Why political solutions will never work

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But people are already free to create cooperative businesses.

So they are. But the deck is stacked heavily against them. Both the culture and infrastructure of the nation are designed to promote and facilitate privately owned businesses. As a practical consideration, the nature of the system actively discourages people from considering a cooperative business model, despite the fact that it has proven itself to be a viable one.

As for fostering cooperative businesses as a long term strategy for transforming the nature of the economic system, people have instead been conditioned to pursue such an agenda through the political system. The political system, however, having been specifically designed to thwart such pursuits, has proven to be a barren avenue. Transformational change to a nation's economic system will have to come from without the political system.

Originally posted by rwingett
So they are. But the deck is stacked heavily against them. Both the culture and infrastructure of the nation are designed to promote and facilitate privately owned businesses. As a practical consideration, the nature of the system actively discourages people from considering a cooperative business model, despite the fact that it has proven itself to be a vi ...[text shortened]... ional change to a nation's economic system will have to come from without the political system.

In the end though, I don't think there is much difference in practise between a cooperative corporation and a corporation with well-organized labour unions.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
In the end though, I don't think there is much difference in practise between a cooperative corporation and a corporation with well-organized labour unions.

I couldn't disagree with you more strenuously. Traditional labor unions have served to legitimize the system of private ownership by making it seem as though the system could work for the mutual benefit of both capital and labor. As such, they have kept labor within the narrow confines of that system, when they could have been enacting a permanent emancipation from it by promoting worker owned businesses. In the end, the labor union strategy was built on an illusion that has ended in disaster for the working class.

Originally posted by rwingett
I couldn't disagree with you more strenuously. Traditional labor unions have served to legitimize the system of private ownership by making it seem as though the system could work for the mutual benefit of both capital and labor. As such, they have kept labor within the narrow confines of that system, when they could have been enacting a permanent emancipat ...[text shortened]... labor union strategy was built on an illusion that has ended in disaster for the working class.

Perhaps in the US. In the Netherlands the labour unions have been integrated into the political system and many other European countries have strong labour unions.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Perhaps in the US. In the Netherlands the labour unions have been integrated into the political system and many other European countries have strong labour unions.

And their ultimate effect is to legitimize the system of private ownership and to discourage the formation of worker owned businesses. By making such a system appear to be slightly more equitable it has the effect of permanently entrenching its most basic flaws.

Originally posted by rwingett
And their ultimate effect is to legitimize the system of private ownership and to discourage the formation of worker owned businesses. By making such a system appear to be slightly more equitable it has the effect of permanently entrenching its most basic flaws.

Not at all. As far as I am aware labour unions are also active in the cooperative Rabobank.

Originally posted by rwingett
So they are. But the deck is stacked heavily against them. Both the culture and infrastructure of the nation are designed to promote and facilitate privately owned businesses. As a practical consideration, the nature of the system actively discourages people from considering a cooperative business model, despite the fact that it has proven itself to be a vi ...[text shortened]... ional change to a nation's economic system will have to come from without the political system.

So in order for this "bottom-up" revolution to occur, we first need to enact "top-down" reforms to the national culture and infrastructure so that the deck will be stacked more fairly?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
So in order for this "bottom-up" revolution to occur, we first need to enact "top-down" reforms to the national culture and infrastructure so that the deck will be stacked more fairly?

It would certainly help, but no, it's not necessary. All that is needed is for progressives to realize the type and scope of victories that may be won in the political sphere are very narrow in nature. It is all but impossible to achieve a systemic transformation of the nation's economic sphere through a political agenda. Any political agenda, no matter how progressive, can only accomplish limited reforms of the existing economic sphere. Any substantive transformation to the workings of the economic sphere must necessarily come from outside of the political sphere.

I say again, if progressives had taken half of the energy and money they poured into electing Obama and put it instead into building a base of worker owned businesses, they'd have far more to show for it than they do now.

Originally posted by rwingett
So they are. But the deck is stacked heavily against them. Both the culture and infrastructure of the nation are designed to promote and facilitate privately owned businesses. As a practical consideration, the nature of the system actively discourages people from considering a cooperative business model, despite the fact that it has proven itself to be a viable one.

Why is the deck stacked against them? I thought that these were quite successful, actually.

Originally posted by rwingett
The way to success, therefore, is to not aim for large scale organization. Things should be kept as decentralized and localized as possible. One should not try to succeed once at the national level, but thousands of times at the local level instead. This, of course, is anarchism.

And, of course, anarchism will be ruled by the first large organization that threatens it because it lacks the structures to resist it.

Anarchism will always fail because it is easily dominated. The few examples of anarchist societies have all eventually fell prey to autocratic ones or have been protected under the umbrella of tolerating governments. It cannot last and will be replaced by the first less scrupulous government/organization. This is, in fact, a manifestation of the same dynamics of your "Iron Law of Oligarchy".

Originally posted by Palynka
And, of course, anarchism will be ruled by the first large organization that threatens it because it lacks the structures to resist it.

Anarchism will always fail because it is easily dominated. The few examples of anarchist societies have all eventually fell prey to autocratic ones or have been protected under the umbrella of tolerating governments. It ...[text shortened]... ation. This is, in fact, a manifestation of the same dynamics of your "Iron Law of Oligarchy".

I'm not entirely sure about that. The anarchist militias formed a large part of the Republican war effort during the Spanish Civil War, although it is true that Franco did eventually win that one. Whether it was doomed to turn out that way is open to debate.

A population that is ingrained with a resistance to centralized authority could potentially be very difficult to subdue. I am not claiming the Afghans are 'anarchist' in any sense, but I could see a hypothetical anarchist population resisting foreign occupation with a similar tenacity, perhaps fighting an ongoing low level guerrilla war.

Originally posted by Palynka
Why is the deck stacked against them? I thought that these were quite successful, actually.

They have been successful when tried, but the prevailing infrastructure and business culture both discourage people from trying a cooperative business model. Until very recently there has been very little support or guidance for such ventures. Maybe that will change in the near future. Most people, though, are not even aware they exist, or that it is an option open to them.

Originally posted by rwingett
I'm not entirely sure about that. The anarchist militias formed a large part of the Republican war effort during the Spanish Civil War, although it is true that Franco did eventually win that one. Whether it was doomed to turn out that way is open to debate.

A population that is ingrained with a resistance to centralized authority could potentially be v ...[text shortened]... eign occupation with a similar tenacity, perhaps fighting an ongoing low level guerrilla war.

But even if they had won, what would have protected them against the rise of a dictator? Just look at the French Revolution.

Originally posted by rwingett
I'm not entirely sure about that. The anarchist militias formed a large part of the Republican war effort during the Spanish Civil War, although it is true that Franco did eventually win that one. Whether it was doomed to turn out that way is open to debate.

A population that is ingrained with a resistance to centralized authority could potentially be v ...[text shortened]... eign occupation with a similar tenacity, perhaps fighting an ongoing low level guerrilla war.

I'm not entirely sure about that. The anarchist militias formed a large part of the Republican war effort during the Spanish Civil War, although it is true that Franco did eventually win that one. Whether it was doomed to turn out that way is open to debate.

Is it realistic to assume their system could be replicated on a wider context?
I don't think wartime practices can be fully sustained under normal circumstances, a form of collectivism was implemented in Britain during the war for example, but it would be impossible to realistically keep such system working effectively once there was no war.

Originally posted by rwingett
I'm not entirely sure about that. The anarchist militias formed a large part of the Republican war effort during the Spanish Civil War, although it is true that Franco did eventually win that one. Whether it was doomed to turn out that way is open to debate.

A population that is ingrained with a resistance to centralized authority could potentially be v ...[text shortened]... eign occupation with a similar tenacity, perhaps fighting an ongoing low level guerrilla war.

A population that is ingrained with a resistance to centralized authority could potentially be very difficult to subdue. I am not claiming the Afghans are 'anarchist' in any sense, but I could see a hypothetical anarchist population resisting foreign occupation with a similar tenacity, perhaps fighting an ongoing low level guerrilla war.

This is true, but if we were to have a society with an inherent aversion to centralized authority it would also be impossible to impose standards aimed at the welfare of all and the viable and sustainable economic development of this society.
In anarchy there is no collective objective to aspire to, and ultimately the priorities of individuals or individual groups will clash. Anarchy is without a doubt a recipe for disaster sooner or later.