The only thing wrong with socialism is the longwinded tugging-at-the-heartstrings polemic where 'Go fuck yourself, moron' would do.

Capitalism is the best system ever.

You should try to shorten your posts; I think you confused yourself on that one.

Let me try to summarize it. So the only problem with capitalism, according to you, is that the oppressed are conscious about their oppression and are whining too much about workers rights?

I wanted to carefully outline how fuckheaded his statement was, but this sums it up well.

Have you guys ever read Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century?

That's one anecdotal opinion. I have a friend who was forced to leave her home during the serbo-croation war, came to America as a refugee, whent home once after the fall of the Soviet Union, and refuses to ever go home again because she misses communism.

Another basic problem with capitalism that I haven't yet read being discussed is the idea of surplus. In capitalism, productivity is key. This leads to overproduction, which means everyone tries desperately to sell things that people don't need (which is another part of cultural exploitation, making people think they need to keep consuming things that put them in debt). This also means that people work far more hours than they actually need to in order to produce just enough stuff for everyone to get by, which is just fine in the eyes of corporations in that their workers labor all day and then have the energy only to buy food and watch T.V., and probably purchase more of their product. The idea is to make everyone a satiated tool for the corporations.

Idealy, under an anarchosyndicalist setting, the need for everything would be assessed democratically, and there would be much less waste, and therfor people would have to work fewer hours, and everyone would have time to actually think about improving themselves and their community, but more importantly, they would have time to be ACTIVE in their community. Where productivity in terms of bringing in money was once concerned in capitalism, the key in a syndicalist community would be making sure everyone has what they need in order for everyone to be productive a member of society as possible.

Yes. Because as we've seen, bureaucracies are such utter bastions of efficiency.

I think equality far outweighs the fact that things might be "complicated".

Fuck having to make difficult descisions. The masses could never take a simple VOTE or make SUGGESTIONS in order to get what they need.

I addressed it briefly in my rather long winded rant at that fucking redneck up there. People slave away to make items then slave more to save up money for basic necessities which we have in enormous surplus.

The ideal capitalism is supposed to adjust for surplus, however capitalist societies breed greed, and greed doesn't care about responsibility. You can't have a system that teaches every man for himself and then expect unity and community.

You're ignoring the point. Your post claimed that a system of production should be controlled "democratically" because this would result with people working less hours due to not being asked to manufacture surplus goods.

I pointed out that this is, in fact, incorrect, as the bureaucracy track record is not exactly glowing when it comes to performing a job with efficiency.

Then you countered by claiming that "equality" outweighs "complications" and accused me of arguing that people can't make "descisions" (Which I assume are similar to decisions) and being against VOTING and making SUGGESTIONS.

Debate:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...7926568946.jpg

How dare you accuse me of being unable to debate when your response was a single sarcastic sentance that didn't at all communicate what you meant it to? I assumed you meant by "efficiency" that somehow the model I described would create waste, which is the exact opposite of what would happen. Besides, how am I supposed to take your argument seriously when you're talknig about beaurocracy, which is an inherantly hierarchical structure, and I'm talking anarchism?

I stand by the fact that people would have to work fewer hours if small ammounts of high quality goods were created as need was assessed; things aren't "made the way they used to" because you sell more crap that way.

I didn't accuse you of being against voting and making suggestions, I accused you of thinking that people are unable to orgnize themselves in such a way that they could discuss issues faced by their community.

Bureaucracies are by definition not democratic, so what the fuck are you talking about?

I was using Bureaucracy in the sense of:

I chose that particular word because of it's cultural connotation of:
I expected you guys would be quick enough to pick up on this. I guess I was mistaken.

Either way, whether this organization in question was made up of traditional government officials, or union representatives, or factory workers, or just random folks, the result would most likely be the same: If you intend to democratically assess a community's need for goods, in the way which you have suggested; you're going to need meetings, you're going to need votes, you're going to need someone to take the votes and count the votes and oversee the voting process, and you're going to need to maintain this structure indefinitely. don't think there won't be hours of debate on even the most insignificant things because to perform this on any realistic scale will demand it.

Beyond simple voting, Have you ever participated in a democratic process? do you have any idea how much effort goes into setting up a single referendum, let alone organizing a democratic process on the scale which you are suggesting?

It would be madness and even if it did result in a more efficient production process, any extra time which might be gleaned for the common man through this, would be lost in the ten billion meetings and debates that would be required to maintain such a system.

Obviously, you have not considered the practical application of your ideals. Instead, you prefer to respond like this:

You simply responded to real, practical concerns by taking opposing statements personally, re-stating your theoretical ideals, and then attempting to put your opposition (me) into an opposing ideological category of which I did not claim. Nowhere did I come close to claiming that people can't/shouldn't organize themselves to discuss issues faced by a community, my concern is that the amount of effort necessary for a community of any sort of realistic size to vote on each and every thing which they produce would negate any possible benefits of such a process.

That is why I said you were debating wrong; and you still are. Now do it right, stop getting butthurt when someone doesn't agree with you and stop responding to practical considerations with ideology.

You really don't want to turn out like Alan, that cat's miserable.

Yo Despanan, watch a documentary called 'The Take'. It's not universally applicable, but it's a pretty good insight into labour based on democratic principles.

Will do. Is it on google video?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3547373833649#

Theoretical ideals my ass.

That's exactly how the workers of the occupied factories in Argentina do it, and that's how they've done it over and over again throughout the history of anarchism. From Chiapas to the Federation of Italian Bottle-blowers to the Anarchist CNT in Spain.

*edit*

Haha, the take is about those workes in Argentina.

Cool. I'm about 30 minutes in. I'm enjoying the hell out of it actually. See, JCC's doin' it right, he didn't get butthurt, he didn't make this an argument of ideals, he brought something to the table which he could show me.

SweetJane:
[img]http://images.*********************.com/images/6/6c/Thouhastwronglydoneit.png[/img]

Anyway, I wish I had time to finish this, but I'm moving into my new apt. later today. I'll try to finish it tonight.

My initial impressions are thus:

a) Hey, it's pretty cool that they're making this thing work.

b) Seriously, fuck those factory owners.

c) However, this really more or less re-enforces the view which Kontan and I have taken from the beginning of this:
The uber-capitalism created a situation which the people found intolerable, and they did something about it, and at this early point in time it seems to be working (YAY!) and hopefully it will continue to work as people decide this is what they want. The reason they have been able to stand up to the police and the government thus-far is overwhelming public support.

I think it's important to note that, as they say in the movie, this is not a movement that was born out of politics or ideals, this is a movement which was born out of necessity. This emerging system occurred organically as a result of the fucktarded policies put in place by the Argentinian government. I, personally, will be very interested to see if this kind of thing can actually work in the long-run, or if it will eventually fall to entropy an corruption.

d) I should also add that, that not voting and focusing solely on on the economic reforms is epic-level-fucktarditry. What these people have built will fall apart in mere days without public support. The returning government is already trying desperately to win the war of information, and mobs have a horribly short memories. Once order is resored, and a legitimately elected government steps in with a strong public mandate, if that government is not a friend of the workers they're gonna be screwed, and their slingshots are not going to save them.

hmm...after finishing the whole thing, I pretty much stand by my initial impressions.

I hate that pregnant chick, but I can see why she came to the conclusion that she did.

I'm disappointed in that second candidate guy, but I'm not as disappointed in the Argentinians as I thought I was going to be.

As to "democratic production" being more efficient than a properly regulated free-market economy I'd say the juries still out. There really wasn't much emphasis on that in the movie, and it's way too early in the process to tell.

I have a feeling the response most anarcho-capitalists will have to this is that what went on in Argentina wasn't really capitalism as the government gave aid to failing companies and helped to bankrupt itself.

All in all I'd say that for me the film emphasizes the need for a strong democratic republic with a mixed economy. The Argentinian mob was far too easily manipulated, and the uber-capitalistic economic policies of their government basically made it open-season on the entire state of Argentina.

But thanks for that JCC; I enjoyed it, and it has given me alot to think about.

You see, I would have mentioned these things earlier and every time they're brought up, I never rail against them.

As it is, behold how they are INDEED taking care of themselves and not allowing that system to dominate them.

Now apply this to the American mentality. Ask yourself WHY this hasn't happened in the most powerful nation in the world. We can't even implement universal healthcare without bitching and moaning. The general American is WAITING for permission to do things. The core concept of an Anarchist is to do things without permission.

You want to see something like what's going on in Argentina happen in America? Start supporting the most extreme whacked out right wing parties in the system. ALLOW capitalism in America to totally dominate it to the point that it's absolutely clear to the layman that what we really have is a totalitarian state guided by the hands of democracy. STOP trying to make things better and allow the infection to run its course. All I've ever seen is how America tries to contain those problems.

The bottom might have to fall out for it to happen on a large scale in America, but there are already plenty of collectively-owned and operated businesses that are doing quite well.

What's so inspiring to me about Argentina is that they're blowing a huge whole in one of the central assumptions of capitalism: that the typical human being is stupid, lazy, and incapable of self-management. And as others have said, they aren't doing it out of any ideological agenda, they just want to keep their jobs and feed their families.

Maybe, if you want to see a huge bloody revolution, but in the meantime people are dying because they are too poor to pay for health care, ten billion land animals are killed annually for food consumption, not to mention the billions of marine life and millions of lab animals, food is thrown away in the tons, and left to rot so that prices will stay profitable, the environment is being killed to the point of no return, and lobbyists are stuffing the pockets of politicians to stop them from interfering. Its already pretty damn desperate, but by fighting to try and make it better maybe you can prove that socialism isn't so scary and maybe the leftists are right, the poor shouldn't be punished for being poor and everything is fucked up.

...diseases are spawning from the piles of trash and dead hookers. The walking dead are devouring a red swath accross the continent. Republi-bots are burning down orphanages for the blind! Chest bursters are spawning in our guts! Angels are descending as the Beast is rising from the boundless sea Incarnadine: upon his seven heads are seven tongues, with seven brands, each emblazoned with the number 666! Dogs and cats; living together, mass hysteria!!!!!!!1one.

Her post isn't nearly as hyperbolic as you would make it seem.

http://www.ishkur.com/posters/capitalism.jpg

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m...y_Pit_Kuru.jpg

hu·mor [hyoo-mer or, often, yoo-]
-noun.

1. a comic, absurd, or incongruous quality causing amusement: the humor of a situation.

And yet with the state of the way things are, you'd think there'd already be a violent and bloody revolution. So... technically, it's STILL not bad enough for the public as a whole to do what's actually the right thing to do.

Now we can also debate the actions of Ozymandias in Watchmen, but that may trivialize the conversation at hand.

Now, the main problem is either human indifference on a wide scale or those that are abusing the people are REALLY that efficient. I'm willing to bet it's the former than the latter and it's STILL not bad enough to get an indifferent and docile America to really do anything about it.

True but there's always a denial of oppression. Oppression is something you must learn to see, yeah you can wait until its so oppressive that no one can deny it but we'll probably all be dead and unable to say if you were right. But look at other social changes that existed, there was the woman's suffrage movement, and back then when women got the right to vote Emma Goldman predicted in The Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation that while women were now legally equal, true emancipation has not been achieved no matter what people would say. And people do say that, "well you can vote so you're equal, feminism is irrelevant now." Most people just don't understand how systematic and ingrained exploitation and oppression is in capitalism, so even if we got to the point where we were so oppressed there was no denying it there's no guarantee that the revolutionaries would look to the left, just blame it on the crazy administration and put a democrat in power instead, and go back to be a bit less oppressed. They might not see the problems inherent in capitalism, it has to be taught to the masses and told how to see the bars on their cage before they can speak of ever revolting. In America this is a particularly hard problem, not so long ago communism was the nation's number one national security threat, and say "anarchy" to anyone off the street and they will say it means chaotic disorder. There's a big stigma about being a leftist and that has to be overcome.

Creature6, those are full of win

You don't find that bourgeois at all?
Millions of people die because of this system. Let things run their course and have much more die yet; it's not like you're going to be one of them, so who cares?
THEN we will make the world better with the ones that manage to pull through. Can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, huh?

I think you missed the point Jilly McJillerson. People don't WANT Anarchism, the only reason the workers seized that factory was that they were driven to it by necessity.

To tell you the truth, I don't think the good things we saw out of those workers we saw really had much to do with anarchism at all. Yes they functioned in a collective, as a community and overcame horrifying obstacles. Really, I think that was more a paroduct of their environment and not any method of trading. The same story is just as likely to take place in a capitalist community, provided everyone including the boss is struggling (ie: It's a Wonderful Life). Similarly, you would not see so much cohesion and community spirit in a anarcho/socialist community that was not in such dire economic straights.

Trying times bring out the best and worst of humanity, and I think it's a major fallacy to attribute that behavior to a method of trading (tempting though it may be).

What does that have to do with my post?
People don't want anarchism, therefore we should let the most far-right-wing groups rise to power just so that people have no other choice but to become anarchists?

No, they aren't. They're fucking annoying. She's like a little kid who just figured out how to use the image post feature.

Yeah, Saya's Kampfy Chair pwned pretty much everything Creature has ever posted.

Now THAT was win.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

I don't think Kontan was actually advocating that. Unless he's gone mad in my absence.

Kontan? Are you a super-villian?

look who is talking.
Please, i do use those images for a reason but if you can not interpret them.
well then i advise you to go outside and play .
the same go for your little friend.
you can both play nicely.

Wow, that little exchange was unKampftable for everyone.

They would be enjoyable if you actually grasped the concept of capitalism, which you surely do not (amongst others in this very thread).

Maybe you don't see it.
It's not my problem. why don't you go and play with the other two.

Well, as Desp said, certain kinds of times brings out the best and worst of humanity.

And exactly how do you know that I wouldn't be one of the many that would be ruined by the rise of an extreme right? Do you seriously think that's what I really want? That would totally suck. However, I do believe it's possibly the most expedient way to get where ever it is we want to be.

If not, we're just as cool appealing to our elected leaders to ensure what's best. I'm also down for a slow progression to better ideas. Whatever floats the people's boat.

BTW, Desp, yes. I was slightly serious about electing right wing nut jobs. But even Americans aren't that insane. America is happy with what they got. That's the crux of my statements.

You madman! You'll never get away with this Kontan!

People as a whole must evolve, socially and mentally, to the point where the government is not only unnecessary, but obstructive and incompatible with all sovereign societies. Humanity must reach a state where it does not need a caretaker, a protector, and a provider. A state where cohesive, self sustaining communities are the rule, not the exception. All advances in all societies that can be construed as positive are a step closer to this goal. When the poorest, most friendless, most hopeless, and most ignorant man in the world is a free, honest, and learned man. It's a state that may in all likeliness never be reached, but it's a state that must be the ultimate goal of all progressive movement and ideals. Anything less should be deemed unacceptable. Humanity has unlimited potential to do evil, but equally has unlimited potential to do good, and putting limits on the latter will remove any constraints of the former.

</thoughts>

I actuallly agree with everything you just said Joker. Having an eventual goal of self-sustained communities in which no coercive for is used or needed is a noble aspiration.

However, carry this thought, coupled with what we've seen in Argentina, and I think one can invariably come to one conclusion:

There is no need for Anarchists, nor for an Anarchist movement. When people are socially and mentally evolved enough to live under an anarchist system, it will happen organically. To be an anarchist now, and to push for an anarchist revolution would require you to force the world you want now on others by coercive means, even Jillian agrees that this is wrong, and it would, ironically, violate anarchist principals.

There's. Nothing wrong with progressive ideals, nor with having such a noble end goal, but to try to pass it off on a world which is not ready for it and wants nothing to do with it now is a wasted effort at best and a great evil at worst.

Why does being an anarchist automatically mean that you are forcing something upon others? When Noam Chomsky writes his newest piece of polemic, or makes a speech at a university, or appears in a documentary, is he forcing something upon others by expressing an idea or theory? If you see anarchism and revolutionary politics through the narrow mindset of violence and pre-emptive strikes then it is coercive, but there's nothing coercive in holding or propagating an ideal.

I agree (sorry if my post might have made it seem otherwise). I really don't see any problem with holding it as an ideal or an overall goal. My problem with anarchism comes from the more practical/right now implimentation of it. At best there is the danger of wasted effort in pursuit of a currently unattainable ideal (I previously compared it to a guy drawing up plans for an elegant golden palace he's going to build, when all he has access to are logs and the most rudimentary tools) and at worst a wide open door for the clever and immoral to engage in manipulation and exploitation of the mob.

Basically I don't see working towards and hoping for an anarchist society sometime in the future as a bad thing, more demanding it now.

I guess what I'm saying is that the statent: "this is how I want people to be, how do I change them?" is the realm of artists, priests and philosophers. while the statement "this is how people are, how do I deal with it?" is the realm of cops and politicians.

The answer anarchists give is, why make them a dichotomy?
We deal with both at the same time. Simple as that.