, not as a philosopher or whatnot, but as an observer. Now, there are different systems we can have--ones where people are made to feel like machines and little more or ones where people have a greater voice.

Quote by: BobbyO The capitalists do not control production; the consumers do. What they want is what what the capitalist needs to produce. If he does not, then the capitalist goes bankrupt. The coops have to do the same, as it makes no rational sense for the workers to be determining what goods and services will be available to consume.

Assertion is not proof. The producers ultimately control production. Things can be produced that hardly anyone buys. What consumers want is based on projection--it cannot be measured with complete accuracy.
Few consumers actually choose to close a business down because they didn't buy something from it. And not every place shut down deserves it, in my view. Not every restaurant, for example, that gets shut down served lousy food. These are generally market forces choosing to do close things down, be they banks, governments, private investors, etc. There are, of course, boycotts in existence and people who lobby to close down certain businesses, but they are outside of your theory of pure buying power. The so-called capitalist countries and the state communist countries have one thing in common--force. I am not saying co-ops do not currently interact with currency and the overall global economy--that is merely unavoidable in most ways. And, as I've said, dollars are not very democratic. Democracy entails one-person-one-vote. Obviously, if one has more money he/she has more votes.
So who controls the economy? Producers, consumers, managers, banks, governments, etc.

Quote by: BobbyO So the reality is that the workers do not 'control" the coop; they simply must respond to what the consumers want. Nobody cares how a decision was made to produce "X" number of screwdrivers was made. All people care about is that a screwdriver is available for purchase when needed.

who controls the economy? Producers, consumers, managers, banks, governments, etc.
To say these factors are not all involved with relative equality contradicts reality.
I cannot motivate myself to believe consumers are the supreme voice when the decision itself is made mostly by bankers and private investors (or by NAFTA, the WTO, etc.)
The only way consumers and workers can make significant changes is by direct action.

Quote by: BobbyO The capitalist, like the co-op, must have certain signals, certain information, to determine what is going to be produced, in what quanity, at what price ect. That's what i mean by "information." These sources of capitalist information are things like prices, interest rates, and the like. You can disagree that these are best sources of information, and of course capitalists can and do misread them and make mistakes.

Saying that people absolutely need such information is like saying soldiers have to die. The only thing mandating anything is force of one type or another. People can actually operate on a loss, so long as people in banks or the government allow them to do so.
If you need to determine if this is really possible, ask yourself if people typically want to have their business liquidated and who ultimately will take action against the business. Have I ever joined with other consumers and went to a business and made them close because we simply haven't bought their product? I've never done that, and it's a highly unlikely (and obnoxious) scenario.
This is not to say people shouldn't do research, but that it is not an absolute requirement that people be punished for failing at something.

Quote by: BobbyO But a source of information is needed. Otherwhise production goes forth with no rhyme or reason. Production goes on a whim, somebody decides to build "X" number of screwdrivers for no aprticular reason (and perhaps it is not the right kind of screwdriver).

Production will always go forth, with or without rhyme and reason. Because rhyme and reason is subjective. People will sometimes fail, but I personally don't think we should make others fail, as I don't see why we should want others to do so for us.

Quote by: BobbyO What i have been saying, a I think Morgan as well, is that there needs to be an objective rational for production. capitalism has a rationale which capitalists follow. But the socialist community, in proposing to abolish capitalism, must abolish that rationale as well. But something must take its place. saying the co-ops is not that something, the co-ops must have a rationale for making the decisions they would make. So far, all you have suggested is that people will just take what they need, or will work together, which still doesn't answer the question (how will people work together via the co-ops?)

How will people work together? Look at the case studies and the stated principles:
http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/info/fra/case.html
http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/info/i_pages/prin.html
It's not especially hard to see how people would work together in them, as they are open to mass participation and interlinkage.
As for a rationale for making decisions, the question is no different for a co-op than it is for a more authoritative business. But it ultimately depends on the people involved, as it does anywhere else.

Quote by: BobbyO I understand the dillema. Socialists tend to abhor even speculating on the problem and, when pressed, usually would pretend it does not exist, or that nobody knows. But it does exist, and it has to be confronted.

You are exaggerating the dilemma. If people see a need for something they can join or start a co-op for that purpose. Now there is work involved, as any activity involves work, but, in my view, work should confront its own questions and not have challenges imposed upon it by abstract considerations driven by force (market forces).

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 If that is the only incentive for people to work, your society is doomed.

That is ALWAYS the incentive to work, T-MAN. The lack of creativity does lead to stagnation and problems in any society, regardless of my opinion on the matter.

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa What if people cannot find any other work, as can certainly be the case? Because people obviously have to meet very rigid, often irrational standards sometime sto be employed. Co-ops are intended to be much more open than the more hierarchical workplaces. In a co-op people can ponder why, if their jobs are harder, they get paid less. This kind of thinking will be seen as a thought crime under capitalist practices. H I don't think I've misunderstood. In just about any system, people will be living off productive people. I point this out, not as a philosopher or whatnot, but as an observer. Now, there are different systems we can have--ones where people are made to feel like machines and little more or ones where people have a greater voice. Assertion is not proof. The producers ultimately control production. Things can be produced that hardly anyone buys. What consumers want is based on projection--it cannot be measured with complete accuracy. Few consumers actually choose to close a business down because they didn't buy something from it. And not every place shut down deserves it, in my view. Not every restaurant, for example, that gets shut down served lousy food. These are generally market forces choosing to do close things down, be they banks, governments, private investors, etc. There are, of course, boycotts in existence and people who lobby to close down certain businesses, but they are outside of your theory of pure buying power. The so-called capitalist countries and the state communist countries have one thing in common--force. I am not saying co-ops do not currently interact with currency and the overall global economy--that is merely unavoidable in most ways. And, as I've said, dollars are not very democratic. Democracy entails one-person-one-vote. Obviously, if one has more money he/she has more votes. So who controls the economy? Producers, consumers, managers, banks, governments, etc. who controls the economy? Producers, consumers, managers, banks, governments, etc. To say these factors are not all involved with relative equality contradicts reality. I cannot motivate myself to believe consumers are the supreme voice when the decision itself is made mostly by bankers and private investors (or by NAFTA, the WTO, etc.) The only way consumers and workers can make significant changes is by direct action. Saying that people absolutely need such information is like saying soldiers have to die. The only thing mandating anything is force of one type or another. People can actually operate on a loss, so long as people in banks or the government allow them to do so. If you need to determine if this is really possible, ask yourself if people typically want to have their business liquidated and who ultimately will take action against the business. Have I ever joined with other consumers and went to a business and made them close because we simply haven't bought their product? I've never done that, and it's a highly unlikely (and obnoxious) scenario. This is not to say people shouldn't do research, but that it is not an absolute requirement that people be punished for failing at something. Production will always go forth, with or without rhyme and reason. Because rhyme and reason is subjective. People will sometimes fail, but I personally don't think we should make others fail, as I don't see why we should want others to do so for us. How will people work together? Look at the case studies and the stated principles: http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/info/fra/case.html http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/info/i_pages/prin.html It's not especially hard to see how people would work together in them, as they are open to mass participation and interlinkage. As for a rationale for making decisions, the question is no different for a co-op than it is for a more authoritative business. But it ultimately depends on the people involved, as it does anywhere else. You are exaggerating the dilemma. If people see a need for something they can join or start a co-op for that purpose. Now there is work involved, as any activity involves work, but, in my view, work should confront its own questions and not have challenges imposed upon it by abstract considerations driven by force (market forces). Grandpa h.

1. Unless a co-op will be required to have a 100% vote one way or the other, there are going to be people in co-ops who will lose in votes. Presumably, they can leave a find another co-op. But who says that will be so easy?

2. Its not a question of people living off productive people. Its a question of the best way of harnessing that productivity.

3. Things can certainly be produced that nobody buys. But in a capitalist economy, such wasteful production is penalised by the company losing money. What is penalising production of useless items in a co-op?
As far as choosing to close a company- you're right. I don't sit back and worry about the fate of businesses of which I have no interest in.I don't have time to. Sure, you wish them well. But what am i supposed to do about someone who produces or sells items of which I have no interest? Buy it anyways? commiserate? The only market forces which forces a business to close is lack of interest by people. If people do not want something, why on earth demand that they support it anyhow? Where is the logic and rationality in that?

4. People do not need information to make decisions? Is that what you are trying to say?
And sure, companies can operate at a loss if banks let them, but the bank is the institution which pays the piper, as well as society in general (the bank won't have the same resources to lend to a different company who might succeed).
And you right, I have not marched into a business of which i have no interest demanding it stay afloat. What sane person would be bothered researching that and wasting the time in doing so?

5. And the rationale for making economic decisions in your co-ops to the more "authoritarian" structures are absolutely different. Heck, this thread was originally about abolishing money. Abolish money, and the rationale and information needed in production decisions are drastically different. And still no proposals to replace it.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa The lack of creativity does lead to stagnation and problems in any society

So?

People don't give a damn about creativity or stagnation when they're sitting on their butts at home watching TV getting their welfare checks.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO 1. Unless a co-op will be required to have a 100% vote one way or the other, there are going to be people in co-ops who will lose in votes. Presumably, they can leave a find another co-op. But who says that will be so easy?

Or they can start another co-op.

Quote by: BobbyO 2. Its not a question of people living off productive people. Its a question of the best way of harnessing that productivity.

Which was my point.

Quote by: BobbyO 3. Things can certainly be produced that nobody buys. But in a capitalist economy, such wasteful production is penalised by the company losing money. What is penalising production of useless items in a co-op?

Actually, capitalism does not prevent wasteful production. People can and will produce things many peopel find useless, for better or worse.
Currently, co-ops do interact with these same market forces, but the point of a co-op is to maximize efforts against them and create something.

Quote by: BobbyO As far as choosing to close a company- you're right. I don't sit back and worry about the fate of businesses of which I have no interest in.I don't have time to. Sure, you wish them well. But what am i supposed to do about someone who produces or sells items of which I have no interest? Buy it anyways? commiserate? The only market forces which forces a business to close is lack of interest by people. If people do not want something, why on earth demand that they support it anyhow? Where is the logic and rationality in that?

A lack of money does not always translate into a lack of interest. Because I'm interested in a lot of things, but obviously cannot afford them all. The point is, failure should be naturally occuring--if there is total lack of interest, odds are people would stop producing it.
I have not suggested people should support something they do not need, just that we should offer no further punishment than non-participation.

Quote by: BobbyO 4. People do not need information to make decisions? Is that what you are trying to say?

Yes, that is true. It's not to ay that peopel shouldn't do some research into how to best do something, but that people can set about something without knowing much about how it will be received.

Quote by: BobbyO And sure, companies can operate at a loss if banks let them, but the bank is the institution which pays the piper, as well as society in general (the bank won't have the same resources to lend to a different company who might succeed).

Exactly.

Quote by: BobbyO And you right, I have not marched into a business of which i have no interest demanding it stay afloat. What sane person would be bothered researching that and wasting the time in doing so?

The instances of consumers affecting business actually have more to do with boycotts and protests. Otherwise it's simply a matter of disliking a product/service or not being able to afford it.

Quote by: BobbyO 5. And the rationale for making economic decisions in your co-ops to the more "authoritarian" structures are absolutely different. Heck, this thread was originally about abolishing money. Abolish money, and the rationale and information needed in production decisions are drastically different. And still no proposals to replace it.

My proposal is simple: If people want information, they can get the information. Research will likely never die. I propose people approach matters based on fact, not economic theory. Economic theory always lags behind fact. If people need something, they can set up a cooprative council and get involved in whatever they need. To do this, they can do research in any number of ways--surveys, voting, forums, previous research, etc.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 So? People don't give a damn about creativity or stagnation when they're sitting on their butts at home watching TV getting their welfare checks.

Which is a situation not created by co-ops. I know you are in love with the myth that every jobless person wants to sit around the house all day, but it's not true. Granted, some people are incredibly lazy when they are living in a soul-sucking world, but most people want to do something with their time. It is generally spoiled people who want to do nothing. Most people have goals they give up on because they feel hopeless to have them met, so they end up joining the stagnation surrounding them.

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa Actually, capitalism does not prevent wasteful production. People can and will produce things many peopel find useless, for better or worse. Currently, co-ops do interact with these same market forces, but the point of a co-op is to maximize efforts against them and create something. A lack of money does not always translate into a lack of interest. Because I'm interested in a lot of things, but obviously cannot afford them all. The point is, failure should be naturally occuring--if there is total lack of interest, odds are people would stop producing it. I have not suggested people should support something they do not need, just that we should offer no further punishment than non-participation. Yes, that is true. It's not to ay that peopel shouldn't do some research into how to best do something, but that people can set about something without knowing much about how it will be received. The instances of consumers affecting business actually have more to do with boycotts and protests. Otherwise it's simply a matter of disliking a product/service or not being able to afford it. My proposal is simple: If people want information, they can get the information. Research will likely never die. I propose people approach matters based on fact, not economic theory. Economic theory always lags behind fact. If people need something, they can set up a cooprative council and get involved in whatever they need. To do this, they can do research in any number of ways--surveys, voting, forums, previous research, etc. Grandpa h.

1. No. capitalism does not end wasteful production. It makes it less likely though, and less long term.

2. Yes. If nobody is interested in a particular product, then people stop producing. What i have asked you is what is the motivation for stopping production in your community? You have already said lack of money should not be it (which means producers producing needed items are supporting producers producing uneeded items. Which can only harm the latter, and can't be seen as beneficial). Is it just plain boredom?

3. Yes, people can certainly gamble. But who should pay the piper should the gamble fail? You would say not the person, but somebody has to. Because the time, effort and resources being sunk into a failed enterprise could have sunk into a productive enterprise. It does not do society any good if people are doing work nobody wants done, and using resources that could best be used elsewhere.

4. If people do not use the service of a business, then it will fail. This has nothing to do whether the refusal was deliberate in the form of a boycott, or simply because the work was not satisfactory.

5. People can get information, sure. BUT WHAT IS THAT INFORMATION? WHAT IS IT THAT THEY ARE SEARCHING FOR? It cannot be past research (that is capitalist research, using capitalist parameters, which are off limits). How much time and effort will be needed to send out surveys to all people to ask the question "Should a scredriver co-op be formed?" Again, who really cares? As long as there are screwdrivers available for the consumer when he or she needs one. How do people know this is what they need? In order to make a decision, one needs sources of information. You say, read magazines. But those magazines also have to have a source of information they are using. And of what value is a magazine which says "Just do it."

But we have gone over this before, and your solution is that people really don't need to know anything. And look how absurd it is: You have spent a great deal of time thinking, and your conclusion is that people are no better off, and in fact would be better off, if they knew nothing.