doomcanoe

Oh Jiminy Christmas, you really are dense.

I literally acknowledged in my first comment that payment in the form of capital is a perfectly fine incentive under the current system. So no, those quotes don’t “refute my point.” And nowhere in that thread did anyone refute my actual point.

So my point, that capital isn’t essential to creation, still stands. You even admitted as much to other commenters when you said:

It’s (capital) not the only way things can ever get done under any circumstances.

So yes, exactly. Thank you for proving my argument for me.

And yes, if you wanted to refute me, you’d have to prove money is the only way something gets created. Otherwise, it’s not essential. Basic logic.

Did you have to refute it? Nope, I sure as hell didn’t say you did. You could’ve let it stand, ignored it, or even agreed. Instead, you went with:

Anyway, you haven’t made any points that stand here.

Followed by:

Your refutation is there in black and white, and not just from me.

So which is it? Did you actually refute me, or are you just bluffing because you’ve got nothing?

And nice try with the strawman, but I never said capital can be “removed with no effect.” I said it can be removed while still being possible to get the same outcome. We would obviously have to change how we managed the distribution of goods, and decide if there even was an incentive to continue creating the specific “thing”. (And if I can’t correct your misusage of “irony”, you sure as hell don’t get to tell me what I meant. None of this “rules for thee, not for me” BS you’re trying to pull.)

I have even repeatedly clarified as much when you asked if it could be removed with “no result”:

Not quite “no result.” But money is the only part of the current process to create a phone that can be removed and still have the same phone…
Would we have built the exact same device without capital based economy up until now? Obviously not. But if money vanished tomorrow in a post-scarcity world, would we suddenly be incapable of making the same phone? Again, obviously not.

At this point, it’s clear, you’re not debating, you’re just nursing a chip on your shoulder and lashing out at anyone who questions your golden cow.

Have a good one. (<-That was ironic)

Alright, then show me the proof. Quote the line where you, or anyone, demonstrated that money is an essential element for something to be created. Just one example where a sufficently motivated person or group in a moneyless society couldn’t create something without money.

Because it’s not a phone, and it’s not a canal. So what exactly have I missed where money itself is the magic ingredient? How many dollar bills does it take to make a meal? Not to pay someone for it. Literally, how many do you have to chew and swallow to survive?

edit: oh, and to anwswer your edit that I missed,

So you never said it (money) doesn’t do anything. Just that it can be removed from the picture with no result. (?!)

Not quite “no result”. But money is the only part of the current process to create a phone that can be removed and still have the same phone. Given the same manufacturing process, the same components, and the same labor, with an entierly different incentive system, you would get the same phone.

Does that mean we would have built the same device? Obviously not, the incentive system had an impact, for better or worse, on the decisions made to make the phone the way it is. But if we went post scarcity tomorrow, and money was abolished, would we sudddnly be unable to make the same phone?

You are free to use words incorrectly if you so choose.

And seeing as you were unable to refute the point that “money is not an essential element to the creation process”, I would say the point does indeed stand. But perhaps your usage of “point that stands” is just another example of your “alternate vocabulary”.

Eitherway, have a good one.

I can’t tell if you’re trolling, arguing in bad faith, or just not reading carefully.

I never said I “hate the guy with the capital,” nor did I claim money “doesn’t do anything.” Its role in organizing labor and distributing resources is obvious.

What I said is that money isn’t essential. In your canal example, what’s actually required are laborers, food, and tools. Incentives can be monetary, collective need, shared access to resources, the sheer fun of it, or even coercion (though that last one is obviously undesirable).

The point stands: a canal, or a phone, can be built through many incentive systems that don’t rely on capital. What other element can be removed before the outcome is no longer the same?

p.s. You were not being ironic. You were being hyperbolic.

Sure, but like I alread said, money isn’t inherently bad. It has served as a practical answer to the inefficiencies of pure barter. It streamlined exchange, reduced friction, and in many cases distributed power more evenly than a sprawling barter web ever could. In that sense, money was a clever and fair solution for its time.

But whether or not money has created new problems, whether it’s outlived its usefulness, or whether a better system would come from reform or replacement, all of that is a separate debate. The central point remains: money is not essential to creation.

Building a phone requires knowledge, resources, labor, and coordination. Remove any of those and the phone can’t exist. Remove money, and the process still goes on, it may look different in how people access or exchange those inputs, but the act of creation itself doesn’t depend on capital. That’s the key distinction: the difference between a finished phone and someone tinkering with sticks isn’t money, it’s the tangible elements of production.

Oh, hello again, mind keeping your responses to my comments under one thread? It’s inconvenient to jump around like this.

So the workers will work unpaid?

Obviously, in a capitalist system, a worker without the means to cover their needs won’t work without pay. But that only shows that pay is a mechanism of this system, not the goal itself. If another economic structure were in place, people would act according to the incentives and access points that system provided to meet their needs and wants.

We can already see this in practice today: retirees, hobbyists, and people with spare time often volunteer, create, or collaborate in groups for reasons that have nothing to do with money. Their motivation comes from purpose, community, or fulfillment. Proof that creation does not require capital to exist, only a framework that connects effort with meeting human needs.

That’s quite a leap. The wealthy aren’t some separate species with different desires, they want the same fundamental things as everyone else. I never implied anything about “the rich”, and regardless my point isn’t about them. It’s that capital itself is non-essential.

Yes, there’s a bigger discussion to be had about human nature, whether people create out of an inherent drive or simply to secure comfort, and how different incentive systems shape that. But none of those discussions lead to the conclusion that a capital-based economy is the only system in which people would create.

I’m not saying that capital, as a universal equivalent or barter substitute, is inherently a bad solution to the problem of trade. What I am saying is that capital is not inherently essential. It’s an imagined system, useful yes, but replaceable in countless ways.

Think about it: Sure, I wouldn’t want more washers than I have use for, but I don’t inherently want money either. What I want are the things money represents. If money disappeared tomorrow and some other proxy system took its place, I’d want that instead.

And when it comes to creation, say building a phone for example, money contributes nothing to the actual process. You need materials, knowledge, labor, and coordination. The only truly non-essential element is money. It’s as you said, simply a replacement for bartering.

If you disagree with my actual point, I’d love to hear the argument. But I can’t keep arguing with your point that we “need the Matrix in order to live in the Matrix”, or “money in order to live in capitalism”.

You:

People want to be paid for their labor

Me:

capital does “play a role”, at least insofar as incentive predicated on people’s ability to function in the capitalistic society we currently inhabit goes

How awkward, you must have missed me making that exact point…

So sure, people want to be paid. But let’s be clear: they don’t inherently want money, they want to survive, create, and ideally thrive in the society they inhabit. Capital is just the tool we happen to use right now, it’s not essential to the concept of creation.

People created long before money existed, and they still create today without a paycheck attached. Remove capital from the picture, and as long as the work has value to those involved, it still gets made.

The real kicker? Capital often corrupts the process, pushing people to maximize profit instead of maximizing quality or true value.

The only thing you can remove from the process and still get the same result is capital…

And while I get that capital does “play a role”, at least insofar as incentive predicated on people’s ability to function in the capitalistic society we currently inhabit goes, to imply that somehow without it people would be left to trying to “design a phone out of sticks on the ground” is extremely disingenuous.

Fair enough. I was frustrated by blargh’s “Edit/Note To Self”, as it came across as very dismissive and demeaning to the responders who attempted to engage with blargh’s points in good faith. Given that, I felt compelled to respond in equally bad faith. But my tone was uncalled for.

Lol, that’s alot of words to prove my point.

Good day!

Lol, gargle my e-biking balls ya cry baby. Only pretentious twat here is you.

Edit to keep the point but “loose the 'tude”: Take it easy, you’re coming across more dramatic than necessary. Maybe reconsider before calling others pretentious.

Fuck I miss seeing things as a child…

Moon light? No… Moon heavy…

no

thanks for coming to my Ted talk

Fun fact.

You can do it anyway!

I dunno, I think that despite the common reading of the format, there is an added layer of irony to this one.

“these guys on the right” are admonishing the US for being warmongering while literally holding a gun to the back of the left astronaut’s head.

Even if you want to argue this “wasn’t by authorial intent”, to pretend that dosen’t paint “these guys on the right” as hypocrites is either incredibly dishonest, or incredibly stupid.

I dunno, they are literally holding a gun to the back of the “Proud Liberal’s” head.

Alberta