Do you support a new 5th International to fight U.S imperialism and Capitalism?

[Bankotsu]

Hugo Chavez and others have proposed the creation of a New 5th International to unite left wing parties across the world to fight U.S imperialism and Capitalism and to build socialism for the 21st century.

Do you support such a project?

Venezuela’s Chavez Calls for International Organisation of Left Parties


Published on November 23rd 2009, by Kiraz Janicke - Venezuelanalysis.com

Caracas, November 23rd 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called for the formation of a “Fifth International” of left parties and social movements to confront the challenge posed by the global crisis of capitalism.

The president made the announcement during an international conference of more than fifty left organisations from thirty-one countries held in Caracas over November 19-21.

“I assume responsibility before the world. I think it is time to convene the Fifth International, and I dare to make the call, which I think is a necessity. I dare to request that we create my proposal,” Chavez said.

The head of state insisted that the conference of left parties should not be “just one more meeting,” and he invited participating organizations to create a truly new project. “This socialist encounter should be of the genuine left, willing to fight against imperialism and capitalism,” he said.

During his speech, Chavez briefly outlined the experiences of previous “internationals,” including the First International founded in 1864 by Karl Marx; the Second International founded in 1889, which collapsed in 1916 as various left parties and trade unions sided with their respective capitalist classes in the inter-imperialist conflict of the First World War; the Third International founded by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, which Chavez said “degenerated” under Stalinism and “betrayed” struggles for socialism around the world; and the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938, which suffered numerous splits and no longer exists, although some small groups claim to represent its political continuity.

Chavez said that a new international would have to function “without impositions” and would have to respect diversity.

Representatives from a number of major parties in Latin America voiced their support for the proposal, including the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) of Bolivia, the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) of El Salvador, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) of Nicaragua, and Alianza Pais of Ecuador.

Smaller parties from Latin America and around the world also indicated their support for Chavez’s proposal, including the Proposal for an Alternative Society (PAS) of Chile, New Nation Alternative (ANN) of Guatemala, and Australia’s Socialist Alliance, among others.

Sandinista leader Miguel D´Escoto said, “Capitalism has brought the human species to the precipice of extinction… we have to take control of our own destiny.”


“There is no time to lose,” D’Escoto added as he conveyed his support for the proposal of forming a fifth international. “We have to overcome the tendency of defeatism. Many times I have noted a tendency of defeatism amongst comrades of the left in relation to the tasks we face,” he continued.

Salvador Sánchez, from the FMLN, said “We are going to be important actors in the Fifth International. We cannot continue waiting – all the forces of the left. The aspiration of the peoples is to walk down a different path. We must not hesitate in forming the Fifth International. The people have pronounced themselves in favour of change and the parties of the left must be there with them.”

Other organisations, including Portugal’s Left Block, Germany’s Die Linke, and France’s Partido Gauche expressed interest in the proposal but said they would consult with their various parties. A representative of the Cuban Communist Party described the proposal as “excellent,” but as yet the party has made no formal statement.

Many communist parties, including those from Greece and Brazil, expressed strong opposition to the proposal. The Venezuelan Communist Party said it was willing to discuss the proposal but expressed strong reservations.

The Alternative Democratic Pole (PDA) from Colombia expressed its willingness to work with other left parties, but said it would “reserve” its decision to participate in an international organisation of left parties.
Valter Pomar, a representative from the Workers Party of Brazil (PT), said its priority is the Sao Paolo Forum – a forum of various Latin American left, socialist, communist, centre-left, labour, social democratic and nationalist parties launched by the PT in 1990.

A resolution was passed at the conference to form a preparatory committee to convoke a global conference of left parties in Caracas in April 2010, to discuss the formation of a new international. The resolution also allowed for other parties that remain undecided to discuss the proposal and incorporate themselves at a later date.

Chavez emphasised the importance of being inclusive and said the April conference had to go far beyond the parties and organisations that participated in last week’s conference. In particular, he said it was an error that there were no revolutionary organisations from the United States present.

The conference of left parties also passed a resolution titled the Caracas Commitment, “to reaffirm our conviction to definitively build and win Socialism of the 21st Century,” in the face of “the generalized crisis of the global capitalist system.”

“One of the epicentres of the global capitalist crisis is the economic sphere. This highlights the limitations of unbridled free markets dominated by monopolies of private property,” the resolution stated.

Also incorporated was a proposed amendment by the Australian delegation which read, “In synthesis, the crisis of capitalism cannot be reduced to a simple financial crisis, it is a structural crisis of capital that combines the economic crisis, with an ecological crisis, a food crisis and an energy crisis, which together represent a mortal threat to humanity and nature.

In the face of this crisis, the movements and parties of the left see the defence of nature and the construction of an ecologically sustainable society as a fundamental axis of our struggle for a better world.”

The Caracas Commitment expressed “solidarity with the peoples of the world who have suffered and are suffering from imperialist aggression, especially the more than 50 years of the genocidal blockade against Cuba… the massacre of the Palestinian people, the illegal occupation of part of the territory of the Western Sahara, and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which today is expanding into Pakistan.”

The conference of left parties also denounced the decision of the Mexican government to shut down the state-owned electricity company and fire 45,000 workers, as an attempt to “intimidate” the workers and as an “offensive of imperialism,” to advance neoliberal privatisation in Central America.

In the framework of the Caracas Commitment, the left parties present agreed, among other things, to:





Organise a global week of mobilisation from December 12-17 in repudiation of the installation of U.S. military bases in Colombia, Panama and around the world.
Campaign for an “international trial against George Bush for crimes against humanity, as the person principally responsible for the genocide against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
”Commemorate 100 years since the proposal by Clara Zetkin to celebrate International Women’s Day on March 8, through forums, mobilizations and other activities in their respective countries.
Organise global solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution in the face of permanent imperialist attacks.
Organise global solidarity with the people of Honduras who are resisting a U.S.-backed military coup, to campaign for the restoration of the democratically elected president of Honduras, José Manuel Zelaya and to organise a global vigil on the day of the elections in Honduras, “with which they aim to legitimise the coup d´etat.”
Demand an “immediate and unconditional end to the criminal Yankee blockade” of Cuba and for the “immediate liberation” of the Cuban Five, referring to the five anti-terrorist activists imprisoned in the United States.
Accompany the Haitian people in their struggle for the return of President Jean Bertrand Aristide “who was kidnapped and removed from his post as president of Haiti by North American imperialism.”
(http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4946)



http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4946

(http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4946)


League for the Fifth International
http://www.fifthinternational.org (http://www.fifthinternational.org/)

Socialism for the 21st century
http://21stcenturysocialism.com (http://21stcenturysocialism.com/)

[Scary Monster]

AMAZING news! This seems like the first proactive global movement for socialism (that ive heard of) to happen in my lifetime. Chavez seems to be very rational and taking into account all the lessons to be learned from history. I like how hes completely against stalinism. I just hope Chavez isnt all talk =P

[zimmerwald1915]

AMAZING news! This seems like the first proactive global movement for socialism (that ive heard of) to happen in my lifetime. Chavez seems to be very rational and taking into account all the lessons to be learned from history. I like how hes completely against stalinism. I just hope Chavez isnt all talk =P
I really really hope you're trolling.

[rararoadrunner]

Camaradas muuuuuuuuuuuy estimadas:

I'm investigating this question both on my own behalf, and for the Peace and Freedom Party of the US (of which I'm a State and County Central Committee Member).

I see that response to your poll is running 2/1 in favour of the proposal: I'll let my comrades at PFP know about this in the course of my investigations.

Please let us know what you think about Chavez' proposal, and the prospect of our involvement in it.

Hasta pronto, y a la victoria, siempre, MKO.

[Pogue]

Camaradas muuuuuuuuuuuy estimadas:

I'm investigating this question both on my own behalf, and for the Peace and Freedom Party of the US (of which I'm a State and County Central Committee Member).

I see that response to your poll is running 2/1 in favour of the proposal: I'll let my comrades at PFP know about this in the course of my investigations.

Please let us know what you think about Chavez' proposal, and the prospect of our involvement in it.

Hasta pronto, y a la victoria, siempre, MKO.

Well we can't really answer about your involvement in it, its your party, you need ot think about whether or not it would serve your itnerests or the interests of the working class to sign up to this.

[Bankotsu]

I completely, fully, wholly and totally support the creation of a new international to lead the struggle for socialism in the 21st century.

It's now or never with the disillusionment of the capitalist economic system and global economic mess that we are in.

I throw my complete and total support to Chavez's plan.

[LeninBalls]

It seems like a good idea, but I voted no since I'm sure it will be a flunk.

[Demogorgon]

There are plenty of tiny groups already calling themselves the Fifth International.

Still this one could go somewhere, but there is a good chance it would just become a mouth piece for Venezuelan foreign policy.

[Bud Struggle]

Let's see who could be part of 5th International:


Hugo Chávez has defended the jailed Venezuelan terrorist Carlos the Jackal as a freedom fighter and said his life sentence for murder was an injustice.

Venezuela's president said Carlos, whose real name is Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, was a champion of the Palestinian cause. "I defend him. I don't care what they say tomorrow in Europe," Chávez said.

Chávez also praised Zimbabwe's president, Robert Mugabe, and Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as "brothers" and said the late Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin, may have been a misunderstood patriot.

He also said that Amin, whose regime is accused of killing 300,000 Ugandans in the 70s, may not have been so bad. "We thought he was a cannibal. I have doubts. I don't know, maybe he was a great nationalist, a patriot."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/22/hugo-chavez-defence-carlos-jackal

Wouldn't it be best overall for Communism to distance itself from these neo-Socialist self-important fruitcakes and stick to it's mission of Proletarian Revolution?

[ZeroNowhere]

I support a 6th International.

[Bankotsu]

Wouldn't it be best overall for Communism to distance itself from these neo-Socialist self-important fruitcakes and stick to it's mission of Proletarian Revolution?

Chavez said that a new international would have to function “without impositions” and would have to respect diversity.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Might want to sort out the 10 different varieties of fouth international first. Or else the fifth will suffer the same fate.

I'd love to be optimisitc about this, but will the "internationalist" credentials of most of the organised left being pretty dire, I am far from optimistic.

Moreover, the League for a Fifth International in the UK is being pushed by the Trots of Workers Power. Known for their condemnation of wildcat strikes and their political support for Hamas, Hezbollah etc. :(

[Bankotsu]

What's wrong with supporting Hamas and Hezbollah?

There movements are fighting against Israeli occupation and oppression.

I support them.

[Bud Struggle]

Chavez said that a new international would have to function “without impositions” and would have to respect diversity.

Now it makes sense--cannibalism certainly is diversity.

BTW: Welcome to OI!

[Bankotsu]

Now it makes sense--cannibalism certainly is diversity.

I don't understand, what cannibalism?

[Bud Struggle]

I don't understand, what cannibalism?


From the article I posted; this quote from Chavez:


He also said that Amin, whose regime is accused of killing 300,000 Ugandans in the 70s, may not have been so bad. "We thought he was a cannibal. I have doubts. I don't know, maybe he was a great nationalist, a patriot."

Seriously though, Chavez supporting Hamas and Mugabe and Idi Amin, etc. is just rediculous. What does any of those have to do with worker's struggles?

[red cat]

No. I don't support this project. Any international has to be led by genuine proletarian revolutionary forces. This one will only divert revolutionaries and aid imperialism.

[Bankotsu]

Seriously though, Chavez supporting Hamas and Mugabe and Idi Amin, etc. is just rediculous. What does any of those have to do with worker's struggles?

Worker's struggle may not be much but they are all against imperialism.

The global capitalist system is propped up by U.S imperialism, anything that weakens that imperialist system benefits the cause of socialism.



The IMF has been described by some as a tool of neo-colonialism. That is too mild, as 19th Century British or European colonialism, however harsh, never managed to accomplish the extent of devastation and destruction of health and living standards the IMF has done since the 1970s.

Globalization is a word used today, often without precision. If we use the word globalization to refer to the entire process of IMF and WTO-led neo-colonialism under the Dollar System, then it is a descriptive term.

It describes the creation of a global dollar imperium, a Pax Americana. Establishment critics of the IMF system such as Joseph Stiglitz, himself a former Clinton adviser and World Bank official, make accurate charges against the IMF.

They assume, however, that it is merely misguided policy that leads to the problems. The entire IMF institution, along with the World Bank and WTO, however, have been deliberately developed to advance this globalization of the Dollar System, the second pillar of Pax Americana after the military power. It is no mistaken policy, no result of bureaucratic blunders.

That is the crucial point to be understood. The IMF exists to support the Dollar System.

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar_system.htm

[Muzk]

If you voted "no", you suck

[Richard Nixon]

No it's just an excuse by Chavez to create the Ultimate Alliance of America-Haters along with Iran, Zimbabwe, and so on.

[Muzk]

Hmm.. fifth international yes - but not with Hugo as a leader

[graffic]

If it is true that Chavez supports Robert Mugabe and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad then fuck him

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If by "support" you mean he maintains diplomatic relations with their governments and doesn't aggressively defend imperialist domination of their countries, then yes, he "supports" them

[Zanthorus]

I don't like the idea of left wing parties uniting. We should be uniting the left in general.

[Comrade B]

Hugo Chávez has defended the jailed Venezuelan terrorist Carlos the Jackal as a freedom fighter and said his life sentence for murder was an injustice.

Venezuela's president said Carlos, whose real name is Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, was a champion of the Palestinian cause. "I defend him. I don't care what they say tomorrow in Europe," Chávez said.
Hiya, welcome to revleft!


What's wrong with supporting Hamas and Hezbollah?

There movements are fighting against Israeli occupation and oppression.

I support them.
Iranian Revolution
Lesson to be taken from that
Don't trust religious crazies just because they hate the same people you do. They want to kill you too.


If it is true that Chavez supports Robert Mugabe and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad then fuck him
He supports them like the US supports Karzai, Karzai may be a cheating criminal fucker, but his leadership is better in the US's eyes than the people he is fighting
Chavez hates the US and its puppet nations (Israel in this case), Iran hates Israel

Fuck if a crow shits on Obama's head I am pretty sure Chavez would want to give it a medal.
I am not saying it is right that he supports some serious pricks, I am just saying it doesn't make him the most evil leader out there... a lot of people do the same
it is called (not that I always agree with the realist perspective on international relations) balancing

[Havet]

waste of time IMO

[Muzk]

waste of time IMO

And what are we doing now that isn't a waste of time?

Enough has been wasted. Time has been lost. Lives have been lost to capitalism! The step to socialism is neccessary to save the world, and if you simply sit on your ass waiting for some people to free you ain't gonna save the world

[Havet]

And what are we doing now that isn't a waste of time?

So? Sure there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics) are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession) other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience) ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading) which don't waste time. But this one isn't one of them.


Enough has been wasted. Time has been lost. Lives have been lost to capitalism! The step to socialism is neccessary to save the world, and if you simply sit on your ass waiting for some people to free you ain't gonna save the world

Time has been lost, resources have been wasted and lives have been lost precisely due to these "working within the system" attempts at rallying all communist parties hoping to achieve anything.

[Zanthorus]

So? Sure there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics) are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession) other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience) ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading) which don't waste time. But this one isn't one of them.

Personally I'd rather stick with real tactics than hyper-capitalist/pacifistic bullshit.

[Mindtoaster]

I'd support it, though not necessarily with Chavez as it's leader. Regardless, I doubt Ahmadenijad would be receiving an invitation or attending, considering he isn't a socialist and no one on Earth identifies him as one.

Would there be a way to involve the whole left and not just the marxist parties? Are there organized anarchist movements that can participate?

(I'm a marxist, not an anarchist, but I would like to see the whole left represented)

[Havet]

Personally I'd rather stick with real tactics than hyper-capitalist/pacifistic bullshit.

Yeah, because rioting, protesting and striking actually accomplishes meaningful changes :rolleyes:

[graffic]

If by "support" you mean he maintains diplomatic relations with their governments and doesn't aggressively defend imperialist domination of their countries, then yes, he "supports" them

Except for the fact that er Britain left Rhodesia 29 years ago.. and last time I checked Iran was an independent sovereign country.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

imperialism =/= neocolonialism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm

[Muzk]

Yeah, because rioting, protesting and striking actually accomplishes meaningful changes :rolleyes:

i hope you're trying to be sarcastic... if not, they did a good job restricting you

[mikelepore]

Organise a global week of mobilisation from December 12-17 in repudiation of the installation of U.S. military bases in Colombia, Panama and around the world.
Campaign for an “international trial against George Bush for crimes against humanity, as the person principally responsible for the genocide against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
”Commemorate 100 years since the proposal by Clara Zetkin to celebrate International Women’s Day on March 8, through forums, mobilizations and other activities in their respective countries.
Organise global solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution in the face of permanent imperialist attacks.
Organise global solidarity with the people of Honduras who are resisting a U.S.-backed military coup, to campaign for the restoration of the democratically elected president of Honduras, José Manuel Zelaya and to organise a global vigil on the day of the elections in Honduras, “with which they aim to legitimise the coup d´etat.”
Demand an “immediate and unconditional end to the criminal Yankee blockade” of Cuba and for the “immediate liberation” of the Cuban Five, referring to the five anti-terrorist activists imprisoned in the United States.
Accompany the Haitian people in their struggle for the return of President Jean Bertrand Aristide “who was kidnapped and removed from his post as president of Haiti by North American imperialism.”
(http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4946)



Oops, I didn't see anything there about the workers taking over the means of production and switching them over to collective social ownership and workers' self-management in a classless society. Was this clause present and merely omitted here during in the editing of the post, or is the group another liberal reform club?

[Havet]

i hope you're trying to be sarcastic... if not, they did a good job restricting you

Please show evidence how any of the actions I presented has allowed worker ownership and control of the Means of Production in recent years. Otherwise, you should rethink your stance.

I have nothing against rioting and striking if it actually accomplished anything. It just doesn't due to the humongous power of the State. So either you stop wasting time and prepare for a revolution directly, or follow other ways to weaken the State and make it easier for a revolution to succeed. Meaningful changes just cannot be achieved through voting or working "within the system".

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Yeah, because rioting, protesting and striking actually accomplishes meaningful changes :rolleyes:

They accomplish a hell of a lot more than living on a boat in the middle of the ocean. Seriously, what kind of lunatic solution is that?

[Muzk]

Meaningful changes just cannot be achieved through voting or working "within the system".

is the opposite of


So? Sure there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics) are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession) other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience) ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading) which don't waste time. But this one isn't one of them.

anyways quit that liberal bullshit. not working for the system and kind of creatnig your own world wont crush the system, huge fail there, hayenmilf

[Havet]

They accomplish a hell of a lot more than living on a boat in the middle of the ocean. Seriously, what kind of lunatic solution is that?

At least those that will live in seasteads won't have the products of their labor expropriated, could live in a stateless classless society and basically slap the world in its face by showing them how the "communist dream" is possible . How's that for a lunatic solution?

Seasteading will allow anyone to set their own community and do whatever kind of political experiment they want for a fairly cheap cost (relative to winning an election or making a revolution at least).

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Please show evidence how any of the actions I presented has allowed worker ownership and control of the Means of Production in recent years. Otherwise, you should rethink your stance.

I have nothing against rioting and striking if it actually accomplished anything. It just doesn't due to the humongous power of the State. So either you stop wasting time and prepare for a revolution directly, or follow other ways to weaken the State and make it easier for a revolution to succeed. Meaningful changes just cannot be achieved through voting or working "within the system".

Here is one example:
http://www.marxist.com/argentina-workers-owners-ceramica-zanon.htm


At least those that will live in seasteads won't have the products of their labor expropriated, could live in a stateless classless society and basically slap the world in its face by showing them how the "communist dream" is possible . How's that for a lunatic solution?

Seasteading will allow anyone to set their own community and do whatever kind of political experiment they want for a fairly cheap cost (relative to winning an election or making a revolution at least).

First of all, we are not utopian socialists; we don't want to create a "sea paradise" because we want the whole world to be liberated from the yoke of capitalism. What makes you think states would not interfere with such a thing? And it would be necessary to import products and food.

[Havet]

is the opposite of

How is it the opposite of?


anyways quit that liberal bullshit. not working for the system and kind of creatnig your own world wont crush the system, huge fail there, hayenmilf

It's you who seem to make vulgar liberal arguments by arguing common worker actions are actually accomplishing anything.

Anyway, i'll give you that civil disobedience is pretty useless as well, and that the chances of seceding are very low as well, so those two can fit in the category of "wasting time", but the others are feasible solutions, at least better that the other alternatives.

[Havet]

Here is one example:
http://www.marxist.com/argentina-workers-owners-ceramica-zanon.htm

Ok, that's one example. yet there are thousands of riots, strikes and revolts every year world wide. How many of them succeed?

You cannot just look at one example at say: "hey, these suceeded so all will succeed". You have to look at the probability of favorable case scenarios and possible case scenarios. In which case, from what we see everyday, if worker's direct action were so effective there wouldn't be a single business owner by now.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Ok, that's one example. yet there are thousands of riots, strikes and revolts every year world wide. How many of them succeed?

You cannot just look at one example at say: "hey, these suceeded so all will succeed". You have to look at the probability of favorable case scenarios and possible case scenarios. In which case, from what we see everyday, if worker's direct action were so effective there wouldn't be a single business owner by now.

Did anyone ever say "all strikes will succeed" ? Most probably won't, but strike actions and protests can have varied goals, so we can't say that every strike which doesn't end with the workers owning a workplace was a failure. The Chicago Republic Windows and Doors strike showed us that strikes are still effective in defending workers' interests, in that the workers received compensation for the closing of the factory.

[Havet]

Did anyone ever say "all strikes will succeed" ? Most probably won't, but strike actions and protests can have varied goals, so we can't say that every strike which doesn't end with the workers owning a workplace was a failure. The Chicago Republic Windows and Doors strike showed us that strikes are still effective in defending workers' interests, in that the workers received compensation for the closing of the factory.

But isn't the goal to achieve a stateless, classless society? Not receiving a compensation for something that, on principle, should have been theirs to begin with, right?

You only seem interested in "comforting" workers in the current system rather than drastically changing it.

[Zanthorus]

Yeah, because rioting, protesting and striking actually accomplishes meaningful changes :rolleyes:

Every meaningful movement towards the goal of socialism has been accompanied by some form of violence - The Paris Commune, The Spanish Civil War, May 68 etc


*Stuff about worker action not achieving anything*

You know all those crazy rights you have as a worker? You know were they came from originally? There's your answer.


You only seem interested in "comforting" workers in the current system rather than drastically changing it.

Now the revolutionaries are the reformist while the pacifist morons are the revolutionaries? :laugh:

[RGacky3]

I have a feeling Hugo is a wannabe Che Guevara, meaning he wants to be seen as some glorious revolutionary, him against the world, unlike Evo Morales who is more interested in just being low key, transforming the country and helping the Bolivian people, I'm not saying Hugo Chaves is not positive for venezuela, he definately is, I just think this 5th international would be more a circus with Hugo in charge, it will end up just being Hugo's international. I dont' know, maybe I'm wrong.


Yeah, because rioting, protesting and striking actually accomplishes meaningful changes

As far as striking, other than severly shifting power from totally in the capitalist control to more of it being in the workers hands, all the benefits workers have, higher wages and so on, not much I guess.

Heres one example of why you guys arn't leftists, you don't actually support workers taking things in their own hands.


So? Sure there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics) are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession) other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience) ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading) which don't waste time. But this one isn't one of them.


Has any of these things shifted any power? Or benefited workers in any way? No, I don't think so.

[Havet]

Every meaningful movement towards the goal of socialism has been accompanied by some form of violence - The Paris Commune, The Spanish Civil War, May 68 etc

I think The Paris Commune and The Spanish Civil War fit more the category of "revolution" than "rioting, protesting and striking".


You know all those crazy rights you have as a worker? You know were they came from originally? There's your answer.

Like I said, but you keep ignoring, those "rights" are not meaningful changes that bring about a stateless, classless society, is it? Where have you seen any country being reformed until achieving the ideal communist society?


Now the revolutionaries are the reformist while the pacifist morons are the revolutionaries? :laugh:

Nothing revolutionary about maintaining a "domesticated" capitalist society.

[Havet]

As far as striking, other than severly shifting power from totally in the capitalist control to more of it being in the workers hands, all the benefits workers have, higher wages and so on, not much I guess.

Heres one example of why you guys arn't leftists, you don't actually support workers taking things in their own hands.

Please explain to me how any society has achieved the ideal communist society only by rioting, striking and protesting rather than by a REVOLUTION, which I actually support.

I support workers taking things in their own hands, just as I support people being freer, but the methods you defend are ineffective gauging by the amount of change they actually bring.


Has any of these things shifted any power? Or benefited workers in any way? No, I don't think so.

Well taking into account that counter-economics and seasteading are VERY recent, then no, they haven't.

But i'll agree that seceding and civil disobedience are a waste of time.

[Zanthorus]

I think The Paris Commune and The Spanish Civil War fit more the category of "revolution" than "rioting, protesting and striking".

Yes, the important point is they weren't achieved by floating paris or spain out on a ship and establishing some magical offshore utopia.


Like I said, but you keep ignoring, those "rights" are not meaningful changes that bring about a stateless, classless society, is it? Where have you seen any country being reformed until achieving the ideal communist society?


But they are concrete demands that have had an actual positive effect on the living conditions of the workers.


Nothing revolutionary about maintaining a "domesticated" capitalist society.

Yeah, how about we go back to the nineteenth century before workers had any rights and were at the mercy of the capitalists. That'll solve everything. All hail the market!

[Havet]

Yes, the important point is they weren't achieved by floating paris or spain out on a ship and establishing some magical offshore utopia.

Let me make it simple:

Revolution - good

Seasteading - good

counter-economics & revolution - better

reformism, striking, protesting, etc - slightly good


But they are concrete demands that have had an actual positive effect on the living conditions of the workers.

Do you seriously expect the State to allow successive reforms until an ideal communist society is achieved? Sure it may help in the long term, but it actually only slows down awareness towards a revolution, because people will have more faith in parliamentary democracy.


Yeah, how about we go back to the nineteenth century before workers had any rights and were at the mercy of the capitalists. That'll solve everything. All hail the market!

Nineteenth century was not a free market.

But anyway, the goal is to help all the workers, not some at the expense of everyone else through these governmental privileges (which can go away as soon as they came), which allow for a slightly better condition for some workers while others are unemployed due to higher costs of employing them.

[Olerud]

As long as Zimbabwe isn't involved. I support it.

[RGacky3]

Let me make it simple:

Revolution - good

Seasteading - good

counter-economics & revolution - better

reformism, striking, protesting, etc - slightly good


You did make it simple but you did'nt address anything.

Most revolutions started out with protests/riots and lots of striking and organizing. Never has seasteading or something similar lead to revolution, and counter economics has'nt lead to revolution either.


Do you seriously expect the State to allow successive reforms until an ideal communist society is achieved? Sure it may help in the long term, but it actually only slows down awareness towards a revolution, because people will have more faith in parliamentary democracy.


Depends, it might, or it might re-inforce worker power, if workers can make both the state and/or capitalist bow to it. Its class war, and I don't think its smart to just stop class war unless its full on revolution.


But anyway, the goal is to help all the workers, not some at the expense of everyone else through these governmental privileges (which can go away as soon as they came), which allow for a slightly better condition for some workers while others are unemployed due to higher costs of employing them.

Strikes and syndicalism don't make things worse for other workers, they shift power away from the capitalist, by making them afraid of strikes.

[Havet]

You did make it simple but you did'nt address anything.

Most revolutions started out with protests/riots and lots of striking and organizing. Never has seasteading or something similar lead to revolution, and counter economics has'nt lead to revolution either.

Seasteading and counter-economics haven't led anywhere because they are VERY RECENT actions. Instead of just criticizing you could actually try to learn more about them:

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/nlm/nlm5.html

http://seasteading.org/learn-more/faq


Depends, it might, or it might re-inforce worker power, if workers can make both the state and/or capitalist bow to it. Its class war, and I don't think its smart to just stop class war unless its full on revolution.

It's class war alright. Who do you think is winning (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26953481/)?


Strikes and syndicalism don't make things worse for other workers, they shift power away from the capitalist, by making them afraid of strikes.

Where capitalists fearful or lost power when people strike about bailouts and the current recession?

[greymatter]

I think that an alliance of america-haters would be frickin awesome. They'd all start trading with each other and before you know it they'd be affluent and complacent too!

[IcarusAngel]

Is there a documented example of where 'counter-economics' ever moved us to a better society? Most movements have come from social reform and social upheavel etc.


Revolution - OK. But has a track record of leading back into tyranny.

Seasteading - ???

counter-economics & revolution - Unproven

reformism, striking, protesting, etc - Best. When it works it leads to better conditions, such as the abolishment of slavery, without too much bloodloss.

Revolution and Reformism mixed (such as overthrowing a monarchy and then engaging in democracy): Good to great. Also has a proven track record of working.

[RGacky3]

Seasteading and counter-economics haven't led anywhere because they are VERY RECENT actions. Instead of just criticizing you could actually try to learn more about them:

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/nlm/nlm5.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/nlm/nlm5.html)

http://seasteading.org/learn-more/faq (http://seasteading.org/learn-more/faq)


Also they WON'T lead to any revolution, if seasteading happens, all its gonna be is big money Capitalists finding a new way to make profit and doing it with total complete control, they are going to build these things and they are going to control them, it would be essencailly a capitalist dictatorship (which works very well for you).

That is'nt a solution, the same way tax havens arn't a solution either, just a way for Capitalits to get more power.

As far as counter economics, thats pretty much the same thing, things like tax evasion or alternative currencies, does nothing to change the system or shift power or anything. There is nothing revolutionary about a black Market, I don't think the Mexican drug Cartels are really helping out any revolutionary movement.

Your solutions just show even more that you care nothing about socialism, your a Capitalist.


It's class war alright. Who do you think is winning (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26953481/)?

As of now, but there has been many victories, and in other countries many more, and working class victories are happening more and more, (with or without the state).


Where capitalists fearful or lost power when people strike about bailouts and the current recession?

strike about bailouts? People strike against Capitalists, not the state, unless you work for the state. Our fight is primarily against the Capitalists, (Yours is not).

[Bud Struggle]

Gack, AGAIN, I gotta say I don't agree with you much but your insights into politics are quite brilliant. The above post is right on all counts.

[Havet]

As far as counter economics, thats pretty much the same thing, things like tax evasion or alternative currencies, does nothing to change the system or shift power or anything. There is nothing revolutionary about a black Market, I don't think the Mexican drug Cartels are really helping out any revolutionary movement.

Mexican drug cartels are not counter-economics because counter-economics, by definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics), are peaceful activities, not violent.

The point of counter-economics is remove power from the State and the Capitalists in order to weaken them so the revolution is less costly in human lives.


As of now, but there has been many victories, and in other countries many more, and working class victories are happening more and more, (with or without the state).

Not in one single "victory" of those have we seen meaningful changes towards a freer, classless, stateless society, have we? Those are just reforms, and are actually quite dangerous to the revolutionary movement, because it grows faith on parliamentary democracy, which as we have seen throughout the times, only helps the established power even more.


strike about bailouts? People strike against Capitalists, not the state, unless you work for the state. Our fight is primarily against the Capitalists, (Yours is not).

The Marxist Definition: The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.

If you're interested about fighting Capitalists then your fight starts with the State, and many problems would solved with its disappearance.

[Bud Struggle]

Not in one single "victory" of those have we seen meaningful changes towards a freer, classless, stateless society, have we? Those are just reforms, and are actually quite dangerous to the revolutionary movement, because it grows faith on parliamentary democracy, which as we have seen throughout the times, only helps the established power even more.


I see them as victories. Small, but another step closer to some recognition that people are more than just their economic status. I really don't care about "Revolution." But when it comes to the betterment of mankind--any progress is a good thing.

[Havet]

I see them as victories. Small, but another step closer to some recognition that people are more than just their economic status. I really don't care about "Revolution." But when it comes to the betterment of mankind--any progress is a good thing.

Yes of course. But this "progress", given the statist dynamic we're in, is always made at the expense of someone else. Governments just redistribute things (and lose something along the way).

[Bud Struggle]

Yes of course. But this "progress", given the statist dynamic we're in, is always made at the expense of someone else. Governments just redistribute things (and lose something along the way).

As someone said--It's a Bourgeoise debate.

One of the charms of the Bourgeoise is that they always invite everyone over to play in their house.

[RGacky3]

Mexican drug cartels are not counter-economics because counter-economics, by definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics), are peaceful activities, not violent.

The point of counter-economics is remove power from the State and the Capitalists in order to weaken them so the revolution is less costly in human lives.


Well pretty damn close, but anyway, tats what happens when Capitalists have full on power like you want. Counter economics does not remove power from the Capitalits anymore than tax havens do.


Not in one single "victory" of those have we seen meaningful changes towards a freer, classless, stateless society, have we? Those are just reforms, and are actually quite dangerous to the revolutionary movement, because it grows faith on parliamentary democracy, which as we have seen throughout the times, only helps the established power even more.

Well, now, my boss cannot fire me for organizing, many jobs have company health care, better wages, with more syndicalism the more workers have a say in companies, strikes and riots have nothing to do with strengthening parlimentary democracies, its the people taking things into their own hands, forcing things in their direction. But yes, society IS more civilized now then it was 100 years ago.


The Marxist Definition: The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.

If you're interested about fighting Capitalists then your fight starts with the State, and many problems would solved with its disappearance.

No its starts with the Capitalists, because they are the ones that control the means of production, the state allows them to do it, but the state only responds to pressure, and right now the Capitalists have all the power so they put all the pressure, your "solution" is to strip away all responces to public pressure the state has had to do which limits, and to be fair, also much of the responces to capitalist pressure, but you hav'nt changed the actual power dynamic.

living on an island, like I said, is only a formula for the Capitalist dicatorship you advocate.

and tax evasions are also only a way for capitalists to save more money and have more power, remember workers pay their taxes through pay checks and have no property. Your solutions are pretty much 100% pro Capitalist profit and power.


Yes of course. But this "progress", given the statist dynamic we're in, is always made at the expense of someone else. Governments just redistribute things (and lose something along the way).

the progress from strikes and uprisings and syndicalism are not from the state ...


As someone said--It's a Bourgeoise debate.

Someone who does'nt know what the word Bourgeoise means.


One of the charms of the Bourgeoise is that they always invite everyone over to play in their house.

What are you talking about?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

While a worldwide 5th international sounds pretty damn cool. And I half support it due to the sheer amount of hilarous whining and misconcieved "warnings" it would create on Fox News,

Chavez isn't a communist

And whatever is causing the left to split prone and generally useless at the moment will not be solved simply by making a new organisation (that is, after all, what nearly every one of the thousand left parties around believed). Creating new parties seems to be to be just a superficial change that does nothing if the underlying attitutes that caused the need for a new party don't change.

[RGacky3]

No one in the world except for a few Americans pay the slightest attention to fox news. So It would'nt loose any support that it did'nt already not have.

[Havet]

Well pretty damn close, but anyway, tats what happens when Capitalists have full on power like you want. Counter economics does not remove power from the Capitalits anymore than tax havens do.

No, that's what happens when there is artificial scarcity and inequality of opportunity, created by the State and then explored by the drug cartels. The point of counter-economics is to allow every individual to supply to oneself, or to others, without having no expropriation of the product of his labor either by the current regulated market or by the State directly.


Well, now, my boss cannot fire me for organizing, many jobs have company health care, better wages, with more syndicalism the more workers have a say in companies, strikes and riots have nothing to do with strengthening parlimentary democracies, its the people taking things into their own hands, forcing things in their direction. But yes, society IS more civilized now then it was 100 years ago.

If you have faith on parliamentary democracies and "striking", then I can't help you. You would just reject any data i'd provide regarding how other countries have less of a nanny government and have better conditions for the people living there than the ones with many privileges.


No its starts with the Capitalists, because they are the ones that control the means of production, the state allows them to do it, but the state only responds to pressure, and right now the Capitalists have all the power so they put all the pressure, your "solution" is to strip away all responces to public pressure the state has had to do which limits, and to be fair, also much of the responces to capitalist pressure, but you hav'nt changed the actual power dynamic.

Ha, you think there is public pressure?

Was there public pressure to stop the genocide commited by the Nazi state?

Was there public pressure to stop the invasion of Iraq, when George W Bush decided to invade it?

Was there public pressure to stop the bailouts of the great banking corporations?

If there was pressure, why didn't it achieve anything?

Fighting the current system starts with the State, because it was ONLY due to the State that the capitalists manage to acquire, cartelize and monopolize all the means of production, by using the state to restrict the equality of opportunity.


living on an island, like I said, is only a formula for the Capitalist dicatorship you advocate.

Ok, you seem to be pretty interested in strawmaning, so i'll play the same game.

If living on an island necessarily leads to capitalist dictatorships, then all islands lead to capitalist dictatorships, which means that, on a large enough scale, all the planet will lead to a capitalist dictatorship. Not too bright of a future for communism heh?

Capitalist dictatorship is what we have now. Either learn more about what (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-vs-free-t122671/index.html?t=122671) I propose (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765) or stfu.


and tax evasions are also only a way for capitalists to save more money and have more power, remember workers pay their taxes through pay checks and have no property. Your solutions are pretty much 100% pro Capitalist profit and power.

Duh, the point was to workers to tax evade, not only capitalists. yeesh.

If you think taxes are legitimate, on what grounds do you support them? Can I come over to your house, point a gun at your head and say: "give me X% of your income so I can give it to starving africans, or else" ?


the progress from strikes and uprisings and syndicalism are not from the state ...

Unions, for example, are heavily supported by the State, legally speaking (http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm).

[RGacky3]

No, that's what happens when there is artificial scarcity and inequality of opportunity, created by the State and then explored by the drug cartels. The point of counter-economics is to allow every individual to supply to oneself, or to others, without having no expropriation of the product of his labor either by the current regulated market or by the State directly.

There is artificial scarcity, but really not by that much, also there is far from enequality of opportunity, as far as capitalism goes anyone can become a dope pusher.

I'll tell you why counter economics won't work, because the top 5% control 95% of the wealth, and the vast majority of the world cannot supply themselves because of that, because the top 5% control 95% (thats is a pretty conservative statistic btw).


If you have faith on parliamentary democracies and "striking", then I can't help you. You would just reject any data i'd provide regarding how other countries have less of a nanny government and have better conditions for the people living there than the ones with many privileges.


I never said I have faith in parlimentary democracies at all, when did I say that, but I do have faith in striking, why? BECAUSE IT WORKS, because it scares the hell out of hte capitalist class, thast why it works, I guarantee you no capitalits is scared of "counter economics" aka tax evasion for rich people, theres a reason they arn't because it does'nt challenge the system.

I don't know where you got me supporting nanny governments ... But I do know this, Norway has one of the best if not the best living standards in the world, and higher productivity rates, much higher than the United States, which has much much much more wealth. I can continue with more examples if you'd like.


If there was pressure, why didn't it achieve anything?

Because it does'nt work all the time, but it did get us out of vietnam, Iraq, it is getting the health care debate started, it did give us labor rights, and so on and so forth.

You can critisize direct action all you want, but your solutoin, tax evasion is only a way for rich people to become more powerful and richer, it does'nt change a damn thing.


Ok, you seem to be pretty interested in strawmaning, so i'll play the same game.


I think you need to tighten up your definition of strawman, strawman does not mean every argument you don't agree with.


Ok, you seem to be pretty interested in strawmaning, so i'll play the same game.

If living on an island necessarily leads to capitalist dictatorships, then all islands lead to capitalist dictatorships, which means that, on a large enough scale, all the planet will lead to a capitalist dictatorship. Not too bright of a future for communism heh?

Capitalist dictatorship is what we have now. Either learn more about what (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-vs-free-t122671/index.html?t=122671) I propose (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765) or stfu.

ok here we go, first you need to make the island and build it up, which requires lots of capital and investment, and that would mean capitalists investing in it, then anyone that lives there is owned by the capitalists, because the capitalists own everything built there, without redistribution and industry takeover you can't change the system.

I never said "all islands become dictatorships" did I? I said the SPECIFIC proposal you brought up, would lead to that, stop arguing against made up arguments, address MY Points, not made up ones.


Duh, the point was to workers to tax evade, not only capitalists. yeesh.

If you think taxes are legitimate, on what grounds do you support them? Can I come over to your house, point a gun at your head and say: "give me X% of your income so I can give it to starving africans, or else" ?


yeah, so what? Most workers don't have to pay THAT much tax anyway, nor do they have the resources to actually tax evade (they can't open up foreign bank acounts), so really your solution is mainly for Capitalists.

I NEVER SAID TAXES ARE LEGITIMATE DID I? But we are in the context of capitalism, which means things must be approached differently.

I don't think constitutions, but I"d much rather a constitutional monarchy than a monarchy. I'd much rather social-democracy than all out Capitalism.


Unions, for example, are heavily supported by the State, legally speaking (http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm).

SO WHAT, compared to the support for capital its negligable. Just because Unions get support form the state (barely) does'nt illigitimize them, or change anything.



So lets get this clear I DO NOT IDEOLOGICALLY SUPPORT THE STATE, so stop arguing from that perspective, but I am anti-Capitalists and understand that the real power is the control of the capital and resouces, unlike you, who really wants a situation where Capitalists can have ultimate power, (and workers don't have to listen to the state either, but they sure as hell will have to listen to the Capitalists).

[Havet]

There is artificial scarcity, but really not by that much, also there is far from enequality of opportunity, as far as capitalism goes anyone can become a dope pusher.

There is artificial scarcity because the 5% control 95% of the wealth, and you say that's not much?

How is there equality of opportunity within capitalism? That's like one of the main socialist/communist arguments, that THERE ISN'T.

There is no equality of opportunity because there is no free competition.

Between laborers and capitalists there is no competition whatever, because through governmental privilege granted to capital, whence the volume of the currency and the rate of interest is regulated, the owners of it are enabled to keep the laborers dependent on them for employment, so making the condition of wage-subjection perpetual. So long as one man, or class of men, are able to prevent others from working for themselves because they cannot obtain the means of production or capitalize their own products, so long those others are not free to compete freely with those to whom privilege gives the means. For instance, can you see any competition between the farmer and his hired man? Don't you think he would prefer to work for himself? Why does the farmer employ him? Is it not to make some profit from his labor? And does the hired man give him that profit out of pure good nature? Would he not rather have the full product of his labor at his own disposal?


I'll tell you why counter economics won't work, because the top 5% control 95% of the wealth, and the vast majority of the world cannot supply themselves because of that, because the top 5% control 95% (thats is a pretty conservative statistic btw).

That's the point of counter-economics: to allow each individual to free himself from the monopoly of resources by capitalists and statists. This is done by refusing to be forced to be supplied by the current unfree economic markets. In short, you cease to contribute to the white market, where the red and pink market(s) leeches off (http://www.revleft.com/vb/5-levels-economy-t115005/index.html?t=115005), reducing their wealth and source of power.


BECAUSE IT WORKS, because it scares the hell out of hte capitalist class, thast why it works,

If it scared them that much it would be outlawed. I'm not denying worker action does not bring benefits on a smaller scale, but focusing only on them is not going to bring meaningful changes to the system. Please try and understand this. I mean, don't you agree with the concept of a necessary revolution?


I guarantee you no capitalits is scared of "counter economics" aka tax evasion for rich people, theres a reason they arn't because it does'nt challenge the system.

If they weren't scared they wouldn't have outlawed alternative currencies, internet "piracy", tax evasion, drug commerce and use, smuggling, "illegal" immigrants, etc.


I don't know where you got me supporting nanny governments ... But I do know this, Norway has one of the best if not the best living standards in the world, and higher productivity rates, much higher than the United States, which has much much much more wealth. I can continue with more examples if you'd like.

Norway has more wealth because its soaked in oil up to its teeth (http://www.norway.org/ARCHIVE/News/archive/1996/199601oil/).

I can cite examples of countries with one of the best living standards in the world which aren't necessarily dependent on a specific commodity as the source of their wealth.


You can critisize direct action all you want, but your solutoin, tax evasion is only a way for rich people to become more powerful and richer, it does'nt change a damn thing.

Strawman - I never claimed tax evasion was the only way to change a damn thing.


I think you need to tighten up your definition of strawman, strawman does not mean every argument you don't agree with.

A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.


ok here we go, first you need to make the island and build it up, which requires lots of capital and investment, and that would mean capitalists investing in it,

The whole POINT of the seasteading institute is to find CHEAPER ways for allowing EVERYONE to create their own floating platform.

Did you even read the link I sent? http://seasteading.org/learn-more/faq


then anyone that lives there is owned by the capitalists, because the capitalists own everything built there, without redistribution and industry takeover you can't change the system.

Again this shows how you didn't read the link I sent.


If you don't like your government, you can literally "Vote with your house" by detaching your seastead and sailing off to another city. In the long run, this will turn the oceans into a laboratory for innovation in social and political systems. No specific ideology is necessary: Seasteads will empower people with a wide variety of beliefs to self-govern and serve as examples (good and bad) for other societies.


yeah, so what? Most workers don't have to pay THAT much tax anyway, nor do they have the resources to actually tax evade (they can't open up foreign bank acounts), so really your solution is mainly for Capitalists.

When I talk of tax evasion I'm not talking about offshore accounts and foreign bank accounts. I'm talking about people finding ways to stop paying the taxes in their country without getting caught.


I NEVER SAID TAXES ARE LEGITIMATE DID I? But we are in the context of capitalism, which means things must be approached differently. Just because we are in the context of capitalism doesn't make taxes legitimate.


I don't think constitutions, but I"d much rather a constitutional monarchy than a monarchy. I'd much rather social-democracy than all out Capitalism.

Of course. I just prefer neither of these.


SO WHAT, compared to the support for capital its negligable. Just because Unions get support form the state (barely) does'nt illigitimize them, or change anything.

How do you know its negligable? Haven't you realized that "unions" have, in a way, "incorporated" with the State?

Please take the time to read what I wrote in my other thread:


Professor Thomas Dye of Florida State University estimates that the number of true powerholders in American society amounts to approximately seven thousand people. This figure includes those who hold the top positions in government, corporate, educational, cultural, legal and civic institutions.(5 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=316#5)) It is this tiny oligarchy, seven thousand people in a nation of nearly three hundred million, that might be said to constitute the ruling class proper in American society, comparable to the royal families of old. Directly beneath them in the class structure are the New Class apparatchik who have replaced the feudal aristocracy, the Church and the industrial bourgeoisie in the domination of the economic, cultural and educational life of the society. George Orwell described this element:

The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government. (6 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=316#6))

It is for the benefit of this class that most state intervention into the economy and into society is done. It is this class who are the primary beneficiaries of the most extravagant entitlements such as social security, Medicare, civil service pensions and agricultural subsidies. It is the New Class who make their living staffing the government’s social engineering programs, teaching in state schools and universities, working for state-financed foundations and managing the bureaucracy of corporations that are dependent on state subsidies and contracts. Tariffs and other forms of protectionism are set up in part to protect the employment interests of state-connected unions. Professional licensing schemes create monopolistic guilds for New Class professionals. Zoning and land use regulations serve to inflate the real estate values of affluent New Class property owners. These examples are just a drop in the bucket.

The lower tier of this system of artificial class stratification includes rank and file workers and lower management who are the most burdened by personal income, payroll, excise and other taxes and whose labor marketability is devalued through state intervention, persons unemployed by state actions that constrict the supply of employment opportunities, persons subjugated by the state’s welfare system, poor and minority persons herded into the urban reservations of "public" housing, persons rendered homeless by the state’s constriction of the supply of available and affordable housing, small businessmen and self-employed persons regulated to death by coercive state agencies, farmers dispossessed of their traditional lands by state-supported agribusiness cartels and central banks, persons made disabled or infirm by state constriction of available and affordable medical care, persons dispossessed of homes and lands by eminent domain and asset forfeiture laws, those who livelihoods are relegate to the "illegal" market by the state (gamblers, peddlers, vendors, beggars, drug sellers, prostitutes, loansharks, smugglers, etc.), persons imprisoned in the state’s gulags, psychiatric prisons ("mental hospitals"), educational prisons ("public schools"), pseudo-military concentration camps ("boot camps") and so on. These and other similar groups constitute the modern "proletariat", to use a classical term.

The modern version of the "class struggle" involves the ongoing brutal conflict between those who most benefit from the system of mass democratic, special interest-dominated, welfare-warfare corporate statism on one hand and those who are most victimized by it on the other hand. (7 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=316#7))


So lets get this clear I DO NOT IDEOLOGICALLY SUPPORT THE STATE, so stop arguing from that perspective, but I am anti-Capitalists and understand that the real power is the control of the capital and resouces,

You may say you don't support the State, but you make some pretty strong state-apologetic arguments.


unlike you, who really wants a situation where Capitalists can have ultimate power, (and workers don't have to listen to the state either, but they sure as hell will have to listen to the Capitalists).

Not really. Please read my other threads someday in the next century, k?

[RGacky3]

There is artificial scarcity because the 5% control 95% of the wealth, and you say that's not much?

How is there equality of opportunity within capitalism? That's like one of the main socialist/communist arguments, that THERE ISN'T.

There is no equality of opportunity because there is no free competition.

I was talking about the drug trade dumbass, follow along. Not ALL Capitalism.

5% control 95% and that is why there is no equality of opportunity, not because of lack of competition ... you know what is free competition? War, is war equal opportunity? No, one side dominates because they have more and better weapons, the same with Capitalism, what we have now is the natural result of capitalism, property and the "free" market.


Between laborers and capitalists there is no competition whatever, because through governmental privilege granted to capital, whence the volume of the currency and the rate of interest is regulated, the owners of it are enabled to keep the laborers dependent on them for employment, so making the condition of wage-subjection perpetual. So long as one man, or class of men, are able to prevent others from working for themselves because they cannot obtain the means of production or capitalize their own products, so long those others are not free to compete freely with those to whom privilege gives the means. For instance, can you see any competition between the farmer and his hired man? Don't you think he would prefer to work for himself? Why does the farmer employ him? Is it not to make some profit from his labor? And does the hired man give him that profit out of pure good nature? Would he not rather have the full product of his labor at his own disposal?


Yeah, but that has nothing to do with intrest, it has to do with private property "rights" which are the basis for the "free" market.


That's the point of counter-economics: to allow each individual to free himself from the monopoly of resources by capitalists and statists. This is done by refusing to be forced to be supplied by the current unfree economic markets. In short, you cease to contribute to the white market, where the red and pink market(s) leeches off (http://www.revleft.com/vb/5-levels-economy-t115005/index.html?t=115005), reducing their wealth and source of power.

Yeah, I'm sorry your an idiot, they control the economy, if they find out something is uncontrolled they'll control that too (the Capitalists I'm talking about), your "solution" or tax evasion does'nt change a thing, the people in control are still in control.

Your problem is, your entirely worried about the government taking money ... from people with a lot of money, infact your worried about ANYONE taking money away from people with lots of money, which is why you call "tax evasion" a solution, and don't support unions.


If it scared them that much it would be outlawed. I'm not denying worker action does not bring benefits on a smaller scale, but focusing only on them is not going to bring meaningful changes to the system. Please try and understand this. I mean, don't you agree with the concept of a necessary revolution?


They can't outlaw it. I agree with revolution, yes, but most (if not all) revolutions in the past have started with worker organization and syndicalism, whats the best example of an anarchist revolution, and the best example of a funtioning socialist society, thats right, Anarchist Spain, ever hear of the CNT? As far as I remember they did'nt bring about revolution by evading taxes.


Norway has more wealth because its soaked in oil up to its teeth (http://www.norway.org/ARCHIVE/News/archive/1996/199601oil/).

I can cite examples of countries with one of the best living standards in the world which aren't necessarily dependent on a specific commodity as the source of their wealth.

Norways per Capita GDP is not that much more than the United States, I'll also point out Sweeden :).


Strawman - I never claimed tax evasion was the only way to change a damn thing.


Yes you kind of did, you mentioned making islands, and counter econonics (which essencially means tax evasion).


The whole POINT of the seasteading institute is to find CHEAPER ways for allowing EVERYONE to create their own floating platform.

Did you even read the link I sent?

Yes I did, it still would require lots and lots of funding, (I'm guessing you'd like private funding), also most people don't have enough money to afford a home, much less a floating one, most peoples problems are not that they are being taxed too much, its that the capitalists are in control.


If you don't like your government, you can literally "Vote with your house" by detaching your seastead and sailing off to another city. In the long run, this will turn the oceans into a laboratory for innovation in social and political systems. No specific ideology is necessary: Seasteads will empower people with a wide variety of beliefs to self-govern and serve as examples (good and bad) for other societies.

Your insane, MOST PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD A HOUSE, many people starve, many people are getting laid off, many cannot afford basic nessesities of life. And your solution is a floating house??? If everyone could afford a house and a decent life, I doubt many people would want to live in the middle of the freaking ocean you loonatic.


When I talk of tax evasion I'm not talking about offshore accounts and foreign bank accounts. I'm talking about people finding ways to stop paying the taxes in their country without getting caught.


Taxes are not the peoples big problem, Capitalism is not held up by taxes.


Just because we are in the context of capitalism doesn't make taxes legitimate.



I NEVER SAID TAXES ARE LEGITIMATE DID I? But we are in the context of capitalism, which means things must be approached differently.

Read dumbass, taxes are not legitimate, but they are not the big problem, and if they are more on the rich than us, that is a benefit for us.


Of course. I just prefer neither of these.

Yeah, but right now we live in a regulated market system, you want to get rid of the regulated part, nad just leave in the Capitalists to run things. Just like the Monarch parralel.


How do you know its negligable? Haven't you realized that "unions" have, in a way, "incorporated" with the State?

No they hav'nt, your post does'nt proove anything, and its nonesense (I'm not going to argue it because its irrelivent, its about public vrs private workers and not unions at all).

[Havet]

I was talking about the drug trade dumbass, follow along. Not ALL Capitalism.

5% control 95% and that is why there is no equality of opportunity, not because of lack of competition ... you know what is free competition? War, is war equal opportunity? No, one side dominates because they have more and better weapons, the same with Capitalism, what we have now is the natural result of capitalism, property and the "free" market.

Ok, what I meant to say was that with equal opportunity to produce, the division of product will necessarily approach equitable distribution.


Yeah, but that has nothing to do with intrest, it has to do with private property "rights" which are the basis for the "free" market.

It has to do with inequality of opportunity, which happens because the State and big business collides into restricting the market. Under this statist system, where licensing and regulation make it unduly difficult to actually be entrepreneurial, a disproportionate number of those who would otherwise be entrepreneurs become wage labor. This creates an oversupply of wage labor as opposed to entrepreneurial activity.

This gives the capitalist class an unfair advantage in two ways. First, it reduces the amount of competition on the market, increasing the capitalist's market share and prices with little effort on the part of the capitalist.

Second, it reduces the amount of bargaining power the wage labor has. Because there is an oversupply of wage labor, wage labor is more easily replaced than it would be on a real free market, and wages are depressed.

This amounts to an effective expropriation of value by the capitalists (who are in a state-created position of power) from the consumers on the one hand (through reduced competition and higher prices) and from the workers on the other (who are underpaid and have less than their fair amount of inflence) and even doubly due to the fact that the workers ARE consumers when they are not on the job.


Yeah, I'm sorry your an idiot, they control the economy, if they find out something is uncontrolled they'll control that too (the Capitalists I'm talking about), your "solution" or tax evasion does'nt change a thing, the people in control are still in control.

Your problem is, your entirely worried about the government taking money ... from people with a lot of money, infact your worried about ANYONE taking money away from people with lots of money, which is why you call "tax evasion" a solution, and don't support unions.

Ah, I start to see why we are dissagreeing so much. You have partially misinterpreted me. I hope you are honest enough to recognize my arguments and stop adressing the old ones, even if it means conceding some of your points.

Also, either you stop conflating counter-economics with bourgeois tax evasion or i'm not talking to you anymore about this subject, because it seems like you are strawmaning on purpose, pretending i'm supporting something so its easier for you to reply.

The whole point of uncontrolled economy is to escape the harms of the controlled economy. Sure, there is a risk that the ruling class will get that particular market, but its in everyone's interest to avoid this. People wouldn't just go about doing forbidden things in the open. It would have to be secret, privacy would have to increase, the size of any possible "business" would have to very low, etc.

The Counter-Economy includes the free market, the Black Market, the “underground economy,” all acts of civil and social disobedience, all acts of forbidden association (sexual, racial, cross-religious), and anything else the State, at any place or time, chooses to prohibit, control, regulate, tax, or tariff.

The "people" are still in control because they can acquire sufficient expropriated wealth to further their activities and their power. By keeping normal people's everyday transactions off the record, you are cutting off the main source of the ruling class power: taxes, patents, regulations, permits, tariffs.

Consequently, their power begins to decrease, and they sense this threat, so their acts become more violence in order to try and acheive the previously lost level of power. This is when the Revolution has to kick-in, when the ruling class begins its desperate grab for power.

And yes, i'm worried about people taking other people's money, because money is the tool we use to trade right now, so naturally I don't like the fact that everyday people are stolen directly and indirectly, through government direct (taxes, tariffs, etc) and indirect (inequality of opportunity due to regulation) actions.

And I don't know where you got the idea that I don't support Unions. I don't support unions who get their power through the state at the expense of everyone else. But in a freer society, I wouldn't oppose them. In fact, I would welcome them.


They can't outlaw it. I agree with revolution, yes, but most (if not all) revolutions in the past have started with worker organization and syndicalism, whats the best example of an anarchist revolution, and the best example of a funtioning socialist society, thats right, Anarchist Spain, ever hear of the CNT? As far as I remember they did'nt bring about revolution by evading taxes.

Yes, those are great examples. Those brief anarcho-socialist societies were achieved only because of worker organization AND a revolution. This was the point I was trying to make.

Now, of course, the purpose of counter-economics is not to just evade taxes. It goes much more beyond that, and i'm sure that if worker organization got together with the practice of counter-economics, we would see a freer society much sooner than what one might expect.


Norways per Capita GDP is not that much more than the United States, I'll also point out Sweeden :).

Interesting, because I was also going to point out sweden.


Coming from Sweden I also notice that [...] my home country is turning towards libertarian practice. Sweden adopted school vouchers in the early 1990s. The Swedish governmental pension system has been reformed - the system will never pay out more than comes in, and it is partly privatised and fully funded. Major state-owned companies have been sold out, many markets deregulated. Even nuclear power plants have been sold to foreign owners. There is no minimum wage. Immigration from the 25 European Union members is free.

The socialist government, with the support of the former Communist party, recently abolished inheritance tax and the gift tax. Healthcare is to a growing degree produced by private companies - one of the largest hospitals in Stockholm is owned by a for-profit company listed on the stock exchange. The underground in the capital is run by a French company. The taxi business is open for entry and without regulation regarding fares

Source (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.stockholm-network.org/downloads/media/d41d8cd9-FT%20-%20250806.pdf)

Now, obviously it still needs a lot of work. IP laws are still kicking hard (through Sweden is the only country in the world with a Pirate Party which elected someone to parliament), and the fact that many people are going to private schools and private hospitals alone means there's still some corporate collusion of business and government.


Yes you kind of did, you mentioned making islands, and counter econonics (which essencially means tax evasion).

Not it doesn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics#Relationship_with_agorism) just mean that. Please stop this ongoing conflation.


Yes I did, it still would require lots and lots of funding, (I'm guessing you'd like private funding), also most people don't have enough money to afford a home, much less a floating one, most peoples problems are not that they are being taxed too much, its that the capitalists are in control.

Your insane, MOST PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD A HOUSE, many people starve, many people are getting laid off, many cannot afford basic nessesities of life. And your solution is a floating house??? If everyone could afford a house and a decent life, I doubt many people would want to live in the middle of the freaking ocean you loonatic.

Ok, i'm going to start quoting the link directly, since you are not reading it:



Why is it so expensive?

Our current price estimate for the base platform is $300/ft^2. Undeveloped land in San Francisco costs $200/ft^2. We believe we can provide office space on a Coaststead for comparable or slightly higher rates than in San Francisco. It's true that seasteading isn't cheap, but innovation is costly, and we expect the cost to drop rapidly as the movement scales. For more information on cost analysis, see the Engineering (http://seasteading.org/strategic-areas/engineering) page, or read more about cost in the extended Q&A (http://seasteading.org/book_beta/Concerns.html#whyisitsoexpensive). Also see the related question: How will you pay for seasteads? (http://seasteading.org/learn-more/faq#HowPay)
Won’t a seastead be uncomfortable to live on?

People often ask whether a seastead will bob uncomfortably in the waves. If you've been on a cruise ship, you know that unless there is a major storm, the ship has a gentle rolling motion. Our initial platform designs have even less motion than a ship, because they have little cross-section and little flotation at the water-level, so it will actually be quite steady, except in major storms. Our engineers have put a great deal of thought into addressing the issue of livability, andhow a seastead will deal with waves (http://seasteading.org/book_beta/Waves.html#avoidingwaves); breakwaters, pillars and doldrums can be used to address many of these issues.
Why would anyone accept the low level of comfort?

Pioneers have traded comfort for freedom many times in the past. Those who find this trade-off unattractive won’t participate, which is fine since we don’t need to appeal to everyone. A niche is just fine. Over time, comfort will increase and the market will broaden. The rough life is not our goal, but we see it as the necessary first step. Focusing on luxurious cities at this stage would be like the first settlers of Manhattan trying to design the Empire State Building. We'll be able to progress rapidly, but it will still take some time.
Who is going to move to the middle of nowhere? Who would vacation in the middle of nowhere?

Today, many people already live in rural areas that are far more isolated than a Coaststead, which can be an hour by boat from a major city. Furthermore, we never need to find 10,000 people willing to take the plunge. We only need to find the core of enthusiasts to start, say 10 people. Then the 40 people who are willing to move now that there are 10 people. Then the 100 that will move because there are 40, and so on. It’s not that there is no one willing to be the first, just that there aren’t very many. That’s okay though, because we don’t need very many to bootstrap.
Letting people participate part-time by being timesharers or hotel guests is crucial as well. Rather than moving to this floating platform, people can just visit, which many more will be willing to do, as there is a gargantuan difference in the level of commitment. For more thoughts on this subject, see the extended Q&A on moving to the middle of nowhere (http://seasteading.org/book_beta/Concerns.html#whoisgoingtomovetothemiddleofnowhere ), and vacationing on a seastead (http://seasteading.org/book_beta/Concerns.html#whywouldanyonevacationonaseasteadins teadofaresort).


Here's an extra that might be interesting to READ:



Will the first people to benefit from seasteading be the privileged few who can afford to invest in a strange new pioneering lifestyle? Almost certainly yes, but early adopters always pay for the right to be there at the beginning, and their adoption of a technology or new system of government makes it more accessible to the rest of the world.

There are, without a doubt, people who are interested in seasteading for purely selfish reasons. They want a better, freer life for themselves and they don’t have much concern for the rest of society. I suspect however, that these people are in the minority, because there are easier, more immediate ways for an individual to grab freedom for themselves. Seasteading isn’t about grabbing greater individual freedom, it’s about providing an opportunity for a freer society.

One can argue that the founding fathers of the United States were a bunch of entitled white guys who wanted more freedom and entitlement, and there is certainly some truth to that, but we know that they wanted more than just lower taxes for their poker buddies. How do we know that? Simple.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

What they were holding as self-evident was an idea sufficiently radical that I suspect there was a certain amount of irony in the way the framers chose to phrase it. Yes, they were wealthy and entitled, and yes they were interested in their own freedoms, but that didn’t prevent them from being interested in freedom for everyone, and they created something new that reshaped not only their lives and the lives of the people who joined them, but also the face of politics and ethics around the world.

What will be the self-evident truths of seasteading? Will the crazy, far-fetched idea that it should be easy to form your own government be as obvious in a few centuries as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are today? These are not questions that spring from our entitlement or our self-interest, but from our passion to change the world. We have looked at the governments of the world and found that there are questions left unanswered, problems that linger unsolved. Seasteading is not about opting out and ignoring those problems, it is about tackling those tough ethical questions head on and fighting until the answers are simply, self-evident.


Taxes are not the peoples big problem, Capitalism is not held up by taxes.

Read dumbass, taxes are not legitimate, but they are not the big problem, and if they are more on the rich than us, that is a benefit for us.

Ok, let me draw a scenario for you.

If the top 5% own 95% of the resources, and the State somehow decided to start taxing them a lot more, they will simply go somewhere else, and take along all the resources with them. Then what will happen to the people and workers, who don't have equality of opportunity and now they can't even be employed at a shitty job, because the jobs moved?


Yeah, but right now we live in a regulated market system, you want to get rid of the regulated part, nad just leave in the Capitalists to run things. Just like the Monarch parralel.

Again, if you'd kindly read my thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-vs-free-t122671/index.html?t=122671) you'd know why removing the regulated part *at all levels* necessarily leads to kicking the capitalists out of running things.


No they hav'nt, your post does'nt proove anything, and its nonesense (I'm not going to argue it because its irrelivent, its about public vrs private workers and not unions at all).

I disagree that it is irrelevant. It specifically says why most unions have chosen to ally themselves with the ruling class, and how that is harmful to everyone else.

[Red Icepick]

LOL. Maybe RevLeft can organise the 5th International and the Commie Club can create the plutocracy it's always wanted to? It seems unrealistic until all the rat-faced political dregs are purged from the movement.

[RGacky3]

Ok, what I meant to say was that with equal opportunity to produce, the division of product will necessarily approach equitable distribution.


So you do agree with redistribution of wealth? Or am I missing something. Becuase the opportunity to produce is 100% dependant on your access to Capital and resources.


It has to do with inequality of opportunity, which happens because the State and big business collides into restricting the market. Under this statist system, where licensing and regulation make it unduly difficult to actually be entrepreneurial, a disproportionate number of those who would otherwise be entrepreneurs become wage labor. This creates an oversupply of wage labor as opposed to entrepreneurial activity.

This gives the capitalist class an unfair advantage in two ways. First, it reduces the amount of competition on the market, increasing the capitalist's market share and prices with little effort on the part of the capitalist.

Second, it reduces the amount of bargaining power the wage labor has. Because there is an oversupply of wage labor, wage labor is more easily replaced than it would be on a real free market, and wages are depressed.

This amounts to an effective expropriation of value by the capitalists (who are in a state-created position of power) from the consumers on the one hand (through reduced competition and higher prices) and from the workers on the other (who are underpaid and have less than their fair amount of inflence) and even doubly due to the fact that the workers ARE consumers when they are not on the job.

Wait, so your socialism is just a few more people in the Capitalist class or self employed? But the main system the same. You essencially have nothing against with class rule, as long as there is no state.


Also, either you stop conflating counter-economics with bourgeois tax evasion or i'm not talking to you anymore about this subject, because it seems like you are strawmaning on purpose, pretending i'm supporting something so its easier for you to reply.

The whole point of uncontrolled economy is to escape the harms of the controlled economy. Sure, there is a risk that the ruling class will get that particular market, but its in everyone's interest to avoid this. People wouldn't just go about doing forbidden things in the open. It would have to be secret, privacy would have to increase, the size of any possible "business" would have to very low, etc.

The Counter-Economy includes the free market, the Black Market, the “underground economy,” all acts of civil and social disobedience, all acts of forbidden association (sexual, racial, cross-religious), and anything else the State, at any place or time, chooses to prohibit, control, regulate, tax, or tariff.

I understand what your talking about, however, the class that has the most to gain, from avoiding the state is the Capitalist class, who is taxed the msot, and trades the most, as far as acts of forbidden association or civil and social disobedience, I'm not sure what your talking about.

What your explaining in the second paragraph describes the drug market perfectly.


The "people" are still in control because they can acquire sufficient expropriated wealth to further their activities and their power. By keeping normal people's everyday transactions off the record, you are cutting off the main source of the ruling class power: taxes, patents, regulations, permits, tariffs.

Consequently, their power begins to decrease, and they sense this threat, so their acts become more violence in order to try and acheive the previously lost level of power. This is when the Revolution has to kick-in, when the ruling class begins its desperate grab for power.

And yes, i'm worried about people taking other people's money, because money is the tool we use to trade right now, so naturally I don't like the fact that everyday people are stolen directly and indirectly, through government direct (taxes, tariffs, etc) and indirect (inequality of opportunity due to regulation) actions.

And I don't know where you got the idea that I don't support Unions. I don't support unions who get their power through the state at the expense of everyone else. But in a freer society, I wouldn't oppose them. In fact, I would welcome them.


Like I said, we have an example in the drug market.

Right NOW, you don't actively support unions, thats what I ment.


Now, of course, the purpose of counter-economics is not to just evade taxes. It goes much more beyond that, and i'm sure that if worker organization got together with the practice of counter-economics, we would see a freer society much sooner than what one might expect.


Probably, but it would have to be against the Capitalist class and property as much as the state.


Ok, i'm going to start quoting the link directly, since you are not reading it:


I read that, but my responce still stands, it will require inevestment, and the investors will hold the power, now other people might be able to build, but market forces always are in the favor of those with more capital.


If the top 5% own 95% of the resources, and the State somehow decided to start taxing them a lot more, they will simply go somewhere else, and take along all the resources with them. Then what will happen to the people and workers, who don't have equality of opportunity and now they can't even be employed at a shitty job, because the jobs moved?


I understand, the reason for that is that the Capitalists have the power OVER the state, not vise versa, the real power is in the Capitalists. I'm not debating that taxes are always positive, but our fight is against the Capitalists, not the State which only respondes to pressure.

But you post a lot, and it takes a while to respond, so I'll need more time.

[Havet]

So you do agree with redistribution of wealth? Or am I missing something. Becuase the opportunity to produce is 100% dependant on your access to Capital and resources.

I believe that in a free environment, wealth will be naturally distributed equitably, because "the differences in natural ability are not, in freedom, great enough to injure any one or disturb the social equilibrium. No one man can produce more than three others".

Of course, as we already talked about in other posts, some wealth will have to be forcefully distributed, as it was acquired through illegitimate privilege (remmember my Wal-mart example?)


Wait, so your socialism is just a few more people in the Capitalist class or self employed? But the main system the same. You essencially have nothing against with class rule, as long as there is no state.

I have something against class rule. But there is no evidence whatsoever that a class would be able to emerge from an equality of opportunity environment unless they exploited (which would be technically impossible, since people would have viable alternatives rather than become wage slaves like today) or they forced their rule at gunpoint (which assumes the forces that had brought down the previous ruling class magically disappeared, when they will technically always exist to prevent new states from appearing). Again, highly unlikely.

See 2.44min onward of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KECcfKViog) video for a crude explanation of what i'm talking about.


I understand what your talking about, however, the class that has the most to gain, from avoiding the state is the Capitalist class, who is taxed the msot, and trades the most, as far as acts of forbidden association or civil and social disobedience, I'm not sure what your talking about.

I disagree. The capitalist class (if we can generalize all capitalists like that) has a huge interest in colluding with the State, as we know from historical examples (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1560065&postcount=71) (how railroad companies supported the "anti-cartel" regulations). The cost of using the State (lobbying) is very low comparing to the benefits they can derive from it (restriction of competition, monopoly position, higher profits, bailouts).


Like I said, we have an example in the drug market.

Yes, unfortunately, most drug trade has to be done in the shadows. If victimless crimes weren't legislated to begin with, we wouldn't witness some of the horrific acts of violence in countries like Brazil.


Right NOW, you don't actively support unions, thats what I ment.

I recently somewhat changed my opinion (http://www.revleft.com/vb/thoughts-welfare-t123988/index.html) about that. No, i don't mention state-sponsored unions specifically, but they can be included as well.


Probably, but it would have to be against the Capitalist class and property as much as the state.

Yup. Suppose, for example, that such underground worker association starts making underground demands that they don't like the way they are getting they supply (imagine they stop commonly agreeing on the"private property" drug dealers use, for example). This would mean that either the drug dealers change the way they create their product, or those workers would have to organize to create it themselves. Of course, there are advantages for underground "private property" (not forced by the State, because if the state found out everyone would be arrested), because it allows for more privacy and individuality (unless one gets filthy rich), and the worker organizations required to produce the forbidden product would probably attract to much attention.

Anyway, forget my rambling. The whole point of keeping an underground economy is to weaken the ruling class so as to make the revolution an easier process and to allow for free worker organization, if they so desire it.


I read that, but my responce still stands, it will require inevestment, and the investors will hold the power, now other people might be able to build, but market forces always are in the favor of those with more capital.

Yes, that is a very good question. But as soon as it becomes cheaper for ordinary people to move into seasteads, they will be unbound by the influence those initial investors will have on the first "private cities", allowing ordinary people to move in together and creating their voluntary cooperative cities, or even communist cities.


I understand, the reason for that is that the Capitalists have the power OVER the state, not vise versa, the real power is in the Capitalists. I'm not debating that taxes are always positive, but our fight is against the Capitalists, not the State which only respondes to pressure.

And the capitalists have such privilege due the privilege granted to them by the State. It seems to be the capitalists and the state have colluded to a point where they both always help each other, and if one party decides to hurt the other, they will hurt themselves as well. So getting rid of the State and the capitalists (seizing the means of production held by capitalists which got them illegitimately) would be the best choice.

[Robert]

The capitalist class (if we can generalize all capitalists like that)We cannot. And it is very clear that you know it. So why do you say "if"?


Anyway, forget my rambling. The whole point of keeping an underground economy is to weaken the ruling class so as to make the revolution an easier process and to allow for free worker organization, if they so desire it.
(Emphasis mine.) I can't forget it; it's spellbinding.

But never mind ... now that we agree that there is no "capitalist class," what exactly is the "ruling class"?

[Bud Struggle]

...what exactly is the "ruling class"?

Well I can say one thing for certain about it---I'm not in it. I don't rule anyone.

You been doing any "ruling" lately, Robert? :D

[Robert]

Naw, Bud, been too busy countin' all mah money to do much roolin'.

My brother and I used to do a mock telephone dialog we made up between those two rich Hunt Brothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Bunker_Hunt) (Nelson Bunker and William Herbert). I'd better PM it to you, as it's funny as hell and I don't want to get in trouble for joking around in church.

[Il Medico]

Chavez is a bourgeois politician and a reformist. He uses socialist rhetoric to keep himself in power and when people in his country started to realize how full of shit he is, he proposes another international. The only thing this international will be good for is taking people who might actually have intrest in actual revolutionary politics and leading them down the dead end that is reformism.

[ComradeMan]

I felt that the poll limited our options. I voted YES but in theory for the idea of a new 21st Century International- something I posted a thread about but no one replied to.... sniff.....:( !

Having said that, I would not want to see "El Hugo" at the head of it!!! I have grave reservations about Chavez and agree with the viewpoint that he may be showboating a lot because of some aspiration to be the new El Che. Not blimmin' likely either....

[RGacky3]

Hayenmill, I do enjoy discussing with you, but you write a lot, and I appologise for not being able to read everything, but I do my best. So I'm appologising before hand, it takes time.


Chavez is a bourgeois politician and a reformist. He uses socialist rhetoric to keep himself in power and when people in his country started to realize how full of shit he is, he proposes another international. The only thing this international will be good for is taking people who might actually have intrest in actual revolutionary politics and leading them down the dead end that is reformism.

We can't be absolutists all the time, sometimes we have to think, "what is better for the workers", is this thing positive, does it give workers more power and freedom.


I believe that in a free environment, wealth will be naturally distributed equitably, because "the differences in natural ability are not, in freedom, great enough to injure any one or disturb the social equilibrium. No one man can produce more than three others".

Of course, as we already talked about in other posts, some wealth will have to be forcefully distributed, as it was acquired through illegitimate privilege (remmember my Wal-mart example?)

Yeah but we have to take history into account, wealth has never been distributed in a free enviroment, so it rolls over, the market will never be free, unless we tear EVERYTHING down and start all over again.


I have something against class rule. But there is no evidence whatsoever that a class would be able to emerge from an equality of opportunity environment unless they exploited (which would be technically impossible, since people would have viable alternatives rather than become wage slaves like today) or they forced their rule at gunpoint (which assumes the forces that had brought down the previous ruling class magically disappeared, when they will technically always exist to prevent new states from appearing). Again, highly unlikely.


Like I said, you'd have to start over. As far as exploitation, what would make it impossible is not the opportunity, what would keep the oportunity available is the democratic nature of property.


I disagree. The capitalist class (if we can generalize all capitalists like that) has a huge interest in colluding with the State, as we know from historical examples (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1560065&postcount=71) (how railroad companies supported the "anti-cartel" regulations). The cost of using the State (lobbying) is very low comparing to the benefits they can derive from it (restriction of competition, monopoly position, higher profits, bailouts).


I agree, what I mean is avoiding taxes, and avoiding certain rules, they have the most money, they have the most (or all) buisiness, so they ahve the most to gain.

Now they also benefit a lot from the state as you pointed out. But they also have all the buisiness and all the capital and investable wealth, and market power, so they also have the most to gain from avoiding taxes.


Yes, unfortunately, most drug trade has to be done in the shadows. If victimless crimes weren't legislated to begin with, we wouldn't witness some of the horrific acts of violence in countries like Brazil.


I understand, but they are legislated right now, and that IS a real world example, of counter economics.


Yes, that is a very good question. But as soon as it becomes cheaper for ordinary people to move into seasteads, they will be unbound by the influence those initial investors will have on the first "private cities", allowing ordinary people to move in together and creating their voluntary cooperative cities, or even communist cities.

I don't know if they will ever ben unbound by the infuence of those initial investors, because those investors will make a profit, and if they put more and more money into it to make more of a profit their influence will grow (the way it does in normal capitalsit economies, its not JUST the state).

Even if the cost does go down, keep in mind the materials and everything to make these "cities" will be from the actual market, meaning they will be tied to the "land" market, also keep in mind that these people will also have to work in the market.


And the capitalists have such privilege due the privilege granted to them by the State. It seems to be the capitalists and the state have colluded to a point where they both always help each other, and if one party decides to hurt the other, they will hurt themselves as well. So getting rid of the State and the capitalists (seizing the means of production held by capitalists which got them illegitimately) would be the best choice.

Thats true, however, the Capitalist alwasy have the upper hand, the reason the State grants them privilege is BECAUSE of their power, the power they already have without state privilege.

[Havet]

Hayenmill, I do enjoy discussing with you, but you write a lot, and I appologise for not being able to read everything, but I do my best. So I'm appologising before hand, it takes time.

np, though I occasionaly have my doubts that you do enjoy discussing with me (the occasional "dumbass" remark), but that just makes the discussion more "humane" in a way ^^


Yeah but we have to take history into account, wealth has never been distributed in a free enviroment, so it rolls over, the market will never be free, unless we tear EVERYTHING down and start all over again.

What does "roll over" mean exactly?

The market will never be free by reform, that's for sure, so yes, I agree we should tear everything down (i'm talking of social relations, no need to tear down apart the factories, we can apply the syndicalist principle of property rights defined according to usufructuary principles *i.e., use and occupation*), hence my insistence on a revolution.


Like I said, you'd have to start over. As far as exploitation, what would make it impossible is not the opportunity, what would keep the oportunity available is the democratic nature of property.

Sure


I agree, what I mean is avoiding taxes, and avoiding certain rules, they have the most money, they have the most (or all) buisiness, so they ahve the most to gain.

Well, as I already mentioned, from a cost-profit analysis, the more regulations are in place, the more profitable it will be for the businesses (who can afford it) to lobby/corrupt the state directly. The others have no other choice but to try and avoid taxes or avoid certain rules just to survive, but they are usually discovered and dismantled by law enforcement authorities.


Now they also benefit a lot from the state as you pointed out. But they also have all the buisiness and all the capital and investable wealth, and market power, so they also have the most to gain from avoiding taxes.

You'll generally find that the businesses which have the most to gain from avoiding taxes are the ones with less capital and investiveable wealth (this is explained above).


I understand, but they are legislated right now, and that IS a real world example, of counter economics.

According to my (and wikipedia's) definition of counter-economics, those drug cartels are not practicing counter-economics because they are initiating unnecessary force.

Definition: "the study and/or practice of all peaceful human action which is forbidden by the State."


I don't know if they will ever ben unbound by the infuence of those initial investors, because those investors will make a profit, and if they put more and more money into it to make more of a profit their influence will grow (the way it does in normal capitalsit economies, its not JUST the state).

i'm fairly confident about that myself.


Even if the cost does go down, keep in mind the materials and everything to make these "cities" will be from the actual market, meaning they will be tied to the "land" market, also keep in mind that these people will also have to work in the market.

Yes, but the whole point is that bring the cost down so as to allow people to own their own seasteads before going into the high seas and "join" a city. If the market conditions were too bad, or they were interested in something else, nothing would stop them from creating little communities or even cities where each member pooled their resources and basically applied a communist principle to the distribution of resources.


Thats true, however, the Capitalist alwasy have the upper hand, the reason the State grants them privilege is BECAUSE of their power, the power they already have without state privilege.

And how did they get that power prior to the statist privilege? Through exploitation of labor. And how did they managed to exploit the labor? Through wage slavery. And why were people wage slaves? Because they had no other choice. And why did they have no other choice? There was no equality of opportunity for self-employment or for the proliferation of communes/cooperatives. And why is that? Because the state and the capitalists enforce laws which restrict freedom in that sense.

Notice this: not much wealth and power was needed at the beginning to enforce these laws. Basically, it just took them people and guns. After that, they found more clever ways to expand their reach and power, and to spread propaganda so as to make believe such privileges are actually necessary.

[Pogue]

I don't really see how this organisation would genuinely or succesfully fight either US or any other kind of imperialism or capitalism.

[redSHARP]

great thing to do but the application would ruin it. i am afraid it would focus to much on "anti-american" rhetoric and not help actual unions and parties. there should be a new international but it has to be done right, chavez is not the guy to do it.

[rararoadrunner]

Camaradas muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuy estimadas:

My new avatar is my proposed logo for the V Socialist International: it combines the colours common to the symbols of all four previous internationals: it emphasises the common red socialist star; and, of course, it has the V prominently displayed.

Simple, direct, and to the pt.

PS: I'm having cataract surgery on the 12th April: the very day of the 2002 coup attempt. If I wasn't on my wife's insurance...I might as well be in North Korea (Where they had one foreign surgeon perform something like 1000 cataract removals in a matter of days! Given the availability of cataract surgery in Cuba and Venezuela...why couldn't someone from those countries also go to the DPRK, which totally lacks such surgeons? Why not invite the North Koreans to send people to Venezuela and Cuba for cataract surgeries? Are the North Koreans that paranoid!? Do they think that they alone possess the unique truth about socialism? Hmmmm...)

Anyway, as soon as I recover, I plan to host screenings of "The Revolution Won't Be Televised" and "No Volveran: Venezuelan Revolution Now" with good intermission material: hopefully, these will build support for the V Socialist International here.

[LeftSideDown]

One of the fundamental dogmas of Marx is that socialism is bound to come "with the inexorability of a law of nature." Capitalist production begets its own negation and establishes the socialist system of public ownership of the means of production. This process "executes itself through the operation of the inherent laws of capitalist production."*61 It is independent of the wills of people.*62 It is impossible for men to accelerate it, to delay it or to hinder it. For "no social system ever disappears before all the productive forces are developed for the development of which it is broad enough, and new higher methods of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have been hatched out in the womb of previous society."*63

[mikelepore]

It is impossible for men to accelerate it, to delay it or to hinder it.

I've never heard of the existence of any writer who held this view.

[Havet]

I've never heard of the existence of any writer who held this view.

"It is impossible for men to accelerate it, to delay it or to hinder it. For "no social system ever disappears before all the productive forces are developed for the development of which it is broad enough, and new higher methods of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have been hatched out in the womb of previous society." "

Marx, Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, ed. Kautsky (Stuttgart, 1897) p. xii. Publisher's Note: In English edition by Kerr, p. 12; by Eastman, p. 11

[LeftSideDown]

I've never heard of the existence of any writer who held this view.


"It is impossible for men to accelerate it, to delay it or to hinder it. For "no social system ever disappears before all the productive forces are developed for the development of which it is broad enough, and new higher methods of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have been hatched out in the womb of previous society." "

Marx, Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, ed. Kautsky (Stuttgart, 1897) p. xii. Publisher's Note: In English edition by Kerr, p. 12; by Eastman, p. 11

lol owned.

[Comrade Anarchist]

A fifth international would be hilarious. All the commies could meet in venezuela where they would sit in the dark at random intervals for odd numbers of time. And it would be in the presidential palace so that chavez could hide his dirty laundry aka the disastrous effect of his policies on his country.

[Ol' Dirty]

I'm really exited about this! :D

@rararoadrunner: I like that design. It'll remind people of V for Vendetta, whther that's good or bad. :)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I am for a new international to create a unified stance against imperialism. I would just like to see few dictatorships involved, and have my doubts about Hugo himself. An organization such as this one could help lend credibility to countries which have little or no progressive action by allowing them an international forum to express their views. I know that in the US at least, anyone who goes would at least get some notice out of it, it might be a nice stepping stone for a left organization.


A fifth international would be hilarious. All the commies could meet in venezuela where they would sit in the dark at random intervals for odd numbers of time. And it would be in the presidential palace so that chavez could hide his dirty laundry aka the disastrous effect of his policies on his country.


Yeah, and meanwhile all the anarchists would be......

I don't understand why some people (not comrade here) are all up in arms about this event because it's not revolutionary sounding enough. I see no reason not to hold an event that could potentially help get the left some notice.



great thing to do but the application would ruin it. i am afraid it would focus to much on "anti-american" rhetoric and not help actual unions and parties. there should be a new international but it has to be done right, chavez is not the guy to do it.


I completely agree, while protesting the US muct be a part it shouldn't be the whole show.