Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Anarcho -

Posted 5 months ago on Feb. 18, 2014, 4:18 p.m. EST by ZenDog (13324) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Capitalism versus Syndicalism

Anarcho-capitalism is philosophically, diametrically opposed to the aspirations of anarcho-syndicalism, but because of the libertarian bedrock beneath each of them, the A.capitalists believe that if they can only control the dialogue they can shift the movement in a direction that is to their own benefit.

The A. capitalist aim is to instill fear and chaos among the social strata sufficient to produce further deregulation. They will be quite content if they can use Anarcho-syndicalists to do so.

Anarcho-syndicalists, Libertarian communists - these are not Libertarian capitalists. And yet the behavior found among OWS supporters seems to suggest a great deal of confusion over this point.

Even to the extent of condemnation of liberal philosophy among what we must suppose are dedicated anarchists.

This is a most bizarre state of affairs.

.



On Philosophy -


On the Surveillance Industrial Complex -


Other -

4 Comments

4 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13324) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

~ Ayn Rand

When I say "capitalism," I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism -- with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

~ http://capitalism.org/

.

So just exactly how many of you libertarian whatevers subscribe to the principle of economic deregulation beneath a banner of solidarity . . . ?

raise your hands

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

Ayn Rand, the latest excuse to cheat

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13324) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

Her ideas have actually been in circulation for some time. Since no one has seen fit to condemn them loudly enough, or abrasively enough, or publicly enough, since none of that has happened, her ideas have gained much wider circulation.

I think the fundamental foundation for it all rests on selfishness itself, what it is and whether or not selfishness is a good thing. Rand's presumption is that it is good, and what we see today is the fruit of everything that follows.

I say that selfishness must be something like one side of a two sided coin, where the other is altruism, and the coin itself contributes in some way toward survival.

But here we have coinage as the representative medium strictly for conceptual purposes, and I don't like it. And it is in this case, conceptually tied to altruism, and that will not be true in every case. There will not be an equal measure of each in any given individual.

In any case there can be no justification for the degree of selfishness that we see today which produces the kinds of institutionalized market unfairness, market inequities, that result in the hording of wealth at the top of society while the rest of us go homeless and starve.

It is not reasonable to suspect that we will be willing or that we should tolerate such a state. We will not.

We will have the heads of those responsible. If they are not handed to us, then we will take them.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

It is true that many have no homes

that's a property issue