i am reading what is communist anarchism

[anon1520]

It seems to me that nothing has changed in nearly 100 years in terms of class struggle. Which leads me to ask the question, is world wide worker liberation possible?

[Ismail]

This belongs in Learning. Moved.

[Misanthrope]

Because capitalism is a system of decadence, it will fail.

[tir1944]

Because capitalism is a system of decadence, it will fail.
Nope.Not because of "decadence" will it fail,it will "fail" because the working masses are going to destroy it one day...

[Nox]

Nope.Not because of "decadence" will it fail,it will "fail" because the working masses are going to destroy it one day...

Actually, the basic principles of Capitalism are flawed and totally unsustainable. The system will naturally collapse one day, but workers would have taken over long before that could happen.

[Misanthrope]

Nope.Not because of "decadence" will it fail,it will "fail" because the working masses are going to destroy it one day...

Workers revolution doesn't just happen it is brought on by material conditions.

[tir1944]

Actually, the basic principles of Capitalism are flawed and totally unsustainable.But it is also capable of constantly "revolutionizing" and "adapting" itself,so to speak.
To lull people into sleep with stories about how it will "naturally" (!?) collapse one day,is defeatism and counter-revolution.



Workers revolution doesn't just happen it is brought on by material conditions.
Yes,but there are a multitude of other "factors" too.

[Misanthrope]

But it is also capable of constantly "revolutionizing" and "adapting" itself,so to speak.
To lull people into sleep with stories about how it will "naturally" (!?) collapse one day,is defeatism and counter-revolution.

"That" "isn't" "what" "he" "or" "I" "are" "implying".


:rolleyes:




Yes,but there are a multitude of other "factors" too.

"really?" Like what?

[Nox]

But it is also capable of constantly "revolutionizing" and "adapting" itself,so to speak.
To lull people into sleep with stories about how it will "naturally" (!?) collapse one day,is defeatism and counter-revolution.




I'm talking about the fundamental principles that make Capitalism Capitalism. It's a totally unsustainable system, I'd give it maybe 100 years maximum before it collapses by itself.

I'm not 'lulling people to sleep', I'm simply stating that Capitalism is a massively flawed and totally unsustainable system that will collapse by itself.

[tir1944]

"That" "isn't" "what" "he" "or" "I" "are" "implying".
So what is it that you're implying?



Like what?
The class consciousness of the masses,the quality of organizational etc work of Comparties etc etc...

[tir1944]

I'm talking about the fundamental principles that make Capitalism Capitalism. It's a totally unsustainable system, I'd give it maybe 100 years maximum before it collapses by itself.
Why? Why couldn't it survive for 300 or 400 years more?



I'm not 'lulling people to sleep', I'm simply stating that Capitalism is a massively flawed and totally unsustainable system that will collapse by itself.
How come?

[Misanthrope]

So what is it that you're implying?


The class consciousness of the masses,the quality of organizational etc work of Comparties etc etc...

I'm not implying anything.


Yes all those factors will be the effect of the continual failure of capitalism.



Why? Why couldn't it survive for 300 or 400 years more?


How come?


Because it's a system based on constantly growing and expanding. This is why capitalism causes so many wars and so much environmental destruction. This is also why capitalism will fail, resources will run out and imperialist opportunities will run out.

[Nox]

Why? Why couldn't it survive for 300 or 400 years more?


How come?

Capitalism is totally unsustainable because people go ape shit digging everything they can out of the ground, not giving a shit about the future or the environment.

The oil/gas/coal will run out by around 2050, in the decade running up to that, energy costs will be massive, and that's when I believe a workers' revolution is most likely to occur.

All economies are reliant on resources, but Capitalism uses those resources in an utterly unsustainable way.

[tir1944]

I'm not implying anything.
""That" "isn't" "what" "he" "or" "I" "are" "implying"."



Yes all those factors will be the effect of the continual failure of capitalism.
This doesn't make much sense...

[Misanthrope]

""That" "isn't" "what" "he" "or" "I" "are" "implying"."


This doesn't make much sense...

What are you confused about?

[tir1944]

Yes all those factors will be the effect of the continual failure of capitalism.
Class conscience is the effect of the failure of capitalism?



All economies are reliant on resources, but Capitalism uses those resources in an utterly unsustainable way.
So what will happen when the world runs out of oil? Worldwide socialism?

[Misanthrope]

Class conscience is the effect of the failure of capitalism?

In so many ways, yes. Think about it this way, if all the workers are happy with their wages and are doing well off, why would they think about the current economic system? The majority wouldn't. But if they're striking due to wages, ect, they will be unhappy and want economic change.



So what will happen when the world runs out of oil? Worldwide socialism?

:rolleyes: No. I'm not saying that running out of resources is what causes socialism/communism, I'm saying that is what will inspire worker's revolution.

[Nox]

So what will happen when the world runs out of oil? Worldwide socialism?


Energy prices will rocket when the flow of oil begins to shrink.

That will undoubtedly lead to revolution.

[hatzel]

I'm not saying that running out of resources is what causes socialism/communism, I'm saying that is what will inspire worker's revolution.

But we won't run out of resources. We'll probably run out of the resources we currently use, but as they say, necessity is the mother of invention. So as soon as oil exploitation becomes unreasonable, money will actually be spent developing solar power, for example, and then energy consumption can continue increasing exponentially. We don't live in the 19th century any more, technology can (and, if needs be, will) overcome many of these little hurdles...

[tir1944]

In so many ways, yes. Think about it this way, if all the workers are happy with their wages and are doing well off, why would they think about the current economic system? The majority wouldn't. But if they're striking due to wages, ect, they will be unhappy and want economic change.
That's vulgar "materialism".
Your "theory" doesn't explain the fact that American workers,who live worse than their,let's say,British counterparts (no NSH in USA etc...),are also far more anti-communist/socialist than their British counterparts (just check the Comparty membership numbers,ignore the fact that the UK is only 1/5 of USA's population)...



That will undoubtedly lead to revolution.
Yeah,sure.:rolleyes: How about neo-fascism or something?

[anon1520]

i feel that part of the reason things have moved so slowly (at least in the united states) has everything to do with the demoralization of the labor movement. more recently i feel as if there has been mass brain washing of the working class to vote against there best interest and i have even head some blame unions for the economic downturn. the occupy movments give me some hope, but i hope they do not become co opted

[Misanthrope]

But we won't run out of resources. We'll probably run out of the resources we currently use, but as they say, necessity is the mother of invention. So as soon as oil exploitation becomes unreasonable, money will actually be spent developing solar power, for example, and then energy consumption can continue increasing exponentially. We don't live in the 19th century any more, technology can (and, if needs be, will) overcome many of these little hurdles...

Well of course I was being hyperbolic.

Money is already being "spent" developing alternative methods of energy but the oil companies have an obvious monopoly on the energy market. Also, 'oil exploitation' is and has always been "unreasonable", as you so softly put it.

What your free market fantasy hopes fail to realize is that capitalism (intellectual property rights) inhibit innovation. Innovation will not save the capitalist machine.

Another thing that power the capitalist machine is imperialism, land will run out...



That's vulgar "materialism".
Your "theory" doesn't explain the fact that American workers,who live worse than their,let's say,British counterparts (no NSH in USA etc...),are also far more anti-communist/socialist than their British counterparts (just check the Comparty membership numbers,ignore the fact that the UK is only 1/5 of USA's population)...

The red scare, McCarthyism, the Cold War. Not to mention the fact that Europeans have always been visibly and statistically more left leaning and more politically active.

Americans living worse then the British? What an absurd assumption you've made just to fit into your silly argument. What is your argument again?? Other then being a capitalist apologetic, you've failed to answer the OP. Why is workers revolution possible?





Yeah,sure.:rolleyes: How about neo-fascism or something?

Completely possible

[hatzel]

Money is already being "spent" developing alternative methods of energy but the oil companies have an obvious monopoly on the energy market. Also, 'oil exploitation' is and has always been "unreasonable", as you so softly put it.

I don't think the oil companies will be able to maintain much of a monopoly when the cost of oil becomes prohibitive. Once there comes a serious, financial need to develop alternative energy sources, they will be developed, this I can assure you. Just to pull out an example...it's no surprise that Israel, with the whole deal about quite a lot of the oil-producing companies not exactly being their best friends, just so happens to be at the forefront of the global solar energy industry. It's a product of necessity. And necessity will continue to force technological advances to overcome these difficulties.


Another thing that power the capitalist machine is imperialism, land will run out...You know I'm going to be really pedantic again, don't you? :laugh: I mean...the vast majority of the land isn't necessarily being utilised to its full potential at present. And 10 units of land being used to 10% efficiency is effectively the same as 1 unit of land being used to 100% efficiency (assuming the 'units' are all of uniform potential) - if anything, the latter is more efficient, as everything would be more compact, - so once all the available land is 'acquired' (or whatever you want to say), attention will be redirected to making the most of the land one 'has.' As this would have a pretty similar effect as 'acquiring' more land.

In case you've not figured it out, I'm very hostile to this whole 'capitalism will end up fucking itself' idea. It'll be a looooong time before an issue comes along that cannot be overcome, if needs be. Except for, of course, human (in)activity. So let's not give that other idea too much attention, and instead concentrate on what we can do...

[Misanthrope]

I don't think the oil companies will be able to maintain much of a monopoly when the cost of oil becomes prohibitive.

Why not? With state support the consumers are at their disposal.



Once there comes a serious, financial need to develop alternative energy sources, they will be developed, this I can assure you. Just to pull out an example...it's no surprise that Israel, with the whole deal about quite a lot of the oil-producing companies not exactly being their best friends, just so happens to be at the forefront of the global solar energy industry. It's a product of necessity. And necessity will continue to force technological advances to overcome these difficulties.


There is oil in Israel, they aren't in an energy crisis. What's more is they have huge potential in the oil business as well..

"The project could be lucrative. The World Energy Council estimates Israel is sitting on enough shale to produce around four billion barrels of oil, enough at today's usage to keep the country in oil for more than 40 years"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15037533

Necessity does not lead to innovation in capitalism, the profit motive leads to innovation. As I hope we agree on, the profit motive does not lead to necessary or beneficial human advancements.







You know I'm going to be really pedantic again, don't you? :laugh: I mean...the vast majority of the land isn't necessarily being utilised to its full potential at present. And 10 units of land being used to 10% efficiency is effectively the same as 1 unit of land being used to 100% efficiency (assuming the 'units' are all of uniform potential) - if anything, the latter is more efficient, as everything would be more compact, - so once all the available land is 'acquired' (or whatever you want to say), attention will be redirected to making the most of the land one 'has.' As this would have a pretty similar effect as 'acquiring' more land.

Obviously the vast majority of land isn't being utilized but it is still owned. That is, ruled by a state through the use and threat of force. You are a capitalist apologetic to assume that the current ownership consensus (what it means to own something) is inline with efficiency and innovation. It isn't. It's inline with hoarding and strategic operative. Current imperialism's goal is not to have scientific advancements that would benefit humanity but to have political and war-time strategic locations and monetary gain, not innovation or advancement.



In case you've not figured it out, I'm very hostile to this whole 'capitalism will end up fucking itself' idea. It'll be a looooong time before an issue comes along that cannot be overcome, if needs be. Except for, of course, human (in)activity. So let's not give that other idea too much attention, and instead concentrate on what we can do...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating sitting back and waiting for the system to blow up. I'm just saying it is scientifically inevitable. Of course, constant worker's action is needed.

[tir1944]

The red scare, McCarthyism, the Cold War.
Yep and that's sort of my point.
There's more to in than "material conditions" you spoke about.



Americans living worse then the British? What an absurd assumption you've made just to fit into your silly argument.
Lol most workers in America don't even have health insurance,while in the UK its free or almost free (NSH).
Also source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2782146/Standard-of-living-in-UK-better-than-in-USA.html

[Misanthrope]

Yep and that's sort of my point.
There's more to in than "material conditions" you spoke about.


What's your point? That material conditions aren't directly correlated with communist and worker activity? Bravo, never said they were, I was answering the OP. Which you've failed to do, you've just derailed the thread with meaningless assumptions on my behalf.




Lol most workers in America don't even have health insurance,while in the UK its free or almost free (NSH).
Also source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2782146/Standard-of-living-in-UK-better-than-in-USA.html

I fail to see the humor in the American worker's lack of health insurance and I also fail to see the point you are (trying) to make.

[tir1944]

I fail to see the humor in the American worker's lack of health insurance and I also fail to see the point you are (trying) to make.
There's no humor in that fact,there's humor about what i thought was your attitude.
Anyway,point is that despite the fact that USA workers worse than their UK counterparts,the USA ones don't really care about communism/socialism,that is,they don't really care about their own future, in a way...

[hatzel]

Why not? With state support the consumers are at their disposal.

But who are these consumers? I don't buy oil from the source, definitely not...and the amount of energy I use pales into insignificance next to bourgeois consumption. The minute oil is no longer the best option, from a purely economic standpoint, you can bet your bottom dollar somebody will cough up a load of money to develop alternatives. And that person will be bourgeois. As soon as maintaining the status quo, consuming no-longer-cheap fossil fuels, costs more than it would to research and develop a renewable energy infrastructure, the money will be redirected, and stuff will carry on as normal. Because it makes business sense. The only reason oil companies have such a monopoly today is because the costs of research and development of alternative energy sources, compared to current fuel bills, dictates that it's not yet worth investing money elsewhere. Short-term profit margins etc.


There is oil in Israel, they aren't in an energy crisis. What's more is they have huge potential in the oil business as well.

Potential, sure. But as it stood a few decades ago, partly a result of the incredibly poor early years, it made more business sense to slap a solar heater on everybody's roof than randomly start digging for this oil that I don't believe was even known about in the 60's. When one has to make the most of what one has, one will find a way.


Necessity does not lead to innovation in capitalism, the profit motive leads to innovation. As I hope we agree on, the profit motive does not lead to necessary or beneficial human advancements.

You appear to have forgotten what we are discussing. We're not talking about human necessity, but the perceived necessity to maintain the capitalist system. Oh, and profits. The profit motive really is necessity for those chasing cashmonies.


You are a capitalist apologetic

Oh no!

Oh, wait, now I see...


to assume that the current ownership consensus (what it means to own something) is inline with efficiency and innovation. It isn't.

You speak as if business owners and governments are just throwing money around, without a care in the world. As if states just go to war for fun, without expecting any benefit from it. As if the CEO of a company invests in things for fun. No no, capitalism is ruthlessly efficient. Endless cost and expenditure comparisons to decide which courses of action are and aren't worth persuing. They won't spend a dime if it won't secure a payout.


Current imperialism's goal is not to have scientific advancements that would benefit humanity but to have political and war-time strategic locations and monetary gain, not innovation or advancement.

Of course they don't have humanity's best interests at heart, but we're not discussing that, so stay on topic. The topic is innovation and development to back capitalist development, and keep capitalism going. The minute there's an innovation that is beneficial for the capitalist, it'll get funded, like the railway network, mechanisation and the fighter jet in the past. All to increase efficiency, by which we mean economic efficiency and profit margins. And rest assured that as soon as something comes up that challenges the continuation of capitalism, it'll be all hands on deck looking for an innovation to mitigate the risk.


I'm just saying it is scientifically inevitable.

And that's clearly what I'm arguing against. If it's inevitable, this will be so far in the future that it's not worth considering it. And throwing "scientifically" in there won't convince me otherwise, sorry, because I don't buy into all that 'Herr Marx has identified an infallible scientific method!' mumbo-jumbo...

[Revolution starts with U]

You know I'm going to be really pedantic again, don't you? :laugh: I mean...the vast majority of the land isn't necessarily being utilised to its full potential at present. And 10 units of land being used to 10% efficiency is effectively the same as 1 unit of land being used to 100% efficiency (assuming the 'units' are all of uniform potential) - if anything, the latter is more efficient, as everything would be more compact, - so once all the available land is 'acquired' (or whatever you want to say), attention will be redirected to making the most of the land one 'has.' As this would have a pretty similar effect as 'acquiring' more land.

Already in New York there is a movement to start growing fields of crops on the tops of apt complexes using rainwater, which they want to use for various other purposes too. Their is a reason why reformism is attractive; most people simply do not think of the micro socio-economic sytem. They just want to make things better. And they possess much ingenuity. :thumbup1:
There is no "collapse will bring on socialism." Most likely collapse leads to things far worse. Crash leads to feudal and totalitarian social relations. Crash breeds fear, which breeds a leader.
What will bring on socialism is the revolutionary class consciousness of the worker. Capitalism progresses, crashes, picks itself up again and progresses. People will wonder why the poor bear the large burden of these chrashes, and why such large chunks of it go to such a small minority, even tho most people obviously work harder.
And so they unite, as individuals, in pursuit of their own self-interest; a self-interest that runs directly in opposition to the self-interests of class stratification, of any kind. We here, and those on Wall Street, even were we on the front lines w weapon in hand... we're really just chearleders. The team does its thing while we try to excite anyone watching to cheer for our side, the workers.
(In case you are wondering, the opposing team is class domination of all kinds, not specifically the capitalist class. You could be anti-capitalist by being a feudalist.)

[tir1944]

Already in New York there is a movement to start growing fields of crops on the tops of apt complexes using rainwater, which they want to use for various other purposes too.Does the government give subsidies for that?:)

[Misanthrope]

But who are these consumers?

I thought you could derive that from the context in which it was used. When I said consumers I meant emphasize on the majority, the ones that are extremely economically burdened by the price of oil.


The minute oil is no longer the best option,

It is from the Oil companies, whose profit rises just as prices rise..


The only reason oil companies have such a monopoly today is because

The economy is dependent on oil and the state issues billion dollar subsidies to the corporations and other helpful laws.


You speak as if business owners and governments are just throwing money around, without a care in the world. As if states just go to war for fun, without expecting any benefit from it. As if the CEO of a company invests in things for fun. No no, capitalism is ruthlessly efficient. Endless cost and expenditure comparisons to decide which courses of action are and aren't worth persuing. They won't spend a dime if it won't secure a payout.


Which is exactly why investment in renewable energy isn't the capitalist thing to do in these current situations. The oil companies largely benefit from this 'energy crisis'. Profiteering is more profitable then innovation.


The minute there's an innovation that is beneficial for the capitalist, it'll get funded,

I agree but as I said, the energy crisis benefits the capitalist.


If it's inevitable, this will be so far in the future that it's not worth considering it.

Again agreed. I was initially answering the OP... why is it possible? Because economic failure is inevitable.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't know, you will have to find that out for yourself. Personal responsiblity, comrade ;)

No but seriously, I will look it up and PM you.

[hatzel]

I thought you could derive that from the context in which it was used. When I said consumers I meant emphasize on the majority, the ones that are extremely economically burdened by the price of oil.

And are you claiming this is us? Because oil (well, here in the UK it's mainly gas and coal, with some nuclear) only comes to me once the electricity company has burnt it to generate electricity which they then sell to me so that I can heat my room. Pretty simple demands. I'm not exactly, you know, trying to power a string of factories or anything like that...you seem to have totally forgotten that capitalists are energy consumers, too; in fact, the bigger the cappie, the bigger the consumer. As consumers, they want to minimise energy costs, in order to maximise profits, which kind of challenges your repetitive claims that "the energy crises benefits the capitalist;" of course oil companies (that is to say, a subset) benefit from it, as they want to sell their product at the highest price, this is good business sense, but they can't just pick a number out of thin air, or start charging $1million a barrel or something stupid like that. This would not be good business sense, given the existence of non-oil sources of energy which don't cost $1million per barrel of oil equivalent. I trust you understand why, and I trust you understand why, for example, the factory owner (that's another capitalist, by the way) doesn't particularly like the energy crisis, with its accompanying increase in costs...

I did a quick Wikipedia search, and unfortunately the table I found doesn't make any mention of oil, but let's slap it in anyway:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Levelized_energy_cost_chart_2,_2011_DOE_report.gif/600px-Levelized_energy_cost_chart_2,_2011_DOE_report.gif

Let's imagine you're in charge of an electricity company. You want to maximise profits, naturally, by generating electricity as cheaply as possible. What are you going to do? I'll give you a clue: 'natural gas-fired - advanced combined cycle' is considerably more attractive than 'solar thermal,' and if you're building a load of solar power stations instead of just burning gas, then you're an idiot. However, if gas becomes more scarce, and the price doubles, triples, quadruples etc., there will obviously come a time when you say to yourself "you know what, it's in my best interests to stop burning gas and maybe switch to nuclear, or build a modern wind farm." Even if this entails an initial outlay - in the form of funding research and development, start-up costs etc., - you notice that you will soon recoup those losses, because you can produce energy more cheaply, ergo generating a larger profit. Simple!

So I repeat, as my closing statement (because I'm bored of writing the same post over and over again, and won't continue doing so): as oil becomes scarcer, and therefore more expensive, some rich little so-and-so will show up somewhere with a briefcase full of readies and say "spend this developing solar power, so that my factories can be powered more cheaply and I can make a fat ol' profit. Oh, and make sure I get some other kind of benefit for my generosity. Yeah. Thanks!" And that's what's going to happen. Should capitalism last that long, renewable energy technology will be developed, and an increasing percentage of global energy production will come from renewable sources. And nobody will care that there's no oil any more. Not because of some kind of tree-hugging environmentalist turn, or some ethical consideration about the future of the planet, but because somebody with the money will notice it's in their best interests. Economically speaking. And all other issues which challenge the capitalist system will be tackled in a roughly identical way.

Oh, and here's another closing statement, by the way: that bit (though actually I think it spanned a good few pages) that Marx wrote that time about how the bourgeoisie is the most innovative and advanced and adaptable ruling class in human history, with all its countless developments, or whatever it was he wrote...yeah, just read up to the end of that bit, and then stop. And then read it again. And then remember that nobody's going to say "ah well, no more oil, I guess capitalism's just going to have to end now, because developing alternative energy sources sounds like a lot of trouble, and it would cost money, so let's instead just let the proles take over now." Puh-lease.