Anarchism

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentThundersGF
 


LOL 'national-anarchism', a new one on me.

Looks like another contradiction. A twisting of left-wing terms by the right.


National-Anarchism is a radical, anti-capitalist, anti-socialist, anti-statist, right-wing political and cultural ideology which emphasizes ethnic tribalism.


So anti-capitalist and anti-socialist, who owns the means of production? All that's left is government. Nationalism is government/state ownership.

How can anarchism be right-wing? How can anarchism support nationalism? The right traditionally was for maintaining the present system, a system of authority, its extreme being fascism. To have nationalism you have to have government. There is no nation state to nationalize anything if there is no government.


Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the process of taking an industry or assets into government ownership by a national government or state.


So this also has nothing to do with anarchism. Anyone can appropriate terms, and try to redefine them for their own use.

Ernst Jünger was a right-wing nationalist.

edit on 3/31/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie takeover Harry




posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Yes.

Basically like "National socialism" cannot be real socialism. I suppose somebody tried to make the same transformation with anarchism.

I wish the right would stop perverting our words lol. They need to get their own vocabulary. But it is a statement on their intellectual poverty.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
"National Anarchism"
Oh boy, that's rich. Who comes up with this stuff?



What's next? "Evil goodness" ?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I've heard of anarcho-socialism anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism. But nationalist anarchy?

No. Never read of it.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
i have already heard of national anarchism unfortunately. pretty much the only place i've ever seen any proponents of national anarchism who were completely serious was on StormFront. 'nuff said.


CX

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichieRay
reply to post by METACOMET
 


you're right, if we didn't have police then everyone would be much safer.... our government (as crappy as it is) is way worse than free roaming murderers and rapists, we would be much safer without jails or police or laws.... not all laws are bad



Even with a world without police, you would still have your murderers and rapists...and much much more....but without anyone to do anything about it. If the police went on strike i think the public would be begging for thier return overnight when they saw how quickly society would break down.

I see your point, however i think more would be achieved by getting rid of the bad government and cops, not the good ones.

CX.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CX
Even with a world without police, you would still have your murderers and rapists...and much much more....but without anyone to do anything about it. If the police went on strike i think the public would be begging for thier return overnight when they saw how quickly society would break down.


The police do not stop crime now, they investigate it.

People who rape and murder are usually not stopped by the fear of punishment. It has been argued that rape is a result of the inferior role that women have been forced to take within the capitalist hierarchical system. A system that teaches respect and cooperation, as apposed to rampant competition and the egotistical domination of women by men, then we would be on a better path to reduce such crime against people.

The most common crime is property crime. The most destructive crimes are perpetuated by the state, the day to day running of the capitalist economy is a crime against all working people, daylight robbery, not too mention war. In a system that meets the needs of everyone, property crime would become almost none-existent.

Drug crimes, and the other crimes that stem from it, are caused by their illegality, and the black market it creates because of the capitalist economy. Look what happened during prohibition.

Under socialism/anarchism we would have community policing, not a police force with autonomous powers and self interest to not stop crime. We can still have a 'police force' to take care of those people who we need removed from society, but it would be smaller and completely answerable to the community. Punishment would not be revenge, but a way to reform and release criminals back into society.

You'll never change people through coercion and force. Capitalism creates the conditions that causes most crime.

"A new and effective policing service will only be achieved through a new and effective philosophy on policing....that rejects the traditional model of 'justice' that is rooted and grounded in retribution.... An effective philosophy on policing must include an effective philosophy on justice....So long as justice is regarded as 'just desserts' rather than 'just relationships' no amount of tinkering with the police service will serve the interests of justice...." Billy Mitchell (Progressive Unionist Party).

"The constant refrain of the anarchist song is that the system of government and law in modern States is often the cause of, rather than the remedy for, disorder. Most laws in Western democracies protect private property and economic inequality rather than civil rights. An authoritarian society with a repressive morality encourages the psychological disorders which lead to rape, murder and assault. And punishment by its very nature tends to alienate and embitter rather than reform or deter." Peter Marshall, from 'Demanding The Impossible - A History of Anarchism' Page 648.

edit on 4/1/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie takeover Harry



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


National-Anarchism is a radical, anti-capitalist, anti-socialist, anti-statist, right-wing political and cultural ideology which emphasizes ethnic tribalism.


Sounds like a slippery slope to apartheid.



Post WWll, the great experiment. USA, unfettered capitalism; USSR/Eastern Bloc, communist; Europe, social democracy (yes I know, a political system not an economic one but I'm all out of labels).

40 or so years later, deregulate the ownership and distribution of money, encourage a culture of debt and expand telecommunications, all the better to spread the mantra, greed is good.

Then, another 10 years, collapse communism, embrace capitalist values, competition is good! Provide tax breaks to shift the means of production abroad. Begin the process to impoverish the masses.

Another 10 years, demonstrate how debt is unsustainable and starting with Europe, begin the collapse of democracy.

What next?


edit on 2/4/2012 by teapot because: format



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Here is a good resource I would like to share:

The Anarchist Library: A huge collection of texts on Anarchism.

I am not affiliated with this site so this is not self-advertising. I just think its a very good collection.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




It has been argued that rape is a result of the inferior role that women have been forced to take within the capitalist hierarchical system.


Are you also making this argument as well?

I would argue that rape, violence, lack of empathy, and unethical forms of competition are all side effects of our violent, repressive upbringing. OTHERS AGREE

The private ownership of the means of production is not inherently unethical. I own my body, so I own what I make with it. However, when systems of violence enter the equation (this is true for socialism as well), ethics is lost. If I develop land, and hire people who voluntarily agree to a set wage, where is the exploitation? You could do anything else. You could build a shop, make jewelry, write a book, or anything non-violent you wanted. Payment for service is no different than payment for goods. Also, prices are not something that can be controlled and measured by anyone, but everyone and only in a free exchange. Prices of goods also cannot be set to only the cost of the production because wavering market demand and supply can make the true price of goods even cost less than the cost of production. What good is producing something that no one would spend the money to actually buy at its cost?



A system that teaches respect and cooperation, as apposed to rampant competition and the egotistical domination of women by men, then we would be on a better path to reduce such crime against people.


I agree with most of this. Competition is not inherently wrong. Competition itself is a force of creation. On the other hand, there is a difference between competing shoemakers and competing mafia's. When competition relies on violence rather than discourse, logic, and volunteer association, it becomes what you see in the world today.



You'll never change people through coercion and force. Capitalism creates the conditions that causes most crime.


You are saying two things here. You need to separate capitalism and violence.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Here is my main point.

I would not use aggression to sustain my life and pursue my happiness, democracy is a joke, and child/infant abuse and sensory deprivation is the main cause of violence in the world.

Happy Easter Egg Day!!



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
I would argue that rape, violence, lack of empathy, and unethical forms of competition are all side effects of our violent, repressive upbringing. OTHERS AGREE


And I would argue that the violence, lack of empathy, and unethical forms of competition, are all the results of the exploitative oppression of the capitalist system.


The private ownership of the means of production is not inherently unethical. I own my body, so I own what I make with it.


Yes it is unethical because it is exploitation, of labour.

You do not own your own body unless you earn your living from your own capital. If you work for a private owner you are under their control, you do not own the fruits of your labour. Not everyone can be a capitalist, it will always be a minority class who exploits the majority, it is how it works.


However, when systems of violence enter the equation (this is true for socialism as well), ethics is lost.


No it isn't true, that is a load of nonsense. How is the workers owning the means of production violent?

It's the capitalist system that wages war. The very state that capitalism creates is violent. The system of law that is in place to protect privilege is violent. It creates social violence through lack of needed resources. It is violent to people who appose and demonstrate against it.


If I develop land, and hire people who voluntarily agree to a set wage, where is the exploitation?


People do not voluntarily work for someone, they do it because they have no other choice. It is exploitation because you do not pay workers the full amount for the product they produce. You have to exploit labour to make profit. You have to exploit consumers to make profit. You have to keep your product artificially scarce in order to maintain your profit. Demand only comes from those who have the financial power to demand.


You could do anything else. You could build a shop, make jewelry, write a book, or anything non-violent you wanted. Payment for service is no different than payment for goods. Also, prices are not something that can be controlled and measured by anyone, but everyone and only in a free exchange. Prices of goods also cannot be set to only the cost of the production because wavering market demand and supply can make the true price of goods even cost less than the cost of production. What good is producing something that no one would spend the money to actually buy at its cost?


But there is no free exchange of labour. Most people are not lucky enough to own anything but their labour to sell, that labour should be treated like any capital, and workers should receive the full amount from the fruits of their labour. If not that is exploitation of one class by another.


A system that teaches respect and cooperation, as apposed to rampant competition and the egotistical domination of women by men, then we would be on a better path to reduce such crime against people.


Which is exactly what capitalism has done, because capitalism is an hierarchical/authoritarian system, and we are conditioned that that is normal. The violence caused by it is considered normal, or a fault of the individual with no outside forces acting on them.


I agree with most of this. Competition is not inherently wrong. Competition itself is a force of creation. On the other hand, there is a difference between competing shoemakers and competing mafia's. When competition relies on violence rather than discourse, logic, and volunteer association, it becomes what you see in the world today.


But again it is the system based on profit making, rather than meeting peoples needs, that caused mafia's, and rampant competition. Capitalism forces us to compete on every level, we compete with each other for work because 'jobs' are kept artificially scarce.

If the workers owned the means of production they could simply produce for their needs, and take care of themselves, instead of relying on a 'private owner' to give them a 'job', and maintain that company. But no, as soon as profits go down 'jobs' are lost, the means to produce for their needs gone.


You are saying two things here. You need to separate capitalism and violence.


Claiming capitalism is not the cause of violence, and unrest, in society is to be completely naive, and fail to understand what capitalism has done to society. You don't even understand the half of it mate.


Americans believe that the normal state of things is not-violence, and that is why they are shocked and appalled when they see violent acts. The health care debate has revealed that violence is normal. Look at our own Mary and Ron McCurrin: forced into an unnecessary divorce to survive financially. Look at this study (.pdf), which tells us that being uninsured dramatically increases the risk of death, primarily from lack of treatment for chronic diseases. This isn’t an abstraction: recently a young woman died because, lacking insurance, she refused to go to the doctor when she had swine flu and pneumonia. This kind of systemic violence is normal in our system; it is killing people, and no one is accountable.

firedoglake.com...

edit on 4/8/2012 by ANOK because: This space for rent, U2U for rates...



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


PLEASE READ

The type of carnivorous capitalism you claim is the cause of violence is a product of thousands of years of violent religious conditioning starting from birth.



Claiming capitalism is not the cause of violence, and unrest, in society is to be completely naive, and fail to understand what capitalism has done to society. You don't even understand the half of it mate.


You have not substantiated your claims. I have mine.



But there is no free exchange of labour. Most people are not lucky enough to own anything but their labour to sell, that labour should be treated like any capital, and workers should receive the full amount from the fruits of their labour.


It is not exploitation to benefit from any exchange in commodity. In fact, it is innate in the exchange of commodities that a benefit must be received from both sides.



If not that is exploitation of one class by another.


Both sides yield a benefit from each other. Only if the employee is not payed (slavery) or coerced into working a specific job for a set price is it exploitation.

I have a job. I can leave that job and work somewhere else. No one is forcing me to stay there.



But again it is the system based on profit making, rather than meeting peoples needs, that caused mafia's, and rampant competition.


You are putting the cart before the horse. Authoritarianism has existed before capitalism, and capitalism itself is not violent. When you put any economic system in a violent society, it becomes violent, corrupt, and barely noticeable from its ideology.



No it isn't true, that is a load of nonsense. How is the workers owning the means of production violent?


"The workers" are not a homogenous, single-minded group. They could be only if "the workers" organized themselves completely voluntarily. If there were no choice, then some form of proxy government would exist to enforce the organization. If a market is to be free, the marketplace would also have to be free for capitalists to organize a private company (not corporation, that is an entity of the state).

Anarcho-socialism/communism/whatever would only work in a completely free market, thus allowing for capitalism to exist as well.

Your understanding of capitalism is akin to someone understanding socialism as the USSR. \

What I propose is a free market anarchy. All organizations will be voluntary, and likely will work together to protect the peace in society (community policing etc).

Not all competition is bad. The mark of a peaceful society is an open society, were ideas, methodology, science, religion, and products are constantly questioned, augmented, enhanced, shared, competing for legitimacy, and absolutely NOT violently preserved in stasis.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
The type of carnivorous capitalism you claim is the cause of violence is a product of thousands of years of violent religious conditioning starting from birth.


Hmm that is your opinion, I do not agree with it. Yes religion has been a part of it, but not so much as capitalism in this modern age. Also I could argue that the religion gets its power from, and has been shaped by, the capitalist system. The church is part of the state system. The state system we have is a product of the last 300 years of capitalism, starting in Europe.

The change from feudalism to capitalism was the most significant change in Human society for thousands of years before it. It is what forced the 'commoners' off the land, where they were self sufficient, autonomous, into factories, and mills, which caused them/us to become reliant on the private owner for 'jobs', and the state system that built around it. This was land owners taking advantage of the change in the law, that allowed land owners to sell plots of land, which also allowed them to deny use of that land to the 'commoners'. Feudalism became capitalism, the mass exploitation of the proletariat...

"Capitalism, the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others." Louis Blanc, French socialist 1850.

Most of our modern social ills started when the commoners were forced off the land, and into factories and mills.
This created cities, and cities always have more crime than rural areas.

This also created an alternative from the workers, they called it socialism. Workers owning the means of production. So they could be autonomous again, but within the new modern industrial world capitalism created.
Or if you wanted, back to living free off the land.


You have not substantiated your claims. I have mine.


Huh? Two hundred years of history have substantiated my claims. Your claims ignore the root of the problem, and place blame elsewhere.

The fact that the rich-poor divide gets wider substantiates my claim. The fact that most social crime comes from areas and people of poverty substantiates my claim. The fact that workers do not earn the full fruits of their labour substantiates my claims. The fact that most crime is property crime substantiates my claims. The fact that we have the labour, and machinery, to produce enough for all the worlds populations but don't substantiates my claims.

I don't have to substantiate it, you need to see reality.

All you have is misunderstandings and faith in a system that has no rules, other than those forced on it by government, no morality, no desire to meet needs...


It is not exploitation to benefit from any exchange in commodity. In fact, it is innate in the exchange of commodities that a benefit must be received from both sides.


But labour is not treated as a commodity and given the full rate of it's worth, so yes it is exploitation.


Both sides yield a benefit from each other. Only if the employee is not payed (slavery) or coerced into working a specific job for a set price is it exploitation.

I have a job. I can leave that job and work somewhere else. No one is forcing me to stay there.


The scarcity of jobs forces people to stay where they are. Don't try to pretend 'jobs' are in abundance, they're not and never have been. Scarcity is a necessary condition of capitalism. Most people do not have the luxury of just changing jobs. But even if you do change jobs you're still working for a private owner, who is exploiting you by not giving you the full worth of your labour. For the private owner to make profit the worker has to produce more than they are paid for. It is the profit system of capitalists that keep capitalists in control of the means of production. It is what keep workers from owning the means themselves in order to produce what they need.

If there was a real choice and there were an abundance of worker owned companies then you would have a real choice. But we're not taught about worker owned systems in this capitalist state school system. Everything you are taught is biased towards capitalism. You have to learn to separate your thoughts from that conditioning, and look at reality.

Capitalism is a profit based economic system, socialism is a needs based economic system.


You are putting the cart before the horse. Authoritarianism has existed before capitalism, and capitalism itself is not violent. When you put any economic system in a violent society, it becomes violent, corrupt, and barely noticeable from its ideology.


Yes it did, but not to the extent as when the mass exploitation of the commoners started.

Capitalism is inherently violent because you have to protect capital. You can't say what it is, or what it isn't, because it will be whatever it needs to be to ensure the private owner makes profit. The term simply means private ownership of the means of production, those private owners will do whatever it takes to ensure that they make profit. They have to, otherwise they stop being capitalists, and fail. You can not guarantee that capitalism is not violent, if it takes violence to make profit then violent it will be. Do you know what war is? (the most obvious example).

Capitalism is corrupt, it is a corrupt system because it was based on corruption from the beginning. At it's start it was no different than what the Mafia did. At least the Mafia didn't take away everybody's home, craft, living, and force them into industrial wage slavery in order to empower themselves financially in order to build a state system to protect themselves.

You can't stop the natural tendency for capitalists to form monopolies from the concentration of capital into smaller and smaller groups of owners. That is the result of capitalist competition.


"The workers" are not a homogenous, single-minded group. They could be only if "the workers" organized themselves completely voluntarily. If there were no choice, then some form of proxy government would exist to enforce the organization. If a market is to be free, the marketplace would also have to be free for capitalists to organize a private company (not corporation, that is an entity of the state).


I never said they were. But I think the one thing we all have in common is we want liberty, and you can't have liberty if you are being financially exploited and are constantly competing with each other for resources made artificially scarce by capitalists.

You don't need to enforce voluntary organizations. If people wish to not work for a cooperative then they don't have to. All this forcing and controlling people is a 'right-wing' capitalist notion. No one needs to be forced to do something that is in their best interest.

See there is a conflict of interest, we need resources, capitalists want profits.


Anarcho-socialism/communism/whatever would only work in a completely free market, thus allowing for capitalism to exist as well.


Yes FREE MARKET. Capitalism is NOT free market, I really do hope you're not basing your whole argument for capitalism on that myth, I could have saved some typing lol. If you are then you have some learning to do. You could actually be a socialist and not realise it, because you misunderstand these terms.


Your understanding of capitalism is akin to someone understanding socialism as the USSR.


Huh?


What I propose is a free market anarchy. All organizations will be voluntary, and likely will work together to protect the peace in society (community policing etc).


But mate that is what we all want. Socialism is the only way to have free market anarchism. Capitalism and free market are not synonyms. Capitalism can never be libertarian, as I have explained.


Not all competition is bad. The mark of a peaceful society is an open society, were ideas, methodology, science, religion, and products are constantly questioned, augmented, enhanced, shared, competing for legitimacy, and absolutely NOT violently preserved in stasis.


It is when every aspect of our lives become overtly competitive. It doesn't create an open society, it makes people who are constantly working to be better than everyone else, which creates social conflict as we all stop seeing each other as equal but as someone you have to be better than.

It concentrates capital into smaller and smaller groups who monopolize the economy, as mentioned.

All natural traits are bad if they're perpetuated and exploited. The system exploits our emotions.

edit on 4/8/2012 by ANOK because: This space for rent, U2U for rates...



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Labor is a commodity.
It is my time, my effort. I am selling it voluntarily.



Yes religion has been a part of it, but not so much as capitalism in this modern age.


Religion has skewed the way we view society for the entire history of humanity. Ever since prehistoric man started explaining things he didn't understand and using those explanations to reap benefits has this been a problem. Capitalism hasn't even been around more than 1000 years in its current form. We are violent, we have violent god's. We punish pleasure, we start wars over who's invisible sky daddy has a bigger member.

Religion and our belief systems about how we raise our children have greatly skewed and corrupted our worldview.



Economies are not zero sum games. They can grow and shrink.



This also created an alternative from the workers, they called it socialism.


In a free market, it would be exactly that.



Huh? Two hundred years of history have substantiated my claims.


The past two hundred years have merely coincided with a longer running trend. Humanity, with its new found freedoms created a new world in a short span of time, inversely, with its old-world religious beliefs and system of child abuse we have indeed created the most horrific methods of killing each other ever.

How is it we can launch a rocket into space with a handheld phone but still believe that we need to permanently maim and neurologically damage infant boys because some ancient account of god said we need to cut their penis? Something is lagging in our ethics system. We are holding on to too much baggage. And a new development is that we are turning the state itself into a religious dogma.



If there was a real choice and there were an abundance of worker owned companies then you would have a real choice.


How does a worker owned company operate? If by democracy, then it will operate like any violent monopoly would.



But we're not taught about worker owned systems in this capitalist state school system.


True, which I think is good.... because we shouldn't be taught anything in state schools




Everything you are taught is biased towards capitalism.


I would say its biased towards obedience and taking on tremendous debt.



Capitalism is a profit based economic system, socialism is a needs based economic system.


Worker ownership does not precipitate some 'needs' based system. It may be intended so, but it won't be the reality. Just look at any socialist system set up in the world today. They manage to be more totalitarian, more poor, and more economically unfair then even the corrupt form of state-corporatism we have in the West. It seems when you get rid of Capitalism, you just replace it with a clunky, tyrannical state.



Capitalism is inherently violent because you have to protect capital. You can't say what it is, or what it isn't, because it will be whatever it needs to be to ensure the private owner makes profit. The term simply means private ownership of the means of production, those private owners will do whatever it takes to ensure that make profit.


Without a system of violence like the state or any ruling party mafia faction, violence, coercion, or fraud could not be used to promote oneself with impunity.



Do you know what war is? (the most obvious example).


Been to a couple myself.... its a function of state power, used by fascists to actually exploit people as well as kill people.



At it's start it was no different than what the Mafia did.


The mafia has bats and guns. The mafia has force. The state has force. If a person had a factory and entered contracts with three people for their labor to gain a profit, where are the guns? If there are any, the state still has them.



See there is a conflict of interest, we need resources, capitalists want profits.


Capitalists want profits, so they create resources.



Yes FREE MARKET. Capitalism is NOT free market, I really hope you're not basing your whole argument for capitalism on that myth.


No. I am saying that capitalism is not ethically wrong because it is a voluntary contract between willing parties. It is a free interaction if not supported by a state like in its current form. As well, socialism is not ethically wrong if it is not supported by a state. I support free market anarchy because it allows for these ideas to compete without violence.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Also i would like to go back to my original point and that is how we get sidetracked... like now... debating semantics and inner quarrels that display us as opposites.... but i find that we are much alike.

I just want to say... i will stand next to u in defense of the ideas that truly make our ideology similar. Freedom of association and non aggression. We can work out the other details when we get there.

Sry for short form and misspellings as i am on my phone atm.

New thought edit: maybe is it my coming to terms with socialism that has led me to where i stand today. Socialism can only work if there are other systems of resource management available... like capitalism. I say the same for capitalism.
edit on 8-4-2012 by DINSTAAR because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
ANOK, remember when i first joined the site and we were talking about people who actually understand the difference between capitalism and free markets but are not opposed to capitalism? i was mainly referring to anarcho-capitalists like Rothbardians, followers of David Friedman, and "left"-Rothbardians such as agorists, but in this case, DINSTAAR is actually just a free market anarchist.


Originally posted by DINSTAAR
Labor is a commodity.
It is my time, my effort. I am selling it voluntarily.


you guys both agree on this point, and i actually disagree... well, to an extent at least. one cannot separate himself from his labor. i can't wake my labor up for me in the morning and send him to work for me. we are one in the same. if my labor is a commodity, so am i. if i can sell myself, then slavery is justified. if i sell my labor, i also sell myself.

in addition, the problem i see with capitalism actually lies in the monetary and value systems. and no, i am not attacking this argument from the Lockean/mutualist/Marxist perspective that the Labor Theory of Value is the best system. however, while i concede to the capitalist argument that LTV is actually based on intersubjective values rather than objective values as it claims, i do not therefore concede to the argument that there are no objective values and that subjective theories such as marginal utility are therefore the only answer. there are commodities that should be valued based on estimations of an objective standard and that objective standard should be a determining factor of the value of someone's labor, but it should also be based directly on labor (or at least how productive that labor is). that objective standard, of course, is scarcity. the problem with our values system is that most nations in the world today have a currency that is either fiat or based on a scarce commodity which itself has a subjective value. the only true way to create an economic system that deals directly with scarcity in its most natural sense, as it is supposed to, is to remove labor as a commodity from the equation and base that currency directly on the scarce items in that specific economy. if we can devise a currency (or various competing currencies based on different estimates of scarcity) that is created when a product is created and surrendered to the market, can only be used by the person that created it, and deleted upon transaction, we can completely separate this currency/these currencies from its/their more subjective values in labor costs. the problem, of course, that we run into here is how we generate the capital to start businesses in the first place if we have no means of trading via currency. for this i would propose 2 things: 1. mutual aid style transactions and donations, including people directly donating resources to the businesses they interact with, and 2. a second currency that could be purchased similar to a cashiers check that would only be usable by the person who it is addressed to and could also only be used once. this currency would be used to address more subjective valued resources, such as valuable collectors items, services carried out by independent contractors, etc. it would only be different from a cashiers check in a few ways, including that, for example, if you paid $25 for it, it will be worth $25. labor could then be paid separately from (though related to) its currency based value for its full price based on an estimation of the average price of products in that economy, and its value would directly effect the price of products through estimations of scarcity, creating a cyclical economic effect. in this sense, labor would not be a commodity, but rather a factor in determining value.

(continued)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

How does a worker owned company operate? If by democracy, then it will operate like any violent monopoly would.


what makes democracy violent?? worker cooperatives are not theoretical. in fact they have over a century of empirical examples to show that they do work and do not necessitate coercion, and they run on democratic principles. can we please define democracy real quick, because i am baffled by the notion that it is in any way inherently violent.


Worker ownership does not precipitate some 'needs' based system. It may be intended so, but it won't be the reality. Just look at any socialist system set up in the world today. They manage to be more totalitarian, more poor, and more economically unfair then even the corrupt form of state-corporatism we have in the West. It seems when you get rid of Capitalism, you just replace it with a clunky, tyrannical state.


just as you accuse ANOK of confusing capitalism with state capitalism, you are confusing socialism here. the difference, however, is that with state capitalism, it can still be called capitalism as for the most part it still gives business owners private ownership over the means of production. in the cases you refer to of societies that practiced "socialism", not a single one could be said to have had economies largely based on the principle of "workers control over the means of production" and therefore they cannot be said to actually be socialist. they were nationalistic, or government controlled. nationalism is a form of fascism, which is a right-wing doctrine.

i wouldn't call socialism "needs based", but it is definitely values driven and largely based on cooperation rather than profit driven and competition based, not to say profit and competition aren't significantly important to socialist economies. rather i am simply claiming that these factors are not mutually exclusive and that our current order, as well as the capitalist ideal in general, are far too profit and competition based.


The mafia has bats and guns. The mafia has force. The state has force. If a person had a factory and entered contracts with three people for their labor to gain a profit, where are the guns? If there are any, the state still has them.


here's where the force is, and it is not state force:

libcom.org...

granted, the state did eventually intervene, but in this case i honestly believe had they not it would have been far worse for the workers.


Capitalists want profits, so they create resources.


capitalists do no such thing. that is the problem with capitalist logic. workers create resources. capitalists simply provide access to capital for the workers to create resources. it is the human labor, not the tools that person used, that is creating products. if it were those tools, then we could try an experiment. set a production tool down and see if, without human intervention, it produces anything. give it all the time you want and i am willing to bet nothing will be produced until a human acts upon that tool. the logic of capitalism would not be a problem, except no matter how benevolent the capitalist he cannot give the workers access to the full products of his labor or else he will lose control of his capital and effectively become equal partners with that worker. this is the logical conclusion of the Labor Theory of Property as proposed by Locke. problem was Locke based his theory on self-ownership rather than self-being, therefore commodifying the laborers and in essence justifying slavery/indentured servitude. bottom line: if you agree to let me labor on your resources, at some point, my labor will equal and eventually exceed your labor without you paying me the full fruits of my labor. i will eventually have generated enough excess profit that you have expropriated from me that it will equal my share of your business. in other words, based on money that i generated that you pocketed without putting it toward business expenses (unless you are stupid and are running your business at a loss), i technically will have generated so much excess revenue that i should have an equal (and eventually superior) ownership stake in your business.


No. I am saying that capitalism is not ethically wrong because it is a voluntary contract between willing parties. It is a free interaction if not supported by a state like in its current form. As well, socialism is not ethically wrong if it is not supported by a state. I support free market anarchy because it allows for these ideas to compete without violence.


this is something we can both agree on but i feel that a free market must be tailored to be conducive to allow laborers their choice of economic units, and i feel the most desirable economic units in any given society are those that are worker controlled. problem is that markets entirely profit/competition based are not conducive to worker control.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by eboyd
 




one cannot separate himself from his labor.


What about services? If someone pays you for your service, in some capacity, is that slavery?



if i sell my labor, i also sell myself.


I fixed my friends diesel truck for $40 and a six of beer. Am I a slave because of I sold my labor? Was I exploiting him if I stood to get $40 of his for spending my day off greased up under his truck, turning wrenches and fixing a problem for a fraction of the price it would have cost a shop?

If yes, how so?

I think there are basic problems with "a person selling their labor is slavery" argument.



what makes democracy violent??


There is always a minority. We all know what tends to happen when people become partisan.



can we please define democracy real quick, because i am baffled by the notion that it is in any way inherently violent.


Democracy is a form of government. If a majority of people can rule the minorities labor, is that not slavery?



the difference, however, is that with state capitalism, it can still be called capitalism as for the most part it still gives business owners private ownership over the means of production.


"for the most part"

When most wealth in the West is a product of government/private collusion (in the form of patents, corporations, central banks, etc) you cannot say that it is anything but fascism. The faux-capitalism set up is hinging on the state and vice verse.

My point was that if you are going to point at the West as "Capitalists", I could very well point to North Korea and the USSR as "Socialists".

And this, goes back to my main point of letting go of these old world abstractions that get us so battled up.



which is a right-wing doctrine.


Again. The right-left, social/anarcho/capitalism, is not a useful tool in advancing our ideology I find. I am more apt to help someone realize their anarchist ways through defining terms in clear, concise terms that do not bring any baggage.



capitalists do no such thing. that is the problem with capitalist logic. workers create resources.


Workers aren't workers without resources to work with. A Capitalist, in its pure form, is an idea man. He/she finds a way to create wealth and invests in it. He reaps the reward and takes on the risk (not true in today's society). He/she enters into contracts with people to get services provided and facilitates the moving of some product or service to market.

A Socialist is one who enters some contract or agreement with other socialists in order to use their own resources to create a product they see as necessary for others, or a good idea for a new product for people (I am not discounting socialists as lacking innovation). The reward (speaking as not profits, but sustainability) is theirs, as is the risk. They then get with other socialists and move the product or service.

Two systems. No force or violence necessary.



it is the human labor, not the tools that person used, that is creating products.


It is truly the mouth that feeds my body, but having hands to get and cook the food is also necessary in my getting fed. Human labor is one of the many and the most necessary cog in the the machine of production.



based on money that i generated that you pocketed without putting it toward business expenses (unless you are stupid and are running your business at a loss), i technically will have generated so much excess revenue that i should have an equal (and eventually superior) ownership stake in your business.


If its running at a loss, you would then take on that loss as well I presume.



this is something we can both agree on but i feel that a free market must be tailored to be conducive to allow laborers their choice of economic units, and i feel the most desirable economic units in any given society are those that are worker controlled. problem is that markets entirely profit/competition based are not conducive to worker control.


"a free market must be tailored..."




posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentThundersGF
 


After to our previous "encounter" today that didn't turn out too good (he spain bans cash-thing), i still feel like I have to express my appreciation for this post.
It adds to the information I can use to feed my intellectual struggle I have with the notion of anarchy. It took me some time to get a better grip on the subject matter (reading chomsky did help me a great deal).

greetings from a left-libertarian





top topics
 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join