It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

page: 71
92
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by dadgad
Employers don't help, employers are interested in profit only.


Tell that to a few Trillion people in world history who employers have provided with jobs.


By that logic America provides the world with freedom, but anyone with half a sense knows that our government makes freedom impossible for people elsewhere in the world and instead imposes our values on their society and tells them if they don't like it they can leave when in reality it is nowhere near that easy.




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by dadgad
Employers don't help, employers are interested in profit only.


Tell that to a few Trillion people in world history who employers have provided with jobs.


? You do realize the employer-worker dynamic is only relevant for perhaps the last 200 to 300 years. Beforehand most people worked the land for their own survival.


Yes and there was land, territory and resources that could be obtained without
having to work to benefit another person disproportionately. I think your point is
key to understanding the quantum shift in employment, economics and society.

edit on 19-2-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ANOK


If you were to give ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a country or at least a city running on your proposed system successfully over a longer period of time, I would not be dismissive.


I would like a capitalist example to fit this criteria.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Have you noticed that anyone who really researches working class history, and know the correct definition of the terms, all come to the same conclusion?


Yes i definitely noticed that. Though to be fair i do know some ancaps who have a pretty firm grasp of what socialism is though they reject it.


Originally posted by ANOK
I didn't know about that place, interesting.


yeah, i find it strange that more anarchists don't know about it. they have been around since the 70's and have been running on anarchist principles since then. in fact, a pretty well known bike manufacturing company called Christiania Bikes, who has been highly successful in Copenhagen as well as worldwide, operates out of the Freetown. i REALLY want to visit there some day



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by eboyd

Yes i definitely noticed that. Though to be fair i do know some ancaps who have a pretty firm grasp of what socialism is though they reject it.


Yes but I have found they misunderstand what capitalism is. They use the term to mean 'free-markets', another reason Adams is so misunderstood. When you ask them about 'private property' they agree with it, which makes them in opposition to Anarchism. As we know capitalism, as in private ownership, always creates an authority, the private owner is an authority (they can hire and fire and take away the means to produce). But they misunderstand what is meant by 'private property', and buy into the capitalist myth that that is 'free-markets'.

They always lose this argument because they have nowhere to go to explain the contradiction. Some ancaps truly want capitalism with no over site, back to how it was before workers won rights. But most want what libertarian socialists want, it's just that misunderstanding of terms keeps them from realising, and their fear of being wrong keeps them from really researching with an open mind.

If only they understood that libertarian means the same as anarchism, and anarchism is a form of socialism, and what those terms really mean. If they only understood capitalism is not free-markets, and in fact capitalism is not a market at all, but just who owns the means to produce for the market...It's all the result of our modern school system and the bias that is taught as fact in order to shape society.


edit on 2/19/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
BTW here is an example where I discuss it with the only ancap that I know of on ATS, I'm sure there's more but I've never had the pleasure...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by dadgad
Employers don't help, employers are interested in profit only.


Tell that to a few Trillion people in world history who employers have provided with jobs.


Skyfloating, my intention is to have an intelligent, balanced conversation, here. You are making emotive, extremely broad generalisations, which don't really accomplish anything other than being disruptive, and continuing to damage your credibility.

I am aware that given you are the moderator of this forum, I am taking some risk in making this request, but given your persistence, I consider such necessary. My request is this; if you cannot stop trolling, please leave this thread.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by eboyd

Yes i definitely noticed that. Though to be fair i do know some ancaps who have a pretty firm grasp of what socialism is though they reject it.


Yes but I have found they misunderstand what capitalism is. They use the term to mean 'free-markets', another reason Adams is so misunderstood. When you ask them about 'private property' they agree with it, which makes them in opposition to Anarchism. As we know capitalism, as in private ownership, always creates an authority, the private owner is an authority (they can hire and fire and take away the means to produce). But they misunderstand what is meant by 'private property', and buy into the capitalist myth that that is 'free-markets'.

They always lose this argument because they have nowhere to go to explain the contradiction. Some ancaps truly want capitalism with no over site, back to how it was before workers won rights. But most want what libertarian socialists want, it's just that misunderstanding of terms keeps them from realising, and their fear of being wrong keeps them from really researching with an open mind.

If only they understood that libertarian means the same as anarchism, and anarchism is a form of socialism, and what those terms really mean. If they only understood capitalism is not free-markets, and in fact capitalism is not a market at all, but just who owns the means to produce for the market...It's all the result of our modern school system and the bias that is taught as fact in order to shape society.


edit on 2/19/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


yeah, i get what you mean, but i actually do know a couple of ancaps who do know what both capitalism and socialism mean and still reject socialism. some of them sort of reconsider calling themselves ancaps when we discuss it, but i can definitely think of a few that actually understand the terms to their true meanings.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
BTW here is an example where I discuss it with the only ancap that I know of on ATS, I'm sure there's more but I've never had the pleasure...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


lol that guy seemed like an idiot. i've actually spoken with ancaps that have a far better grasp of both socialism and capitalism than that. most ancaps, upon realization that capitalism is not free markets, redefine themselves as "free market anarchists" but often retain a belief in exploitative ownership.

the only thing that even remotely impresses me about this guy was his use of the Tragedy of the Commons to refute a point you made which you didn't address in full detail but could have easily refuted as most anarchists, besides maybe primitivists, believe in some form of organization, such as worker cooperatives, that would have control over a supply of capital and would make consensus decisions on how to conserve and distribute that capital, thereby making his point about misappropriation of resources moot.

a guy i often debate with who is an ancap basically disagrees with me because he feels that worker cooperatives are inefficient and the fact that they do not currently dominate the economy proves that they never will. beyond that we have disagreements on the long term goals of our systems (i have a really different concept of how the economy should work that kind of encompasses communism, collectivism, mutualism, as well as some of my own ideas on things like the monetary system), but he knows what he is talking about. of course this is very rare. though i fundamentally disagree with them, because of their general knowledge base i have more respect for ancaps than any other person i disagree with fundamentally, including many anarcho-communists.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by eboyd
a guy i often debate with who is an ancap basically disagrees with me because he feels that worker cooperatives are inefficient and the fact that they do not currently dominate the economy proves that they never will.


That just means they are uninformed. As shown in this thread worker cooperatives can work better than privately owned ones do. It makes sense when all the workers are directly responsible, and are directly effected by the success, or failure, of the business.

They currently don't dominate because most people don't even know they exist. Domination is also not a part of most workers coops business plan. They usually operate locally and serve their immediate community. It's not about winning and losing and competing.

They are simply still trapped in the ego driven capitalist mentality. I wonder how many people shop at Rainbow Grocery not realizing, in a sense, they are supporting socialism in action?



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOKThat just means they are uninformed. As shown in this thread worker cooperatives can work better than privately owned ones do. It makes sense when all the workers are directly responsible, and are directly effected by the success, or failure, of the business.

They currently don't dominate because most people don't even know they exist. Domination is also not a part of most workers coops business plan. They usually operate locally and serve their immediate community. It's not about winning and losing and competing.


absolutely agreed.


They are simply still trapped in the ego driven capitalist mentality. I wonder how many people shop at Rainbow Grocery not realizing, in a sense, they are supporting socialism in action?


haha i've wondered the same thing. i wish people would look at what is going on in Argentina right now, as the people there are fully aware that the economic climate has shifted firmly away from capitalism and it is working perfectly, and say "hey, maybe this is a viable option for something here." i'm utterly shocked that the Occupy crowd doesn't speak at all about worker cooperatives. there is a distinct difference between this movement and movements of the past that may make this less successful, and it is that propaganda has pushed the discussion so far to the right that the same people asking for a new system that is anti-capitalist are, in the next breath, saying that the alternative would be the same working conditions but with heavier regulations. it baffles me.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by dadgad
Employers don't help, employers are interested in profit only.


Tell that to a few Trillion people in world history who employers have provided with jobs.


I'd be happy to if could find these trillions of employers.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Can I assume those still posting on this thread would see socialism based on worker cooperatives within a free market? It seems to be the prevailing theme...



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
Can I assume those still posting on this thread would see socialism based on worker cooperatives within a free market? It seems to be the prevailing theme...


I don't think ANOK would, Slayer; I think he/she wants the free market gone entirely.

I want intellectual property gone myself, as a major priority. I've said to you elsewhere that I think there are still plenty of scarce commodities for Capitalism to regulate; but I think it needs to stop creating artificial scarcity for commodities which aren't.

I do not consider myself proletariat, personally; I truthfully never have been, (and I've actually nearly been murdered by them twice) so for me, worker rights is not really a directly personal issue. I will say, however, that observation has demonstrated to me that the main reason why the period between the 50s and the 80s were as comparitively prosperous as they were, was because of the existence of a large middle class. The Sudra should be well cared for; and this is not only for the sake of compassion, but because when they are well treated, they perform their role more effectively, which benefits the rest of the entire society.

My concept of class politics is not so much influenced by Marx, as it is by Varnashrama Dharma, or the Hindu caste system. Although I am not Indian, I have had a Vedic astrological natal chart rendered, which includes mention of the caste which I would have been in, in such a society. The varna named, based on my chart, was the Kshatriya; the kings and military.

The Hindu caste recognised four classes; the Sudra, (Unskilled labourers; generally violent and anti-intellectual here in Australia. Marx's proletariat) the Vaisya, (businesspeople and farmers; who ANOK and Marx know as the Capitalist class) the Kshatriya, (kings and military, as well as police in contemporary society) and the Brahmanas. (Priests, scientists, the wise and intellectual. Hinduism doesn't differentiate between science and spirituality)

In Hindu terms, Western society is currently being ruled by a coalition of the Kshatriya (the kings, politicians, police and military) and the Vaisya, (corporations in contemporary terms) with the Kshatriya in the subordinate position. The corporations use the police and military to defend themselves from the other two castes. (the Sudra or proles, and the Brahmanas or scientists and clergy)

Manu (more or less Hinduism's founder) decreed that the correct rulership of society was a coalition of the Kshatriya (kings/military) and the Brahmanas (scientists/priests) with the Kshatriya subordinate. Marx's ideology does not so much call for the end of classism, as it primarily calls for the Sudra/proletariat to be in the ruling position. That is what we saw in Russia, but it was not what the Russian people themselves wanted.

All of the caste's four varnas are necessary, but the Vaisya and Sudra are not temperamentally or intellectually equipped to capably rule, and they should not do so. The Sudra/proletariat in particular, very often are not that far above animals, in terms of how they choose to behave. I know this from direct experience; in Australia I lived among them for 14 years. Orwell's Animal Farm was symbolic in more ways than the obvious, and he himself probably knew that.

This does not mean that I subscribe to Kissinger's "useless eater," theory, at all. As I mentioned, all of the varnas are indispensably necessary for the operation of society. When I call the Sudra animalistic, I am not saying that they are that way inherently, so much as that is how they choose to be. The Sudra are recognised within the caste as the lowest developmental level. The caste was intended to be a system in which members of all four varnas could progressively rise from Sudra to Brahmana, and from there to spiritual self-actualisation.

A lot of people have strongly criticised the caste system; but it is important to understand that the reason why it degenerated, was because more contemporary Indians ceased to adhere to it in the manner which it was set down. Psychopaths among the Brahmanas in particular, began making varna membership hereditary, which meant that their children could be Brahmanas as well. That completely subverted the intent of the system. The caste was originally intended to reflect the nature of the individuals within it, so a Brahmana's son temperamentally would most likely not be a Brahmana themselves at all.

The other major problem, was that contemporary Indians started refusing to admit non-Indians into the caste. It was them refusing to admit other ethnic groups, which led to the problem of the Dalits, (untouchables) and was another subversion of the system. The caste was intended to allow the integration of literally any ethnic group into Hindu society, by recognising with the four varnas, the four career groups which humanity universally had in common.

It is worth mentioning that Gandhi was a supporter of the caste, but not of its' implementation by contemporary Indians. He would have read the scriptures, and known what they said on the issue.
edit on 20-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4I don't think ANOK would, Slayer; I think he/she wants the free market gone entirely.



Originally posted by ANOKSocialists support free markets.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

whether he supports free markets or not idk, but he recognizes that there are socialists such as myself who do, though i do think i recall another comment where he actually stated that he was a collectivist, or at least believed in some form of free market socialism. i may be wrong though.


Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
Can I assume those still posting on this thread would see socialism based on worker cooperatives within a free market? It seems to be the prevailing theme...


my personal socialist ideology is thus, yes, however, i do recognize that there are forms of socialism that include, not central planning, but participatory planning. here's a brief explanation of how a participatorily planned economy might work:


The proposed participatory planning procedure would be a periodic (probably either annual, bi-annual or quarterly) event where citizens participate to determine which and how many goods to produce. This would result in new base prices, which could be adjusted between planning events by Facilitation Boards according to established guidelines to account for unforeseen circumstances. The process would begin with Facilitation Boards first announcing a set of indicative prices which workers and consumers would use, individually and through their councils at each level, to decide on their production and consumption proposals. Proposals could be made either collectively through a local consumer council, or individually on a computer; or any combination of the two. Personal consumption proposals would be a prediction by each citizen of what goods and services they plan to consume the next year. Collective consumption proposals would be created by citizens making proposals for a wider geographical area (e.g. a new recreation center at the community level or a new power plant at the provincial level) and interested parties would be able to vote on collective consumption proposals affecting their region.


i am not a proponent of this personally as i see it highly flawed for various reasons, but this is, in fact, an aspect of socialism. it is actually a tenet of anarchist communism (though Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, who came up with this idea, denounce the terms communism and socialism and prefer to call their system Participatory Economics).


I've said to you elsewhere that I think there are still plenty of scarce commodities for Capitalism to regulate; but I think it needs to stop creating artificial scarcity for commodities which aren't.


capitalism doesn't regulate economies. either the free market or a government system do. you mean that there are scarce items that the free market need to regulate, not that capitalism needs to regulate.


The Hindu caste recognised four classes; the Sudra, (Unskilled labourers; generally violent and anti-intellectual here in Australia. Marx's proletariat) the Vaisya, (businesspeople and farmers; who ANOK and Marx know as the Capitalist class) the Kshatriya, (kings and military, as well as police in contemporary society) and the Brahmanas. (Priests, scientists, the wise and intellectual. Hinduism doesn't differentiate between science and spirituality)


sounds a lot like feudalism to me. while i hate capitalism myself i at least prefer it to feudalist caste systems where there are even more degrees of separation. in a caste system, such as the European feudalism system that preceded the Industrial Revolution in major countries such as Great Britain, the proletariat is even more marginalized than it is in a capitalist system. not only must they answer to capitalist/bourgeoisie masters, but the capitalist masters have to answer to the royal class. so while the bourgeoisie get the table scraps, the proletariat get the crumbs from those table scraps.


Marx's ideology does not so much call for the end of classism, as it primarily calls for the Sudra/proletariat to be in the ruling position. That is what we saw in Russia, but it was not what the Russian people themselves wanted.


this is far from what we saw in Russia. as Bakunin predicted it, Russia saw rule by the "petit bourgeoisie" who consisted of government employees who ruled over peoples' lives with an iron fist in a way that had nothing to do with socialist theories. Marx called for a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, which meant a rule by that class just in order to get communism implemented and then everyone would become a part of the proletariat (a stateless, classless society).

it would benefit you to read the Communist Manifesto. i've run out of room but check the quote in my next comment from the Communist Manifesto...



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Still

I would like a capitalist example to fit this criteria.


mises.org...


Originally posted by ANOK
BTW here is an example where I discuss it with the only ancap that I know of on ATS, I'm sure there's more but I've never had the pleasure...


Now you know two.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
These are the first four paragraphs of the Communist Manifesto:


The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.


www.gutenberg.org...

as you can see here, Marx discusses the caste systems of times past, which seem quite similar to the caste system you propose. he shows that he is more opposed to this system in many ways than he is to capitalism, because such a system leads to even worse class antagonisms. while Marx proposed class struggle as the proper mode of revolution, his eventual goal for society was one in which there would be no classes and therefore no need for antagonism.


The immediate aim of the Communist is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.


while this quote seems to suggest that Marxism, as well as other forms of socialism, seeks to give the proletariat power over all else, when we get more in depth into Marxism we see that this is not the case.


In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed—a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.


as we can see here, Marx is defining the bourgeoisie as those who own capital and use it to exploit others for a wage and those who do not own capital and have to work to gain access to their necessities from the bourgeoisie.


We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.


here you can see that Marx did not want a society that would put the proletariat in the dominant position, but rather he wanted to abolish private property, aka capital, in other words property used to exploit workers for profit, while rewarding individuals with "the fruit of [their] own labor". this would, by default create a system in which there are no classes as the proletariat would have no means to exploit the bourgeoisie. in fact, it would abolish the bourgeoisie and put them on an even plane with the proletariat, effectively making everyone a proletarian. whether or not it would work in practice as it worked in theory is another thing (as we can see, Marx's ideas on an initial dictatorship of the proletariat turned into pure iron fist dictatorship when put into practice).


National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world-market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.


here, one can note, Marx is very explicit that the lack of antagonisms has lead to the rise of the bourgeoisie and that, shall the proletariat gain supremacy, these class antagonisms will only disappear faster. therefore, he calls instead for the emancipation of the proletariat.

one more comment should do i think...



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   


All of the caste's four varnas are necessary, but the Vaisya and Sudra are not temperamentally or intellectually equipped to capably rule


i see this line of thought as quite dangerous. and besides, this may have been the case hundreds of years ago but today, with education levels far higher than they were then and with more equal opportunities for education for everyone, people can govern themselves and their societies just fine. in fact i would contend that the people directly democratically making decisions on how society should run would be allow society to run far more efficiently, just as allowing them to run a business as a unified whole is generally more efficient, as only the people can know what issues are of importance and need to be fixed. this is not to say that intellectuals shouldn't be involved in the process. it is the job of intellectuals to do the research and inform the people of what decisions they should, as a whole, make.



The Sudra/proletariat in particular, very often are not that far above animals, in terms of how they choose to behave. I know this from direct experience; in Australia I lived among them for 14 years. Orwell's Animal Farm was symbolic in more ways than the obvious, and he himself probably knew that.


that is a direct result of the society we live in where the proletariat is forced to work for bosses, or in the case of extremely low income areas, beg and steal to get what they need. i live in Los Angeles. while i am from a suburb outside of the city, i often go to and have friends who live in some of the worst slums in the city. while there are hoodlums and people that act like animals as you say, the great majority of people i met in these areas have been some of the nicest people i know. in contrast, the area i live in is a bit more well off and and we have business owners an such who live here. my neighbors are some of the snobbiest, vile creatures you will ever meet. not to say that many of my neighbors aren't wonderful, but my point is that there is no correlation between proletarians and "bad things" and, frankly, that you suggest there is i feel is deplorable.

as for Orwell, you probably misunderstood the point of what he was saying, because he was a libertarian socialist himself.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by Still

I would like a capitalist example to fit this criteria.


mises.org...


Originally posted by ANOK
BTW here is an example where I discuss it with the only ancap that I know of on ATS, I'm sure there's more but I've never had the pleasure...


Now you know two.


huh? he was asking about actually existing capitalist societies that have lasted for a long period of time. ANOK was referring to an ancap who he was debating with.

as for Medieval Iceland:

www.anarchy.be...



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

I don't think ANOK would, Slayer; I think he/she wants the free market gone entirely.


No, I completely support a free-market. All the original anarchists thinkers supported a free-market. That is the point, liberty, not taking it away.

There is so much confusion because capitalists have appropriated terms and claimed them as their own. When Adams talked about 'free-markets' he didn't mean capitalism. Ancaps confuse free-markets with capitalism. It's all because they confuse those terms that they support something that isn't what it claims to be.

My whole argument is that capitalism is not free-markets by definition, and can not be free-markets in practice.

Socialism is true free-markets. When the means of production are owned by the workers themselves, then they have full control and the rights to the product of their labour, to do with what they desire. That would be a true free-market.

This is why ancaps are wrong about capitalism. A movement simply from confusion.

This is why I consider 'libertarian socialism', not 'libertarian communism' to be the economy of choice. Even though I agree that eventually the market maybe done away with (communism), but that would be true utopia and a difficult goal to reach. In fact true socialism would be a hard goal to reach in our present political climate.

I am not a revolutionary, I don't dress in black and try overthrowing the government lol, well I was when I was younger. I believe simply in educating people. I think the truth about socialism should be taught in schools, people should be made aware of alternatives to capitalism. Worker owned companies should be considered as normal as privately owned ones. People should not be conditioned to simply accept competition and authority. That is the practical path to true liberty.

I guess the biggest lesson learned from the Spanish revolution is that revolutions fail, however temporally successful it was. Force is always met by more force. We've allowed the state to become so powerful simply by our common acceptance of it.


edit on 2/20/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join