Are You A True Revolutionary Or A Couch Rebel?

[Havet]

Original Article (http://attackthesystem.com/2009/10/are-you-a-true-revolutionary-or-a-couch-rebel/)

by Peter Bjorn Perls

What keeps a lot of people back is that they have too much to lose from an upheaval of the existing, mostly peaceful, order of things.

The essence of the matter is that, to gain freedom, there must be some sacrifices, especially in the short term.

Assume a rebellion, either in the UK or US or wherever. It could have many consequences, both on the high-up political level (fx. by the national guard or army being sent into quell a rebellion), but the most felt change in the everyday for regular people will be the loss of amenities taken for granted.

Thank about the goods you use everyday, and would have to find alternatives for: Water in the tap, working toilets, garbage disposal, convenient shopping with an abundance of foods, drinks and “fun goods” available to you at minor expense. Electricity! No electricity means no computers, no internet, no Tv with associated sitting on the couch with a cold beer to relax from the day’s toil, no easy cooking, no electrical lighting. Everyday transportation – automotive transportation is taken for granted, and so is the supply of it’s lifeblood – gasoline.

All these things have solutions that are either obvious, easy, or not too hard to fix with cooperation in small groups (i’ll post that separately, this is getting too long). The point is that all these little things PILE UP to become a seemingly un-scaleable wall.

For those directly on the government payroll, either as “Public” employees or on welfare handouts, well, no need to explain that is there?

There is the very real possibility of engaging in rebellion that the “authorities” will crack down hard and physically on you and your compatriots. Bodily harm is probably assured, and actual death is possible.

There is the social aspect; as much of society is lulled into the dream of democracy-end-of-history and democracy-is-good, anyone who vocally, visibly and clearly shows disdain and rejection of that mindset faces ostracism and oodles of abuse. (notice that democracy in this context is used to refer to parliamentary democracy, not direct democracy).

(In this regard, i would wish the Randians had more balls to turn words to action, because they don’t seem to give a shit about their critics. As far as political fundies go, they are an example of what the leaders of a rebellion in these times of mental sheepism need to be – staunch and uncompromising).

If rebellion and secession is to become reality, what you must ALL ask yourselves is:

How much of the stuff I have today, which I take for granted, am I willing to give up, to gain freedom and more control of my future life?

If the answer is that you don’t want to lose your goodies, even for a short time, then I’m sorry to say that the respondent is not suited for anything more than couch rebellion, and leave the actual uprising to those that have nothing left to lose (but this also means that those who were unwilling to make a sacrifice for their freedom and freedom of others, won’t have much to say in future societal arrangements, and rightly so).

---

Thoughts on the article? And on secessionism in general?

[Skooma Addict]

I didn't read much of the article, but I thought this part seemed interesting.


How much of the stuff I have today, which I take for granted, am I willing to give up, to gain freedom and more control of my future life?

If the answer is that you don’t want to lose your goodies, even for a short time, then I’m sorry to say that the respondent is not suited for anything more than couch rebellion, and leave the actual uprising to those that have nothing left to lose (but this also means that those who were unwilling to make a sacrifice for their freedom and freedom of others, won’t have much to say in future societal arrangements, and rightly so).

I am not the kind of person who will "take action" or whatever we call it. I do not think it is worth the risk, and I have other goals in life I want to achieve. Becoming too committed to my ideal is a waste of time in my opinion. I have other desires and plans for myself, and so I develop my ideology as a type of armchair intellectual theorizing.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I lived through a shack, that made me revolutionary.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I eat cheerios for breakfast, history will absolve me.

[RED ARMY FACTION]

i will let the rage of the proletariat engulf me, and transform me into the vanguard for the revolution.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm isolated in a town full of hardcore Christian Conservatives and Racists so there's not much I can do to help the cause, at least not until I move out of my dad's house(He's the thought police and über-paranoid). :(

[AvanteRedGarde]

"What keeps a lot of people back is that they have too much to lose from an upheaval of the existing, mostly peaceful, order of things."

Well you're obviously not talking about the proletarian then.

"The proletarian have nothing to lose but their chains."-Marx, Communist Manifesto

[Jimmie Higgins]

This article is sort of a straw-man. Why would we have to give up electricity and so on? I guess this article is talking about some romanticized revolution from a bunch or people running around in the woods or something.

The reason the working class are the best people to run society is because they already run society for the capitalists. In a worker's revolution, the lights won't have to go off because the municipal power company will probably have already been under control of the workers there through a workplace council.

Also, the whole premise about hardships or material comfort automaticaly cause or prevent someone from being revolutionary. There will be some hardships but there are hardships now that don't cause people to automatically become revolutionary. People who struggle everyday to pay bills, hate their lives in this system, hate their job (this is a lot of people in the US - probably the majority) do not automatically become revolutionaries. People will become revolutionaries when they know that the system is the problem and can not fix itself and there is an organized alternative presenting a better option to the status quo. LGBT people in CA are infantly more materially secure than they were in the 1970s but activism is only now returning to something like what it was in the 1970s because people feel confident to organize themselves outside the old pro-Democratic party lobby groups. Racism after WWII wasn't as bad as it had been in the 1920s (or as bad as it would get towards the end of the 50s to the early 60s) but black people began to stand up to jim-crow because they saw it was possible to do so.

[Bud Struggle]

This article is sort of a straw-man. Why would we have to give up electricity and so on? I guess this article is talking about some romanticized revolution from a bunch or people running around in the woods or something. The problem there is that if you decide to "change" things--you don't know what sort of thing you would unleash. Thing COULD turn out to be a worker's paradise--but things also COULD turn out to be something much worse than people have right now. Revolution gives no certanty of how things might turn out and people like certainty.


The reason the working class are the best people to run society is because they already run society for the capitalists. In a worker's revolution, the lights won't have to go off because the municipal power company will probably have already been under control of the workers there through a workplace council. I think you are romanticizing workers. They do their job well, but there is no certainty than they can manage things well. Change--real change--is always a crapshoot as to how things turn out. Who would have thought there would be a Napoleon at the end of the French Revolution or a Stalin at the end of the Russian Revolution? Or a Hitler at the end of the German Revolution?

Revolutions are frightening and upseting things without certain outcomes. I can see why even oppressed people (let alone comfortable Americans) are afraid.

[Incendiarism]

I am a student of communism. We are not built to fight.

[Invincible Summer]

Why do ignorant people assume that a communist revolution = destroying everything that a modern civilization has?



The problem there is that if you decide to "change" things--you don't know what sort of thing you would unleash. Thing COULD turn out to be a worker's paradise--but things also COULD turn out to be something much worse than people have right now. Revolution gives no certanty of how things might turn out and people like certainty.

I think you are romanticizing workers. They do their job well, but there is no certainty than they can manage things well. Change--real change--is always a crapshoot as to how things turn out. Who would have thought there would be a Napoleon at the end of the French Revolution or a Stalin at the end of the Russian Revolution? Or a Hitler at the end of the German Revolution?

Revolutions are frightening and upseting things without certain outcomes. I can see why even oppressed people (let alone comfortable Americans) are afraid.

People like certainty? That's why they invest money in the stock market, and let the "invisible hand" guide them? And yes, you're right, there's no 100% guarantee that revolution will automatically bring only positive change, but that's not the aim. It's not to bring a perfect revolution overnight.

Besides, I thought reactionary bougies liked people who took risks

[Skooma Addict]

Why do ignorant people assume that a communist revolution = destroying everything that a modern civilization has?

Because that is exactly what would happen.

[Bud Struggle]

Besides, I thought reactionary bougies liked people who took risks

That the thing--it's the Bourgoise that invest in the Stock Markets, it's the Bourgeoise that take risks.

The for the most part the Proletariat is happy with the status quo that's why in Capitalist society they remain Proletarians. Those Proletarians that are unhappy with being downtrodden become Borugeoise.

Take that freedom of upward movement away from the Proletarians that become Capitalists and you'll have your Revolution in a heartbeat. But as long as the movers and shakers in the Proletariat have the chance to change their lot in life by becomming Capitalists--you won't see a Revolution.

Warren Buffet without the chance to make money = Che.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The problem there is that if you decide to "change" things--you don't know what sort of thing you would unleash. Thing COULD turn out to be a worker's paradise--but things also COULD turn out to be something much worse than people have right now. Revolution gives no certanty of how things might turn out and people like certainty.You are correct - the revolution could fial and lead to a worse form of class society or it could win and fail internally and lead to a new class rule like in Russia. There are no guarantees when it comes to revolution. But if things stay the way they are then it is a guarantee that workers will be made to suffer for profit in the boom times and then suffer even more during the bust-times. Capitalist economies can not expand indefinitely, so when push comes to shove, capitalists will have to go to war with eachother in order for some powers to capture new markets or destroy competing powers outright (keep this in mind as China, US, Russia, come into increasing conflict due to the decline of profitability and drying up of untapped markets).

Under feudalism, some revolutions won and brought about the English Industrial revolution or the end of slavery while other (particularly) earlier ones failed and produced more draconian conditions and led to reaction such as the inquisition. But objectively these revolutions ultimately allowed capitalism to come in which was a historic step-forward.


I think you are romanticizing workers. They do their job well, but there is no certainty than they can manage things well. Change--real change--is always a crapshoot as to how things turn out. Who would have thought there would be a Napoleon at the end of the French Revolution or a Stalin at the end of the Russian Revolution? Or a Hitler at the end of the German Revolution?I'm not romanticizing anyone - workers produce, the bosses and managers decide on what and how to produce. This creates conflicts between the bosses and the workers because often what is better for profit is actually worse for workers or product qulety or safety. What I and other radicals support is changing that decision-making level from those who own to those who do the actual producing of goods and services. Would worker's have all the profit-making skill of some bosses - no, nor should they need to. No matter what, workers will know how to run things better for the goal of production and decent treatment at work just for the fact that the bosses do not take this in consideration - legally they have to watch out for profit first or their company and their position will be taken by the banks or the boss will be replaced by stockholders.


Revolutions are frightening and upseting things without certain outcomes. I can see why even oppressed people (let alone comfortable Americans) are afraid.People always talk about comfortable Americans... where the hell are they? Oh yeah, on TV shows. While it's true that many american homes are bigger than in other countries and people may have big TVs, but we also don't have a choice about it. Contracters found that it is much more profitable to make McMansions rather than affordable family homes; SUVs and other ridiculously large cars were also pushed while small cars were not in production (until about 2001 - the last recession). Most people even ones who live much better than I do are a paycheck or two away from going under. On top of that there is hardly any social saftynet to speak of, no healthcare, and most of all inequality in the US is more severe than in many other countries. While UK CEOs make about 30 times the average worker, and Japaneese CEOs 12x, CEOs here make well over 100 times what average workers make.

US society and workers are extremely angry... much more so than French workers (who strike fairly regularly) and there is a lot of random violence and anti-social behavior compared to most other industrial countries. This is the result of conditions here.

[Invincible Summer]

Because that is exactly what would happen.
The only case of "communism" where anything like that has happened was w/ Pol Pot, and NO real communist advocates that bullshit.

You think that when the class system is eradicated, and there is an egalitarian society with worker control of production, suddenly no one will want to continue to produce computers, cars, etc? After all, who knows best how to produce these things than the workers themselves?


That the thing--it's the Bourgoise that invest in the Stock Markets, it's the Bourgeoise that take risks.

The for the most part the Proletariat is happy with the status quo that's why in Capitalist society they remain Proletarians. Those Proletarians that are unhappy with being downtrodden become Borugeoise.

Take that freedom of upward movement away from the Proletarians that become Capitalists and you'll have your Revolution in a heartbeat. But as long as the movers and shakers in the Proletariat have the chance to change their lot in life by becomming Capitalists--you won't see a Revolution.

Warren Buffet without the chance to make money = Che.

I should've expected this meritocratic argument from OI...
Why would - for example - black people choose to live in projects and jump from job to job, scrounging up the crumbs that welfare provides? With this logic that "proletarians stay that way because they are content and/or too lazy to work their way up," you're saying that the vast majority of people in the world are lazy, and/or content in barely getting by - that makes no sense. Of course people want the best for themselves, and strive to get it. Capitalism cannot have every member of the proletariat employed and moving up the ranks and earning more money - that cuts into the profits of the people higher up.

[Bud Struggle]

I should've expected this meritocratic argument from OI...
Why would - for example - black people choose to live in projects and jump from job to job, scrounging up the crumbs that welfare provides? With this logic that "proletarians stay that way because they are content and/or too lazy to work their way up," you're saying that the vast majority of people in the world are lazy, and/or content in barely getting by - that makes no sense. Of course people want the best for themselves, and strive to get it. Capitalism cannot have every member of the proletariat employed and moving up the ranks and earning more money - that cuts into the profits of the people higher up.

I should have been more exact. I meant in the United States--not the world. There are few opportunity to succeed in most of the world, granted.

And I NEVER said lazy. I said content. Lots of people are content with working, making a living and going home and raising a family. My Dad did that and it was a good life for him and his family and we were happy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There is the very real possibility of engaging in rebellion that the “authorities” will crack down hard and physically on you and your compatriots. Bodily harm is probably assured, and actual death is possible.

I think that this is actually the most interesting point in that piece. It's something I've thought about from time to time...I have no doubt that if the state was seriously threatened by revolution and/or extreme civil unrest that they'd fire with all guns, supposed "democracy" or not.

And that would mean not just attacking you, but also coming after your family, friends, etc.

[Havet]

I hope I didn't transmit any personal message that I believe a revolution would mean "starting all over again for civilization". I think nothing of the kind, and if people took close attention to the article, it doesn't transmit that idea as well.

The hardships mentioned in the article merely reflect the possibility that the revolution fails, or that some members are imprisoned and deprived of some things during the counter-revolution of the ruling class.

[Skooma Addict]

The only case of "communism" where anything like that has happened was w/ Pol Pot, and NO real communist advocates that bullshit.

You think that when the class system is eradicated, and there is an egalitarian society with worker control of production, suddenly no one will want to continue to produce computers, cars, etc? After all, who knows best how to produce these things than the workers themselves?

I know most communists do not advocate such a society. I am saying that I think a communist society would be a disaster regardless of what its supporters desire.

[Bud Struggle]

I know most communists do not advocate such a society. I am saying that I think a communist society would be a disaster regardless of what its supporters desire.

The interesting thing here is that in a number of instances well meaning people have for the last 100 years tried Communism over and over again and it always falls short.

Always. And it is a wonderful idea.

[Havet]

I eat cheerios for breakfast, history will absolve me.

Cheerios pwn

[IcarusAngel]

The interesting thing here is that in a number of instances well meaning people have for the last 100 years tried Communism over and over again and it always falls short.

Always. And it is a wonderful idea.


Yeah, and free-market capitalism has failed miserably everywhere it has been tried (Pinochet, Videla, Suharto, etc.). When people have tried to force markets upon society, with no public services, it has been a disaster. Furthermore, millions of deaths occurred during the industrial revolution both in England and in the US. Only after WWII did capitalism attempt to 'humanize' itself, and we've only seen a return to boom and bust post Reaganism.

So it goes both ways.

And I don't want a revolution if it's a right-wing revolution. Thankfully, there are probably less of these right-wing, Ron Paul nuts than there are communists and socialists. Keep in mind that the amount of capitalists that crazy is a very small fraction of the 40% or so of the public that supports capitalism. But the amount that supports socialism (20%) all support the true form of socialism (with some discrepencies of course).
Democracy and socialism are essentially the same thing, and probably 80% of people support democracy.

Anyway, if the revolution is the 'market revolution' where all power goes into the hands of corporations and you can sell yourself to the corporations (sell yourself into slavery), I would oppose.

Still, it is pretty funny that selling yourself into slavery doesn't sound much worse (and perhaps is even better) than the current wage-slavery system of capitalism, and perhaps a system where you 'try and get as many slaves as you can' (in the words of the Libertarian Buchanan) is better than renting yourself out for profit.

[Havet]

And I don't want a revolution if it's a right-wing revolution. Thankfully, there are probably less of these right-wing, Ron Paul nuts than there are communists and socialists. Keep in mind that the amount of capitalists that crazy is a very small fraction of the 40% or so of the public that supports capitalism. But the amount that supports socialism (20%) all support the true form of socialism (with some discrepencies of course).
Democracy and socialism are essentially the same thing, and probably 80% of people support democracy.

Most of those types of libertarians don't really want a revolution. The mostly want to secede or endorse the Free State Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project).


Anyway, if the revolution is the 'market revolution' where all power goes into the hands of corporations and you can sell yourself to the corporations (sell yourself into slavery), I would oppose.

I agree. Centralization of power, as always, will lead to bad results, especially since such power was obtained forcefully.

[Skooma Addict]

When people have tried to force markets upon society, with no public services, it has been a disaster.

When have people tried to force markets upon society, with no public services?

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, and free-market capitalism has failed miserably everywhere it has been tried (Pinochet, Videla, Suharto, etc.). When people have tried to force markets upon society, with no public services, it has been a disaster. Furthermore, millions of deaths occurred during the industrial revolution both in England and in the US. Only after WWII did capitalism attempt to 'humanize' itself, and we've only seen a return to boom and bust post Reaganism.

So it goes both ways.

Exactly, I couldn't agree with you more. Both ways have failed. So what's the way that works? It's not about ideology really--it's about what utilitarian principal WORKS.


And I don't want a revolution if it's a right-wing revolution. Thankfully, there are probably less of these right-wing, Ron Paul nuts than there are communists and socialists. Keep in mind that the amount of capitalists that crazy is a very small fraction of the 40% or so of the public that supports capitalism. But the amount that supports socialism (20%) all support the true form of socialism (with some discrepencies of course). And maybe that's why Stormfront is 10 times the size of RevLeft. I personally have no problem with a revolution--but you guys better be damned streight about what you're getting into and better be ready for the consequences--no matter what they are.

If you start a revolution--I promise you, there will be people waiting, some of them very BAD people. Be ready for them.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes. I never said the revolution was just around the corner.

And on capitalism post WWII, my theory is that capitalism HAD to humanize itself, to present itself as the democratic alternative to the fascist capitalists - Mussolini, Hitler, etc. Of course, there were struggling movements - left movements - in the left as well that helped create the push. That was the first (and only time) you ever saw capitalism and democracy nearly functioning together in the US.


And a quick note on stormfront:

The white racists affect on culture from the 70s upward has been minimal, if present at all. Their only effect has been helping to encourage the subtle racism that exists in the Republican Party. The white racists couldn't even take over the punk movement, although they tried to. The punk movement is studied as part of a culture class or history of popular music course, whereas the racist movement is only studied in terms of itself in maybe a course on discrimination or something. It has had absolutely no effect.

In that sense, the racist movement mirrors the far right, Libertarian movement. They are also totally uncultured and have had no effect on culture, outside of a few bizarre science fiction cultures. That is why they try and appropriate cultures created by the left (just as the Nazis did).

Keep in mind that culture is important - criticizing capitalism in literature imo is what has kept the movement alive during some of the darker days of McCarthyism and the apathetic Clinton years.

In the intellectual culture: 6% of scientists are republican, the rest are democrats and left-independents. In the political science discipline, 3% of political scientists are republican. In the economics culture, it's 20%.

The effort to 'combine' Libertarianism with the Republican Party has been detrimental to the both Republicans and Libertarians.

These are all examples of where the left has succeeded through art/intellectual culture.

Keeping ideas alive is important - even if there is no revolution. Democracy took two millennia before it came back into vogue again.

[Skooma Addict]

IcarusAngel, When have people tried to force markets upon society, with no public services?

[IcarusAngel]

The Latin American experiments - Chile, and countries that were part of Operation Condor. These were free-market experiments directed by market economists, all of which were dismal failures and nearly all of them overturned.

The early industrial revolution was far more market oriented and although there were a few public expenditures and a state it was still far closer to pure capitalism than the USSR was to socialism.

In the USSR, there existed no worker run factories - it was all micromanaged - and thus there was no socialism:

K4Tq4VE8eHQ

[Bud Struggle]

Yes. I never said the revolution was just around the corner. OK, Fine.


And on capitalism post WWII, my theory is that capitalism HAD to humanize itself, to present itself as the democratic alternative to the fascist capitalists - Mussolini, Hitler, etc. Of course, there were struggling movements - left movements - in the left as well that helped create the push. That was the first (and only time) you ever saw capitalism and democracy nearly functioning together in the US. But that exactly HOW Capitalism works--when it needs to change it changes quite quickly and completely and ever so smoothly. Very unlike the versions of Communism that rather die a mean unyealding death than change in the slightest. Capitalism was never so tasteless as to build a Berlin Wall that could be happily torn down.



And a quick note on stormfront:

The white racists affect on culture from the 70s upward has been minimal, if present at all. Their only effect has been helping to encourage the subtle racism that exists in the Republican Party. The white racists couldn't even take over the punk movement, although they tried to. The punk movement is studied as part of a culture class or history of popular music course, whereas the racist movement is only studied in terms of itself in maybe a course on discrimination or something. It has had absolutely no effect. I agree--but the same with Communism.


In that sense, the racist movement mirrors the far right, Libertarian movement. They are also totally uncultured and have had no effect on culture, outside of a few bizarre science fiction cultures. That is why they try and appropriate cultures created by the left (just as the Nazis did). I agree here, too. But the same with Communism.


Keep in mind that culture is important - criticizing capitalism in literature imo is what has kept the movement alive during some of the darker days of McCarthyism and the apathetic Clinton years. It's always fun to criticize the winners--to pretend you are the remnant of truth and justice in the world. But there's where Communism waxes idealist and stops being true it it Materialistic beliefs--and stops being Communism. It's a double edged sword.


In the intellectual culture: 6% of scientists are republican, the rest are democrats and left-independents. In the political science discipline, 3% of political scientists are republican. In the economics culture, it's 20%. You are mistaking Liberal for the Revolutionary Left. As a matter of fact the Liberals are much more the enemy of Communism than the Conservatives.


These are all examples of where the left has succeeded through art/intellectual culture. Liberals have suceeded, vastly and wildly-- but one of Communism greatest failures has been it's inability to create a vibrant intelllectual and artist culture of it's own. (Che tee shirt anyone?)


Keeping ideas alive is important - even if there is no revolution. Democracy took two millennia before it came back into vogue again. I agree.

[Skooma Addict]

IcarusAngel, once you find an example where people forced markets upon society with no public services, let me know.

[IcarusAngel]

It's not just liberals, though. Maybe marxist influence has declined, but people with far-left values have succeeded. Maybe it even comes into conflict with Marxism, like the ecology movement. Or maybe it coincides with Marxism. Many intellectuals call themselves socialists.

Chomsky and Zinn have had a huge influence on culture - and I think by bringing back rationalism and logic into the public domain they helped to beat back some of the more totalitarian philosophies that were starting to dominate.

Bertrand Russell helped to do this too.

And of course intellectuals like Aldous Huxley - who was neither capitalist nor Marxist - had a huge influence on culture. Kurt Vonnugut was also hugely influential and socialist (not marxist).

Maybe these guys aren't as influential as some 'liberals,' but they're certainly more influential than many.

Consider this poll:

PUBLIC TOLERANCE FOR ADVOCATES OF UNPOPULAR IDEAS

PERSONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A SPEECH[/B]

1954 1972 1998

An admitted Communist:
28___52___67

Someone against churches and religion:
38___65___75

Admitted homosexual:
*___62___81

Someone who believes that blacks are genetically inferior:
*___61___62

PERSONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TEACH IN COLLEGE

An admitted Communist:
6__39__57

Someone against churches and religion:
12__40__58

Someone who believes that Blacks are genetically inferior:
*__41__46



Notice that from 1954, the people who believed that Communists should teach was only 6%, but in 1998, that figure had shot up to 57 percent, a majority of the population, whereas someone who believes that blacks are genetically inferior only has 46%.


Thus, people are more accepting of Communists and atheists than of Nazis.

At one point Bertrand Russell himself wasn't allowed to even teach in America - or even give speeches. Now he would be encouraged to teach.


(Source: Democratic Debate, page 90, figure 4.1)

[IcarusAngel]

IcarusAngel, once you find an example where people forced markets upon society with no public services, let me know.

Several examples of failed free-market socieities and 'experiments' have already been cited. No matter how they try and tailer the laws to make the market as 'free as possible,' it always ends up in failure without substantial public infastructure, funding, and so on.

All capitalist societies are free-market, even ones like the US where the government itself engages in market activity. This is different from the USSR which actually prevented democracy - even in regards to the government, where there was only one party.

The fact that the US government outcompetes the market in innovation, research funding, and health care speaks volumes about the failure of markets to take care of themselves.

The free-market has been discredited. Now the debate is: democratic-capitalism? or some alternative. I prefer an alternative.

[Skooma Addict]

Several examples of failed free-market socieities and 'experiments' have already been cited. No matter how they try and tailer the laws to make the market as 'free as possible,' it always ends up in failure without substantial public infastructure, funding, and so on.

All capitalist societies are free-market, even ones like the US where the government itself engages in market activity. This is different from the USSR which actually prevented democracy - even in regards to the government, where there was only one party.

The fact that the US government outcompetes the market in innovation, research funding, and health care speaks volumes about the failure of markets to take care of themselves.

The free-market has been discredited. Now the debate is: democratic-capitalism? or some alternative. I prefer an alternative.

None of the examples you listed were cases where people tried to force markets upon society with no public services. The rest of your post was just you trying to change the subject.

[Durruti's Ghost]

IcarusAngel, When have people tried to force markets upon society, with no public services?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

[Skooma Addict]

Pinochet? Honestly? There were public services in Chile, and the government was extensively involved in certain sectors of the economy. But I am not asking you, I was asking IcarusAngel. Ill see if he can prove his assertion.

[Plagueround]

Pinochet? Honestly? There were public services in Chile, and the government was extensively involved in certain sectors of the economy. But I am not asking you, I was asking IcarusAngel. Ill see if he can prove his assertion.

This is where the tr00 communism and tr00 capitalists duke it out and everyone goes home a little more exhausted.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Pinochet? Honestly? There were public services in Chile, and the government was extensively involved in certain sectors of the economy. But I am not asking you, I was asking IcarusAngel. Ill see if he can prove his assertion.

Yes, but Pinochet was all about forcefully dismantling government involvement in the economy, whether the people wanted it or not.

[Skooma Addict]

Yes, but Pinochet was all about forcefully dismantling government involvement in the economy, whether the people wanted it or not.

He dismantled some parts of government involvement, and he expanded government involvement in other parts of the economy. People tend to associate him with the Chicago school of economics for some reason, but even they support government involvement in the economy. Chile under Pinochet in not an example of what I asked for.

[#FF0000]

The interesting thing here is that in a number of instances well meaning people have for the last 100 years tried Communism over and over again and it always falls short.

Always. And it is a wonderful idea.

Well you know, socialism has also always taken hold in technologically backwards and economically underdeveloped countries too, which also usually had nothing but a history of autocratic rule to look back on as a guideline.

Can you really take things at face value like that Bud? I'm really asking, because whenever I see someone make a statement like that without asking a "why" question after it, I get itchy and I want to know if it's just me.

[Havet]

All capitalist societies are free-market, even ones like the US where the government itself engages in market activity. This is different from the USSR which actually prevented democracy - even in regards to the government, where there was only one party.

I disagree. All capitalist societies have some degree of freedom in markets, but they never resemble a true free-market. It's impossible for a capitalist society to ever achieve a free market, by the dynamic of the power present, and of the privileges granted.


The fact that the US government outcompetes the market in innovation, research funding, and health care speaks volumes about the failure of markets to take care of themselves.

Well it's obvious it outcompetes it. The funding that goes toward the government, in the form of taxes, largely exceeds anything an entrepreneur or worker organization could achieve, since they force people at gunpoint to fund them. There's really not much choice when it comes to that.


The free-market has been discredited. Now the debate is: democratic-capitalism? or some alternative. I prefer an alternative.

Well you may have discredited it, but I haven't, because I have a different definition of a free-market than other people who call their vision a "free" market.

[bcbm]

Only after WWII did capitalism attempt to 'humanize' itself, and we've only seen a return to boom and bust post Reaganism.

actually, i think the post-wwii period has probably been one of the most horrific periods in terms of atrocities committed by capitalists and their supporters, its just been removed from the first world. globally, the situation is probably worse for more people now than it was during the industrial revolution.

[Invincible Summer]

I should have been more exact. I meant in the United States--not the world. There are few opportunity to succeed in most of the world, granted.

There have been numerous sociological studies done in N. America that have qualitatively shown how, despite strong career aspirations and individual agency, disadvantaged and marginalized members of society are still extremely limited in their social mobility and access to resources/goods (which also affect social mobility, equality, etc). If you live in the slums, you're very unlikely to be able to "move upwards" because institutions and societal structures inhibit you.

Yeah, there may be people who are better off in N. America relative to other parts of the world, but there's still plenty of inequality. We can't just be complacent and say "Well, we're better off than Somalia - there's no need to change anything"



And I NEVER said lazy. I said content. Lots of people are content with working, making a living and going home and raising a family. My Dad did that and it was a good life for him and his family and we were happy.
I'm aware you didn't say lazy, but the discourse (meritocracy) is the same.

Yes, nearly everyone is a worker who makes a living, goes home, and raises a family. However, I'm not sure if "content" is the proper word - if you work as a bus driver for 10 years, you're going to be pretty neutral/apathetic about your situation. It's "just the way it is."

[Robert]

if you work as a bus driver for 10 years, you're going to be pretty neutral/apathetic about your situation. It's "just the way it is."No doubt it's tough to move "up" from there, or from anywhere, especially if you have a wife and children, but it's not impossible; and for those with extraordinary energy and determination, it's more than possible ... it's likely. In the USA anyway.

On the other hand, if one believes, as you do, that "that's just the way it is," it is indeed impossible to change.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No doubt it's tough to move "up" from there, or from anywhere, especially if you have a wife and children, but it's not impossible; and for those with extraordinary energy and determination, it's more than possible ... it's likely. In the USA anyway.

On the other hand, if one believes, as you do, that "that's just the way it is," it is indeed impossible to change.

Greater economic/social mobility in the US is a myth - at least since WWI if not the recessions and depressions in the late 1800s. Contrary to myth, US class immobility is the same as in the UK and both countries have less mobility than Scandinavian countries and even Canada for some reason. I read once that about 80% of Americans end up in the same occupational fields as their parents.

The US also has less family and small businesses than France or Scandinavian countries.

People who believe, contrary to facts, that the US doesn't have a class system or that this is a country where anybody can start up their own business or get ahead from determination alone will probably be seen by future generations like US immigrants who actually believed that the streets were paved with gold in industrial cities or migrants during the dust bowl who believed the propaganda that in California Okiees can just find some land and restart their family farm. In other words, these myths are not accidental, they are there to trick you so that the ruling class can exploit you better. For most folks in the US holding onto the dream of starting your own business (due to high levels of big corporate chains and control over most markets and the difficulty in getting a fair loan if you are poor) is not that much different than holding onto the dream of winning big in Vegas or in the lottery.

[Bud Struggle]

Greater economic/social mobility in the US is a myth - at least since WWI if not the recessions and depressions in the late 1800s. Contrary to myth, US class immobility is the same as in the UK and both countries have less mobility than Scandinavian countries and even Canada for some reason. I read once that about 80% of Americans end up in the same occupational fields as their parents.

The US also has less family and small businesses than France or Scandinavian countries.

People who believe, contrary to facts, that the US doesn't have a class system or that this is a country where anybody can start up their own business or get ahead from determination alone will probably be seen by future generations like US immigrants who actually believed that the streets were paved with gold in industrial cities or migrants during the dust bowl who believed the propaganda that in California Okiees can just find some land and restart their family farm. In other words, these myths are not accidental, they are there to trick you so that the ruling class can exploit you better. For most folks in the US holding onto the dream of starting your own business (due to high levels of big corporate chains and control over most markets and the difficulty in getting a fair loan if you are poor) is not that much different than holding onto the dream of winning big in Vegas or in the lottery.

And how much is choice and how much is complacence? The problem with the US is that if you work a bit and get a college degree you are pretty much assured of having a nice middle class job all of your life. Maybe the problem with the US is that it's too easy here--not too hard.

I (and I believe Robert) decided to move up a notch or two. And I have to tell you--it took work, determination and some planning--but it wasn't all that hard. Staying poor would have been the harder choice.

[Invincible Summer]

No doubt it's tough to move "up" from there, or from anywhere, especially if you have a wife and children, but it's not impossible; and for those with extraordinary energy and determination, it's more than possible ... it's likely. In the USA anyway.
When you work 9+ hours a day, 6 days a week doing blue-collar labour so you can barely scrape by, as well as maybe taking some night schooling in order to educate yourself, then tending to the family/significant other, and not being able to afford quality food, where's the energy coming from?

An individual's aspiration may be there, but structural barriers still impede social mobility. Plus, one's life situation (affected by institutions and societal structures) also affects how much energy and determination there will be.



On the other hand, if one believes, as you do, that "that's just the way it is," it is indeed impossible to change.
I was giving an example of someone who has worked the same job for years and years with no change, despite their hard work. They're working themselves into drudgery, or "contentment" to capitalists.

Just because someone isn't screaming at your face doesn't mean they're content.

[Robert]

I (and I believe Robert) decided to move up a notch or two. Life at the bottom of the wage scale is obviously no picnic, and with a family it is hard to escape.

What I still don't get about "class struggle" is the left's apparent misconceptions, or disingenuousness, about opportunities that exist for what they call "wage slaves."

True, they do not "control the means of production." But my sense is that top wage earners in the USA live very well, love their jobs, are proud of having started at the bottom (they all did) and wouldn't trade places with "the capitalists" for anything! Those that want to are free to save their excess wages and give it a shot.

It may be a myth that they can grow up and establish the next Microsoft. I certainly can't. It is not a myth, however, that they enjoy significant upward mobility. The average wage in the USA is around $15/hour, about double the minimum.

You're unlikely to get these people (think BMW mechanics, ICU nurses, programmers, avionics techs, and hotel chefs, who earn much more) to buy into any version of communism that I have seen discussed here, because the specific methods, goals, and probable outcomes are so theoretical and hazy.

[Robert]

When you work 9+ hours a day, 6 days a week doing blue-collar labour so you can barely scrape by, as well as maybe taking some night schooling in order to educate yourself, then tending to the family/significant other, and not being able to afford quality food, where's the energy coming from?

I fully concede your point.

[spiltteeth]

Presently I fight capitalism by being virtually un-exploitable; thus I avoid learning any profitable skills or work habits.

The Taoists call it the "useless tree" which grows to a ripe old age while other trees are chopped down for their valuable wood to build boats.

[Plagueround]

I owned a couch once, but decided they're bourgeois and stabbed it with a red and black flag before setting it on fire. I am indeed...a couch rebel.

[IcarusAngel]

actually, i think the post-wwii period has probably been one of the most horrific periods in terms of atrocities committed by capitalists and their supporters, its just been removed from the first world. globally, the situation is probably worse for more people now than it was during the industrial revolution.

Yeah, which further supports the point that free-market economies, left to themselves, cause mass turmoil. The third world countries are 'market economies' who haven't implemented - or, rather, haven't been allowed to implement - workers' rights, living standards, public control and public research, etc. that people in the West take for granted.

It's not the level of exploitation that has changed - the imperialist countries have always been exploiting the third world - it's that the population are growing within a framework of failed, market economics.

If you want to continue to see millions of more peole in die from starvation, dehydration, easily curable diseases, then continue to support market economics, neo-liberalism and fianancial aid that gives elite business owners and corrupt politicians domination over all resources.

If you want to see them prosper, then you will reject neo-liberal policies, corporate slave wages, unfair trade agreements, and other things that make the third world what it is.

[IcarusAngel]

I disagree. All capitalist societies have some degree of freedom in markets, but they never resemble a true free-market. It's impossible for a capitalist society to ever achieve a free market, by the dynamic of the power present, and of the privileges granted.

Yes, "free" and "capitalism" is a contradiction because freedom means everybody has a voice and a choice, which does not exist in capitalism.

That's why it's wrong for capitalists to claim that people 'voted' for corporation X over corporation Y with their dollars, because the capitalist 'market' is a rich man's game. The rich are the ones who do most of the 'voting.'

Everybody should do some voting by election or public participation,or some other democratic means - even if they are not planning on buying a particular item right away. That is why freedom can only exist with socialism, which implies that you are not coerced into anything.



Well it's obvious it outcompetes it. The funding that goes toward the government, in the form of taxes, largely exceeds anything an entrepreneur or worker organization could achieve, since they force people at gunpoint to fund them. There's really not much choice when it comes to that.

There isn't much choice when I go to buy a car and I cannot make a car because the corporations own the resources at gun point. Capitalist systems are rigged in favor of the corporations and businesses.

Anyway, the government really isn't all that more powerful than the big corporations. Private Universities certainly do not have as many resources as big corporations have. Big corporations would rather make profits that take a cut and do research, so it's no surprise that other areas of 'society' have to pick up the slack for capitalism.

Many govt. research programs are actually strapped for funding, yet still invent.

I like to cite these examples because it shows that we do not need 'capitalists' to direct innovation - people can do it by themselves just fine, and often do better when they are removed from 'market competition' (they compete amongst themselves in fun ways, not in ways that are detrimental to each other).

'Capitalists' have never invented anything. I don't know of a case where a manager did something useful. Capitalists 'profit' off of other people's inventions, and direct resources around. They are the managers in modern society.



Well you may have discredited it, but I haven't, because I have a different definition of a free-market than other people who call their vision a "free" market.


Yes, and again a free-market can only exist in a situation where everybody had some land and everybody had some democratic rights - that is because the 'free' in 'free' market implies no one was ever coerced into anything. (Capitalists use 'free' to mean corporations are free from restrictions.)

However, political freedom is just as important as the freedom to 'trade' - so a truly 'free trade' is only one aspect of a free, socialistic system.

[Havet]

Yes, "free" and "capitalism" is a contradiction because freedom means everybody has a voice and a choice, which does not exist in capitalism.

That's why it's wrong for capitalists to claim that people 'voted' for corporation X over corporation Y with their dollars, because the capitalist 'market' is a rich man's game. The rich are the ones who do most of the 'voting.'

Everybody should do some voting by election or public participation,or some other democratic means - even if they are not planning on buying a particular item right away. That is why freedom can only exist with socialism, which implies that you are not coerced into anything.

Agreed.


There isn't much choice when I go to buy a car and I cannot make a car because the corporations own the resources at gun point. Capitalist systems are rigged in favor of the corporations and businesses.

Agreed


Anyway, the government really isn't all that more powerful than the big corporations. Private Universities certainly do not have as many resources as big corporations have. Big corporations would rather make profits that take a cut and do research, so it's no surprise that other areas of 'society' have to pick up the slack for capitalism.

Well, like I said in past times, big corporations are big and corporations because of the government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#Corporate_personality).

Of course, being the whole system favorable towards the rich, they are not affected by the market forces that would act in a free market. Although they still invent some devices, they are only extremely profitable devices (high-tec iphones, computers, operating systems, etc), because since they are so big, venturing themselves in a less profitable action would not pay off in the short-run.


Many govt. research programs are actually strapped for funding, yet still invent.

Yes, but the thing is you cannot just separate governmental action and corporate action in this society. Government has a huge resource of wealth to spend, taken by taxpayers, and they have many artificial barriers to entry which restrict the flow of inventions (mandatory educational degrees, licenses, regulations), besides the fact that they are actively participant in keeping the system to favor the extremely wealthy and powerful.


I like to cite these examples because it shows that we do not need 'capitalists' to direct innovation - people can do it by themselves just fine, and often do better when they are removed from 'market competition' (they compete amongst themselves in fun ways, not in ways that are detrimental to each other).

I agree completely. I just don't think it would be wrong if someone tried to gain profit from an invention in a free society, as long as he didn't exploit anyone in the creation of that product and didn't enforce intellectual property rights (sort of like you described in your thread about fixing prices)


'Capitalists' have never invented anything. I don't know of a case where a manager did something useful. Capitalists 'profit' off of other people's inventions, and direct resources around. They are the managers in modern society.

Well, there are many examples of "capitalists" inventing something. They usually started as engineers or scientists, invented something new, patented it and just collected the intellectual property rights profits granted by the government. There are some who made a profit without intellectual property rights, but we never heard from them because some capitalist must've patented the unpatented invention and forced the inventor to stop manufacturing.


Yes, and again a free-market can only exist in a situation where everybody had some land and everybody had some democratic rights - that is because the 'free' in 'free' market implies no one was ever coerced into anything. (Capitalists use 'free' to mean corporations are free from restrictions.)

Exactly, this is why i believe it is very important to include the word Equality Of Opportunity when talking about a free society. Obviously if someone gains an (hypothetical) monopoly over land, people's opportunity will become decreased, which is why I oppose massive concentrations of wealth and resources, whether they are public or private, whether they were forced upon someone or occurred naturally (though i think in a free society the natural factor would be non-existent)


However, political freedom is just as important as the freedom to 'trade' - so a truly 'free trade' is only one aspect of a free, socialistic system.

Agreed. That is why I made a thread called What Would An Anarcho-Socialistic Economy Look Like? :)