Forum Post: Why Anarchism is the Way to go
Posted 12 years ago on July 24, 2012, 6:38 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80
(6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Anarchism, or libertarian socialism if you will, is the way to go; and the reason is that it’s based on some very logical and reasonable ideas. For example:
- Building democracy from below
That means a society where people have a right to a democratic say in the things they’re a part of and affected by, and that this democratic say is proportional to how much one is affected and part of things. And since the workplace and the community in which we live in is what we’re most involved in, and spend most of our time and energy, it logically follows that democracy should be organized from below thru democratically run workplaces and communities, cooperating in networks with other communities.
- Focusing on both collective, as well as individual rights
Meaning that individuals should be free to do what they want as long as they don’t harm others, but at the same time, when people organize and do things together, focus on the collective deciding things together based on consensus and democratic process.
- Seeking to dismantle all illegitimate hierarchies and tyrannical systems
That means opposing, not just state tyranny, but also private tyranny – the concentration of private power and domination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp
These are pretty reasonable and logical ideas; they are ideas that any decent human being should embrace and work to implement in the community. Anarchism is the way to go!
I volunteer to help young people learn marketing. I think the advice I give them is relevant here.
I tell them, "It isn't what you say, that counts, It is what I hear."
The point of that is that the potential customer will decide their interest in what you are offering. If they like what they understand that you are presenting, and the way you are presenting it, you have a chance. If they tune you out, you are done.
You can be angry with them for misunderstanding the content of your message and you can be angry with them for not liking the way you presented it. Neither reaction on your part will have the slightest effect on reversing their decision to reject your offering. Anything else you do will only stiffen their resolve to continue to reject you.
I am sure this seems ridiculously obvious to most of you. But some of these students persist in making their presentations too fast, too quietly, too fidgety, too many mannerisms, too many distracting gestures etc.
If the prospective customers don't love your presentation, in total, you are unlikely to have success.
Citing dubious accounts of something that may have happened 140 years ago that didn't have a happy ending isn't something that I am willing to turn the US into a cheap imitation of Cairo 2012 to possibly achieve. Bet I am not the only one.
Have I misunderstood the nuances of your message? Certainly I have. Have I expressed dislike for your method of presentation, again, certainly. But, I am the potential customer and I will be the ultimate decider of whether I am ever going to be the customer. You can be angry, and insulting but what you cannot be is persuasive.
I don't disagree with the fact that the libertarian left haven't done a good enough job at getting the ideas out to the people; there is probably room for improvement. But if you could step out of your advertisement-bubble, and into the real world - a world where millions live in poverty, where hard working americans lose their homes because they cant afford their medical bills, you'd hopefully be more concerned about how this new society should look like, instead of complaining about what we call it.
"you'd hopefully be more concerned about how this new society should look like, instead of complaining about what we call it."
The only way to change society is to get those alternative ideas implemented. But they will never get implemented if you cannot sell the public on them. So there is nothing more important than how you plan on marketing your idea.
Your good intentions will change nothing if you can't sell people on implementing them.
We don't live in an unfair society because people love unfairness. It is because unfairness has been effectively marketed.
Business requires effective marketing in order to survive. Businesses are experts on marketing. That is why society is ruled by business. They are the most effective marketers. Isn't that the essential point Chomsky makes on media in the videos you link to?
So what are your suggestions then. How can we make our society more humane and just in your opinion? Do you really think that the advertisement business should set the standard..?
The solution to nearly every social problem is to replace capitalism with what has been historically called democratic market socialism.
I wrote a post here which explains exactly how that system works. It is what informed social activists (who understand economics and business) have been advocating for the past 150+ years.
The basic idea is already proven to work, is peer reviewed in mainstream economics journals and advocates have been publishing on the subject for nearly 100 years from Oskar Lange debunking Mises and Hayek in the famous economic calculation debate to Paul Cockshott today.
The idea in a nutshell is that since workers are responsible for 100% of the production, they should get 100% of the income. And the only way to fairly allocate that income is based on how hard you work. The way you do that is by limiting differences in income by law to only what is necessary to get people to do hard work and give their maximum effort.
And since you will not be able to find any credible scientific study that shows we need to pay people much more than 4 times more income in order for income to be an effective incentive, that would enable us to pay every worker from $115,000 to $460,000 per year for working 20 hours per week.
The way you sell this idea to the public is we simply start a grassroots campaign where you, me and everyone else who is interested in this idea just approach your friends, family and co-workers and ask them to join a worker union.
This union will guarantee you a job so you are never unemployed, get them a minimum income of at least $115k or $230k per year, depending on their job, reduce their work week to 20 hours, guarantee them a 100% mortgage with 0% interest, pay them a pension at retirement and pay them and their kids an actual income to go to school.
When asked how this is possible. You will simply say by demanding that workers get paid fairly: based on how hard they work.
Nearly everyone you talk to wants a higher income and this will give them a significantly higher income. And everyone believes in fairness and that paying people based on how hard they work is fair.
If enough people join this union, we can simply demand that these changes be made and the economic system will have no choice but to change.
Read my post for the details.
You seem to be into the Parecon idea. That's fine, but personally I think we should work to create a society where access to resources is based on need, not effort.
What I advocate is nothing like parecon. I advocate that we should decide what to produce using the market. Consumer purchases should dictate production decisions. Parecon uses a completely unworkable system of people negotiating what they want and what work they are willing to do. It makes no sense.
It is 2012. We produce far, far, far, far, far more than what we need. More than 90% of what we produce we don't need to survive. So how do propose we allocate the remaining 90%+? We should allocate based on how hard people worked towards producing it.
If we implemented the system I propose, where everyone was guaranteed a job that paid at least $115k per year, nearly every problem in society would be fixed.
Some of your ideas are reasonable in some cases I guess, but I really think that it should be the people, thru democratic process, that should decide how production is being organized, and that we work to create a society that to a large extent is based on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
" I really think that it should be the people, thru democratic process, that should decide how production is being organized"
There is nothing more democratic than casting your dollar vote and using that to organize production. So it would be the people, through the democratic process of casting your dollar vote, that will decide how production is organized.
But since companies would now mostly be publicly owned, we would have more democratic control over them.
Democratic control means we can now make sure all our individually run and competing businesses are always working towards our larger, democratically established goals. Companies can be subject to democratically organized bodies at the industry and national level that set broad, general policies such as fast tracking the switch to cleaner energy or updating our transportation system with high speed rail or directing our automation efforts to automate jobs with the highest workers so we can free people from menial toil as quickly as possible.
.
"create a society that to a large extent is based on 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'"
People will be giving to each according to their ability. They will be free to choose any profession they want. They can work in a job that is best suited to their abilities.
And since the minimum income is $115k, they are also getting to each according to their need. Nobody "needs" more than $115k! Everyone's needs will be met.
.
"Some of your ideas are reasonable in some cases I guess"
Tell me what specific idea is not reasonable.
Tell me what specific problem would still exist that democratic market socialism did not fix.
"There is nothing more democratic than casting your dollar vote and using that to organize production."
This is false. Cash is not equally distributed. It's like saying that it's democracy if men in an election had 100 votes each while women had 1 vote.
More equality in income, yes absolutley, but that should come into place thru democratic process and direct participation; and, like I said, we should work to create a society that to a large extent is based on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
I don't advocate a system where some people get paid 100 times more than another.
I don't think you can pay everyone the same income because that would not be fair or effective. So in order to be democratic and also to have an effective economy, the only solution is to limit differences in income to only what is necessary for income to be an effective incentive.
I don't believe that would be more than 4 to 1. So that certainly would be democratic.
The society I advocate is a society "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". How is it not? Nobody would be forced to work a job that they have no ability in. And nobody would be without the means to consume what they need.
You also did not answer my last 2 questions:
Tell me what specific idea is not reasonable.
Tell me what specific problem would still exist that democratic market socialism did not fix.
"I don't advocate a system where some people get paid 100 times more than another."
I never said you did. I said it's incorrect to call "voting" with your cash democratic, because cash is not equally distributed.
"I don't think you can pay everyone the same income because that would not be fair or effective."
But let's look at it in another way: What if we focused on building a society where (at least important and necessary) goods and services were free or close to free for the people who needed them. This, combined of course with real participation, building democracy from below thru democratically run institutions and communities. A society where people were in control of their own lives and work. This is what we should strive for in my opinion. It boils down to the principle of democracy. What we have to ask ourselves is, do we want a society where people have democratic say in the things they're a part of and are affected by? If so than that would logically mean we're for a libertarian socialist society with democracy on all levels.
Current figures show that workers in the US produce 100 grand per worker in GDP. If they all earned 115G, while only putting out 100G, it wouldn't take a year for things to get even more pear-shaped (debt-ridden) than they are right about NOW.
Worker productivity (GDP/total hours worked) in the US in 2010 was $65 per hour. That amounts to $135k per full time worker. It is not $100k.
In 2010, we produced $14.5 trillion in total income:
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&910=X&911=0&903=51&904=2010&905=2010&906=A
And we worked a total of 222,736 million hours:
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&910=X&911=0&903=212&904=2010&905=2010&906=Q
($14.5 trillion) / (222,736 million hours) = $65
I go through the numbers in this comment and also in this comment.
Thanks. I figured 100G was too nice and round a figure.
I think your numbers might be off. How do you figure full time workers hours when the BEA stats show full and part time workers hours mixed?
I don't understand your question. Can you re-phrase it or be more specific?
Full time workers work 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. So if we produce $65 per hour worked, that amounts to $135k per full time worker ($65 x 40 x 52 = $135k).
Hours worked by full-time and part-time employees 222,736,000,000
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&910=X&911=0&903=212&904=2010&905=2010&906=Q
The 222 trillion hours worked are not divided between full and part time employees, they are combined. So how do you separate them?
Why do you want to separate them? In order to compute worker productivity (or average income) you have to divide GDP by total hours worked. What would knowing what percentage of those hours belong to full time workers accomplish?
The BEA does publish that data. I don't have the link readily available. I could get it for you if you want. But going off memory, 95 million work full time and 40 million work part time.
However, those numbers are not relevant to this discussion. You don't need to know how many people work full time to compute worker productivity.
BLS date for 2010 139 million employed 16 and over Seasonally Adjusted
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Three different government agencies, three different numbers.
150 million workers from the SSA
http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2010
136 million workers from the BEA
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=5&step=1
They may be counting people who were paid an income, not people who worked. Many people who do not work get paid an income. The BEA is the official number.
Because your figure of $135 per full time worker is based on hours worked by full and part time workers.
I get $54.36 per hour for all workers part and full time.
$14.5 trillion GDP / 1778 hours (average number of hours worked from OECD data) times x 150 million workers total hours worked or 266700000000 hours= $54.37 hour
Note my total hours differ also.
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=ANHRS
The BEA is the US government agency responsible for producing the country's official economic data.
The amount of total hours you are using in your calculation is different than what the BEA published. So clearly you are using inaccurate numbers. Just by looking at your calculation, I notice that you are multiplying average hours by 150 million workers. We only have 135 million workers, not 150 million.
150 million is the amount of workers we would have if we had full employment. So that is one error.
The second error is that the OECD number you linked to is based on total worker hours that contribute to productivity, not total hours worked. In computing labor productivity, hours worked toward things that labor cannot increase the productivity of (such as rent) are subtracted from total hours worked.
How do you define need?
It's not up to me to sketch out in detail, but peronally I think everyone should have a right to a decent life with at least a decent place to live, healthy food, free healthcare, free education, etc etc.
No, but you see, if someone has a right to those things, they are dependent on me to provide them. What if my definition of decent life includes living off to myself and not providing for others, in exchange for being guaranteed that I will never ask anything of anyone else?
"but you see, if someone has a right to those things, they are dependent on me to provide them"
Well, first of all, we have such a huge owerflow of wealth created thru generations of people's work, we'd have no problem making these rights available. The problem is that the wealth is very highly concentrated. That has to end.
Secondly, having rights means that we have to use resourses to provide them of course, but that goes for all rights - including private property rights (which I'm pretty sure you're a big fan of, right?
In a healthy society people would say "how can we create a good society for all", not "well how much is that new, reduced medicaid program gonna cost me"
"What if my definition of decent life includes living off to myself and not providing for others, in exchange for being guaranteed that I will never ask anything of anyone else?"
It doesn't work that way. In the real world the economy is all encompassing.
Excerpt from my 3part series "Debunking Libertarian Myths":
Myth #3:
“In an unregulated capitalist society you don’t get to intervene in my affairs and vice versa”
This has no root in reality. The economy is all-encompassing. We live in a complex, highly developed, technological society with all kinds of endless networks of economic relations, decisions, transactions etc, that affect the economy we're all a part of in all kinds of different ways.
There are different kinds of “affairs”; some that only affect you, and the ones that affect others. What you do in your personal life; which color you decide to use when you paint the walls in your living room, or what you do in the bedroom etc, things that don’t affect other people, that’s totally up to you, and is your decision alone. On the other hand, if you choose to make decisions that affect other people in your community or the national economy, for example by being in control of a huge corporation that’s a big part of the economy, and is the workplace of lots of people, well then that’s something completely different. If you make decisions that affect other people, well then you have to expect that the ones affected will intervene in these affairs.
The same of course applies to the common "If you like anarcho-syndicalism and anarchism so much, why don’t you and your friends start your own commune somewhere and leave me out”
Well, creating solidaric communes and co-ops etc, is an important task that should be prioritized, but the argument above does not hold up. Again, the economy is all-encompassing; a couple of anarchist communes or co-ops here and there doesn’t change the fact that the super-wealthy financial elite have the overwhelming power in society.
When it comes to the economy we’re not, as individuals, living in an isolated bubble of some kind, just “minding our own business”. On the contrary; when it comes to the economy we’re all in the same boat. The economy is all-encompassing and affects us all.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/debunking-libertarian-myths-pt-1/
Baloney.
Props for an intelligent sounding post, though.
Property rights are to be provided for through taxation, just like all rights. If I want the government to protect my house from vandal mobs, I should have to pay taxes to support that, because police protection is non-excludable. If taxes are not paid, the property should be seized and auctioned.
And you realize that social programs paid for with "people's inheritance" will still exist and need to be paid for after that is exhausted, right?
As far as a "healthy society" goes, I guess modern American society is not suited or healthy for you, because yes, people care how much things cost.
People that have anything care, that is. If you don't pay income taxes, why would you care what it costs someone else? It's all free!
Your quote is the exact argument used by the super-rich to pull the wool over naive people's heads and line their own pockets with stolen money. If you disagree with what I say, it means you hate society. Adopt my insurance subsidies now!
I do want to create a good society for all, but more importantly, I want people to leave me alone. That is my right.
You misrepresented what I said, I want to opt-out of some of the absolutely idiotic social programs that exist. I don't want anyone else to ever have to pay for my health care. I will pre-pay for any treatments, and if I die, so what. This does not affect anyone else, or the economy. I want the government to leave me alone when I retire, and stop stealing money from my to fund me later in life.
See what's happening? By making stupid social programs mandatory, selfish people are trying to force their choices and desires on me. You can have any society you want, as far as I'm concerned, even if it's unconstitutional. What do I care. All I demand is that you allow me to opt out, and stop forcing your choices on me.
"Property rights are to be provided for through taxation, just like all rights. If I want the government to protect my house from vandal mobs, I should have to pay taxes to support that, because police protection is non-excludable. If taxes are not paid, the property should be seized and auctioned."
So you think that people should directly pay for what they use and nothing else? Ok, fair enough. That's not the way to build a good society, however. What we should do is to create a society that is good for all; a society where most services and goods are free or close to free for the people who need them. We have more wealth than ever, built by generations; in a wealthy modern society that's just common sense.
Property rights can also come in different forms:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/property-rights/
Private property rights on the means of production must be abolished and replaced by common ownership.
"And you realize that social programs paid for with "people's inheritance" will still exist and need to be paid for after that is exhausted, right?"
The wealth is so overwhelming; and besides, people will work in the future as well, creating value and maintain things needed in society.
"Your quote is the exact argument used by the super-rich to pull the wool over naive people's heads and line their own pockets with stolen money. If you disagree with what I say, it means you hate society. Adopt my insurance subsidies now!"
I think we should have a libertarian socialist,egalitarian society, and that we use the enormous wealth on at least making necessities available for the ones who need them. That has nothing to do with what the financial elite advocate. I want their wealth and power stripped from them.
"I do want to create a good society for all, but more importantly, I want people to leave me alone. That is my right."
Totally agree - if what you do doesn't affect others than that is your decition alone. If your actions affect others, on the other hand, that's totally different. The economy is all encompassing. The economic institutions should be run democratically - Anarchism.
"You misrepresented what I said, I want to opt-out of some of the absolutely idiotic social programs that exist."
Why don't we improve them instead?
"I don't want anyone else to ever have to pay for my health care"
I've been trying to tell you that we have, as a society a huge overflow of wealth. All of this wealth, lots of it built and created long before we were even born, we're now enjoying despite having little or nothing to do with contributing to it ourselves. In other words, our contributions, no matter what we do, are microscopic compared to what we receive from society. We're enjoying the results of generations of people`s work gradually building a modern society - an enormous FREE RIDE! In other words, this "opting out" of social programs don't make any sense.
One last question, then I'll have gathered all the information I need.
What is your chosen method of redistributing the wealth? Quantitative easing, or taxation?
The method i want is communities organizing and eventually taking over the economic institutions, abolishing the private ownership on the means of production, and creating a solidaric and from the bottom up democratic society. That's not going to happen over night of course, so as we struggle to make this happen, we should push for taxing the financial elite much more and better use of taxmoney.
Can I ask you, where exactly do you stand politically/ideologically?
[Removed]
I don't care if what I do makes sense to you or not. Homosexuality makes no sense, but I wouldn't dare try to prevent anyone else from being homosexual.
Like I said, let me opt out and I'll agree to whatever you want. Even the unconstitutional stuff. Why is this so hard for you to understand? I'll say it again. Let me opt out. I don't ever want to receive anything and I don't want to be taxed to cover it.
What do you mean we "as a society" have all this wealth? What gives you more of a right to it than anyone else in the world? I think that's selfish. And what about your descendants? Don't we have a responsibility to save some of the offerings of this magical geyser of free stuff for them in the future?
Why don't we improve them? Because I don't want them. It's fine if you want them, you can keep them. Let me opt out. I don't care if what I do makes sense to you, I'm an artist, so probably most of it doesn't. Just make sure you keep my individual rights in mind, okay?
"That has nothing to do with what the financial elite advocate."
Ah, but it does. You realize we will never have the society you advocate, right? Instead, the super rich, steering the whims of society using their tool the media, will keep the conversation where they want it.
That is why no principled person on the left, particularly an advocate of LS should be satisfied with any of the corporate handouts given by the last two administrations. A LS advocate would have nationalized GM, whereas a corporate shill like Bush/Obama would merely bail the company out. Why? Because, for every dime given to the workers of GM, who are just as poor as they were before the bailout, a hundred dollars was given to the rich people in the board room.
Welfare for the rich, advocated by well-meaning people on the left. That's a beautiful piece of mind control right there, all propagated by the idea that if you don't give the public's money to the rich people in the GM board room, it must mean you hate the workers of GM, and for that matter, society in general.
And lastly, you claim to advocate a society that is good for all. Okay, but I am one of the "all" you speak of, and I officially object to this proposition. But all you have to do to make me okay with it is let me, and anyone else who wants to, opt-out. Kay?
(we ran out of reply-buttons so I'll respond to you here instead)
"Because if you want any more than that, you're merely encouraging the mal-distribution of wealth."
I'm for a democratic solidaric and sustainable society in which we take care of each other and the environment both now, and in the future.
"I was scared for a minute there you'd start saying how heroic corporate welfare is."
By reading the original post I assume you from the very start knew that I'm a dedicated anarchist/libertarian socialist. And based on that, were you really that surprised that I'm against giving tonns of cash the powerful financial elite? Bailing them out in any way is totally unacceptable, like Ive said - they must be stripped from their power.
For more info on anarchism/Libertarian Socialism, watch this video I put together: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp
"We both work for the government in your egalitarian future. (Well, I won't, I'll either be an international criminal or living a self sustaining lifestyle if you pull this off. But for the sake of discussion, we both work for the government.)"
In a libertarian socialist society governments and states don't exist, but ok, it may not be that relevant for your main argument further down, so I'll leave it at that for now.
"We both get three days vacation and our global money share of $150 per week. We both buy everything we need from the government and have some left over to spend. After saving up for five weeks, you buy a television set and have some discretionary income left over. I save up for five weeks and buy the parts to build a simple four axis CNC milling/lathe combination machine, which I then use in my back yard to make things I have invented, for the purpose of trading with my neighbors for their extra discretionary income, and if they don't want my goods, they don't have to trade with me."
Your example is not really that relevant when we look at the big picture and the all-encompassing economy. The point is that the more things affect us, the more people should have a say in these things. If you and your neighbors want to exchange things, without it affecting the others in the community and local economy, then that's fine with me. The economy should be run democratically by the ones participating and affected by it. Remember also that lots of goods and services would be free/close to free, so buying/selling would be much less dominant. The society would be more solidaric; people would be incouraged, not to be greedy and selling things in their back yard for profits, but instead participating in their community and workplace and shre one's ideas with the society making it beneficiary for all.
"My question is this, why does the government have any more right to seize my production property than it has right to seize your television set?"
I think this has been kind of answered during my answers in this comment, but to sum up a little: I want a from the bottom up democracy in which we - thru democratically run workplaces and communities - get to have a say in the things we're apart of; the economy must be run by the ones affected by, and participating in it. This is important becaouse people should have a right to be in control of their own life, work, and community.
I don't really understand your answer to the remark about the $6,000 global share of money, but if you want it to be sustainable, you'd get even less than that because you'd have to save some for the next generation.
I am sorry for assuming you were a partisan schmoe, I was afraid for a minute that the only people left on this site were only interested in pushing partisanship instead of ideas. We may not agree on the ideas, but at least we can debate. Someone who is content with whatever happens as long as their "side" wins is a poor excuse for a human, and I'm glad you're not one of them.
In a Libertarian socialist society governments NEED to exist, because no one else will ensure that the means of production is stolen from its owners and given to the workers and consumers. The natural order of things is that I can keep whatever I can protect. Without government, LS would cease to exist.
You aren't going to change human nature. People will still be greedy, and will still want more things than they have. (Especially after they realize their share of the global money supply is less than what they have now. But anyway.)
And there is nothing greedy about trading things I have for things I want. The person buying the things from me is equally greedy, because they want what I have more than they want what they have. This is the only way mutual trades can be good for both parties.
So what if I start making thousands and thousands of these items in my backyard and selling them. If you don't want one, you can buy something else instead. How am I affecting you? And, more importantly, how am I affecting 10,000 consumers individually more than I am affecting the ten I started with? If I trade something with one neighbor, as my only customer, does that give him a 100% stake in my activities?
"I don't really understand your answer to the remark about the $6,000 global share of money, but if you want it to be sustainable, you'd get even less than that because you'd have to save some for the next generation."
Like I've said before: The wealth is so overwhelming; and besides, people will work in the future as well, creating value and maintain things needed in society. Creating a democratic and sustainable future in which people use the wealth in a reasonable way, taking care of each other both now and in the future is the way to go.
"I am sorry for assuming you were a partisan schmoe, I was afraid for a minute that the only people left on this site were only interested in pushing partisanship instead of ideas. We may not agree on the ideas, but at least we can debate."
I'm willing to debate anyone, libertarians, republicans, whatever, as long as they present their arguments in a reasonable respectful manner. That reminds me, I asked you where exactly you stand politically/ideologically. I never got an answer. I don't know if you missed it or if you didnt want to answer..?
"In a Libertarian socialist society governments NEED to exist, because no one else will ensure that the means of production is stolen from its owners and given to the workers and consumers."
A Libertarian Socialist society would be a non-hierarchical decentralized society with workers' self management and community control, and where state/government/capitalism has been abolished:
The way this can be realized is communities and their workers organizing and eventually taking over the economic institutions.
"You aren't going to change human nature."
I can't do that of course, but not to worry, Libertarian Socialism is very much in accordance with human nature. I've written an article about this called "Human Nature and Libertarian Socialism":
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html
"People will still be greedy.."
No they won't :)
"This is the only way mutual trades can be good for both parties."
The economy in today's society, or in an imagined "Laissez-faire" society isn't about mutual trades; it isn't about you and your neighbor exchanging personal possesions, but instead a society in which the financial elite have the overwhelming control in the whole economy. Capitalism in any way shape or form, is not mutual trade, it's tyranny:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/debunking-libertarian-myths-pt-1/
"So what if I start making thousands and thousands of these items in my backyard and selling them. If you don't want one, you can buy something else instead. How am I affecting you?"
But I just said that the economy should be run democratically by the ones participating and affected by it. The people who get affected by your actions should have a say in these things.
"Like I said, let me opt out and I'll agree to whatever you want."
What I want is a free, egalitarian, democratic libertarian socialist society; if you want to opt out from this; if you want to turn down a good and free health care system, free education, very good workers' rights, workplace democracy etc, and instead live isolated from the society, then that's sad, but not something I would want to prevent.
"What do you mean we "as a society" have all this wealth?"
I don't get it. Do you have objections to the fact that the soceity has been - thru generations of people's work - building infrastructure, creating wealth, technology etc etc?
"What gives you more of a right to it than anyone else in the world? I think that's selfish."
I think we should work for a global society where everyone can have a decent life and a right to control their work.
"And what about your descendants? Don't we have a responsibility to save some of the offerings of this magical geyser of free stuff for them in the future?"
Absolutley. That's why we have to get rid of the tyrannical capitalist/state-capitalist system and work to create a solidaric and sustainable future.
"Just make sure you keep my individual rights in mind, okay?"
I'm very for individual rights. Individual rights such as the right to privacy, right to a place to live, right to decent food, right to participate in your community etc are rights I'm strongly in favor of.
"You realize we will never have the society you advocate, right?"
Oh, I believe so.
"Instead, the super rich, steering the whims of society using their tool the media, will keep the conversation where they want it."
The 99% must organize and strip them from their power.
"A LS advocate would have nationalized GM, whereas a corporate shill like Bush/Obama would merely bail the company out. Why? Because, for every dime given to the workers of GM, who are just as poor as they were before the bailout, a hundred dollars was given to the rich people in the board room."
Bailing these tyrannies out was unacceptable. Nationalizing? maybe at first, but eventually it must be the workers and the communities that get to have the overwheming control. The crises of 08 is just one of many examples of what happens when you let power and resourses into the hands of private tyrannies. Capitalism in any shape or form, must be dismantled.
Well, I'm glad you want to protect my rights.
In that case, I'll explain my motivations if you want, but if you don't understand it now, it will seem just as bizarre to you after I explain it.
Now, the global money supply of around 46.5 trillion dollars, evenly divided among the 7 billion people on the earth, yields a per-person share of $6,642.85. You're okay with that amount, right? Because if you want any more than that, you're merely encouraging the mal-distribution of wealth.
Well, I'm at least glad you're not just another partisan shill. I was scared for a minute there you'd start saying how heroic corporate welfare is.
Now why is production property any different than private property? Suppose this example:
We both work for the government in your egalitarian future. (Well, I won't, I'll either be an international criminal or living a self sustaining lifestyle if you pull this off. But for the sake of discussion, we both work for the government.)
We both get three days vacation and our global money share of $150 per week. We both buy everything we need from the government and have some left over to spend.
After saving up for five weeks, you buy a television set and have some discretionary income left over. I save up for five weeks and buy the parts to build a simple four axis CNC milling/lathe combination machine, which I then use in my back yard to make things I have invented, for the purpose of trading with my neighbors for their extra discretionary income, and if they don't want my goods, they don't have to trade with me. (Freedom, in other words.)
My question is this, why does the government have any more right to seize my production property than it has right to seize your television set? And who am I hurting by making mutual trades?
I have spent more time dealing with the real world and those issues I'll wager than you have.
My professional experience has given me the opportunity to try and evaluate over decades the advertizing, marketing and management techniques that I shared
On my own time, and involved with the experiences of my own family with members suffering from poverty, ongoing health problems of maladies such as polio, congenital birth defects, depression, cancer, heart disease, diabetes etc. Foreclosures, bankruptcies, burned out businesses and homes, suicides, farming accidents, radiation-caused cancers etc.
Family members involved in the giving and receiving end of hospice, world hunger, missionaries in Africa etc. I could give you the names and the family relationships which go no further than second cousins and grandparent hat experienced these problems that many families face, but I won't expose them to the embarrassment. We aren't special. We are typical. We lived on the plains on farms through the dust bowl and the depression and saw plenty of hard times and for my siblings these issues continue in one form or another. OK one specific case with out names. My sister married a man who had polio as a child. one leg is shriveled so he can barely walk. Wile she was pregnant with her first child she also had polio This has resulted in heart damage and the degeneration of her spinal column. She has had numerous surgeries on her spine, hips, ears (balance). The child she was carrying during the polio had major hearing loss from the fever. Her husband has had multiple surgeries including some for cancer. neither have been able to work and have lived on Social Security, Medicaid and medicare. Another daughter (a registered nurse who married a guy with such severe allergies to plastics etc. that he can't leave the house) has spinal degeneration and can't afford surgery. They have other problems but you get the idea.
I am as concerned as you and I offered you the opportunity to become more effective and several of those who agree withg you have confirmed the validity of what I said. So now you try to attack me on another front (where I am also not vulnerable.)
The arguments you try to pose are well known to me and have been since the 1960's. I knew a number of the libertarians of the period (some who wrote books being read today) and some of the autarchists, anarchists and objectivists. Shall I drop the names? I have considered, debated, discussed these issues for the intervening decades.
Listen, I'm not trying to attack you, and you seem like a nice guy, I just don't think the advertisement industry should be our standard...
I don't think this very much about standards. My suggestions is that regardless of the merits of your case, there are ways to present it that marketing, as a profession, has found to work. People are people and culture is culture and ours seems to respond in certain ways. All other things being equal, this is what works.
If what you are trying to communicate is in conflict with these techniques, maybe you can't use them. But if they aren't, the choice is between being more effective and less effective.
Because I have been around a long time and I am aware of some of your philosophical roots, I may have a different perspective. But my observation of folks from your camp gave me the impression that you were pretty consistently using techniques that were not generating positive interest, for the reasons that I mentioned. I have always been interested in achieving good governance and improving the well being of the community in which I live, not just locally but nationally and globally. I have visited all 50 states and around 20 countries and tried to observe what really happens in the world around me. In my career, I was a very successful sales and marketing guy and also an engineer and product developer but I'm not trying to force a marketing strategy on you that will fail. But you shouldn't fail because you presented a good idea in a weak way. Good luck.
Maybe it is, but will you ignore two thousand years of history and political development?
The internet is a key toword the Anarchism. The first step is people accomplished a wiki society without any authority by Wikipedia. The Second step is people opened government by Wikileaks. The last step is OWS.
Ah, yes, but how will you avoid the repeat of history: the development of groups of power, but now in the virtual domain?
And keep in mind, wikipedia had to regress and go to a editorship model departing from its original, more anarchic model once it scaled to the masses.
wikipedia limited power group by leting people direct action without any ad for profit. OWS is copy wikipedia model for our society by people consensus as origin. Without any representation and profit, we can aoid the repeat of history: the development of groups of power in an open society by wikileaks.
I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to get at.
Read the Federalist Papers which documents the dialog between the "Enlightenment" philosophers at the Founding of the Americas. A lot of thought went into how to create a "perfect union". If you don't think society evolves towards a union, that you haven't understood the failure of the 60's nor the Transition point were at now (re: End of Growth).
What exactly are you trying to get at? Is there something in my post that you agree/disagree with?
I'm an anarcho-communist aka libertarian-communist. A good model might be the Paris Commune of 1871, which established an operational workers government quickly and effectively.
Marx described the workings of the commune in his speech about the Paris Commune given shortly after the Communards were defeated and slaughtered by the French government. Here is a link to the transcript of that speech: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm
TM! always good to talk to you :) Yeah, I lean towards the anarcho-communist/anarcho-syndicalist ideas as well. Thanks for the link. Yes, the Paris Commune was a good model, I agree, as well as many of the things achieved in the spanish revolution.
Living Utopia is a really good documentary about what happened in 1930s Spain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y .
I also included a short documentary about the events in a video i put together:
"Occupy your Workplace": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jRy5ZIYZok&feature=plcp
yours s Andy.
Thanks for the links. I'll peruse them tonight over a stiff shot of Laphroaig.
:-)
But, I want to stay.
Of course if you really think you have the answer, you must give it a new name. Three of your first four words absolutely positively have to go.
The only person who would use a term that has been rejected by the public at large would be an academic who is driven to say, I told you so.
But if you want to sell, really sell a "solution" that you truly believe in, pick a new name. One that doesn't suggest any concept that people connect with political or economic systems of the past. Then you won't waste all of your time trying to explain why it isn't what they think. I am sure you have experienced it already. Second, never never refer them to a video of an academic explaining it.
If you have reacted negatively to these suggestions, you are a frustrated academic and you should go back to the staff lounge and have a cup of coffee and review tomorrow's lesson plan.
Warmed over, rejected, political theories are not now, nor have they ever been the way to go, and they will never, ever, be the way to go.
I have spent my life in marketing, a discipline you obviously don't understand.
Learn to explain what you idea does, and never explain what it doesn't do, nor compare it to anything else.
Put the post above on your wall as a reminder of what you should never do. Good luck.
Oh, and ditch the terms "collective, hierarchical, tyranny" and all other terms from the "failed revolutions" of the past.
You own me $100,000, but you can consider it a contribution.
Sounds like good advice.
Well, it's very hot and humid and I feel peckish, as they used to say, so I am a little more blunt than usual. Thanks.
Humid here too. (something wrong with the planet, call a repair man)
He's been here but his tinkering seems to be making it worse.
Damn them. Their all corrupt. just read today all of Greenlands Ice sheet has melted.
ALL GONE!! 1st time in 150 years!
No big deal in the news. I guess it doesn't matter.
NOT!
[Removed]
Ok. My bad. 97% of the Greenland surface ice sheet has melted. 1st time in 150 yrs.
Maybe that makes it better.
Whew.
Thx
[Removed]
Yes you are correct. I was not trying to mislead anyone. I suppose I misunderstood the article myself.
However it does appear to be an unusual occurance. I think in fact people should take note and consider the possibility that enough can melt to affect the sea level.
Nothing wrong with a little exaggeration to get people off their collective asses. right?
[Removed]
We're talkin about building a retractable sea wall/dam here in NYC, but that is for storm surge not generally higher sea levels.
[Removed]
we can do nothing to protect us from nature. It is hubris, Human arrogance that we try.
In the end nature will prevail.
but I guess we gotta try. I certainly support protecting this great city. my house is only 30 ft above sea level, so we'll see how it goes.
[Removed]
I can't sell. I love this city too much. I guess I'll have to sink or swim. Lol.
where am I gonna go. I can't drive a car. I'm stuck here.
Separate the house from it's foundation and put floatation devices underneath - then get and set four anchor chains with a suitable length of slack that can be let out oh say 90 feet and just adjust as the water level rises. You will have a house conversion houseboat.
The GOP is very very quiet. The Dems are very quiet. Only the people care.
Everyone will wake up when the crops all fail.
When they experience a return of the Dust Bowl?
We certainly had real action at that time. Like now it was slow to come but we did have real action.
And unfortunately after the fact - policies adopted then seem to have gone out the window - just not as openly and stupidly as Glass-Stegall. And now much of the same area they want to frack. So much for being able to irrigate fields with ground water. Though on the bright side - you may be able to barbeque over your kitchen sink or bathtub and cut down on your gas bill.
Lol
Where's breakfast?
LOL
That's right.
No coffee to smell.
They won't listen to your advice. Instead of being able to successfully pitch their views to the masses they will just tell anyone that challenges them to go read books or watch these videos. I think that says more about how flawed their believes are than anything else.
You gave good advice. But most of them won't see anything you posted. Just another person that needs to go read books on what "Anarchism really means".
When you speak truth, I can only listen in awe. It is so refreshing. Thanks.
I was already invited to kill myself. This from someone who has the perfect answer (If I would only watch some academic or comic, I forget which, who will dispense the total truth.)
I agree with what you said. It is all about marketing.
Just call whatever you advocate democracy and say that it delivers freedom. Business has successfully used that tactic to sell capitalism to the world even though it is the opposite of democracy (democracy maximizes equality, capitalism maximizes inequality) and only delivers freedom to the very few rich people at the top.
Philosophy and intellectual theory won't sell the public on anything. Soundbites, oversimplification and branding is what sells.
And when selling something you must sell its benefits, not its features. Of course, the most important feature is how it impacts their wallets. People care more about their personal finances than anything else, far, far, far more than the environment or war or immigration or any other political issue.
Telling people that you will have a democratic say is not going to sell anyone. Instead, tell people they will be able to double the income they make at their job. When asked how, then you explain because you will have a democratic say in how income is allocated.
You are pretty much on the right track.
Do what works. My complete position on this is, Sell what people want, deliver what they need. That will be more than they expect and they will be loyal to you.
I do agree with you, which is why I only reluctantly ever give my true political affiliations. If someone asks, I usually shrug, smile, and say, "Independent."
Socialism, communisim, collectivism, anarchism are words to avoid, if one want to convince people to readily agree without getting bogged down in explanations, which most likely will be fruitless. Even the term workers _ (fill in the blank) carries negative connotations for many Americans.
A new name... A new set of descriptive words and phrases...
We could also spin some old positive-connotation words into new directions to mean something else, sort of like the politicians and government do. Collateral damage is a great example of something, which now long ago, meant something far different than the military definition, which actually involves people losing limbs and lives.
I would have given that advice to any client, but in this case I think it is most appropriate. A focus group would the the anarchists what I said in some form. If you have followed the responses on this site you would have heard in lots of words and phrases that these terms are loaded with a long history of emotional negative reaction. And there is almost no emotional reaction that is positive The marketplace of ideas is telling you that it doesn't want anything called that and that they have heard the supporting words in old movies and they were associated with bad guys and unnecessary violence and failure.
Any marketing guy would tell them that you cal spend unlimited money putting lipstick on this pig or you can take the most positive case you can make for your ideas, give them positive or at least neutral labels, look for a few very contemporary examples of any of it that has been used in the last 2-5 years and we will put together a campaign and try it. We will suck up the feedback and fine tune it and see if you have any chance of gaining significance.
If you don't have a chance, accept your loss, do something else. Something completely different, or you can die on the hill of your choice (without me.)
I have been in sales-related businesses for years and realize the validity of your statements. Maybe we could come up with positive names like free-choice government--as a lousy example--to overcome negative stereotypes, many of which have been implanted by current government.
That is the right approach, from a marketing perspective. It doesn't cost anything to try it out yourself and get a little feedback.A lot of big companies have wasted a lot of money only to find out that an intern on street corner could have found out that Nova wasn't a good name to use in the Spanish speaking community.
A little creativity, a little sweat and you can find out whether the problem was the packaging or the product. It's better than killing yourself because you can't gain any traction and can't figure out why. Knowing the answer is priceless.
Yeah, I don't think pinko-commie anarchists would fly too well.
Not in my neighborhood.
How about rose-colored freedom lover?
Has a sweet ring to it.
The next piece of wisdom I pass on is, "Never confusing selling with installing."
Try not to get too deep in the weeds while presenting the benefits, but be prepared to deliver more than the customer expected. That is how you get testimonials, endorsements and word of mouth advertizing. You can never afford to create unrealistic expectations.That is where discipline comes in.
People know this but it is easy to forget in the excitement of getting close to the "order.".
This phenomenon of having to avoid certain words (communism, anarchist, etc) is just the reality of how effective the powers that be have been in demonizing any concept that might threaten their grip on our govt, economy,.... us.
It is ashame we must avoid the words they have successfully demonized (even liberal) but I think we do if we want to grow the movement.
In fact a vast majority of people would support many concepts that make up these philosophies. As such we should be pushing the ideas that most benefit the largest number of the 99%. Those items that would be easiest to understand, and maybe possible to achieve can be 1st.
I think the money in politics issue is a big foundational issue that if resolved could facilitate many other agenda items. We could get much support. We could then move forward.
I remember reading one of the ubiquitous polls before the Supreme Court ruled on the ACA. Even though most people supported the provisions of the ACA, when presented non-politically. Slightly over half supposedly rejected "Obamacare." Amazing what a little misinformation mixed with stupidity will accomplish.
Yeah how about that.
They can't tell you a thing about the healthcare law, but they know they don't like it. I saw that in a pbs interview a couple nights ago. People are totally misinformed if they are informed at all, but they know what they're supposed to think... Either party could declare anything they wanted to be true, and most of their constituents would simply accept it, the simpler the truth, the better.
I have watched the repubs use Karlrovian tactics of repeating a lie, over and over, on FOX, on Limbaugh, everywhere they can, coordinated, repeat the lie over & over. And many people, certainly their base 1st, (but even beyond that) start to believe it.
Obscene
We should be able to make it illegal to spread lies. Free speech should not allow this tactic that is so harmful to all of society.
I agree that the repubs are bald faced liars. They just flat out do something and then point the finger at Obama... they're like little kids, and it just makes you want to slap 'em silly.
It probably should be illegal to tell such blatant lies, to deliberately misinform the voting public. On the other hand, journalists totally abdicate their responsibility to report the truth, or challenge these liars... Why do we protect journalists under the Constitution? So that the voting populace can be well-informed in their decision making. Instead, they happily go along with what amounts to some combination of brain washing and mass hypnosis. Journalists, like bankers in this country, have totally lost sight of what their function is supposed to be.
The ultimate fate of lying political hacks seems pretty well sealed in my mind, but let's not forget who have so willingly enabled them... Next time OWS builds a library, they should build a guillotine instead-- just as a quiet reminder of what happens when the masses get fed up.
reminders are valuable but we will keep that one as an inside joke.
;)
Peace
Freedom of speech - IS NOT - the freedom to lie.
Where the fuck is the FCC - do they do anything useful in support of truth being broadcast to the populace?
Interestingly, we can ask for reform, but don't call it progressive reform. We are all here, and we're all pissed over the same problems (example: money in the electoral process: we know it's a major problem, but have to riot in order to have any hope of fixing it... So, let's fucking go riot. Now is the time to demand reform and hold their feet to the fire.)
However, trying to call for a new governmental system is a distraction, and it's ill-timed. What we need to be doing is trying to reform the system we've got. The American people aren't going to embrace any "ism" anytime soon, sheesh, they are hard enough to mobilize for "simple" reforms as it is.
We need reform. We all know this. We all agree on it, and that's how we all drifted into this forum. We need real progress-- we can't keep leaving problems for the future, or hoping the next crop of legislators will suddenly wake up and decide to work together to do what's genuinely best for our country.
This is it, folks. We are at the crossroads in history. Semantics matter, and leadership matters, and calling for pie-in-the-sky solutions like anarchism only clouds the issues we can all agree on: that the system is totally corrupt from the bottom to the top, and that major reforms must be put in place, or we face a true disaster in the near future.
The American people won't embrace any "ism." This isn't that time. We have to demand reforms that every American can get behind, working within the system that already exists.
Bill Hicks on Marketing; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
Thnks for the sht advice,. take Bill's "kill yourself.".
You have done soooo well with both converts. A comic the world has never heard of. I'm amused.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jul/24/russell-crowe-bill-hicks-biopic?newsfeed=true
Guess you are a marketer that is out of touch with the world!
I am not kidding, kill yourself.
Please refrain from this violent talk.
Are you some kinda bully? No one here will be intimidated, or silenced by the schoolyard bullying tactics of your candidate Romney.
Peace
lol watch the clip dipsht; Bill Hicks on Marketing; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
Love it - PEOPLE - Share this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
Thanks jph.
Name calling = weak arguments.
You can't bully me. I won't watch your clip.
Bill Hicks was pretty darn cool.
Died too young though.
He was kind of like an updated Lenny Bruce.
I didn't really laugh. but he was very funny, 'cause there is truth in the suggestion that marketers are responsible for putting a dollar value on everything. (I'm laughin more now as I think about it).
My ex wife is in marketing but I still wouldn't tell her to kill herself.......
I might think it. but never say it.
Thx. Never heard of him. very funny.
I guess jph wasn't really serious
Find some more of his stuff on youtube.
Like an edgier Carlin.
Cynical sarcasm, is his calling card, along with upsetting apple carts.
I love Carlin, & Bruce. So I will check him out. Any political humor is usually good.
That one on the advertisers is one of his nastiest.
So don't judge by that alone. It made me cringe a bit too, and I hate most adverts.
The whole kill yourself thing gives pause but it was definitely funny.
I found Bill's bit on marketers hilarious EVENTUALLY,. but yeah, at first the call to 'kill yourself' may seem a bit harsh, I do think the point he is making is quite valid,. the whole industry is evil and destructive. Marketing/advertising is the thin knife edge of corporatism. Selling people shit they don't need,. .
See the best bit of Hicks - It's Just a Ride; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7criyE09uy0
also great is Carlin on advertising; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtK_YsVInw8
Marketing has made America the market everyone wants to get into. Every corp knows we will buy any piece of crap, plastic, schlocky, useless,shit they dump on us if they market/advertize it properly.
And they don't really have to make much of an effort. A little "be the 1st on your block" or "you don;t have this crap yet?" and we will just lap it up.
Not me of course. I mean most of us. Sheep, keepin up with the joneses, throw it out if it's out of style or a little old.
Sad, obscene.
If the marketers shouldn't kill themselves then maybe the sheeple should. There's a marketing plan. lets get the mass sheeple to commit mass suicide.
got any kool aid?
jes' kiddin'
Alright I'll check it out. if you say it's ok.
Whatever. Have a nice day.
"Libertarian Socialism" and "Anarchism" are pretty well established, and expain the kind of society we should strive for. Its not about what terms I can and should use, I don't decide which terms and words that are used, it's about how we should organize society. If some people misunderstand meanings of words, well then maybe informing them of this is an idea.
This phenomenon of having to avoid certain words (communism, anarchist, etc) is just the reality of how effective the powers that be have been in demonizing any concept that might threaten their grip on our govt, economy,.... us.
It is ashame we must avoid the words they have successfully demonized (even liberal) but I think we do if we want to grow the movement.
In fact a vast majority of people would support many concepts that make up these philosophies. As such we should be pushing the ideas that most benefit the largest number of the 99%. Those items that would be easiest to understand, and maybe possible to achieve can be 1st.
I think the money in politics issue is a big foundational issue that if resolved could facilitate many other agenda items. We could get much support. We could then move forward.
I understand your point. However, like I said before, "Libertarian Socialism" "Anarchism" etc are pretty well established terms. Maybe it would take just as much effort to establish new less "frightening" words like "Participatory Democracy" let's say, than to convince people that the current words in reality just stands for a lot of reasonable ideas. I don't know. The important thing to me though, is how this new society we must work to create looks like, not what it's called.
Perhaps if we set aside the terms and focused on the issues that the 99% care about.
Working to create a new real participatory democracy in which the people - the 99% - are in control of their own lives must be the absolute main focus, yes.
Money out of politics, and real election reform, repeal electoral college, mandatory voting for all.
A city council level attempt at real direct democracy where citizens vote for actual legislation by internet perhaps might be an achievable goal.
Sounds good - except for the "mandatory voting". It must be up to every individual how much they want to to take part in the democracy. What we should do is enlighten and incourage people to participate more.
But then won't we have the same situation as we do now where the poorest citizens, or minorities are excluded?
Why shouldn't we all vote? They could vote 'not interested', if you like.
But if we start with no interested in expanding democracy I wouldn't be interested.
Mandatory voting for all! It's what the 1% fear the most!
Peace
Nobody should be excluded from voting, and we should enlighten and ecourage people to participate. Organize it so that this is desirable, don't force; and convince the majority to strip the 1% of their power :)
It's got to be raised to a duty, obligation, civic responsibility. A bit like Jury duty, paying taxes. Other countries have made mandatory voting work. It CAN work. It is in everyones best interest that everyone vote.
If we allow people to vote "not interested" we address your concerns. So whats the problem?
Peace
There is of course force in any society no matter how we organize it. The question is how much there is of it and what it's related to. I want a society where force and authority is at a minimum, so it's very much a principle-thing for me personally. I undersatnd your point, but respectfully disagree; it would be better to enlighten, encourage and organize the 99%, rather than forcing them.
We diagree on a couple of issues here and there, but we agree with the core idea: namely that we should create a more direct participatory democracy where people control their own lives and work, and that's the most important thing. Solidarity :)
Yes.
Solidarity.
Sure they should be informed. I think it is most important in getting them on board. Perhaps we can spend our time explaining the agenda items we want to implement.
What changes we support that might benefit them and as many of the 99% as possible.
That is "informing people" as well. But it is informing them about the issues they support (hopefully) and we are agitating for.
The labels are less important then the goals we have in improving the lives of the 99%.
No?
The most important thing is the kind of society we manage to create, not what we call it. The society should be based on solidarity, workers' self management and democratic communities. If we can create communities like that, then that's great .
The revolution continues worldwide
yours s.sff
-money out of politics, -election reform, -economic equity, - tax fairness, -equal opportunity (free college, job training) -non profit, affordable, public option healthcare.
These can be the issues that start on the road to concepts you listed.
Sounds good :)
Those terms will never get it done. Case closed. Coffee's ready.
Let me ask you, do you have any arguments against the ideas presented in the post, or do you find the ideas of a free, egalitarian democratic society reasonable?
And btw, I'm used to being ridiculed especially by right wing internet trolls, so it don't bother me much, but it would be nice if you could present your arguments without the "coffee" wisecracks.
To be honest I just can't read that stuff. I knew a bunch of the libertarians in question and some of the anarchists or people who were their friends.
I was young and idealistic and believed in the perfectability of mankind. You know how that turned out. And I learned a lot about the real world. I went from being an engineer to being a successful salesman, then a successful marketeer, a successful product developer, a sometimes successful entrepreneur, etc.
The real world lives on anecdotes and coffee wisecracks and if you want to succeed, you need to scrape off the purity and holy than thou. learn to laugh and come to grip with the issues. I have been laughed at and ridiculed my whole life but less as I have aged.
I believe in complete equality, representative democracy, truth, justice, fairness, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the rule of law, science, private property, responsibility to community, compassion, sustainability, the power of humor, beauty and strength of culture and the arts. I believe in some other stuff that didn't immediately jump to mind because I don't often tell people what I believe, because usually it's none of their business. I have developed a style which I was able to suppress in the interest of some business relationships. But, I have gotten past that.
Enlightenment thinkers, Jefferson in particular, would say that vast centralization breeds tyranny and vast decentralization breeds corruption.
There would be significant problems in a completely decentralized society based on anarchy. Effective organization of society requires both centralization and decentralization.
But since all power in society comes from income, the only way to make society fair and just is to just have a law that limits differences in income to only what is necessary for income to be an effective incentive and to also have a law that gives everyone the right to pursue their own lifestyle, whatever that lifestyle might be, so long as it does not reasonably infringe on someone else's right to pursue their own lifestyle.
The solution to all the world's problems is really that simple. Just base society on those 2 laws.
Some tasks will probably, even in a libertarian socialist society, have to be taken more centrally, but it should be based on a system of recallable delegates representing the group to which they belong.
I think we should strive for a society, to a large extent based on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". We have more wealth and technology than ever, so why not.
I think we agree on a lot of things. But hopefully a debate on some of your positions will help you better refine them.
"Some tasks will probably have to be taken more centrally, ... based on a system of recallable delegates."
How is that different from what we have today? We have local, state and national government with re-callable politicians (or subject to a confidence vote). And we have a mixture of small, medium and large companies.
.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
You probably know better than I do, but wasn't that a summation of the system once we reach communism? And "according to need" meant, for example, that people with a larger family would get more goods and services than people with no family since they have a greater need.
I don't think we have the automation and abundance yet for communism and the elimination of money and I don't think it is fair to reward people with larger families.
Today we are still in the socialist phase so the appropriate organizing principle would be "to each according to their labor." This is what I advocate. Pay people based on how hard they work by limiting differences in income to only what is necessary to get people to do difficult work and give their maximum effort.
.
"democracy should be organized from below thru democratically run workplaces"
I never understood this. Should we vote on how to fly a plane or how to build it or what materials to use? Shouldn't the workplace be run by the people hired and qualified to run it? Shouldn't decisions be made by workers qualified to make the decision?
The only change that needs to be made to our economic system is to allocate income based on how hard you work instead of through the market which allocates based on bargaining power and luck.
Unless you have deliberate control over the allocation of total income, you will continue to have enormous inequality and vast poverty or financial struggle.
If you don't like what a company produces, buy from their competitor. If you don't like their work environment, get another job.
.
"individuals should be free to do what they want as long as they don’t harm others"
There are some flaws in this.
For example, if someone breaks into my house, I'm not allowed to harm that person in self defense?
What about if I want to build an extension on top of my house but that winds up blocking my neighbors view. Putting up the extension harms my neighbor. Preventing me from putting it up harms me.
The principle of freedom show read: "You are free to act, speak and think so long as it does not reasonably violate that same freedom in others."
It is reasonable to allow you to harm someone who breaks into your house in order to defend yourself.
It may or may not be reasonable to allow you to put up your extension. A court with an unbiased moderator would exercise reasonable judgement in deciding whether that should be allowed based on that case's specific circumstances.
.
"focus on the collective deciding things together based on consensus and democratic process"
Isn't the best system to just give everyone an income and let them buy whatever they want? And to also elect a government that regulates those businesses so that they are safe and follow established rules and that we are also working towards some broad social goals like maximizing automation to minimize involuntary undesirable work or making energy clean, etc.?
How would "consensus" improve on that? And what does it mean in practice?
.
"opposing, not just state tyranny, but also private tyranny – the concentration of private power and domination"
Since all power in society is based on income, isn't the only way to do that to allocate income in a more equal way (particularly by limiting differences to only what is necessary for income to be an effective incentive as I advocate)?
"How is that different from what we have today?"
Im talking about a direct democratic society in which people control their own affairs thru democratic communities and workplaces...prettty different than today's society.
.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" You probably know better than I do, but wasn't that a summation of the system once we reach communism?"
Yes! A classless, stateless communistic society. That would be wonderful!!
"And "according to need" meant, for example, that people with a larger family would get more goods and services than people with no family since they have a greater need."
Ok, sure..
"I don't think we have the automation and abundance yet for communism and the elimination of money and I don't think it is fair to reward people with larger families."
We should work towards a society based on the principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" because we have more wealth than ever. "Should we vote on how to fly a plane or how to build it or what materials to use? Shouldn't the workplace be run by the people hired and qualified to run it? Shouldn't decisions be made by workers qualified to make the decision?"
The workplace should be run by the community and the people participiating. It's not that complicated, really.
"The only change that needs to be made to our economic system is to allocate income based on how hard you work instead of through the market which allocates based on bargaining power and luck."
I dont agree. We live in a free ride soceity we can create a society that is good for everyone.
"If you don't like what a company produces, buy from their competitor. If you don't like their work environment, get another job."
This is Bullsh+t http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-exploitation-and-involuntary-agreements/
"individuals should be free to do what they want as long as they don’t harm others"
"There are some flaws in this.For example, if someone breaks into my house, I'm not allowed to harm that person in self defense?"
I fully support self defense. People should have the right to privacy, and the right to personal belongings, but that's different from right to private ownership on the means of production.
Anarchism is NOT synonymous with LS, Anarchism is the abolition of authority.
So, what are you trying to say..?
LS requires a powerful central authority system to control commerce, and thusly, is not An-arch-istic.
What is LS without any authority system whatsoever? Why, that would be anarcho-capitalism.
You're not making any sense, dude. Libertarian Socialism is anarchism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
It is a TYPE of anarchist-leaning philosophy, not anarchism.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
And you might get it.
You're still making no sense. LS is anarchism; it is a generic term for anarchist communism, anarcho- syndicalism and so on. Are you trolling or are you being serious now?
I am dead serious. It's like saying "Roots, also known as turnips". Turnips are roots, roots are not turnips.
Your lead statement in the post is that anarchism is also known as libertarian socialism.
LS = anarchism, anarchism =/= libertarian socialism.
Libertarian Socialism is the most popular if you will, type of anarchism. The word "Anarchism" of course covers all types of anarchism, but libertarian socialism is social anarchism - the mainstream anarchist form which most people associate with the word. Stop splitting hairs.
Then why not just call it "socialism", since it's the variety of socialism most people identify with?
LS will never catch on if you keep falsely calling it "anarchism" because anarchism means No Government.
The word "Socialism" is today often associated with whats' called "state-socialism" with the state playing a big role in society. The term "Libertarian Socialism" distinguishes these two different types.
"Anarchism" actually means "without rulers/authority"
LS is not falsely called anarchism. LS is social anarchism, and advocates a free society without rulers, hierarchies and concentration of power.
No society is free unless I can make mutual trades with other people.
I don't agree with you. There's more to freedom than trading. To me freedom is about people controlling their own lives, community and work. And free trade has absolutely nothing to do with Laissez-f capitalism, if that's what your insinuating:
The marked in this kind of economy is not in any way free.
The way things function in a non-regulated capitalist society (like all others) is that the more resources and wealth you have, the more power you have. So in this kind of society it is the big corporations and the financial elite who overwhelmingly are in charge of the economy and marked (very similar to today's actual society). They control the resources, the economic institutions, and the means of production. In other words: They have an overwhelming power over the economy and the marked as a whole.
Not only do the rich and powerful (in an undemocratic way) control the economy as a whole in huge networks of transactions, investments and stock exchange, they also rule the institutions in this kind of 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 - a non-democratic hierarchy with control and power in the hands of the ones at the top. Capitalist institutions are in other words private tyrannies
A society that is organized in a way that allows a little minority of super-wealthy individuals and totalitarian and powerful corporations to have the overwhelming control in society and the marked, is not free trade; on the contrary, that’s command economy and private tyranny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwQEgOKEEXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYxGkFxb7f4
I never said this kind of economy was free. It is not.
All I said was that people should be allowed to make mutual trades with other people. This economy is indeed unfree, we do have a global financial elite who use the power of government to steal from the public, through inflation and taxation. Taxation in itself is not wrong of course, but it is when you're stealing from the public to line the pockets of your rich friends.
I think you must read my post one more time. I never said that you said that this current economy is free. It's true that this economy is not free, but what I said is that the Laissez-faire capitalist economy is not free either.
"All I said was that people should be allowed to make mutual trades with other people."
Well, that is a little to vague. It depends on the circumstanses.
The rest of what you said I pretty much agree with. The state-capitalist system is unfree - it's intolerable in fact, and must be replaced by a free democratic libertarian socialist society.
Why do all these schemes presented here involve taking other people's shit and giving it to people who aren't capable of earning it on their own...every single one.
You must know it's a silly dream, your masters, the political elite, are quite happy the way things are besides, they've got you down here in the muck, shitting on things and creating just enough noise to distract from the administration's failures during this important election cycle.
After the election, you'll be swept off the streets like the insignificant fools you really are.
I try to spend as little time on you right-wing trolls as possible, so if you continue like this, don't expect many responses from me. Just to let you know.
Capitalism is a system based on theft and exploitation.
Capitalism is based on the privatization of the planet and its resources. Since mother nature does not have a store where you can purchase the planet, 100% of this privatization came by way of pillage and plunder. It was acquired through force, murder and theft.
And the capitalist system of allocating goods and services is based on barganing power, not based on fairness or how hard you worked, which allows a very small minority of rich people at the top to unfairly exploit everyone else by taking most of their income.
You are getting robbed blind by these people and they have brainwashed you to become their useful idiot.
You need to become better informed about how the world works. You are being taken advantage of. Start by reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullibility
Then read this post to learn how a fair system would work.