Originally posted by nktwildHmm, there are plently of anti-capitalist arguments, but I'm not sure the fact we have to work most of our lives is one of them. Give or take the odd English king or Roman Emperor, there haven't been too many people throughout history with the luxury of just hanging out. And as for lacking choice, well, I'm not sure about that either. In past times, if your parents were farmers, or cobblers, or blacksmiths, chances are you would be too. Now at least most westerners can excercise a degree of choice, even if the choices we make are normally bad ones.
first of all you should really consider just what you are saying.the central premise of the british government is "spend your whole life working to pay to live, and in your spare time, maybe you can do a few thing that we have determined as none-harmful"
we start are lives trapped to our undeveloped bodies and minds, then we become trapped by our parents, ...[text shortened]... to do good is an "anarchist".
remember, even the govt. is enslaved to the capitolist regime
Surely a better argument against capitalism is that it is in its nature exploitative - of the environment, of developing nations and of the working classes within a capitalist society. But you can make that argument while still acknowledging that generally speaking most of us within Western society have got it pretty good.
Rich.
Originally posted by OmnislashI agree.I could be on a jury.I am never called.They call people who don't want to be there and are frightened by it.
I believe society has much less to do with the way that I am than you may think. I spent the greater part of my life in the proverbial "boonies" far and away from most of the world (we're talking way the heck out there). That aside, I firmly believe in the individual. Every man is responsible for WHO they are and HOW they affect the world around them. ...[text shortened]... for their own benefit because it is legal to do so? Legality be damned, I want accountability!
Linda.
Originally posted by Omnislashan interesting post.
I have this idea for quite a while and I think it's time to get some other people's noodle on the subject.
In every civil society there exists an established order (i.e. laws and law enforcement). Is this truly
ight? Who establishes the laws? People in power, often who believe they know what is right. The laws are put into place to protect your ave ...[text shortened]... t to handle it. Human beings are advanced creatures? By what standard?
What do you think? 😉
whether on the family structure or nation level, there has to be a governor. who's to build roads, hospitals, and other public services? without government, every household would have to provide for all needs we take for granted by simply shopping at the local market. with everyone attending to basic needs, no time for luxaries, cultural arts would not be able to exist.
as for the ideal uptopian state where everyone is a productive, law biding citizen contributing to the common good, it almost sounds like the ideals of a socialist state. yes if we have no criminals, we wouldn't need laws, but reality is not so. unfortunately the ills of mankind exist in all of us; it's a lifelong battle to resist greed, want, desires, etc.
Many post in this thread claim that it is necessary to have a ruling class, or a government to run society. They claim that groups larger than a few individuals would never be able to get anything done without somebody at the top giving orders. They claim that a society could never be run on anarchist principles. Furthermore, they insinuate that people are basically evil in their character, and that they seek only to enrich themselves at the expense of those around them. I find all these claims to be without merit.
A complex and sprawling society does need organization. This is beyond dispute. But it does not need a government and a ruling class. People are capable of running society through their own labor organizations. Just because there are people to organize and facilitate the production of goods in society, does not mean that they will be ruling over people. An anarchist society will be about the administration of things, and not about a government over people. The people will elect managers to coordinate production at various levels. But these managers will have no power to impose their views on others. The managers would not be in the business of governing over people, but would instead concern themselves about organizing goods and production. There will be no need for a political state. The people would be capable of initiating many large scale projects through their own cooperative oranizations.
The idea that people only cooperate in society because they are forced to, I think is false. People will willingly cooperate in any society which best fulfills their wellbeing. It is in their collective best interests to do so. Of course, an anarchist society will have parasites who try to cheat the system. Every society does. An anarchist society will condemn such actions, as would any society. The difference is that this will not have been a decision imposed upon the people by an external governing body, but it will have been the will of the people themselves.
People are generally incapable of seeing very far past their own circumstances. They look at the way things are around them and envision that they will remain pretty much as they are into the future. But change is omnipresent. Twohundred years ago, who could have envisioned the changes that have occured in society to date? The people of that time could not have conceived of such a sweeping transformation. But those changes occured nonetheless. Our present society will substantively change as well in time. The only question is in which direction will it change? Will it be in a direction that enriches humanity, or in a direction that continues to exploit the bulk of humanity. An anarchist society is possible if people are willing to work for it.
To paraphrase Robert Kennedy:
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
just an example from my current life that you may want to discuss - my factory is on strike as of last night. The union system is surely one example of the workers having a good deal of say in what hapens, but they haven't gone on strike because they can't afford to eat or support their families, they've gone on strike because they only want to work 32 hours a week (4 day week!!).
It may be arguable that everyone should be able to work 4 day weeks, but isn't this an example of what the workers will do if they get power? They don't care about the big picture, they don't care that the company pays them a very good wage (more than I get) while trying to stay afloat in a very tough market & refusing to consider lay offs as a cost saving measure, they don't care or can't see that their actions could very easily sink the company and not only cause them to lose their jobs but all 1100 employees worldwide also. All they see is that they have it good but if they push they can get more, even though it is blatantly not for the common good.
Originally posted by belgianfreakI think this really illustrates an underlying root of what is bad with our society: selfishness. Your example shows that it is bad for either side to be selfish. I firmly believe, as I have said before, that the true key to a completely fruitfull society is for each and EVERY individual to care about the well being of their fellow man. Employers should pay a fair wage and employees should not demand more than a fair wage. As simple as the solution is, it is seldom seen in practice.
just an example from my current life that you may want to discuss - my factory is on strike as of last night. The union system is surely one example of the workers having a good deal of say in what hapens, but they haven't gone on strike because they can't afford to eat or support their families, they've gone on strike because they only want to work ...[text shortened]... it good but if they push they can get more, even though it is blatantly not for the common good.
Originally posted by belgianfreakI have little interest in discussing the vagaries of the capitalist marketplace. The fortunes of the capitalist owners may wax or wane over time, but it is always the workers who are made to suffer. If a company does well, the CEO reaps huge benefits. If the company does poorly, the CEO still reaps huge benefits, but the workers get laid off. The capitalists and labor have nothing in common. A gain for one is a loss for the other. For the workers to submit to wage cuts, or other cost saving measures, only provides a short term fix for their problems. Their long term interests would be served much better by doing away with the whole exploitive capitalist system and administering society through their own labor based organizations. Then yes, a 32 hour work week is an example of the positive changes the workers could bring about once they are freed from the shackles of wage slavery. The workers do deserve more. All the wealth of society rightly belongs to them. The only thing the parasitic and exploitive capitalist class deserves, is to be done away with. And it would be for the common good.
just an example from my current life that you may want to discuss - my factory is on strike as of last night. The union system is surely one example of the workers having a good deal of say in what hapens, but they haven't gone on strike because they can't afford to eat or support their families, they've gone on strike because they only want to work ...[text shortened]... it good but if they push they can get more, even though it is blatantly not for the common good.
Originally posted by rwingettdude, did you actually listen to what I said? Maybe I didn't explain it well. Here we have a small international company which is paying it's workers well, better than the management who I assure you work a lot harder. The company refuses to concider wage or job cuts to solve it's financial difficulties. The company is family run, which maybe has a lot to do with their "caring" attitude, and the CEO doesn't take home huge benefits, as these are instead used to strengthen the company, securing peoples jobs & raising their wages. Now these well paid under worked workers are being the parasites, demanding more & more from the organism that is the company, to the extent that they may kill it altogether.
I have little interest in discussing the vagaries of the capitalist marketplace. The fortunes of the capitalist owners may wax or wane over time, but it is always the workers who are made to suffer. If a company does well, the CEO reaps huge benefits. If the company does poorly, the CEO still reaps huge benefits, but the workers get laid off. The capitalist ...[text shortened]... loitive capitalist class deserves, is to be done away with. And it would be for the common good.
Before now I have listened to your arhuments with interest, but you seem to have dismissed what I said with no regard. Does this show a closed mindedness that you are unwilling to listen to the other side?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWe can expand the human race into space where it belongs.
Several people have made reference to the fact that we are ruled by our base nature. I propose that we are omnivore's (not omnilash's <snicker chuckle>😉 who do NOTHING BUT strive for dominance just as our cousins the chimpanzee's. EVERY INSTITUTION, be it an organization, a club, a group or a gathering (see RHP) of humans involves DOMINANCE behavior. ...[text shortened]... nto space and establish a viable system wide civilization. Then clean up and preserve the Earth.
Uh, I thought we WERE in space already...😀
Originally posted by belgianfreakI say again that I have no interest in discussing the vagaries of the capitalist marketplace. Labor is always right. Management is always wrong. It is a black and white issue. Just because the workers in your example have their labor exploited less rapaciously than others, does not mean they are not being exploited. Because the mangement in your example is more benevolent than others is irrelevant. Should a slave owner who whips his slaves less frequently than other slave owners be praised? I do not think so. Slavery deserved to be abolished, and so does capitalism.
dude, did you actually listen to what I said? Maybe I didn't explain it well. Here we have a small international company which is paying it's workers well, better than the management who I assure you work a lot harder. The company refuses to concider wage or job cuts to solve it's financial difficulties. The company is family run, which maybe has a l ...[text shortened]... o regard. Does this show a closed mindedness that you are unwilling to listen to the other side?
You seem to be striving for some type of "fairness" or "evenhandedness" in the relation between labor and management. But to talk about fairness within the confines of a capitalist system is to talk nonsense. The system is based directly upon the exploitation of one class by another. It is an inherent condition for capitalism. The only way that there will ever be any fairness is to do away with such a system altogether.
The management in your example may indeed work very hard, but they do no productive labor. Their predatory machinations are only necessary within the confines of a capitalist system. Do away with that system and they become superfluous. The workers perform all the productive labor in society. They are capable of running society themselves, without the parasitic capitalist class reaping the rewards of their labor. The organism of which you speak richly deserves to be killed and replaced with a new organism, run exclusively by, and for, the workers themselves.
Solidarity, comrade.
Originally posted by rwingettI really do not see where Slavery comes into play, yes it needs to be abolished but thats not what is being talked about, its a manager who pays people for there work...not a slave owner who abuses then for not working.
I say again that I have no interest in discussing the vagaries of the capitalist marketplace. Labor is always right. Management is always wrong. It is a black and white issue. Just because the workers in your example have their labor exploited less rapaciously than others, does not mean they are not being exploited. Because the mangement in your example is ...[text shortened]... ith a new organism, run exclusively by, and for, the workers themselves.
Solidarity, comrade.
The management in your example may indeed work very hard, but they do no productive labor. Their predatory machinations are only necessary within the confines of a capitalist system. Do away with that system and they become superfluous. The workers perform all the productive labor in society. They are capable of running society themselves, without the parasitic capitalist class reaping the rewards of their labor. The organism of which you speak richly deserves to be killed and replaced with a new organism, run exclusively by, and for, the workers themselves.
it is inpossible to manage a country or corp without some-one in charge, to at lest direct stuff, if no-one is in chage the wages of the works and many other thing will be impossible to handle and will go spining out of control (mainly because there is no control)
The management in your example may indeed work very hard, but they do no productive labor. Their predatory machinations are only necessary within the confines of a capitalist system. Do away with that system and they become superfluous. The workers perform all the p ...[text shortened]... hout the parasitic capitalist class reaping the rewards of their laboras I'm sure you understand I am rather busy at the moment, so I hope you don't mind me picking on 1 point of your argument (although I'd love to & hopefully will later get to talk through all of it).
True, the workers are the only ones that actually produce a physical product, but that doesn't mean that managers are parasites on them. For instance, someone who makes sure that the workers who grind the corn have a constant supply of corn can increase output by 50%, creating much more corn than if he'd just worked as an extra grinder. Everyone now has 50% more corn through the work of 1 manager (forget the fact that the extra 50% migh not be divided equally, that's not what we are debating here). It sounds like he's adding to the welfare of the communtity to me.
Originally posted by belgianfreakI refer both you and UncleAdam back to my post from: 07 May '03 23:59, specifically the second paragraph. I have already addressed your concerns. I would just like to maintain a distinction between managers appointed by the ruling capitalist class, and managers elected by the workers from within their own class. The former imposes decisions directed from the top down, while the latter responds to wishes expressed from the bottom up. I would be happy to expand upon this relationship in greater detail, if necessary.
as I'm sure you understand I am rather busy at the moment, so I hope you don't mind me picking on 1 point of your argument (although I'd love to & hopefully will later get to talk through all of it).
True, the workers are the only ones that actually produce a physical product, but that doesn't mean that managers are parasites on them. For instan ...[text shortened]... what we are debating here). It sounds like he's adding to the welfare of the communtity to me.
Solidarity, comrades.