Score one for the Anarchists

[Mycroft]

On what basis do you assume it would?

I don't. It would be an experiment.

It would also be a measure of the collective generosity of society as a whole. Are we, as a people, generous enough to meet the needs of those who can't provide for their own needs plus the greed of those who want to take without contributing? If the answer is yes, then this supermarket succeeds. If not, it will fail.

I think the existence of such a supermarket would have the effect of making people think about their connection to society as a whole, what kind of society we want to have, and what role we as individuals want to play in order to contribute to making that happen. I would hope that such consideration would lead people to contribute more and to be more aware of people in need.

If you were a shopper at this market, what would you do?

My pet system? You're the one who just made it up.

Because they would be human beings with needs, wants and interests that wouldn't be satisfied by the contents of just one supermarket. Clothing, housing, entertainment and so on.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[caveman1917]

Because there's no longer a reason to produce goods.

 

[caveman1917]

If you were a shopper at this market, what would you do?

I wouldn't pay.

Because they would be human beings with needs, wants and interests that wouldn't be satisfied by the contents of just one supermarket. Clothing, housing, entertainment and so on.

One supermarket does not constitute a socio-economic system.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

A tad late returning to thread, but... To restate, I previously observed that deficiencies in current governance cannot be fairly compared to abstract ideals, rather, to comparative results in some other system. The question then was/is:

So, status quo? No advocacy of change based on some preferred model?

Neither of these follow.

Or, what changes to current political and economic systems would you suggest?

Abolishing both?

My question is: Is there any form of governance, or a complete absence thereof, that you do advocate? Ditto for any arrangement/non-arrangements for a working economy.

 

[Mycroft]

I wouldn't pay.

Why?

Is it because you lack the ability? Is it greed? Or some other reasons?

One supermarket does not constitute a socio-economic system.

That's true. That's why previously I pointed out that just allowing people to take what they want results in the supermarket closing. It's not just a supermarket, it's the endpoint of many supply chains that involve countless unseen people.

At the same time, if it works and is sustainable, it can be repeated becoming more than just one supermarket. If successful, it could encourage similar social endeavors.

 

[caveman1917]

Why?

Is it because you lack the ability? Is it greed? Or some other reasons?

Because I see no need to.

That's why previously I pointed out that just allowing people to take what they want results in the supermarket closing.

Why would it result in that?

At the same time, if it works and is sustainable, it can be repeated becoming more than just one supermarket.

What if it can't "work" (define "work") because it is just one supermarket?

If successful, it could encourage similar social endeavors.

Define "successful".

 

[caveman1917]

My question is: Is there any form of governance, or a complete absence thereof, that you do advocate? Ditto for any arrangement/non-arrangements for a working economy.

Not in particular. You're always free to make an argument for whatever pet system you promote though.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Not in particular. You're always free to make an argument for whatever pet system you promote though.

I see, I see, my clever old chum. I toss the ball, you get to whack it. Just the game I was going to play... I mean... er....


Never, ever trust mathematicians. Always, always do a number on you.

 

[Mycroft]

Because I see no need to.

You don't see a value in the continuation of the supermarket? Why is that?

Why would it result in that?

That's already been discussed previously in this thread. If you don't remember, consider re-reading the thread, then seeing a doctor regarding memory issues.

What if it can't "work" (define "work") because it is just one supermarket?

Could you elaborate?

Define "successful".

That it continues to function, receiving enough income to meet its expenses.

 

[caveman1917]

You don't see a value in the continuation of the supermarket? Why is that?

I see value in the continued distribution of goods to people who need them, yes. But then, I didn't even pay for that jar of Greek olives last time, before you made these changes to your supermarket, so why should I pay for them now?

That's already been discussed previously in this thread.

It's been asserted previously, that's for sure. You're free to actually argue the case at some point.

Could you elaborate?

As an example, for-profit supermarkets would have better access to capital and advertising, and thereby be in a better position to grab market share.

That it continues to function, receiving enough income to meet its expenses.

No, that's not what "successful" means in this system of yours, successful means profitable (rather risk-adjusted profit but let's disregard that) - that's what ultimately determines the flow of capital under capitalism. Your experiment is basically set up to fail.

 

[caveman1917]

I see, I see, my clever old chum. I toss the ball, you get to whack it. Just the game I was going to play... I mean... er....

More importantly, before you toss the ball you should sufficiently whack it yourself.

Never, ever trust mathematicians. Always, always do a number on you.

I'm not a mathematician. Either way, you seem to mostly be doing the number on yourself.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

More importantly, before you toss the ball you should sufficiently whack it yourself.

I'm not a mathematician. Either way, you seem to mostly be doing the number on yourself.

I've been nice. Too nice. In fact, I was doing you a favor by consistently showing you respect you did not earn and do not deserve. Not anymore. You just lost a friend. Bye-skis!

Why not fess up to not having a darn thing to contribute? You have nothing but cheap shots, and your only apparent plan is to groove on the rubble after tearing everything down. When I see substance, I'll respond, but these constant air balls will get no further respect.

 

[caveman1917]

I've been nice. Too nice. In fact, I was doing you a favor by consistently showing you respect you did not earn and do not deserve. Not anymore. You just lost a friend. Bye-skis!

What makes you think you were doing me a favour? I never asked you to be nice or show me respect, and I care for neither. In fact, you'd do me a favour if you'd simply stick to the following format in discussions:

1. Conclusion.
2. Premises.
3. Argument from premises to conclusion.

Why not fess up to not having a darn thing to contribute?

Well the OP contributed 1 point to the score and my first post was contributing over a million, defintely more than "not a darn thing", especially relatively speaking.

You have nothing but cheap shots, and your only apparent plan is to groove on the rubble after tearing everything down.

What's your plan? Besides, what's wrong with grooving on the rubble?

When I see substance, I'll respond, but these constant air balls will get no further respect.

If you consider them air balls then you should not respond indeed.

 

[Mycroft]

I see value in the continued distribution of goods to people who need them, yes. But then, I didn't even pay for that jar of Greek olives last time, before you made these changes to your supermarket, so why should I pay for them now?

You answered your own question. That you imagine you previously stole some olives in a different scenario doesn't change the value of maintaining the supermarket for it's utility.

Other motivations might include a desire to contribute one's fair share and to support those who can't.

It's been asserted previously, that's for sure. You're free to actually argue the case at some point.

Already been done. If you don't remember (and I would still encourage you to see a doctor about memory) it had to do with the supermarket being unable to resupply because it's supply lines require money. Feel free to address that, or not.

As an example, for-profit supermarkets would have better access to capital and advertising, and thereby be in a better position to grab market share.

Meh, business start-ups face obstacles like that all the time. It may be a problem but it's not a deal-breaker.

No, that's not what "successful" means in this system of yours, successful means profitable (rather risk-adjusted profit but let's disregard that) - that's what ultimately determines the flow of capital under capitalism.

Lol! You ask me for my definition of success and then tell me it's wrong when I give it to you!

My definition is as I've stated it. That it continues to function, receiving enough income to meet its expenses. Does this supermarket really sound like a capitalist endeavor to you?

Your experiment is basically set up to fail.

Maybe so, but you haven't said why yet.

 

[caveman1917]

Already been done. If you don't remember (and I would still encourage you to see a doctor about memory) it had to do with the supermarket being unable to resupply because it's supply lines require money. Feel free to address that, or not.

If goods are free to be taken in distribution facilities, then why would supermarkets require money to resupply themselves? Consistency isn't your strong suit, is it?

Lol! You ask me for my definition of success and then tell me it's wrong when I give it to you!

Yes.

My definition is as I've stated it. That it continues to function, receiving enough income to meet its expenses. Does this supermarket really sound like a capitalist endeavor to you?

No it doesn't, hence why it will fail to its competition in a capitalist context.

Maybe so, but you haven't said why yet.

I've said so twice now. It follows from capital flow being determined by (risk-adjusted) profit under capitalism.

 

[Mycroft]

If goods are free to be taken in distribution facilities, then why would supermarkets require money to resupply themselves?

You made up the scenario. You claimed it was the "staus quo" that I defended by default.

Does the "status quo" include distribution centers that deliver goods without money being expected in return? If so, where are these distribution centers?

Consistency isn't your strong suit, is it?

I'm not the one who is struggling with consistency.

No it doesn't, hence why it will fail to its competition in a capitalist context.

Which is why "success" is defined as continuing to operate and not winning a competition with established supermarket chains. Lot's of co-ops exist on this model, and they get along just fine.

Here is a co-op that's existed since the 50's despite capitalist competition:

http://www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/about/whatisacoop.html

And here is a list of hundreds more:

http://www.coopdirectory.org/directory.htm

 

[caveman1917]

You made up the scenario.

No you did. So your proposed system constitutes one distribution facility where goods are free (or with voluntary donations) with all the others still operating as they do now?

You claimed it was the "staus quo" that I defended by default.

You are. Your proposed system differs only in a single facility from the status quo.

Lot's of co-ops exist on this model, and they get along just fine.

Here is a co-op that's existed since the 50's despite capitalist competition:

http://www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/about/whatisacoop.html

And here is a list of hundreds more:

http://www.coopdirectory.org/directory.htm

These don't seem to be donation-based, they're just standard supermarkets where the shoppers are the shareholders. And I know things like free shops exist and get along fine, this in no way negates my argument.

 

[Mycroft]

No you did.

I disagree, but in the interest of moving forward instead of threading back and proving it, I'll just ask you if your scenario assumed a distribution center that would resupply the supermarket for free?

If not, I'll ask why you would assume that, because it was never a part of my scenario?

So your proposed system constitutes one distribution facility where goods are free (or with voluntary donations) with all the others still operating as they do now?

I didn't specify. Do you think it matters? If so, why?

These don't seem to be donation-based, they're just standard supermarkets where the shoppers are the shareholders. And I know things like free shops exist and get along fine, this in no way negates my argument.

They are examples of markets that exist on a non-profit business model and do so despite being in competition with capitalist for-profit supermarkets.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk