Anarchism vs. Communism: Ramo's Opportunity

[Ned]

Kid, the workers who take advantage are capitalists in disguise and will soon take over unless restrained.

It is therefore best to deal with them like in the "normal" fashion.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Azazel
Shi, Dude, do you know what a constitution is? It's to protect the form of government against random swings of opinion. You have one that protects captialism. Why can't we have one that protects socialism?

(and our is more ethical than yours. )

Actually, our constitution would allow for Socialists to take over the government were they ever to be elected. We currently even have one congressmen (Bernie Sanders I-VT) who is a self-declared socialist. Our current constitution allows for the likes of chegitz to hold his views, speak freely of them, publish them, etc. Which is alot more then you would be able to say for anyone who believed in liberal capitalist democracy under the old USSR.

Amongst, the Eastern Bloc, Czechoslovakia tried to allow this, and allowed non-communist to speak freely and form political clubs. They were met with quick and brutal force when the USSR invaded and restored totaltarianism.

[Az]

Actually, our constitution would allow for Socialists to take over the government were they ever to be elected. We currently even have one congressmen (Bernie Sanders I-VT) who is a self-declared socialist. Our current constitution allows for the likes of chegitz to hold his views, speak freely of them, publish them, etc. Which is alot more then you would be able to say for anyone who believed in liberal capitalist democracy under the old USSR.

You don't understand. The constitution includes rights to property, for example, that would prevent the socialist government to confiscate property, and such. Same goes for the most european countries, even the ones that have sizeable socialist parties.

What you said about the USSR is correct to a large extent, but there aren't many communists that claim that the USSR was the way they wanted a country to be, and for each one of those who will, I can show you Fez a capitalist that thinks that McCarthy was right.

A socialist constitution will protect communal property much like a capitalist one protects private property. the political part of it will allow for free speech, and as well.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Anarchists frequently eschew workers struggles for better wages, job saftey, etc., decalring that we should not be struggling to gild our cages, but rather for the end of cages. They tend to oppose practicale political struggles, such as civil rights, labor rights etc. Working within the system is perpetuating the system. Individual anarchists may vary, however, and calling one's self an anarchist is no guarantee the person knows that much about anarchism (or anything else for that matter --of course, the same is frequently true of revolutionary socialists/communists)

I believe that working within the system is perpetuating the system. I don't see how that seperates anarchists from communists. I thought working withing the system was a socialist thing, not communist.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

kidicious-

Okay, so you want Anarchy and no banks, so freedom does not include the freedom of individuals to pool their money collectively.

I'm a communist. Does that explain it?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, the workers who take advantage are capitalists in disguise and will soon take over unless restrained.

It is therefore best to deal with them like in the "normal" fashion.

Capitalism is unethical. I compare it to greasing, because you have to pay someone for the right to work just like you have to pay officials to get things done in places where that act is considered acceptable. Lukily greasing is not considered ethical in the US. If you try it someone will probably report you, you will lose the respect of respectable people, and your future will not be so good.

In a properly funtioning communist society capitalism will be illegal and considered unethical. There will be no motivation for people to try to become capitalists, because they wont find anyone to work for them and they wont be able to sell their produce. If ( and this isn't likely) they find a way to profit they will face the law and the disrespect of society, and their future will be crap.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The child of millionaires who got his interview with IBM because his mother sat on the board of an institution with the head of IBM and who made his OS ubiquitous through illegal business deals. This is meritorious how?

Hmmm... I was of the impression that he was a relatively normal person growing-up-wise, and he just happened to make some VERY smart decisions (plus he designed some of the stuff, QBasic, didn't he?)... if I'm wrong, well, there are plenty of other examples of smart people getting rich because they're smart.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This cannot explain why an excutive makes several magnitudes more than an engineer.

The executives labor - his abilities with management and stuff - is more valuable than the engineer's labor. If it isn't, the company is wasting money, so it is less competitive.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
Shi, Dude, do you know what a constitution is? It's to protect the form of government against random swings of opinion. You have one that protects captialism. Why can't we have one that protects socialism?

(and our is more ethical than yours. )

Yes, and even the Constitution can be changed.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Capitalism is unethical. I compare it to greasing, because you have to pay someone for the right to work just like you have to pay officials to get things done in places where that act is considered acceptable. Lukily greasing is not considered ethical in the US. If you try it someone will probably report you, you will lose the respect of respectable people, and your future will not be so good.

You don't have to pay anyone for your "right to work" (which doesn't exist anyways) - you just have to pay them to USE THEIR STUFF.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious Capitalism is unethical. I compare it to greasing, because you have to pay someone for the right to work just like you have to pay officials to get things done in places where that act is considered acceptable. Lukily greasing is not considered ethical in the US. If you try it someone will probably report you, you will lose the respect of respectable people, and your future will not be so good.

You don't have to pay anyone for your "right to work" (which doesn't exist anyways) - you just have to pay them to USE THEIR STUFF.

True. One doesn't have the 'right' to work unless they own capital, but then it's a priviledge. I wasn't refering to legal rights though.

[Kuciwalker]

By the "right" to work, I assumed you meant the "right" to employment. They are different things! You can sell your labor (or the products of it) without being employed by someone else or USING THEIR STUFF. You may sell more, better stuff if they let you use their stuff, but they are under no OBLIGATION to let you use it, because it's THEIRS.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Kucinich

I wouldn't normally suggest doing this, but you might want to do it a few more times. It might help.

Originally posted by Kucinich
You may sell more, better stuff if they let you use their stuff, but they are under no OBLIGATION to let you use it, because it's THEIRS.

This is what makes capitalism unethical, and we plan to make necessary changes.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger This cannot explain why an excutive makes several magnitudes more than an engineer.

The executives labor - his abilities with management and stuff - is more valuable than the engineer's labor. If it isn't, the company is wasting money, so it is less competitive.

You have not shown that his abilities is more valuable, you are merely asserting it. Without the engineers, the company will not be able to design and build new products, so it will go kaput in no time at all. Thus, engineers are more valuable than executives.

[Kidicious]

People who work hard are of equal value to society.

[Ramo]

Lots of good debate. Will try to respond in a couple days (9 hours till my Topology and 13 till my Relativity test ).

[Az]

Good luck.

Yes, and even the Constitution can be changed.

The same will be true with our constitution.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger This cannot explain why an excutive makes several magnitudes more than an engineer.

The executives labor - his abilities with management and stuff - is more valuable than the engineer's labor. If it isn't, the company is wasting money, so it is less competitive.

Not necessarily true. What is true is that the Exec can decide has far more control in deciding how much he should be paid for his services due to his closeness to the decision making body if he is not the decision making body.

That's the reason we have unions in the U.S., so the worker bees can have some say with the queen bees.

[Pax]

What kind of society/ecopoltical system was being advocated in fight club?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You have not shown that his abilities is more valuable, you are merely asserting it. Without the engineers, the company will not be able to design and build new products, so it will go kaput in no time at all. Thus, engineers are more valuable than executives.

There are multiple engineers. There are (usually) fewer executives. The executives charge more, because the company is willing to pay them more, because they significantly magnify the output of the engineers (or at least the company thinks they do - that's the important bit). If the company is wrong, and the executives don't, then the company is less efficient (thus less competitive) than a company that follows a different practice, so it will succeed less and may even go out of business eventually.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Not necessarily true. What is true is that the Exec can decide has far more control in deciding how much he should be paid for his services due to his closeness to the decision making body if he is not the decision making body.

That's the reason we have unions in the U.S., so the worker bees can have some say with the queen bees.

And unions are an integral part of capitalism (true capitalism, not the crappy over-general definition che talks about). Freedom to contract and freedom to own property are the basis of capitalism.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
This is what makes capitalism unethical, and we plan to make necessary changes.

Capitalism is unethical because I'm not FORCED to share? I thought sharing was just a nice thing to do. You are just as bad as the fundies who want to legislate their morality - you are legislating that everyone has to be a GOOD person, not just a "not bad" one.

[Ramo]

Everyone legislates morality. That's why we have murder laws.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich
(true capitalism, not the crappy over-general definition che talks about).

True capitalism is existing capitalism. False capitalism is the capitalism of your dreams.

Kidiciious, by working within the system I mean helping to build trade unions, putting political pressure on governments, competing in elections, etc., not joining the government. Anarchists (except syndicalists) eschew these sorts of activities. "Fighting for a better wage is just fighting for a better leash," is a typical anarchist phrase.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Capitalism is unethical because I'm not FORCED to share? I thought sharing was just a nice thing to do. You are just as bad as the fundies who want to legislate their morality - you are legislating that everyone has to be a GOOD person, not just a "not bad" one.

Wrong. Sharing as a "good" thing to do is a religious concept. Our political consept is that sharing is a "normal" and "productive" thing to do, that is not related with individual choice, exactly the same way taxes in current capitalist countries are not related with individual choice.

[chequita guevara]

Well put, Spiffy!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Everyone legislates morality. That's why we have murder laws.

I mean legislating what people have to do, not just what they can't do. There is a difference between "you can't kill people" and "you must share".

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Wrong. Sharing as a "good" thing to do is a religious concept. Our political consept is that sharing is a "normal" and "productive" thing to do, that is not related with individual choice, exactly the same way taxes in current capitalist countries are not related with individual choice.

Ah, so you want to deny an entire set of liberties because you think it will be "productive"?

OBVIOUSLY a system where people are nice and friendly and everything is all well and good, but it doesn't mean the government should ENFORCE niceness.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Ah, so you want to deny an entire set of liberties because you think it will be "productive"?

About as much as taxes deny an entire set of liberties. Just listen to Floyd.

OBVIOUSLY a system where people are nice and friendly and everything is all well and good, but it doesn't mean the government should ENFORCE niceness.

I don't want a system where everybody is nice and friendly, nor do I believe in it. The system I'm talking about is not a system where you are forced to give money to each beggar you encounter, or somesuch.
The system I'm talking about is a system where you have no choice but to pay a part of your income for the rest of society. Exactly the same way you currently have to pay for Social Security in the US.
Many people may rant about how they're giving money to geezers who shoulda worked harder, but it doesn't mean they can miraculously stop to pay their welfare taxes.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Capitalism is unethical. I compare it to greasing, because you have to pay someone for the right to work just like you have to pay officials to get things done in places where that act is considered acceptable. Lukily greasing is not considered ethical in the US. If you try it someone will probably report you, you will lose the respect of respectable people, and your future will not be so good.

In a properly funtioning communist society capitalism will be illegal and considered unethical. There will be no motivation for people to try to become capitalists, because they wont find anyone to work for them and they wont be able to sell their produce. If ( and this isn't likely) they find a way to profit they will face the law and the disrespect of society, and their future will be crap.

Kid, I think my point was that elimination of capitalists is not a one-time proposition. Anarchy implies no authority to "execute" the elimination and thus will not work. Communism works because it can ruthlessly eliminate the rise of new capitalists.