Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: An Introduction to Anarchist-Communism

Posted 2 years ago on March 6, 2012, 12:50 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80 (6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

An Introduction to Anarchist-Communism. Presented by a member of the Aotearoa Workers' Solidarity Movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2KSFkDCDns

Sounds pretty good to me! Even the baby in the background is excited.

104 Comments

104 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by JustsumDude (4) from Apache Junction, AZ 2 years ago

Well I've got to say the nay-no, my brother. Anarcho-communism would turn this country into Mad Max. And history shows us the transition from totalitarian socialist government to anarcho-whatever utopia never happens. Learn from history, my good man. You seem like a nice enough guy, just not very perceptive.

I'm only here to learn, so tell me why you think things will turn out different this go at it?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Libertarian Socialism totally rejects any form of undemocratic hierarchy or totalitarianism at any time in a transition phase.

If one likes the idea of people having a democratic influence in the things they´re a part of and which affect them - real democracy in other words - then that would certainly include democracy in the workplace and community. There´s a name for this society building democracy from below, it´s called Libertarian Socialism. Anyone who likes the idea of real participatory democracy in which people are in control of their own lives and work, should work for Libertarian Socialism.

Read my articles here if youre interested: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

pure democracy is the tyranny of the majority and is antithetical to freedom and individual liberty.....

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, tyranny is when a small minority has undemocratic control in the institutions and general society.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

when they own the institutions they deserve control....and if one determines they are in opposition to the control exercised, they are free to leave said institution...if their life choices, actions and behaviors make that choice difficult the nearest mirror will reveal the problem.....

and as for general society the same rule applies...no one forces anyone to engage in exchange with a business entity....only government has that power of force, and will continue to have that same force in your democratic fantasy....

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

So your argument for why they deserve power is: Because they have power. With that logic Stalin's power was legitimate.

Being able to quit/ move doesn't change anything. The institution is still a tyranny.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

no, they deserve power because they have earned that power through effort and organization....

The "institution" is not tyranny if you can walk away.......there are plenty of undeveloped area's in the US where one could easily disappear and live primitively if one had that desire....if you want the trappings and privileges of modern society you must pay a price for them, because a price was paid to create them, and demand is not part of that bargain......

do you somehow think that under your democratic fantasy that instantly the uninitiated will become self-starters, and the lazy will rise to effort?

those in positions of control of business are their by their efforts, not by random happenstance.....

who will direct this fantasy land? and please stop ducking the question and answer who you think will organize and direct enterprises in a system so easily co-opted by the mob for their ends?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"no, they deserve power because they have earned that power through effort and organization"

Oh, so if workers earn power through effort and organization then that´s ok?

"The "institution" is not tyranny if you can walk away"

So a totalitarian state is not a tyranny if you can move to another country? Again, being able to quit/ move doesn't change anything. The institution is still a private tyranny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlTyAMVDUk

Again, I want decentralized participatory democracy in which the people decide how the workplace and community they live in is run. http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I don't care about your blog and your little you tube BS, so you can stop posting them...if YOU want to have a discussion then we'll have it...save your canned material for the drones...

if workers earn the power they certainly deserve it, if, say, perhaps a shop decided to attempt a equity based takeover by purchasing large blocks of stock, or pooling resources and buying out the owners, then by all means...run the business as you wish, and those who don't like it can find opportunity elsewhere......

You want mob rule, plain and simple, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it'll still shit in your yard and eat slop.......you refuse to accept that mob rule (pure democracy) is the tyranny of the individual by the collective group, you think that is preferred because you identify, now, with the group...but, should they turn on you, you would change your tune about how it is "freedom"

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I want democracy built from below - real democracy. Not just where you put a piece of paper in a box every 2nd year, and then letting people in suits in charge for the rest of the years to come, but where people actually participate in the things they´re part of and which affects them. A society where people are in control of their own lives, workplaces and communities.

I want a real active democracy in which people really participate in the things they´re a part of. Libertarian Socialism is about building democracy from below, making democratic influence proportional to how much things affect you. That means democratic control of workplaces, democratic control of communities, democratic federations of different cooperating communities, and so on.

This would be a society where people could be creative and contribute based on their own abilities and where we focus on people´s needs instead of short term profit. This participatory democracy would encourage the good things in us, creating a solidaric society on all levels: workers, workplaces, unions, communities, federations not any longer being encouraged to only look after themselves and striving for as much money and material goods as possible, like it is in capitalism, but instead cooperating for a best possible society all individuals, democratically run by the participants. This is freedom!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you want mob rule...I get it, stop repeating yourself

and you still have not answered the question I have posed three times now:

what is the initiative to create an enterprise that can be co-opted democratically by the mob and it's whims?

do you have an answer, or are you just going to continue to repeat your propagandist position over and over again?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No I want democracy from below. Stop repeating youself, please.

"what is the initiative to create an enterprise that can be co-opted democratically by the mob and it's whims?"

I dont like how you framed the question, but I understand what you'd like to know, so I'll answer.

The urge to work, contribute and be creative is part of or nature. You'll get all the answers here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXevpVXzePc

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

democracy from below is mob rule.....the tyranny of the majority....

if weeds overtake your garden that is democracy from below, but not very advantageous to the goal of growing vegetables......

I told you, I am not interested in you-tube video's.....If you would like to answer, answer....if not I'll consider that you have no reasonable answer.....and I framed the question very simply, I am not sure what your problem with it is...

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, democracy built from below is people being in control of their own lives

[-] 2 points by Dumpthechump (96) 2 years ago

Dear sff80,

The fatal flaw in your argument is that individuals are fundamentally different, so different that such egalitarian democracy as proposed in the Kiwi video can NEVER function effectively unless the community is small. Hence the anarchist ideal could only be practiced by people who had plenty of land and could break up into tiny self-governing communities e.g. Australian Aboriginal tribes.

All primitive peoples have been sidelined or have joined the capitalist rat race. To get past the rat race only a hierarchical system can work because some people are only locally minded and only some others can see the broader picture. Anarchism denies the existence of the latter or brands them "corrupt" because they want power.

Hence Anarcho-Communism is not a solution for anything - unless WW3 reduces mankind to a few thousands, scattered in isolated communities across the world without any meaningful communication.

In this case, AC becomes the default option since "people in control of their own lives" will refer only to isolated fragmented tiny communities - like Chomsky's ideal of Membrilla in Spain except for the radiactive fallout.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

it also allows people to interfer in the lives of other people.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

nah....you want people to control others lives by mob force, to steal what they want by tyranny of numbers...

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

and I want to build Freedom. Majority Rule has proven to be just as bad as capitalism.

You want Libertarian Socialism, not Freedom.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

tyranny is both "majority rules" and "minority rules". Freedom is "I rule me and you rule you and neither of us rule anyone else".

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

when people are forced to go against their own will just to please a majority, then it is Not freedom.

Consensus is much much much closer than democracy.

[-] 0 points by JustsumDude (4) from Apache Junction, AZ 2 years ago

Real democracy is tyranny of the majority. That's not freedom in my eyes, friend.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, tyranny is when a small minority has undemocratic control in the institutions and general society.

[-] 0 points by JustsumDude (4) from Apache Junction, AZ 2 years ago

Explain in more detail, please sir.

[-] 1 points by JustsumDude (4) from Apache Junction, AZ 2 years ago

Could you tell me in your own words, please?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Those are my words :)

But I´ll post it here if you dont wnat to click on the link:

Why Capitalism must be Abolished

1) Undermining of democracy

It is undemocratic when the ones who have the overwhelming power in society are not elected by people. The financial elite have most of the wealth, they control the resources and the means of production - things that affect our lives - yet we´ve never voted for them. People don´t control their own lives, workplaces and communities; instead the super rich non-elected minority make big decitions and control huge part of the society with their enormous wealth which is very highly concentrated.

Not only are the rich and powerful in an undemocratic way controlling the economy as a whole in huge networks of transactions, investments and stock exhange, they also rule the institutions in society in a totalitarian way. The economic institutions in a capitalist society have a totalitarian model; a tyrannical non-democratic hierarchy in which the people at the top - the CEOs, owners etc - dictate how the institution is being run, what´s being produced, working conditions and so on, while people further down the hierarchy must follow their orders. Capitalist institutions are in other words private tyrannies. These structures are in no way not even recembling democratic organization.

2) Exploitation

Capitalism means that the means of production are privatly owned by individuals who make a profit from other people´s work. In other words, the value of the worker´s pay is less than the value that was added thru his/her work in the payed hours. That creates a profit for the owner of the means of production who did not create the value, but still gets payed in the form of profit. This profit is then used for future investments, giving more profits. So, the capitalist is making money simply by just owning, not adding or creating value. Capitalism is in other words exploitatative by nature.

3) Demoralization and encouragement of greed

Cooperation, solidarity, altruism etc. are essential and fundamental elements of our nature, but these things are being suppressed to a large extent in Capitalism. In today´s (especially Western) societies things like greed and consumption are being encouraged. In fact, capitalism requires corporations f.ex. to only think about the "bottom line". If they don´t, they´re out of business, and corporations that do think profits and greed replace them. A society like this will of course produce a lot of greedy and immoral individuals. Capitalism encourages greed, and since human nature allows for some molding of the mind, the system we have manages to suppress many individuals´ core characteristics. Take advertisement f.ex: Private tyrannies spend huge amounts of money on this. We´re being pumped full of this garbage almost everywhere we look, whether it´s TV, radio, internet, newspapers etc etc, day in and day out. It is a highly unnatural phenomenon, it´s been a part of human history for an extremely small amount of time, yet it affects us, many of us in a huge way. This kind of demoralization is intolerable.

Capitalism must be abolished. It must be replaced by a society where democracy is the core; where capitalism and central state power are replaced by more direct democracy and direct participation. A society where the economic institutions are run democratically by the participants and the ones affected by them. That means democratic control of workplaces, democratic control of communities and so on; a society where people participate in the decision-making and are in control of their own work, life and destiny. A system of cooperative communities that benefit everyone and focus on people´s needs instead of short term profit:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-must-be-replaced-by-real-democracy-libe/

[-] 1 points by JustsumDude (4) from Apache Junction, AZ 2 years ago

Usually those owners worked their asses off to get there. Who are you to say THAT has no value? Your own arguments could be construed as greed driven.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Whether some have "worked hard" or not is irrelevant. Nothing justifies exploitation and treating people like cogs in a machine; nor does it justify having undemocratic power in society.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

We might say, a democratic system, where democracy is illusory e.g. a two party system, where the establishment selects the candidates (by rigging the choices, and then steering the process so their preferred candidate is nominated) isn't exactly "democratic" ... but then mob rule isn't exactly the ideal either. So then what??

You know, many colonists wanted things like term limits, opposed the idea of political parties, etc., and in many respects, the Constitution we ended up with a compromise.

At one time in America, the idea of workers owning the places they worked at, was a popular idea. Indeed, early in our history, liberty was viewed in a much different and much more robust way than it is today.

So maybe we don't need to reach for ideas alien to the ideas of the people who started this experiment in the first place.

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Anarcho communism is not the same as libertarian socialism. It's a synonym of libertarian communism.

[-] 1 points by JustsumDude (4) from Apache Junction, AZ 2 years ago

Yeah, doesn't sound like a good system to me. Sounds like they want people to behave like ants in an ant hill. I'm just a humble man with an opinion you know?

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

it is about control. of people, of resources, of your precious "means of production".

Freedom is about Freedom.

[-] 1 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Anarcho-communism will never work.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Because.....?

Some arguments would be nice.

If a 100% Anarcho-Communist society is achievable, no one knows, but I thinkour end goal should be to at least implement much of its principles.

[-] 1 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

The problem with anarcho-communism is it places far too much confidence in human behavior, while I agree that it would be ideal, i also think that that's the biggest problem with it. I don't necessarily like capitalism but currently I believe that it's the best system available. It's structured so that the market self corrects imbalances over time and gives equal power to both ends of the spectrum when it comes to income and assets. For example the rich will only get richer as long as society allows it, that's the fundamental problem with OWS they don't believe in the power they already hold as citizens of the United States. And another problem with any form of communism is if you attempt to "implement much of it's principle's" it becomes skewed and either turns into socialism (another system I don't believe in) or becomes extremely corrupt.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Capitalism is not the "best" in any way shape or form.

It is undemocratic when the ones who have the overwhelming power in society are not elected by people. The financial elite have most of the wealth, they control the resources and the means of production - things that affect our lives - yet we´ve never voted for them. People don´t control their own lives, workplaces and communities; instead the super rich non-elected minority make big decitions and control huge part of the society with their enormous wealth which is very highly concentrated.

Capitalism is private tyranny and command economy.

Not only are the rich and powerful in an undemocratic way controlling the economy as a whole in huge networks of transactions, investments and stock exhange, they also rule the institutions in society in a totalitarian way. The economic institutions in a capitalist society have a totalitarian model; a tyrannical non-democratic hierarchy in which the people at the top - the CEOs, owners etc - dictate how the institution is being run, what´s being produced, working conditions and so on, while people further down the hierarchy must follow their orders. Capitalist institutions are in other words private tyrannies. These structures are in no way not even recembling democratic organization.

And also, Capitalism means that the means of production are privatly owned by individuals who make a profit from other people´s work. In other words, the value of the worker´s pay is less than the value that was added thru his/her work in the payed hours. That creates a profit for the owner of the means of production who did not create the value, but still gets payed in the form of profit. This profit is then used for future investments, giving more profits. So, the capitalist is making money simply by just owning, not adding or creating value. Capitalism is in other words exploitatative by nature.

Cooperation, solidarity, altruism etc. are essential and fundamental elements of our nature, but in today´s (especially Western) societies things like greed and consumption are being encouraged. In fact, capitalism requires corporations f.ex. to only think about the "bottom line". If they don´t, they´re out of business, and corporations that do think profits and greed replace them. A society like this will of course produce a lot of greedy and immoral individuals. Capitalism encourages greed, and since human nature allows for some molding of the mind, the system we have manages to suppress many individuals´ core characteristics. Take advertisement f.ex: Private tyrannies spend huge amounts of money on this. We´re being pumped full of this garbage almost everywhere we look, whether it´s TV, radio, internet, newspapers etc etc, day in and day out. It is a highly unnatural phenomenon, it´s been a part of human history for an extremely small amount of time, yet it affects us, many of us in a huge way. This kind of demoralization is intolerable.

Capitalism must be abolished. It must be replaced by a society where democracy is the core; where capitalism and central state power are replaced by more direct democracy and direct participation. A society where the economic institutions are run democratically by the participants and the ones affected by them. That means democratic control of workplaces, democratic control of communities and so on; a society where people participate in the decision-making and are in control of their own work, life and destiny. A system of cooperative communities that benefit everyone and focus on people´s needs instead of short term profit.

[-] 1 points by liberaltarianinbrooklyn (9) 2 years ago

I tend to think there is a sweet spot in between too much government and too little. Too little government has the potential to be authoritarian due to: - The problem of "natural monopolies" . -There are existing cultural and wealth inequalities that exist without formal structures like government. -Some industries should conceivably never be privatized and/or for profit for ethical reasons. Healthcare and prisons are two obvious examples.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

When slowly entering a more and more civilized, modern, organized society with engaged solidaric cooperating communities, we can dismantle state, government, capitalism and other forms of consentration of power and create a libertarian socialist society:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Forgive me, what I meant to say is Capitalism IS imperfect it's merely the most viable option we have. Immigrants come here because of our system, China is currently moving toward more of a capitalist model because it works better than Communism, I'm not saying Capitalism is perfect by any means, I'm saying it works better than anything else out there currently. Incidentally, can you name any historical examples where Anarcho-Communism succeeded in producing a prosperous society?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"it's merely the most viable option we have"

No. Freedom (Libertarian Socialism) is what we should work for.

"China is currently moving toward more of a capitalist model because it works better than Communism"

Are you here, when using the word "communism", referring to Anarcho Communism or leninism?

Capitalism is changing China alright, changing it into an assembly line.

Poor young teenage girls working 12 hours a day for 50 cents an hour. What a wonderful way to achieve economic growth..

Could anyone living in feudalist tyranny name any historical examples where parlamentary democracy succeeded in producing a prosperous society?

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

I'd also like to point out another flaw in your thinking, by definition communism is pretty much antidemocratic and anarchy is the lack of any for of government, which is impossible to sustain. And every country has engaged in exploitation of minors at some point, including the United States, so we don't really have a right to condemn another country for something we have historically engaged in, much like we can't condemn Pakistan for State sponsored terrorism when we have sponsored terrorist groups in the past and we still do, that sort of labor is , some would argue, essential to a countries long term development.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

If you´re talking about leninism, then yes, its undemocratic and awful. If youre talking about AC, then no. AC is about direct particiapatory democracy - real democracy.

"And every country has engaged in exploitation of minors at some point, including the United States(...)"

That does not change the fact that we should object and work against it.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

It also doesn't change the fact that it's still a necessary part of China's development.

And I'm not talking about Leninism, I'm talking about pure Communism.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Teens working 12 hours a day for more or less no pay is not necessary, it´s savagery and you know it. If you favor current working conditions in China, than this discussion is over. That´s just pure immoral.

AC is, like i said, based on participatory democracy - real democracy

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Than call it true democracy, which still doesn't work.

And I don't favor it in the least. It IS savagery, it SHOULD be stopped, I just don't think it's our place to police the world and condemn other countries when we currently need to clean up ours.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

People controlling their own lives works!

I agree. No policing. I never said anything about intervention of some kind. I was talking about the principle.

[-] 1 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Gotcha, sorry I misunderstood.

And a true democracy, as good as it sounds, would be far far too inefficient to sustain itself. The country would either have to collapse completely into thousands of different city states or a dictator would rise up.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No. Freedom - people controlling their own lives and work - is what we must work for:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] -2 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

That's completely different from a pure democracy.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

And no one else's life.

You WILL NEVER have a say in MY life.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I would rather live in an UNcooperative community anyday of the week.

[-] 0 points by DayumShame (148) 2 years ago

The baby was obviously paid off to enjoy it.

[-] 0 points by liberaltarianinbrooklyn (9) 2 years ago

With a long history of wealth and social inequality (independent of government) things can not be perfect right away. In my opinion liberals and libertarians should work together on the many issues on which we agree and then see where we are in 50 years. Perhaps we will have a more equitable society with fewer barriers for self employment and small businesses and we won't need social programs. Perhaps we will have voluntary social programs or programs targeted only to those who are elderly or disabled. We are so far away from having an equitable society it seems unrealistic to plan on some immediate utopia. These are questions for a future generation to decide after our generation establishes some modicum of civil liberties, peace and general welfare. Some degree of ( democratic and accountable) government will be necessary in any transition period. ( For clarification I identify as a libertarian socialist as well but belong to the Hillel Steiner school which is more classical liberal than anarchist. I think wealth derives from a history of social inequality and while I generally respect property rights I think taxation and government programs which advance the common good are advisable. I make a distinction between personal rights which are "moral" rights and property rights which are just "legal" rights. In this I differ from many other libertarians. )

[-] 0 points by NOMOREOCCUPY (0) 2 years ago

ok stop whining you lazy asses and get a damn job.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I have a job, dude! (and many of the ones who are unemployed are really suffering right now and really want a job)

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

what about those of us who dont want to work?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by HCHC4 (-28) 1 year ago

Lets take a community, say a small community like Ithaca, NY.

If we removed the government 100%, both state and federal, would they be able to take care of themselves?

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

So if a small scale anarcho-syndicalist/anarcho-communist society were established somewhere in the United States, would it survive....is that what you're asking?

[-] -1 points by HCHC4 (-28) 1 year ago

Yes. I believe it would, but it obviously would eventually have to be pushed to larger cities as well. But I think we need to envision what that initial scenario would like, how it would be organized, what would need to be done, how would things that have been usurped by the government be taken care of.

Not really asking if so as much as asking for people to start thinking about it.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Are you a libertarian socialist?

[-] -2 points by HCHC4 (-28) 1 year ago

Honestly, I hate labels.

I believe in community, and I believe in community service. I hate multinationals, and I hate people telling me what I have to do. Not a fan of representatives living farther away than a day's walk.

Increasingly not a fan of representatives at all. Although as with occupy, we found out that self governance is a shit ton of work, and it would be nice to live in some fantasy where you can give a human power and its not abused 9 times outta 10. I'm not sure its even possible at this point. Seems to be the best way to disrupt the corruption is take away the centralized power.

I support green and sustainable energy, highways and neighborhoods packed with cars running on gas and homes powered by coal seems primitive and extremely dirty.

Anti war, and believe our perpetual war will come home as it always does with every other country that acts like this.

Pro clean foods, pro choice, pro EVERYONE voting, even felons. Hate the state having a say in most everything. Once they get involved, its influenced by the corrupt and no longer by the people. Dont like abortion? Dont have one.

I believe in the power of the people, and I also believe that all of this concentration of power in the state capitols and DC has destroyed our ability to understand what it takes to successfully run a community, along with what it entails.

While people who support the status quo frustrate me, I understand that those who campaign are at least attempting to do something, and if everyone did that, we would prob not be in this situation.

Dont appreciate being called a "unicorn chaser" in one breathe, and then seeing people say the initiatives that other "unicorn chasers" are great (MTA).

[-] 5 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I think capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) should be abolished, and eventually replaced by a system in which the institutions in society are run democratically by the workforce and the communities etc.

Do you agree with this? Do you agree that there shouldn't be private ownership of the mop, but instead democratic control?

[-] -2 points by HCHC4 (-28) 1 year ago

Depends on if people want the responsibility of the control, its a lot of work. A lot of people simply want to show up for 8 and go home.

I had a friend who said "You know why I work for other people? Because I value my time"... Its a ton of work.

If people are willing to let others make the decisions in order for less responsibility, and not have to go to all the meetings, etc, then you have to give them that right, along with the rights of others to say "I'm going to do this this way, if you want to join me and play by X rules, then you are more than welcome to."

Im all for people working together, I think coopts are a great opportunity for people. But its a lot of work, and as anyone knows who has done political campaigning and organizing, its like pulling teeth to get people to show up to meetings.

The opportunity should always be there, as it is right now in many cases. But people either want to be involved or they dont. You cant force em. And we all know what its like when someone hasnt been to 5 GAs in a row, shows up and wants to know answers to everything. doesnt agree with X, couldnt vote on Y because of situation Z, etc etc etc.

[-] 5 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

No one's talking about forcing people to participate in the decision-making The thing is that people should have the right to be able to participate in the things they're a part of and affected by. So you think people should have the right to a democratic say at the workplace and in their community? Would you consider a participatory, more direct democracy as the ideal way of organizing society?

[-] 0 points by HCHC4 (-28) 1 year ago

"Would you consider a participatory, more direct democracy as the ideal way of organizing society?"

For sure.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

And people should have the right to a democratic say at the workplace and in their community, yes?

[-] 2 points by HCHC4 (-28) 1 year ago

Yes, but there is a lot of work involved and I dont think its going to be very smooth going for a while.

That being said, something has to be done, something big.

If everyone decided that they are now going to get involved, it would be incredible.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

So you think people should have the right to live in a society in which the institutions are run democratically by the workers and the communities, and you consider this kind of system as the ideal. In other words, you're supporting the core ideas of libertarian socialism. Good!

Read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

When did calling the 99% asses, suddenly become not labeling???

I guess the 99% are the one thing you don't support.

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Still pushing this childish nonsense.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Freedom is not childish. And how ´bout some counter-arguments..?

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

I'm tired of rehashing why this is all childish shit.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

But obviously not tired of rehashing that it is childish, period. Not a very constructive debating technique.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Socialism is childish and simply doesnt work.

[-] -3 points by melsdrivein33 (-6) 1 year ago

Oh good... that's the political movement America was looking for. Anarchy and Communism. A nation run by high school dropout, angry punks, whose parents tossed them out of the house, and their finest skills are turning over cars and kicking in the windows of Starbucks at the G-8 meetings.

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

hey euro-wimp go fix Norway.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Ridicule is a sign that you´re all out of arguments. I hope you´ll change your mind in the future and turn into a decent human being. Yours s

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

You seem to perfectly content on continuing to ridicule Capitalism. ;) Does that mean that you are all out of arguments?

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

I like Norway so no offense, but i hope that you will change and stop being an euro-wimp. When Europe has a Muslim majority, you are always welcome to migrate to the U.S.A..

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Most muslims living in Norway are law abiding citizens, working hard.

Judging individuals based on ethnic or religous belonging is in my view awful.

I would be happy to visit the states. If I went though, I would right away join the wonderful people at Occupy Wall Street :)

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

Well if you do come, come to the great city of Chicago, Illinois. Well, look to the U.K., Holland and France to see what happens when Muslim get political power. When you are the majority you (native Norwegians) can be liberal and tolerant, but when the intolerant (muslims) become the majority, have fun.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

There you go again: "but when the intolerant (muslims) become the majority"

Calling lots of individuals whom you have never met "intolerant"? Seriously? That´s awful and you know it. The problems that have arisen with immigration are very often class-related. If we had more equality and economic justice and were better at including the new citizens in society helping them to get work etc so that they´ll get a decent life lots of these problems would go away. Reactionary attitudes also decrease when doing this.

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

OK. just sad to see the demise of Europe from across the pond. it is not reactionary to want to defend your country, a suicide pack with liberalism isn't going to help.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I was talking about reactionary attitudes sometimes seen in religious groups such as anti-gay, and or sexist views etc.

Again: the problems that have arisen with immigration are very often class-related. create a more just and free society and lots of problems would disappear

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

You are describing (with the word reactionary) Islam, it is an anti-gay,anti-women, sexist, anti-democracy, anti-modern law, anti-Semitic. A more just and free society isn't going to faze the radical muslims. With a population of roughly 5 million, and low native birth rate, Norway could easily be overwhelmed. See below a real reactionary

' A practicing Muslim man raped and threatened a young Norwegian girl for several hours. Numerous rapes in Sweden over the past several years have been committed by "non-Western men," e.g., Muslims. In fact, in the past year, all rapes in Oslo have been committed by non-Western men.

"He said that he had the right to do exactly as he wanted to a woman. Why? Because that

is how it was in his religion. Women did not have rights or opinions. He was in charge."...

Meanwhile, all rapes in Norway in the last five years have been committed by...uh..."non-Western immigrants," the latest euphemism for Muslims. Pamela Geller skewers the code words here.'

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

All forms of religion - including Christianity - can be used to justify all sorts of things; from the most awful to the most humane.

All religions have examples of groups with reactionary attitudes, but they often decrease when doing the things I desribed above.

Individuals commit crimes, not religions.

[-] -2 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

Christianity is the basis for Democrats. READ THE BIBLE as ignorance of my word shall be no excuse that saves you from the eternal hell fires of republicanism.

OWS votes democrat and string up a republican for the cause.

It's just the right thing to do.

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

so how exactly do you explain radical Islam? I don't see Christians currently smashing planes into buildings or bombing subways. We have heard your excuses for radical islam, and i'm surprised that you are an apologist for them.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I think radical islam is caused by lots of things. Western imperialism is one factor; it has caused a lot of misery, hence hatered. Poverty and badly developed infrastructure etc is also a factor. When christians lived under the same conditions as many muslims live today there were also a lot of reactionary fundamnetalist views.

There´s a difference between making excuses / justifying actions and explaining the reasons for actions.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

@struggleforfreedom80 You're trying to have a rational debate with a Neocon, Zionist, troll, warmonger & hatemonger.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Well, I usually ignore the worst trolls. At the same time, presenting rational reasonable arguments may change the minds of some of the trolls/suspected trolls. I don´t know, maybe I should ignore all of them...

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

Ms Gildas the Terrorist lover. You hate Jews and America and Israel.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

when Bush said "shock and awe",

he meant terrorize the population with bombs until the are controlled

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

OK. Think of Nazi Germany. Nazism may have started because of what you say, poverty, misery in post WWI Germany. The Nazi's threatened Europe with occupation and destruction. Would you, had you lived in those times, said 'oh those Nazi's they are the way they are because of poverty and lack of freedom and justice . Give them a chance they will be good.' Sorry that wouldn't have stopped them. What stopped them was force, guns and bullets. The same for Radical Islam the only way to stop them (the terrorist) is to kill them.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

This is just awful to read. Comparing poor, often hard working immigrants with Nazis. I´m done with you.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

Well if you don't agree with me even your neighbor Germany's leader {from the BBC}.... '' Merkel says German multicultural society has failed. he said the so-called "multikulti" concept - where people would "live side-by-side" happily - did not work, and immigrants needed to do more to integrate - including learning German.

The comments come amid rising anti-immigration feeling in Germany.

A recent survey suggested more than 30% of people believed the country was "overrun by foreigners".

The study - by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation think-tank - also showed that roughly the same number thought that some 16 million of Germany's immigrants or people with foreign origins had come to the country for its social benefits."

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

But you don't mind reading the pro muslim anti-semitic stuff ? Probably not you probably hate Israel like most liberals and left leaning people.

[-] -1 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

I love my muslim rag heads and so they call me Allah, I'm cool with it.

[-] -1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

No they don't:

"O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter anything concerning Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger from Allah." (Qur'an 4:171)

"They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say : 'Who then could do anything against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth?' Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He creates what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things." (Qur'an 5:17)

What they call you is a blasphemer & a racist.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

ms Terrorist Lover, you know its true, Islam and Mohamed supported violence and hated Jews (and all other religions).

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

Did you know that Mohamed, who every muslim tries to be like, personally beheaded over 600 people. He was a warrior; so to say that Islam is a Religion of Peace is utter rubbish.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

Do you spout lies & hatred for money (30 pieces of silver?), or just for some sort of twisted kicks?

[-] -2 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

You're shittin me?!?!

Even the democrat ones?