Anarchism vs. Communism: Ramo's Opportunity

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ramo
I think that if the labor movement becomes strong enough, it can basically muscle its way into getting capitalists to sell off their businesses cheaply to workers through boycotts and strikes. This occured, for instance, in the late 19th century France until state repression ended the movement (which is one reason why we need a fairly libertarian state).

I think this isn't possible anymore. The middle-class is vastly working at the tertiary level, and are quite embourgeoisified (!) as things are.

[Ramo]

That's a problem of ideology and organization, not economics.

[Kuciwalker]

nm

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's a problem of ideology and organization, not economics.

When productive capital becomes less and less industries but more and more about degrees and offices, it has a huge effect on ideology.

[Bosh]

Your anarcho-socialism seems to depend on profit, interest, and I assume rent.

I'm a gradualist. You can't make profit, interest and rent go away over night. That's not to say that they're good things of course.

Combined with that you deny the need for central authorty.

Well obviously that's not going to go away overnight either. As you get a more and more egalitarian economy built up the state gets more and more obsolete.

Can you explain this 'egalitarian' banking system, and how you plan to maintain equality?

To begin with start with something along the lines of Credit Unions and then go more radical from there. The Mondragon bank (its pretty good-sized nowadays) is also a good example of how to finance things although its not perfect either, as are some community development banks that take deposits and invest them back in the community.

How exactly does this work? Who makes the decision, and what is their motivation.

It works in a whole lot of different ways depending on how far along in the transition you are and I don't pretend to know what's going to be found most effective via trial and error.
One effective tactic would be for syndicalist unions to get administrative control over pension funds and use that money to buy out companies, fund the foundation of new companies etc. etc. But that's just a tactic.

Can an anarchist explain what the transition could be like? I think that's the most difficult point.

Like with Communists you've got a big split between the gradualists and the revolutionaries. I'm in the gradualist camp. I think a good way of getting things done would be to have Unions with a backbone and control over pension funds, with that money they could just call strikes at companies they wanted to buy out and then buy 'em out when the stock prices get low enough. Similarly there'd be setting-up of co-op organizations for any kind of human institutions and if you get far enough along with that all that's left is to have the different organization coordinate.

I guess social-democracy will be a decent alternative until we find a good transition method.

Not really. Social democracy is about who gets what rather than who controls what (mostly at least), a better alternative is Worker Capitalism (ie workers own things but things still function in a capitalist framework).

I think that if the labor movement becomes strong enough, it can basically muscle its way into getting capitalists to sell off their businesses cheaply to workers through boycotts and strikes.

Exactly. Getting control of pension funds would also be necessary to fund the buy-outs.

I think this isn't possible anymore.

Well you need a Labor Movement that's strong and has backbone. Obviously that's going to take a whole lot of work.

When productive capital becomes less and less industries but more and more about degrees and offices, it has a huge effect on ideology.

How so?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Kucinich
It is an injustice to take people's property more than is necessary to promote additional freedom.

This statement really doesn't make sense. Maybe you want to restate that it's ok to create an injustice for the greater good. So hopefully you understand why we are frustrated because on the one hand you are calling for justice, but on the other hand you call for injustice.

Justice requires that people recieve the full benefit of their work. If you trully believe in justice, and that property = work then you can not consistently propose robbing capitalists of their property. On the other hand, if you are a utilitarian, then you can't argue for justice.

[Kidicious]

I don't see any reason why Worker Capitalism would become Anarchy, and wouldn't become Corporate Capitalism again. It would probably be better than Corporate Capitalism in ways, but I can see how failing worker companies are forced into exploitation by successfull companies, especially with banks (or credit unions).

Basically it seems to me that worker capitalism is just utopia for capitalists.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


When productive capital becomes less and less industries but more and more about degrees and offices, it has a huge effect on ideology.

Ideology and economics are one and the same.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Boshko
How so?

Because there is no taking over of productive capital in service enterprises of the tertiary domain. Workers are much more individualistic than they were.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Because there is no taking over of productive capital in service enterprises of the tertiary domain. Workers are much more individualistic than they were.

It depends on what you mean by "tertiary domain." Is banking part of it?

[Kidicious]

Boris 2,

You bring up a good point. I think revolution will come from the unemployed, not the employed.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It depends on what you mean by "tertiary domain." Is banking part of it?

Hmmmm... good question. I guess the banking system would have to be fully rethought before being applied to an anarchist society, not just taken over. I suppose the best way to do this would be through state legislation, not employee take over, since a bank's true assets are non-physical.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Boris 2,

You bring up a good point. I think revolution will come from the unemployed, not the employed.

if that is true, then we have a long way to go: no more SS and a large enough number of unemployed (6% is quite insignificant).

[Jamski]

/me ignores the whole thread so far *

I'm a pure anarchist

I'm against money
I'm against property
I'm against all laws
I'm against all governments

I'm for freedom.

Anyone that supports the ownership of money or property or laws or govenments is both a slave owner and a slave in that system.

Even the law "you shall not kill" is an insult to my freedom.

-Jam

[General Ludd]

Yeah, go Jamski!

[Jamski]

Thankyou for your support Oswald.

-Jam

[joncha]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't see any reason why Worker Capitalism would become Anarchy, and wouldn't become Corporate Capitalism again. It would probably be better than Corporate Capitalism in ways, but I can see how failing worker companies are forced into exploitation by successfull companies, especially with banks (or credit unions).

Basically it seems to me that worker capitalism is just utopia for capitalists.

In Ken Macleod's excellent sci-fi novel The Stone Canal, he plots out how Worker Capitalism would evolve into a kind of Anarcho-Capitalism, and then counterposes it with Anarcho-Communism, about which he goes into more detail in The Cassini Division.

Aside from being a great read, his books are a must for those struggling with the various socio-political models the left has on offer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Anarcho-Capitalism is a leftist ideology?

[joncha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Anarcho-Capitalism is a leftist ideology?

Not really... but I'm sure you'll find someone who will disagree with me.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
if that is true, then we have a long way to go: no more SS and a large enough number of unemployed (6% is quite insignificant).

Things can change quickly.

I would also add the underemployed in with the unemployed. So I would say that unemployment rates of 20% or higher for 10 years or more can start to get things rolling.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Jamski
I'm for freedom.

The way people go about as if they think as highly of freedom as you do, they should be right along with you. When you praise freedom, you really mean it.