WARNING!!!

Anyone reading this blog is an:
 
Israel hating
America hating
Troop hating
Britain hating
AWL baiting
Anti-Semitic TROT!!

Who's the Crook?

or, why socialism/anti-capitalism?

You're a pensioner, for example, and you've just been conned into giving away £2500 of your savings.

Or, you've just been fired from your job through no fault of your own.

Now, who's the crook?

Legally, in the first instance, the fraudster/conman is to blame and faces criminal proceedings. Morally, at least as far as society is concerned, the pensioner is blameless. But, they are not at risk of being in poverty.
While..
The person who has just been fired has somehow suddenly been laden with debt to several banks and a landlord and could face homelessness.

But, legally his/her former boss is not criminally responsible while, morally, some in society would say it is solely the responsible of the unemployed to find and keep paid work.
Except.
By this argument, is it perhaps the pensioner's fault partly that they lost their money? If they saved their money instead of spending it then they obviously didn't need it or, perhaps, they had more money than sense and it was just natural that it was taken from them. Also, if they weren't using it, was the money really stolen?

Now, who's the crook?
If the fraudster was the recently fired individual society says he/she is. But if the money stolen wasn't £2500, it was well over £700 million* and the fraudster was Sir Phillip Green, the morality of capitalism says he is an entrepreneur not a crook and no-one is calling for him to face prison.
But.
What if the defrauder of £2500 was just told to give the money back? There would be a moral outrage if the "offender" is not sent to prison.

Perhaps a more apt comparison is between Sir Phillip Green and Ronny Biggs. The money stolen amounted to £25 million in the infamous train robbery (check facts) and yes force was used but the amount is still a pittance compared to the plundering of BHS by Sir Phillip Green and he will never face prison.

*cost of the pension funds/amount owed in order to maintain

Trekonomics

The Economics of Star Trek, part two

I want to expand on my last post about how a post-capitalist society can still have private property, with particular respect to "Trekonomics". I talked about how citizens can have social housing or live in inherited mansions, well I would have implied that and now I repeat the assertion.
For example, one could own or perhaps rent a plot of land which one would build a house on.
One could apply for a house to be constructed to their desires free of charge but there would be a wait based on available labour and/or materials. However, the wait could be reduced by spending one's savings in labour notes.
If, on the other hand, one is effectively a homeless citizen an empty plot of land or empty property could be allocated. One could live there for as long as one desires but there would be no property rights over the land. It cannot be rented or sold.

An alternative to the labour notes system could be a lifetimes' ration of replicator credits. This doesn't contradict the previous system and the two can exist in tandem, but is more likely to cover all Federation planets. Simply put, when one is born one is allocated a lifetime's use of public replicators for basics like food, medicine and clothing. These can be earned or traded for limited goods such as antiques or real estate in the same way as money and perhaps exchanged to currencies such as latinum.

The credits and notes system can be run together, but with labour notes dominating on Earth and replicator credits dominating when a citizen goes off-world. For example they could use their credit ration to book transport off-world and exchange it for latinum if travelling outside the United Federation of Planets.
An Earth landlord could be allowed to rent property to non-family members with the renter not actually handing over credits or latinum. Instead, the landlord would receive further labour notes from the central government. Plus, lets say a citizen would still receive an allocation of replicator credits at birth.
These could be saved or used at any time but any extra rations would only apply to that week (for example) and could not be saved or carried over to the next week. Every Federation citizen would receive a weekly dole or ration of credits until they die. These credits would not be transferred to family members as an inheritance but certain Federation officials and (commissioned) officers in Starfleet would be allowed to keep their surplus rations in lieu of labour notes. A similar arrangement could be made for scientific researchers and other academics.

University students, Starfleet recruits and officer cadets would receive labour notes during study or training periods and extra weekly rations for clothing, equipment, uniforms etcetera. Enlisted personnel and civilian advisors working for Starfleet would receive labour notes for every hour of their shift plus non-commissioned officers and private landlords would be allowed to keep a percentage of their credit ration on top of received labour notes.

Notes:
1. Gold is almost worthless in the Star Trek universe, even though it cannot apparently be replicated, but it can be used to contain a valuable liquid called "latinum". Hence, "gold-pressed latinum". 
2. I have the comments made by Quark regarding the value of gold and the actor Max Grodenczeck (sic), who plays Quark's brother Rom, that gold cannot be replicated as sources for this.
3. Replicators seemingly create objects out of thin air by converting matter from one location into energy and rearranging its structure on its appearance in another.
4. Starfleet is organised in the same way as a modern Earth navy, specifically that of the United States, although is ostensibly a non-military civilian organisation.

Anarchy or Liberty, part three. Or, Why I am not a Leftist?

Hello again. I feel like I'm on a roll with this one.

Been starting to realise just how right-wing libertarianism is. Perhaps I should say "economic authoritarianism" to refer to it or Objectivism, assuming the two are the same. The opposite ought to be a form of "cooperativism", perhaps socialism is a misleading term. The left-right divide can be replaced by individualism and cooperativism on the one hand and political and economic authoritarianism on the other.

It is right to use these terms when one extreme opposes any form of non-state or independent cooperation (Objectivism), political parties/activism and the forming of trade unions while the other end can encompass most forms of socialism and forms of political activity, including anarcho-syndicalism and "Lifestylism". I'm not quite sure where to put Fascism on a purely left-right scale so political authoritarianism definitely fits-Objectivists oppose any political activity, putting any other philosophy and ideology to its Left.

Of course, if one disagrees fundamentally with freedom of association then one really ought to oppose all prisons, assuming society doesn't have the right to choose who it associates with. Think about it.

Yes, anyone reading my blog will tell I have an obsession with prisons and criticising a crazed obscure "rightist" ideology.
And I do.
The reason for this is twofold and connected: the right-wing media in the United Kingdom and how often people on the traditional "left" and "right" ends of the political spectrum use the same arguments to support different positions .
I often find myself reading between the lines and it is very clear to me that the poisonous, insidious half-philosophy known as "Objectivism" or libertarianism is a present influence in the editorial content specifically of the Times newspaper, the modern Conservative party and the online magazine "Spiked Online". The latter is generally quite obscure but is often quoted by the BBC, RT, The Times and the Daily Mail.
Even though they support legalising all forms of pornography, including examples of which are too obscene to describe and involve no reasonable measure of consent.
This is not exaggeration, Spiked are fanatically committed to the most extreme forms of free speech while opposing any and all forms of political activism ("Activism equals Anarchy", to quote their God Ayn Rand). Finding objective information on Spiked is difficult, but they actually grew out of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain. Presumably they decided capitalism will only be overthrown after it has reached its worst excesses and so have to argue fervently for any conservative cause while keeping to a libertarian agenda.
The newspapers mentioned are typical of right-wing newspapers in the United Kingdom, which are highly critical of campaigns on behalf of the Palestinians for example. All journals seem to harbour particular ire towards the campaigns in favour of organising economic and academic boycotts of Israel in order to pressure and isolate their government. Which to The Times is basically against free trade, although surely people have a choice of who and where to by goods from and who they associate or do not with?
This is where contradictions are raised, or ought to be.
I can just about forgive the Hate Mail when it criticises capitalism on moral grounds. This is a very sound argument in fact, as is opposition to capitalism on environmental grounds.
The issue of association and choice is fundamental to the issue of establishing or not trade unions and prisons, I shouldn't make that point further? However I would clarify that a very big problem with prisons is how they are organised and the insatiable reliance on them when there is no clear empirical evidence that they actually reform criminals and deter crime. I think, without contradicting myself, prison is one of those problems that are not easily solved and that there is no clear answer to the situation.
But it is obscenely hypocritical concerning the existence of the state: being that if the state is defined by the legal use of violence that effectively means that murder, in a very real sense, is legal. As is theft or extortion as the state is effectively a huge self-sustaining protection racket. It is important considering the above points to consider this when mainstream conservative and Conservative commentators criticise Social Anarchists for not agreeing with their concept of a minimal state. But: short argument-who builds and maintains the roads? Private individuals could not afford to. Towns and villages could be linked by private railways but many would be unprofitable and the owners would go bankrupt.
So, what happens if the government can tax people, but people can't form trade unions or political parties? Also, no-one is responsible for roads, hospitals and schools because these should all be privately run. And there'd be no prisons because practically everything would be legal.
Like infanticide.
In other words, why listen to the arguments of morons?

Another dickhead is Friedrich Hayek. Thatcher was a massive fan (no surprise there) due to his book "The Road To Serfdom" (not read at present but do I need to?) which basically argues that welfare systems are wrong and interfere with individual freedom because there is no fool proof way of objectively determining how much money an individual would need to live off or proving if they have other sources of income. But how can one decide, similarly, if a criminal is guilty or even, say philosophically, if a crime has even been committed, so the argument goes round in circles? All it proves really is that the arguments against communism or socialism used by Hayek, Rand and Thatcher are the same for opposing any kind of centralised coordinating authority one could think of.
Besides, a welfare state is not the same as socialism.
Also, surely any idiot could give a reasonable guess on how much an individual's living costs would be? Say, by estimating or working out by statistical means the total cost of a loaf of bread, two bus tickets and a pint of milk then multiplying that amount by seven to give a low but reasonable cost of living. Money or vouchers or credit could also be supplied to cover the cost of clothes, heating and rent over a certain period. Welfare costs hardly make up a large amount of government spending and most forms like pensions and child support are provided to people who do or used to work. Welfare is not paying people not to work and abolishing unemployment benefits while maintaining a prison system is effectively rewarding criminal behaviour as desperate individuals would be forced to commit crimes simply in order to receive healthcare or a roof over their head.

Other forms of anarchy face the same arguments against them as well as hostility from other Leftists.
Anarcho-primitivism and green anarchy support a return to a pastoral or even hunter-gather society. In so many obvious ways this is evidently backward and counterproductive but does hit a chord with conservative arguments, especially conservatives critical of relentless progress at a Human cost. It also supports a non-hierarchical alternative to industrial capitalism while consistently keeping to the traditional arguments against socialism. In terms of bringing it about, many Primitivists consider it inevitable considering recent historical developments, the suicidal reluctance of governments and corporations to work towards a sustainable future for Humanity (a heinous crime of non-action in itself) and the obvious absence of "The Revolution", alongside the perpetual bickering, splintering and infighting that plagues left-wing organisations.

Agorism is sometimes called "anarcho-capitalism" even though "anarcho-capitalism" is non-anarchic and Agorism is not exactly capitalism in the traditional sense. However, like Mutualism (another branch of political anarchism) it defines what Objectivists confuse capitalism to be, being straight-forward equal trade between consenting, rational individuals. Do I need to explain why this isn't really capitalism?

Lifestylism is pretty self-explanatory in itself, based on the belief that the life choices of individuals can bring about real social change. This, perhaps again, is (probably) what people often limit or confuse anarchism with. Murray Bookchin, among many others, was a critic.
But what is the alternative? "Getting a Job like a Good Communist"? Isn't this Lifestylism? Or is it just surrendering one's autonomy to the state or an employer who lives off your labour. Another subject that just goes round and round and never gets satisfactorily resolved.