Anarchism vs. Communism: Ramo's Opportunity

[chequita guevara]

Eliminate doesn't mean exterminate, Ned. A capitalist is eliminated by taking away his capital and forcing him to work like everyone else.

[Ned]

Exactly, Che. Force.

[Ned]

Why do you think we misguided capitalists call communism slavery?

[chequita guevara]

We're forced to work in capitalim, Ned. Why do you think we call it wage-slavery.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
What kind of society/ecopoltical system was being advocated in fight club?

I would say just getting make to our primal nature.

[Kidicious]

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.

I'm not going to get into this with you here. We believe that we have just as much right to own the means of production as the capitalists, and that's all I have to say about it.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
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.

I know. I guess I'm like an anarchist that way.

[Ramo]

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".

There isn't a difference. You can turn either idea into a positive or negative statement ("you must share" is equivalent to "you can't keep all of your income"). The only difference is choice of vocabulary.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We're forced to work in capitalim, Ned. Why do you think we call it wage-slavery.

You got a point, there. However, the usual definition of slavery is where force is used, not incentives.

[PeteH]

Considering you have to pay for a roof over your head and food, I don't know that you can call a paycheck simply an incentive

[Bosh]

A distribution of power that produces justice and happiness.

Which would entail what exactly?

that is real socialism involving collective ownership -more accurately, collective management (I am toying with the idea that companies should not be "owned" at all, just like people are not "owned" at all)- of the means of production.

This doesn't really work because whoever controls the property is the de facto owner. Collective ownership is also superior to collective management since otherwise you get X-inefficiency (ie "why the hell should we work hard if we don't reap the benefits of our hard work?").

So, you'll have companies, and corporations, with the main difference is that they're democratic, and their shares are equally distributed between the workers in one way or another. This doesn't in any way destroy the current profit system under which the profit is the sole goal of a company, and not just a tool to measure it's efficiency.

That's not anarcho-socialism, that's Worker Capitalism. Worker Capitalism is to Anarcho-Socialism what Social Democracy is to Leninism. This isn't to say that Worker Capitalism isn't a massive step forward.

Therefore, there is nothing keeping those same corporations committing the same wrongdoing they do under the current system.

To give one simplistic example, a worker-owned factory would have an incentive to pollute less since the owners would be the ones breathing in the pollution.
And they certainly wouldn't have an incentive to **** their workers over.

Anarchists want to skip all these steps and jump straight to communism.

That's a gross over-simplification. I certainly believe no such thing. But I think that something like Worker Capitalism (with no BS about a "proletarian state") and the setting-up of an egalitarian banking system etc. make for a much better transitional stage than the Marxian Socialist stage.

Anarchists frequently eschew workers struggles for better wages, job saftey, etc., decalring that we should not be struggling to gild our cages

So do a lot of Commies. Pretty silly really, those struggles are necessary to build up functional organizations.

I suppose it is some sort of idealized state where "power" is equitably distributed to all. It just seems illogical.

For me at least, anarchism is more of a process than a system. For example, the current US is a hell of a lot more Anarchistic than, say, fuedal France. Its basically all comes down to kicking things in the right direction.

essentially removing it by force from those who have accumulated it

I'm a gradualist, so I'm not in favor of the force bit so much.

Finally, you will need to set up and interpret rules, and adjudicate disputes. Whoever does this has an unequal power, and it seems to me to be contrary to anarchism.

For me being an anarchist means having as little of this stuff as possible, not being a purist and trying to magically change the world into a utopia overnight.
If the best we can get is minarcho-socialism (ie socialism with only a small, weak, decentralized state) then so bit it, that's good enough for me.

Okay, so you want Anarchy and no banks

Which is silly. Collective banking has always been a central bit of anarchist theory all the way back to Proudhon.

And, so, chegitz, if after the revolution a majority of the population decides they don't like it and wants to vote the old system back in, they shouldn't be allowed to?

Yet another problem with State Socialism is where you draw this line, Socialists haven't historically been too good at accurtately what's a real socialist and what's a counter-revolutionary in disguise or whatever. Which is why its better to keep socialism in what is now the "private sphere."

I believe that working within the system is perpetuating the system.

Which, again, is silly. There hasn't been any successful revolution that wasn't accomplish, to at least a large degree, piecemeil (sp?). But you're right in that that doesn't split Anarchists and Communists, you get gradualists and revolutionaries in both camps (despite che's incorrect talk about all anarchists wanting to skip directly to utopia).

[quoteIf it isn't, the company is wasting money, so it is less competitive.[/quote]
But if the people who set executive salaries are executives you'll get high executive salaries wether its competitive or not. That also doesn't explain why US executive salaries are so much higher than those in other industrialized countries.

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

Oh yes
We just have very different ways of going about it (I wouldn't confiscate anything, there are plenty of voluntaristic ways to get the job done).

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

Sort of a twisted primitivistic Nitzchean (sp!) version of anarchism.

Anarchists (except syndicalists) eschew these sorts of activities.

But the entire 'poly anarchist contingent (both of us ) is Syndicalist.

Exactly, Che. Force.

You don't need force to get to sociaism. Just a strong labor movement with a hell of a lot of backbone.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
About as much as taxes deny an entire set of liberties. Just listen to Floyd.

Taxes limit a much smaller set of liberties. Denying the ability to own the means of production (which is kinda strange anyways, as almost ANYTHING can be a means of production) is really really big.

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.

Then why not simply have higher taxes and a "social safety net"?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We're forced to work in capitalim, Ned. Why do you think we call it wage-slavery.

No you aren't. If you don't want to work, you don't have to. However, OTHER people don't have to give you stuff if they don't want to. (However, there can be some form of welfare so people don't starve to death and stuff.)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm not going to get into this with you here. We believe that we have just as much right to own the means of production as the capitalists, and that's all I have to say about it.

Actually, you have just as much FREEDOM to own the means of production. Why do you have the "right" to theirs? Get your own.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Actually, you have just as much FREEDOM to own the means of production. Why do you have the "right" to theirs? Get your own.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying. I do not consider capitalists the legitamite owners of capital. When they no longer have the legal right to coerce us into working for them I believe justice will be served. I do not want my own property. I want justice.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Boshko
Which would entail what exactly?

Justice is the most general guidelines for me. I believe that people should be compenstated for their work, and that they should pay for thier crimes. I know that sounds like the way it is now, but it's not. For example, many people are paid per diem. I think people should work in groups and groups should be paid piecework. The groups would be responsible for managing themselves.

I'm not really sure how the pay would be determined, but my idea is that it should be determined according to demand and cost or resources. The democratic political process should also be used to determine needs and desires.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You aren't understanding what I'm saying. I do not consider capitalists the legitamite owners of capital. When they no longer have the legal right to coerce us into working for them I believe justice will be served. I do not want my own property. I want justice.

They CANNOT COERCE YOU INTO WORKING FOR THEM.

Thus everything's fine.

[Az]

I'll return to this thread, and to Kucinich's capitalist bull later.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Kucinich


They CANNOT COERCE YOU INTO WORKING FOR THEM.

Thus everything's fine.

You make a strong argument, NOT!

[Az]

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich
They CANNOT COERCE YOU INTO WORKING FOR THEM.

Thus everything's fine.

They can an do. All unowned or communal property was taken away from the people, so they could no longer work for themselves but, if they "chose the option not to starve," have to sell themselves to a master on a daily basis.

The only way to opt out of the sytem is suicide, and that's not an acceptable option.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Justice is the most general guidelines for me. I believe that people should be compenstated for their work, and that they should pay for thier crimes. I know that sounds like the way it is now, but it's not. For example, many people are paid per diem. I think people should work in groups and groups should be paid piecework. The groups would be responsible for managing themselves.

I'm not really sure how the pay would be determined, but my idea is that it should be determined according to demand and cost or resources. The democratic political process should also be used to determine needs and desires.

Another question, kid, is who would pay them?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Another question, kid, is who would pay them?

The currency will be printed at The People's Mint.

[Ned]

So, anyone who wants money just goes down to the mint and takes what he wants?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ned
So, anyone who wants money just goes down to the mint and takes what he wants?

The political system will set guidelines and do oversee, but there will have to be a central committee that handles some details. The work groups will have a lot of autonomy, but coordination will come from the center. The centers autority will come from the people though.

Maybe. Or something like that.

[Ned]

Kid, I just love it when someone tries to invent a new economic system from scratch.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, I just love it when someone tries to invent a new economic system from scratch.

One, and only one, of my professors allowed me to design my own society and present it to the class for extra credit. I'm very thankfull for that one professor. I've never had such a satisfying school experience.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They can an do. All unowned or communal property was taken away from the people, so they could no longer work for themselves but, if they "chose the option not to starve," have to sell themselves to a master on a daily basis.

The only way to opt out of the sytem is suicide, and that's not an acceptable option.

Ever heard of welfare? If you can choose any "capitalism" as an example, then I can point out the Soviet Union as "communism", and it was headed, no matter what, towards totalitarianism (your bull**** about "oh the poor guys just got ganged up on" being just that), so communism is totalitarian. See?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i think communists should found a company which is owned by everyone and where everyone gets equal pay, and lots of vacations and salaries.

[Kuciwalker]

Isn't that called France?