WinCo: worker-owned grocery chain pays benefits, pensions, living wages, lower prices than Walmart

page: 5
58
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Of course Capitalism protects the private owners, however, unlike the monocled and top-hat wearing stereotype off a propaganda flyer, the owners can be individuals, families, groups of like minded individuals, or the workers themselves. When investment and intellectual property is protected, then more people strive to make something. When one has ownership, one works harder to make it work.


Say that you are right and ownership indeed makes one work harder. Then indeed we should have anarchy as soon as possible, as in an anarchy, with few exceptions, everything is owned by everybody. They are all owners!

But mentioning ownership as an incentive to work harder - that seems to suggest that most people are lazy and need such an incentive. I beg to differ. A healthy person likes to contribute to society. He strives for mastery, that is his true purpose: recognition by his peers, attributing to the general good. However, with few exceptions, most people hate doing dull chores. Hence, dull work should be done by machines, they seem to like it. And if dull chores can not be done by machines, let's spread the hours that are required evenly over all, so that we all are motivated to eliminate these dull chores using some creative invention - most dull chores can be done by anybody, after all. We should strive to do what we do best: be creative, think out new plans, discover new things, socialise, enjoy each others company, educate ourselves, gaze at the stars and think out a plan how to get there. That, indeed, is also "work", but it matches our true purpose much better than turning a nut every 4 secons whilst standing next to a conveyer belt..

You also mention intellectual property. In an anarchy there is no intellectual property - good ideas are welcomed and implemented, free for all to use. If somebody has a good idea, no "investment" is necessary either: he simply needs to tell the people what his idea is, and if they see benefit in implementing it, they will. If the invention works, it is owned by all, as it should be. And the inventor gets his reward: recognition by his peers, being seen as the master he is in his field.

In an anarchy you still have cooperations: groups of specialists that make something or provide a service to all. But the lawyer would have the very same access to the (impressive) facilities of the anarchist society as the carpenter would, a doctor would own exactly the same - again with the exception of some personal belongings - as the president of a cooperation or a severely disabled person that can only contribute his good will and very little else.

I must admit that what Winco does is but a drop on a very hot plate. But it's a drop, more will follow and eventually anarchy will prevail. We are born that way: not to be slaves, but to be free.
edit on 14-8-2013 by ForteanOrg because: spelling..
edit on 14-8-2013 by ForteanOrg because: clarification


And your system would destroy innovation and artistic expression. There would be no incentive to strive harder and learn great skills. There would be no "impressive facilities" or highly trained specialists. There would be no imagination and ideas would be quelled by groupthink if the group does not like them.

What you have here is a recipe for a race to the bottom.




posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Here is what I think...When you do not have CEO's and other corporate higher-ups who need to make millions of dollars in bonuses alone, not to mention salaries, there is a whole LOT of money to go around, which can also be used to create lower prices in the long run.

This is part of the reason I like certain Communist ideas. Worker owned businesses, the means of production, allow for profit=sharing, creating well paid and happy workers, among the other benefits. The corporate structure around the world is part of the problem, as is Capitalism itself.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


There are a few wincos around the area. Its a good place to get shop at, I think even two years ago I told a member on this site about it because they sounded like there looking for a job and told them to look it up if they have one in there state or area as it may take off one day and they pay there workers pretty well.

But ya, my current job I get paid peanuts but I like it because it affords me the time to do other things, and its fun never a boring day. But I would be making more money working at winco bagging groceries. In fact I and my family have been going to that store for years, and I found out its way more worker friendly and then other like stores and that they pay more and even depending on commission ie the more people who go through there checkout lines, or something like that.

It was a dude at my work which filled me in on the fact that winco is not a bad place to work at when he bought a new car, and was starting to buy all these things left and right. We asked him how he could afford all of those things as you know he was doing the same stuff were doing, lets just say he could not afford it on his pay grade. His answer was that his wife works at the winko checkout lines and such, and she supposedly was bankrolling all his new found toys and car. Who knows as I only shop there once in a while, but lets just say the pay may be better then your local wallmart.

Oh and If you ever tried there pizza its the best pizza you can get around, way better then Costco and even better then the local pizza specialization joints around here for a much cheaper price. Every time I go there on the way out I stop by the Leonardi’s pizza joint they have in there.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Employee owned almost always translates to a culture where employee's care more at every level, as you know you have a much bigger stake in success or failure of the venture. It's hard to train a sense or pride in work these days, most young people saw there parents get screwed over by large corporations so they aren't buying into the corporate propaganda, they fake it to go along. But at some point it costs the company in quality.
I used to work for a company that had so many VP's on their corporate chart it was just stupid, the down turn came and a virtual clean out happened from the board of directors right down to the lowest paid full timers. It was nasty but so many people never cared at all, and it cost the company at a huge level, as in millions.

If every full timer owns the company they work for, that really ups the concern level and decreases the apathetic attitude. And those with the wrong attitude will be pushed out by there peers not a manager, because it hurts them personally, so they won't tolerate it.

Great concept I would work for that type of company.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ForteanOrg
 



Say that you are right and ownership indeed makes one work harder. Then indeed we should have anarchy as soon as possible, as in an anarchy, with few exceptions, everything is owned by everybody. They are all owners!


I have thought that too, that anarchy implies no ownership because of no rules. Many free-market thinkers, such as Murray Rothbard and the Von MIses Institute disagree.

Anarchy means no government. Society still has rules, and ownership is an instinctive one for many people. Anarchy and cooperation fit together realistically to meet common ends, especially when everyone is raised from infancy into a free market system.
edit on 14-8-2013 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Yes Winco specializes in food only and puts Wally world to shame both in pricing and what they carry. However, Wally world has good prices on a lot of things that cannot be matched. The pharmacy they have has a 4 dollar drug program. If the drug is on their list it is 30 pills for 4 bucks. Try matching that anywhere even with insurance. The vision store they have is also a huge money saver. Walmart is a good superstore, but Winco has them beat on food selection and pricing. Others have mentioned health violations etc. not at the store I go to it is well managed. It cleanliness is just as any store you would go to it's not a slum by any means. You save money on every product you buy and if you spend like 100-250 dollars every time you shop then you will see the difference. My cart is overflowing with food and you get everything you need. Thankfully both of these stores are in close proximity to each other.

Winco has things that other places doesn't. They have bulk food section, they got fresh peanut butter on tap, fresh honey on tap. They have a nice selection of, produce, cheeses, meats, deli. They have a fresh coffee bean section. You can get whatever coffee bean you want fresh and grind it yourself or grind it there at the store. Price is cheaper and better selections. I mean who doesn't shop at Winco?? lol every time I go there I can barely find a parking space and they are always loaded.
edit on 14-8-2013 by sean because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I'm happy to be able to have access to a WinCo. I believe in our locally economy as to employment it helps many with employment, as there's less opportunity unless you work for the Universities and or know people. I have family elsewhere, that unfortunately sometimes have to go to Wal Mart for cheaper foods, as an only option. In hopes the store, as said in the article, more openings. They do offer organics, as well as fair prices. They do offer their own brand(similar to Western Family, etc), which helps in pricing, as to probably why they dislike the GMO labeling. Though, possible with employee and customer insight they may be open to a change.

The other factor that was brought up is cleanliness. Locally the stores I have been too in the NW, have always been clean but local people have said they observed sketchy practices when stocking foods, etc, further more what was discussed earlier in this thread. I say bring it up with the store, because lobbying to get them shut down over practices that are more likely prevalent in warehouses-as someone discussed with me quite some years ago- Safeway and other big chains have filthy-rats, roaches, etc, warehouses. Take it up with the store because as it seems for now, WinCo, might be the way to combat Wal Mart's unfair practices.

Speaking of Wal Mart, learned from family in-laws when last I visited there home area, that Wal Mart is the cause of many local stores shutting down. Not the first time that's been spoke of for sure. That was in which originally that the mega-chain was ran out of my city, but was asked to come back later on to offer more employment opportunities to the city. Overall, when having to go into the store, have noticed few workers, few friendly faces and few wanting to help you. Local stores and WinCo offer more friendly people and help, with that sometimes with local stores they can be able to same prices or near to Wal Mart prices for better quality to being made in the US.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sean
Yes Winco specializes in food only and puts Wally world to shame both in pricing and what they carry. However, Wally world has good prices on a lot of things that cannot be matched. The pharmacy they have has a 4 dollar drug program. If the drug is on their list it is 30 pills for 4 bucks. Try matching that anywhere even with insurance. The vision store they have is also a huge money saver. Walmart is a good superstore, but Winco has them beat on food selection and pricing. Others have mentioned health violations etc. not at the store I go to it is well managed. It cleanliness is just as any store you would go to it's not a slum by any means. You save money on every product you buy and if you spend like 100-250 dollars every time you shop then you will see the difference. My cart is overflowing with food and you get everything you need. Thankfully both of these stores are in close proximity to each other.

Winco has things that other places doesn't. They have bulk food section, they got fresh peanut butter on tap, fresh honey on tap. They have a nice selection of, produce, cheeses, meats, deli. They have a fresh coffee bean section. You can get whatever coffee bean you want fresh and grind it yourself or grind it there at the store. Price is cheaper and better selections. I mean who doesn't shop at Winco?? lol every time I go there I can barely find a parking space and they are always loaded.
edit on 14-8-2013 by sean because: (no reason given)


The vision store - has their lens made by prision labor for like $.85/hour - of course they are cheap. We pay for their training and housing. - Walmart gets the profit. Gotta love this stuff.

I have only shopped in Walmart a few times in my life - even when broke I won't shop there. Thank goodness where I live there are alternatives. Many towns only have Walmart as all the smaller locally owned stores got pushed out.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
And your system would destroy innovation and artistic expression. There would be no incentive to strive harder and learn great skills. There would be no "impressive facilities" or highly trained specialists. There would be no imagination and ideas would be quelled by groupthink if the group does not like them.

What you have here is a recipe for a race to the bottom.


Allow me to disagree.

"[Anarchy] would destroy innovation and artistic expression"

All humans are creative - some more than others. Any young child playing will prove it to you. Creativity has been essential to the survival of our species: it makes us imagine a better world and guides our actions to create that better world. Now, you keep on talking about the need for incentives, but I ask you: how would one be able to appreciate the incentive without creativity? Would not anybody, promised an incentive, only act because he can imagine how much better his situation would be afterwards? That, my friend, is the essence: creativity was there before any incentive was invented. Creativity is part of our natural thought processes and can't be switched off.
Hence, regardless the system, innovation and artistic expression will always be there.

"There would be no incentive to strive harder and learn great skills."

Of course there would be. In an anarchy many things are exactly as they are today: there still is a society, there still are rules we agree on. The main difference is that there is no State to enforce the rules, instead the entire society enforces them. Thieves are almost totally missing: there are no things you'd need to steal, you can simply ask for it and be given it or order it and it will be brought to you. After all, it is beneficial to all to grant you the items you feel you need. However, if you don't use these items others will claim them - and are entitled to that - as nothing goes to waste in an anarchy. Money does not exist either. And it is part of your upbringing by society that you learn that you are expected to contribute to society. Your incentive is exactly the same as in other societies: that you are seen as a valuable member of society if you contribute to it within the limits of your qualities. Hence, the very same motives that make people excel are still applicable, and even in our current society most masters aren't masters because they expect to be payed well, but because they like to be masters.

"ideas would be quelled by groupthink if the group does not like them."

Even if that were true, it would be exactly the same as it is today. There are many people that have brilliant ideas, but are not able to convince investors they need to invest in them. On ATS we frequently read about Big Oil suppressing Free Energy - I'm not sure that is real, but I can well imagine it is, given the interests of the people that are in Big Oil.

But in an anarchy you can access most things you need to do your thing freely. But even in an anarchy there are limits to what others will accept: say that you want a truckload of bread to do an experiment. You are allowed to fetch each and every bread you want, but must realise that people will still see that bread as theirs, may frown upon your actions as they now do have to go to your place to fetch the bread, which is annoying. So, in order to get the truckload of bread you must convince people that they should not take it away from you - hence, you'd need to explain to them what your need is and how society would benefit from forfilling that need. If you can convince them, they are yours to use. If you can't, you can either go to another city and try again, or continue the process of convincing your peers.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by NavyDoc
And your system would destroy innovation and artistic expression. There would be no incentive to strive harder and learn great skills. There would be no "impressive facilities" or highly trained specialists. There would be no imagination and ideas would be quelled by groupthink if the group does not like them.

What you have here is a recipe for a race to the bottom.


Allow me to disagree.

"[Anarchy] would destroy innovation and artistic expression"

All humans are creative - some more than others. Any young child playing will prove it to you. Creativity has been essential to the survival of our species: it makes us imagine a better world and guides our actions to create that better world. Now, you keep on talking about the need for incentives, but I ask you: how would one be able to appreciate the incentive without creativity? Would not anybody, promised an incentive, only act because he can imagine how much better his situation would be afterwards? That, my friend, is the essence: creativity was there before any incentive was invented. Creativity is part of our natural thought processes and can't be switched off.
Hence, regardless the system, innovation and artistic expression will always be there.

"There would be no incentive to strive harder and learn great skills."

Of course there would be. In an anarchy many things are exactly as they are today: there still is a society, there still are rules we agree on. The main difference is that there is no State to enforce the rules, instead the entire society enforces them. Thieves are almost totally missing: there are no things you'd need to steal, you can simply ask for it and be given it or order it and it will be brought to you. After all, it is beneficial to all to grant you the items you feel you need. However, if you don't use these items others will claim them - and are entitled to that - as nothing goes to waste in an anarchy. Money does not exist either. And it is part of your upbringing by society that you learn that you are expected to contribute to society. Your incentive is exactly the same as in other societies: that you are seen as a valuable member of society if you contribute to it within the limits of your qualities. Hence, the very same motives that make people excel are still applicable, and even in our current society most masters aren't masters because they expect to be payed well, but because they like to be masters.

"ideas would be quelled by groupthink if the group does not like them."

Even if that were true, it would be exactly the same as it is today. There are many people that have brilliant ideas, but are not able to convince investors they need to invest in them. On ATS we frequently read about Big Oil suppressing Free Energy - I'm not sure that is real, but I can well imagine it is, given the interests of the people that are in Big Oil.

But in an anarchy you can access most things you need to do your thing freely. But even in an anarchy there are limits to what others will accept: say that you want a truckload of bread to do an experiment. You are allowed to fetch each and every bread you want, but must realise that people will still see that bread as theirs, may frown upon your actions as they now do have to go to your place to fetch the bread, which is annoying. So, in order to get the truckload of bread you must convince people that they should not take it away from you - hence, you'd need to explain to them what your need is and how society would benefit from forfilling that need. If you can convince them, they are yours to use. If you can't, you can either go to another city and try again, or continue the process of convincing your peers.


There would be no thievery because everything would be given? Given by whom and made by whom? If one can live the exact same life without any effort, why put in the effort?

You honestly think that all of the ditch diggers and pipe fitters are going to break their backs and get blisters on their hands when they could declare themselves poets and spend all day in the airconditioning?

What you end up is people doing less and less work with the hardest, yet necessary jobs neglected first.

People are not ants, your system would never make it to the implementation stage.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
There would be no thievery because everything would be given? Given by whom and made by whom?


You are right: "given" is actually not the right word to use, as it suggests ownership by somebody else. You simply take what you need, no more. In an anarchistic society, people still work. However, the definition of work would be different: it is any activity that contributes to society. And it is up to you to decide what you do best. There are no payed, no unpayed jobs.



If one can live the exact same life without any effort, why put in the effort?


Because most people actually like to contribute to society. That's why so many people do voluntary work - they don't need to, they simply like to. That's why for example the Open Source movement is a huge success. That's why we have choirs, fanfares and drumlines. That's why people join political parties and work for these, freely and without obligation to do so. That's why most of us enjoy inviting over our neightbours for a nice BBQ, free of charge. That's why people join to pick up garbage from road-sides in their free time. That's why in my country our old windmills still exist: there is a small legion of volunteers that works these mills. I could go on, but you got the picture: most people actually like to contribute to society. Almost all, when the burden of MUST and HAVE TO is lifted are more productive than ever. You may want to check out the RSA "Drive" video, to get a better understanding of what I refer to.




You honestly think that all of the ditch diggers and pipe fitters are going to break their backs and get blisters on their hands when they could declare themselves poets and spend all day in the airconditioning?


I fear you may have an incorrect negative image of mankind. People actually mostly like to contribute to society, "to work". You might be surprised how many 'ditch diggers' and 'pipe fitters' actually love their job and take great pride in doing it. But in an anarchy they might not even be needed anymore: instead of having humans break their backs doing hard labour for way to less pay, the anarchists will probably invent a machine to dig the ditches. Free of costs, available to all whom need it, build by others who like to build nice machines.


What you end up is people doing less and less work with the hardest, yet necessary jobs neglected first.


Well, if you define "work" as "something you don't like to do" then yes, in a anarchy ultimately nobody works anymore. However, if you define "work" as "something people love to do" than yes, all work.


People are not ants, your system would never make it to the implementation stage.


Of cours it will make it, but not by way of revolution. What we need to do is to take away the fear for anarchy, re-establish trust in our fellow men and take little steps to gradually implement anarchy. Every little step toward that ideal society is one towards enlightement: worker-owned cooperations, Semler companies, voluntary workforces, a basic income for ALL (during the time we still think we need money), virtualisation of money, teaching our children to take care of others - it's all good in my opinion. Anarchists don't like revolutions much, evolution is the better way.

The path towards anarchy is simple: Chaos - Kings - Democracy - Socialism - Communism - Anarchy.
America is still somewhere between Kings and Democracy, as is Europe. Africa seems to be somewhere between Chaos and Kings, China is led by Kings too etc. We never saw real democracy at work, maybe I will live to see the day, but I doubt it. The next step - socialism - has not been tried at all, the so-called 'socialist' countries were (and are, e.g. Cuba) all in fact led by Kings. And we are not even remotely close to communism and anarchy.

Please note that capitalist leaders - the ones that demand you to work harder and longer for less - profit from it most. They hence will do everthing they can to prove to you that the farther away you drift towards anarchy, the worst off you are. But even a child can see why that is - they can only live their relatively good lives because they exploit others. We should end all that, if possible gradually and by way of conviction, not by bloodshed and anger.

Like what I try to do in here. I hope it helps



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ForteanOrg
 


Take what you need? Does that include sex? What about the ugly guy who does not get as many sexual partners as the more attractive individual? That is certainly not fair. It is not fair for the less attractive to have less sex than the more attractive.

LOL. Utopia is not achievable. You have a science-fiction vision of happy mindless drones with no ambition, no passion, working because they want to "contribute." You completely ignore the human condition and tens of millennia of human history.

You cannot have love without hate, you cannot have happiness without sadness.

The guy who hauls the # won't want to do that if he gets everything the same as the doctor. The doctor is not going to put in decades of life in training if he is no more than a guy who hauls the #. The guy who hauls the # is not going to haul the # if he can just lay around and be a poet. As a result, # does not get hauled, # piles up, and all of those "enlightened" communal living people will eventually have to force someone to haul the # away.

No one is going to spend 16 hours a day innovating if he is treated the same as the guy who lays around and do nothing...unless you let him first in line for his soylent green ration as a reward, in which case, you have lost the "everyone is exactly the same as anyone else."

It is competition that has created innovation and technology. It is competition, inequality, and self interest that made mankind evolve from animals to tool makers to explorers of outer space.

You nightmarish utopia would destroy individualism, inspiration, and innovation.

In order to achieve the heights, one must also risk the depths.

In your world of drones, man will devolve and such a society will not last long. All it takes is one charismatic organizer that insists on thinking for himself and the drone society of the future becomes something else.

No thanks. I prefer freedom and individuality. Your dream is the dream of the lazy and those without initiative. That would be your heaven (or so you think...if it actually happened, you wouldn't), but to an individualist, it is a nightmare.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Too true. he lives in the Netherlands though, so people there may have grown with a different mind set. But knowing as many people as I do from every social and financial class, that could never happen in America.

The anarchy movement in America will begin with massive death on a large scale as unmedicated psycos will take their weapons to the streets against the innocent to take what they can no longer simply buy in a store because there is no longer a omnipotent and powerful government institution to stop them. yes armed people will fight back. In war however, no outcome is guaranteed from person to person. Sometimes the armed vigilant survivalist and his family will survive. Sometimes they will be outnumbered and his family will get gang raped and murdered.

The point is, many people will die in the beginning of this true anarchy. After all the death, most people will revert to an isolationist scavenging lifestyle initially. Some communities will eventually band together for the benefit of a greater good. Unfortunately bad ones will also get bigger and badder.

There is a place here that still suffers from Anarchy, it is called Somalia. Simply observe how that has worked. Ironically, the Capitalist way was still strong after two decades of no formal government management. I believe it just go to show, capitalism is the natural economic model of humanity.

But if you want a peaceful society, there will have to be some form of governance and regulation of business. It quells Anarchy and keeps abusive capitalism in check. I love a bureaucratic system because it keeps all bases covered all the time. We have clean water, air conditioners, better traffic management than most the rest of the world, and paved roads thanks to this bureaucracy. If people didn't have little forms they had to sign or check off with numbers and standards to adhere to with consequences attached, there would be less incentive for the people clean your water to not skip steps now and then, thus raising the community risk to pathogens.

Roads would fall in disrepair (they are now for lack of funds). I personally like the system we have here in the US, might just need a little bit of reform to weed out the rampant conflicts of interest involved. But it works well. If it did not, our definition of poor would not include people who still own 7 different portable electronic gadgets and wear $100+ pairs of shoes. Mind you they would rarely go hungry.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


I work at WinCo and don't believe they treat their employees well. The pay is poor, the hours are minimal (most positions are part time), and there is a dress code that requires employees to wear black dress pants, black shoes, and red, black, or white polo shirts. I mention this because that means I spent money on clothes when I got the job so the entire petty first paycheck went to that bill.

We were only allowed a few hours of training and after that were expected the know the job well enough to do it alone. The workers are petrified to clock out more than 2 minutes late. I haven't clocked out late so I don't know what happens, but judging by their fear I don't want to.

I've worked at Wal-Mart as well and even though their pay was worse, I felt better taken care of there by the company. Granted, this was about 15 years ago.

I was looking to get away from the desk jobs I'd grown accustomed to over the years but after working at WinCo for just a few weeks I'm ready to quit.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I work at Wal-Mart, and I can say I have no problem with the way they treat me. If you feel WinCo is not treating you well, you should try to use an open door system like Wal-Mart and take your grievances up to the next level in the Chain of Command so to speak until someone addresses it. I doubt that will work at WinCo though since they don't really have a corporate structure that can threaten individual levels of management with reprimands for misbehavior.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by ForteanOrg
 
Take what you need? Does that include sex?


Firstly, 'to take' does not involve force in an anarchy. You take what is available and recognised as collectively owned and only what you need. Now, would an anarchy have prostitution? Not the type we see in our capitalist systems: there is no money to be earned and all you need (and is collectively owned, which is almost everything) can be used freely. But perhaps in an anarchy a "prostitute" would simply be someone that grants people the joy of having sex without much ado. It may be a kind soul that can imagine the pain of the person who can't have it otherwise and wishes to soften that pain. She (or he) would probably be very well respected for it.


What about the ugly guy who does not get as many sexual partners as the more attractive individual? That is certainly not fair. It is not fair for the less attractive to have less sex than the more attractive.


Well, you seem to confuse personal attributes - people's wit, their charm, their characters, looks, other talents - with property you can 'earn'. Nor in an anarchistic system nor in a capitalist system can people 'buy' (take) talents. If you desire, you could have a cosmetic operation in an anarchistic system, free of charge. But if you're plain stupid, that won't help you much.


LOL. Utopia is not achievable. You have a science-fiction vision of happy mindless drones with no ambition, no passion, working because they want to "contribute." You completely ignore the human condition and tens of millennia of human history.


No, I do not. You coin the term "drones", where I discussed a society of masters. You say "science fiction" - you may be right: it is science and alas, still fiction. But hey, there was a time that we thought that travelng around the world in 80 days was science fiction too - and nowadays it can be done in far less time..


You cannot have love without hate, you cannot have happiness without sadness.


That's nonsense. You can have love without hate. You can have various levels of love, agreed. But hate in itself is a useless emotion and does not help you to love the ones you love more. It's not that I need to hate somebody to love my children, for example. Nonsense.


The guy who hauls the # won't want to do that if he gets everything the same as the doctor. The doctor is not going to put in decades of life in training if he is no more than a guy who hauls the #.


There is no 'inferiour' work. They ARE both equally important. Both work for the betterment of society and both are crucial to the health of the population. So, it only makes sense that the guy that hauls the # is entitled to the same as a doctor. Also, not everybody was born with the brains to become a doctor, but those that are will by nature want to use their brains. You can't switch them off and in the end end up using them, believe me. Also, in an anarchy there probably will be somebody who invents or builds a system to haul the # for us or at least make it more bearable to do the job, even when it is not 'economically feasible' to do so.


It is competition that has created innovation and technology. It is competition, inequality, and self interest that made mankind evolve from animals to tool makers to explorers of outer space.


You should try to read for example Kropotkin, e.g. "Mutual Aid". It's available for free on-line. It is NOT competition that creates innovation: it is cooperation. You on your own are not capable of much, the both of us together can achieve a lot more, and when hundreds join forces, miracles can be done. That is what makes us great.


You nightmarish utopia would destroy individualism, inspiration, and innovation.


It would not: individualism would still be there. There will be an abundant variation of colourful people in an anarchy, and their talents will still wildly differ.


In order to achieve the heights, one must also risk the depths.


All is relative. Maybe someday the 'depths' are that you need to walk 100 yards to get that loaf of bread back from the idiot that tried to use it for his experiments. I'd prefer that over the current situation in most countries.


All it takes is one charismatic organizer that insists on thinking for himself and the drone society of the future becomes something else.


A Hitler type? I don't think so. What good would he have to offer that is not already there in an Anarchy?


No thanks. I prefer freedom and individuality. Your dream is the dream of the lazy and those without initiative.


Freedom and individuality are core characteristics of the anarchy. You fail to produce any evidence for the opposite.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   


Freedom and individuality are core characteristics of the anarchy. You fail to produce any evidence for the opposite.


oK look, you make a valid point in he has failed to provide evidence to freedom and individuality being core characteristics. However, you cant be naïve to believe Anarchy = peace, because it does not. In fact oppression and mayhem rule more in Anarchy than in any other system. granted this would keep human population at manageable levels, but that is not the goal.

With anarchy violence is the law of the land. Let us assume everyone starts out unarmed in a nice anarchic community. Eventually someone will want more, because that is how we exist. Someone will have a different viewpoint. And then someone will make a weapon, or simply use their size or a posse to utilize violence as a means for their personal gain. Happens every time.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes


Freedom and individuality are core characteristics of the anarchy. You fail to produce any evidence for the opposite.


oK look, you make a valid point in he has failed to provide evidence to freedom and individuality being core characteristics.


I did not proof they were core characteristics of anarchy either, of course, but nobody seems to notice that



However, you cant be naïve to believe Anarchy = peace, because it does not. In fact oppression and mayhem rule more in Anarchy than in any other system. granted this would keep human population at manageable levels, but that is not the goal.


Firstly, I did not say that anarchy is peace. The way you organise society does have an impact on how much agression and violence there will be, but it's merely one of the (important) factors. There still will be dangerous folks roaming the streets in an anarchy. But how much of it is allowed depends on the rules we all agree on and the willingness of society as a whole to uphold these rules. But that's exactly how it is now: if we all simply obeyed and enforce our own Laws, there would be no violence nor much need for guns. Police and prisons don't help much: in America we see an abundant policeforce and many crowded prisons, but it has not led to lower crime at all, just the opposite I'm afraid.

It is doubtable if you would have a real need for weapons in an anarchy. But say that a number of people saw a need to produce weapons. They can't do that on their own, they need help. If they don't get cooperation to build guns, they can't. So, if the people don't want it, no guns will be available.

But okay, let's assume that the people will allow guns to be build. By the nature of the anarchy weapons will then be available to anybody that qualifies to use them (like cars, that will be available to anybody that qualifies to use them responsibly). I can't stress this enough: AN ANARCHY HAS LAWS AND RULES TOO, it is merely that their enforcement is by the overwhelming majority in society. In that case, since there is no profit to be made from these weapons, nobody would earn an additional advantage by creating or using weapons.


With anarchy violence is the law of the land. Let us assume everyone starts out unarmed in a nice anarchic community. Eventually someone will want more, because that is how we exist. Someone will have a different viewpoint. And then someone will make a weapon, or simply use their size or a posse to utilize violence as a means for their personal gain. Happens every time.
:

Your assumption "eventually someone will want more" is weird. If he wants something, he can simply require it or order it. Some people seem to need more than one car, for example. However, if your car is not used for say a few months, and there is shortage of cars, it might be claimed by somebody else. If you don't use it, you will lose it, with the exception of stuff that is regarded "personal". After all, why do you need "your" car if you do not use it? On the other hand: if there are plenty new cars available the people probably would let you have two or even three, who cares. Your social status will diminish from it if there is no real need for you to have them in the eyes of the people, because having "too much stuff you don't use" is seen as an offense against society in an anarchy, but if it makes you happy to pile useless stuff around you (of which there is plenty), by all means go ahead and suffer the pity and waryness of your neighbours. If you overdo it, somebody of the mental health cooperation will eventually come by to check if you're insane..



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by DYepes


Freedom and individuality are core characteristics of the anarchy. You fail to produce any evidence for the opposite.


oK look, you make a valid point in he has failed to provide evidence to freedom and individuality being core characteristics.


I did not proof they were core characteristics of anarchy either, of course, but nobody seems to notice that



However, you cant be naïve to believe Anarchy = peace, because it does not. In fact oppression and mayhem rule more in Anarchy than in any other system. granted this would keep human population at manageable levels, but that is not the goal.


Firstly, I did not say that anarchy is peace. The way you organise society does have an impact on how much agression and violence there will be, but it's merely one of the (important) factors. There still will be dangerous folks roaming the streets in an anarchy. But how much of it is allowed depends on the rules we all agree on and the willingness of society as a whole to uphold these rules. But that's exactly how it is now: if we all simply obeyed and enforce our own Laws, there would be no violence nor much need for guns. Police and prisons don't help much: in America we see an abundant policeforce and many crowded prisons, but it has not led to lower crime at all, just the opposite I'm afraid.

It is doubtable if you would have a real need for weapons in an anarchy. But say that a number of people saw a need to produce weapons. They can't do that on their own, they need help. If they don't get cooperation to build guns, they can't. So, if the people don't want it, no guns will be available.

But okay, let's assume that the people will allow guns to be build. By the nature of the anarchy weapons will then be available to anybody that qualifies to use them (like cars, that will be available to anybody that qualifies to use them responsibly). I can't stress this enough: AN ANARCHY HAS LAWS AND RULES TOO, it is merely that their enforcement is by the overwhelming majority in society. In that case, since there is no profit to be made from these weapons, nobody would earn an additional advantage by creating or using weapons.


With anarchy violence is the law of the land. Let us assume everyone starts out unarmed in a nice anarchic community. Eventually someone will want more, because that is how we exist. Someone will have a different viewpoint. And then someone will make a weapon, or simply use their size or a posse to utilize violence as a means for their personal gain. Happens every time.
:

Your assumption "eventually someone will want more" is weird. If he wants something, he can simply require it or order it. Some people seem to need more than one car, for example. However, if your car is not used for say a few months, and there is shortage of cars, it might be claimed by somebody else. If you don't use it, you will lose it, with the exception of stuff that is regarded "personal". After all, why do you need "your" car if you do not use it? On the other hand: if there are plenty new cars available the people probably would let you have two or even three, who cares. Your social status will diminish from it if there is no real need for you to have them in the eyes of the people, because having "too much stuff you don't use" is seen as an offense against society in an anarchy, but if it makes you happy to pile useless stuff around you (of which there is plenty), by all means go ahead and suffer the pity and waryness of your neighbours. If you overdo it, somebody of the mental health cooperation will eventually come by to check if you're insane..


You contradict yourself. You say anyone could have anything they wanted, but now you say that society must determine if you can have a gun or a car. That is the problem with your utopia...the more you think about it, the more you see the practicality of the matter and the more things like rules, and laws, and being told what you can or cannot do come in and you lose the entire underlying concept. What if the "community" decided that you should not eat or the "community" decided that you should not reproduce because you are not going along with the program. You see, your "anarchy" quickly devolves to totalitarianism--even if it is totalitarianism of the majority--very rapidly when examined with a modicum of thought.

That is why your system will destroy freedom. If the rights of the individual are not protected by the law and only subject to the whim of the collective, you have tyranny of the majority...mob rule.

Take your earlier example of bringing a truck of bread to a town to try to convince them of a project. Why does he need to convince them of the project with bread? If everyone owns everything, then the people of the town can just take and eat the bread and not even consider his project. They'll give him accolades for his bringing the bread, but his project falls by the wayside.

Even in this case, bringing bread to convince people to help out with a project is introducing the concept of a means of exchange...bread for a project, and thus rules out the concept of everyone owning everything.
edit on 16-8-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
You contradict yourself. You say anyone could have anything they wanted, but now you say that society must determine if you can have a gun or a car.


That's not a contradiction at all. In any society there are limits to what can be done by an individual. However, the individual is most free in an anarchy. To be able to drive a car, for example, you must have access to a car and must be able to drive it. Hence, education is still needed before you drive a car.

The difference between current society and the anarchy is that you are not required to pay the instructor - he will take great pride in educating you as that is what he likes to do (for now). He in turn will have had an education too. The same goes for doctors: before you are respected as a doctor, you'll need to pass the proper exams etc. Anarchy is not chaos. There are still laws and rules, I believe I have stressed that plenty.


That is the problem with your utopia...the more you think about it, the more you see the practicality of the matter and the more things like rules, and laws, and being told what you can or cannot do come in and you lose the entire underlying concept.


I am aware of the practical problems of anarchy and I also know that people need to be trained and educated to be able to live in a (more) anarchistic society. However, humanity can be trained to achieve that enlightened state. The best proof thereof is the capitalist system itself! If you'd ask a native of a hunter/gatherer society if he would trade his fur coat for a piece of paper with some writing on it, he'd think you a fool. You can't eat paper and it won't keep you warm either. And he'd know for a FACT that his neighbour would never accept that piece of paper and trade it for something useful either. He would tell you "That is the problem with your utopia.. the more you think of it, the more you see he practicality of the matter.." etc.


Of course, you would describe the system that you advocate, with fierce pride. He would laugh. He would observe: "so, in your "capitalist" utopia, the mere act of printing numbers on worthless scraps of paper creates instant value? Do you really think that people are that stupid? I mean: nothing has been done for it, but the ones that produce the money still can change it for whatever they want? No sir, nobody in his right mind would fall for that trick, as it would create inequality and a caste of lazy asses that simply print money to make the rest of the population give them what they see fit to have!"


That is why your system will destroy freedom. If the rights of the individual are not protected by the law and only subject to the whim of the collective, you have tyranny of the majority...mob rule.


Again: there are rules and laws in an anarchy. But there need not be money, nor need there be "a state" or "state officials". People would still congregate, quarrel, fight occasionally. Some people might still be born insane - but instead of becoming our political leaders, they would be guarded by members of the mental health cooperation...





new topics
top topics
 
58
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join