Inquiring

[SwampRaider]

I recently heard about anarchism (in the sensed most used on this bored) a few months ago. Before that, the only form of anarchism I knew of was anarcho-capitalism.

So basically I came here to learn about other forms of anarchism. So I read the FAQ but still have some questions:

How is anarchy compatible with communism?

What jobs do people work under communism?

How are laws enforced under communism?

Thank you.

[Adil3tr]

Thank you for looking into real anarchism.


How is anarchy compatible with communism?The end result of communism is to have no state, although many communists postpone this, while stalinists ignore that objective altogether (To be fair, the USSR was supposed to be under siege or something). Anarchists make the elimination of the state coincide with the overthrow of capitalism. I would definetly recommend you look into the CNT union of the Spanish civil war, its the best example of anarchism I can think of.

What jobs do people work under communism?Whatever jobs are needed, although the service economy is probably severely reduced in size in favor of manufacturing. Thats under anarchism. Under communism there would be a huge shift towards infrastructure and manufacturing so that we can produce far beyond demand. That is key. Once we do that, we can make everything free and freely available with no rationing.


How are laws enforced under communism?Mostly locally, the right to bear arms would actually be protected so that the local populace can deal with minor issues. But with everything free and stuff, crime would disappear for the most part. Just legalize pot and give the unstable medical attention and you eliminate nearly all problems.

Hope this helps, Possible Comrade

[SwampRaider]

The end result of communism is to have no state, although many communists postpone this, while stalinists ignore that objective altogether (To be fair, the USSR was supposed to be under siege or something). Anarchists make the elimination of the state coincide with the overthrow of capitalism. I would definetly recommend you look into the CNT union of the Spanish civil war, its the best example of anarchism I can think of.

As I see it, communism has a definite hierarchy. So I dont understand how anarchy (being a system opposing all hierarchy) Is compatible with communism.


Whatever jobs are needed, although the service economy is probably severely reduced in size in favor of manufacturing. Thats under anarchism. Under communism there would be a huge shift towards infrastructure and manufacturing so that we can produce far beyond demand. That is key. Once we do that, we can make everything free and freely available with no rationing.

So, like, you get to pick whatever job you want?? I dont get it.


Mostly locally, the right to bear arms would actually be protected so that the local populace can deal with minor issues. But with everything free and stuff, crime would disappear for the most part. Just legalize pot and give the unstable medical attention and you eliminate nearly all problems.


Would things be deemed unlawful by democratic process? If so, what happens when those laws are broken? Whats to stop people from just getting out and being capitalist? Will there be such laws?

[AK]

As I see it, communism has a definite hierarchy. So I dont understand how anarchy (being a system opposing all hierarchy) Is compatible with communism.
What is your view of a social hierarchy within communism, then? Especially considering that communism is meant to be an egalitarian society.

So, like, you get to pick whatever job you want?? I dont get it.
It's called a gift economy, and can only work once goods and resources are in abundance.

Would things be deemed unlawful by democratic process?
Yes. I can't imagine any other way.

If so, what happens when those laws are broken?
Rehabilitation. I have just written a post explaining some of this here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1859168&postcount=13

Whats to stop people from just getting out and being capitalist? Will there be such laws?
People can be capitalist all they like. But that's very doubtful, considering they just used all their energy to overthrow capitalism. Personally, if someone is born and raised in anarchist or communist society, I can't imagine why they would become proponents of capitalism (poverty, social and economic inequality, much higher levels of crime).

[SwampRaider]

What is your view of a social hierarchy within communism, then? Especially considering that communism is meant to be an egalitarian society.

Considering the laws and order of things is voted on that would make the minority vote subject to the majority vote. So the individual would be answering to the collective.


It's called a gift economy, and can only work once goods and resources are in abundance.

So again, is this not hierarchy in action?


Yes. I can't imagine any other way.

Again, this looks like hierarchy.


Rehabilitation.

How can this be enforced without some sort of hierarchy? If its voted in that you cant wear black and a person says "well I like black" and wears it. The only way to punish this person would be with some for of hierarchy.


People can be capitalist all they like. But that's very doubtful, considering they just used all their energy to overthrow capitalism. Personally, if someone is born and raised in anarchist or communist society, I can't imagine why they would become proponents of capitalism (poverty, social and economic inequality, much higher levels of crime).

I'm just looking at the long run, there will always be individualists.

[ContrarianLemming]

So again, is this not hierarchy in action?


Again, this looks like hierarchy.
How can this be enforced without some sort of hierarchy? let me be frank for a moment, because I like to shake these ideas out of new anarchists as fast as possible, nip it in the bud..

No, this is not hierarchy, you are suggesting here that self defence - and that's exactly what we're talking about when it comes to laws - is hierarchy, you are, in this line of thinking, suggesting that someone defending themselves if they are attacked is actually them using hierarchy over another.
Laws are an advanced form of civics which act as a self defence, they protect minroties from majorities and visa versa. This is not hierarchy, this is common sense.

Unfortunately - and I don't mean to insult, but we really must get past it - you are still caught in a mainstream definition of anarchism without realizing, for one thing, anarchism could have civics, laws, rights, a constitutions maybe, police, congress, federation.

You are doing what many many new anarchists who have recently discovered true anarchism - you are still operating under the presuption that anarchism opposes civics, when you compare self defence and laws made democratically to protect people to hierarchy you are being - ahem - a purist.

You are also not seeing any difference between hierarchy and authority, anarchists believe that there is legitimate authority (the authority a parent has over a child) and illegitimate authority (the state over a person, a boss over a worker). We only wish to remove the latter, you suggest that we wish to remove all authority, which is both realistically and philosophically impossible.

[SwampRaider]

let me be frank for a moment, because I like to shake these ideas out of new anarchists as fast as possible, nip it in the bud..

No, this is not hierarchy, you are suggesting here that self defence - and that's exactly what we're talking about when it comes to laws - is hierarchy, you are, in this line of thinking, suggesting that someone defending themselves if they are attacked is actually them using hierarchy over another.
Laws are an advanced form of civics which act as a self defence, they protect minroties from majorities and visa versa. This is not hierarchy, this is common sense.

Unfortunately - and I don't mean to insult, but we really must get past it - you are still caught in a mainstream definition of anarchism without realizing, for one thing, anarchism could have civics, laws, rights, a constitutions maybe, police, congress, federation.

You are doing what many many new anarchists who have recently discovered true anarchism - you are still operating under the presuption that anarchism opposes civics, when you compare self defence and laws made democratically to protect people to hierarchy you are being - ahem - a purist.

You are also not seeing any difference between hierarchy and authority, anarchists believe that there is legitimate authority (the authority a parent has over a child) and illegitimate authority (the state over a person, a boss over a worker). We only wish to remove the latter, you suggest that we wish to remove all authority, which is both realistically and philosophically impossible.

So the collective having power over the individual is not hierarchy but authority? And is considered legitimate authority?

Also, this is running under the assumption that every law democratically voted in is for "protection" as opposed to just interest. If enough people benefit from making it illegal to wear black then it will probably be voted in. Is that protecting anyone/thing? I would say no. It would then simply be the majority forcing their will onto the minority, as I see it anyway. Now, this might not be a bad thing as long as the minority is allowed to just get out and go do their own thing. However, if they are forced to stay and endure then I fail to see how this is not hierarchy in action.

[Widerstand]

So the collective having power over the individual is not hierarchy but authority? And is considered legitimate authority?

If the individual wants to be part of the collective, they have to abide the collective's rules. If the individual harms the collective, the collective can of course defend itself. If the 9 out of 10 people don't like the tenth, they can of course stop interacting with them.

That's not hierarchy, that's common sense. It's logical that many persons are more powerful than a single person. The reverse would be hierarchy.

Legitimate authority is authority that is beneficial to both involved. While of course all authority should be questioned regarding it's legitimacy, I think there is very little need for debate that a parent's authority over a child can be justified on grounds of experience, knowledge, cognitive abilities, and so on; similarly, a professional doctors authority on health issues.

[SwampRaider]

If the individual wants to be part of the collective, they have to abide the collective's rules. If the individual harms the collective, the collective can of course defend itself. If the 9 out of 10 people don't like the tenth, they can of course stop interacting with them.

That's not hierarchy, that's common sense. It's logical that many persons are more powerful than a single person. The reverse would be hierarchy.
.

As long as the individual has the choice to not be part of the collective then I have no issues, aside from my general worries with democracy. Like what exactly might end up being considered "harming" the collective. And if the collective harms the individual can the individual fight back?

[Magón]

Also, this is running under the assumption that every law democratically voted in is for "protection" as opposed to just interest. If enough people benefit from making it illegal to wear black then it will probably be voted in. Is that protecting anyone/thing? I would say no. It would then simply be the majority forcing their will onto the minority, as I see it anyway. Now, this might not be a bad thing as long as the minority is allowed to just get out and go do their own thing. However, if they are forced to stay and endure then I fail to see how this is not hierarchy in action.

In a Q/A like this, where we're speaking about what is and isn't a way of protection of a collective, talking about whether wearing black or not doesn't work. In other words, it's a straw man to this discussion. Nobody is harmed or hurt, when wearing black. (Unless you're in some Gang, but in Anarchist Society, gangs would cease to exist.)

Now to clear things up. If say the majority of a commune voted, that an increase of weapons might be important for better protection incase older weapons start to show age, and the minority is against it, they can either not take part and do another important job, or just accept the fact that the majority won in favor of increasing weapon production. Nobody is forced into anything, and there could be some that don't even care, and don't vote for if weapons should be made or not. In a hierarchal society, this doesn't work, as very little is given leeway to what the voting is. Even if it's against a project or idea, the project or idea could go through. In Anarchy, that's just not how it happens.


As long as the individual has the choice to not be part of the collective then I have no issues, aside from my general worries with democracy. Like what exactly might end up being considered "harming" the collective. And if the collective harms the individual can the individual fight back?

I think you're confused with what people call Democracy nowadays, in todays world, rather than what as Anarchists we call Democracy. In a Anarchist Democracy, everyone has say in what the Commune does. Not like todays, where there are votes, but they hardly mean a thing. When people vote in an Anarchist Democracy, their votes do mean something, and it's done for the better of everyone, rather than just a select few people who might get the pinch or whatever. And yes, if a collective harms an individual, they have the right to defend themselves, but that would go against Anarchist Collectives/Communes. The reason these Collectives/Communes are set up, is to help and support everyone within them, with equal share in everything. If someone comes in and starts stealing, the Commune can handle how they please, the robbers fate. And vise versa, but the likely hood of a Collective under Anarchism, is unlikely to strike a single person or a group. Their mindset would be more on helping them, and accepting that person, than trying to take what little they might have.

[Widerstand]

As long as the individual has the choice to not be part of the collective then I have no issues

This should ideally be the case, given that "society" at large is made up of various small communities (in the form of collectives or councils or whatever). Anything else would most likely be too centralized to be considered anarchist.


Like what exactly might end up being considered "harming" the collective.

Well for example if you go around murdering people. Or if you compromise vital supplies, eg destroy food reserves. Anything that can be seen as an attack on the collective's existence.


And if the collective harms the individual can the individual fight back?

Of course you can defend yourself, though I guess the smartest move would be for the individual to find themselves a new community ASAP. Surely not all interaction will be easy for both sides, but it shouldn't be impossible to find a community you get along with, statistically speaking.

[SwampRaider]

So if this is the case then what is stopping you guys from just acquiring some land and doing this?

Why do you need a revolution?

[Magón]

So if this is the case then what is stopping you guys from just acquiring some land and doing this?

Why do you need a revolution?

Because the means of production come from the workers, who we are apart of, and without them nothing can get done. So it's important to get them class conscious, and then as Anarchists, when the means of production is taken over by those working at them, we can succeed in making these theories successful. But now, it's harder than you'd think. Especially in the US where the working class is the Government's Sheep.

[SwampRaider]

Because the means of production come from the workers, who we are apart of, and without them nothing can get done. So it's important to get them class conscious, and then as Anarchists, when the means of production is taken over by those working at them, we can succeed in making these theories successful. But now, it's harder than you'd think. Especially in the US where the working class is the Government's Sheep.

Why cant you guys on this bored just pull together and just buy your own means of production? Then, if it works out, others will join.... or I would think.

[Magón]

Why cant you guys on this bored just pull together and just buy your own means of production? Then, if it works out, others will join.... or I would think.

Because we're all vastly spread out across the globe. Greece, for Anarchists, is the most hopeful if the Anarchists in Greece start speaking more to the people and telling them to take over the means of production, and work for themselves, rather a corporation.

Plus, buying means of production would cost us all our money, and probably everything we own. To do what you're considering, we'd all have to become corporate fat cats just to succeed in buying various places. The means of production can't just be bought by one factory, or mill. It has to be a large vast, ever expanding capture by the workers themselves. Plus, what you're saying is Vanguardism, which Anarchists are opposed. (Vanguardism= Elite Class Conscious group. To Anarchists anyway, which we oppose because that's a hierarchy, and we want the workers to do it for themselves, rather than us just saying "Do this, do that, no you're doing it wrong!")

[SwampRaider]

In a Q/A like this, where we're speaking about what is and isn't a way of protection of a collective, talking about whether wearing black or not doesn't work. In other words, it's a straw man to this discussion. Nobody is harmed or hurt, when wearing black. (Unless you're in some Gang, but in Anarchist Society, gangs would cease to exist.)

Now to clear things up. If say the majority of a commune voted, that an increase of weapons might be important for better protection incase older weapons start to show age, and the minority is against it, they can either not take part and do another important job, or just accept the fact that the majority won in favor of increasing weapon production. Nobody is forced into anything, and there could be some that don't even care, and don't vote for if weapons should be made or not. In a hierarchal society, this doesn't work, as very little is given leeway to what the voting is. Even if it's against a project or idea, the project or idea could go through. In Anarchy, that's just not how it happens.

The "wear black" thing was meant to be a hypothetical situation of a law passed, which I feel is different then the situation you posted which is based on cooperation and work.

If the majority passed a law that the minority did not agree with could the minority leave? If so, awesome, no issue. If not, then it sounds like hierarchy.

Also, what happens if no one wants to do a certain needed job?

[SwampRaider]

Because we're all vastly spread out across the globe. Greece, for Anarchists, is the most hopeful if the Anarchists in Greece start speaking more to the people and telling them to take over the means of production, and work for themselves, rather a corporation.

Plus, buying means of production would cost us all our money, and probably everything we own. To do what you're considering, we'd all have to become corporate fat cats just to succeed in buying various places. The means of production can't just be bought by one factory, or mill. It has to be a large vast, ever expanding capture by the workers themselves. Plus, what you're saying is Vanguardism, which Anarchists are opposed. (Vanguardism= Elite Class Conscious group. To Anarchists anyway, which we oppose because that's a hierarchy, and we want the workers to do it for themselves, rather than us just saying "Do this, do that, no you're doing it wrong!")

Ok then, that makes sense. So how do you achieve you ideals? How does this revolution take place?

[Magón]

The "wear black" thing was meant to be a hypothetical situation of a law passed, which I feel is different then the situation you posted which is based on cooperation and work.

If the majority passed a law that the minority did not agree with could the minority leave? If so, awesome, no issue. If not, then it sounds like hierarchy.

Also, what happens if no one wants to do a certain needed job?

The minority like I said, can either just accept it themselves (without any force on them) or leave. It's up to them, nobody has say on if they accept it and just continue living in the commune, or just leave it for another that they find better to suit them and their ideas.

Nobody's forced into certain jobs, but the means of production will be an important one since it effects everyone, including those who may not want to work in a factory, mill, etc. If I had to choose between Factory work, or a Shop Keeper, it'd be my own personal choice to choose which I did. But everyone would realize, the means of production was probably one of the core jobs to keep everything fair and equal. But if nobody wanted to do a certain job, then I'm sure that it would be taken up somewhere. Not everything would be in the same from Commune to Commune. For example, a Oregon Commune might be focused on wood, seafood there, etc. while a Nebraska Commune might be focused on Corn and Wheat production. You wouldn't see the mass Corn/Wheat Production in Oregon, that you do in Nebraska or Kansas Communes.


EDIT:
Ok then, that makes sense. So how do you achieve you ideals? How does this revolution take place?

By speaking and working with the Working Class. To show them a new side to things, that will give them and their fellow workers a brighter and better future. One where nobody takes advantage of one another, and everyone shares in the reward(s). Getting people to "wake up" is the common term used around here, and so far the Left has been sort of bad at it. But it never hurts to keep trying and adapting to the people.

[SwampRaider]

he minority like I said, can either just accept it themselves (without any force on them) or leave. It's up to them, nobody has say on if they accept it and just continue living in the commune, or just leave it for another that they find better to suit them and their ideas.

Last question and I will leave this point alone: Would the individual or minority also have the choice to leave all the communes and do their own thing, be it capitalism, primitivism, or whatever?

[SwampRaider]

By speaking and working with the Working Class. To show them a new side to things, that will give them and their fellow workers a brighter and better future. One where nobody takes advantage of one another, and everyone shares in the reward(s). Getting people to "wake up" is the common term used around here, and so far the Left has been sort of bad at it. But it never hurts to keep trying and adapting to the people.

So you are not actually going to bust down the doors of factories with gun blazing and take peoples private property?

[Magón]

Last question and I will leave this point alone: Would the individual or minority also have the choice to leave all the communes and do their own thing, be it capitalism, primitivism, or whatever?

Sure, but Capitalism in a Anarchist Society would fail. They'd have nobody to trade or work with, and they'd be all alone. Capitalism feeds off the people's work, without giving anything back. Plus, why would a bunch of people who just over threw Capitalism want to bring it back for some reason


So you are not actually going to bust down the doors of factories with gun blazing and take peoples private property?

Uh, probably not that dramatic. The workers would just cease to do the work for their old bosses, and would use the product to better the revolution. Arming themselves, would be only incase Capitalists, etc. who were against the revolution came in force to try and take it back from the workers. But going in, blowing up the factory would actually hurt the revolution, as it would take time to fix up the factory they just took over.

[Widerstand]

Why cant you guys on this bored just pull together and just buy your own means of production? Then, if it works out, others will join.... or I would think.

What you are suggesting are autonomous, or semi-autonomous, communes. There have been a variety of those throughout history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities), the most promising nowadays, in my opinion, being the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities, which utilized force to seize various means of production and power in the autonomous zone.

It's almost impossible to create a completely autonomous community in modern society without having massive money resources, which would require either a lot of capital, or participation in the market (working in an exploitative job). The latter is the case with Svanholm (http://svanholm.dk/en.php), which, from what I've seen, could be a fully self-sustaining community. However they choose to also buy from others and hire workers out of convenience.
The other way would be being primitivist, for example running a self-sustaining farm, which also means not being connected to the water, electricity or telecommunication network, amongst other things.

Nigh impossibility aside, a lot of anarchists condemn excluding oneself from society as romantic escapism that doesn't actually change anything.

[SwampRaider]

Sure, but Capitalism in a Anarchist Society would fail. They'd have nobody to trade or work with, and they'd be all alone. Capitalism feeds off the people's work, without giving anything back. Plus, why would a bunch of people who just over threw Capitalism want to bring it back for some reason

Well, I was meaning they would leave said anarchist society and (probably starting of with primitive farming) build a capitalist society. But thats neither here nor there.


Uh, probably not that dramatic. The workers would just cease to do the work for their old bosses, and would use the product to better the revolution. Arming themselves, would be only incase Capitalists, etc. who were against the revolution came in force to try and take it back from the workers. But going in, blowing up the factory would actually hurt the revolution, as it would take time to fix up the factory they just took over.

Ok, cool.

[SwampRaider]

What you are suggesting are autonomous,

Nigh impossibility aside, a lot of anarchists condemn excluding oneself from society as romantic escapism that doesn't actually change anything.

I actually think I have seen a small anarchist commune in WV. Primitive, but seemingly working. Thats why I was asking, it seems like giving a from-the-ground-up working model of anarchism ( in america) would the best way to win converts, as it were.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Let me use one phrase I haven't seen here.

"Victimless Crime".

I think this needs to be addressed. Victimless crime will be eliminated. Nobody will stop you from smoking pot, unless you're blowing it in your kids face. Nobody will stop homosexual activity so long as it is consensual. etc, etc.

This is a general consensus, I would hope, among anarchists and communists. That punishing victimless crimes is wrong.

We cannot remove individual freedom from anarchy and Marxism as individual freedom is necessary for it's functioning. According to this principle, individuals have the right to partake in any actions they choose, as long as these actions do not impede the rights of others, even if the actions could be considered detrimental to that person.

"Well, if we have that, what stops someone from starting up a capitalist commune, etc etc" - Well sport, capitalism itself is a crime. It's function is creating victims that suffer at it's expense and ergo does not coincide with the idea of individual freedom as capitalism impedes on other people's rights. It can't exist within communism or anarchism. It's just not possible to have opposite socio-economic systems functioning at the same time.

Think of it as a car. I, the capitalist am driving. The majority do not want me driving because i use there money for gas to a place I want to go. So they overthrow me and now they take turns driving. I cannot drive whilst they drive unless I try to overthrow them. But I can't because I am one and they are many. There's only one drivers seat.

Bad analogy is bad. I'm aware.

[Widerstand]

I actually think I have seen a small anarchist commune in WV. Primitive, but seemingly working.

Yup, I know these exist, however most often they are still highly dependent on capitalist society, eg they acquire goods from the market, they work in jobs, etcetc. Which is exactly the point. There are a lot of autonomous centers in Europe as well, but they too are not isolated from capitalism and operate within it. However, the goal is to get rid of capitalism, which can't be achieved by semi-exclusion.


Thats why I was asking, it seems like giving a from-the-ground-up working model of anarchism ( in america) would the best way to win converts, as it were.

No. These projects are most often too small and unknown to reach a lot of people, and when they do, the ones they attract are usually the romantic bohemian types only. They surely have their place in the movement, and especially the Zapatista communities are very inspiring, but they do little to convert or affect people not already "in the scene". An emphasis on labor and social struggles, and support of those, is what brings anarchism closer to the people. We can't expect the people to come to us.

[SwampRaider]

Let me use one phrase I haven't seen here.

"Victimless Crime".

I think this needs to be addressed. Victimless crime will be eliminated. Nobody will stop you from smoking pot, unless you're blowing it in your kids face. Nobody will stop homosexual activity so long as it is consensual. etc, etc.

This is a general consensus, I would hope, among anarchists and communists. That punishing victimless crimes is wrong.

I would hope, but with things relying on a majority vote lets just say I have little faith.

[Widerstand]

I would hope, but with things relying on a majority vote lets just say I have little faith.

Consensus votes are the preferred modus operandi. Of course they require society to be split into as many small parts as possible. These small parts could then interact with each other through councils of recallable delegates, which could again form new councils, etc.
There's tons of literature on possible modes of organization, though, and I feel I'm too uneducated to be able to satisfyingly explain them, so I suggest you read up some on your own. "What would an anarchist society look like?" from the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI) could be a good starting point for you; assuming that's not the FAQ you mentioned in the OP.

[SwampRaider]

Consensus votes are the preferred modus operandi. Of course they require society to be split into as many small parts as possible. These small parts could then interact with each other through councils of recallable delegates, which could again form new councils, etc.
There's tons of literature on possible modes of organization, though, and I feel I'm too uneducated to be able to satisfyingly explain them, so I suggest you read up some on your own.

Yeah, I read that and I cant make heads of tails of it. I mean, I came here to get info on anarchism b/c I recently heard of it, and typically boards are a good place to learn quick, but Im not converting so I dont really need to dwell to deep into it. I fully support what you guys are doing, but its not something I would be into.

[Widerstand]

Yeah, I read that and I cant make heads of tails of it. I mean, I came here to get info on anarchism b/c I recently heard of it, and typically boards are a good place to learn quick, but Im not converting so I dont really need to dwell to deep into it. I fully support what you guys are doing, but its not something I would be into.

Ah, fair enough. I agree, I prefer learning from boards too.

[SwampRaider]

Ah, fair enough. I agree, I prefer learning from boards too.

Yeah, I guess Im kind if a minarchist, idk.

[SwampRaider]

"Well, if we have that, what stops someone from starting up a capitalist commune, etc etc" - Well sport, capitalism itself is a crime. It's function is creating victims that suffer at it's expense and ergo does not coincide with the idea of individual freedom as capitalism impedes on other people's rights. It can't exist within communism or anarchism. It's just not possible to have opposite socio-economic systems functioning at the same time.

Well I disagree that capitalism is a crime, but thats whatever. I mean we have to define co-exist.

My question was basically if a group of people left a commune and went and settled their own land and said "we iz capitalizt nao" would that be ok? If so, awesome, if not, then it authoritarian and possibly imperialist depending on the outcome.

[Magón]

Well I disagree that capitalism is a crime, but thats whatever. I mean we have to define co-exist.

My question was basically if a group of people left a commune and went and settled their own land and said "we iz capitalizt nao" would that be ok? If so, awesome, if not, then it authoritarian and possibly imperialist depending on the outcome.

Co-Existance between a Capitalist State and an Anarchist Collective can never be. Anarchists would always feel the need for to overthrow the Capitalist State, as we all see States as a form to keep the people down and keep the hierarchy strong. Which is just a small bunch of people, with all the power. When in an Anarchist Collective, it's the workers in power, and no Petit-Bourgieosie or anything else calling the shots. Capitalism as it is now, to any Leftist is a crime, as people are exploited all around the world to keep up the demand for various resources: Oil, Diamonds, etc. Plus, Capitalism leads to power, and to any Anarchist, power corrupts when given to a limited amount/group of people. When everyone has equal power, power cannot corrupt, seeing how they'd be ousted the second it started to show.

And if a group went off, took their own bit of land, and said they were Capitalist now, that group would have a very hard time succeeding in getting things done. Because mainly, no Anarchist or Communist Group with resources the Capitalists wanted, would work with them to further grow Capitalism/unfair Hierarchal Chains.

Also, if you're not thinking about Communism or Anarchism, what ideological side do you take, SwampRaider? Liberal, Republican, Tea-Party?

[SwampRaider]

Co-Existance between a Capitalist State and an Anarchist Collective can never be. Anarchists would always feel the need for to overthrow the Capitalist State, as we all see States as a form to keep the people down and keep the hierarchy strong. Which is just a small bunch of people, with all the power. When in an Anarchist Collective, it's the workers in power, and no Petit-Bourgieosie or anything else calling the shots. Capitalism as it is now, to any Leftist is a crime, as people are exploited all around the world to keep up the demand for various resources: Oil, Diamonds, etc. Plus, Capitalism leads to power, and to any Anarchist, power corrupts when given to a limited amount/group of people. When everyone has equal power, power cannot corrupt, seeing how they'd be ousted the second it started to show.

And if a group went off, took their own bit of land, and said they were Capitalist now, that group would have a very hard time succeeding in getting things done. Because mainly, no Anarchist or Communist Group with resources the Capitalists wanted, would work with them to further grow Capitalism/unfair Hierarchal Chains.

Also, if you're not thinking about Communism or Anarchism, what ideological side do you take, SwampRaider? Liberal, Republican, Tea-Party?

Im not saying capitalism would last.... I guess I should word it more as if individuals wanted to leave the commune and just be individualists..... be it capitalism or just self sustaining positivist or whatever. The "it could never happen" is not really what I am worried about. Im worried about the actions of the anarchist if it was tried.

If I had to label myself I would say I am minarchist, just a conglomerate of individualist ideals.

[Invincible Summer]

No. These projects are most often too small and unknown to reach a lot of people, and when they do, the ones they attract are usually the romantic bohemian types only. They surely have their place in the movement, and especially the Zapatista communities are very inspiring, but they do little to convert or affect people not already "in the scene". An emphasis on labor and social struggles, and support of those, is what brings anarchism closer to the people. We can't expect the people to come to us.

While I agree that we need to emphasize labour/social struggles, I'd disagree on the Zapatista note. I gave a presentation on the EZLN to my sociology of social movements class and no one knew who they were, and surprisingly even my prof hardly knew about them. After class, almost everyone (well... the class was only about 10 ppl) came up to me and wanted to know more about them.


Well I disagree that capitalism is a crime, but thats whatever. I mean we have to define co-exist.

How is capitalism not a crime? And why do you think that capitalism and communism must "co-exist?" You do realize that capitalists have always attempted (and unfortunately succeeded in most cases) to destroy communist movements?


My question was basically if a group of people left a commune and went and settled their own land and said "we iz capitalizt nao" would that be ok? If so, awesome, if not, then it authoritarian and possibly imperialist depending on the outcome.
I don't see why that would happen (why would you want to go back to wage slavery and greed?), but I'll humour you. Let's assume that it is a global communist system, with a small ragtag group of people who want to live in a capitalist society.

In my opinion, so long as the capitalist group agreed on not trying to "convert" people or do any sort of espionage/sabotage/etc to the socialist network of communes, then they can do whatever they want. They'd just be very alone and without the benefit of mutual aid that the socialist network has.

[Adil3tr]

As I see it, communism has a definite hierarchy. So I dont understand how anarchy (being a system opposing all hierarchy) Is compatible with communism.

Communism isn't supposed to have a hierarchy, most people are here are really opposed to that> I myself see the USSR's hierarchies under stalin as a sick joke.



So, like, you get to pick whatever job you want?? I dont get it.
Basically we would as a society figure out how that is supposed to be done. Marx saw it as everyone would do a number of jobs, like work in a factory, make food, etc all in the same day or week, with the most tedious or demeaning jobs eliminated. Others see it as people would have much more opportunity as technology makes the labor process much more efficient.


Would things be deemed unlawful by democratic process? If so, what happens when those laws are broken?
Yes, and if a law is broken, the local people would deal with that. You don't need a more organized police force for minor infractions.


Whats to stop people from just getting out and being capitalist? Will there be such laws?
How can a capitalist compete with everything being free?:laugh:

PS: Why anarchist and not socialist?

[SwampRaider]

How is capitalism not a crime? And why do you think that capitalism and communism must "co-exist?" You do realize that capitalists have always attempted (and unfortunately succeeded in most cases) to destroy communist movements?

How is it a crime? I never said they must, I asked what would the anarchist do is someone tried.


I don't see why that would happen (why would you want to go back to wage slavery and greed?)

Ultimately its b/c I have no problem with capitalism and generally like it.


n my opinion, so long as the capitalist group agreed on not trying to "convert" people or do any sort of espionage/sabotage/etc to the socialist network of communes, then they can do whatever they want. They'd just be very alone and without the benefit of mutual aid that the socialist network has.

Sounds good to me.

[SwampRaider]

How can a capitalist compete with everything being free?

Some people are individualists... and like the freedom to have their own property and live by their own rules.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well I disagree that capitalism is a crime, but thats whatever. I mean we have to define co-exist.

My question was basically if a group of people left a commune and went and settled their own land and said "we iz capitalizt nao" would that be ok? If so, awesome, if not, then it authoritarian and possibly imperialist depending on the outcome.

No. Because all land is communally owned. No one group of people can own the land.

The factory that produces hockey sticks is as much the stick makers' as it is the doctor's at the other end of town.

[Invincible Summer]

How is it a crime? I never said they must, I asked what would the anarchist do is someone tried.

Capitalism is a crime because it values profit over human life. "Cutting costs" means people won't have proper health care service, a decent education, etc. Capitalism promotes corporate and business interests over the quality of life for the community. It forces people to basically prostitute themselves in order to survive - in some cases, not even. Food that is cheaper is generally less healthy for you... no wonder many working class people in N America are overweight.



Ultimately its b/c I have no problem with capitalism and generally like it.
So are you saying that you would try to start a separate capitalist society if global communism was to be in place?

What class background are you from? What kind of neighborhood do you live in? I don't understand how people can "generally like" capitalism unless they are advantaged by it.

[Magón]

Some people are individualists... and like the freedom to have their own property and live by their own rules.

Well that's Anarchism, not Capitalism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Some people are individualists... and like the freedom to have their own property and live by their own rules.

Personal property is respected in communist society. The only private property is capital.

[SwampRaider]

So are you saying that you would try to start a separate capitalist society if global communism was to be in place?

What class background are you from? What kind of neighborhood do you live in? I don't understand how people can "generally like" capitalism unless they are advantaged by it.

Basically. I come from a poor family in a poor neighborhood. And, by typical standards, am still poor.

[Widerstand]

While I agree that we need to emphasize labour/social struggles, I'd disagree on the Zapatista note. I gave a presentation on the EZLN to my sociology of social movements class and no one knew who they were, and surprisingly even my prof hardly knew about them. After class, almost everyone (well... the class was only about 10 ppl) came up to me and wanted to know more about them.

That's what I was trying to say though: It is very inspiring, but most people never hear of it, so it can hardly be seen as a propaganda tool. You telling your class about the EZLN was what spread the idea, not the existence of the EZLN's autonomous communities.

[SwampRaider]

Well that's Anarchism, not Capitalism.

Idk what to tell you, I like capitalism.

[Magón]

Idk what to tell you, I like capitalism.

Then my next question is why?

[SwampRaider]

Then my next question is why?

Without getting to deep on the subject (b/c I dont posses that ability) it gives me freedom. I can work where I want, do what I want, within reason. It gives the power to be an individual. Its just worked out really well for me.

[Adil3tr]

Some people are individualists... and like the freedom to have their own property and live by their own rules.

IF you don't want the free stuff, fine. I wouldn't really care that much.

[Invincible Summer]

Without getting to deep on the subject (b/c I dont posses that ability) it gives me freedom. I can work where I want, do what I want, within reason. It gives the power to be an individual. Its just worked out really well for me.

Why do you think that socialism/communism cannot provide the same?

[SwampRaider]

Why do you think that socialism/communism cannot provide the same?

Is communism/socialism going to let me lay around the house and be lazy whilst practicing guitar and drinking beer?

Are they going to let me live in the swamp on a self-supporting house boat and kill and eat gator for a few years?

As I understand it, living in a collective society means you have to contribute to the collective. I just want to live for myself and let other people live how they want.

[Magón]

Without getting to deep on the subject (b/c I dont posses that ability) it gives me freedom. I can work where I want, do what I want, within reason. It gives the power to be an individual. Its just worked out really well for me.

Um, last I checked, you couldn't really work where you wanted in Capitalism. Nor does it give you power to be an individual. (If you haven't realized, most people who try to be individuals, get laughed at on the street or thought to be mentally insane/weirdos by those thought to be "individuals".) Capitalism = Wage Slavery. Or in simpler words ... Wage Slavery.

Anarchism is the one that gives you individual freedoms, the ability to come and go as you please. (For example, if I wanted to get up tomorrow and go up north with whatever I had on me or wanted to take, I could without problem in a Anarchist Society. In Capitalism, you need money to do that, and all this other stuff that gets in your way before you can successfully start traveling wherever.) Also, I don't have to be a slave to someone who thinks that a hierarchal form of living is better, just because they're boss and I'm not. Also, if you haven't realized yet, Capitalism is always giving people of low and middle class incomes, the illusion and hope that someday they'll be able to become like them. Sadly, this is not true. Not even for guys like Bill Gates.

I was watching a show on him, and the rich in general, and there are two kinds of rich, and it's the first one I'm going to mention, that is really in charge. These people all come from "Old Money". Hundreds of years worth, of family money, that allow them into various "VIP" things. Bill Gates, is not one of these people, since he's "New Money". The difference, is like I said, Old Money comes from hundreds of years worth of family money, while New Money is like Bill Gates, who was the first to get the money rolling.

If Capitalism was truly special, you'd have the ability no matter what your income level, to become rich and powerful like Old Money types. But this is not the truth, and why as Anarchists we have to get people to wake up and see that the bait and the end of the hook, isn't their way to the top, but into the bucket with the others who were dumb and got caught up in this rouse that Capitalism plays on the low/middle classes, just to have their throats cut, and put on the chopping block for more and more people to use them.

Also, I didn't see this before, and I don't think anyone's mentioned it yet, but Anarcho-Capitalism isn't real Anarchism. Anyone who claims that title, is a fool, and probably a Right-Wing Megalomaniac.

[Adil3tr]

Is communism/socialism going to let me lay around the house and be lazy whilst practicing guitar and drinking beer?

Are they going to let me live in the swamp on a self-supporting house boat and kill and eat gator for a few years?

As I understand it, living in a collective society means you have to contribute to the collective. I just want to live for myself and let other people live how they want.

Well no, you would probably be denied a lot of things by you're neighbors or whatever, unless you mean you want to live of the grid, then no one will care.. But I think you don't see the big picture, do you want to sit and eat gator? You would rather build murals or be an artist or city planner? You don't want to go somewhere elese in the world and help build hospitals or schools? Communism opens total possibility to everyone.

[SwampRaider]

Um, last I checked, you couldn't really work where you wanted in Capitalism. Nor does it give you power to be an individual. (If you haven't realized, most people who try to be individuals, get laughed at on the street or thought to be mentally insane/weirdos by those thought to be "individuals".) Capitalism = Wage Slavery. Or in simpler words ... Wage Slavery.

Anarchism is the one that gives you individual freedoms, the ability to come and go as you please. (For example, if I wanted to get up tomorrow and go up north with whatever I had on me or wanted to take, I could without problem in a Anarchist Society. In Capitalism, you need money to do that, and all this other stuff that gets in your way before you can successfully start traveling wherever.) Also, I don't have to be a slave to someone who thinks that a hierarchal form of living is better, just because they're boss and I'm not. Also, if you haven't realized yet, Capitalism is always giving people of low and middle class incomes, the illusion and hope that someday they'll be able to become like them. Sadly, this is not true. Not even for guys like Bill Gates.

I was watching a show on him, and the rich in general, and there are two kinds of rich, and it's the first one I'm going to mention, that is really in charge. These people all come from "Old Money". Hundreds of years worth, of family money, that allow them into various "VIP" things. Bill Gates, is not one of these people, since he's "New Money". The difference, is like I said, Old Money comes from hundreds of years worth of family money, while New Money is like Bill Gates, who was the first to get the money rolling.

If Capitalism was truly special, you'd have the ability no matter what your income level, to become rich and powerful like Old Money types. But this is not the truth, and why as Anarchists we have to get people to wake up and see that the bait and the end of the hook, isn't their way to the top, but into the bucket with the others who were dumb and got caught up in this rouse that Capitalism plays on the low/middle classes, just to have their throats cut, and put on the chopping block for more and more people to use them.

Also, I didn't see this before, and I don't think anyone's mentioned it yet, but Anarcho-Capitalism isn't real Anarchism. Anyone who claims that title, is a fool, and probably a Right-Wing Megalomaniac.

I dont really know what to tell you. I have never been a wage slave and I have never went hungry. I have also never held a job in which I made more than $4 more than minimum wage. Maybe I have a secret, idk.

I like to work for mine and do as I want without having to rely on anyone else. Its really about that simple.

As far as anarcho-capitalism goes, I am not a proponent. So its whatever. I mean it just looks like a matter of semantics.

[SwampRaider]

Well no, you would probably be denied a lot of things by you're neighbors or whatever, unless you mean you want to live of the grid, then no one will care.. But I think you don't see the big picture, do you want to sit and eat gator? You would rather build murals or be an artist or city planner? You don't want to go somewhere elese in the world and help build hospitals or schools? Communism opens total possibility to everyone.

If I want to do those things then I will. No one is going to stop me. Like no one has stopped me before.... I take that back... I was going to open up a brake and muffler shop one time on some land I owned, but I couldnt due to zoning laws. I probably could have made some real money to, so that kind of sucks.

[Adil3tr]

Money is what stops a lot of people.

PS What zoning law stopped you?

[SwampRaider]

Money is what stops a lot of people.

PS What zoning law stopped you?

It has not stopped me, so idk.

In my city things are zoned for business and residential. The land I owned was residential so I could not perform a business on it. Sucks really bad. I could have had a sweet little gig.... and then sold it for swamp funds. lol

[Adil3tr]

What is it with you and swamps?

[La Peur Rouge]

Is communism/socialism going to let me lay around the house and be lazy whilst practicing guitar and drinking beer?

Are they going to let me live in the swamp on a self-supporting house boat and kill and eat gator for a few years?

As I understand it, living in a collective society means you have to contribute to the collective. I just want to live for myself and let other people live how they want.

Why wouldn't you be able to do these things?

If you don't want to be a part of a commune, then don't be. Just don't expect to reap the benefits of it.

[SwampRaider]

What is it with you and swamps?

Its just something I recently got into. I just really want to live in the swamp for a couple years.

[SwampRaider]

Why wouldn't you be able to do these things?

Im assuming shit has to get done, and I dont want to do it, so....


If you don't want to be a part of a commune, then don't be. Just don't expect to reap the benefits of it.

Sounds great

[Adil3tr]

Join the socialist party with our new slogan: Swampland for Everyone!

[SwampRaider]

Join the socialist party with our new slogan: Swampland for Everyone!

Tell me at what cost and means its going to everyone and I will think about it.

[AK]

To the OP:
In your reply to my last comment, you claimed all sorts of things were in fact hierarchical social relationships. This is not the case. Hierarchical social relations are the result of individuals having varying degrees of social/economic power. In the system of direct democracy, all individuals have the same social/economic power (everyone has one vote) - the purported unfairness and inequality (which is presumably where you get a lot of your ideas that our proposal will maintain social hierarchy) of the system we propose is only due to the fact that one decision must be chosen out of many; the most popular and therefore we can assume that it is the most likely to help and benefit the whole collective. In theory, a tyranny of the majority is possible - but it has a very low chance of materialising (especially given ultra-individualists' examples of potential ethnic or sexual discrimination - an overall stupid and unfounded notion). The point is, individuals are equal in that they have equal power - whose decision is ultimately chosen has nothing to do with social equality.

[SwampRaider]

I mean, I get that, but it still sounds like the individual being forced to answer to the collective.

[Thirsty Crow]

I mean, I get that, but it still sounds like the individual being forced to answer to the collective.

Egoists are truly baffling.
The individual should answer to the collective if his/her actions will result in consequences which will influence other individuals - i.e. the collective.
And the individual shouldn't be forced to do that since taking responsibility for one's actions is the presupposition of a free life.
And if you wish to live alone, undisturbed, you may find an isolated place and live according to your wishes.

[SwampRaider]

The individual should answer to the collective if his/her actions will result in consequences which will influence other individuals - i.e. the collective.

How far does that go? Surely there is a reasonable conclusion. In the system now I can *theoretically* say, do and own whatever I want as long as it does not infringe on others rights to do the same. If the collective doesnt like what I have to say, then sucks for them. As a free society should be.

On the other hand, in a society in which the collective gets to say "we dont like what you are saying and have decided you cant say it" to me is 1) Immoral and 2) Hierarchy.

[Thirsty Crow]

On the other hand, in a society in which the collective gets to say "we dont like what you are saying and have decided you cant say it" to me is 1) Immoral and 2) Hierarchy.

That's a straw man. No one here, I hope, is advocating for a society in which an institution would forbid people to express their views.

[SwampRaider]

That's a straw man. No one here, I hope, is advocating for a society in which an institution would forbid people to express their views.

Its not a straw man b/c I wasnt saying anyone here was, I was simply giving an example of the opposite.

[Thirsty Crow]

Its not a straw man b/c I wasnt saying anyone here was, I was simply giving an example of the opposite.

Okay, my bad.
And what is the purpose of this example?

[SwampRaider]

Okay, my bad.
And what is the purpose of this example?

Just to give clarity on my ideal of individual over the collective.

[Thirsty Crow]

Just to give clarity on my ideal of individual over the collective.

But that is a lousy ideal in that it is utterly ambiguous.
In other words, it tells nothing of the complex relationship between a person and a community he/she is part of. At best, it may be taken as a warning against unjustified force. At worst, it can be taken as an outright defence of the existence of class society.

[SwampRaider]

But that is a lousy ideal in that it is utterly ambiguous.
In other words, it tells nothing of the complex relationship between a person and a community he/she is part of. At best, it may be taken as a warning against unjustified force. At worst, it can be taken as an outright defence of the existence of class society.

Im a capitalist.

[Thirsty Crow]

Im a capitalist.

Wow.
Do you own a factory or something similar? How fat are you, fat cat cappie? :D
No, really, you should be describing yourself as "pro-capitalist" not "capitalist".

[SwampRaider]

Wow.
Do you own a factory or something similar? How fat are you, fat cat cappie?
No, really, you should be describing yourself as "pro-capitalist" not "capitalist".

I'm so fat, my actual weight is 4 tons. I actually eat the babies of the Mexican workers I employ in my sweatshop. They make 3 cents an hour. J/k Im skinny and poor.

Whats the difference?

[Widerstand]

I'm so fat, my actual weight is 4 tons. I actually eat the babies of the Mexican workers I employ in my sweatshop. They make 3 cents an hour. J/k Im skinny and poor.

Whats the difference?

Difference is that "capitalist" implies you are part of the capitalist class, eg. someone who employs people, owns a factory, works at management level in a corporation, or something similar. "Pro-capitalist" only means you support the capitalist system.

[Magón]

How far does that go? Surely there is a reasonable conclusion. In the system now I can *theoretically* say, do and own whatever I want as long as it does not infringe on others rights to do the same. If the collective doesnt like what I have to say, then sucks for them. As a free society should be.

On the other hand, in a society in which the collective gets to say "we dont like what you are saying and have decided you cant say it" to me is 1) Immoral and 2) Hierarchy.

Well we wouldn't be Anarchists, if we didn't allow people to say what they wanted. We don't care what you say, good or bad, we don't care that's what your opinion is. Capitalism is the exact opposite, and if you say something bad about it, you get arrested, or thought a terrorist. This doesn't happen in an Anarchist Society.


I'm so fat, my actual weight is 4 tons. I actually eat the babies of the Mexican workers I employ in my sweatshop. They make 3 cents an hour. J/k Im skinny and poor.

Whats the difference?

Well for one, you're skinny and poor. Secondly, if you were an actual Capitalist, you'd have money to spend whenever you liked, and didn't have to scrimp or save here and there like a worker. It's kinda funny actually, you being skinny and poor, yet approving Capitalism works. (See what I mean? You're kind of contradicting yourself there. Capitalism obviously hasn't helped you, if your poor. Living in an Anarchist Collective/Commune, you wouldn't have to worry about being poor or rich. Neither would exist.)

[SwampRaider]

Difference is that "capitalist" implies you are part of the capitalist class, eg. someone who employs people, owns a factory, works at management level in a corporation, or something similar. "Pro-capitalist" only means you support the capitalist system.

Semantics, but ok. I'm an aspiring capitalist... maybe, idk, we'll see. I like to party.

[SwampRaider]

Well we wouldn't be Anarchists, if we didn't allow people to say what they wanted. We don't care what you say, good or bad, we don't care that's what your opinion is. Capitalism is the exact opposite, and if you say something bad about it, you get arrested, or thought a terrorist. This doesn't happen in an Anarchist Society.

Lolwut? No dude, I can go into town right now and talk shit about anything I want as long as Im not violent? Ive never been arrested, and god knows I should have been a few times. In america we have a constitution protecting our rights. Anytime someone was arrested b/c of wrongly accused actions its b/c the government is being oppressive and has infringed on someones rights. Not b/c of capitalism.


Well for one, you're skinny and poor. Secondly, if you were an actual Capitalist, you'd have money to spend whenever you liked, and didn't have to scrimp or save here and there like a worker. It's kinda funny actually, you being skinny and poor, yet approving Capitalism works. (See what I mean? You're kind of contradicting yourself there. Capitalism obviously hasn't helped you, if your poor. Living in an Anarchist Collective/Commune, you wouldn't have to worry about being poor or rich. Neither would exist.)

I'm skinny b/c thats how god made me, Im poor b/c I dont really care. Ive spent years having fun instead on worrying about making money, capitalism has allowed me to do that. If I wanted to have been making money by now I would have. Its not that hard for a single person with no kids to get ahead. The one time I did care about making money was when I had purchased some land and wanted to make my own business. I couldnt do it b/c of zoning laws. The only thing that has ever held me back in life were my own laziness and "progressive" government policies.

And whats this about actual capitalist not having to skrimp and save? I know several small business owners who are probably the brokest people I know.

[#FF0000]

The only reason you're able to live with a little bit of slack like you said earlier is because a lot of people are dying and suffering in sweat shops and in repressive governments backed by the U.S.

Capitalism hasn't afforded you the right to be lazy. The wholesale slaughter and hyperexploitation of other people a world away has.

EDIT: A small business owner is sort of different from a CEO

[Magón]

Lolwut? No dude, I can go into town right now and talk shit about anything I want as long as Im not violent? Ive never been arrested, and god knows I should have been a few times. In america we have a constitution protecting our rights. Anytime someone was arrested b/c of wrongly accused actions its b/c the government is being oppressive and has infringed on someones rights. Not b/c of capitalism.

Well it does depend on where you live. I'm sure if someone saw me in Arizona, Utah, Montana, etc. anywhere that wasn't so liberal state or city, and I started shouting how America should just go to hell, and should be knocked off the face of the earth, and how it's hurting other nations and such, I'd be no doubt arrested and thought a terrorist. I wouldn't even have to be violent, to be arrested. The Constitution, doesn't protect us anymore from the Patriot Act, and other such things that have been passed to "protect" Americans from harm.

If I went to some big business, and I made enough news about bad things on them, they'd have me arrested and sue me for "slander". (Even if it was true things the company was doing, they'd call it "slander".)


I'm skinny b/c thats how god made me, Im poor b/c I dont really care. Ive spent years having fun instead on worrying about making money, capitalism has allowed me to do that. If I wanted to have been making money by now I would have. Its not that hard for a single person with no kids to get ahead. The one time I did care about making money was when I had purchased some land and wanted to make my own business. I couldnt do it b/c of zoning laws. The only thing that has ever held me back in life were my own laziness and "progressive" government policies.

And whats this about actual capitalist not having to skrimp and save? I know several small business owners who are probably the brokest people I know.

And you say you want to become a Capitalist? Also, Capitalists don't have to scrimp and save, they always have enough money. Petit-Bourgesies have to scrimp and save sometimes, but only if they're reckless with their money, and spend more than they make. If you really knew Capitalists, they'd spend so much money, or spend money at all, it wouldn't matter because they could make it all back in a week or less time.

[#FF0000]

And you say you want to become a Capitalist? Also, Capitalists don't have to scrimp and save, they always have enough money. Petit-Bourgesies have to scrimp and save sometimes, but only if they're reckless with their money, and spend more than they make.

You're wrong. Most small businesses fail within the first year.

[Magón]

You're wrong. Most small businesses fail within the first year.

True, but those that don't fail because of business reasons, fail often because the owners are idiots with the money.

[SwampRaider]

The only reason you're able to live with a little bit of slack like you said earlier is because a lot of people are dying and suffering in sweat shops and in repressive governments backed by the U.S.

Capitalism hasn't afforded you the right to be lazy. The wholesale slaughter and hyperexploitation of other people a world away has.

EDIT: A small business owner is sort of different from a CEO

Lolwut? I dont agree with everything our government does, I barely agree with anything our government does.

I dare you to prove "the only" reason Ive had slack is b/c of sweatshops. Does the sun ever shine when a capitalist is around?

[#FF0000]

True, but those that don't fail because of business reasons, fail often because the owners are idiots with the money.

No that isn't true at all.

[Magón]

No that isn't true at all.

Then explain to me the reason, that several people I know, who's family members or friends have started up businesses, got them running but ultimately failed because they took to much from the business and didn't bother with it? That they thought the business was like their own little bank of money making?

I can give you probably more than twelve examples of people who I know, who's family or friends have done such things. Plus people they probably know as well who've done the same idiotic thing.

[SwampRaider]

Well it does depend on where you live. I'm sure if someone saw me in Arizona, Utah, Montana, etc. anywhere that wasn't so liberal state or city, and I started shouting how America should just go to hell, and should be knocked off the face of the earth, and how it's hurting other nations and such, I'd be no doubt arrested and thought a terrorist. I wouldn't even have to be violent, to be arrested. The Constitution, doesn't protect us anymore from the Patriot Act, and other such things that have been passed to "protect" Americans from harm.

If I went to some big business, and I made enough news about bad things on them, they'd have me arrested and sue me for "slander". (Even if it was true things the company was doing, they'd call it "slander".)

I live in the south, its hardly liberal here.

No, they have to have a case for slander, if you were saying things that are proven true then its not slander. E.g. the manymanymanymanymany "no big tobacco" commercials on tv talking how big tobacco is bad. These things are played in heavy rotation, and yet no slander charges of yet.


And you say you want to become a Capitalist? Also, Capitalists don't have to scrimp and save, they always have enough money. Petit-Bourgesies have to scrimp and save sometimes, but only if they're reckless with their money, and spend more than they make. If you really knew Capitalists, they'd spend so much money, or spend money at all, it wouldn't matter because they could make it all back in a week or less time.

Good for them?

[#FF0000]

Lolwut? I dont agree with everything our government does, I barely agree with anything our government does.

I dare you to prove "the only" reason Ive had slack is b/c of sweatshops. Does the sun ever shine when a capitalist is around?

Oh, no, I'm not saying you agree with it. I'm just saying that, if it wasn't for the hyerexploitation of the third world, people in the first world would have to work much harder for much less.

And it's not the only reason you've had slack, but, yeah, most people who have a decent life in the U.S. under capitalism have it because of what happens elsewhere in the world.

But either way, what I'm trying to get at is capitalism is killing a lot of people and violates those individualist principles you like so much on a daily basis.

[#FF0000]

Then explain to me the reason, that several people I know, who's family members or friends have started up businesses, got them running but ultimately failed because they took to much from the business and didn't bother with it? That they thought the business was like their own little bank of money making?

I can give you probably more than twelve examples of people who I know, who's family or friends have done such things. Plus people they probably know as well who've done the same idiotic thing.

Take a business class I guess. It is really, really hard to have a successful small business in the United States.

[Magón]

I live in the south, its hardly liberal here.

No, they have to have a case for slander, if you were saying things that are proven true then its not slander. E.g. the manymanymanymanymany "no big tobacco" commercials on tv talking how big tobacco is bad. These things are played in heavy rotation, and yet no slander charges of yet.

When it's such an organization, like anti-tobacco commercials are made from, then it's kind of hard for the tobacco companies to say they're slandering them. But if me and a group of six or seven people went to some tobacco company and started picketing right there, saying things that aren't already obvious to people, like more detail in what goes into cigarettes, those kinds of things, and I started to get a crowd and news coverage, the company would either sue me or try and buy me off with half a million dollars or something.


Take a business class I guess. It is really, really hard to have a successful small business in the United States.

I never said it was easy, but most the examples I could give, were created before 07 when the economy started to take a serious shit on everyone. I've never tried making a business of my own, but I'm only going by what I know of people personally doing.

[SwampRaider]

Oh, no, I'm not saying you agree with it. I'm just saying that, if it wasn't for the hyerexploitation of the third world, people in the first world would have to work much harder for much less.

And it's not the only reason you've had slack, but, yeah, most people who have a decent life in the U.S. under capitalism have it because of what happens elsewhere in the world.

But either way, what I'm trying to get at is capitalism is killing a lot of people and violates those individualist principles you like so much on a daily basis.

How is it that most people have a decent live b/c kids are making nike shoes in Trinidad?

Most, if not all, of the things I buy are made in america. Also, I fail to see how giving someone a job in a third world country in violating the rights I mentioned?

[#FF0000]

I never said it was easy, but most the examples I could give, were created before 07 when the economy started to take a serious shit on everyone. I've never tried making a business of my own, but I'm only going by what I know of people personally doing.


It's always been tough to be a small business owner. It's not surprising. Capitalism centralizes economic and political power, so naturally it's harder for a small-time business guy to get big or succeed in any meaningful capacity.

[SwampRaider]

When it's such an organization, like anti-tobacco commercials are made from, then it's kind of hard for the tobacco companies to say they're slandering them. But if me and a group of six or seven people went to some tobacco company and started picketing right there, saying things that aren't already obvious to people, like more detail in what goes into cigarettes, those kinds of things, and I started to get a crowd and news coverage, the company would either sue me or try and buy me off with half a million dollars or something.

They might try to sue you, and probably fail as long as you are speaking the truth and acting non-violently. And yeah, they might try to buy you off, in which case, so?


I never said it was easy, but most the examples I could give, were created before 07 when the economy started to take a serious shit on everyone. I've never tried making a business of my own, but I'm only going by what I know of people personally doing.

You are right, a small business is not easy, but its very far from impossible. Source: the millions of small business in america.

[#FF0000]

You are right, a small business is not easy, but its very far from impossible. Source: the millions of small business in america.

Keep in mind the vast majority of them fail within the first year, like I said, and most only exist because of government intervention.

[SwampRaider]

Keep in mind the vast majority of them fail within the first year, like I said, and most only exist because of government intervention.

Perhaps, but thats life. As far as the government intervention, Ill need a source for that.

I know several that was built and maintained on hard work and a keen eye for an awesome marketing niche.

[#FF0000]

How is it that most people have a decent live b/c kids are making nike shoes in Trinidad?

Cheap labor means cheaper shoes. Cheap labor elsewhere means we can have a minimum wage here.

I mean, think about it. In the early 20th century when European and American workers were protesting for better wages and better work conditions, do you think the ruling class was especially happy to give in to these demands? The only reason they decided they could be afforded is because of imperialism, because they could force people across the ocean to work for far less, and since they were so far away and out of the public eye, no one needed to give into their demands for better conditions, and they could be kept down with military force.

So, yeah.


Most, if not all, of the things I buy are made in america. Also, I fail to see how giving someone a job in a third world country in violating the rights I mentioned?

I fail to see how a system which forces someone with the threat of starvation and poverty to work for a fraction of the value they've created fits with any individualist principals.

[#FF0000]

Perhaps, but thats life. As far as the government intervention, Ill need a source for that.

The government has so many grants and loans for small businesses start ups available.

[Magón]

It's always been tough to be a small business owner. It's not surprising. Capitalism centralizes economic and political power, so naturally it's harder for a small-time business guy to get big or succeed in any meaningful capacity.

Of course, that's undebatable, but there's always constant competition in Capitalism. That's why some of these business slip through the cracks.


They might try to sue you, and probably fail as long as you are speaking the truth and acting non-violently. And yeah, they might try to buy you off, in which case, so?

Like I said before, what you "own" only goes as far as you take it. Which inevitably, you'll die someday, and what you "own" will be useless. Having money is practically useless now with all you can really do with it, since most Americans today don't have enough of it to properly survive. (House foreclosures, debt, etc.) Money doesn't matter anyway, because like with everything else, once you die it no longer belongs or matters to you. When you die, you can't take it to Heaven, or wherever it is you believe you go after you die.

[SwampRaider]

Cheap labor means cheaper shoes. Cheap labor elsewhere means we can have a minimum wage here.

I mean, think about it. In the early 20th century when European and American workers were protesting for better wages and better work conditions, do you think the ruling class was especially happy to give in to these demands? The only reason they decided they could be afforded is because of imperialism, because they could force people across the ocean to work for far less, and since they were so far away and out of the public eye, no one needed to give into their demands for better conditions, and they could be kept down with military force.

So, yeah.

Then what you need is a mentality change, something that has been going on for a while. I hate consumerism and I always support small business. Hell, even the beer I drink is made in a small brewery in my state.


I fail to see how a system which forces someone with the threat of starvation and poverty to work for a fraction of the value they've created fits with any individualist principals.

Forced? Are they getting paid at all? Yes they are. Is it shitty wages? By some standards yes. Then why do they work there? B/c its better then the alternative.

Nothing forced about it.

[SwampRaider]

The government has so many grants and loans for small businesses start ups available.

So does the private sector.

[SwampRaider]

Like I said before, what you "own" only goes as far as you take it. Which inevitably, you'll die someday, and what you "own" will be useless. Having money is practically useless now with all you can really do with it, since most Americans today don't have enough of it to properly survive. (House foreclosures, debt, etc.) Money doesn't matter anyway, because like with everything else, once you die it no longer belongs or matters to you. When you die, you can't take it to Heaven, or wherever it is you believe you go after you die.

No, but you can make enough so that your kids will never have to work. :thumbup1:

[#FF0000]

Then what you need is a mentality change, something that has been going on for a while. I hate consumerism and I always support small business. Hell, even the beer I drink is made in a small brewery in my state.

And even all that is made through exploitation of labor.




Forced? Are they getting paid at all? Yes they are. Is it shitty wages? By some standards yes. Then why do they work there? B/c its better then the alternative.

Nothing forced about it.

The choice between "work or starve" is no choice at all.

[AK]

True, but those that don't fail because of business reasons, fail often because the owners are idiots with the money.
No, incredibly tough market competition from bigger businesses plays a big part in ruining most small businesses within just their first few years. This just proves that the "free market" is nothing but an oxymoron.

[Thirsty Crow]

No, but you can make enough so that your kids will never have to work. :thumbup1:

But why should they be absolved from work, and other people's kids not?

[Invincible Summer]

Then what you need is a mentality change, something that has been going on for a while. I hate consumerism and I always support small business. Hell, even the beer I drink is made in a small brewery in my state.

How is supporting "small business" not consumerism? The mentality change that is needed is not that "small business > big business," but rather that capitalism (i.e. "business" as we know it) is the problem, not "big business."




Forced? Are they getting paid at all? Yes they are. Is it shitty wages? By some standards yes. Then why do they work there? B/c its better then the alternative.
Nothing forced about it.
By "some" standards? Are you serious?

Listen to yourself - saying that it's the only job that's worth taking is very much a forced choice! It may not be by gunpoint or by law, but when there is no other viable option, then it's not really a "choice," is it?


No, but you can make enough so that your kids will never have to work. :thumbup1:
Eurocentrism is alive and well, I see.