Originally posted by PalynkaDemocratic communism is a synonym for anarchism. And anarchists have no use for a 'communist party', as that is symptomatic of hierarchical vanguardism. A communist party is not only useless in establishing democratic communism, but is, in fact, inimical to it.
Agreed, hence the oxymoron democratic communism.
A capitalist society can never have anything but a superficial democracy as the people don't get to vote on the economic system they will have.
Why not? Didn't Venezuelans vote Chavez? Didn't the Swedish vote for their particular mix between capitalism and social intervention? As much as the t ...[text shortened]... ect, but it's a giant leap in logic to deduce that there is no real democratic choice.[/b]
Whether Venezuelans voted in Chavez is irrelevant. Just because you have a system where you get to vote in socialists (or communists) does not mean you have democratic communism.
Your assertion that there are 'communist' communities that exist within the capitalist one is only partly correct. There are communities that aspire toward communism, which exercise that vision internally, but the fact is that externally they must conform to the rules of the capitalist marketplace. That is to say that essentially they are worker owned and operated businesses. If an interlocking network of such communities could be built to the extent that they became wholly self-sufficient and externally independent from the marketplace, then you would have truly communistic society. But the paradox is that in order to wean themselves away from the capitalist system, they need capital. That, coupled with the disastrous influence of Marx, has served to keep the many communal experiments of the 19th and 20th centuries on the fringes of society.
Capitalism is built on inequality, exploitation, and hierarchical relations. Voting in political elections every four years is meaningless if you have no say in the running of the economic institutions that affect your life. There obviously is some 'democratic choice', but its scope is minimal. But we have been deluded into thinking that it represents a real democracy in action. Unless you have economic freedom, political freedom is next to meaningless.
Originally posted by rwingettYou avoid the main point of my post.
Democratic communism is a synonym for anarchism. And anarchists have no use for a 'communist party', as that is symptomatic of hierarchical vanguardism. A communist party is not only useless in establishing democratic communism, but is, in fact, inimical to it.
Whether Venezuelans voted in Chavez is irrelevant. Just because you have a system where you g ...[text shortened]... acy in action. Unless you have economic freedom, political freedom is next to meaningless.
Your anarchism can never be democratic, by definition. Democracy is simply a way to aggregate individual preferences regarding public choices. This can never be compatible with Communism, because you exclude all possible choice for the existence of legally recognized private property.
Anarchism and democracy are mutually exclusive as in the first there is no aggregation of preferences and in the second there is an aggregation through vote (I'm keeping a general definition as I feel the specifics of each type of democracy are not relevant for this argument). If ever, under anarchism, anything remotely similar to Communism arose, it would have nothing democratic, but it would arise as a natural order.
And it is not irrelevant that Chavez was voted, or that Bush was voted or that Sarkozy was voted. These are real choices and significantly different. You might not like the choices presented, but if a significant number of people agreed with you, your choice would have been there. Why isn't it there?
Tough luck for you, but democracy is not about electing the person of rwingett's choice. Just admit it, you want Communism (or anarcho-Communism, anarcho-syndicalism, whatever) not a democracy of any sort.
Originally posted by kmax87Do YOU ever have fun? Your long political diatribes are more than i can bear. I do like you ability to express yourself thru your writings. I'm absolutely sure you got your education in the USA, correct?
All I know is a Chinese friend put it like this. Their leader is a CEO of a large company that also just happens to be a country. The best part about it is that the usual inefficiency that goes with democracies where endless debates can produce a paralysis of the analysis and a lot of money is spent by the taxpayer to fund the lifestyles of politicians who ne ...[text shortened]... inese wouldnt like to lose if they were to adopt a more democratic consensus style government.
Originally posted by kmax87If your Chinese friend had said anything bad about China, he'd disappear into their gulag.
All I know is a Chinese friend put it like this. Their leader is a CEO of a large company that also just happens to be a country. The best part about it is that the usual inefficiency that goes with democracies where endless debates can produce a paralysis of the analysis and a lot of money is spent by the taxpayer to fund the lifestyles of politicians who ne ...[text shortened]... inese wouldnt like to lose if they were to adopt a more democratic consensus style government.
Human rights violations in China? Heaven forbid!
Originally posted by rwingettCapitalism is built on free markets. Your money is yours and you get to buy what you want. People get to sell what they want. That's about all there is to it. No inherent exploitation or hierarchy. Just buying and selling.
Capitalism is built on inequality, exploitation, and hierarchical relations. Voting in political elections every four years is meaningless if you have no say in the running of the economic institutions that affect your life. There obviously is some 'democratic choice', but its scope is minimal. But we have been deluded into thinking that it represents a rea ...[text shortened]... mocracy in action. Unless you have economic freedom, political freedom is next to meaningless.
Democracy is unconnected to capitalism. We could in theory vote in a group of representatives who could pass laws that would completely stifle capitalism. But until there is a case for it, that's not likely to happen.
Personally, I don't see the case (i.e. the benefit) for an anarchic system -- hence I am unlikely to vote for a representative whose plank is to enact one.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaTo quote Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "Property is theft."
You avoid the main point of my post.
Your anarchism can never be democratic, by definition. Democracy is simply a way to aggregate individual preferences regarding public choices. This can never be compatible with Communism, because you exclude all possible choice for the existence of legally recognized private property.
Anarchism and democracy are mut Communism (or anarcho-Communism, anarcho-syndicalism, whatever) not a democracy of any sort.
Anarchism is the fullest realization of freedom and democracy. You cannot have real freedom where there are gross discrepancies in wealth. Real freedom requires egalitarianism. There can be no real democracy in a system where a man can vote for one of two pro-capitalist candidates every four years, but eight hours a day he exists as a wage slave. My idea of democracy is where each person has an equal and direct say in the running of the economic institutions that shape the conditions in his life. I repeat, real freedom is not political freedom, it is economic freedom. Without the latter, the former is a hollow shell. And real democracy is not political democracy, it is economic democracy.
I have already alluded to the reasons why such an anarchist system hasn't blossomed yet. One is simple inertia. It's very difficult to get that ball rolling when there is active resistance against it. Nobody in feudal Europe ever thought feudalism would change. But it eventually was supplanted by capitalism. The other factor, perhaps more importantly, is overcoming the shadow of Marx himself. His lasting influence has given rise to the falsehood that communalism leads straight to Stalinism. Perhaps the Marxist path does, but there were other paths that socialism could have followed in its pre-Marxist days.
But I don't even think that universal anarchism would necessarily be a good thing. You have to respect the freedom of people not to want to live in such a system. I think the best solution would be a mixed economy. Say, 1/3 capitalist, as it is now. 1/3 where you have worker owned businesses, where the workers are equal stockholders in that business, and they vote to elect a board of trustees. And 1/3 egalitarian, communal, anarchism. As long as the anarchist third is wholly self-sufficient, and could interact with the other two free from any coercion or need, then everyone would truly have a free and unconstrained choice in how to live their life. If someone chose to live in the capitalist sector, it would be because they truly chose to, and not because there was no alternative.
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358The 'free market' is not free.
Capitalism is built on free markets. Your money is yours and you get to buy what you want. People get to sell what they want. That's about all there is to it. No inherent exploitation or hierarchy. Just buying and selling.
Democracy is unconnected to capitalism. We could in theory vote in a group of representatives who could pass laws that would comp rchic system -- hence I am unlikely to vote for a representative whose plank is to enact one.
Edit: Your assertion that there is no exploitation or hierarchy in capitalism is ridiculous in the extreme. Those are the very cornerstones of the system. Every corporation has an owner, some managers, and many workers who are all part of a hierarchy. And the profit motive is based directly on exploitation.
Originally posted by rwingettAgain, you don't address the inherent paradox of your ideas and mistake freedom with democracy. They are not one and the same.
To quote Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "Property is theft."
Anarchism is the fullest realization of freedom and democracy. You cannot have real freedom where there are gross discrepancies in wealth. Real freedom requires egalitarianism. There can be no real democracy in a system where a man can vote for one of two pro-capitalist candidates every four years, bu ...[text shortened]... sector, it would be because they truly chose to, and not because there was no alternative.
One thing is the system that aggregates preferences, another one is the economic system. You keep muddling them.
Anarchism is the absence of system through which society aggregates choice, whilst democracy is the one where aggregate choice is decided by a majority vote (again, simplification, but see my post above).
Sentences like "Anarchism is the fullest realization of freedom and democracy" have a nice ring to it, but are pretty meaningless. What is the role of "democracy" in an anarchy? None. There can be no social process of decision in an anarchy, by definition.
My idea of democracy is where each person has an equal and direct say in the running of the economic institutions that shape the conditions in his life.
What if a majority wants property rights? Do you prevent it by force? I believe that economic freedom requires property rights. It's the only thing that guarantees that I'll reap the fruit of my labour. I don't believe that trust is sufficient for any society to survive in the long-run and even less sufficiently large ones. Democracy cannot be bound a priori to one or another economic system or it is not truly democratic. Why shouldn't the choice of the economic system be a political choice?
And you still fail to explain why people do not seem to want the type of societies you defend. You claim that they are not economically free, yet support for movements like the one you describe are weak at best. And did you pull that 1/3,1/3, 1/3 out of your hat? Who is to decide such things, if not the people?
Originally posted by PalynkaIf the majority of people consistently reject an anarchist system then one will never flourish, as such a system must necessarily be built from the bottom up, and not from the top down. The idea that anarchism can be realized through violent revolution is absurd. Emma Goldman underscored this point when she observed that a society that is brought about by violence and repression will necessarily become a violent and repressive society. Anarchism will have to be built through populist, grass roots efforts.
Again, you don't address the inherent paradox of your ideas and mistake freedom with democracy. They are not one and the same.
One thing is the system that aggregates preferences, another one is the economic system. You keep muddling them.
Anarchism is the absence of system through which society aggregates choice, whilst democracy is the one where aggr ...[text shortened]... ull that 1/3,1/3, 1/3 out of your hat? Who is to decide such things, if not the people?
Economic freedom can never be fully achieved through the maintenance of property rights. If economic freedom is dependent on property rights then some will have great freedom, while others will have virtually none. The range of free choice available to the rich is virtually unlimited, while the range of free choice available to the poor is virtually non-existent. Their every choice is constrained by the inequalities inherent within the system. The choice between working at the employer's terms and starvation is not a free choice.
Despite your constant assertions to the contrary, I have given you reasons why anarchist societies have failed to flourish as of yet. They are the difficulties of building a new system within the confines of the old, and the problems of overcoming Marxism. How many times do I have to say it? But there have been many experiments in communal living arrangements over the last 150 years. From the Owenites and Fourier's Icarian movement, to the rich history of Christian socialism in groups like the Diggers, the Shakers, or the Hutterites. The 20th century has seen the rise of egalitarian socialist communities like East Wind, in Missouri, or Twin Oaks, in Virginia. Those communities have survived for more than 30 years now, although they still lie at the fringes of society. With the problem of their mere survival no longer a pressing issue, they can serve as a stepping-stones for further communities. The complete collapse of the Labor Union movement has discredited the siren song of collaborationism and laid bare the lie that Capital and Labor have anything in common. As more and more people are exposed to the endless rapacity of capitalism, hopefully they will begin to look around for more equitable economic options. If they are made aware that the choice even exists, maybe the communitarian movement will find a whole generation of new converts in the coming generations. But ultimately, the people will have to make that choice themselves.
My example of a mixed economy was based on having three distinct options available. One wholly capitalist, one wholly anarchist, and one an admixture between the two. Whether they're divided in equal thirds or not is irrelevant. The point was that people should have a choice about the economic conditions they are to live in.
Originally posted by PalynkaI have gone over your points about aggregate preferences and aggregate choices, but I'm not sure I can decipher what your point is here. Are you claiming that anarchism and voting are a contradiction?
Again, you don't address the inherent paradox of your ideas and mistake freedom with democracy. They are not one and the same.
One thing is the system that aggregates preferences, another one is the economic system. You keep muddling them.
Anarchism is the absence of system through which society aggregates choice, whilst democracy is the one where aggr ...[text shortened]... ull that 1/3,1/3, 1/3 out of your hat? Who is to decide such things, if not the people?
In an anarchist society, all people would have an equal vote in how to run their industries. In a capitalist system, the majority of people have absolutely no say in how the industries they work in are run. This is the area that has, far and away, the biggest impact on their lives, but yet they have no input into it. Being able to vote for pro-capitalist politicians is only the thinnest veneer of democracy. Having an equal in the conditions of your employment is democracy's fullest realization. Perhaps you're trying to divorce politics from economics and say that democracy applies to the former, but not the latter. I say democracy must be applied in equal measures to both.
Originally posted by PalynkaAlso, I wish to clarify why both Marxism and the Labor Unions have helped to retard the development of anarchism. We see throughout the history of the 19th and 20th centuries examples of large groups of people caught up in the desire to replace capitalism. But at the first International it so happened that socialism went down the Marxist path of violent revolution, instead of Bakunin's anarchist path. Marxism led to Leninism, Leninism led to Stalinism, Stalinism led to Maoism, they all led to rivers of blood being spilled and eventually to the discredit of authoritarian socialism. So despite huge popular sentiment in favor of socialism, the people have been left with nothing. Anarchism has to undo decades of damage inflicted by authoritarian socialists.
Again, you don't address the inherent paradox of your ideas and mistake freedom with democracy. They are not one and the same.
One thing is the system that aggregates preferences, another one is the economic system. You keep muddling them.
Anarchism is the absence of system through which society aggregates choice, whilst democracy is the one where aggr ...[text shortened]... ull that 1/3,1/3, 1/3 out of your hat? Who is to decide such things, if not the people?
The Labor Unions took the opposite path by claiming that "Capital and Labor were brothers" and that the people could work within the system to better their common lot. And for many years this seemed to be true. The Unions led to the building of a growing middle class and a host of other improvements. But the precarious nature of those gains has been made abundantly clear with the ascendancy of Globalism and the almost complete defeat of the Labor Unions. Now workers across the world have been pitted against each other in a spiraling race to the bottom. The bankruptcy of the Labor Union's collaborationist policies has been laid bare.
People need time to regroup and shake off the debris of those two failed approaches before they will be able to proceed with any anarchist societies.
Originally posted by rwingettHumans didn't invent the concept or property. The concept of property starts with the concept of territory. You can explain property rights to a lion or a grizzly bear -- they will both understand exactly what you mean. A hermit crab understands that he "owns" his shell. A stickleback fish will vigorously defend "his" territory.
To quote Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "Property is theft."
Anarchism is the fullest realization of freedom and democracy. You cannot have real freedom where there are gross discrepancies in wealth. Real freedom requires egalitarianism. There can be no real democracy in a system where a man can vote for one of two pro-capitalist candidates every four years, bu ...[text shortened]... sector, it would be because they truly chose to, and not because there was no alternative.
Since the idea of property evolves naturally in any living system, to say, "I am going to abolish property" makes no more sense than saying, "I am going to abolish gravity," or "I am going to abolish aggression." Whatever system we live under has to respect that notions of property exist.
The capitalist system, with the addition of a system for peaceably resolving disputes, respects the desire for property and gives people the maximum of freedom and opportunity to satisfy that desire.
That's the real reason the anarchic system hasn't blossomed. Saying "property is theft" is just a way of signaling, "look out -- someone is coming to take your property."
Originally posted by rwingettThere may be a hierarchy in many corporations, but a hierarchy is not inherent in capitalism. If I show up with a better mousetrap and want to sell it in a free market, I don't need approval to do that. There is no hierarchy to stop me. (There are government regs -- I'm sure the EU has a Moustrap Policy, for example -- but regulation is actualy a departure fom a perfectly free market).
The 'free market' is not free.
Edit: Your assertion that there is no exploitation or hierarchy in capitalism is ridiculous in the extreme. Those are the very cornerstones of the system. Every corporation has an owner, some managers, and many workers who are all part of a hierarchy. And the profit motive is based directly on exploitation.
I've said for years that corporations wouldn't have to be run hierarchically. They could be run democratically, by a vote of the workers. And even now, most publicly traded corporations are governed to some extent by shareholder voting. But I would say the system of 'corporate democracy' is still in it's infancy.
As far as the profit motive being based on exploitation -- hmmm. I buy low, and sell high. Usually, I do something in between so that 'low' becomes 'high'. Or I can just wait -- maybe I luck out. Either way, I'm not seeing who I exploit.
If you mean exploiting natural resources -- actually it is natural resources that are NOT owned by someone that are the most exploited. Ocean fisheries for example. Or vast tracts of government-owned forest. Or historically any "frontier" with "free land". So capitalism -- i.e. private ownership -- tends to work against exploitation, not for it.
Originally posted by spruce112358I think you spent too much time with your nose in your 'Economics 101' textbook and not enough time looking at the real world. Either that or you read way too much Ayn Rand in highschool.
There may be a hierarchy in many corporations, but a hierarchy is not inherent in capitalism. If I show up with a better mousetrap and want to sell it in a free market, I don't need approval to do that. There is no hierarchy to stop me. (There are government regs -- I'm sure the EU has a Moustrap Policy, for example -- but regulation is actualy a depart ...[text shortened]... ism -- i.e. private ownership -- tends to work against exploitation, not for it.
If things were limited to the level of small mom and pop stores, then all your waxing rhapsodic over the glories of the "free market" might have a tenuous foothold in reality. But when you get up to the level of multi-national corporations, operating on a global scale, then none of those rules apply any longer. Building better products is only a small part of the picture. In fact, we've seen many examples of inferior products that beat out better ones, because its all about manipulating the market. At the top end, Capitalism in a post-industrial age is hardly even about making things anymore. It's all about moving money around. Acquisitions, buyouts and mergers. So you have an endless string of corporate fiascoes, like Enron, Worldcom, and Adelphia, where the objective is to inflate the Swiss bank accounts of the piratical CEOs while the public be damned. THAT is corporate capitalism in the real world, and not some obsolescent textbook example about supply and demand, or vapid platitudes like 'buy low and sell high.'
The end result is that we have a world where Bill Gates can amass a $56 billion fortune while 2 billion people around the world live on $2 a day or less. And what absolutely boggles the mind is that people like you will look at that and say that capitalism is doing a fine job, and that there is no exploitation inherent within the system. Forgive me if I find your logic unpersuasive.
Originally posted by rwingettI forgive you.
I think you spent too much time with your nose in your 'Economics 101' textbook and not enough time looking at the real world. Either that or you read way too much Ayn Rand in highschool.
If things were limited to the level of small mom and pop stores, then all your waxing rhapsodic over the glories of the "free market" might have a tenuous foothold in ...[text shortened]... o exploitation inherent within the system. Forgive me if I find your logic unpersuasive.
If we take Bill Gates fortune and distribute it worldwide, everybody gets -- what $9 and change? This is going to change the world and make it a better place?
But the message -- your stuff is NOT actually your stuff. The government can take your stuff and redistribute it because it's BETTER that way. Mugabe tried that in Zim with white farmer's land that "they had no right to" -- and what happened? The country goes from net exporter of food to a net importer. Do that on a global scale? No thanks. I'm not ready to experience that kind of economic catastrophe.
As for corporate irrresponsibility -- well, I challenge you to legislate any system that makes humans more moral creatures -- capitalist, communist, or anarchist. The bad apples will always be there are always try to take advantage.