Beginners Guide to Anarchism! [Archive] - Page 4

starless and bible black

11-16-2005, 01:39 PM

Der Übermensch

11-16-2005, 03:53 PM

im sorry that it's nothing new to me...i guess
you guys really need to study philosophy, your way of thinking will change dramatically.
but since you dont understand it, you try to make yourselves feel superiour by calling someone who studies plato and aristotle a retard
im sorry that you don't understand
the world would be a much better place if everyone did though

Normally I don't bother responding to posts with such sub-par grammer, but eh... I'm feeling bored.

First, I have read Plato and Aristotle. They are irrelevant to this discussion, unless you actually want to post up an Aristotelian rebuttal to Anarchism.

Second, You are a retard who thinks himself superior because you have read the writers common to intro level philosophy courses. My humanities class read them, so you don't have much of a point...

Third, if you want to have a debate, write an argument. If you don't, stay out of this thread. It is for intellectual discussion, and I'm be more then happy to rip your ideas to shreds for you, but first you have to post them...

JimJamBinks

11-18-2005, 05:43 PM

I don't think anybody on these forums is much of a philosopher. Maybe Ani, but Starless and Das, I don't think so. I for one, know philosophy very well. Everyone on these threads believes they have the answers, but honestly, it is people like the people on these forums that would cause a utopian society to fail. Please do not try to bash on the previous sentence. I am sure you do not know what a true utopian society would consist of. How do I know? It's the anger, the insults, and the ignorance in your post. None of which is exist to a person who has made peace within themselves and others. Also, Aristotle and Plato may be common to into level philosophy, but they are brilliant none the less. There is nothing wrong with refering to them. The only thing I see wrong with Ani's post are the insults. Other than that, he seems to know his philosophy.

Also, if you were up on your philosophy, this anarchism talk would not pass as intelligent for a second

I know Im a "nOOb" around here, but that doesn't mean a thing.

Der Übermensch

11-18-2005, 05:58 PM

I don't think anybody on these forums is much of a philosopher. Maybe Ani, but Starless and Das, I don't think so.
Could someone IP check this guy... I have a strange suspicion its Ani, since ani was banned...

I for one, know philosophy very well.
Ok... prove it...
Explain Kant's Categorical Imperative. How about St. Aquinas's concept of Natural Law, and maybe compare and contrast it with Augustine's Doctrine of Love while you're at it.

Everyone on these threads believes they have the answers, but honestly, it is people like the people on these forums that would cause a utopian society to fail. Please do not try to bash on the previous sentence. I am sure you do not know what a true utopian society would consist of. Many people claim to know. I don't. I have an idea, which I hope is right, but as I have stated many times, I know I might be wrong. You on the other hand, seem to "believe [you] have the answers", to use your own words.
How do I know? It's the anger, the insults, and the ignorance in your post.None of which is exist to a person who has made peace within themselves and others.
Yeah, I do like to make silly posts. I can me immature at times. However, I don't see what bearing it has on my level of intellect. I merely get pissed off at semi-literate idiots who try to act high and mighty in a thread for intellectual discussion. When they do that, I am quite happy to lower myself to their level. If someone posts a well thought out articulate post, I respond in kind. I reference you to my occasionally recurring dissection of Roman Taxation, Census policy, and Governorship.

Also, Aristotle and Plato may be common to into level philosophy, but they are brilliant none the less. There is nothing wrong with refering to them. No, there isn't, but saying you read them proves nothing. Like I said, my Humanities class read Ethics. Reading them doesn't mean you understand them though...
The only thing I see wrong with Ani's post are the insults. Other than that, he seems to know his philosophy.
Please quote where he demonstrated compatent understanding of what he talks about. Because thisanarchism...
...the retard's philosophy doesn't cut it.

Also, if you were up on your philosophy, this anarchism talk would not pass as intelligent for a second
Again with the unsubstantiated claims. Please show me how Proudhon was wrong. Or Stirner. Or Bakunin. Have you even read anything they wrote? Why do I doubt it....

Now, as I told ani (or, as I suspect, told you), if you post a refutation of Anarchism, then I'll respond. It would work really well if you quote what I said in the guide, and went point by point, as thats most effective. However, I feel no responsibility to treat you as anything more then a troll until I see this done, so don't expect me to show anything other then "anger, the insults, and the ignorance" until then, although I do admit, Its rather fun to write posts like my last one. Being an asshole is great :thumb:

Reaganista

11-18-2005, 06:13 PM

JimJamBinks

11-18-2005, 06:28 PM

@ Das
I reread your thread starter. So to my understanding it will take the will of the people to make anarchy successful. Before I continue, let me ask, am I right so far?

JimbobTheSquirrel

11-18-2005, 06:32 PM

@ Das
I reread your thread starter. So to my understanding it will take the will of the people to make anarchy successful. Before I continue, let me ask, am I right so far?
I think it's safe to assume that not many political systems would last long without the will of the people, yes...

Der Übermensch

11-18-2005, 06:35 PM

Thats the basic idea. To make it easier, I'll just quote myself for the applicable parts.
These are views embraced by most versions of Anarchism, which can all be pretty much boiled down to personal freedom, or as Bakunin stated it, "Freedom is the absolute right of every human being to seek no other sanction for his actions but his own conscience, to determine these actions solely by his own will, and consequently to owe his first responsibility to himself alone".
Bakunin was very explicit that the individual should never be coerced into anarchism, and that, "The individual owes duties to society only in so far as he has freely consented to become part of it. Everyone is free to associate or not to associate, and, if he so desires, to go and live in the deserts or the forests among the wild beasts".
People often like to say that anarchism could never work, because there would be people opposed to it, and therefor it would be contradictory. I do agree, that it can not be forced, but also believe it can work, although whether now is the time is debatable. Education is the most important step, as once people know what Anarchism stands for, rather then petty acts of violence, I think the acceptance for it would be over whelming. It must be remembered though, that the eccense of Anarchism is embodied in the achievment of the will of the people, not just the actual implementation of Anarchism. Ironically, Marx stated it best, "Better the whole world be destroyed and perish utterly than that a free man refrain from an act which his nature moves him". The time for Anarchism will present itself, not impose itself, as "Liberty can and must defend itself only through liberty; to try to resist is on the specious pretext of defending it is a dangerous contradiction"

I'll also pre-empt you pointing out that people would never agree to it, by pointing out the massive acceptence of it in Spain.

JimJamBinks

11-18-2005, 06:45 PM

Yes, I agree that the concept of it is all good and well, but won't there always be some people who are power hungry, people who won't cooperate, people who ruin it for everybody...am I right?

Der Übermensch

11-18-2005, 06:56 PM

Whats your point? There are always a few bad apples. They aren't being forced to do anything.
Bakunin was very explicit that the individual should never be coerced into anarchism, and that, "The individual owes duties to society only in so far as he has freely consented to become part of it. Everyone is free to associate or not to associate, and, if he so desires, to go and live in the deserts or the forests among the wild beasts".

JimbobTheSquirrel

11-18-2005, 07:04 PM

And also, if it were possible for a few dissatisfied individuals to completely change the system without popular support, you'd all be calling me Presidente.

JimJamBinks

11-18-2005, 07:13 PM

I think there would be more than a few "bad apples". Also, would there be limitations to any freedoms?

Der Übermensch

11-18-2005, 07:25 PM

Please support your case. I already have cited Spain to support mine. You have no proof.

No. Although I guess that depends on ones definition of freedom.

JimJamBinks

11-18-2005, 09:38 PM

So all types of discimination (sexism, racism, religion), monopolies, religous practices, businesses, medicines and all sorts of stuff would be fine by all means? Is that right?

Der Übermensch

11-18-2005, 09:44 PM

Huh? Lets see:
Discrimination - no
Monopolies - define what you mean by monopoly
Religion - to an extent, as I said earlier, heirarchal religions wouldn't be very compatable.
Buisnesses - to an extent
Medecine - what do you mean? Of course medecine woud exist...
Define "all sorts of stuff"...

Thats not a very good answer I know... I'll revise it in the morning when I'm sober... Hope it'll hold you over for now.

Smokey D

11-18-2005, 09:49 PM

I must say, I always have been confused to Anarachism's position on the free market. Obviously, such a market is the least interventionist and would sit well with with the non-government philosophy of anarchism. However, it also contributes to the gap between rich and poor and facilitates the emergence of monopolies/natural monopolies.

Das, a monopoly is essentially characterised by the fact that it produces less than society wants at a pricer higher than society desires to pay.

Der Übermensch

11-18-2005, 11:01 PM

I know what it is, but does he mean in the stricktly capitalost sense? or merely one provider of services?

ThisUserIsAPipebomb

01-16-2006, 07:30 PM

One thing I still don't understand is how to quell violent and unrational people in an anarchist society or how to dispell people trying to form into some sort of government/leading organization.

pooble

01-16-2006, 08:58 PM

Das, a monopoly is essentially characterised by the fact that it produces less than society wants at a pricer higher than society desires to pay.

As I see it a monopoly can either control supply provided or price but never both at the same time.

By setting a given price it can control the amount demanded respective to that price and thus provide exactly what the market demands.

By setting the amount sold it leaves the price to be determined by how much supply it offered relative to demand.

But never can a monopoly say "We will sell X quantity at X price". At this point I will admit I don't know if that even relates to your comment.

Reaganista

01-16-2006, 09:13 PM

yeah but they produce less than would be produced in perfect competition at a higher price

pooble

01-16-2006, 09:22 PM

they produce less at the same price, or charge more at the same supply.

Smokey D

01-16-2006, 09:23 PM

Well, this is a blast from the past.

Price is determined by quantity available in relation to demand, correct? A monopoly will only produce a certain amount of goods (as determined by the profit maximising point where marginal costs are equal to marginal returns) and sell them at the price then determined by market forces. So while you're correct in saying a monopoly does not specifically determine the price of its good, it is most definitely a price-setter and has huge control in that respect (as it essentially has control over one half of the market relationship).

Diagram as to Why: http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/3131/monopoly7bv.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Except the tick shaped one is MC, not MR.

pooble

01-16-2006, 09:36 PM

Yes. I was stating that a monopoly could never be in control of both prices and supply sold. It can only determine prices and accept the amount of buyers who respond to that price, or determine a supply to bring to the market, and then accept the price the market sets. I don't disagree with anything you said.

Smokey D

01-16-2006, 09:41 PM

Good oh. I just like showing off my Paint skills.

pooble

01-16-2006, 09:43 PM

Yea, I've seen you post a few of those now. Keep it up.

Give me Beer

01-17-2006, 01:03 PM

I didn't read the entire thread, but I'd just like to know what you guys think about Onotological Anarchism and theories like Temporary Autonomous Zones as put forward by Hakim Bey.

lfantwister

01-17-2006, 11:41 PM

I have a couple questions about anarchism. I've read a little bit about it but these things seem to go unanswered in the stuff I've read:

What about the mentall ill/people who for some reason can't contribute to society?

How would you impose order on greed (ie people who take more than they give)?

It seems throughout history people form groups that align with their views; would such groups be discouraged? If so, with what means? Or would the groups be allowed to stand (in which case they might grow in influence)?

Is there money in an anarchist society, or do you just barter?

What happens if another country with a more traditional government (and stricter rules) decides to wage war on an anarchist society? Small militias would have to unite to stand a chance--&be under the leadership of a small group/one person, (thus defeating the purpose of anarchy?)

I personally think anarchism is too idealistic to ever really be implemented, but I'm open to persuasion.

Ghostfire3

06-22-2006, 06:50 PM

Anarcho-Capitalism? Wtf? I've heard of the others, but not that one. Explain what it is, plz.

Pint of stella

06-22-2006, 06:53 PM

The real problem with anarchism, is that the only way for it to succed is for people to change their attitudes completely. If why treat each other rationally and with respect it might have a chance. The problem is people are greedy, shelfish and compete to maximise wealth. The obstacal to anarchism is a material world. It would be hard to convince most people to stop being greedy. I suppose a group of like minded individuals could set up a commune. However, it would be difficult. It's quite a romantic idea.

Pint of stella

06-22-2006, 06:54 PM

Anarcho-Capitalism? Wtf? I've heard of the others, but not that one. Explain what it is, plz.

First page of this thread mate.

Der Übermensch

06-22-2006, 07:51 PM

Heh, I only put a blurb on AnCap in the first page, so that won't do him much good :p

Anarcho Capitalism isn't anarchism by some peoples standards. However, under the true definiton, it is, as AnCap advocates no government. It is basicly the American Libertarian Party taken to the utmost extreme. Capitalism is left unrestricted, and there is no government, all services provided by buisness. There are multiple criticisms of this however.
a)Money. All money in the world is backed by government's. Where there to be no government, there would be no uniform currency (Private banks would no doubt issue their own, but just how reliable it would be is disuptable). Given that Capitalism is based off of money, that may be a problem.
b)Although government is gone, buisness will now serve the exact same function government did. Without restrictions previously in place, unfettered big companies will gain monopolies on essential products. Eventually they will take the exact same place as government used to, and instead of having free market w/ government, we will have a government that is the market... something like an Orwellian nightmare.

Ghostfire3

06-23-2006, 02:40 AM

Interesting. I had never heard of this before. I just thought it was a weird combination between the two.

antiant

06-23-2006, 03:07 AM

I didn't read the entire thread, but I'd just like to know what you guys think about Onotological Anarchism and theories like Temporary Autonomous Zones as put forward by Hakim Bey.
i like hakim bey and some of his ideas a lot especially the idea of t.a.z. you have any opinions on him or shall i say his ideas/viewpoints?

Der Übermensch

06-23-2006, 06:40 AM

Interesting. I had never heard of this before. I just thought it was a weird combination between the two.

Ayn Rand is generaly considered an AnCap... although I just consider her an evil Bitch.

monkeysonmars.

06-23-2006, 06:47 AM

I just read this long rant on some geocities website about how idiotic it is to attach capitalism to anarchism when capitalism is based on hierarchy. Therefore the only way you can justify it is by taking the dictionary definition of anarchism as 'no government', which is apparently naive. I just thought it was funny because the writer has obviously automatically taken the dictionary definition of capitalism as having to operate for profit.

Give me Beer

06-23-2006, 01:16 PM

i like hakim bey and some of his ideas a lot especially the idea of t.a.z. you have any opinions on him or shall i say his ideas/viewpoints?

I'd just like to know what you think about him, I thought T.A.Z. was pretty interesting, the idea of temporary free zones as opposed to overthrow of the state (which we can not hope to achieve anyway).

antiant

06-23-2006, 02:14 PM

I'd just like to know what you think about him, I thought T.A.Z. was pretty interesting, the idea of temporary free zones as opposed to overthrow of the state (which we can not hope to achieve anyway).
yeah i agree, t.a.z. makes more sense imo and it's a lot more individualistic, which means you can do something and or change something RIGHT NOW as oppose to waiting it out and getting organized to do so and just talking about political theories all day which in some ways is ironic because anarchism starts to become that of a 'political party' something anarchism is trying not to do, a paradox of sorts...i'm sure this movie is talked about a lot, but Fight Club has huge amounts of t.a.z. themes all in the movie and there are t.a.z. groups that exist today...in fact i'm not sure if you've heard of this, but a few years back i think it was in New York people were reporting that "random people" would just start clapping in large groups out of nowhere, for no reason, that right there is a form of t.a.z....but sometimes hakim bey writes in a way where it may be hard for others to "get" but some of the things he says is so true and done in a sort of poetic yet truthful way, for example "There is no becoming, no revolution, no struggle, no path; already you’re the monarch of your own skin – your inviolable freedom waits to be completed only by the love of other monarchs: a politcs of dream, urgent as the blueness of sky" from the Chaos section, to me that speaks volumes about a lot of things, but at any rate, you have any more thoughts?

nowhesingsnowhesobs

06-23-2006, 03:14 PM

http://www.hermetic.com/bey/taz_cont.html

Yeah, that's like the most stupid/pretentious/unintelligible/ load of crap I've read this year.

antiant

06-23-2006, 03:35 PM

http://www.hermetic.com/bey/taz_cont.html

Yeah, that's like the most stupid/pretentious/unintelligible/ load of crap I've read this year.
how so? it's easy to add a bunch of ad hominems...explanation please

monkeysonmars.

06-23-2006, 03:58 PM

firstly it's no argumentum ad hominem, secondly i don't think you can deny that poetic terrorism is pretentious.

nowhesingsnowhesobs

06-23-2006, 04:13 PM

how so?

"CHAOS NEVER DIED. Primordial uncarved block, sole worshipful monster, inert & spontaneous, more ultraviolet than any mythology (like the shadows before Babylon), the original undifferentiated oneness-of-being still radiates serene as the black pennants of Assassins, random & perpetually intoxicated."

antiant

06-23-2006, 04:23 PM

firstly it's no argumentum ad hominem
you are right, i realized that after the fact, my bad there

antiant

06-23-2006, 04:24 PM

"CHAOS NEVER DIED. Primordial uncarved block, sole worshipful monster, inert & spontaneous, more ultraviolet than any mythology (like the shadows before Babylon), the original undifferentiated oneness-of-being still radiates serene as the black pennants of Assassins, random & perpetually intoxicated."
yeah this is more of a metaphor/poetic writing, i understand what you are talking about to an extent, but i still fail to see your point, what do you see wrong with this? Perhaps you don't get this? or don't care for the way he is writing in the guise of anarchism? i really am interested in your view, how is it pretentious?

nowhesingsnowhesobs

06-23-2006, 04:40 PM

Just in case there is the slightest chance you're actually serious:

It's not metaphor, unless metaphor has been redefined as 'a random assortment of words with no discernible meaning whatsoever.'

antiant

06-23-2006, 04:48 PM

Just in case there is the slightest chance you're actually serious:

It's not metaphor, unless metaphor has been redefined as 'a random assortment of words with no discernible meaning whatsoever.'
nevermind then...it seems you don't want to explain yourself and it also seems that you don't understand him or you do, you just don't care for the way he writes as you pointed out it's just random assorted words, which you've probably not cared to really examine or take seriously because he doesn't write or say things like your normally use to? oh well, can't say i didn't try to understand

nowhesingsnowhesobs

06-23-2006, 04:53 PM

uhh my god, I can read. Ok, if it really isn't impenetrable nonsense, would you mind giving me a line by line analysis of the above extract.

Or at least explain why anyone needs to take such a roundabout approach to whatever point they wish to make. And don't say its 'poetic' because I see not a glimmer of artistic merit in it.

antiant

06-23-2006, 05:01 PM

well i never knew art had to have 'merit'...art can be anything, just because he expresses himself differently than you're accustomed to doesn't mean it itsn't art, but i don't know perhaps you see art differently...like i said earlier some people will have a very hard time understanding him because it's so "roundabout" but it's actually pretty straight forward at least to me it is and perhaps others, i don't know people think differently obvously so perhaps the way you think or look at things are different as well, maybe it's harder for you to read between the lines? Btw i'm not insulting you (just wanted to point this out), but this type of "thinking" for lack of better words is hard for most people to understand because it's so "different" but what he says is pretty self-explanatory, you just have to "examine" it a little deeper, some people don't even bother and want it cut and dry, but again people express themselves differently, don't knock it though if you don't understand, try to understand it and just don't say "bah humbug"

nowhesingsnowhesobs

06-23-2006, 05:07 PM

hey, hey where's my line by line analysis?

I'm being serious - if you can't explain just a little bit don't try and claim that it is 'pretty self-explanatory'.

monkeysonmars.

06-23-2006, 05:49 PM

Art Sabotage is the dark side of Poetic Terrorism--creation- through-destruction--but it cannot serve any Party, nor any nihilism, nor even art itself.

if that's self-explanatory i must be all kinds of stupid.

antiant

06-23-2006, 05:50 PM

hey, hey where's my line by line analysis?

I'm being serious - if you can't explain just a little bit don't try and claim that it is 'pretty self-explanatory'.
well if you can't understand it then don't just ignore it and say it's pretentious, just say you don't understand him, that would be sufficient :)

antiant

06-23-2006, 05:51 PM

if that's self-explanatory i must be all kinds of stupid.
i wouldn't say that, but like i said it's different types of thinking

Zoroaster

06-23-2006, 06:02 PM

Challenge any socialist, anarchist, or whatever pretentious title they appropriate for themselves, and they'll inevitably spew out some carefully honed rhetoric about us being too obtuse to grasp its true essence. Well, to them I say, I can see right through you. You have no viable solutions to fix the so-called "problems" that riddle capitalism (income distribution being seemingly the predominant one) and what's worse, how to sustain your pathetic little system. In a different thread altogether, I posed the question: how would socialism solve modern logistics? Not a soul, quite literally, could come up with even a remotely satisfactory answer. Now, we can sit around all day and debate semantics, but at the core of socialism there's nothing more than a bunch of teary-eyed teenagers emoting, not informing. So what do we say, let's leave it at that. Socialism is futile and intellectually dead, capitalism is not.

antiant

06-23-2006, 06:06 PM

and today's word is pretentious brought to you by the letter p...

give me beer: let me know what you think, i'm interested if you've read other stuff from him? or just t.a.z.?

Der Übermensch

06-23-2006, 06:51 PM

and they'll inevitably spew out some carefully honed rhetoric
And you don't?

Zoroaster

06-24-2006, 04:55 AM

And you don't?

I can easily justify the existence of capitalism by reference to empirical data and its great success in alleviating poverty world-wide. You can't. And that's where we differ.

Der Übermensch

06-24-2006, 12:22 PM

I can... And also remember that I'm not arguing for Communism or Socialism, which are failed systems... I'm a Sydicalist/Mutualist.

Example: In Spain, between 1936-1938, production in all fields - agricultural, industrial and so on - decreased, EXCEPT for the areas that were under CNT-FAI control, which INCREASED not only beyond the level of production under the previous system, but also more efficient then under Franco for years afterwards.

Der Übermensch

06-24-2006, 06:15 PM

zoro posted this in that other thread, but i'm being analretentive, so only posting here :p

Surprisingly there are many forms of anarchism. Such as:
Anarcho-Syndacism
Anarcho-Capitalism
Anarcho-Communism etc.

Surprisingly, none of them have ever been implemented and, by the looks of things, never will be either. .
Sydicalism was what Catalonia was run from '36-'38.
The Ukraine as well as the Krondstadt, in the late teens/early 20's was Anarcho-Communist until the Bolsheviks killed them off.

Having said that, I welcome you to explain why anarchism is justified given the welfare creation of capitalism and its unprecedented move to alleviate people out of poverty and the idleness that's inherent in any anarchist system.
Capitalism has nothing to do with alliviation of poverty... Or am I reading that wrong, cause I don't get what your saying...

-1up!-

06-24-2006, 06:36 PM

Give me Beer

06-24-2006, 06:39 PM

if that's self-explanatory i must be all kinds of stupid.

Art-Sabotage can not be used to further any cause.

By Hakim Bey I've read:

Immediatism
T.A.Z.
Pirate Utopias
Orgies of the Hemp Eaters

He has some nice ideas and yes, he can be very cumbersome in his use of language, part of the charm. You shouldn't read him if you're expecting clean cut political ideas, explained so the simplest soul can understand it. He uses a lot of imagery and frequently wanders away from the subject with historical and mythical anecdotes. Reading him is like an acid trip, very confusing at points but worth it.

antiant

06-24-2006, 07:50 PM

Art-Sabotage can not be used to further any cause.

By Hakim Bey I've read:

Immediatism
T.A.Z.
Pirate Utopias
Orgies of the Hemp Eaters

He has some nice ideas and yes, he can be very cumbersome in his use of language, part of the charm. You shouldn't read him if you're expecting clean cut political ideas, explained so the simplest soul can understand it. He uses a lot of imagery and frequently wanders away from the subject with historical and mythical anecdotes. Reading him is like an acid trip, very confusing at points but worth it.
yeah i look at it more as an "individualistic cause" "self" more so than some "social cause" at any rate, i think most people are use to cut and dry and can't really "expand there minds" any further due to being limited in depth perception, so they ignore things that seem hard to understand, yet won't take the time and at least try and or attempt to understand...being that he writes a lot differently and this might be a bit off topic to ask you, but why do you think some people can't "get it"? What i mean is there are some people out there, thinkers if you will, who write in such a way that it's hard for the common man to understand, yet makes perfect sense if you just flex that muscle a bit (the brain one that is :thumb: ) it's kind of like scholary or academic/intellectual writing and because one doesn't understand the words that are put into basic sentence structures they dismiss it, i don't know, i've always found that interesting it's like a "higher form" of thinking that only certain people can "get" and i don't mean to put this in any hierarchal/elitist type of way, but i hope you understand what i'm saying here

Zoroaster

06-25-2006, 04:49 AM

Are you joking? You're asking how a capitalist concept could be solved in a socialist context. Silly gimmick.

Funny how without logistics, the world wouldn't survive. So I guess it is true what I've been saying all along. Socialisms goal is to eradicate mankind.

-1up!-

06-25-2006, 09:47 AM

Funny how without logistics, the world wouldn't survive. So I guess it is true what I've been saying all along. Socialisms goal is to eradicate mankind.
Yes, of course! Socialism aims to destroy the Earth! :lol:
/hums Imperial March

nowhesingsnowhesobs

06-25-2006, 02:17 PM

nowhesingsnowhesobs

06-28-2006, 04:21 PM

Bump because I want an answer - how is logistics only relevant to a capitalist system?

coheneran

06-28-2006, 04:34 PM

A nicer way to phrase that question would have been:

"I don't understand the logistics in anarchism. Could someone explain them to me please?"

Der Übermensch

06-28-2006, 04:38 PM

beats me... I never dug that hole... someone else said it...

nowhesingsnowhesobs

06-28-2006, 04:59 PM

"I don't understand the logistics in anarchism. Could someone explain them to me please?"I'm talking about this post by 1up

Are you joking? You're asking how a capitalist concept could be solved in a socialist context.

coheneran

06-28-2006, 05:02 PM

Oh, sorry. My bad.

Lexluthor

06-29-2006, 04:40 AM

Hi, sorry I fairly new to this topic and really im responding to comments made on the first few pages.

However I have a question. If people where to live in communes would there not be the underlying risk that these communes would end up fighting and developing a sense of pride (Not unlike nationalism expressed in nations today) The divisions of people into communes could very well end up with the same problems plagued by countrys today... except there would be further divisions as the communes would exist more frequently than countrys do under the systems we operate currently.

Being failry new to this ideology Im wondering how an Anarchist state would be ablew to deal with these risks.

Smokey D

06-29-2006, 04:48 AM

Lexluthor

06-29-2006, 06:15 AM

Well, one major thing is it wouldn't be a state, as the chief goal of all sorts of Anarachism is to remove the power of the state. Your other questions best be left to someone like Das, though personally I believe you've pointed out a huge flaw in anarchic thinking.

Yeah, I understand my use of the word state was incorrect. I was just finding it hard to find a word to describe what I was saying. Perhaps I should have said "Anarcist system" or just simply "Anarchist"

It would be interesting however to see what people like "Das" or just other people think about my previous point. As far as I can see Anarchism is the only way its possible for humans to experience true freedom and equality. I find it hard to understand why goverments and people dont spend every second trying to make Anarchism work. There are clearly so many problems with the system most Western goverments operate currently.

coheneran

06-29-2006, 06:36 AM

Well, anarchism isn't a system, it's (like I keep repeating) a state of mind. Being an anarchist isn't about throwing bricks through Starbucks windows or knowing everything there is to know about the CNT. The main ideals of anarchism are mutual aid, respect, and freedom.

Treat others as you would want them to treat you.

My freedom ends where your freedom begins.

Share and share alike.

That is how I interpret fundamental anarchism. All the logistical stuff is when people get too realistic. The fact is that when people live by those ideals, everything else sorts itself out. I like going back to fundamentalism, it's nice to remember your original reasons for joining a movement before you get too bogged down by things like market economics.

Smokey D

06-29-2006, 06:51 AM

It would be interesting however to see what people like "Das" or just other people think about my previous point. As far as I can see Anarchism is the only way its possible for humans to experience true freedom and equality. I find it hard to understand why goverments and people dont spend every second trying to make Anarchism work. There are clearly so many problems with the system most Western goverments operate currently.

For one thing, it is difficult for the government to work towards its own destruction.

Furthermore, I don't believe anarchism adequately serves a society, least not more than a liberal democracy would. In my mind, anarchism has many flaws of its own and fails to solve the causes of contemporay government's failings. These include an inadequate economic system resulting in a decrease in surplus and, ultimately, shortage, no means of reigning in larger corporate entities and only the will of a fickle people to protect certain sections of the population or to prevent the emergence of the very thing anarchism supposedly has done away with.

That is how I interpret fundamental anarchism. All the logistical stuff is when people get too realistic. The fact is that when people live by those ideals, everything else sorts itself out. I like going back to fundamentalism, it's nice to remember your original reasons for joining a movement before you get too bogged down by things like market economics.

That's tripe. You have to consider how and why things actually work before you go about trying to change them.

PerpetualBurn

06-29-2006, 06:54 AM

Coheneran, just because everyone lives by your ideals doesn't mean that they don't need a system of regulation. You're being completely ignorant of how things actually work and acting as if everything will be okay if we all just grin and bear it.

Anarchism clearly lacks the ability to regulate society on anything like the level that we do today. To start pretending that economics don't matter is plain stupid. Everyone needs an income. Incomes need regulation.

Der Übermensch

06-29-2006, 07:29 AM

That is how I interpret fundamental anarchism. All the logistical stuff is when people get too realistic. The fact is that when people live by those ideals, everything else sorts itself out. I like going back to fundamentalism, it's nice to remember your original reasons for joining a movement before you get too bogged down by things like market economics.
I appreciete the help, and don't doubt your sincerity, but if by Fundamentalism you mean Anarcho-Primitivism, please stop right now. That has zero to do with what I have been answering and defending for the past 35 pages...

Danish

06-29-2006, 11:25 AM

Zoroaster is a brilliant gimmick, but here he's actually right.

How in hell is logistics only relevant to a capitalist system. You can't say 'In my economic system logistics isn't a problem,' because then your economic system must be nothing more than a poorly formed fantasy.

He never said that, retard. A socialist economy would have a totally different logic, thus you can't really talk about it in standard economic terms.

As for logistics, obviously that would be something we'd have to deal with. However, a socialist economy would be far more efficient than a capitalist economy.

coheneran

06-29-2006, 11:51 AM

I appreciete the help, and don't doubt your sincerity, but if by Fundamentalism you mean Anarcho-Primitivism, please stop right now. That has zero to do with what I have been answering and defending for the past 35 pages...

God no! John Zerzan can stick it up his prehistoric arse.

lfantwister

06-29-2006, 01:08 PM

However, a socialist economy would be far more efficient than a capitalist economy.

I'm assuming this is only when you use the special state of mind that cohen is advocating?

coheneran

06-29-2006, 01:23 PM

Please, cohen is so formal, call me Eran.

I still don't understand why you think that everyone having enough and working as much as they can doesn't make sense.

Der Übermensch

06-29-2006, 05:32 PM

God no! John Zerzan can stick it up his prehistoric arse.
Good, but logistics is important in any situation, and you can't have modern society, in any form, with out it.
And as I've pointed out earlier in the thread, Anarchism isn't a system, its a broad descriptor underwhich are catagorized many different systems and theories.

Well, one major thing is it wouldn't be a state, as the chief goal of all sorts of Anarachism is to remove the power of the state. Your other questions best be left to someone like Das, though personally I believe you've pointed out a huge flaw in anarchic thinking.
Ja, its a flaw... its really the only flaw. But behavior is learned, and people can learn to get along (God... I sound like such a hippy right now :( ). There's much more too add to that, but thats the basic jist of it. Anarchism depends on the single principal that people have the potential and ability to generally get along and work as a group. We are at heart herd animals afterall.

coheneran

06-29-2006, 05:38 PM

Anarchism depends on the single principal that people have the potential and ability to generally get along and work as a group. We are at heart herd animals afterall.

That's what I said, but more straight-forward. Anyway, I've been thinking about it and came to a (pretty obvious) realisation that it doesn't matter what social and economic system the human race decides to live, because as soon as we all start doing the same thing, it'll work.

Lexluthor

06-29-2006, 05:54 PM

That's what I said, but more straight-forward. Anyway, I've been thinking about it and came to a (pretty obvious) realisation that it doesn't matter what social and economic system the human race decides to live, because as soon as we all start doing the same thing, it'll work.

Errr.. no. So your seriously suggesting that no matter what system we operate, if everyone commits them to it then it will work? Perhaps what your trying to say is that if everyone is commited it will work for the goverment in power.

If everyone in Germany had been 100% in favour of the Nazis... yes it may well have worked for Hitler but that doesnt mean the holocaust would never of happened. And Im sure there are pleanty of Jews that that didnt work out for.

Problems don’t solely lie in peoples dedication to a particular social or economic policy or system.

coheneran

06-29-2006, 06:04 PM

Errr.. no. So your seriously suggesting that no matter what system we operate, if everyone commits them to it then it will work? Perhaps what your trying to say is that if everyone is commited it will work for the goverment in power.

If everyone in Germany had been 100% in favour of the Nazis... yes it may well have worked for Hitler but that doesnt mean the holocaust would never of happened. And Im sure there are pleanty of Jews that that didnt work out for.

Problems don’t solely lie in peoples dedication to a particular social or economic policy or system.

Ah, but Hitler used anti-semitism to direct anger and take power and pass cheeky laws. If everyone had been pro-fascism in the first place, there would have been no need to scapegoat anybody.

Smokey D

06-29-2006, 06:17 PM

As for logistics, obviously that would be something we'd have to deal with. However, a socialist economy would be far more efficient than a capitalist economy.

Why, how and in whose terms of effeciency?

Lexluthor

06-29-2006, 06:20 PM

Ah, but Hitler used anti-semitism to direct anger and take power and pass cheeky laws. If everyone had been pro-fascism in the first place, there would have been no need to scapegoat anybody.

OK... well perhaps it was a bad example (Although even if the Jews where anti-Semitic they still would have been killed)

So let me try a different example; Capitalism. Even if everybody here in the UK (Or the US) agreed with Capitalism 100% there is always going to be a system of class that’s going to make it unfair for those at the bottom... its the nature of the system not the people within it that cause the problems.

I personally feel (And this is not to say this could or would ever happen… and I think many will agree) Anarchism is the only system whereby if everyone committed to its idea and abided by it forever, true equality and freedom could be experienced. It is the only system where the source of the problems come solely from the people within in it (In the way you are suggesting every ideology works)

Give me Beer

06-29-2006, 06:50 PM

yeah i look at it more as an "individualistic cause" "self" more so than some "social cause" at any rate, i think most people are use to cut and dry and can't really "expand there minds" any further due to being limited in depth perception, so they ignore things that seem hard to understand, yet won't take the time and at least try and or attempt to understand...being that he writes a lot differently and this might be a bit off topic to ask you, but why do you think some people can't "get it"? What i mean is there are some people out there, thinkers if you will, who write in such a way that it's hard for the common man to understand, yet makes perfect sense if you just flex that muscle a bit (the brain one that is :thumb: ) it's kind of like scholary or academic/intellectual writing and because one doesn't understand the words that are put into basic sentence structures they dismiss it, i don't know, i've always found that interesting it's like a "higher form" of thinking that only certain people can "get" and i don't mean to put this in any hierarchal/elitist type of way, but i hope you understand what i'm saying here

I don't quite agree with you. He's annoying to read if you're not interested in the subject. I'm sure that there are people that would get it, but are just not interested, even were they to understand his point.

Futue te Ipsum

06-30-2006, 03:57 AM

You guys managed to create a non-chaotic society yet?

Der Übermensch

06-30-2006, 06:54 AM

Haven't even created a non-chaotic thread yet :p

Danish

06-30-2006, 02:16 PM

Why, how and in whose terms of effeciency?

Why? Because too many resources are wasted today on profits, marketing, and other superfluous programs designed to increase profits. A not-for-profit system where workers are paid the true value of their labour would be far more efficient. Additionally, because workers would have control over the labour process, production would become increasingly efficient. Not necessarily in a Taylorist way, but in a way that benefits producers.

If we seriously value democracy, we should value it in all facets of society, particularly the workplace.

And by "efficiency", I mean how many work hours go into producing one commodity, be it a car or a widget.

Smokey D

06-30-2006, 04:29 PM

Why? Because too many resources are wasted today on profits, marketing, and other superfluous programs designed to increase profits.

Silly bean, those programs generate surplus value.

A not-for-profit system where workers are paid the true value of their labour would be far more efficient.

Yet they'd end up with less, as their surplus value would not have been maximised. And it would not be more effecient. It would just give more to one group than another. Shifting the direction of profits does not fundementally alter its effeciency.

Additionally, because workers would have control over the labour process, production would become increasingly efficient. Not necessarily in a Taylorist way, but in a way that benefits producers.

Labour doesn't become more effecient as capital decreases.

If we seriously value democracy, we should value it in all facets of society, particularly the workplace.

If we truly value democracy, we should do what it says and give power to the people over their government. Anything else is outside the scope of democracy.

Now, I'm not against empowering the worker, but let's not fall back into preaching rhetoric.

And by "efficiency", I mean how many work hours go into producing one commodity, be it a car or a widget.

Economic effeciency is measured in value of output/time.

Noku

07-01-2006, 04:53 AM

If we seriously value democracy, we should value it in all facets of society, particularly the workplace.

In my opinnion the owners of the workplace should decide what happens inside, not employees... No one is going to take the risks and then give it all away for someone who wasn't involved in risk taking.

lunchforthesky

07-01-2006, 05:54 AM

In my opinnion the owners of the workplace should decide what happens inside, not employees... No one is going to take the risks and then give it all away for someone who wasn't involved in risk taking.
but the owners would be the workers because of nationalisation so the hence the workers would make the decisions. why should the people doing the actual work not be reaping the benifits. true there not taking the risk of business but im sure most of them would love to but because of the way the system is there unable to.

EDIT: this is a great summary of anarchism by the way. i do politics at college but this was very informative

Der Übermensch

07-01-2006, 11:05 AM

dustindow

07-08-2006, 01:25 AM

Ah, but Hitler used anti-semitism to direct anger and take power and pass cheeky laws. If everyone had been pro-fascism in the first place, there would have been no need to scapegoat anybody.

Sorry but i have to correct this.

Hiter didnt use anti-semitism. He believed it. Hitler used propaganda against not only jews but anyone against him. He was a german nationalist, to say. He promoted being german, primarly the aryan race (blue eyes blond hair etc). The jews were punished primarly because thats where most power and/or money was placed. Basicly a scapegoat. Hitler had it out for the jews out of a personal agnst with jews.

Correct me if I'm wrong on anything of this. Im sure i got most of down.

Smokey D

07-08-2006, 02:22 AM

Er, haven't you contradicted yourself?

Hitler hated Jews because they were Jewish. Whether or not they were rich was inconsequential (though undoubtedl contributed to the tradition of anti-Semitism in Europe).

coheneran

07-08-2006, 06:23 AM

Sorry but i have to correct this.

Hiter didnt use anti-semitism. He believed it. Hitler used propaganda against not only jews but anyone against him. He was a german nationalist, to say. He promoted being german, primarly the aryan race (blue eyes blond hair etc). The jews were punished primarly because thats where most power and/or money was placed. Basicly a scapegoat. Hitler had it out for the jews out of a personal agnst with jews.

Correct me if I'm wrong on anything of this. Im sure i got most of down.

Whether he hated them does not matter, because in politics you don't state your likes and dislikes and then people can take you or leave you. I'm positive that if Hitler did not need a scapegoat he would not have encouraged anti-semitism to the same level as he had. I'm sure he hated Jews with all his little heart, but he used them (like you said) as a scapegoat to manipulate people and gain power.

Smokey D

07-08-2006, 08:29 AM

Read Mein Kampf. Hitler's hatred of the Jews goes quite beyond political expediency.

coheneran

07-09-2006, 08:31 PM

I don't doubt the sincerity in his hate of the Jews, but I also don't doubt that he used it to gain power. If he was a politician during a prosperous time I'm sure he would have had a hell of a job getting into any kind of powerful position.

Anyway, my point in this discussion was that if everyone held the same beliefs and wanted the same things then any political and economic system would work. It's kind of silly that the discussion on Hitler progressed so far, though it has been interesting.

Antifa

09-28-2006, 07:31 PM

Makes sense The Irish Republican Army, I don't like the IRA by the way

The IRA is leftist, some could say slightly Marxist.

What's so conservative about throwing off the yokes of imperialism?

Danish

09-28-2006, 08:28 PM

Silly bean, those programs generate surplus value.

Perhaps, but it's value that could be put to better use. In other words, it's superfluous.

Yet they'd end up with less, as their surplus value would not have been maximised. And it would not be more effecient. It would just give more to one group than another. Shifting the direction of profits does not fundementally alter its effeciency.

Hardly. The massive chunk of surplus value stripped from the workers (aka profit) would be returned to them (and, obviously, used to retool and refine the production process). All of the surplus value would be returned to workers, or at least used as the workers see fit.

A workforce that isn't exploited will perform their work far better. The lower the level of exploitation, the higher the level of efficiency. If you look at unionized manufacturing plants versus non-union plants, you'll find that unionized plants are more productive and more cost efficient. This isn't a coincidence.

Labour doesn't become more effecient as capital decreases.

No doubt.

If we truly value democracy, we should do what it says and give power to the people over their government. Anything else is outside the scope of democracy.

"Do what it says"? Democracy is a set of principles, not an authority. And workplace democracy certainly isn't "outside the scope of democracy."

Democracy is about balancing power in society.

Now, I'm not against empowering the worker, but let's not fall back into preaching rhetoric.

A non-democratic workplace does nothing to empower workers. To say industrial democracy is "outside the scope of democracy" is argue against empowering workers.

Economic effeciency is measured in value of output/time.

We're both correct; both are correct ways to look at efficiency.

In my opinnion the owners of the workplace should decide what happens inside, not employees... No one is going to take the risks and then give it all away for someone who wasn't involved in risk taking.

The workers are in a far more precarious economic position than the owners.

lfantwister

09-28-2006, 09:35 PM

Hardly. The massive chunk of surplus value stripped from the workers (aka profit) would be returned to them (and, obviously, used to retool and refine the production process). All of the surplus value would be returned to workers, or at least used as the workers see fit.

That's a capitalist idea hidden in commie clothes. If the workers were in fact paid more, who's to say they'd spend it on their production equipment, or even anything remotely related to making their work more efficient? They might spend it on chocolate or dirty magazines or whores. The very concept that workers should be free to do what they like is a capitalist ideal called economic freedom. This kind of economic freedom isn't too prevalent in commie culture. The only kind that exists is this kind--morale-boosting capitalist incentives parading as the international worker's revolutionary doctrine.

Iskandar

09-28-2006, 10:28 PM

The only kind that exists is this kind--morale-boosting capitalist incentives parading as the international worker's revolutionary doctrine.
It's quite the opposite of capitalism to suggest that surplus should be received by those who produced it.

lfantwister

09-28-2006, 10:51 PM

It's quite the opposite of capitalism to suggest that surplus should be received by those who produced it.
No, I was talking about the concept that they should be free to use it to buy what they'd like no matter if it helps their work or not

Iskandar

09-28-2006, 10:52 PM

No, I was talking about the concept that they should be free to use it to buy what they'd like no matter if it helps their work or not
That's compatible with either system.

Der Übermensch

09-28-2006, 11:18 PM

The IRA is leftist, some could say slightly Marxist.

What's so conservative about throwing off the yokes of imperialism?

If your going to ressurect this thread, make it for a worthwhile point...

lfantwister

09-28-2006, 11:44 PM

That's compatible with either system.
I wasn't aware that communism included economic freedom

Iskandar

09-28-2006, 11:45 PM

I wasn't aware that communism included economic freedom
Depends if you're talking about communism or "Communism."

Smokey D

09-28-2006, 11:50 PM

It's quite the opposite of capitalism to suggest that surplus should be received by those who produced it.

Capital produces a hella big surplus value.

Perhaps, but it's value that could be put to better use. In other words, it's superfluous.

That depends on the elasticity of the product in question.

Hardly. The massive chunk of surplus value stripped from the workers (aka profit) would be returned to them (and, obviously, used to retool and refine the production process). All of the surplus value would be returned to workers, or at least used as the workers see fit.

Er, using payment incentives isn't really communist idea. And there is absolutely no reason for more highly paid workers to improve upon capital in their workplace, especially given that individual workers are much more likely to spend money on themselves than on a collectivised ideal.

A workforce that isn't exploited will perform their work far better. The lower the level of exploitation, the higher the level of efficiency. If you look at unionized manufacturing plants versus non-union plants, you'll find that unionized plants are more productive and more cost efficient. This isn't a coincidence.

No doubt, but it doesn't mean the principle shouldn't have limitations.

"Do what it says"? Democracy is a set of principles, not an authority. And workplace democracy certainly isn't "outside the scope of democracy."

Democracy is about balancing power in society.

Democracy is a set of principles about the power of the people in relation to their government. Workplace democracy is a rhetorical construction that goes well beyond what was ever intended by democracy (not that I'm against workers' rights or collective bargaining or anything).

We're both correct; both are correct ways to look at efficiency.

But only my way is the correct way at looking at economic efficiency. Economic effiency takes into account all costs, including oppurtunity costs, and is a much better way to look at things than merely the time taken to produce a good.

Iskandar

09-28-2006, 11:53 PM

Capital produces a hella big surplus value.
Yeah, most of which is unfairly expropriated.
Workplace democracy is a rhetorical construction that goes well beyond what was ever intended by democracy
Does that mean it's an inherently bad idea?

Smokey D

09-28-2006, 11:57 PM

Yeah, most of which is unfairly expropriated.

Er, the surplus generated by capital going to the owners of that capital is not unfair.

Does that mean it's an inherently bad idea?

No, but unionised labour etc isn't a fufilment of democracy's historic march.

Iskandar

09-29-2006, 12:00 AM

Er, the surplus generated by capital going to the owners of that capital is not unfair.
It is when the owner did not work to generate said surplus.
(For the record it's generated by labour which utilized said capital.)
No, but unionised labour etc isn't a fufilment of democracy's historic march.
Ah, but that's merely your opinion.:) Mine differs.

Smokey D

09-29-2006, 12:23 AM

It is when the owner did not work to generate said surplus.
(For the record it's generated by labour which utilized said capital.)

No surplus would have been generated without either labour or capital, so it is utterly retarded to believe all surplus value derives from labour.

It might be illuminating to consider how much wheat an individual farmer can reap with a scythe and how much he can gather with a combine harvester.

Ah, but that's merely your opinion. Mine differs.

No, it's true. Democracy is about power relations between government and citizenry. Workers' rights are about power relations between the workers and management. While both may be desireable, and probably intersect in multiple places, they are technically seperate concepts and can exist independently of one another.

Iskandar

09-29-2006, 12:36 AM

No surplus would have been generated without either labour or capital, so it is utterly retarded to believe all surplus value derives from labour.
I didn't say all surplus value derived from labour. I said that it derived from labour which utilized capital, which is an economic no-brainer.

What it does not derive from is private ownership of capital. That's not strictly necessary to generate a surplus.

No, it's true. Democracy is about power relations between government and citizenry. Workers' rights are about power relations between the workers and management. While both may be desireable, and probably intersect in multiple places, they are technically seperate concepts and can exist independently of one another.
I don't even think we're arguing here. I don't disagree with anything you have said so far. It's merely my opinion that democracy will find its way to the workplace as the working class gains autonomy from its superiors.

Smokey D

09-29-2006, 12:42 AM

I didn't say all surplus value derived from labour. I said that it derived from labour which utilized capital, which is an economic no-brainer.

What it does not derive from is private ownership of capital. That's not strictly necessary to generate a surplus.

By all means, but given that most capital today is privately owned, it is ridiculous not to pay the owners for the surplus yielded by their capital.

I don't even think we're arguing here. I don't disagree with anything you have said so far. It's merely my opinion that democracy will find its way to the workplace as the working class gains autonomy from its superiors.

My only point is that, strictly speaking, this isn't democracy.

Iskandar

09-29-2006, 12:47 AM

By all means, but given that most capital today is privately owned, it is ridiculous not to pay the owners for the surplus yielded by their capital.
But not the amount they currently receive, which constitutes exploitation.
My only point is that, strictly speaking, this isn't democracy.
Nope. It's a microcosm of democracy for each voluntary association of labour, and I think it's a damned brilliant idea.

Reaganista

09-29-2006, 12:50 AM

any number above 0 would constitute 'exploitation'
in as far as two people freely agreeing to a transaction could possibly be exploitative

Smokey D

09-29-2006, 12:54 AM

But not the amount they currently receive, which constitutes exploitation.

I dunno. During the Industrial Revolution, one cloth spinning factory with 750 workers and a single steam engine (I forget the horsepower, but it doesn't really matter) could replace the efforts of 200 000 individual manual spinners. The surplus generated by capital is phenomenal, and we should probably reflect that.

Nope. It's a microcosm of democracy for each voluntary association of labour, and I think it's a damned brilliant idea.

I'd say it functions like a democracy, and can even be considered a democracy internally, but is not necessary for the wider application of democratic principles in society.

Iskandar

09-29-2006, 01:02 AM

I dunno. During the Industrial Revolution, one cloth spinning factory with 750 workers and a single steam engine (I forget the horsepower, but it doesn't really matter) could replace the efforts of 200 000 individual manual spinners. The surplus generated by capital is phenomenal, and we should probably reflect that.
My argument is that it's not capital which generates the surplus through any inherent qualities it may have, nor that labour alone generates surplus (imagine a factory being unused, or a man simply lifting an object over and over - both are examples of capital and labour respectively, but neither generates anything). What generates a surplus, and indeed all product, is the combination of product and labour. The capitalist does not involve himself in this process, he merely owns the capital. Why should someone who does not involvement himself in the productive process deserve a great share of surplus?
I'd say it functions like a democracy, and can even be considered a democracy internally, but is not necessary for the wider application of democratic principles in society.
No, but it'd be an improvement for the greater good of society.

Danish

09-29-2006, 01:37 AM

I don't really want to reply in full yet, but I would like to point out that unmanned mechanical impliments (capital) produces absolutely no value, let alone surplus value.

griftadan

09-29-2006, 01:56 PM

yeah, and unequiped labour likewise produces zero value.

Iskandar

09-29-2006, 03:42 PM

yeah, and unequiped labour likewise produces zero value.
Yeah, we went over this on the last page. The real question is who deserves the surplus value: the owner of the capital or the workers who produced it. I think it's absurd to say anything but those who produced it. I don't see why the owner of capital should receive a larger cut of the surplus than anyone else.

nowhesingsnowhesobs

09-29-2006, 04:27 PM

without the owner of capital there wouldn't be any business

Reaganista

09-29-2006, 04:44 PM

The real question is who deserves the surplus value: the owner of the capital or the workers who produced it
hey why don't we just let them decide

griftadan

09-29-2006, 04:54 PM

Yeah, we went over this on the last page. The real question is who deserves the surplus value: the owner of the capital or the workers who produced it. I think it's absurd to say anything but those who produced it. I don't see why the owner of capital should receive a larger cut of the surplus than anyone else.

because thats what they agreed to?

Danish

09-29-2006, 05:49 PM

yeah, and unequiped labour likewise produces zero value.

No doubt. There is a dialectic relationship between labour and capital.

griftadan

09-29-2006, 05:54 PM

ok so whats your point?

lfantwister

09-29-2006, 05:57 PM

No doubt. There is a dialectic relationship between labour and capital. Sherlock here
because thats what they agreed to?
No!! They didn't agree to it freely because it's not mutually beneficial to the same degree. They were compelled to agree to it because there weren't other options for employment that incorporated a truly mutually beneficial agreement. Not really their decision.

griftadan

09-29-2006, 06:18 PM

They didn't agree to it freely because it's not mutually beneficial to the same degree

i dunno to someone who doens't have a job getting a job is pretty mutually beneficial. either way i'm not to sure why it matters that the subjective benefits aren't to equal to all parties.

They were compelled to agree to it because there weren't other options for employment that incorporated a truly mutually beneficial agreement. Not really their decision.

there aren't? that's rather presumptious. even if its true i still don't see how its not their decision, obviously they looked at the situation and realized that this was the best option for them and decided to go with it. is there some kind of decision-making third party i'm not aware of?

nowhesingsnowhesobs

09-29-2006, 06:22 PM

I'm unsure about how there is a "dialectic" relationship between labour and capital.

lfantwister

09-29-2006, 06:24 PM

i dunno to someone who doens't have a job getting a job is pretty mutually beneficial. either way i'm not to sure why it matters that the subjective benefits aren't to equal to all parties. One person is presented with a much better opportunity than someone else. And everyone should have equal opportunities regardless of pesky things like work ethic etc.

there aren't? that's rather presumptious. even if its true i still don't see how its not their decision, obviously they looked at the situation and realized that this was the best option for them and decided to go with it. is there some kind of decision-making third party i'm not aware of? Yeah, the market. Often it makes decisions for you, like whether or not you want to take that high-paying job, because if it doesn't exist you can't take it. And the best option sometimes, to be frank, just isn't good enough. Minimum wage doesn't cut it all the time.

nowhesingsnowhesobs

09-29-2006, 06:28 PM

Yeah, the market. Often it makes decisions for you, like whether or not you want to take that high-paying job, because if it doesn't exist you can't take it. And the best option sometimes, to be frank, just isn't good enough. Minimum wage doesn't cut it all the time.
substitute "market" with "reality"

griftadan

09-29-2006, 06:38 PM

One person is presented with a much better opportunity than someone else. And everyone should have equal opportunities regardless of pesky things like work ethic etc.

why?

Yeah, the market. Often it makes decisions for you, like whether or not you want to take that high-paying job, because if it doesn't exist you can't take it. And the best option sometimes, to be frank, just isn't good enough. Minimum wage doesn't cut it all the time.

the market doesn't make decision it makes circumstances, and people make decisions based off circumstances. so yeah they do decide.

And the best option sometimes, to be frank, just isn't good enough. Minimum wage doesn't cut it all the time.

good thing it doesn't have to.

lfantwister

09-29-2006, 06:38 PM

Wait you realise im kidding right
I'm as strident a capitalist as the best of them

griftadan

09-29-2006, 06:42 PM

i was wondering about that, but i thought that maybe your blood had turned a shade more pink, and i was going to have to kick some ***

it would have been out of love though.

Smokey D

09-29-2006, 09:42 PM

My argument is that it's not capital which generates the surplus through any inherent qualities it may have, nor that labour alone generates surplus (imagine a factory being unused, or a man simply lifting an object over and over - both are examples of capital and labour respectively, but neither generates anything). What generates a surplus, and indeed all product, is the combination of product and labour. The capitalist does not involve himself in this process, he merely owns the capital. Why should someone who does not involvement himself in the productive process deserve a great share of surplus?

Because it is his equipment that allows for the generation of the vast surplus that raises the standard of living.

Iskandar

09-30-2006, 12:06 AM

Because it is his equipment that allows for the generation of the vast surplus that raises the standard of living.
And he also didn't do any labour. See how this can go in circles?

I think it's worth noting that the vast majority of the workforce has no choice but to sell their labour to another.
without the owner of capital there wouldn't be any business
Are you assuming capital must be privately owned? If so, that's quite a limited outlook.

Antifa

09-30-2006, 01:11 AM

If your going to ressurect this thread, make it for a worthwhile point...

Stop repressing my bumping liberties, syndicalist.

Iskandar

09-30-2006, 01:30 AM

Stop repressing my bumping liberties, syndicalist.
Er ... I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

Reaganista

09-30-2006, 01:44 AM

i have the same problem with you

Iskandar

09-30-2006, 01:45 AM

i have the same problem with you
Then ask me about anything you think I am not serious about.

Reaganista

09-30-2006, 01:46 AM

your avatar

Iskandar

09-30-2006, 01:47 AM

your avatar
I am definitely not serious about that. I just happen to find the mere form of Jigglypuff amusing. Come on, she doesn't even have fingers!

nowhesingsnowhesobs

09-30-2006, 11:48 AM

Are you assuming capital must be privately owned?
no, the state can own capital as well

Antifa

09-30-2006, 12:50 PM

Er ... I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

What difference does it make?

lfantwister

09-30-2006, 05:10 PM

i was wondering about that, but i thought that maybe your blood had turned a shade more pink, and i was going to have to kick some ***

it would have been out of love though.
merge with sex thread?

why? Because everyone is human and deserves at least a minumum set of opportunities. And of course everyone should be presented with the same set of opportunities, so that a true meritocracy can be built and society can grow to great heights

the market doesn't make decision it makes circumstances, and people make decisions based off circumstances. so yeah they do decide. semantics. Circumstances are of course based on decisions as well. And naturally both are based on circumdecision.
Sorry that was awful. But really, both are results of each other, so the market does make decisions for people.

good thing it doesn't have to. Um. Sometimes it does.

griftadan

09-30-2006, 07:00 PM

merge with sex thread?

yesh.

Because everyone is human and deserves at least a minumum set of opportunities. And of course everyone should be presented with the same set of opportunities, so that a true meritocracy can be built and society can grow to great heights

the problem is that many steps made to make oppurtunities end up having inverse effects. i think our system is more than adequate at finding talent and rewarding it.

semantics.

ok

Um. Sometimes it does.

well very few people make minimum wage and many of those are kids or students who have other means of support. its not like there are many viable option to solve that anyways.

Iskandar

09-30-2006, 11:14 PM

no, the state can own capital as well
And capital can be owned by those who use it.

Futue te Ipsum

10-01-2006, 05:24 AM

A computer and a phone is all the capital you need. So why is it that so many choose to work for another?

nowhesingsnowhesobs

10-01-2006, 10:32 AM

And capital can be owned by those who use it.
uh yes, capital is normally used by its owners...

lfantwister

10-01-2006, 08:42 PM

yesh. I take it back. damn lisps!

the problem is that many steps made to make oppurtunities end up having inverse effects. i think our system is more than adequate at finding talent and rewarding it. Not if talent is a product of someone's environment. If that's the case then we clearly stifle it

well very few people make minimum wage and many of those are kids or students who have other means of support. its not like there are many viable option to solve that anyways.
Very few? Where do you live? Here anyway most people make less than minimum wage (illegals). And just because we don't know of any viable solutions doesnt mean someone creative cant come up with one

Iskandar

10-01-2006, 09:28 PM

A computer and a phone is all the capital you need. So why is it that so many choose to work for another?
Self-employment isn't a viable option for a significant proportion of the workforce for a variety of reasons, the most important being:

1) It's difficult to compete with large business owners who dominate the market.
2) Not many people have the skills necessary to operate their own business.
uh yes, capital is normally used by its owners...
Actually, quite of a lot of it isn't but that's besides the point.

Capital is used by those whose labour produces results from it. (Once again, not all capital is combined with labour but that's besides the point.) The owner (bourgeois) does not provide labour; he provides employment and wages in return for labour. Therefore he does not directly use the capital; he uses others who directly use it for his benefit.

However, being in such a position naturally leads to inequalities and problems. The bourgeois aren't a race of evil superdemons out to crush the working man. They do what they do because of their position. It's like installing a single-party state and expecting it to not become corrupt.

This arrangement is not strictly necessary in any economy.

Reaganista

10-01-2006, 09:44 PM

2) Not many people have the skills necessary to operate their own business.
oh then they should probably get a job

Iskandar

10-01-2006, 09:46 PM

oh then they should probably get a job
Did you read my post, or did you select one line and dispute it for no reason?

I'm just wondering.

Reaganista

10-01-2006, 09:48 PM

i didn't dispute it

Iskandar

10-01-2006, 09:52 PM

i didn't dispute it
Alright, good. Even Milton Friedman could have agreed with that post.

Antifa

10-01-2006, 11:10 PM

Alright, good. Even Milton Friedman could have agreed with that post.

Hahaha.

Danish

10-02-2006, 12:22 AM

Capital produces a hella big surplus value.

Oh yea? How, exactly?

That depends on the elasticity of the product in question.

What do you mean by "elasticity"?

Er, using payment incentives isn't really communist idea. And there is absolutely no reason for more highly paid workers to improve upon capital in their workplace, especially given that individual workers are much more likely to spend money on themselves than on a collectivised ideal.

I'm not talking about payment incentives. The revenue generated by the workers in a factory, for instance, would be pooled and distributed according, just as in a capitalist factory. But distribution wouldn't be determined by a few owners, but by the workers themselves. It is unlikely that they would simply raid the company since they depend on it to generate surplus labour value.

Besides, we see workers in unionized workplaces spend the union's money according to the will of the membership the vast majority of the time.

No doubt, but it doesn't mean the principle shouldn't have limitations.

If productivity is the goal, then why not?

Democracy is a set of principles about the power of the people in relation to their government. Workplace democracy is a rhetorical construction that goes well beyond what was ever intended by democracy (not that I'm against workers' rights or collective bargaining or anything).

Why? Who said democracy is about government? We sought to form democratic governments because undemocratic systems feature gross power imbalances. It's generally agreed that gross power imbalances in society deteriorate rights, freedoms, and the overall quality of life. I don't see the workplace as being out-of-step with that.

Besides, you're still implying that democratic principles were set down by some authority and thus cannot be changed or developed. If democracy is about anything, it's about progressively expanding the scope of human freedom. The very nature of democratic theory requires constant extension and expansion, particularly as desired by the specific group in question.

But only my way is the correct way at looking at economic efficiency. Economic effiency takes into account all costs, including oppurtunity costs, and is a much better way to look at things than merely the time taken to produce a good.

The value of output/time, was it? Of course it takes into account overhead costs, but we were talking strictly about labour value. Either way it doesn't matter.

Smokey D

10-02-2006, 08:39 AM

Oh yea? How, exactly?

By multiplying to a vast extent the output/input of a worker. Obviously it requries labour to produce a surplus, but likewise one shouldn't ignore the role of capital.

What do you mean by "elasticity"?

A measure of proportionality for any response to a change in a system. For example, price elasticity is a measure of how much of a product is consumed when its price increases or decreases.

You could also measure 'advertising elacticity', though the effects would be much harder to quantify.

I'm not talking about payment incentives. The revenue generated by the workers in a factory, for instance, would be pooled and distributed according, just as in a capitalist factory. But distribution wouldn't be determined by a few owners, but by the workers themselves. It is unlikely that they would simply raid the company since they depend on it to generate surplus labour value.

Er, it is in the short term to medium term interest of any worker to increase the money they take home rather than the amount of capital available in a factory, which would precipitate a decline in capital growth and eventually in standards of living. It takes fairly strong leadership to ensure long term goals are realised.

And we can't ignore the fact that the surplus produced is as much dependent on the capital owned by the boss as it is on the workers.

Besides, we see workers in unionized workplaces spend the union's money according to the will of the membership the vast majority of the time.

Which isn't necessarily a good thing. People have a tendency to spend money in their own personal interests, not necessarily securing future growth.

If productivity is the goal, then why not?

Because productivity will not always be the result.

Why? Who said democracy is about government? We sought to form democratic governments because undemocratic systems feature gross power imbalances. It's generally agreed that gross power imbalances in society deteriorate rights, freedoms, and the overall quality of life. I don't see the workplace as being out-of-step with that.

Democracy has always been about government. Reading anything else into it is extending its mandate. This doesn't mean workplace rights are a bad thing, or anything, or even that they aren't historically linked with the expansion of democratic principles, but they are not one and the same thing.

Besides, you're still implying that democratic principles were set down by some authority and thus cannot be changed or developed. If democracy is about anything, it's about progressively expanding the scope of human freedom. The very nature of democratic theory requires constant extension and expansion, particularly as desired by the specific group in question.

No, I'm arguing that by its definition, democracy concerns the power of the citizenry over its government.

The value of output/time, was it? Of course it takes into account overhead costs, but we were talking strictly about labour value. Either way it doesn't matter.

Not overhead costs, oppurtunity costs. Ie, any financial (accounting costs) plus the next best thing forgone by deciding to commit oneself to an activity.

nowhesingsnowhesobs

10-02-2006, 11:48 AM

Capital is used by those whose labour produces results from it. (Once again, not all capital is combined with labour but that's besides the point.) The owner (bourgeois) does not provide labour; he provides employment and wages in return for labour. Therefore he does not directly use the capital; he uses others who directly use it for his benefit.

that's only ture if you take "use capital" to mean the actual physical act of using the means of production

and wtf is with "Milton Friedman"?

However, being in such a position naturally leads to inequalities and problems. The bourgeois aren't a race of evil superdemons out to crush the working man. They do what they do because of their position. It's like installing a single-party state and expecting it to not become corrupt.

Except nobody installs the bourgeois, and it isn't a static grouping of people
and they allow working man to be working man
but that doesn't mean I like inequalities, hate worker's rights etc

This arrangement is not strictly necessary in any economy.
but it is necessary in a capitalist economy
which is undisputedly better than pre-capitalist and command economies

Iskandar

10-02-2006, 03:29 PM

that's only ture if you take "use capital" to mean the actual physical act of using the means of production
Which is what matters. Manipulating money is not contributing to society.
and wtf is with "Milton Friedman"?
He's a prominent free-marketeer. I was making a joke. You know, humour.
Except nobody installs the bourgeois, and it isn't a static grouping of people
and they allow working man to be working man
but that doesn't mean I like inequalities, hate worker's rights etc
I never said the bourgeois were installed. They are, however, an integral aspect of capitalism. They are not necessary for employment, if that's what you're implying. Take a look at the self-employed, public-sector jobs, co-operatives and so forth.

If you don't like inequalities, why do you support capitalism?
but it is necessary in a capitalist economy
which is undisputedly better than pre-capitalist and command economies
No, it's your opinion that it is better. I don't want to get into a massive debate over that, though, because it would accomplish nothing and waste a lot of time. Let's stick to the points we've been dragging over so far.

nowhesingsnowhesobs

10-02-2006, 05:26 PM

Which is what matters. Manipulating money is not contributing to society.

err... working in a factory isn't necessarily contributing to society, but that's not what we're talking about

He's a prominent free-marketeer. I was making a joke. You know, humour.

oh, right. hah-hah

I never said the bourgeois were installed. They are, however, an integral aspect of capitalism. They are not necessary for employment, if that's what you're implying. Take a look at the self-employed, public-sector jobs, co-operatives and so forth.
of course they're not strictly necessary for employment

If you don't like inequalities, why do you support capitalism?
Because it's by far the only realistic option and there are ways to reduce the inequalities.

No, it's your opinion that it is better. I don't want to get into a massive debate over that, though, because it would accomplish nothing and waste a lot of time. Let's stick to the points we've been dragging over so far.
wait, you think pre-capitalist and command economies are not inferior?

Iskandar

10-03-2006, 11:22 AM

err... working in a factory isn't necessarily contributing to society, but that's not what we're talking about
Producing commodities and providing services is contributing to society.
of course they're not strictly necessary for employment
So why can't you imagine a successful society without them?

Because it's by far the only realistic option and there are ways to reduce the inequalities.
Once again, it's your opinion that it's the only realistic option.

Methods of reducing the inequalities contradict the system itself, turning free markets into mixed economies. So the true free market isn't a realistic goal in practice.
wait, you think pre-capitalist and command economies are not inferior?
All have their advantages and disadvantages, which were covered in the first week of my economics class.

However, if we are to develop and maintain a high standard of living, I personally doubt pre-capitalist economies would be able to provide that.

nowhesingsnowhesobs

10-03-2006, 11:35 AM

Producing commodities and providing services is contributing to society.

Whatever you're misconceptions about people's contributions to society, it still stands that you were innacurately using the phrase "use capital".

So why can't you imagine a successful society without them?

It's not possible to have a successful society where everything is owned by the state.

Once again, it's your opinion that it's the only realistic option.
and the alternatives to capitalism are...?

Methods of reducing the inequalities contradict the system itself, turning free markets into mixed economies. So the true free market isn't a realistic goal in practice.
yes

All have their advantages and disadvantages, which were covered in the first week of my economics class.

and their advantages and disadvantages are not all of the same magnitude
However, if we are to develop and maintain a high standard of living, I personally doubt pre-capitalist economies would be able to provide that.
ok

Iskandar

10-03-2006, 03:47 PM

Whatever you're misconceptions about people's contributions to society, it still stands that you were innacurately using the phrase "use capital".
I disagree. I don't think that using others who are actively engaged with capital qualifies.
It's not possible to have a successful society where everything is owned by the state.
So this is why you oppose my views: you have a misconception of what they are. Very well, I will clear this up: I do not want everything owned by the state. I do not even want most capital owned by the state. I want the means of production owned and managed by those who directly use them to produce commodities.
and the alternatives to capitalism are...?
Socialism? Mercantilism? Feudalism? Anarcho-Syndicalism? Maoism?
and their advantages and disadvantages are not all of the same magnitudeDepends on your opinion of what the advantages and disadvantages are.

Smokey D

10-04-2006, 02:31 AM

Which is what matters. Manipulating money is not contributing to society.

Monetary liquidity and credit are vastly important to society and modern economies.

So why can't you imagine a successful society without them?

Er, because they're a consequence not a cause of capital development.

All have their advantages and disadvantages, which were covered in the first week of my economics class.

However, if we are to develop and maintain a high standard of living, I personally doubt pre-capitalist economies would be able to provide that.

The advantages of capitalism so overbear the advantages of previous economic systems that it's ridiculous to even bring those systems up in argument about which is the best economic system.

Socialism? Mercantilism? Feudalism? Anarcho-Syndicalism? Maoism?

Abject failures all in providing a viable and better alternative to capitalism.

So this is why you oppose my views: you have a misconception of what they are. Very well, I will clear this up: I do not want everything owned by the state. I do not even want most capital owned by the state. I want the means of production owned and managed by those who directly use them to produce commodities.

There is no reason those who use capital should own it, and that view ignores the transformative role technology and capital development plays in society.

Depends on your opinion of what the advantages and disadvantages are.

No it's blatantly obvious, and even part of the historic dialectic that Capitalism is vastly superior to all previous modes of production.

PS, I will finally be getting back to the Marx thread tonight.

tru3sk8r

10-04-2006, 11:24 AM

[QUOTE=Ollie The Drumming Legend;6234985]People do pretty horrific things when theres nobody to stop them, i mean look at the nazis ( i dont like to draw the parallel here, sorry) , they were all human being but many chose to join of their own free will. So I wouldnt trust people not to do things. I mean, murders happen and if there was no police or anything, only the "goodwill of the commune" or whatever there would be no justice, i think.QUOTE]

I'm sorry if someone has replied to this with my idea, I've only read the first three pages, but you're wrong. There would be the whole community to stop them, with the people managing everyone, they would know if there was a murder amongst the group, and if the murder was outside the group, they would keep watch, and/or go out and find him/her. Think about it, there would be more justice then there is now.

1. Celebs and people of higher power get treated differently in the court system, like O.J.
2. Think of all the murders and other crimes that you never hear of, that the police don't even get to.

I don't really know if this makes sense, or if I look like an idiot for posting this, but that's my idea on that, and forgive me if someone has replyed to this already.

Iskandar

10-04-2006, 03:53 PM

The advantages of capitalism so overbear the advantages of previous economic systems that it's ridiculous to even bring those systems up in argument about which is the best economic system.
I won't deny that it is generally better for the majority, but that doesn't discount the advantages of past systems. In 9000 BCE the standard of living was abhorrent, but there wasn't massive environmental damage caused by industry.
Abject failures all in providing a viable and better alternative to capitalism.
I would argue that there have been examples of successful alternatives. Moldova comes to mind as far as present examples.
There is no reason those who use capital should own it,It seems clear-cut to me that collective ownership and management of capital by those who use it would make more sense than ownership by a privileged elite. An analogy could be made to the superiority of democracy over aristocracy.
and that view ignores the transformative role technology and capital development plays in society.
I don't see how. Could you please elaborate?
No it's blatantly obvious, and even part of the historic dialectic that Capitalism is vastly superior to all previous modes of production.

Yes, of course. But once again, there are certain advantages from previous systems that can't be retained.

griftadan

10-04-2006, 04:37 PM

Producing commodities and providing services is contributing to society.

only if society actually uses said goods or services, otherwise its just an effort in futility.

Iskandar

10-04-2006, 04:51 PM

only if society actually uses said goods or services, otherwise its just an effort in futility.
Heh, good point.

The alternative is to, of course, subordinate all industry to the State whom I'm sure you'll agree will doubtlessly plan production wisely and efficiently....

griftadan

10-04-2006, 06:48 PM

no why would you think that?

Iskandar

10-04-2006, 08:49 PM

no why would you think that?
I was making a subtle joke for your benefit. I suppose a wackjob like me has to try hard to sound out of the ordinary.:-/

griftadan

10-04-2006, 11:10 PM

nah i knew what you were doing, BUT I HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOR, AND NOW MUST TYPE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS TO DEMONSTRATE THIS.

rata

10-05-2006, 12:01 AM

what about the amish community???...

echos

10-09-2006, 11:47 AM

I don't post here often but recently me and a friend were talking about anarchism and China came up. Basically they told me that before communism or maoism was in place, China was in an anarchist state. But during this time many people were killed, and because of the confusion and chaos the communists were able to take control.

Now I researched this alittle myself, but I'd still like to know if this is true? I found that there were anarchist groups, but they didn't seem to have that much power, and that the main cuase for it's decline was that...

"In 1919 the anarchists played a significant role in the May 4th Movement which swept the country. It was at this time that first Bolshevik started organising in China and began contacting Anarchist groups for aid and support. The Anarchists, unaware of how the Bolsheviks had subordinated the soviets to their party apparatus, helped them set up communist study groups — many of which were originally majority Anarchist — and introduced the Bolsheviks into the Chinese labor and student movements."

I'd just like some clarification on this, pardon my ignorance (:

Antifa

10-09-2006, 08:30 PM

Iskandar

10-09-2006, 08:39 PM

Anarchism never was about chaos. China had stages of feudalism. It is true however, that right-socialists often take advantage of anarchists. This has happened many a time.
How do you define "right-socialist," incidentally?

Antifa

10-10-2006, 10:28 PM

How do you define "right-socialist," incidentally?

Statist socialism, such as social democracy or 'socialism in one country' and often non-Marxist socialism, etc.

Antifa

10-10-2006, 10:29 PM

Bolshies!

Iskandar

10-11-2006, 01:55 PM

Statist socialism, such as social democracy or 'socialism in one country' and often non-Marxist socialism, etc.
The point of distinction can be really vague . It'd be better to classify it on a scale of extremely authoritarian to extremely libertarian.

For example, do you consider Stalin and Trotsky the same? They're both statist, but it doesn't suffice to just call them both right-socialist.

Antifa

10-11-2006, 08:03 PM

The point of distinction can be really vague . It'd be better to classify it on a scale of extremely authoritarian to extremely libertarian.

For example, do you consider Stalin and Trotsky the same? They're both statist, but it doesn't suffice to just call them both right-socialist.

For me it obviously does suffice to group them together. I'm not willing to sacrifice my beliefs for either.

Iskandar

10-12-2006, 11:24 AM

For me it obviously does suffice to group them together. I'm not willing to sacrifice my beliefs for either.
But that's so limited. You can't see the world in black and white terms. There are distinct differences between the two, and between their followers today.

Stalin is the ultimate in abused authority. Trotsky committed some abuses, but was fiercely opposed to Stalinism. He isn't as authoritarian and neither are Trotskyists compared to Stalinists.

Hot Karl

10-12-2006, 09:10 PM

I have some molotov cocktails, an AK, and I just glued a broom's brush to my head for a mohawk. Am I anarchist yet?

coheneran

10-13-2006, 06:09 AM

I have some molotov cocktails, an AK, and I just glued a broom's brush to my head for a mohawk. Am I anarchist yet?

I don't let myself get trapped in the hierarchical chain, I am compassionate towards every human being, I take responsibility for my actions, and I'd rather share to survive. Am I an anarchist yet?

griftadan

10-13-2006, 09:35 PM

I have some molotov cocktails, an AK, and I just glued a broom's brush to my head for a mohawk. Am I anarchist yet?

well you've got the pretentious attitude down.

coheneran

10-13-2006, 09:43 PM

well you've got the pretentious attitude down.

Now all he needs is the hope and idealism. Oh, and the not being racist thing, that's also a prerequisite.

Hot Karl

10-13-2006, 10:52 PM

Now all he needs is the hope and idealism. Oh, and the not being racist thing, that's also a prerequisite.

Well you have the stupidity, so I guess you get the grand anarchy title by default. :upset:

Antifa

10-14-2006, 02:16 AM

But that's so limited. You can't see the world in black and white terms. There are distinct differences between the two, and between their followers today.

Stalin is the ultimate in abused authority. Trotsky committed some abuses, but was fiercely opposed to Stalinism. He isn't as authoritarian and neither are Trotskyists compared to Stalinists.

Look at all "Communist" heads of state. Trotsky never had that privelage.

pedro durruti

10-14-2006, 02:27 AM

Antifa

10-14-2006, 02:32 AM

I saw someone mention that anarcho-syndicalism was a failure. Has it existed anywhere outside of the Spanish Revolution? And although it wasn't an entire group of people being run, considering how disorganized Spain was, wasn't it at least somewhat successful, in its circumstances? I think the only accounts I have read on the anarcho-syndicalists are Orwell's, though

The IWW in its prime was largely a syndicalist union, and they failed miserably. The Mexican syndicalist movement sided with the government also. Syndicalism has historically shown cowardice in the face of revolution.

pedro durruti

10-14-2006, 02:43 AM

How did it fail? They may have collaborated with the government, but then they were just giving up their principles for some shared goal. That doesn't show how their system wasn't effective.

Antifa

10-14-2006, 02:51 AM

How did it fail? They may have collaborated with the government, but then they were just giving up their principles for some shared goal. That doesn't show how their system wasn't effective.

A syndicalist union has two pragmatic options:

1. The union can recruit only syndicalist members, keeping the union small in size and losing the power of solidarity and collective bargaining.

2. The union can recruit all workers, leaving the syndicalists a small, disenfranchised fraction of the union.

pedro durruti

10-14-2006, 02:55 AM

A syndicalist union has two pragmatic options:

1. The union can recruit only syndicalist members, keeping the union small in size and losing the power of solidarity and collective bargaining.

2. The union can recruit all workers, leaving the syndicalists a small, disenfranchised fraction of the union.
How does being small lead to loss of solidarity?

Antifa

10-14-2006, 02:56 AM

How does being small lead to loss of solidarity?

Explain to me how effective collective bargaining will be in a workplace where most members are not unionized because they are not syndicalists.

pedro durruti

10-14-2006, 03:03 AM

It's not effective, but I seem to be misundestanding your point, what is it?

Antifa

10-14-2006, 03:06 AM

It's not effective, but I seem to be misundestanding your point, what is it?

Syndicalism is reactionary, not revolutionary.

pedro durruti

10-14-2006, 06:04 AM

Reactionary to who? The syndicalists of Spain weren't reactionaries, they were the revolution.

coheneran

10-14-2006, 10:06 AM

I think Antifa is criticising syndicalism for the wrong reasons. If I were to criticise it for anything, it'd be that it's based around unionising, and unions can take you far, but they can't win a revolution. The IWW were pragmatic in that they recognised they have almost zero chance of toppling the US government and causing a revolution, but they were very effective in creating better conditions and benefits for the workers. Ultimately, a union is a bargaining tool between the workers and the bosses, but as an entity it depends on the bosses to keep "alive", as it were. While individual syndicalists may be revolutionaries, syndicalism is a tool for controlling the conditions of our labour under capitalism, it is not a tool that can be used to overthrow capitalism.

But beyond that, I don't like criticising any basic anarchist ideology, because the point of anarchism is that it allows the betterment of society while allowing the individual free reign over herself. Anarchist society will be so varied and multi-faceted, that saying it will ALL be run on one method of decision-making, one method of organising, one method of whatever-ising, is silly. Actually it defeats the point of anarchism in that solidifying one "tactic" above all others creates conditions for that tactic to become obsolete. The beauty of anarchism is that it isn't a solid structure of principles, it's fluid, it adapts to the situation and the environment. It's far more natural, in an evolutionary sense (lol, been readind Kropotkin again :rolleyes:), than any set system of rules and principles that humans have come up with.

nowhesingsnowhesobs

10-14-2006, 01:48 PM

I think Antifa is criticising syndicalism for the wrong reasons. If I were to criticise it for anything, it'd be that it's based around unionising, and unions can take you far, but they can't win a revolution. The IWW were pragmatic in that they recognised they have almost zero chance of toppling the US government and causing a revolution, but they were very effective in creating better conditions and benefits for the workers. Ultimately, a union is a bargaining tool between the workers and the bosses, but as an entity it depends on the bosses to keep "alive", as it were. While individual syndicalists may be revolutionaries, syndicalism is a tool for controlling the conditions of our labour under capitalism, it is not a tool that can be used to overthrow capitalism.
Wy would you want to overthrow capitalism? What would you do once it has been overthrown?

But beyond that, I don't like criticising any basic anarchist ideology, because the point of anarchism is that it allows the betterment of society while allowing the individual free reign over herself. Anarchist society will be so varied and multi-faceted, that saying it will ALL be run on one method of decision-making, one method of organising, one method of whatever-ising, is silly. Actually it defeats the point of anarchism in that solidifying one "tactic" above all others creates conditions for that tactic to become obsolete. The beauty of anarchism is that it isn't a solid structure of principles, it's fluid, it adapts to the situation and the environment. It's far more natural, in an evolutionary sense (lol, been readind Kropotkin again ), than any set system of rules and principles that humans have come up with.
so anarchism isn't anything other than a utopian hope of things getting better even though you have no idea how things will get better

well, at least that's what you seem to be saying.

pedro durruti

10-14-2006, 01:53 PM

Wy would you want to overthrow capitalism? What would you do once it has been overthrown?
I think the former question is obvious if you've ever read coheneran's posts. And like he said, where a government has been overthrown and replaced by an anarchist society, it will depend on the situation and the environment, and whichever group of anarchists are dominant among the other anarchists

Antifa

10-15-2006, 01:30 AM

Reactionary to who? The syndicalists of Spain weren't reactionaries, they were the revolution.

There was no revolution.

pedro durruti

10-15-2006, 01:39 AM

So are you saying that Homage to Catalonia was fiction, completely? Maybe it is foolish of me to trust Orwell as much as I did, but I believe there was a dramatic change in Catalonia during some of the war. Whether the revolution is temporary or not, it was still a revolution.

Antifa

10-15-2006, 01:46 AM

I was figuratively speaking. There was a war, but the "Revolution" was postponed at the urging of Stalin and the Republican government in order to defeat the fascists. POUM and the CNT/FAI followed with hardly a fight. The only place anything revolutionary happened was in Catalonia and Barcelona for a short while.

Nevertheless, Homage was a great book. If I hadn't of read it, how would I ever have come to know that barbers are anarchists?

pedro durruti

10-15-2006, 01:56 AM

The only place anything revolutionary happened was in Catalonia and Barcelona for a short while.
I still consider this a revolution, even the revolution lived for less than a year. That is a long time for human standards. If America (I will assume you live here) mutilated into a communist society, only for a few months (say the entire east coast) would this not be a revolution? The reactionaries would revert the east coast beck to a capitalist society, eventually, yes, but the anarchist's actions and accomplishments (no matter how temporary they are) are not to be reproached, or discounted simply because of the length of this state of society. There WAS an incredibly dramatic change in society, which qualifies as a revolution.

Iskandar

10-15-2006, 12:17 PM

Look at all "Communist" heads of state. Trotsky never had that privelage.
I agree that he would have been corrupted if he had taken Stalin's place. Anybody would have, no matter how committed to good leadership they were.

Trotskyism is nevertheless an internationalist, progressive approach to socialism while Stalinism is an isolationist, dictatorial approach. That's the legacy these men left.

A syndicalist union has two pragmatic options:

1. The union can recruit only syndicalist members, keeping the union small in size and losing the power of solidarity and collective bargaining.

2. The union can recruit all workers, leaving the syndicalists a small, disenfranchised fraction of the union.
We've been over this. A member of a union is furthering the goals of syndicalism simply by joining the union to protect his interests against his superiors. Not every member of a union has to be a radical anarchist in order to accomplish something.

Antifa

10-15-2006, 03:39 PM

I agree that he would have been corrupted if he had taken Stalin's place. Anybody would have, no matter how committed to good leadership they were.

Trotskyism is nevertheless an internationalist, progressive approach to socialism while Stalinism is an isolationist, dictatorial approach. That's the legacy these men left.

Either way, state-capitalism isn't liberating the working-class.

We've been over this. A member of a union is furthering the goals of syndicalism simply by joining the union to protect his interests against his superiors. Not every member of a union has to be a radical anarchist in order to accomplish something.

Unions are not revolutionary. The idea that unions can slowly seize control of the means of production is brain dead. There will be anarchists in the union still, but if they are a minority group, how will they convince a majority to become anarchists themselves? Syndicalism is idealist at best.

I hope you agree that if the union follows option 1, they will be virtually powerless.

Iskandar

10-15-2006, 05:06 PM

Either way, state-capitalism isn't liberating the working-class.
That's not the point of Trotskyism, although a fair argument could be made for Stalinism.

Unions are not revolutionary. The idea that unions can slowly seize control of the means of production is brain dead. There will be anarchists in the union still, but if they are a minority group, how will they convince a majority to become anarchists themselves? Syndicalism is idealist at best.
Not everybody needs to be an anarchist to realize it is in his or her interest to support his or her own class.
I hope you agree that if the union follows option 1, they will be virtually powerless.
The more members they have, the more power. That's why they should recruit everybody they can.

pedro durruti

03-29-2007, 01:54 PM

I'm just gonna bump this thread so people can get their questions answered about the basics of anarchism...
But wouldn't it require the absence of a government in the first place?
To structure anarchist society, yes, if that's what you're asking.
you could according to anarcho-capitalists, but who the hell listens to them?
Don't you lean that way?

Oh yeah and Das, tell me a little more about mutualism, which you keep talking about.

griftadan

03-29-2007, 03:23 PM

i lean towards capitalism because it works, but only because of certain actions taken by a government. anarchy is stupid in any context to me.

italic zero

03-29-2007, 04:09 PM

do you support a privatized police force?

Der Übermensch

03-29-2007, 04:12 PM

Mutualism is a combination of Anarchist, laize-faire Capitalism, and Sydicalist theory.
It's based mostly off the writings of Pierre Joseph Proudhon, who is considered the father of modern anarchism, but even so, a lot of left anarchists don't consider it to be "Anarchism".
The central part of mutualism is the distinction between private and personal property. The latter is made up of things that you need. Basic need... like a house, or a car, or a family farm; and basic luxeries, like a TV, or a computer. The former are things that are excess, such as a vacation home in the Hamptons, a factory, or a feedlot.

I'll use a farm to show the distinction. A farmer has the right to OWN his own farm (personal proporty), but not a vast factory farm, or a feedlot (private proporty), this is excessive. In order to work it, he would need to hire workers. This is against the Mutualist system, and thus, such private property would not be allowable, as the hired workers would not own the product of their labor ("Property is theft, as Proudhon said"). Instead, such a place would be run by a Sydicate, where each worker had equal share in the property.
I personally am a Confederalist in outlook on the matter. While I do believe in complete autonomy on the local level (Towns/Counties), I also believe in a loose, and very limited form of respresentitive governing bodies on a larger level, for the purpose of coordinating interation between communes, as well as presenting a acceptable and united entity for the purpose of international recognition (I assume that this would be implemented in a smaller area, rather then global).
Thats the basics, I'll try to answer what ever questions you have, as I know that what I wrote is horribly convaluted. I recommend Proudhons "What is Proporty?", and the wikipedia article on Mutualism isn't half-bad either.

italic zero

03-29-2007, 04:20 PM

Your definition of private and personal property seems fuzzy, as 'need' is difficult to define beyond basic survival. Shouldn't it be more about whether it generates income, or whether you use it to employ (exploit, if you like ;)) labor?

Der Übermensch

03-29-2007, 04:22 PM

Private Property goes beyond needs, and encompasses landownership and ownserhip of means of production (Beyond that which one can rationally control on ones own).

italic zero

03-29-2007, 04:26 PM

I don't think it has much to do with need at all.

Der Übermensch

03-29-2007, 04:29 PM

Need probably isn't the best word, but I'm horrible at finding the right ones for situation.

italic zero

03-29-2007, 04:44 PM

fair enough

griftadan

03-29-2007, 04:51 PM

do you support a privatized police force?

no that would be ridiculously bad

coheneran

03-29-2007, 05:05 PM

How is the current army and police force not privatised? They get paid to enforce the policies of a government that's run like a corporation. Hell, deadlines and quotas have ruined whatever semblance of "protecting innocent people" the police had. You know that there's nothing real left in there when Ian Blair changes the name from Police Force to Police Service.

griftadan

03-29-2007, 05:08 PM

because it's run by the government and public funds and under the authority of the executive branch of government?

coheneran

03-29-2007, 07:11 PM

So? Taxation is just forced sharing, which amounts to nothing more than stealing, so all the public funds are in fact stolen.

The "executive branch of government" (or as I like to call them, the board of executives) represents nobody but themselves and companies, and perhaps the few people who actually voted for them. They definitely do not represent the majority of the British population, seeing as 50% of Brits don't vote.

Every single government policy works on the basis of, at the very very least, breaking even withe expenses, which is a terrible way of looking at it, considering they're supposed to look out for the best interests of the people as opposed to the people's stolen money.

griftadan

03-29-2007, 07:18 PM

ok but that's not exactly privatized

coheneran

03-29-2007, 07:21 PM

Same thing, since the public doesn't own it.

Mr. Ron

03-29-2007, 07:42 PM

Why is the anarchist flag black and red?

pedro durruti

03-29-2007, 07:46 PM

That's the syndicalist flag, it uses red cause its communist elements.

coheneran

03-29-2007, 07:49 PM

It's pretty much turned into the general flag for anarchism. For example the French Situationists used it loads, as well as anarchist-communists everywhere.

griftadan

03-29-2007, 07:49 PM

Same thing, since the public doesn't own it.

no it's really not, governments are not the same things as privatized institutions. governments have a monopoly on coercion, private institutions don't.

Mr. Ron

03-29-2007, 07:52 PM

It's pretty much turned into the general flag for anarchism. For example the French Situationists used it loads, as well as anarchist-communists everywhere.

Ok so the red symbolizes forms of communism what about the black?

coheneran

03-29-2007, 08:07 PM

no it's really not, governments are not the same things as privatized institutions. governments have a monopoly on coercion, private institutions don't.

In an "anarchist" capitalist society companies would be exactly the same as governments are now.

There are companies who have a monopoly on certain forms of coercion. For example banks and credit companies.

Besides I don't see why the government having a monopoly on violence makes the army and police publicly-owned?

Ok so the red symbolizes forms of communism what about the black?

Anarchy. Like the black flag is anarchy (as opposed to anarchism): http://www.hippy.freeserve.co.uk/aaflag.gif

There's also the green and black flag, which is eco-anarchism, and the pink and black flag, which is anarcho-queer.