Christmas award - again

I haven't written anything in a long time. I had nothing to write - after 160 articles, the topics begin to repeat. Politicians are still doing the same nonsense, "economists" are pushing the same nonsense, and different bastards continue to claim their religion. It simply happens that a person runs out of energy to constantly discover the wheel.

And so I worked, progressed the career ladder, improved my standard of living. Even so, everything I wrote about - economics, politics and more - remained my hobby. I kept watching everything. Only instead of protracted expression, only smirks and thoughts, like "again", remained on the web.

Usually it was "again" with a dot. But now I came across "again" with exclamation mark.

Again - an invoice for Christmas dinner

I once wrote an article called "The Charlatan Sedlacek“. I discussed Sedláček's article in it, his concept of rationality, price, exchange (and so on).

Now I read the article "Communism is not a bad word“By Jakub Hájek alias Jimmy Hayek.

I'm not talking about communism at all right now. Well, a few quotes:

… When you give presents to your family and friends at Christmas, isn't that a manifestation of communism? Does the mother expect to receive as much from her ten-year-old son as she needs from her earning husband? And when he prepares Christmas Eve dinner, does he then cash in on family members or issue them an invoice? '

… And finally, the various associations (communities) where people meet together interest and often do they perform for their association without the right to remuneration? What about tens of thousands of volunteers and donors?

After all, even the "most right-wing" Czech party as they are Single it works more or less on the communist principle. The minimum annual membership fee is set according to the ability to pay… Volunteers distribute leaflets and help with campaigns. Supporters of the party have the same vote in the internal party primaries as the members, although they do not have such a responsibility. Despite the various differences of opinion, it is important for everyone to grow and get as many votes as possible in the elections….

All these manifestations have one thing in common - they are dary, not a shift. … We simply give without claiming a specific consideration in of interest some community. Parents do not keep a children's bill that they would give them to be paid once in adulthood. … This is real communism based on voluntariness and unencumbered by political ideology.Communism and capitalism are not contradictory, but complementary. Communism works well within smaller communities where people know each other because it is based primarily on trust…

And what is the market / capital etc. based on? And… we could talk here about what money is, what exchange is, what interpersonal exchange is, opportunity costs, what is the market, market making of morality and social norms / institutions, rationality…

But I don't have enough energy anymore.

Just - again.

0 comments

  1. "I did not write about communists at all, but about communism as a way of cooperation. That has nothing to do with the left or the right. "
    So again:
    communism as a way of cooperation exists only as totalitarianism. There is no other communism. Calling voluntary collective ownership without financial transactions communism is precisely the fog and confusion of concepts. Communism is primarily the involuntary possession of the means of production. That is, mainly foreign means of production.

  2. "Communists do not give anything to anyone, they just take and redistribute" - I did not write about these communists based on Marx's ideology. In fact, I did not write about communists at all, but about communism as a way of cooperation. This has nothing to do with the left or the right.

  3. Jimmy Hayek: // "That" right-wing "people have to turn everything into money, and non-monetary interactions belong to good leftists, is another fog." - Who says that? //
    This is what mainstream economists and the media say, and so do you, when you call financial transactions above capitalism and donations communism. The communists don't give anything to anyone, they just pick it up and redistribute it. Just because people don't use money doesn't mean they're communist.

  4. Good day:
    1) Yes, people are watching their interest. Why should the "communist principle" contradict this?
    2) No one reduces the economy to financial calculations. I just call what takes place through those financial transactions capitalism, and what I take place without them, or rather a gift, I call communism. Both make up the economy.
    3) "That" right-wing "people have to turn everything into money and non-monetary interactions belong to good leftists is another fog." - Who says that?

  5. The fact that people give gifts to each other or within the community without claiming any specific consideration is not a "communist principle." They simply pursue their own interest. It is nonsense to pit non-monetary settlements against paying money. It is only a free expression of value and value. Within the family, it is a good sense of belonging and in the store it is a payment for money. Reducing the economy to financial calculations is another socialist lie of mainstream economists. That "right-wing" people have to turn everything into money and that non-monetary interactions belong to good leftists is another fog. The author of the article is rightly upset by confusing the terms. Left-wing propaganda simply manages to attribute some evil selfishness to all those who criticize socialist lack of freedom. And the highlight is to name free action the "communist principle."

  6. We think of what is wrong in trying to detect and eliminate errors, everything here is just programs in which there are always errors and the result of these errors are always problems. Every living system is just a genetic program, we don't see mistakes from a distance, so there is often an effort not to be able to get close to something and to see a mistake at close range in something we are very interested in.
    Let's look, for example, at churches, to which property and money are returned today, what all churches are. The Church is a program of faith in miracles that God can do, but no one has ever seen God, so one must ask why people believe that someone they have never seen in person will help them?
    A slave believes that what enslaves him will help him in need, so God is to everyone what enslaves him the most, and this is expected to be a miracle that will help to overcome need, God is a slave, and the believer is a slave to his slave, everything created by faithmen created by faith.
    Slavery is an unequal relationship in which what is stronger enslaves what is weaker, slavery can be in ourselves and it does not have to be just connected to us and something outside of us, the world are just relationships that are unequal or equal.
    Often a slave could help his slave, but he will not help his slave for some reason, the cause is the question of the value of the slave to the slave, the slave will help what is of great value to him and will not help what is of no value to him.
    Our perception is associated with the fact that we try to determine what we perceive as a value, and what is valuable to us, we treat it well, and to what is not valuable to us, we behave badly.
    The father perceives his only adult son as a worthless genetic scumbag, and so he inherits him callously in a will, the woman perceives her unexpected pregnancy as a poor, worthless situation, and so she has an abortion, killing a child who was born.
    So God is callous to what is worthless and miserable, so everyone is selfishly trying to create the perfect illusion that he is a very valuable indispensable holy man, and there is suddenly a holy cult of personality.
    But a brand for a product or service can also become a cult, if you buy expensive branded clothing and expensive branded things, you can more easily create the illusion that you are a powerful and rich person. But often it can only be imitations of something that is expensive, the classic one is cheap jewelry, which from a distance looks like an expensive piece of jewelry.
    In the theater, the spectator is far from the actors, so he cannot know that the actors can easily deceive him with cheap imitations. Cheap imitations can also be popular ideological phrases what actors say here to look like kings and presidents. There are hunters who deceive prey so they can kill it, life is a fight against disease, and behind every disease, there are mistakes in the program.

  7. I don't see a contradiction here. You mainly criticized Sedláček for the concept of rationality and "self-interest". However, Cuba did not write anything about rationality, he mainly pointed out that communist principles (in the original sense) are much more common than many realize. Which I have no problem with, I noticed something similar myself. In addition, under certain conditions (typically a smaller group, voluntariness (!), The possibility to leave or be left, people know each other), typical socialist problems such as the impossibility of economic calculation or the problem of municipal pasture may fall away.

Comments are off.