It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DINSTAAR
Labor is a commodity.
It is my time, my effort. I am selling it voluntarily.
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.
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.
How does a worker owned company operate? If by democracy, then it will operate like any violent monopoly would.
True, which I think is good.... because we shouldn't be taught anything in state schools
I would say its biased towards obedience and taking on tremendous debt.
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.
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.
Been to a couple myself.... its a function of state power, used by fascists to actually exploit people as well as kill people.
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.
Capitalists want profits, so they create resources.
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.
Originally posted by petrus4
I consider both to be unhealthy extremes, and that it is possible for a person to have some possessions without it being socially harmful.
In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.
Originally posted by petrus4
a] It's almost pure collectivism, to a degree that I consider chronically imbalanced. I don't condone every man for himself, but I certainly don't condone allowing myself to be unquestioningly swept along with some giant herd, either. Collectivism taken to that extreme, will produce an end just as undesirable as the ovine behaviour that we have today.
b] The institutional Left in general don't use their brains, to a disturbingly large degree. The Anarchist FAQ consisted almost entirely of the writings of a group of Russians who've mostly been dead for close to 160 years now; at least two of whom (Marx and Trotsky) I consider to have been covert shills for the Rothschilds.
I've read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and with apologies to Noam Chomsky, I know what I'm getting when I listen to him. I'm getting the approved opposition. I basically view the whole Left/Right paradigm to be directly analogous to the pill question in The Matrix. They're even the right colours, for crying out loud.
Originally posted by Atzil321
Anarchism sounds like a great idea on paper, in the same way communism sounds great in theory. I think marx believed anarchism would eventually be the end product of communism in a perfect world. As we all know we do not live in a perfect world... I realy don't think either system is viable at all unfortunately 'not because they are bad ideas' but because we lack the maturity as a species to implement them in any meaningful way.