Originally posted by StarValleyWyHmmmmmmmmm.......Brave,brave man.
What have you done in your life to date? I have (with my own hands) framed 2450 houses, remodeled 1900 entry doors, built 300 sets of cabinets as well as trimmed out the houses they went into. I have designed and marketed software used by over a thousand people. The software has enabled them to go from approx. 1 million dollars per year in sales to over ...[text shortened]... e behind this anarchy crap. You just want somebody to pay your way in life. Ain't gonna happen.
I do have to agree with you Mike.I am from South Africa,where we are learning a few lessons in capitalism,or rather some of us are.Sam Shilowa ex leader of one of the biggest unions in the world is now living in the lap of luxury while millions dont have running water or electricity.Jay Naidoo ex leader of COSATU erm,doing the same.The ANC in bed with the Communist Party,well have you ever seen any black politicians from SA?They are so fat they wouldnt fit through your front door.Remember they are the ones who promised the people equality.They started the "revolution"Oh and the people are so happy....
Workers used to strike earning no wages for weeks while the leaders went home to their luxury mansions.The blacks in SA still have nothing.We have a joke here.Two blacks digging a hole while the white man watches them work.The one says to the other:I thought we will be in charge after the elections",the other replies:"We are"The white man is still there only now he is black.The "people"still suffers.You know why?Because they believed the crap Mr.rwingett is selling.
To everyone who says money doesnt matter.I say:
1.Go to bed hungry in the evenings
2.Walk 5 miles everyday to fetch water.
3.Walk 10 miles to work.
4.Clean toilets in a nightclub for a living.
5.Go to school under a tree.
Then tell me money doesnt matter.You will work for anyone just to have a few cents in your pocket.
Dont talk to the people in Africa about unions and respect for each other,because you know what?We still do it the honest way.The strongest survive.That is why I have a problem with a person who has access to a PC talking about the evils of capitalism.You are probably having a beer while some kid is selling his/her body in Johannesburg in order for this 10 year old to have a piece of dry bread tonight.Just because they believe capitalism is evil.
All I am saying is,dont believe all the crap people tell you.Rather find out for yourself.
Originally posted by WDKIn an anarchist system, there would be no private ownership of the means of production. All the means of production (including orange groves) would be collectively owned by the workers as a whole. Production would be for use and not for profit. There would be a need for administrators to determine the demand for oranges and coordinate their production (growth), but there would be no need for middlemen and consultants as they exist in a capitalist system.
if i grow oranges in florida, but wish to market my harvest to the UK, i might hire the services of a UK middleman for contacts and potenital buyers, navigate UK laws and regulations, etc. so such middlemen, although 'unproductive capitalists,' contribute value to me. as an aside, let me ask whether one thinks consultants are nonproductive ? consultants peddle ideas and knowledge, but do you consider such things unproductive/intangible too ?🙄
1 edit
how do you think an archistic society could get past this basic human thought process:
If the resourses of 1000 people's work is shared equally, I will get 1000th of the proceeds. If each person works hard each will produce 10 units, and I will therefore recieve 10 units as my share. If however everyone else works hard and I do mediocre work producing 5 unit I will get 1000th of 9995 units whioch is essentially 10 again. If I do no work then I will get 1000th of 9990 units which is 9.99 units, essentially 10 units again.
If noone works hard then we will all produce 5 units & I'll get 5 units as my share. If I decide to work really hard I'll get 1000th of 5005 units, which is still 5.
Why work hard? Why work at all?
The thery that all people would work for the good of each other is a nice one, but a quick look at all the people who sit on welfare when they are capable of working, who rob & steal not because they can earn but because they want more than they are entitled to, you can't convince me that the majority are going to work hard when there is no reward.
2nd question. If I will earn the same number of units for working an unpleasant or dangerous job (sewer repair man?) as for a pleasant job (lingere model assistant) why would I do the unpleasant job? We couldn't have equal job rotation because then noone would be well trained in anything.
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakExcellent, Excellent post. And it hits the nail on the head directly. The answer TO BOTH OF YOUR POSERS has already been written in history over and over. The elite class (sorry, i mean party members, call them commie or anarchists... no difference) will form a secret police. The secret police then kill and purge and kill and purge at home and commit outright genecide abroad until the numbers are right to support the elite(party members if you wish), the military, themselves and just enough industry and agriculture to remain a second class nation for all time. To allow success of the worker is too dangerous and will be suppressed as per history again.THIS IS PROVABLE HISTORY HERE. Just study the soviets and all of their clients, china and its clients, cuba and on and on and on... Better yet, just study the work of one brilliant socialist by the name of Eric Blair, also known as George Orwell. His novel 1984 details exactly what history has proven to be the case. Then study the most current example of broken communism, ala 1984, North Korea. I highly recommend the current book "Why Orwell Matters" by Christopher Hitchens. He is one smart Brit!
how do you think an archistic society could get past this basic human thought process:
If the resourses of 1000 people's work is shared equally, I will get 1000th of the proceeds. If each person works hard each will produce 10 unit ...[text shortened]... ob rotation because then noone would be well trained in anything.
Anarchy
SYLLABICATION: an·ar·chy
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: nr-k KEY
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
---------
basicly means no laws or any kind of order, the way of life would be like Baghdad before US troops was able to get everything back under control, there would be looting, murders, rapes and lots of other crimes alot more often than there would be in a country with a govrment, withour a govrment there would be noone to make laws and noone to punish people for breaking laws.
Originally posted by belgianfreakI haven't read every message in this thread, but I decided to throw myself in anyway :-)
how do you think an archistic society could get past this basic human thought process:
If the resourses of 1000 people's work is shared equally, I will get 1000th of the proceeds. If each person works hard each will produce 10 units, and I will therefore recieve 10 units as my share. If however everyone else works hard and I do mediocre work produci ...[text shortened]... y hard I'll get 1000th of 5005 units, which is still 5.
Why work hard? Why work at all?
I think the problem with your example is that you use a capitalist definition of 'work' on a system that gives a different meaning to this concept. There are other reasons to work hard than the units you mention. Not have food at night because you don't work hard for example.
The messages I did read in this thread, made me think about how often discussions like these start from all kinds of grand theories, that explain the whole of human interaction and propose an ideal model of society. That seems detached from reality.
If anarchy is in it's first sense "Absence of any form of political authority", then what is political authority. I can see a couple of families distancing themselves as far as possible from the western state, but then there's probably a kind of semi-organized group of people to decide on issues that concern the group. Sounds politicalish to me, but since humans always need to construct some common ground to base their shared lives on, there's always some kind of politics going on.
Hmm, I'm starting to sound theoretical too :-)
david
Originally posted by rwingettHow would the distribution of goods and services be accomlished in such a system? Would the oranges be distributed equally? What about people who dont like oranges? Would they have to take them anyway, and then trade them? Or would the administrators take special requests?
In an anarchist system, there would be no private ownership of the means of production. All the means of production (including orange groves) would be collectively owned by the workers as a whole. Production would be for use and not for profit. There would be a need for administrators to determine the demand for oranges and coordinate their production (grow ...[text shortened]... , but there would be no need for middlemen and consultants as they exist in a capitalist system.
What if I want a better computer? Will one be given to me merely because I ask for it? Or will I have to wait until we can produce enough better computers for everyone to have one?
Production is easy. Distribution is a lot trickier.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of capitalism. Of course, if you ask me, true capitalism was abolished long ago.
1 edit
Originally posted by richjohnsonNice... I personally think that if there was no capitalism, there wouldn't be any computers to upgrade. There wouldn't be any R&D because everyone would only do enough work to sustain the community and the administrators would only make sure that there was enough oranges traded with other communities for beef (or whatever). ie. the start of capitalism...
How would the distribution of goods and services be accomlished in such a system? Would the oranges be distributed equally? What about people who dont like oranges? Would they have to take them anyway, and then trade them? Or would ...[text shortened]... Of course, if you ask me, true capitalism was abolished long ago.
I am seeing some things in here I have beef with. To begin with an archist society has nothing to do with a collective or communal ownership of anything. I'm not saying that such an idea is bad, in fact I think it is a really good idea, but lets not confuse communal society with anarchy. I hold to my previous statements that anarchy is what would exist in a perfect world because we have perfected SELF regulation.
And for the record you "nay sayers", communism has NEVER existed! Look up the definition of communism then show me ANY government EVER that has come anywhere CLOSE to fitting the bill. I believe that people that are against communism are affected by one of three things:
1. They have been persueded by political propaganda of yore.
2. They don't know what communism REALLY is (or should be).
3. They are in the upper class and thusly uphold the system that has placed them there denying a system that could bring down their social class (although this one is not common).
Lets get it straight. Anarchy IS about absence of order. Most "anarchists" are not looking to have a complete absence of structure, but rather find undenyable flaws with the system as it stands and seek the removal of that system. Find me someone who calls themselves an anarchist and you've found me someone who cares about his neighbor. An archist state is a transitional period, or atleast it shall be untill we learn to govern ourselves such that our motivation is for the good of all.
Originally posted by OmnislashYou should look into the East Wind Community, and the Federation of Egalitarian Communities that I mentioned earlier in this thread. East Wind is a community of about 70 people living on 1045 acres of land in the scenic Missouri Ozarks. A decent and fairly stress free life out in the woods is exactly what they have established. You could live a fully human life there, instead of being a cog in the dehumanizing capitalist machine. I lived there for nearly a year in the late 1980's. It was a very rewarding experience.
I couldn't have said it better myself. 😉
What truly bothers me is how difficult it is to be an individual nonconformist. I have often thought to myself that I should just head out into the wilderness and live off the land, forgetting all about modern society and its woes. As someone who grew up in the boonies I think in time I could establish a decent ...[text shortened]... itat, and any hunting I did would be poaching.
Alas, it was a nice dream while it lasted. 😞
East Wind Community: http://www.eastwind.org/index.html/
Federation of Egalitarian Communities: http://www.thefec.org/
Originally posted by rwingettYour posts aren't completely silly, though they are a little reminiscent of "four legs good, two legs bad" from 'Animal Farm'. The current system certainly has its problems, but given your extreme attitude, are you living in an anarcho-syndicalist commune, and if not, why not?
Huh? Are you saying that my posts are totally silly, childish, lazy and stupid?
Originally posted by Dr. BrainDespite whatever your so called unions have said, South Africa is, and has always been (since European settlement), a capitalist society. Your "revolution" merely swept the embarrassment of apartheid out the door. It has never challenged the supremacy of capitalism in South Africa. All the ills and inequalities you describe are due to the capitalist system of exploitation. Whether blacks or whites rule will make little difference to the economic conditions in South Africa as long as capitalism remains in place. Your communist party is an obsolete holdover from the Stalinist era. Anarchists reject the role of the vanguard party.
Hmmmmmmmmm.......Brave,brave man.
I do have to agree with you Mike.I am from South Africa,where we are learning a few lessons in capitalism,or rather some of us are.Sam Shilowa ex leader of one of the biggest unions in the world is now living in the lap of luxury while millions dont have running water or electricity.Jay Naidoo ex leader of COSATU erm,do ...[text shortened]...
All I am saying is,dont believe all the crap people tell you.Rather find out for yourself.
Originally posted by rwingettA lot of the profits from companies are eventually going to such dastardly characters as the government (via taxes), pensioners and people with savings accounts (the last two via shares). The money is indeed unfairly distributed, but a large number of the 'workers' are in on it too.
The current trade unions that exist in capitalist society are not models that an anarchist would wish to follow. Trade unions accept the existence of the capitalist class, and proclaim that labor and capital are brothers. The capitalist trade unions have had some success in ameliorating some of the symptoms of capitalist exploitation, but they have no inten ...[text shortened]... m is an excercise in futility. Capitalism can not be adequately reformed. It must be eliminated.
On the issue of managers being unproductive. Roughly speaking, a manager's job is to:
a) Increase the efficiency & production of his company
b) Increase his market share (ie by persuading customers of other companies to switch)
c) Create demand for the company's products.
a) is not a trivial task and surely can't be considered unproductive. b) is by its nature inefficient, I agree, as it involves advertising and redundancy (two coffee shops on the same street, for instance.) However, it is difficult to see how, in the long run, a company with a monopoly would have the incentives to offer customers more choice and operate with greater efficiency. Revolutionary fervour doesn't last forever. c) is often bad, however I would say that firstly, many companies have quite limited power to do this (fruit producers are a classic example of this, even when they get government help!), and secondly, where it does happen, it is because the consumer either likes the product, but wouldn't otherwise know it existed (eg if a useful invention is being marketed); or they are gullible, naive or simply have nothing better to do with their money (children are especially prone to this, but even adults will 'impulse-buy' various useless items such as superfluous clothes.) In the latter case, I think the solution is for severe restrictions on advertising aimed at children, and for people to think more about what they are buying. If that is too much to ask, then I don't see any hope of such people self-organising their labour in their best interests.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou have no idea what communism, or anarchism even is, except what you have been spoon fed by the capitalist controlled media. What you are histrionically ranting on about is a Soviet style, Stalinist system, which, as you correctly point out, has little relevance to today's world. I detest Stalinism just as much as you. But I do so for different reasons. I reject Stalinism because it betrayed the aspirations of the worker's revolution. The Soviet Union merely replaced one system of exploitation with another. Despite all their rhetoric, they never established a Marxist system. The Leninist/Stalinist/Mao Tse Tung deviation of Marxism has failed, and deservedly so. That is why anarchist reject the role of the vanguard party. The revolution can not come from the top down, but must come from the bottom, through the direct action of the workers themselves. George Orwell's books, 1984 and Animal Farm, condemn the Stalinist betrayal of the revolution, but Orwell himself was still a socialist. He fought as a member in the anarchist malitias in the Spanish Civil War, which is described in his book, Homage to Catalonia.
What have you done in your life to date? I have (with my own hands) framed 2450 houses, remodeled 1900 entry doors, built 300 sets of cabinets as well as trimmed out the houses they went into. I have designed and marketed software used by over a thousand people. The software has enabled them to go from approx. 1 million dollars per year in sales to over ...[text shortened]... e behind this anarchy crap. You just want somebody to pay your way in life. Ain't gonna happen.
You have obviously done well under capitalism. Many people have. But for every person who secceeds in such a system, many more will fail. Despite your ad hominem attacks on me, I do not want anybody to pay my way in life. I have been continuously employed since I was 15 years old. I, too, have done fairly well in the confines of the capitalist system. But this isn't about ME. It's about the whole of humanity. What kind of hopes and aspirations do we have for ourselves as a species? Do we want to continue to live under a system of exploitation and enforced poverty, when we have the capability of changing it? Do we want to live in a system where people are treated as commodities on the labor market, to be bought and sold, and tossed in the dust bin when they are no longer of any service? Or do we want a system free from hunger and material want, where people can live as fully developed human beings? Capitalism has played its role in history, but its time has passed. It is time to move on.