Forum Post: Noam Chomsky "The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism"
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 17, 2012, 4 a.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80
(6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
0 comments 19 hours ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by factsrfun
7 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 3 months ago by gsw
7 comments 3 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by grapes
2 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
4 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 5 months ago by rachelodell
2 comments 7 months ago by gsw
2 comments 11 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 2 years ago by grapes
15 comments 2 years ago by gsw
12 comments 2 years ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
Interesting theory but it doesn't appear to be capable of developing a complex society, only of stepping in and taking over one. Once that happens you're likely to be frozen in time. New technology and advances require someone taking a risk on an idea. There may not be the support to provide resources for a risky endeavor that the local majority don't see an immediate advantage to. Why would the local majority vote to waste resources to develop the automobile if the horse works so well for people, or an MRI when x-rays work well. Most technological advances take years to become practical.
Chomsky handles all critical questions by telling how he believes each problem can be amicably solved. It's more a religion he's pushing, there is very little evidence it could succeed. It would be necessary for all of society to cooperate. What happens when an issue doesn't have a compromise position? People don't just agree to disagree about things like abortion, gun ownership, or gay marriage, and there are dozens of hot button issues that come up that can drive a wedge through a community.
He actually does admit it may not be feasible in all aspects (maybe not in the video's posted above, but he does concede this point). However, there's nothing to say there couldn't be significant variation on this theme. It is hard to imagine how capital intensive industries could ever get off the ground without venture capital and without eventually having the ability to go public (which implies a stock market).
Nonetheless, most consumer items are essentially commodities, and there's been little change in manufacturing processes for many items (in some cases, things are made the same way they were a century ago). Moreover, these days the creative part of a business is split from the manufacturing side (e.g. all the engineers at Apple are in California, while most of its manufacturing happens in Asia). In other words, manufacturing will always have to modify itself to satisfy orders (but there's no inherent reason why this would preclude cooperative manufacturing enterprises). Also, the businesses most people work for are more like the corner store than GE, and there's been very little change in the corner store model over the past century (or maybe even the past several centuries). This doesn't mean I'm endorsing outsourcing labor to low wage countries, however, even if we can get this manufacturing back on US soil, it may still be beneficial to have the creative work and the manufacturing done by separate firms (although I'm not sure if this would be ideal, rather, it seems like a good idea to retain enough flexibility in our ideas to embrace something like this if it turns out to be a better model).
Other businesses, like auto manufacturing (and other highly automated/mechanized industries, where economies of scale is important), are highly unionized (and so workers do have at least some voice, and they're typically fairly well paid, good benefits, etc.). The point is, we obviously wouldn't want to do something like chill innovation, cause spiraling inflation, etc. (but as long as we're not rigid in our expectations, there's no reason why we can't adapt our ideas to circumstances).
More workplace democracy and collaboration, more participation in our democracy, etc., are things we strive for. Whether or not human nature is as great as we'd like it to be (and as good as it may have to be to sustain a society without any hierarchical structure), is unknown at this point. I mean, I've heard some people point to tribal societies or prehistoric societies and make claims like people are naturally inclined towards egalitarianism, but this is certainly not a well settled sociological theory (if anything, the evidence is mixed). But we should certainly try to minimize the amount of hierarchical structure in our society.
This doesn't mean that we should forget the value of having a Bill of Rights, a set of legal principles which are not subject to majority vote or consensus (that protects minority rights and civil rights in general). Nonetheless, more democracy in the workplace, more participation in our political democracy, and more democracy in every aspect of life, is a good thing to strive for. What's the alternative anyway?
Explain to me why a society must be complex for it to succeed? This society we have today is advanced yes but is it really working for the people? In my opinion, I would prefer to live in a free, participatory, simple and people led society than a complex, egoistic, money-addicted and technologically advanced one. Explain to me how you came to conclude that it was not in our nature to cooperate!
complexity isn't a necessity, I'm saying it may cause an anarcho-socialist system to fail. Our society is complex, I wonder if the anarchistic society proposed by Chomsky could manage it's complexity and maintain our standard of living. The examples of successful egalitarian societies where everyone is equal are often primitive.
I see it as in the nature of all life to get the most benefit for the least effort. With people it won't take long before some realize you'll get the same food, housing, clothing, whatever, wether you work hard or not. It doesn't have to be much, just slack off a little. That tendency builds through the workforce dropping production and the standard of living will fall. People become unhappy and you're more or less back to where you are now. Chomsky admits there may be jobs no one wants to do and everyone will have to take a turn at them or someone may simply be assigned by the majority to do it. This is likely to lead to resentment.
I have developed this opinion largely from dealing with people throughout my career. It's simply a belief. Chomsky has a different belief, neither of us has any proof to offer. If a major revolution produces his utopia we'll see who is right.
In an Anarcho Syndicalist society people are deciding things like production, manufacturing etc together in their communities and at their workplaces thru democratic process. Anarcho Syndicalism is a higly advnaced technological society, but with democratic organization in the social and economic institutions.
Read more here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/libertarian-socialism-the-society-we-should-strive/
No, Chomsky pushes an idea of people being in control of their own life, workplace and community. Is that really so unreasonable?
A rule of thumb that I like is that the right to a democratic say on issues in society should be proportional to how much it affects you. So in other words, gay people getting married does not affect you much so you should not get to decide gay people´s private life. A big corporation controlling big parts of the economy of your community however, should be something that the people affected should have the right to make decitions over. That goes for all other issues. There are, however no magic formula. People living in the communites must deal with these issues in a constructive and reasonable matter based on their own wishes, but with democracy and direct participation as a basis for it.
I understand how it works in production decisions, I just don't see how innovation would be possible. Do you honestly believe you could have convinced a majority of the people in your group of the automobile's viability in the 1800's? Or convince people living in the 1970's that personal computers had value. Allowing that an anarcho-socialist society could operate a modern complex society (a proposition I seriously doubt) that society would stagnate, there would be little growth unless a majority had the same vision, and it's never the majority that have that kind of vision.
As for your rule of thumb for living. I could agree, most liberal social issues don't bother me at all. That isn't true for everyone. What happens when a group with strong beliefs that issue X is worth fighting over? Some of the people preforming a specialized function feel the need to go on strike until society bends to the belief system of a minority or small majority?
People aren't "live and let live", "let's all just get along", their nature will make every democratic meeting a battle rehashing personal disagreements. Neighbors will choose sides and groups will work against each other just to stick it to the opposition. It happens with political parties now, but at least blaming congress keeps us of each other's back a little.
"Do you honestly believe you could have convinced a majority of the people in your group of the automobile's viability in the 1800's? Or convince people living in the 1970's that personal computers had value."
Well, I just want to mention that lots to do with computers, internet etc came out of the state sector, but let´s leave that aside, I understand your point. First of all, there´s no evidence that if these time periods you mentioned had been with a Libertarian Socialist organization, that new inventions would not have come about, so this (and a further discussion) is based only on speculation. I can not see that there is any reason to believe that LS would kill innovation and creativity. On the contrary; LS would incourage and give individuals the freedom to live out their true creativity:
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html
Honestly, I think that cooperation, democratic decition and giving people the freedom to contribute based on their own ability would produce more invention and technological progress.
As for your strike-example, if a small group of reactionaries organized in order to try to disturbe or dismantle decitions and established attitudes among the vast majority thru striking, then the rest of the population/people in the community and/or workplace would have to get together finding ways to deal with this by f.ex finding (and educating if necessary) other people willing to do the work, taking it in turns if necessary etc etc.- and of course converse with the reactionaries trying to convince them with good arguments that their claims are unreasonable. There are many possibilities as to how to solve the different problems that would arise, and I dont claim to have all the answers to all of them. There are many details and eventual problems/conflicts that have to be worked out when that time comes by the people participating in the specific community.
"People aren't "live and let live", "let's all just get along", their nature will make every democratic meeting a battle rehashing personal disagreements"
We are mostly good by nature, and LS would encourage the good things in us: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html
You can have all the creativity in the world, but developing technology often takes resources these would be controlled by a collective, you couldn't go out and find a venture capitalist to invest in your idea, if the majority didn't see the value in it then it's development would be prevented or at best delayed.
My strike example I'm thinking along the lines of some issue where the division is emotional, runs deep, and is close to 50-50. Polls showing those in favor of the following issues for example; Capitol punishment, 64%, abortion 54%, gay marriage 45%, stricter gun control 46%. Although your response to it is interesting. In spite of your system having only very minor support today, you assume that anyone in disagreement would be part of a small minority. Who is to say what is reasonable, just 50% plus one?
With each difficulty mentioned you take the most optimistic line, understandable, as you are a proponent. The one I find impossible to accept is the inherent good in people. We attempt to get the most benefit from the least effort, most life does. It's a pleasant notion, all people equal, happy having an equal voice, but I see it as chasing an illusion.
"developing technology often takes resources these would be controlled by a collectiv"
sure. Tecnology would be developed in a society where institutions and communities are run democratically. That way people can decide how their own life and society would look like. "My strike example I'm thinking along the lines of some issue where the division is emotional, runs deep, and is close to 50-50."
There would f.ex have to be arranged meetings and caucuses etc where people discuss and try to come to as much agreement as possible and, if necessary, let majority rule if many still disagree. But the major decitions on things you mentioned would have to be taken in the communities by the ones living there. I dont think there´s much more to say now. Again: there are many possibilities as to how to solve the different problems that would arise, and I dont claim to have all the answers to all of them. There are many details and eventual problems/conflicts that have to be worked out when that time comes by the people participating in the specific community.
"The one I find impossible to accept is the inherent good in people."
Read and watch http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html
Chomsky simply has faith in people, I don't. He also points to primitive societies as evidence of our native goodness. Primitive hunter-gatherer societies were composed of small units, a single culture and individuals were usually related. Neighboring, equally egalitarian tribes did not always get along. There are studies done on our tribal nature that point to an us vs them natural behavior. Chomsky looks only at the small group and neglects the larger population where conflict between groups often erupts.
I also think you're very wrong about the lack of innovation. The dreamers and great innovators are often laughed at. I don't see an egalitarian society voting to risk investing resources in a dream they didn't have faith in. I don't think the space program would have been initiated by your kind of society. If you're all happy in a collective there is no point to innovate beyond what is necessary. It works well for ants and bees, but it would freeze a society in place.
Struggle leads to change and progress. Even under today's conditions, with unemployment and some homelessness. Our poor are better off then a majority of the world's population.
I have now presented you with one of the smartest, intellectual persons on the planet, Noam Chomsky´s thoughts on human nature (not on hunter gatherers) and Ive presented you with an article based on scientific works - one of them one of the most recognized in evolutionary biology. If you´re still not convniced, then I can´t help you. But you know what, whatever future science will find out about our, not entirely known nature, we should continue to work for democracy in the workplace and community because that´s just common sense.
His field is linguistics, as bright as he is he has the capacity for error even if he were to stay in his own field. Outside of linguistics he's just another man with opinions. He draws on simple societies to back up his claim that man has evolved to be basically good.
The science you point out from your link is more argument about altruism having evolved to be part of us. To some extent it has, but so have anti social tendencies as indicated by the need ancient societies found for laws against theft or murder.
Thoughts toward anarchistic worker run societies come along every time economies take a downturn. They fade away as the economy recovers. Workers have the right now exercise their native morality to buy up shares of stock and become owners of corporations. They can also exercise their more greedy nature and demand to be given something they haven't actually earned. If you want a society to be run along libertarian-socialist lines go build it from scratch and don't simply try to steal it.
Linguistics, and especially Chomskys contributions to it has lots to do with scientific understanding on human nature. "go build it from scratch and don't simply try to steal it."
sure, that too, but its a little more complicated than that. The economy is all-encompassing. A co-op here and there does not change the fact that wealth and power is highly concentrated on the finacial elit controlling huge parts of society. I dont want to steal anything, I want democratic process in which institutions /communities become gradually democratic as the more people wants it.
In mentioning the democratic process as a way to take over someone else's property, you may have indirectly given me a reason why anarcho-syndicalism will never be accepted. Also why it seems to be talked about more during times of recession then fades into near obscurity as the economy improves. Most people aspire to move up economically and still believe that mobility is possible. If you start voting away private property, where does it end? During recession you gain a few more followers, when people feel like they are victims. When times improve people see a greater possibility in joining a higher economic group and their work earning them a reward. During better times they wouldn't want a majority taking away what they feel they have earned.
Any form of property right is given by society and democratic process (unless it´s a dictatorship or semi-dictatorship). Today´s property rights are not graven in stone or unchangable. Just like the wealthy business owners have been given the right to own the value of the results of someone else´s labor, workers can be given the right to instead control their own work and workplace. There´s no controvercy about that if you think it thru.
Deciding property rights can only come thru democratic process, where the people decide the laws that apply in the society they live in.
What you say about a society taking away property is what dooms your proposal. A tyranny of the majority. It's no longer freedom, it's a dictatorship by committee. It promises tranquility if you become part of the hive. If you don't fit in a slim majority can vote away any rights you may have had. Chomsky's system could never work in a society where individual rights are placed above the group. It's the way we are.
If you want this type of society, go out and do what groups like the Amish or Mennonites do. Gather some believers, buy land, build your own society. If it's successful and thrives then buy more land and expand. Don't steal from individuals that have built a business tell us it's just the will of the people.
We work to get something, why would I ever work hard if everything is going to be shared equally no matter what?
Because you are a human being:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXevpVXzePc
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w4ThqMEpUQ
He doesn't seem to know much about actual human beings. It's like he thinks the only jobs that will be around are interesting and enjoyable. There are some jobs no one wants to do, so someone is going to get forced to do something they don't want to do. The best way not to get stuck with a bad job is to play stupid and screw it up. He uses examples like his job, but a lot of things that have to be done are boring. Suppose no one wants to work all day in a factory, people want to sit and draw or play music, write poems, forget farming or building a house. What happens then, you just force them?
For his idea to work he needs everyone to apply themselves to whatever jobs they have. For it to fail you only need a few to goof off, that attitude will grow through his system. People don't work hard if they don't have to or want to. If you get one of the sucky jobs you'll do as little as possible. He may be a smart guy but he's only seeing what he wants to see about human nature, and like I said he has to be right 100% or it fails.
C talks about the issues you rise here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/noam-chomsky-the-relevance-of-anarcho-syndicalism/
In Libertarian Socialism people are in control of their own life and work:
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html
"People don't work hard if they don't have to"
My country Norway has a realtively good social safty net. Anyone can fake an illness fex, and recieve social security, yet Norway has the lowest unemplyment rate in Europe. Now, according to your theories of humans, how can that be..?
He touches on it lightly in there, but only to say we'd have to rotate the bad jobs, still doesn't answer the problem of people going through the motions because they either don't want that job or it's only temporary. He dances around the problem while trying to say it will all work out. There isn't any real reason to believe him, this idea is like his baby and he doesn't want to accept any flaws.
Norway is a constitutional monarchy not an anarcho-syndicalistic state and it does have welfare fraud. It only took a few seconds to find several news articles and videos on it. If everyone shares the profits the same, you're going to get people cheating or just going through the motions at work. You can say I believe people are naturally good all day long but it doesn't make it true. I see it all the time when you compare kids in a pass fail course with one where you can earn a grade. Less reward means less effort. If everyone gets the same no matter how much effort you put in, anyone without his or her dream job will put in less effort.
How does all this socialism get the businesses to begin with, do you propose to buy them from the owners or just take them over? Shouldn't everyone working have to contribute in order to own a business?
There will always accure some fraud and a few slackers in a society, but Western countries are more wealthy and efficient than ever, we ll be able to handle and afford it.
No one is saying that all humans are pure angels, what Im saying is that we are mostly good and engaged/active, so therefore we should organize egalitarian society which ables people to be in conrol of their own affairs
In AS people decide production, manufacturing etc together in their communities and workplaces by democratic process and direct participation.
That's true if the slackers can get fired or be demoted and be paid less. I would need to see that, some kind of on the job justice. If I'm working hard and some other guy gets the same reward with less effort, he's gotta get some kind of penalty. Otherwise I'd be an idiot to work hard. That becomes even more true when I get stuck taking a turn at one of the jobs no one wants.
It's not likely to ever happen though. If people want to set up some kind of coop they can do it now, workers can buy into bigger companies or start their own small ones. It seems obvious a lot of people aren't willing to take the risk that a business owner takes. Democracy is nice, but it's not always an efficient way to run a company either. Lots of time wasted debating poor ideas and then hard feelings over it.
I think it´s sad when people have a belief system that people only work (hard) so that they can be payed cash. its very demeaning. Humans are Homo Sapiens, not Homo Economicus. Its in our nature to work and be creative.
We can afford to give the slackers necessities, if they dont want to do anything with their life, than it´s just sad for them.
Thats not how it works. The economy is all-encompassing. A co-op here and there does not change the fact that wealth and power are highly concentrated on the finacial elite controlling huge parts of the economy and society.
If you like the idea of democracy, then you should in principle be in favor of democratic workplaces and communities - libertarian socialism:)
You talk like all work is creative, it isn't, some of it is just necessary. If AS requires us to lower our standard of living it will be rejected by society out of hand, I don't think there is an argument there. If our standard of living is to be kept the same then someone has to do those uninspired, uncreative jobs. You talk as though every job has a person that is a perfect fit for it. That isn't so. If you were to give free stuff to the slackers, then I'll just sit home too and do something i find creative and interesting to me, but useless to the rest of society. How long before we're all home painting, blogging, writing while being fed and provided for by those suckers working.
You might have better luck going with co-ops and having workers contribute and buy the small businesses they currently work for. Show that the idea works, that worker owned businesses can do what the traditional business can. Then slowly expanding to more and more. That would have a better chance of success then trying to convince people this could work. I know it functioned for a short time in Spain, but the workers took over existing factories, they didn't build up anything themselves. I could never support taking over private property.
We have democratic workplaces, shareholders get to vote in how the company is run. People that haven't bought a share in the business have not earned the right to have a say. Unions can demand better compensation, a strike may make the workers seem more valuable, but there should be a limit to that too.
"If AS requires us to lower our standard of living it will be rejected by society out of hand"
That has to come, with or without AS. The increasing pollution and consumption level, certainly in the west, is not sustainable. The increasing accumulation of wealth and capital cant go on forever either. So the system must be changed, in the case of the West to a more solidaric society with focus on other (good things) rather than consumption and greed, if the species is going to survive.
Work that no one wants to do must either be rotated /shared in a reasonable constructive way or if all other options are tried thru remuneration (still very different from todays society in which in AS the dirty jobs would be payed much more than in todays society)
"You talk as though every job has a person that is a perfect fit for it"
No. Im saying work should come thru every individual living out it´s own creativity based on own ability: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html
"then I'll just sit home too and do something i find creative and interesting to me, but useless to the rest of society."
So you´re saying that the need for cash forces you to contribute and do something with you life in society..? That sounds a little like un-normal antisocial behavior..
There are today many very sucessful co-ops, hundereds just in the US, but theyre often, like anything or anyone else, affected by the things I mentioned,the finacial elite controlling huge parts of the economy and society, which prevents or slows down further growth of this tendencies.
"I could never support taking over private property."
Really. So if let´s say 2-3 major monster corporations controlled 95% of the entire United States owning and controlling everything, then you wouldnt object at all. Corporations are themselves illegitimate. They´re undemocratic
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320871888_replace_capitalism_wi.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlTyAMVDUk
There´s no controvercy in taking away certain property rights from undemocratic tyrannies, whether it´s slave owner´s property rights, monarch´s property rights, dictators´ property rights, or corporations´ property rights.
Any form of property right is given by society and democratic process (unless it´s a dictatorship or semi-dictatorship). Today´s property rights are not graven in stone or unchangable. Just like the wealthy business owners have been given the right to own the value of the results of someone else´s labor, workers can be given the right to instead control their own work and workplace. There´s no controvercy about that if you think it thru.
Deciding property rights should only come thru democratic process, where the people decide the laws that apply in the society they live in.
"We have democratic workplaces, shareholders get to vote in how the company is run"
Stocks and cash are not equally distributed. It´s like advocating that men should have 100 votes and women should have 1, claiming its democracy , cause "they all get to vote".. Absurd.
Resources, pollution, and other factors may force changes in our lives, technology may rescue us or not. If AS requires a loss in our standard it will be rejected, and we'll continue on our present path hoping things will be better rather then accept certain a loss in our standard.
"So you´re saying that the need for cash forces you to contribute and do something with you life in society..? " I'm saying I won't be a happy slave and do any job I'm ordered to. There are things I want that I'm willing to work for. I want the products of my effort, the agreed to wage or whatever, to be mine. If I don't like the job I'll look for another one. If I get trapped in a job it will be my fault and I'll live with it. I don't want to risk being told by a majority what I can or can't do, or what I can or can't have. If that behavior is abnormal then you better find out how many people actually share those feeling instead of just claiming people are all basically good.
If coops aren't successful enough to attract followers to your idea, and expand into new markets then give up. The idea isn't appealing to enough people or they don't wish to take the risk of owning and running a business. AS essentially says relax there's no risk, we're just going to take things away form someone else. Legally, we'll vote to take their property.
"So if let´s say 2-3 major monster corporations..." ask me when it happens, but if it still looks like today's world then I think it would be better then what you propose. I'm not supporting theft of private property in today's world. I wouldn't support voting away the rights of others or radically change the rules in the middle of the game. Those rules were put in place when our laws were established and I wouldn't willingly give them up. In AS only the group could be said to be secure in owning anything.
I didn't think stocks were distributed at all, they are purchased, nothing of value should be just handed out to people. Buy one share, get one vote, sounds fair enough. Workers can keep on purchasing until they own a majority share and have things their way. CEO's take stock, unions take benefits and cash. Not the CEO's fault the unions make a poor choice. It's still possible to move up economically, even for an individual, it shouldn't be impossible for a union or group of workers to slowly over time acquire ownership of the means of production. If they choose not to, then AS goes back into the closet until the next economic downturn.
Funny I wasn't this opposed to AS when we started, the more we go back and fourth the more I see the wisdom in making it so hard to amend the constitution and the importance of the filibuster to protect the minority. I appreciate the rights of the individual more too.
Noam Chomsky- ANRCHISM.pdf (4.54 MB) 242 pages http://www.multiupload.com/ZZD67CZ7P5
[Removed]
Should be the "Irrelevance of Noam Chomsky". This worn out 60s loon is almost unknown outside of nut circles and places like UC Berkeley. You can't get much more irrelevant and passed by than old Noam.
His anarchist idea of direct democracy and no central authority pops up whenever protest movements grow. There were a lot of anarchist and socialist student groups back in the 60's. Once the war ended those kids graduated, matured, and became successful the idea faded back into obscurity. Now it's back with a new cycle of protests.
Just ridicule and namecalling. It just shows that you hav no counter arguments.
Noam has been barking at the moon for decades. He's been heard, evaluated, and discarded.
He´s being admired by lots and lots of people.
Being ignored and "discarded" by the mainstream media, or whoever you´re referring to, does not automatically mean that he´s wrong.
And you have still not provided any counter arguments.
By who, 38 people at OWS?
No, by millions all over the world.
I believe you are overly optimistic struggle dude. Chosmky is a washed up senile old fart that nobody gives a damn about except a few radicals seeking utopia. Utopia is not real. It does not exist.
"Chosmky is a washed up senile old fart that nobody gives a damn about except a few radicals seeking utopia"
Ridicule and namecallingn just shows that you have no counter arguments.
"Utopia is not real. It does not exist."
No, not now, but parlamentary democracy did not exist in feudalism, and look what happened. Things can change radically in the future.
Down with Chomsky! Down with Anarcho-syndicalism! Long live our constitution!
No, no. Let´s work for a society where the people are not being dictated by a piece of paper written by dead wealthy slave owners, but where the people alive today get to decide their own society by dirct participation and democracy- being in control of their own life, work and community
You are a danger to the civil society. Fortunately not many think as you.
I´m not in any way a danger. On the contrary. The ideas that I propose are that of a sustainable society necessary for further species survival. Yours s sff
In Berkeley. LOL. Noam hates authority as long as it isn't the authority to take and redistribute. He's a moonbat whose time has come and gone. He's irrelevant.
Chomsky - being a libertarian socialist - is against any authority, but a classless stateless society can only be achieved when private tyranny has been dismantled. Redistributing thru state power in today´s society is something we all should support, of course. It´s just self-defense against private tyranny.
Sure, but before authority goes away, he'd use it just one more time to loot what other people have. But, of course, his little paradise would then be policed to ensure an ongoing equality of outcome, so authority would be back in the picture soon enough.
Noam is on the dust heap where he belongs. He's been heard and rejected.
"Sure, but before authority goes away, he'd use it just one more time to loot what other people have"
what do you mean by this?
"But, of course, his little paradise would then be policed to ensure an ongoing equality of outcome"
Well, depends on what you mean by "policed" If some individuals want to dismantle achievements made thru democratic process with the use of violence people have to defend theirself in some way.
He hates authority unless it's the authority to take and redistribute. But rather than be the last use of authority, that same authority would have to stick around to prevent those with talent and motivation from once again becoming better off. He'd have a success police.
But it really doesn't matter. Noam is a relic, an artifact of the 60s.
One can have institutions dealing with some kind of defense run democratically. Authority and lots of hierarchies are no law of nature. Again, Chomsky - being a libertarian socialist - is against any authority, but a classless stateless society can only be achieved when private tyranny has been dismantled. Redistributing thru state power in today´s society is something we all should support.
Don´t you think redistributing in today´s society is a good thing, and don´t you think that working for more democracy - democracy in the workplace and so on- is a good thing?
You can have democracy in the workplace all you like. You can do that with your own equity. Simply taking over a business that someone else paid for isn't democracy, it's expropriation.
Redistributing has it's own problems. Government should focus on opportunity, not outcomes. You don't have a right to live off of someone else. You aren't entitled to a dividend check just because you breathe the air inside our borders.
That´s not how it works. The economy is all-encompassing; our society is complex with endless networks and decitionmaking affecting huge parts of society. A co-op here and there does not change the fact that wealth is highly concentrated and that the finacal elite have huge power in society (despite not being democratically elected). What has to be done is a change in society, including making economic institutions democratic.
"You don't have a right to live off of someone else"
If that´s the case, then you and I, and many others are in a lot of trouble, because we all do this every single day; You and I enjoy the" free ride" society all the time: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320872575_the_free_ride_society.html
Excellent rationalization for why you should control someone else's business. But be sure to be fair about it. Tell them what you have in mind BEFORE they build it.
No, you got it all wrong. I wnat people to control their own business - letting people be in control of their own life workplace and community: Libertarian Socialism
Oh, you want to invest in your business, own it, continue to own it, and then control it because you own it. You want to hire people, but not stealth owners that will take it from you. Now I get it.
the repelican party is DONE
.
.
[-] 0 points by Kirby (25) 0 minutes ago
You have deluded yourself.
↥like ↧dislike reply permalink
.
.
That is not very likely. I've been engaged in revolt of the social construct for quite some time - and only articulated a case for revolt in 2009.
Here we are. On the cusp of revolution.
The repelican party has lied - repeatedly - reganonomics is a failure, blue dress stains do not trump issues of national security like terrorism, and Global Warming is here.
Holding up the budget debate with brinkmanship, creating market uncertainty that drove jobs and market numbers down six weeks into that debate, and all for the purpose of political gain - these are all issues of very serious national concern. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road when it comes to our national debt - and we cannot balance the budget on the backs of middle class America.
Repelican policy of economic deregulation has brought us to the brink of economic collapse.
It is inevitable, given both the sum of the lies and the sweeping policy failures - the people will vote these repelican fools out of office.
It's just a matter of time.
It's also a matter of national security.
You will see this become quite apparent over the course of the next six years.
What is uncertain is whether there will be ice caps left at either pole by that time.
we will see.
Show this to your therapist at your next session and then bring up the topic of delusions. LOL.
I avoid therapists - we never seem to get past the initial issue of trust . ..
So you have gone to seek help. You clearly need to try again.
Actually it was mandated . . . and it is a rather lengthy story . . .
Suffice it to say - when I walk in, sit down, and begin inquiring about neural linguistic reprogramming, they begin to sweat profusely, turn deathly pale, refuse to acknowledge the subject, and then begin casting about for the most expedient means to usher me out the door.
I've got it down to under ten minutes - tops.
And I usually do get a referral elsewhere - I presume this ensures I don't return.
I see. You need some snow.
Actually what I need is a reliable source of income - while there may yet be banner snow years ahead the long term trend isn't hopeful.
We've been dumped on the past few years. This year: 17"s. Can't even drive safely on the local lakes.
And if you're the sort who thinks takes the propagandic ravings of this totalitarianism-fetishizing, mass-murder denying fool I've got some wonderful real estate on Mars you may be interested in.
[Removed]
What exactly do you mean by "marxist hypocricy"..?
You´re making absolutey no sense..
Chomsky missed his time. He would have been good pals with Trotsky and Beria.
Just so you know. Chomsky rejects all forms of leninism, stalinism and similar isms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz11K1wUbrc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfL8-4OOIuI&feature=relmfu
What about anarchism?
What do you think? (cf the links above). Did you notice the word "similar"?
Except for anarchism
Where are you going with this?
Abolishing our constitution for a new system is out of the question for the absolute vast majority of our society.
Attitudes can be changed in the future.
Yeah, by use of force, right?
No, by enlightening and convincing.
And again, what exactly is this "Marxist hypocricy"?
That's because you're a nice anarchist. There are others that are not so nice. That want to achieve their ends by using force. OWS appears to be inviting BlackBloc activity.
This post and user was shadow banned on this forum for posting this. Isn't this type of force (censorship) the opposite of what anarchy and freedom is supposed to be about?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/world-war-web-advisory-1-are-you-an-unwitting-vict/#comment-599369
Listen. You can find extremists everywhere. There are muslim extremists, there are christian extremists, there are atheist extremists, right-wing extremists, and, yes, there are left wing extremists, including people calling themselves "anarchists".
You keep calling me a "nice anarchist", which is fine; but you see, the type of anarchism that I support - Libertarian Socialism - does not exactly have a lot of violence-advocating supporters. 99.9% of libertarian socialists are peaceful and civilized, working for changes thru democratic process. That is after all what Libertarian Socialism is based on -democracy.
You're right. There are extremists everywhere. That came out wrong. What I really mean is you are nice, period. I just can't help but distinguish you from other anarchists that I have run across here that are both radical and aggressive. Which I find a little scary.
I appreciate that you want to see change happen peacefully. So do I. I just hope change does comes peacefully, whatever that change may be, and we'll both at least be happy for that. Sigh. : )
Do you have any thoughts about why OWS seems to be inviting BlackBloc violence?