Are Americans a broken people?

[Le Libérer]

Has consumerism, suburbanization and a malevolent corporate-government partnership beaten down Americans to the point that they no longer have the will to save themselves?

Article. (http://www.alternet.org/news/144529?page=entire)

To quote:


Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not "set them free" but instead further demoralize them? Has such a demoralization happened in the United States?
Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further?
What forces have created a demoralized, passive, dis-couraged U.S. population?
Can anything be done to turn this around?
Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not "set them free" but instead further demoralize them?

What forces have created a demoralized, passive, dis-couraged U.S. population?
The U.S. government-corporate partnership has used its share of guns and terror to break Native Americans, labor union organizers, and other dissidents and activists. But today, most U.S. citizens are broken by financial fears. There is potential legal debt if we speak out against a powerful authority, and all kinds of other debt if we do not comply on the job. Young people are broken by college-loan debts and fear of having no health insurance.
The U.S. population is increasingly broken by the social isolation created by corporate-governmental policies. A 2006 American Sociological Review study ("Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades") reported that, in 2004, 25 percent of Americans did not have a single confidant. (In 1985, 10 percent of Americans reported not having a single confidant.) Sociologist Robert Putnam, in his 2000 book, Bowling Alone, describes how social connectedness is disappearing in virtually every aspect of U.S. life. For example, there has been a significant decrease in face-to-face contact with neighbors and friends due to suburbanization, commuting, electronic entertainment, time and money pressures and other variables created by governmental-corporate policies. And union activities and other formal or informal ways that people give each other the support necessary to resist oppression have also decreased.
We are also broken by a corporate-government partnership that has rendered most of us out of control when it comes to the basic necessities of life, including our food supply. And we, like many other people in the world, are broken by socializing institutions that alienate us from our basic humanity.

[Le Libérer]

Aldous Huxley predicted today's pharmaceutical society, "It seems to me perfectly in the cards," he said, "that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude."

[Die Neue Zeit]

Isn't that simply DNA manipulation? There's research right now on manipulating certain genes, including the "greed" gene.

[Red Commissar]

Huxley's Brave New World dealed a lot of how the government could control people by using pleasure, than say harsh oppression like in 1984.

That being said Americans are thoroughly indoctrinated and kept liking the system by making available a wide array of amusements and nonsense

[IcarusAngel]

That is the goal of right-Libertarianism. The goal is to provide a society where the proletariat is severely weakened and beaten down. He has no power in society. He only has a playground for hawking commodities that are controlled by an elite group of society. He has no public avenue or civic engagement to turn to. His mental health is guided by pop-psychologists who say we should have a "positive attitude" about the debt slavery that we're in. His media is controlled by the same elite who control all the resources. He is unable to see outside of the privatized self, and is ignorant about the world.

It's completely anti-individual and that's why I'm hard on people like hayenmill and olaf because they encourage this privatized nightmare.

Obviously if you're ignorant you can't begin to understand complex political issues.

[Skooma Addict]

That is the goal of right-Libertarianism. The goal is to provide a society where the proletariat is severely weakened and beaten down. He has no power in society. He only has a playground for hawking commodities that are controlled by an elite group of society. He has no public avenue or civic engagement to turn to. His mental health is guided by pop-psychologists who say we should have a "positive attitude" about the debt slavery that we're in. His media is controlled by the same elite who control all the resources. He is unable to see outside of the privatized self, and is ignorant about the world.

It's completely anti-individual and that's why I'm hard on people like hayenmill and olaf because they encourage this privatized nightmare.

Obviously if you're ignorant you can't begin to understand complex political issues.

You need to give arguments, not talking points. If it makes you feel better to make posts like this where you misrepresent and strawman ideological opponents, fine. But hopefully you will see the benefit in presenting actual arguments someday.

[Havet]

That is the goal of right-Libertarianism. The goal is to provide a society where the proletariat is severely weakened and beaten down. He has no power in society. He only has a playground for hawking commodities that are controlled by an elite group of society. He has no public avenue or civic engagement to turn to. His mental health is guided by pop-psychologists who say we should have a "positive attitude" about the debt slavery that we're in. His media is controlled by the same elite who control all the resources. He is unable to see outside of the privatized self, and is ignorant about the world.

It's completely anti-individual and that's why I'm hard on people like hayenmill and olaf because they encourage this privatized nightmare.

Could you *PLEASE* stop inventing nonsense about me as you go along?

[Le Libérer]

Could you *PLEASE* stop inventing nonsense about me as you go along?
Right. Please make your points without attacking other members here personally. You had me until that point.

[Havet]

Right. Please make your points without attacking other members here personally. You had me until that point.

What about these (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1665813&postcount=77) attacks (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1664579&postcount=36) on my person?

If you're gonna ***** about anytime I try to defend my reputation, I would recommend keeping an eye for IcarusAngel as well. He has a tendency to attack me personally without EVER providing EVIDENCE AND FACTS.

[IcarusAngel]

He was obviously talking to me.

I wasn't attacking hayenmill personally but his beliefs. He advocates school vouchers, commercialism (for instance, claiming programmers, no matter how good they are, must sell ads on their webiste in order to continue programming to survive in the market), private property, usury, rent, capital, profits, and a whole host of other free-market American Libertarian beliefs. This is why he is restricted.

In clear contrast, leftists advocate universal ownership of land (thus people have a democratic right to at least have their say). Possessions in contrast to property (the difference between possessions and private property is that possessions are not absolute, unlimited, and abusive, like oppressive property is).

Until leftists convince people that everybody has a right to live on land and access to resources they will have difficultly convincing people of leftists beliefs. That is why we should call out people with oppressive beliefs.

[Havet]

He advocates school vouchers

I never stated my support for them. I put forth the idea, and heard no good rebuttals. It doesn't mean I support them. Like i've said countless times, I generally don't favour any sort of reformist action.


commercialism (for instance, claiming programmers, no matter how good they are, must sell ads on their webiste in order to continue programming to survive in the market)

Wrong. I said that was one out of many possibilities for them, not the only one.


private property, usury, rent

I clearly stated that the context would be different than what we experience today, therefore their predominance would practically be nonexistant.


capital

Oh, do you oppose toasters? Didn't you get the memo? Toasters are capital goods (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1598834&postcount=11).


profits

Only when they do not derive from inequality of opportunity, present in this currently capitalist society.


This is why he is restricted.

Unfairly, I might add. Why aren't other market anarchists/mutualists restricted, then?

[IcarusAngel]

It's a Libertarian (not leftist) claim that free-markets will lead to a natural balance. It's been refuted by all social scientists left, right, and center. Furthermore, right Libertarians like yourself believe that free-markets ARE equality, whereas liberals believe that they are a path towards equality. Both are wrong, but at least liberals acknowledge that we can do better than free-markets.

I showed myself that the toasters argument from dejavu (another vulgar Libertarian) was flawed in my thread on how production would be done in libertarian-socialist cooperatives versus capitalist cooperatives. It was also refoted in that threat.

Other mutalists are probably not restricted because not all of them advocate the same free-markets that you do and haven't been caught advocating what amounts to capitalism.

[GPDP]

Oh, do you oppose toasters? Didn't you get the memo? Toasters are capital goods (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1598834&postcount=11).

This is just my view on this, but the kind of capital we're opposed to being owned privately is that which gives an individual economic power above others, and to a monopolistic degree at that, such that other individuals who do not possess that capital have no choice but to sell their labor-power to get at it.

A toaster hardly gives an individual such a degree of power, nor do I see workers lacking one falling over themselves to use it.

[Havet]

I showed myself that the toasters argument from dejavu (another vulgar Libertarian) was flawed in my thread on how production would be done in libertarian-socialist cooperatives versus capitalist cooperatives. It was also refoted in that threat.

You mean this thread? I do not see any "versus" between libsoc cooperatives and "capitalist coops", nor any refutation. In fact, nobody even replied to your thread.


Other mutalists are probably not restricted because not all of them advocate the same free-markets that you do and haven't been caught advocating what amounts to capitalism.

Where have I advocated "what amounts to capitalism" recently? Can you even define what you mean by "amounts to capitalism"? I thought so.

[Havet]

This is just my view on this, but the kind of capital we're opposed to being owned privately is that which gives an individual economic power above others, and to a monopolistic degree at that, such that other individuals who do not possess that capital have no choice but to sell their labor-power to get at it.

A toaster hardly gives an individual such a degree of power, nor do I see workers lacking one falling over themselves to use it.

Certainly, but the toaster still remains a capital good.

And I don't think it can just be described as an individual holding such a high degree of power. A lot of people would become jealous if someone had exclusive privilege to a toaster, dont you agree? I mean, equality would go down the drain.

[IcarusAngel]

You would have to prove that there is no way to get toasters to the required amount of people who need them in a society but free-markets, which, as has been proven in economics, cannot be done.

[Havet]

You would have to prove that there is no way to get toasters to the required amount of people who need them in a society but free-markets, which, as has been proven in economics, cannot be done.

Where has it been proven in economics that people's need for toasters are not satisfied?

[ComradeMan]

The way I see it, and this is just my perception from outside- so I accept I am probably off the mark, is this:-

1. America is a capitalist state par excellence, it's whole infrastructure, ethos and way of life are built around a capitalist work ethic. Anyone who merely criticises this becomes a dangerous "commie" or a dissident. Obama is probably as much a communist as any other non-communist, LOL!!!, but the hysteria about his Healthcare Bill and his being a communist are actually laughable and it is being laughed at by the rest of the world.

2. War fuels capitalism and America has for long had a war economy. I have heard it said that WWII saved America (economically), then we had the Cold War, now we have the War on Terror. Each time America has had an economic blow there has been a major war/conflict involved- just a coincidence perhaps, but perhaps not too.

3. The American people en masse seem to have been so brainwashed by their own propaganda that few of them I have ever met, sincere decent people too, seem to grasp the realities of their own state's existence- sometimes they don't even know. The genuine belief in America as the vanguard of freedom and democracy seems to be one of those sacred cows that cannot be touched! I think America lacks cynicism about America.

As for the toaster argument- well, it's a good one.

There is nothing wrong with a toaster. My grandmother had a toaster she bought in 1972 and it still worked to her dying day. The problem is when the toasters are made not to last so that you have to buy a new one, you can't get your toaster repaired anymore because the parts are no longer made. Every other year a new toaster with a new gimmick is out on the market. It's the throw away and buy a new one culture that is the problem- in my opinion.

What is interesting here is that hayen uses the phrase "people's need for a toaster"- that, for me, is the typical phrase of a capitalist and is evidence of how the capitalist mindset pervades everything, even the way we think. People don't need toasters, people need medicine, medical care, food, accommodation, education and social "security", but a toaster is in itself a luxury item, an extra if you like but not necessarily a need as such.

Now, capitalists want you to buy stuff? Isn't that what it's all about? If you don't buy stuff you don't give them your money and the government doesn't cream off the sales taxes etc. It doesn't take a genius to work out what's going on.

If production were honest and sensible we wouldn't be convinced into "buying" the necessity of half the crap they try and sell us and the stuff we did buy would be of better quality. The way I see it, a lot of industrial production is just a complete waste of time, does not help the workers at all and causes many global problems.

This is why I think we should look at post-industrial society. I am of the opinion that industrial society itself was a product of capitalism and that has been a problem inherent in any attempt to reform the system or take command of it. Whether the ruling classes or the proletariat control "industry" it still remains inherently "capitalistic".

Capitalism creates the society in which the classes become dependent on capitalism and its game in order to survive. I think I used the example of the car somewhere else. My grandfather never drove a car in his life and went to work at the foundry on a bicycle. Today that is not a reality- I imagine in the US without a car you are pretty screwed for work in many places, unless you live and work in Manhattan:(! So, in order to work for the capitalists you have to buy their products, their finance packages and hire-purchase schemes with interest and consume their petrol/gas and buy their insurance and pay for parking etc etc etc... if you don't want to or can't- you can't work. That is the great evil of the capitalist system, it gives no choice- obviously, for it serves itself to the exclusion of other possibilities.

[Havet]

What is interesting here is that hayen uses the phrase "people's need for a toaster"- that, for me, is the typical phrase of a capitalist and is evidence of how the capitalist mindset pervades everything, even the way we think. People don't need toasters, people need medicine, medical care, food, accommodation, education and social "security", but a toaster is in itself a luxury item, an extra if you like but not necessarily a need as such.


I agree. and that is precisely the core of DejaVu's argument. People in a communistic society would receive what they needed, the toaster being a luxury item, no resources can be spared for its creation. But people are jealous that this one guy, Ivan, gets to have a way to make better toasts. Ivan would love to make toasters for everyone, but he can't because he has things to do in the commune.

Here's (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1598834&postcount=11) the full argument if you want to take a look at it.

[ComradeMan]

My comments in bold... this is a silly argument in my opininon and based on too many false premises and dodgy assumptions, but here goes....

The argument assumes a hypothetical socialist economy ( within an anarchist setting of course), so its mainly posed to anarchists (the statist socialists would simply be ok with using force so that's autofail).
The idea is that you look at it from the point of view of 'Ivan' a member of the commune and we assume no such thing as a toaster even exists (i.e. has not been invented yet).

Well firstly we are starting with a bit of a silly premise, but let's go on...

So then he invents it.

So ivan has his little commune duties, i let the socialist pick the job for ivan.

This is unclear as in an anarchist society duties would not be an issue.

According to most ansocs , ivan will get to pick his job at a workers council meeting, something to the effect of biding for it. Neverminding the problems with that, i give all passes to ansocs to allow them to even start an economy, so we can focus on ivan.

So ivan in his off time is fidling around with his stuff ( posessions), and he happens to configure the stuff he does have into a pretty efficient toaster, something to make his bread hot and crunchy. He got the idea from watching others in the commune toast their bread over a fire, but nobody ever thought of an industrial toaster yet.

Again, a bit of a silly argument and condescending too, i.e. anarchism is going to throw everyone back into the Middle-Ages etc- well, might be true for primitivists etc...:D

All he knows is that people like hot , crunchy bread with butter on it (including himself obviously)

So ivan after like 6 months of his off time , finally completed this toaster, and he invites friends over (neighbors) and he's like , check this shit out

And people are like damn, that's fucking awesome. Pretty soon it becomes rather popular around the commune that ivan has a toaster. People come to ivan's house all the time and ivan gets no privacy really because so many people want to use his toaster

People start asking ivan to make them one. Ivan is like, i'd love to but this took me six months and i'd like to enjoy it for a bit instead of spending all of my off time making toasters.

Ivan decides to be a nice guy and starts handing out blueprints to his toaster. Basically what it takes to build one, and people are like gee thanks ivan, some people are able to replicate it , after 4-6 months of work on their off time.

But a lot of people are like , ivan, im not really mechanical, i really don't know how this all comes together, and ivan is like , i'd love to let everyone use my toaster but people are coming over all the time , i don't even get privacy.

Ivan knows he can't restrict the use of the toaster, but he doesn't just want to give it away to someone , not after all the hard work he put into it , he made it only because he wants to enjoy the toast

Then Ivan is not a true anarchist is he? The argument fails here ideologically.

Intelligent question (by hayenmill): isnt his toaster possession? certainly he can restrict its use?

Answer: well , Ivan thought so, but pretty soon there are some minor quibblings going around in the commune.

SOME people have a toaster , including ivan

Others do not

Meaning its much more inconveniant for them to make toast compared to the people who benefit from using the toaster. More and more people without a toaster start demanding toasters.

The first question to ask a Communist is:

Is the toaster a capital good?

Most reply no , offhand, until it is explained that the toaster is used to make other products that people want (people don't want a toaster per say , but an item capable of making better and faster toast) and why should SOME people have much better toast than others?

Toast would not be a product unless our dear Ivan opened a toast-bar.

What do you do if the trend catches on and most of the workers demand toasters?

Then, a communist would anser: this is a simple matter , simply bring it up at the workers councils that we should produce enough toasters for everyone to have. Problem solved.

Of course, that's where the problems just begin

Most communists agree that the workers councils are organizing labor to meet the needs of the community. This means just enough food is being produced , just enough clothing , electricity.

Remember , no profit , just enough surplus to satiate the people, but now you have to also throw into there the mass production of toasters.

Hang on- what mass production of toasters? If Ivan can make toasters and some others can make toasters then an anarchist work committee would simply draw together the materials and the skills from the pool of workers available and produce toasters.

If workers are pulled off of other tasks to make toasters , that means that much less productivity of the other stuff, and who gets pulled off? they need some engineers to design the machinery capable of making the toasters as well as the toasters. They need to divert other resources into toaster production which means less for other things.

This of course assumes that the workers are occupied by their work 24/7, it also seems to assume that the production of a toaster is as complicated a task as the Apollo space mission.... I hardly think it needs an engineer to design a toaster. Apart from that, the production of toasters would be no more work-diverting than the production of any other piece of machinery. I presume the commune would have ambulances, fire extinguishers, medical equipment, tractors, buses etc- in which case the skills and resources needed to make a toaster would already be available- afterall, in this example Ivan made on himself. :D

How is it ensured that enough steel will be available for automobiles if you also have to divert the production resources into other uses like toasters?

Of course it could be argued that automobiles are a capitalist luxury item and that in an anarchist society automobile production would be less essential than a toaster. This is a bad example because it assumes that there would be the same levels of production for a capitalist item such as a car yet a far simpler item such as a toaster would be problematic.

The councils have only several options:

- they have to take a more dominate role in overseeing production
workers either have to work longer hours on the other stuff
- or , toasters are deemed by the council to be too much of a non-necessity

But then what do you do with the inequality already existing between toaster holders and non toaster holders?

Yeah, this is a major source of inequality and oppression. The toasts and the toast-nots. It would probably bring down the whole system... come off it. To continue this silly example too, who's to say that every single person would need a toaster anyway? In a commune style society there would be communal goods available for all to use- perhaps even toasters.

The point is, just something like toasters can throw the whole ansoc utopian economy totally out of whack. More precisely , the reality of scarcity.

Well this has not been demonstrated here! This is the most ridiculous and ill-thought out example I have come across yet.

Eventually if the economy must be planned, then the society must be planned as an extention. Economies and societies are always linked, and in a planned system , you need planners and those who follow the plan.

No one is saying that there is anything wrong with planning and organisation- it's more of a question of how things are planned and organised and by whom.

They might even find people who are capable of making the toaster line but what if those people are like ' i'm a car engineer , i want to stick to cars.'

Well, yet again, in an anarchist commune that wouldn't happen. All work would be for the benefit of everyone. This is "translating" capitalist mentality into an anarchist society.

Is the council going to democratically vote him to do work he'd rather not do? They could say ' then we'll teach new engineers.'

Well, presumably the people on the work teams, regardless of their own skills, would perhaps want a toaster too? In which case they would not be against being involved in the production thereof.

But again you're sucking away from your vitally needed pool of labor.

No, not really- because you are presuming that in an anarchist society work would follow capitalist routines and rhythms, i.e. 8-7, 6 days a week.

The engineers have to divert some of their time and resources into teaching students , as populatin increases , labor needs to be evenly distributed across all areas to compensate its planning.

If society is planned , THAT IS NOT an ANARCHIST or FREE society to me

hence: epic fail

hence:- ridiculous argument that seems to show a lack of understanding of what an anarchist society means or would be, also a lack of understanding of what is meant by planning and organisation, hence this argument an epic fail.

[Le Libérer]

From what I'v read on ODD. Oppositional Defiant Disorder, it supposedly is a behavioral disorder in which the normalized reaction to authority is defiance and disobedience. It's exactly what we need in the American population. After all, we need disorders for everything. All our ails must be defined and medicated. :rolleyes:

The truth is Americans can't defend themselves from a tyrannical government, and even if they could, they wouldn't, because they lack the Oppositional Defiant Disorder that the article describes, the go-fuck-yourself-King-George attitude that beat the Redcoats.

To quote someone else's analogy "Americans are abused housewives, enabling and rationalizing and excusing the horrific abuse that their government routinely visits upon them. The theory of just government, a republic in which representatives put their will into law, is nothing but a mirage in front of a corporate oligarchy. Faceless conglomerates dictate the rule of law through powerful lobbies, are now free to buy and sell Senate seats (and soon without even being traced), and rule over the people as gods from their seats of inscrutable power."

The Supreme Court has five judges that think exactly that. There are five out of nine of the most powerful judges in the land that think the First Amendment says that super-corporations from all over the world are allowed to buy congressmen and presidents alike. And, like the battered housewives we are, Americans smile and nod and tell everyone they just walked into a door.

(love that analogy)

[Robert]

From Glenn Greenwald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald) (a real constitutional scholar):


Here's what Justice Stevens himself said in his dissent (p. 54-55):
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/S1rsiFHjgtI/AAAAAAAACSI/dH087dCvxwg/s400/stevens.png (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/S1rsiFHjgtI/AAAAAAAACSI/dH087dCvxwg/s1600-h/stevens.png) http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/S1rrfL2wceI/AAAAAAAACSA/M7aRJqNu4Vo/s400/stevens1.png (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/S1rrfL2wceI/AAAAAAAACSA/M7aRJqNu4Vo/s1600-h/stevens1.png)
Let's repeat that. As Justice Stevens says: "of course . . . speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation," and "no one suggests the contrary." The fact that all nine Justices reject a certain proposition does not, of course, prove that it's wrong. But those who argue that (1) corporations have no First Amendment rights and/or (2) restrictions on money cannot violate the free speech clause should stop pretending that the 4 dissenting Justices agreed with you. They didn't. None of the 9 Justices made those arguments.




Think about these other questions posed by Greenwald:

"So I'll ask again -- of you and anyone who claims that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights under the Constitution:
Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?

Do they have the right to do that to the offices of labor unions?
How about your local business on the corner which is incorporated?
The only thing stopping them from doing this is the Fourth Amendment. If you believe that corporations have no constitutional rights because they're not persons, what possible objections could you voice if Congress empowered the FBI to do these things?

Can they seize the property (the buildings and cars and bank accounts) of those entities without due process or just compensation? If you believe that corporations have no Constitutional rights, what possible constitutional objections could you have to such laws and actions?

Could Congress pass a law tomorrow providing that any corporation - including non-profit advocacy groups -- which criticize American wars shall be fined $100,000 for each criticism?

What possible constitutional objection could you have to that?

[Havet]

Ivan knows he can't restrict the use of the toaster, but he doesn't just want to give it away to someone , not after all the hard work he put into it , he made it only because he wants to enjoy the toast

Then Ivan is not a true anarchist is he? The argument fails here ideologically.

Why? because he doesn't willingly give away the products of his labor to the first schmuck who demands them?



Toast would not be a product unless our dear Ivan opened a toast-bar.


ORLY? A toaster is a product because it satisfies a market demand or need (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_%28business%29).



who's to say that every single person would need a toaster anyway? In a commune style society there would be communal goods available for all to use- perhaps even toasters.


The point is that some don't want/need it, others wan't/need it, but can't get one, and others wan't/need it, and have one. A toaster is just an example. A car would be the same as well. The point is that there are somethings that people want that they don't necessarily need, because it saves them time (it does not automatically satisfy a physical need per se). And if people start demanding them, but they can't be produced, a central bureaucratic system will have to take place, and we know how that turned out in the USSR.



Well, yet again, in an anarchist commune that wouldn't happen. All work would be for the benefit of everyone. This is "translating" capitalist mentality into an anarchist society.


What if the car engineer doesn't give a shit about everyone and still wants to remain fixing cars, and experience the "fullness of his labor experience". All work might be done for the benefit of everyone, but there will always be people who don't want to do what the majority tells them to do.



No, not really- because you are presuming that in an anarchist society work would follow capitalist routines and rhythms, i.e. 8-7, 6 days a week.


So what routines would there be? 16h work day? 7 days a week? How could it *magically* be turned to what we see today?

[ComradeMan]

@Hayenmill,

It's a pitiful reactionary-like attempt to knock anarchism in my opinion, the same sort of thing that Malatesta was talking about 100 more years ago.

For a start a toaster is not a car nor a car a toaster- you can't compare the production of one or the other.

Secondly, all the way through there is a repetition of capitalist attitudes and mentalities. The revolution is not just about re-organising labour...

"So what routines would there be? 16h work day? 7 days a week? How could it *magically* be turned to what we see today"

The whole idea of the revolution would be that it were NOT magically turned into what we see today otherwise what kind of freaking revolution have you got?

[Havet]

@Hayenmill,

It's a pitiful reactionary-like attempt to knock anarchism in my opinion, the same sort of thing that Malatesta was talking about 100 more years ago.

Its not an attempt to knock down all types of anarchism, but that particular anarcho-communist type, if you will.


For a start a toaster is not a car nor a car a toaster- you can't compare the production of one or the other.

I don't think i tried to do so.


Secondly, all the way through there is a repetition of capitalist attitudes and mentalities. The revolution is not just about re-organising labour...

What "capitalist attitudes"?

Are you telling me that the point of a revolution is not that labour is organized in a way that it is no longer exploited?


The whole idea of the revolution would be that it were NOT magically turned into what we see today otherwise what kind of freaking revolution have you got?

So what then? More than today? Or less than today? How?

[ComradeMan]

Its not an attempt to knock down all types of anarchism, but that particular anarcho-communist type, if you will.

Well, well, well--- what's this? I smell anarcho-cap here! :D

I don't think i tried to do so.

Well you did... look at what you wrote.

What "capitalist attitudes"?

The selfish ideas and the calling people schmucks part... for a start.

Are you telling me that the point of a revolution is not that labour is organized in a way that it is no longer exploited?

Yes. The point of a revolution is a complete change in everything that needs to be changed- including labour but not only labour.

So what then? More than today? Or less than today? How?

What do you mean? It's not clear. If you are referring to working hours etc--well the hell would I know? Or anyone else for that matter? The anarchist society would be organised in such a way that I think fixed patterns and schedules would disappear, or at least become far less rigid. Until it happens we don't know....:D

[Havet]

Well, well, well--- what's this? I smell anarcho-cap here! :D

Nah...i've gone beyond that already.


The selfish ideas and the calling people schmucks part... for a start.

What selfish ideas?

I didn't call ALL people schmucks. I called people who demand the products of your labor. If you do not agree that the worker is entitled to the fruits of his labor then, may I ask, are you a cappy :D?


Yes. The point of a revolution is a complete change in everything that needs to be changed- including labour but not only labour.

So what else besides labour?


What do you mean? It's not clear. If you are referring to working hours etc--well the hell would I know?

So how could you say:

"The whole idea of the revolution would be that it were NOT magically turned into what we see today"

If you cannot guarantee anything with certainty?

[ComradeMan]

Quite easily...

The idea of the revolution is it's objective, aim or scope.

The social order that followed would be in the future. You can't make
logical arguments to the future.