Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Monopolies in a stateless society

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by ANOK
 


Like I have said you have to falsely redefine terms including anarchy to try and posit your false argument... Nough said


And yet again you fail to answer my question, how can anarchism be socialist by your definitions? Can't answer that question can you?

I am not redefining anything, I am giving you the original true definitions.

If you actually read my post, you obviously didn't cause I just got finished posting and you replied already, you might get a clue. I am done with this nonsense.

I'll leave you with this, even though I doubt you'll watch it. Keep in mind Chomsky is a linguist.



edit on 12/5/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   

This shows a fundamental contradiction of capitalism: all of society is organized to produce goods and services; workers work “collectively” to build products, i.e., they work “socialistically,” but the vast majority of the wealth produced goes to a small minority of non-working, very wealthy shareholders. Thus, to correct this problem, the wealth produced by society should be distributed to those who create it, not funneled into the pockets of the rich. This would require transferring the vast majority of the productive machinery from private ownership of a few to the control of vast majority.


The Origins of Modern Socialism


Robert Owen:

In many ways Owen is the father of two threads related to socialism. The "humanitarian workplace" -- that is, a business which provides to its workers medical care, clean conditions, encourages daily excercise, etc. as we see in, for example, Japan or in some European companies. He also helped begin the cooperative movement, non-profit and consumer and worker owned businesses.


Origins of Socialism and Anarchism: 19th century thinkers

Robert Owen was one of the first 'Utopian' Socialists. One of the main points that the Utopian Socialists and the modern socialists (Marxists/Anarchists) shared was 'worker ownership'. Because once again, that is in it's most basic form what it is.

There are many different movements that call themselves socialist that all differ in their methods, their common goal is the same, socialism. AKA 'free association'. All these different ideas have been mixed up and confused and peoples ideas, like Marx for example, have become the definition of socialism/communism. Marxism isn't socialism/communism, it is a political path to move from capitalist industry to socialist industry (free association)


Socialism is divided into three main trends : reformism, anarchism and Marxism...


Anarchism Or Socialism ? 1 December, 1906 — January, 1907


Common ownership is not to be confused with state ownership, since an organ of coercion, or state, has no place in socialism.

Another reason why state ownership and socialism are incompatible is that the state is a national institution which exercises political control over a limited geographical area. Since capitalism is a world system, the complete state ownership of the means of production within a given political area cannot represent the abolition of capitalism, even within that area. What it does mean, and this has been one of the major themes of this book, is the establishment of some form of state capitalism whose internal mode of operation is conditioned by the fact that it has to compete in a world market context against other capitals.

Socialism, being based on the common ownership of the means of production by all members of society, is not an exchange economy. Production would no longer be carried on for sale with a view to profit as under capitalism. In fact, production would not be carried on for sale at all. Production for sale would be a nonsense since common ownership of the means of production means that what is produced is commonly owned by society as soon as it is produced. The question of selling just cannot arise because, as an act of exchange, this could only take place between separate owners. Yet separate owners of parts of the social product are precisely what would not, and could not exist in a society where the means of production were owned in common.


The Alternative To Capitalism

BTW common ownership means worker ownership, not public ownership which is something different...


Public Ownership and Common Ownership

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference.

Public ownership is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body....


Anton Pannekoek 1947 Public Ownership and Common Ownership


According to Marx, capitalism is merely a stage of historical development. It will eventually collapse under the weight of a laboring class (the proletariat) which increasingly becomes poorer and more numerous. The inconsistency of fewer and fewer people controlling more and more of the means of production will lead to capitalism’s collapse because eventually it will become too great an interference with production. At that time, the proletariat will create a rational society with no wages, no money, no social classes, and, eventually no state - “a free association of producers under their own conscious and purposive control.” McInes, Neil “Karl Marx,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volumes 5 & 6, MacMillan Publishing Co. (NY: 1967) p. 172.


Karl Marx (1818-1883)

No matter how much you think I'm twisting terms I can keep providing evidence that I'm right all day long, if the net runs out I have plenty of books to quote from.
You have to dig a little deeper to find the truth mate


edit on 12/6/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye

government which he believes is the most violent of all monopolies.

Government by in large is a democratically elected group of individuals who are the servants of the people and are accountable to the people who have given them the authority to govern. A corporation is a collection of unelected individuals who in a stateless society with no governing body to pass and enforce law, would be accountable to no one.

Now I am opposed to unreasonable unchecked authority, in fact I have a lot in common with a great many anarchists.



Well, is he not correct that government is "the most violent of all monopolies"? It is a monopoly - we do not have competing governments. It is violent - it is not people who declare the war.

I do not agree that government is largely "a democratically elected group of individuals". In the US we only elect a President and legislators - nobody else - and all of whom belong to two parties. Obama mostly continues or extends the Bush policies. Why? Because there is only one difference between the two parties, one plays good cop, the other plays bad cop.

They both work for the same power behind them. Democracy is a farce. Government and big corporations are equally controlled by a subtle, complete, pervasive power (see my signature). A "good government" would provide transparency and balance of power. Both of those are achievable but have constantly decreased since JFK.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 



Well, is he not correct that government is "the most violent of all monopolies"? It is a monopoly - we do not have competing governments. It is violent - it is not people who declare the war.


I would agree with the statement that government is the "most violent of all monopolies", however the institutions authority on force is distributed by the people, because we elect the representatives who are imbued with that authority. An argument could be made that military officials are not technically elected by the people, but we again we elect the people who appoint them, they just don't seize power and brand themselves authority figures, if they did that we would live in a type of military junta.

Corporations however are accountable to no one, at least in a world where government does not exist. In a society that has a state, laws bind corporations to do business within the boundaries of consent. If a state does not exist, than a corporation is bound by no laws and could become a sort of unaccountable feudal organization which allocates resources by force, thus becoming no better than a tyrannical government.


I do not agree that government is largely "a democratically elected group of individuals". In the US we only elect a President and legislators - nobody else - and all of whom belong to two parties. Obama mostly continues or extends the Bush policies. Why? Because there is only one difference between the two parties, one plays good cop, the other plays bad cop.

They both work for the same power behind them. Democracy is a farce. Government and big corporations are equally controlled by a subtle, complete, pervasive power (see my signature). A "good government" would provide transparency and balance of power. Both of those are achievable but have constantly decreased since JFK.


You may be interested in another thread I authored The Application and Justification of Authority.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


It is quite simple. Most worker owned companies cannot compete adequately with the current large corporations. The guy in your small town who carries stuff that is hard to get would be out of biz for the most part if WalMart built right across the street and carried the same items. Eventually you would get tired of giving him more money for the same stuff and shop at Wal Mart, at least that was what has happened in thousands of cities across the country. I don't think that is bad in itself as people likely have better shopping overall, but the fact that people now have to work to make WalMart a profit rather than themselves and many more left with no work is not a good thing.

You seem to paint a picture that in a socialistic economy that everyone is compensated equally. That is not the case at all. People still would get compensated based on their contributions. The brightest and the best workers would enjoy elevated lifestyles. Those who come up with great new ideas, like Bill Gates would be rewarded largely. Do you think he would have done less if he knew he was only going to $50 million rather than $500 billion? Hint - most great ideas are made from the love of discovery rather than a huge wealth incentive. The wealth incentives usually always come later.

Also, since capitalist need to earn their money, do you agree with passing down wealth? Ultimately you end up with a bunch of people controlling everything which never really did much to earn that position. When you look at the truly wealthy, the vast majority inherited it rather than really earned it.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
And yet again you fail to answer my question, how can anarchism be socialist by your definitions? Can't answer that question can you?

edit on 12/5/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


I see why people are getting huffy. Socialism in an economic system and anarchy is a form of non-government vs. government. You can have the means of production owned by the people and still have no government. That said there will also be quasi - governments or groups of people who make decisions in the communities as someone has to be in charge' even of workers in a worker owned business.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
That said there will also be quasi - governments or groups of people who make decisions in the communities as someone has to be in charge' even of workers in a worker owned business.


Of course there will be organization and control within certain aspects such as industry, there has to be. The difference is the organization and control is voluntary, and for the good of the community, as apposed to the benefit of the few.

There are coops that work that way now. All the workers own an equal share of the company and all equally benefit from it's profits/production. To solve the problem of the supervisor earning the same as the cleaner they rotate positions, so your are the supervisor one week, or month, and the cleaner the next. That way workers participate in all aspects of the business, learn how to run it and have a real feeling of ownership and control.

That makes for motivated workers. Earning minimum wage doing the same boring job every day is not going to motivate anyone to work to their best. The capitalist hourly wage system motivates workers to do the least they can get away with. The only thing keeping people in chitty jobs is the scarcity of jobs. If the workers owned the means of production there wouldn't be a scarcity of jobs. The need to make capitalist profit is what keeps jobs, and the means to produce, scarce, and the scarcity of the means to produce is what keeps people in poverty.

edit on 1/16/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Anyone should only take from society what they need. The capitalist economy motivates people to take all they can afford. It perpetuates greed and turns society into an attitude not of doing good because it's right but because it makes money, if it doesn't make money it doesn't get done.

There is so much need on this planet, yet we have the technological capacity to meet those needs. We don't because the means to meet those needs are monopolised by a minority class of people for personal profit. When profit isn't made those means to produce are left unused. Labour goes jobless and communities fall into poverty.

People whine about taxes and abortions, yet the capitalist mode of labour takes more from you than taxes, in surplus value you create, and more babies have died due to capitalism than all the abortions in history.

People not profit.

edit on 1/16/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


i don't feel it from your responses but I agree with most with all you say. I do feel anarchy and socialism are distinct ideas as you can have either without the other. The quasi government statement was simply that you can't get away from organization on some level so there is truly never real anarchy.

At a minimum I believe we need to be socialistic when it comes to the everyday needs of life, but capitalistic for everything else. Then people can choose to participate in capitalism rather than being forced into it.

Nothing will work however under our debt based money system. Every dollar that is borrowed into circulation actually reduces overall wealth as it needs to be paid back in whole + interest.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 





You seem to paint a picture that in a socialistic economy that everyone is compensated equally. That is not the case at all. People still would get compensated based on their contributions. The brightest and the best workers would enjoy elevated lifestyles



Complete and utter bovine excrement! Show us one example? You can't because its never worked and now a bunch of m wannabes want to tell us they can do it right an all the others got it wrong... Sigh... Sorry no sale results speak louder the romantic Utopian BS rhetoric and the results are on all brands of socialism complete and utter failure even in the USA it has led us to economic disasters along with every other country..



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
The quasi government statement was simply that you can't get away from organization on some level so there is truly never real anarchy.


We are in agreement on most points, just adding my tuppence.

That's because anarchism is not anarchy in the literal sense.

Anarchists were socialists who took on the term anarchism because they supported direct action to change from capitalist to socialist mode of production, as apposed to the political path to socialism of the Marxists and others.
Socialism is technically state free, even Marxist socialism. The state is only necessary when you have to keep two disparing groups of society from waring with each other, those with economic property and those without.
The state is simply what allows one class of people to control another class.

Adam Smith talked about this...

“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.

Note he is talking about economic property, not personal property.

Socialism, both Marxist and Anarchist, are ultimately state free. The state of Marxist socialism is temporary to aid in the political change from capitalism to socialism. Marx called it the transition period. A period where capitalist industry is nationalised and turned over to the workers to run. Once industry is socialised the state would naturally dissolve. The Anarchists, lead by Bakunin, did not trust Marx and thought that any state system would become corrupt and socialism never reached, instead becoming state-capitalism. Which is what happened in Soviet Russia, and why the real left-wing apposed the Bolsheviks.

Marx, Bakunin, and the question of authoritarianism - David Adam


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.


Free association (communism and anarchism)


According to Marx, capitalism is merely a stage of historical development. It will eventually collapse under the weight of a laboring class (the proletariat) which increasingly becomes poorer and more numerous. The inconsistency of fewer and fewer people controlling more and more of the means of production will lead to capitalism’s collapse because eventually it will become too great an interference with production. At that time, the proletariat will create a rational society with no wages, no money, no social classes, and, eventually no state - “a free association of producers under their own conscious and purposive control.” McInes, Neil “Karl Marx,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volumes 5 & 6, MacMillan Publishing Co. (NY: 1967) p. 172.


Karl Marx (1818-1883)


Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks were a series of rebellions and uprisings against the Bolsheviks led or supported by left wing groups including Socialist Revolutionaries, Left Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and anarchists. Some were in support of the White Movement while some tried to be an independent force. The uprisings started in 1918 and continued through the Russian Civil War and after until 1922. In response the Bolsheviks increasingly abandoned attempts to get these groups to join the government and suppressed them with force.


Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks

The Russian peasants were fooled into supporting state-capitalism against the own best interest just like western nations fooled their people into supporting private-capitalism.

edit on 1/17/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
I would agree with the statement that government is the "most violent of all monopolies", however the institutions authority on force is distributed by the people, because we elect the representatives who are imbued with that authority. An argument could be made that military officials are not technically elected by the people, but we again we elect the people who appoint them, they just don't seize power and brand themselves authority figures, if they did that we would live in a type of military junta.

Corporations however are accountable to no one, at least in a world where government does not exist. In a society that has a state, laws bind corporations to do business within the boundaries of consent. If a state does not exist, than a corporation is bound by no laws and could become a sort of unaccountable feudal organization which allocates resources by force, thus becoming no better than a tyrannical government.

Thanks for the link. Imagine a country where people elect 10 representatives who make all the decisions about taxes to be collected and resources to be spent. This country will be corrupt very fast. Because whether you call it vulture capitalism or vulture communism, people have vested interests regarding available resources. The smaller the number of representatives the easier it is to manipulate them for the benefit of those interests.

Democracy (nowadays) is worse than my example because in most countries only one President or Prime Minister is being elected. Financial/political interest only need to manipulate one person to exploit the country and its people. Who the President is makes no difference.

(Legislators such as Congress are also elected but have much less power and their activity is less than transparent. They are also located in the capital, an easy target for lobbies).

A better government would be one that encourages the citizens to participate more actively and many more positions would be elected (at the national/federal level).

The most important, IMO, is to provide choice between governments to people. With that they could choose the degree of socialism versus capitalism that they prefer. They would not need to protest because if they are not happy they could simply choose a different government. That would result in governments truly working for the people, not for special interest that exploit the people.

I am in favor of capitalism because it offers that choice. If you don't like the product, or your job, you can go somewhere else. (Countries, on the other hand, put you in one big prison, by preventing your from earning a living in other countries under different governments). Companies must be regulated, a corrupt government will not do a good job at it. If you have a choice between governments you can pick the government that does it well, one that is less corrupt.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join