5 ms·

>If it's not that way, it soon will get worse. An optimal amount of suffering lies on a ray between tyrannical order, and unbounded chaos. Excess order drives c

by ue_ 10y ago

>If it's not that way, it soon will get worse. An optimal amount of suffering lies on a ray between tyrannical order, and unbounded chaos. Excess order drives chaos. Excess chaos creates unbearable suffering, which drives order. Please excuse me, but are you trying to be obscurantist and vague with this? I just don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Why must we have suffering at all, when it can be avoided? Why must there be exploitation? I'm talking in concrete cases here - people are being exploited for their labour. There is no "golden middle" for suffering. The idea that there must be, or that a middle solution is best, is a logical fallacy. >They want theirs back too! Who does? The capitalists? I'm not taking their life; rather, I am selling my labour-time as a worker to them, in order to survive, reproduce, and replenish the worker force. I start with the fundamental idea: nobody should have to sell their time to someone else in order to survive for themselves.

microcolonel 10y ago
> Who does? The capitalists? It sounds like you've set yourself up in a dichotomy between yourself and "the capitalists", if you keep this up, you'll be constantly baffled. The slave, by definition, is being denied alternatives by the master. If there were a master which had better housing, and less violent staff, the slave can not apply for that job. You, on the other hand, have the choice between serving your employer, serving other members of society, serving a master as a voluntary slave, or foraging in the wilderness. You are free, but that doesn't mean the world itself is pleasant to anyone. Your employer works for somebody too. > I'm not taking their life They aren't taking yours either. But if you give your effort to them, they can help save you from suffering the world on your own. I doubt you would prefer to live alone in a prairie, forest, or bog. I doubt you could survive even a week in such conditions. Furthermore, what would it be worth to live alone in the prairie, forest, or bog? Nothing you discover, say, or think will ever mean anything if you refuse to serve others.
- danbruc 10y ago
  You, on the other hand, have the choice between serving your employer, serving other members of society, serving a master as a voluntary slave, or foraging in the wilderness. Theoretically yes, but in practice you might quickly end up against all kinds of constraints, especially if you got a bad start. But if you give your effort to them, they can help save you from suffering the world on your own. This of course works both ways, the workers are saving the capitalist from suffering by giving them shares of the goods they produce. There is no reason the capitalist should profit from this arrangement more than the workers.
  - microcolonel 10y ago
    If the capitalist does not offer compensation at a profit, then there is no reason for the capital. If you take it by force, he no longer has any reason to operate it. Why should the capitalist suffer for free, and the worker destroy the capitalist's work for no gain?
    - danbruc 10y ago
      I am probably misunderstanding what you want to say, but I never said that the capitalist should not be compensated for his work or the workers should destroy any work.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      >If the capitalist does not offer compensation at a profit, then there is no reason for the capital. Altruism is a reason. There's no reason founded on greed; and the rich person would then need to provide productive labour.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >It sounds like you've set yourself up in a dichotomy between yourself and "the capitalists" It is between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. This turns out to be quite a useful distinction, applicable in most cases, to the current mode of production. >You, on the other hand, have the choice between serving your employer, serving other members of society, serving a master as a voluntary slave, or foraging in the wilderness. I disagree with this. Generally the options for most workers is that they must serve an employer. These employers are by definition capitalists. Most people don't have enough capital or are unable to amass enough capital to become capitalists themselves, and usually even then cannot out-compete large businesses with many more employees and advanced automation. Foraging in the wilderness is quite a sad state to be in, especially when the alternative is selling your labour time for wages. With the amount of capital able to serve humanity, it is quite a shame that the solution is to forage in the wilderness rather than have it available for all. On top of this, most of the wilderness is private property or people have, thanks to the State, limited rights to do as they please on that land. Bear in mind that a lot of people don't even have that choice. Sweatshop workers are an example. >Your employer works for somebody too. What labour does the employer apply? Where is it applied? And how many hours? Does it justify the amount he is paid, if wages are in proportion to labour? To resign ourselves to individual hunting-gathering as an alternative to wage slavery is, as I'm sure you would agree, a poor way of living when so much more could be accomplished.

by ue_ 10y ago

microcolonel 10y ago

> Who does? The capitalists? It sounds like you've set yourself up in a dichotomy between yourself and "the capitalists", if you keep this up, you'll be constantly baffled. The slave, by definition, is being denied alternatives by the master. If there were a master which had better housing, and less violent staff, the slave can not apply for that job. You, on the other hand, have the choice between serving your employer, serving other members of society, serving a master as a voluntary slave, or foraging in the wilderness. You are free, but that doesn't mean the world itself is pleasant to anyone. Your employer works for somebody too. > I'm not taking their life They aren't taking yours either. But if you give your effort to them, they can help save you from suffering the world on your own. I doubt you would prefer to live alone in a prairie, forest, or bog. I doubt you could survive even a week in such conditions. Furthermore, what would it be worth to live alone in the prairie, forest, or bog? Nothing you discover, say, or think will ever mean anything if you refuse to serve others.

danbruc 10y ago
You, on the other hand, have the choice between serving your employer, serving other members of society, serving a master as a voluntary slave, or foraging in the wilderness. Theoretically yes, but in practice you might quickly end up against all kinds of constraints, especially if you got a bad start. But if you give your effort to them, they can help save you from suffering the world on your own. This of course works both ways, the workers are saving the capitalist from suffering by giving them shares of the goods they produce. There is no reason the capitalist should profit from this arrangement more than the workers.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  If the capitalist does not offer compensation at a profit, then there is no reason for the capital. If you take it by force, he no longer has any reason to operate it. Why should the capitalist suffer for free, and the worker destroy the capitalist's work for no gain?
  - danbruc 10y ago
    I am probably misunderstanding what you want to say, but I never said that the capitalist should not be compensated for his work or the workers should destroy any work.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >If the capitalist does not offer compensation at a profit, then there is no reason for the capital. Altruism is a reason. There's no reason founded on greed; and the rich person would then need to provide productive labour.
ue_ 10y ago
>It sounds like you've set yourself up in a dichotomy between yourself and "the capitalists" It is between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. This turns out to be quite a useful distinction, applicable in most cases, to the current mode of production. >You, on the other hand, have the choice between serving your employer, serving other members of society, serving a master as a voluntary slave, or foraging in the wilderness. I disagree with this. Generally the options for most workers is that they must serve an employer. These employers are by definition capitalists. Most people don't have enough capital or are unable to amass enough capital to become capitalists themselves, and usually even then cannot out-compete large businesses with many more employees and advanced automation. Foraging in the wilderness is quite a sad state to be in, especially when the alternative is selling your labour time for wages. With the amount of capital able to serve humanity, it is quite a shame that the solution is to forage in the wilderness rather than have it available for all. On top of this, most of the wilderness is private property or people have, thanks to the State, limited rights to do as they please on that land. Bear in mind that a lot of people don't even have that choice. Sweatshop workers are an example. >Your employer works for somebody too. What labour does the employer apply? Where is it applied? And how many hours? Does it justify the amount he is paid, if wages are in proportion to labour? To resign ourselves to individual hunting-gathering as an alternative to wage slavery is, as I'm sure you would agree, a poor way of living when so much more could be accomplished.