revolution against the state but not Buisiness

[RGacky3]

This is primarily directed towards those like hayenmill that believe taht regulation is only against the state and not Market powers.

What will happen if you only take away government regulations on the market, and get rid of the institution that corporate america can influence for their own benefit, is that big buisiness will replace the state with something worse, institutions that are not influencable to the public AT ALL, ONLY to big buisiness, I guarantee you that immediately that would happen.

If you get rid of the State without destroying Capitalist power directly, you get rid of an institution that is highly succeptable to corporate power but also succeptable to public power, infact one of the only powerful institutiosn succeptable to public power, once thats gone its JUST the Capitalists, and their replacement for the state will be 100% controlled by the market, aka money, aka the Capitalists.

So the point is, any serious anarchist MUST primarily be focused on a revolution against big buisiness and Capitalist power.

[Havet]

I never had any problem with expropriating big business that got that big due to state privilege

[IcarusAngel]

Why in god's name would an anarchist oppose small businesses rather than larger businesses? How are small businesses less oppressive than big ones? They can be even more oppressive. Just look at how plantations were run, verus how they were run when the public started to gain some control over them before they were eliminated.

Many businesses versus one or two businesses just means that there, supposedly, are more slave masters to choose from.

Social democracy, what we have now, is just a weaker form of statism than Libertarianism (where the government only protects the corportions). Leftists are against this because they believe (perhaps rightly) that social democracies lead back to minarchism and anti-capitalism, or a some other tyranny like Stalinism or Leninism, or fascism (the three amigos of political ideology). Minarchism, i.e., modern free-market theory, is actually a worse form of statism that places power in the hands of property owners rather than people. Even liberals know this:

"No longer enslaved or made dependent by force of law, the great majority are so by force of property; they are still chained to a place, to an occupation, and to conformity with the will of an employer, and debarred by the accident of birth to both the enjoyments, and from the mental and moral advantages, which others inherit without exertion and independently of desert. That this is an evil equal to almost any of those against which mankind have hitherto struggles, the poor are not wrong in believing.
John Stuart Mill, "Chapters on Socialism", Collected Works, pg. 710 "

(Re-read the last line.)

Anarchists should oppose businesses altogether and capital should be placed in the hands of everybody (assuming it even needs to exist), so the workers themselves control the means of production. Possessions would be distributed on a democratic basis.

Btw... What does "free" in free-market even mean? You're not allowed access to the resources and to take what you need, so you can't get stuff for free as it creates a prisoner's dilemma in markets. It doesn't refer to freedom for markets, since markets require rules and regulations to function, and Libertarians assume a natural "Libertarian social order" or Libertarian constitution.

I think the "free" in free-markets refers to the ability of business to run amok. It's like saying "free-government." But like everything in the market this has a price, and the price is your liberty. Stand up against market tyranny in general, not just "big business."

[Comrade Anarchist]

It is called the free market. The public have no say in their government, they can only choose who to represent them, we have no say in what they do. If the public chooses to support one company over another then they will purchase the goods of that company and not the other. Without the state the capitalists as you call them will not control 100% but instead we will control 100% of our lives. The free market regulates a company. If a company is performing bad business choices then the public doesn't have to buy from them, so that company and its policies fail. The ability to choose who fails and lives through the free market means that we the people have say over what the market creates so in turn the people have 100% control over the capitalists.

[#FF0000]

It is called the free market. The public have no say in their government, they can only choose who to represent them, we have no say in what they do. If the public chooses to support one company over another then they will purchase the goods of that company and not the other. Without the state the capitalists as you call them will not control 100% but instead we will control 100% of our lives. The free market regulates a company. If a company is performing bad business choices then the public doesn't have to buy from them, so that company and its policies fail. The ability to choose who fails and lives through the free market means that we the people have say over what the market creates so in turn the people have 100% control over the capitalists.


I don't really get how you can say "lol we'll have 100% control over our lives" when the vast majority of the world is going to have to spend most of their time working (many in even worse conditions than they already do), while the rich guys get rich off their investments and businesses, will have much much much much more time to do what they want while they do much less work.

So, uh, yeah I don't understand how someone can say "lol you'll be freer" and then ignore the fact that being working class is in itself a massive hindrance to, you know, being free.

I mean, unless you're a middle class suburban douche who never had to work for anything. That might begin to explain it. v:mellow:v

[John_Jordan]

What will happen if you only take away government regulations on the market, and get rid of the institution that corporate america can influence for their own benefit, is that big buisiness will replace the state with something worse, institutions that are not influencable to the public AT ALL, ONLY to big buisiness, I guarantee you that immediately that would happen.

I'm curious by what mechanism this would happen, and what form the "something worse" will take.

[Left-Reasoning]

Btw... What does "free" in free-market even mean?

A: Hey I like your orange. I'll trade an apple for it.
B: Sure.
C: I'm not going to beat B up for trading with A.

[syndicat]

the "market" isn't what is most characteristic of capitalism. Markets have existed before. What's an essential feature of capitalism is that there is a very large class of people who do not own their own means of production, they don't have an independent way to make a living. so they are forced to seek a job from an employer.

If you live paycheck to paycheck (as, for example, my parents did, and as even a greater proportion of working class people do in USA today), it's take what offer you can find or risk starving or being thrown out on the street. When the only alternative to doing A is something terrible, you're forced to do A...in this case, taking that job offer on the terms offered by the employer. So in fact we're *forced* to work under the thumb of bosses, doing work we don't get to define, for purposes imposed by others, and for the profit of others.

Being free is having control over your life. So, in regard to the workplace, freedom would mean that the workplaces are run by the people who work there. Of course, the monopoly of ownership in the hands of a tiny capitalist minority prevents this...so it prevents the working class from being free. To liberate itself, the working class would have to seize the means of production, dislodge the managerial hierarchy, and create its own system of collective management of production.

[IcarusAngel]

A: Hey I like your orange. I'll trade an apple for it.
B: Sure.
C: I'm not going to beat B up for trading with A.

Logical fallacy (straw man). I already explained what's wrong with this but I'll do it another way:

A: Hey, I'm starving to death, can I have a job.

B: Sure, but I'm going to take all your liberties away and you will have no power whatsoever in my organization, and on my land.

C: I'm not going to beat up B for making A his slave, but I will beat up A if he tries to revolt against B. Call me the "market government."


You want big government, bigger government than what we what now.

RGacky3 is right, even the government gives you more choices than your "Libertarian social order."

[Wolf Larson]

It is called the free market. The public have no say in their government, they can only choose who to represent them, we have no say in what they do. If the public chooses to support one company over another then they will purchase the goods of that company and not the other. Without the state the capitalists as you call them will not control 100% but instead we will control 100% of our lives. The free market regulates a company. If a company is performing bad business choices then the public doesn't have to buy from them, so that company and its policies fail. The ability to choose who fails and lives through the free market means that we the people have say over what the market creates so in turn the people have 100% control over the capitalists.

Silly^ In your anarcho capitalist society concentrated wealth will exist and dominate society via the private state you advocate. Concentrated wealth= concentrated power. In reality the state is not the only reason concentrated wealth exists. Monopolies are formed in other ways. Do you want me to give you some historical examples? While I'm at it why don't I give you some examples concerning what happened when free market principles have been put into action. Lets say, in NY when the fire service was privatized OR in Texas when roads were privatized or what happened to labor when the government stayed out of the internal affairs of business. Ever heard of the Pinkertons? The capitalists private security force? Yes indeed, lets get empirical in ways which you cannot blame the state. You'll try to find a way to blame the state for everything. I'm no statist but I'm wise enough to know the real problem is concentrated wealth. The state is simply their weapon and you anarcho capitalists advocate a private state which ONLY capitalists can access. You advocate tyranny. Your world would be hell.

Property and thus wage slavery, rent, interest and usury has never and will never be free association. Only in Rothbards mind. Only in Konkins mind. Only in Brad Spanglers mind. Only in your mind. Wishful thinking does not equate to objective reality although Ayn Rand liked to think so.

[John_Jordan]

Logical fallacy (straw man). I already explained what's wrong with this but I'll do it another way:

A: Hey, I'm starving to death, can I have a job.

B: Sure, but I'm going to take all your liberties away and you will have no power whatsoever in my organization, and on my land.

C: I'm not going to beat up B for making A his slave, but I will beat up A if he tries to revolt against B. Call me the "market government."


You want big government, bigger government than what we what now.

RGacky3 is right, even the government gives you more choices than your "Libertarian social order."

It can't be a strawman if he wasn't arguing with anybody at that point. You asked him to define "free-market" for you, and so he explained what he calls the free-market. That's not a straw-man.

[IcarusAngel]

Actually you're right; a capitalist makes a valid point on a non-political issue. Answers to questions also really can never be logical fallacies because fallacies are generally in response to an argument.

That said, it seemed to me like he was trying to debunk my whole post with his one (non-existent) example. There is no such thing as a pure trade of goods in our current society, even according to his own standards, which is what I was talking about.

[IcarusAngel]

Working for a boss under threat of starvation and homelessness is not free association :)

I know. It's implied statism. That was my point.

[GPDP]

Do libertarians and ancaps even advocate revolution? They always come off as pacifist "we just have to convince everyone of the virtues of LIBERTY" types to me.

[John_Jordan]

Actually you're right; a capitalist makes a valid point on a non-political issue. Answers to questions also really can never be logical fallacies because fallacies are generally in response to an argument.

Indeed.


That said, it seemed to me like he was trying to debunk my whole post with his one (non-existent) example. There is no such thing as a pure trade of goods in our current society, even according to his own standards, which is what I was talking about.

I'm not sure I would go that far (about the lack of existing pure trade of goods by his own standard). I trade magic cards all the time for example.


Do libertarians and ancaps even advocate revolution? They always come off as pacifist "we just have to convince everyone of the virtues of LIBERTY" types to me.

I don't know what you mean by "libertarians" but ancaps vary on revolution. At least as far as I've seen, I've seen it both ways.

[Wolf Larson]

A: Hey I like your orange. I'll trade an apple for it.
B: Sure.
C: I'm not going to beat B up for trading with A.

Working for a boss under threat of starvation and homelessness is not free association.During the Spanish Revolution why do you think anarchists told prostitutes they no longer had to sell their bodies?

[Wolf Larson]

I know. It's implied statism. That was my point.

I know, I was backing you up.

[#FF0000]

Do libertarians and ancaps even advocate revolution? They always come off as pacifist "we just have to convince everyone of the virtues of LIBERTY" types to me.

I get that impression too, which is a relive because I used to worry they'd actually have an impact or influence something at some point in history. Phew.

[Wolf Larson]

Do libertarians and ancaps even advocate revolution? They always come off as pacifist "we just have to convince everyone of the virtues of LIBERTY" types to me.

They advocate fascism not revolution. They're suffering from collective psychopathy. They advocate a capitalist counterrevolution. They're reactionaries and counterrevolutionary. They have no business even muttering the word anarchism. They advocate hell on earth. During the Spanish revolution they were or would have been fighting for Francisco Franco. If there ever is a revolution these people will be our most extreme enemies.

[Skooma Addict]

They advocate fascism not revolution. They're suffering from collective psychopathy. They advocate a capitalist counterrevolution. They're reactionaries and counterrevolutionary. They have no business even muttering the word anarchism. They advocate hell on earth. During the Spanish revolution they were or would have been fighting for Francisco Franco. If there ever is a revolution these people will be our most extreme enemies.

I have a question. Do you actually believe these things or do you just say things like this to gather support?

[Wolf Larson]

I have a question. Do you actually believe these things or do you just say things like this to gather support?

Gather support? Am I running for some sort of office or selling a product? No. Ironically, like Ayn Rand, most actual anarchists and Marxist revolutionaries are only interested in objectivity, empiricism, the scientific method/factual history and liberating mankind from oppression. I'm aggressive when it comes to you anarcho and objectivist capitalists because I've spent much time corresponding with you and am not happy about the anarcho capitalists Trojan horse claim to anarchism nor do I tolerate the abject psychopathy of objectivists.

I'm aggressive only because I've come to see the totality of what you people advocate. Hell on earth. The complete domination of man by capital. I also know where debating you ends. A non stop circle of denial, delusion and sickening lies. You people do indeed suffer from collective psychopathy.

Most of you don't even understand the proper meaning of egoism, nihilism and individual liberty. You capitalists cherry pick and misinterpret Stirner, Tucker, Spooner, Nietzsche [etc] and history in general while warping the very fibers of reality to fit your preconceived socioeconomic agenda [capitalism]. Anarcho capitalist and objectivist thinkers alike are nothing more than insincere subjective emotional revisionists and all the double thinking rhetoric is based in the capitalists selfish ambition to dominate and exploit workers.

EVERYTHING, and I mean everything, written by the capitalist philosophers is meant to reconcile the obvious tyranny of capitalism with the just cause of liberty. Liberty, for the capitalist, means just that- liberty for the capitalist. You people also blame most everything on collectivism and the state when in reality, in America where you people come from, the state has always been the creation and weapon of capitalists. The state = of, by and for capitalists. You anarcho capitalists are just angry because the [public] state has a small amount of potential to be used against the capitalist which is why you advocate a private state only capitalists can access. You're also mad because monopolies exist which you also blame on state subsidy which is true in some cases but monopolies are also formed by collusion between capitalists as history has shown- these monopolies [capitalists] take your ability to dominate your very own wage slaves. They've just about monopolized the market in so taking your ability to be a capitalist while propelling you into the working class. White working class Americans who are angry because they're not rich so they blame it on collectivism and taxes. Just like this man in Texas who flew his plane into a building.

IT'S THAT SIMPLE. Once a person deflects all of the rhetorical fluff/subjective revisionism the end goal becomes quite transparent. Domination of man by man using concentrated capital and the private state as the weapon. You don't advocate free association you advocate property [exclusion from the means of production] and thus wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. You advocate concentrated wealth manifesting as concentrated power. The only way your system would create liberty is if each human being had a golden robot to do all of the labor. The capitalists golden robot is the working class and this class is created by excluding them from ownership of the means of production. You cannot exclude the masses of people from controlling the means of production WITHOUT A STATE. So.... you are anarcho statists! Fascists.

[GPDP]

As much as I hold libertarianism and ancapism in contempt and disgust, I would not call them fascism. They're intensely authoritarian (and thoroughly fantastic) systems, but not quite fascist.

I would suggest you stop accusing them of being fascists in disguise, though I understand your frustration and the fact you have given up trying to reason with them. But in the spirit of accuracy, leave the fascism label for something that actually warrants it. Fascism is too serious an issue to throw the label around so lightly.

[RGacky3]

I never had any problem with expropriating big business that got that big due to state privilege

Why does it matter how they got big? buisinesses are gonna act like buisinesses no matter how they got big.

[Havet]

Why does it matter how they got big? buisinesses are gonna act like buisinesses no matter how they got big.

If businesses have no artificial privilege, there is equality of opportunity and a large degree of competition, entrepreneurship and free association (wherein workers can either work for a wage, start their own venture or join in cooperatives/communes), then I don't see how their existence can be detrimental. They're just trading, and they can no longer exploit workers by their previous inability to become self-employed

[ls]

If businesses have no artificial privilege, there is equality of opportunity and a large degree of competition, entrepreneurship and free association (wherein workers can either work for a wage, start their own venture or join in cooperatives/communes), then I don't see how their existence can be detrimental. They're just trading, and they can no longer exploit workers by their previous inability to become self-employed

Because it encourages a petit-bourgeois mentality of "you can get rich by becoming an entrepeneur". Do you think that businesses will treat their workers properly? How will you enforce this? Simply put you can't, you don't care about the conditions of workers at these businesses at all do you, you care about "the public and the public getting its service". And if you propose regulation of how workers will be treated at companies, then it isn't really a free market is it. :cool:

[Havet]

Do you think that businesses will treat their workers properly?

If they don't workers will find it far more easy to set up a co-op/commune and be in charge themselves. And they will be free to do so.

[ls]

If they don't workers will find it far more easy to set up a co-op/commune and be in charge themselves. And they will be free to do so.

As if all workers are inclined to become petit-bourgeois small businessmen or sell shit in a non-assured way, you don't have a very realistic interpretation of the world do you?

Makhno tried your provenly incorrect tactic with railway workers in Ukrainian cities like Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhya (telling them they should sell their labour independently, run it as a business) it failed spectacularly and was basically why he failed to get workers to self-organise in the cities - even he admitted it was a failure, you're advocating people lose all their rights and become self-employed slaves to a system, which even more ruthlessly seeks to exploit them and has a massive, proven failure rate. Good luck with that.

[Havet]

As if all workers are inclined to become petit-bourgeois small businessmen or sell shit in a non-assured way, you don't have a very realistic interpretation of the world do you?

Makhno tried your provenly incorrect tactic with railway workers in Ukrainian cities like Dnepropetrvosk and Zaporizhzhya (telling them they should sell their labour independently and run it as a business), it failed spectacularly and essentially was the nail in the coffin for his organising the cities, even he admitted it was a failure, you're advocating people lose all their rights and become self-employed slaves to a system which even more ruthlessly seeks to exploit them and has a massive proven failure rate, good luck with it.

Come back when you actually want to argue, not just type empty sentences.

[ls]

How are my sentences empty? They demonstrate your utter failure in ideology. Furthermore, where has your model of socialism worked before, show us some examples please.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Trying to have a revolution against the capitalist state but not capitalism is like trying to uproot a tree by removing its branches. It's like trying to stop a shark attack by removing the shark's teeth.

[Havet]

How are my sentences empty? They demonstrate your utter failure in ideology.

They demonstrate nothing because you did not bother to prove them.


Furthermore, where has your model of socialism worked before, show us some examples please.

Well most real world examples of mutualism are stuff like worker control and profit sharing, not strictly mutualist as it occurs within capitalism but its on the right tracks, probably the best example is this

The Mondragon worker cooperatives in the Basque region of Northern Spain provide one of the best examples of worker cooperatives in the world today. The first industrial cooperative of the movement was established in 1956 in the town of Mondragon. Today, it is a complex of around 100 industrial cooperatives with more than 20,000 members which includes the largest producers of consumer durables (stoves, refrigerators, and washing machines) in Spain and a broad of array of cooperatives producing computerized machine tools, electronic components, and other high technology products. The cooperatives grew out of a technical school started by a Basque priest, Father Jose Arizmendi. Today, the school is a Polytechnical College which awards engineering degrees.
The financial center of the Mondragon movement is the Caja Laboral Popular (CLP), the Bank of the People’s Labor. It is a cooperative bank with 180 branch offices in the Basque region of Spain. The worker cooperatives, instead of the individual depositors, are the members of the Caja Laboral Popular. The bank built up a unique Entrepreneurial Division with several hundred professionally trained mem¬bers. This division has in effect “socialized” the en¬tre¬preneurial process so that it works with workers to systematically set up new cooperatives (see Ellerman, 1984a). The division is now split off as a separate cooperative, Lan Kide Suztaketa or LKS.
The CLP is one of a number of second-degree or super¬structural cooperatives which support the activities of the Mondragon group. There is also:
— Arizmendi Eskola Politeknikoa, a technical engineering college which was the outgrowth of the technical school originally set up by Father Arizmendi;
— Ikerlan, an advanced applied research institute that develops applications of new technologies for the cooper¬atives (for example CAD/CAM, robotics, computerized manufacturing process control, and artificial intelligence);
— Lagun-Aro, a social service and medical support cooper¬ative serving all the cooperators and their families in the Mondragon group; and
— Ikasbide, a postgraduate and professional management training institute.
The whole Mondragon cooperative complex has developed in a little over 30 years. It has pioneered many innovations, including the system of internal capital accounts. A worker’s account starts off with the paid-in membership fee, it accrues interest (usually paid out currently), and it receives the labor-based allocation of retained profits and losses. Upon termina¬tion, the balance in a worker’s account is paid out over several years. There is also a collective account which receives a portion of retained profits or losses. The collective account is not paid out; it is part of the patrimony received by each generation of workers and passed on to the next generation

Other example:

One of the best-known world-wide companies that is employee-owned through an ESOP is the Avis car rental company. After going through five different corporate owners in eleven years, Avis was sold to an ESOP in 1987 for a little less than $2 billion dollars. Avis has added involvement to the bare bones of ownership with its employee participation group system. Before the buyout, Avis used the advertising slogan "We try harder"; after the buyout the slogan was "Owners try harder." After the buyout, profits increased from $16 million to $79 in the first year and to $93 million in the following year.
Today the biggest ESOP in America is also a well-known world-wide company, United Airlines. In 1993, two out of the three unions and the non-union employees agreed to a plan to reduce wages and benefits in the amount of about $5 billion dollars over the next five to six years. In exchange, an ESOP would received at least 55% of the shares with the remainder being still publicly traded. The workers' 55% of the shares were purchased with money from a package of loans to be paid off over the next six years. United, like Avis, uses employee ownership as a force in its advertising program. In American, the low morale of employees in conventional companies is sometimes expressed in the phrase "We just work here." United started its pride of ownership campaign with pictures of employee-owners saying "We don't just work here."

Source (http://www.ellerman.org/Davids-Stuff/Books/demofirm.doc)

[RGacky3]

If businesses have no artificial privilege, there is equality of opportunity and a large degree of competition, entrepreneurship and free association (wherein workers can either work for a wage, start their own venture or join in cooperatives/communes), then I don't see how their existence can be detrimental. They're just trading, and they can no longer exploit workers by their previous inability to become self-employed

For Gods Sake, you did'nt answer my question, nor did you address the point to begin with. If you only attack state control, buisinesses, WHETHER OR NOT they got large with the aid of (not because of because thats stupid) government, these big buisinesses will still be in control.

[Havet]

For Gods Sake, you did'nt answer my question, nor did you address the point to begin with. If you only attack state control, buisinesses, WHETHER OR NOT they got large with the aid of (not because of because thats stupid) government, these big buisinesses will still be in control.

How exactly will they remain in control if, besides having to internalize every previously externalized cost, competition will skyrocket due to the non-existence of artificial barriers to entry?

[Wolf Larson]

As much as I hold libertarianism and ancapism in contempt and disgust, I would not call them fascism. They're intensely authoritarian (and thoroughly fantastic) systems, but not quite fascist.

I would suggest you stop accusing them of being fascists in disguise, though I understand your frustration and the fact you have given up trying to reason with them. But in the spirit of accuracy, leave the fascism label for something that actually warrants it. Fascism is too serious an issue to throw the label around so lightly.

When I find the time I'll paint an accurate picture of what their society would look like- although they act as if they're against concentrated wealth their society would be one under the abject rule of concentrated wealth far worse than our modern corporate state. I don't call them fascists in disguise I call them all out economic fascists. Sociopaths really. You must not be aware of their private state? You must not be aware of what they advocate [in great detail]. If it makes you feel better I'll simply call them sociopaths in this thread. Why do you think 99.9% of the free market capitalists are white? What do you think motivates them to be against social spending? http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/summer/national-anarchism

[GPDP]

I'm well aware of all of their positions, and I agree completely that their ideal society would be ruthlessly tyrannical.

It's still not fascism, not in the established sense of the word.

Call it economic sociopathy, though. I kinda like that.

Edit: National anarchists are fascists, though. I'll give you that.

[Wolf Larson]

I'm well aware of all of their positions, and I agree completely that their ideal society would be ruthlessly tyrannical.

It's still not fascism, not in the established sense of the word.

Call it economic sociopathy, though. I kinda like that.

Edit: National anarchists are fascists, though. I'll give you that.

I'll post some of Rothbards lesser known words/works and you'll change your mind. Him and Lew Rockwell.

[Skooma Addict]

When I find the time I'll paint an accurate picture of what their society would look like- although they act as if they're against concentrated wealth their society would be one under the abject rule of concentrated wealth far worse than our modern corporate state. I don't call them fascists in disguise I call them all out economic fascists. Sociopaths really. You must not be aware of their private state? You must not be aware of what they advocate [in great detail]. If it makes you feel better I'll simply call them sociopaths in this thread. Why do you think 99.9% of the free market capitalists are white? What do you think motivates them to be against social spending? http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/summer/national-anarchism

Please tell me what an AnCap society would look like, and elaborate on how I am an economic fascist and a sociopath. I could use a good laugh.

[RGacky3]

How exactly will they remain in control if, besides having to internalize every previously externalized cost, competition will skyrocket due to the non-existence of artificial barriers to entry?

The whole point of this thread is that they will MAKE "artificial" barriers to entry, and these "artificial" (you talk as if the market place was some part of nature) barriers will be accountable ONLY to them.

[Havet]

The whole point of this thread is that they will MAKE "artificial" barriers to entry, and these "artificial" (you talk as if the market place was some part of nature) barriers will be accountable ONLY to them.

What proof do you have that they will make these artificial barriers?

[RGacky3]

Why would'nt they? Its in their benefit to do so is'nt it? If ... As you claim, state regulation HELPS the ruling class more than it hurts them, and that regulation is actually good for the ruling class, they would'nt it be in their interest to make their own Statelike organizations?

[ls]

They demonstrate nothing because you did not bother to prove them.

Darch, Avrich, Voline, Skirda, Sysyn, Arshinov, Malet etc say otherwise.


Well most real world examples of mutualism are stuff like worker control and profit sharing, not strictly mutualist as it occurs within capitalism but its on the right tracks, probably the best example is this

Haha "on the right tracks", oh yes grand old workers' self-exploitation. Let me ask you: do you regard Tito's Yugoslavia as a grand paradise of your ideas then? How did that work out there when put into mass practice?

Anyway, you are still utterly filled with crap, the examples you cite are not socialist at all, the fact you would support the ETA and their single attempt at "workers' self-management" says it all in my mind, not to mention a corrupt American business. :rolleyes:

I suppose the utterly corrupt John Lewis and their worker cooperativism is socialist in nature too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_co-operative_movement Or how about how the British conservative party is a socialist party also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8515949.stm.

[Havet]

Darch, Avrich, Voline, Skirda, Sysyn, Arshinov, Malet etc say otherwise.

Is it really that much of a fucking trouble to link to the papers/articles you are referring to?


do you regard Tito's Yugoslavia as a grand paradise of your ideas then? How did that work out there when put into mass practice?

No because cooperatives can never compete with state-run businesses. When I mentioned those examples earlier, I never claimed it was a successful way of achieving a mutualist/market anarchist society. I just gave examples where they briefly succeeded. The only way, in my view, for mutualism/market anarchism to emerge is through a revolution. In this sense, whenever those attempts are tried through reformism, I doubt their success.


Anyway, you are still utterly filled with crap, the examples you cite are not socialist at all, the fact you would support the ETA and their single attempt at "workers' self-management" says it all in my mind, not to mention a corrupt American business.

What the fuck are you talking about, you idiot? Where have I supported ETA? WHERE THE FUCK HAVE I MENTIONED ETA?


I suppose the utterly corrupt John Lewis and their worker cooperativism is socialist in nature too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_co-operative_movement Or how about how the British conservative party is a socialist party also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8515949.stm.

So just because there is an example of a corrupt supporter of worker cooperativism means worker cooperativism is wrong/utopian/evil?

Then it must mean that because there is an example of a corrupt supporter of communism then communism worker cooperativism is wrong/utopian/evil

Your logic is as sound as your idiocy.

[Skooma Addict]

Idc

[ls]

Is it really that much of a fucking trouble to link to the papers/articles you are referring to?

No, I would just like to steamroll your naive perceptions of 'anarchism' with many big-name authors that's all. :thumbup1:


No because cooperatives can never compete with state-run businesses. When I mentioned those examples earlier, I never claimed it was a successful way of achieving a mutualist/market anarchist society. I just gave examples where they briefly succeeded. The only way, in my view, for mutualism/market anarchism to emerge is through a revolution. In this sense, whenever those attempts are tried through reformism, I doubt their success.

So a petit-bourgeois revolution, no thanks.


What the fuck are you talking about, you idiot? Where have I supported ETA? WHERE THE FUCK HAVE I MENTIONED ETA?

You clearly know little to nothing about Mondragon, in future don't cite examples of things that you can't comprehend.


So just because there is an example of a corrupt supporter of worker cooperativism means worker cooperativism is wrong/utopian/evil?

It reflects on the ideology somewhat, when conservatives praise something in the same vain that you find something "progressive", ie cooperatives.


Then it must mean that because there is an example of a corrupt supporter of communism then communism worker cooperativism is wrong/utopian/evil

Depends what you mean by 'worker cooperativism'. Fascists liked to get workers to "cooperate" with their bosses for national unity and all that shit, so yeah, worker cooperativism sounds somewhat Fascistic.


Your logic is as sound as your idiocy.

Strange wording from your point of view. Surely if you consider me to be highly idiotic and my logic was as sound as my idiocy, my logic would be pretty damn sound. :cool:

[Havet]

No, I would just like to steamroll your naive perceptions of 'anarchism' with many big-name authors that's all. :thumbup1:

So a petit-bourgeois revolution, no thanks.

You clearly know little to nothing about Mondragon, in future don't cite examples of things that you can't comprehend.

It seems your idea of arguments is something along the lines of "If you don't understand, then I can't explain", as if somehow your lack of knowledge is an argument in itself, which just shows the degree of ignorance that has corrupted you.


It reflects on the ideology somewhat, when conservatives praise something in the same vain that you find something "progressive", ie cooperatives.

Depends what you mean by 'worker cooperativism'. Fascists liked to get workers to "cooperate" with their bosses for national unity and all that shit, so yeah, worker cooperativism sounds somewhat Fascistic.

It seems you need to get acquainted with logic.


Strange wording from your point of view. Surely if you consider me to be highly idiotic and my logic was as sound as my idiocy, my logic would be pretty damn sound. :cool:

So your reply so far has consisted NOT of backing your claims, but on making even more empty claims? No wonder you've disabled reputation...

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

When I find the time I'll paint an accurate picture of what their society would look like- although they act as if they're against concentrated wealth their society would be one under the abject rule of concentrated wealth far worse than our modern corporate state. I don't call them fascists in disguise I call them all out economic fascists. Sociopaths really. You must not be aware of their private state? You must not be aware of what they advocate [in great detail]. If it makes you feel better I'll simply call them sociopaths in this thread. Why do you think 99.9% of the free market capitalists are white? What do you think motivates them to be against social spending? http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/summer/national-anarchism

They're striking similarities between the libertarian and fascists camps. But it just isn't accurate to call them fascists.



They aren't "economic" fascists either. While there is an undercurrent of elitism and snobbery in the libertarian movement, their "offical" position is that they want people to become "self rulers" and "set them free" from any freedom limiting constraints. Fascists, on the other hand, are rather open about their belief in dictatorship and the need for the masses to be "guided" by some strong leader.

(That said, I think the deep seated belief in the rightness of inequality inevitably leads libertarians to become more and more fascistic in their conclusions - as they envisage a society riven with "natural" inequalities, some of them tend to clue in that the dispossessed of that society might become a threat to their new order...and therefore, they begin to exhibit a contempt for the "masses" due to their presumed threat to a libertarian order.)

[Havet]

Why would'nt they? Its in their benefit to do so is'nt it? If ... As you claim, state regulation HELPS the ruling class more than it hurts them, and that regulation is actually good for the ruling class, they would'nt it be in their interest to make their own Statelike organizations?

This why i don't treasure a monopoly on force. It makes it "too easy" to impose your will - simply buy out the State or fund a military to overthrow it.

[ls]

It seems your idea of arguments is something along the lines of "If you don't understand, then I can't explain", as if somehow your lack of knowledge is an argument in itself, which just shows the degree of ignorance that has corrupted you.

No, it's more like skipping the basics and getting direct to the points which you've failed to address; ie hilariously claiming that Mondragon has nothing to do with the ETA, hilariously claiming that your ideology has ever had any success whatsoever and hilariously claiming that anarchists who have taken up your ideology have been more successful than ones who wanted a centralised economy.


It seems you need to get acquainted with logic.

No refutation of my argument then.


So your reply so far has consisted NOT of backing your claims, but on making even more empty claims? No wonder you've disabled reputation...

I've gotten quite a few negreps, nonetheless my reputation remains at around 800 last time I took a peek, not that I care of course because rep means little to nothing about the quality of the user in question's posts on this board.

[RGacky3]

This why i don't treasure a monopoly on force. It makes it "too easy" to impose your will - simply buy out the State or fund a military to overthrow it.

You did'nt answer my question, you destroy the state, but the Capitalists remain and the big buisiness remains, why woudl'nt they make a statelike organization to impose theire will, which would, invaribly by much worse for the general public than the traditional republic.

[Havet]

You did'nt answer my question, you destroy the state, but the Capitalists remain and the big buisiness remains, why woudl'nt they make a statelike organization to impose theire will, which would, invaribly by much worse for the general public than the traditional republic.

How do you expect big business to be able to compete with the hordes of new businesses springing if they can no longer count on the previous state subsidies and externalities?

[RGacky3]

How do you expect big business to be able to compete with the hordes of new businesses springing if they can no longer count on the previous state subsidies and externalities?

First of all, by being freaking big buisinesses, second of all, the whole reason for this thread, By making statelike institutions accountable only to them. Thats what we are talking about, why would'nt they do that? Its in their interest is'nt it?

[Havet]

First of all, by being freaking big buisinesses, second of all, the whole reason for this thread

How can they remain big if most of their bigness directly and indirectly derived from state activity?


By making statelike institutions accountable only to them. Thats what we are talking about, why would'nt they do that? Its in their interest is'nt it?

Just because its in their interest doesn-t mean theyll be able to do it. Like I said, they would not be able to easily acquire enough money to fund a military or buy the whole decentralized non/monopolized justice system.

[RGacky3]

Just because its in their interest doesn-t mean theyll be able to do it. Like I said, they would not be able to easily acquire enough money to fund a military or buy the whole decentralized non/monopolized justice system.

Why not? First of all, why would'nt the big corporatiosn immediately band funds together to create such an instition (i.e. a private military to enforce their will), or hire a private military company, say, lets call them blackwater, to just make their own rules? They would have the money, at least relative to everyone else, why not?

[Skooma Addict]

Why not? First of all, why would'nt the big corporatiosn immediately band funds together to create such an instition (i.e. a private military to enforce their will), or hire a private military company, say, lets call them blackwater, to just make their own rules? They would have the money, at least relative to everyone else, why not?

http://www.sjsu.edu/stringham/docs/Caplan.and.Stringham.2003.Networks.Law.and.the.Par adox.of.Cooperation.pdf

[IcarusAngel]

Why does it even matter if there are many small businesses or if there are many large corporations? Large corporations trickle down to the "little" people just as a series of small businesses due.

Was there no poverty when small businesses existed? Sometimes it's even easier to get a job at a big business than a large business - they're so big they don't give a shit about weeding people out.

Some corporations and places like the post office use tests to hire workers. This can be seen as an equalizer because then it's easier to prove whether people were discriminated against or not. I think they should bring more tests back instead of making it about the "character" of the person.

Big businesses also can do research more easily. Small businesses often just sell things that science or high tech industry has created. Consider Bell Labs. They did many good things there and then when the "market" opened up they closed down the research department.

Cut out the big businesses and you'll destroy both small business and big business.

I'm surpised so many "leftists" (democratic capitalists) defend a small business run society, as if small businesses are a higher form of individualism (false). This is a liberal individualist myth, and by leftist standards they in no way "earn" the property they own.

Free-market people have totalitairan assumptions that all boil down to stealing wages, land, and resources from the workers.

[Havet]

No, it's more like skipping the basics and getting direct to the points which you've failed to address; ie hilariously claiming that Mondragon has nothing to do with the ETA, hilariously claiming that your ideology has ever had any success whatsoever and hilariously claiming that anarchists who have taken up your ideology have been more successful than ones who wanted a centralised economy.

I didn't claim anything - you claimed that I supported ETA. I didn't even see any link to eta in the article i posted, so i'm awaiting "your enlightened highness" to grace me with his omnipotent knowledge that needs not explain.


No refutation of my argument then.

When you actually argue, instead of making empty claims, i'll refute what you have to say if I don't agree with it.

[RGacky3]

Originally Posted by RGacky3 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1683405#post1683405)
Why not? First of all, why would'nt the big corporatiosn immediately band funds together to create such an instition (i.e. a private military to enforce their will), or hire a private military company, say, lets call them blackwater, to just make their own rules? They would have the money, at least relative to everyone else, why not? http://www.sjsu.edu/stringham/docs/C...ooperation.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.sjsu.edu/stringham/docs/Caplan.and.Stringham.2003.Networks.Law.and.the.Par adox.of.Cooperation.pdf)

In your own words please? I don't have time to read essays, this is a discussion forum.


I'm surpised so many "leftists" (democratic capitalists) defend a small business run society, as if small businesses are a higher form of individualism (false). This is a liberal individualist myth, and by leftist standards they in no way "earn" the property they own.


I'm not defending small buisinesses as superior, but the Free market argument is that small buisinesses will arise and create so much competition that exploitation would be impossible, which is rediculous, and that in a totally free market the amount of competition would mean every one could own their own company if they choose to do so (Its hard to repeat their arguments with a straight face).

But the fact is, as we both know, there is no such thing possible as a free market, never was, never will be.

BTW, I would like to keep the thread about my idea of buisinesses making statelike institutions. So if we could get back to that, I'll repeat the question.

Why not? First of all, why would'nt the big corporatiosn immediately band funds together to create such an instition (i.e. a private military to enforce their will), or hire a private military company, say, lets call them blackwater, to just make their own rules? They would have the money, at least relative to everyone else, why not?