Anarchists...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
What do you get when you have consumers and capitalists planning their private economy, and economy of their corporations? Democratically planned economy. Of course, capitalists are always the minority and consumers the majority because of social competition going on in a society. The votes are determined by shareholding - shareholding is determined by individual's success. So, you don't get full democracy, you sacrifise that "perfect equality" in favor of freedom that free market allows.

No, Shai. It´s nothing even remotely democratic about it, cause in the end it´s the person/corporation with the most cash that´s calling the shots. Several comparisons can be made to recent events in Sweden: Continental in Gislaved, Ericsson, Lear Corp. in Bengtsfors, etc, etc. Factories shut down and entire villages killed off, despite the fact that the factories actually generated a substantial profit! However the profit wasn´t high enough to please the shareholders... And this is what you call democratic, please...

[Shai-Hulud]

Individuals/Corporations with most capital have most votes in economy and the right to those votes is received in fair competition against other individuals and corporations. Isn't it funny? The more freedom you give to people and more people turn rich and more people end up being poor. Maybe some of that is due to lack of those individuals? Capitalism is efficient and the efficiency is in require of described actions, side-effect which society should take care of. Not by denying the right to capital but by making it possible for those people to remain as a part of the society.

Not so. In an planned economy it´s the supply that sets the demand ie nothing gets produced if there isn´t a demand for it. That´s why it´s called planned

I believe that people are always in demand of higher standard of living. Supply never meets demands, if we consider all consumer producst and services, demand is always higher. That's why everyone can not be rich in capitalist society. Of course we have enough food and shelter for everyone, enough of many other things as well. But it's not enough for people. To think that supply and demand could ever meet...that's REALLY optimist

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not so. In an planned economy it´s the supply that sets the demand ie nothing gets produced if there isn´t a demand for it. That´s why it´s called planned

Sorry, but "Say's Law" (Supply creates its own Demand) has been proven to be false.

And a worker owned economy wouldn't be planned. For an example of a planned economy where supply never met demand in some areas and went over demand too much in other areas, look at the Soviet Union.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Without law and stable goverments, the rich and powerful could aquire enough mercenaries and obliterate the anarchist and other groups they do not like relatively easily.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
Individuals/Corporations with most capital have most votes in economy and the right to those votes is received in fair competition against other individuals and corporations. Isn't it funny? The more freedom you give to people and more people turn rich and more people end up being poor. Maybe some of that is due to lack of those individuals? Capitalism is efficient and the efficiency is in require of described actions, side-effect which society should take care of. Not by denying the right to capital but by making it possible for those people to remain as a part of the society.

But the capitalism-in-reality (not the lofty theories in books by political philosofers/economists) is a rigged game. The strong almost always win in the end. It´s not fair play IMNSHO

I believe that people are always in demand of higher standard of living. Supply never meets demands, if we consider all consumer producst and services, demand is always higher.

But why is that? Is it genetic, which some claim? Or is it a behaviour that is tought to us through the capitalist system?

That's why everyone can not be rich in capitalist society. Of course we have enough food and shelter for everyone, enough of many other things as well. But it's not enough for people.

Enough food and shelter?? There´s people dying in the streets in the metropolises of the US, dying because of a capitalist system that benefits the rich and punishes the poor. To an lesser extent this can be applied to every western country including Sweden an Finland

To think that supply and demand could ever meet...that's REALLY optimist

Well, you have to be an optimist to be a raving commie these days...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Not so. In an planned economy it´s the supply that sets the demand ie nothing gets produced if there isn´t a demand for it. That´s why it´s called planned

Sorry, but "Say's Law" (Supply creates its own Demand) has been proven to be false.

And a worker owned economy wouldn't be planned. For an example of a planned economy where supply never met demand in some areas and went over demand too much in other areas, look at the Soviet Union.

Well, no one said it would be easy to create a new world order... Paul C o c kshott from the university of Glasgow and AlainCotrell from Wake Forest University in North Carolina wrote a book called "Towards a new socialism" in 1993 where they sketched the outlines for a planned economy that would actually work. I´ve read the book in Swedish so forgive me for not translating it into english (it IS kinda late)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I'd like to read that, but no planned economy can be efficient as the capitalist economy. Supply and Demand cannot be determined by governmental bureaucrats, but the people.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

First of all, libertarian capitalism for any decent amount of time is a fairy tale.

The northern and northwestern US up until the late 19th century.

Anarchism is inimical to the ruling classes of most societies. So it has been not only avoided, but attacked by Communists, Fascists, Mercantilists, and Capitalists through the state.

"Capitalists"? Don't you mean anti-capitalists? It isn't capitalism to use government (violence) to shut down competition.

Kamrat X -

A (democratically) planned economy also does away with several other not-so-nice features of capitalism like over-production, waste and the destruction of the enviroment for profit.

First, the USSR was notorious for long lines just to get the basics, and there wasn't a whole lot of product diversity. And capitalism is democratic, the most democratic, with consumers voting with their dollars rather than an elite class of politicians trying to control an immense economy.

[Ramo]

The northern and northwestern US up until the late 19th century.

That would be socialism. These areas mostly consisted of small farmers, not large agri-businesses.

Note that the replacement of this system coincided with massive state intervention designed to supplant it, and that this in turn brought more state intervention.

"Capitalists"? Don't you mean anti-capitalists? It isn't capitalism to use government (violence) to shut down competition.

*Shrug* They'd call themselves capitalists, they're just a more authoritarian variant. Would "almost-capitalists" be better?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That would be socialism. These areas mostly consisted of small farmers, not large agri-businesses.

Uhh... you know little about libertarian capitalist utopia, right?

The utopia of libertarian capitalism is the small farmer, the small business man. Not the large corporation.

[Ramo]

Which is also socialism.

It's just that us socialists also recognize the existence of economies of scale, while these Lockian people you speak of apparantly don't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The idea of economies of scale was invented by these Lockian people .

It also led to the creation of the small corporations.

[Ramo]

Not very consistent with the "libertarian capitalist utopia," is it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not really.. hence the term 'utopia'. I don't think you understand that word much, if at all.

But the farmers of the US were profoundly anti-government and anti-collective, so socialism no .

I also fail to see how you can speak about economies of scale and put inefficient collectives ahead of relatively efficient corporations .

[Ramo]

Not really.. hence the term 'utopia'. I don't think you understand that word much, if at all.

Eh? What's there to understand? They're comprimising their ideal.

But the farmers of the US were profoundly anti-government and anti-collective, so socialism no .

The workers generally owned the means of production, so socialism, yes.

I also fail to see how you can speak about economies of scale and put inefficient collectives ahead of relatively efficient corporations .

Yep, the collectives that are more inefficient than average are ahead of the corporations that are more inefficient than average.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by faded glory
There will be a Global Economic Forum in NY. Anarcists will make it violent, these people are like animals.

You mean the police, not the anarchists. Invariably, it has been the police that iniated, escalated, and continued the violence in
the streets. Even a cursory reading of accounts of people who were there will show this to be true. In every demonstration I attended, it was the police who attacked us, not the other way around. Cops have armor, tear gas, and guns. They are also stronger physically and are trained to fight.

Go back, look at the footage in Seattle, D.C., Philly, L.A., Genoa. It was the police who attacked the demonstrators. InGenoa it was worse, because there were police infiltrators in the crowd starting the violence.

Velocyrix, you keep switching your debate with Ramo. You ask him one thing, then you fault him because it answers a seperate issue with which it was not concerned. If you ask about the existence of non-hierarchical societies, don't turn around and say they don't count because they don't exist anymore. All you asked was for their existence. Stop shifting the debate in the middle.

Ramo, Commies and anarchists have shared short and long term goals. It's the immediate and medium term goals on which we differ. We both agree on the need to overthrow capitalism and the need to build a stateless society. It's just we disagree on how to get there, both in terms of actions to be taken now and following the revolution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Eh? What's there to understand? They're comprimising their ideal.

Because they realize that the ideals are unattainable and are more interested in the truth that changing it to suit their ideas (like socialists are in the business of doing ).

The workers generally owned the means of production, so socialism, yes.

Which is also a factor in capitalism. The small businessman (baker, tailor) owns his means of production, but would not be considered proletariat.

Yep, the collectives that are more inefficient than average are ahead of the corporations that are more inefficient than average.

Bullshit! Have any proof for this counterintuitive statement?

Secondly, how many collectives there are compared to corporations? Are collectives even statistically significant numbers?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If you ask about the existence of non-hierarchical societies, don't turn around and say they don't count because they don't exist anymore.

Do the !kung really count as a positive example of the concept though?

[Shai-Hulud]

But the capitalism-in-reality (not the lofty theories in books by political philosofers/economists) is a rigged game. The strong almost always win in the end. It´s not fair play IMNSHO

What if this is a life-in-reality? Is not every system dominated by the strong? Does not the definition of strong demand it? So, of course, strong people always rule. One can only hope that those strong people are also most ethical ones. In capitalism you can be "a strong person" and compete yourself to the top of society. And if you have lost all your sympathy towards the poor because of that competition: don't blame the system. It's your choice - capitalism is all about choices.

But why is that? Is it genetic, which some claim? Or is it a behaviour that is tought to us through the capitalist system?

To argue that such behavior is because of genes would be a powerful argument in favor of capitalism. But I'm really not very convinced that it is. We have cultures living without the capitalist system and they can fulfill their needs with little "capital". Yet, I do not admire them because of their "modesty". I believe that people should demand a higher standard of living, infinitely, but within reason. This reason is not always met in western societies. This I must confess.

Enough food and shelter?? There´s people dying in the streets in the metropolises of the US, dying because of a capitalist system that benefits the rich and punishes the poor. To an lesser extent this can be applied to every western country including Sweden an Finland

There are enough food and shelter for everyone. But WE have not shared those basic resources to every man, which from my humble opinion, is not a human thing to do. Capitalism doesn't punish anyone but it mostly benefit the capitalists.
I know there are poor people in Finland. I feel bad about it, not any worse than I feel about the fact that there are poor people everywhere around the world. In Finland, upper class is giving 30-60% of their income to the state. If that's not enough to give shelter and food for everyone....then it's the state we need to blame. In Finland it has been more than enough. I'm aware that things aren't so good in say...USA.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
What if this is a life-in-reality? Is not every system dominated by the strong? Does not the definition of strong demand it? So, of course, strong people always rule. One can only hope that those strong people are also most ethical ones. In capitalism you can be "a strong person" and compete yourself to the top of society. And if you have lost all your sympathy towards the poor because of that competition: don't blame the system. It's your choice - capitalism is all about choices.

So, your whole argument centers round a wafer-thin statement which is "One can only hope that those strong people are also most ethical ones."
Well I´m sorry but I don´t think that the welfare of people and this planet should be at the mercy of a few enlighted despots, that is NOT the society I want. And it frightens me just a bit if that´s truly the society you want

I believe that people should demand a higher standard of living, infinitely, but within reason. This reason is not always met in western societies. This I must confess.

It´s this insane demand-for-property spiral that is destroying the planet, 20 % of the population is consuming 80% of the worlds resources. What do you think will happen when 1 billion chinese want to have the same living standards that we in the west has? I´ll tell you, it will seriously **** up what´s left of the enviroment. Nature´s revenge is coming, I´m tellin ya

Capitalism doesn't punish anyone but it mostly benefit the capitalists.

Doesn´t punish anyone... Please... Capitalism is destroying the planet, if that isn´t punishment for our sins I don´t know what is

In Finland, upper class is giving 30-60% of their income to the state. If that's not enough to give shelter and food for everyone....then it's the state we need to blame.

Well, I blame the state Where does all the tax money go? Sweden is a fairly rich country, and still the medical care is awful, the public transport system is in shambles, the social security is a joke, etc. The politicians are a bunch of corrupt idiots as far as I´m concerned

[Velociryx]

Heh! Yeah....those wily capitalists in Russia are sure doing their part to distroy the planet....*worst* polluters ever...and east germany (when there was an east germany) was a pretty close second.

Two sterling examples of how capitalists/capitalism are distroying the planet.

Yup.

-=Vel=-

[Shai-Hulud]

So, your whole argument centers round a wafer-thin statement which is "One can only hope that those strong people are also most ethical ones."

Well, let's say that workers take over the capitalism. To be able to do that, workers must be stronger than capitalists. The society is once again at the mercy of the strong. When talking about ethics, there aren't any more than "water-thin statements". Ethics are a matter of opinion and can not be argued from facts of any kind.

Well I´m sorry but I don´t think that the welfare of people and this planet should be at the mercy of a few enlighted despots, that is NOT the society I want. And it frightens me just a bit if that´s truly the society you want

Capitalist is not a despot. Capitalist is a citizen of capitalist society and is restricted by its rules and those rules are a result of democratic process where votes are not determined by capital. And the society is greatly influenced, but not dictated by the capitalists. Lower classes of societies have their share of both economic and political power through democracy, consumerism and trade/labor unions.
I want a society where I have the freedom to reach for a higher standard of living. If by your definition it's frightening, then I must want a frightning society. And you're not the first one who has said that to me...I call it individual freedom.

It´s this insane demand-for-property spiral that is destroying the planet, 20 % of the population is consuming 80% of the worlds resources. What do you think will happen when 1 billion chinese want to have the same living standards that we in the west has? I´ll tell you, it will seriously **** up what´s left of the enviroment. Nature´s revenge is coming, I´m tellin ya

That's true. I can give you more statistics. There are seven million upper class people in this world, that's 0.1% of world population. This upper class owns capital worth of 30 trillion dollars, far less than 0,0001 percent of US GNP.
But you can't force both freedom and equality, you have to compromise. I vote for both of them but I always keep the freedom ahead of equality. Because from where I'm standing there is no equality of any kind without this freedom that enables classes.
Environmental issues are a serious concern. The standard of living for the majority can only grow to the point where nature is not destroyed. We must make sure that society as a whole realizes this. It's not only capitalists that have the responsibility, we can make a difference too.

Doesn´t punish anyone... Please... Capitalism is destroying the planet, if that isn´t punishment for our sins I don´t know what is

I'm concerned of humanity...and of any emotionally gifted self sentience. If we must waste and pollute some environment to make our life just a bit easier - I'm ready for it. And, the system which controls most of the world is capitalism, but people are behind every decision. I support environmentalism to some point and I believe that best compromise between standard of living and balance of nature can be achieved in capitalism.

Well, I blame the state Where does all the tax money go? Sweden is a fairly rich country, and still the medical care is awful, the public transport system is in shambles, the social security is a joke, etc. The politicians are a bunch of corrupt idiots as far as I´m concerned

Where does it all go? That's what I'd like to know too. Don't know about Sweden but Finland has a medical care of high quality, though it could be better. The welfare states of Scandinavia are in crisis, whether they realize it or not. And the problem isn't the money, it's the structures of society.

[pg]

nice flame war you guys have going. anyways, i don't really know what my politics are. quite frankly, my politics change a lot depending on the situation at hand. i try to agree with what i think is best overall regardless of ideology or the party line.

i don't know if this makes me an anarchist but i really liked what i read here( http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/anarchist.html ) and i pasted it below too.

Why I Am An Anarchist

William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is one of the most subtly horrific pieces of writing ever uttered. The single most chilling paragraph in a book that does not flinch from describing Nazi atrocities is this one:

"On August 19, 1934, 95% of the Germans who were registered to vote went to the polls and 90% (38 million) of adult German citizens voted to give Adolf Hitler complete and total authority to rule Germany as he saw fit. Only 4.25 million Germans voted against this transfer of power to a totalitarian regime."

Hitler's program was not a secret; nor were the means he proposed to use. 90% of the people voted for "Mein Kampf" and the Nuremberg rallies and the repudiation of the Treaty of Versailles and Kristallnacht; the mandate was overwhelming.
I do not find it surprising that establishment historians and political scientists have largely failed to confront this stark fact. For to do so would be to expose the shakiness of the assumptions that underly our own political system.

The Weimar Republic's 1934 elections wrote a grim and final epitaph for the theory that constitutional democracy is a reliable guardian of individual liberty, or even sufficient to prevent deliberate government genocide of its own citizens. The demonstration is given more point for Americans by the fact that the Weimar Republic's constitution was explicitly modelled on that of the United States.

The American form of constitutional democracy was invented by the founding fathers of the United States because all previous systems had been found wanting. The verdict of history since has agreed with Winston Churchill's epigram that democracy is a terrible form of government, but eight times better than any other.

But constitutional democracy itself is not proof against the short-sightedness and moral blindness of its own people. This is not a new insight; two centuries ago Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", the book which effectively founded the modern study of history, found there its major theme.

What the willful self-destruction of Weimar Germany demonstrates is that the terminal instability of democracy is not a marginal or distant phenomenon. A modern, educated, civilized, and cosmopolitan people in the heart of the liberal West can -- and will, at the behest of even a single, sufficiently skillful demagogue -- surrender their liberty and condemn millions of innocent victims to mass death.

In doing so, it raises a trenchant question. If constitutional democracy has failed so catastrophically to solve the problem of government, what system possibly can?

No one has yet improved on Max Weber's definition of government as an organization claiming a monopoly on the licit first use of force in a specified geographic region. The question of good government reduces to this: who can be trusted to wield the first use of force wisely and morally?

We already knew that kings, priests, emperors, and autocrats of all kinds have failed this test, as have noble classes and other oligarchies. We know from the aftermaths of the French and other revolutions that the sovereign people, unchecked by constitutional restraint on their tribunes' use of force, can be fully as arbitrary and vicious as any tyrant.

The terrible lesson of Weimar Germany is that constitutional restraint doesn't work either. One does not actually need Weimar Germany to make this point; the history of the U.S. itself should be sufficient to demonstrate it, at least to anyone honest enough to admit that the Founding Fathers did not intend for us to suffer under the weight of a stifling regulatory bureacracy, a redistributionist welfare state, and the IRS. But Weimar makes a more persuasive example, because even those willing to defend the U.S. Government's escalating abuses of power will hardly defend Nazi Germany.

I struggled with this question for years after I read Shirer. It's one that throws all the central problems of politics and moral philosophy into simplifying relief. For reasonable men may differ on what positive goods governments should aim to secure for their citizens. Reasonable men may differ even on what sorts of catastrophe and deprivation governments should aim to prevent. But it is hard to see how any political arrangement that can condone the genocidal massacre of its own citizens can be considered acceptable or sane.

If no government is institutionally stable against the folly of its citizens, is `no government' the only answer? Must we give up centralization of power entirely to prevent future Dachaus and Treblinkas? This is the anarchist prescription; if we cannot prevent all violence, at least we can deny would-be Hitlers the mass army, the machinery of state coercion, the social instruments of genocide.

The Founding Fathers of the United States thought they had found a way to successfully head off the degeneration of governments into pathological monstrosities: ensure that the people remain armed, and teach them that it is part of their duty as free citizens to check the arrogance of government -- by threat of armed revolt or by actual revolution, if need be. Thomas Jefferson would have asked why the Jews and Gypsies of Germany allowed themselves to be disarmed by Nazi gun-confiscation laws without rising in revolt -- and, more pointedly, why the soi-disant civilized nations of the world did not see the confiscation of civilian weapons as a sure harbinger of the Holocaust to come.

But, in the event, they were disarmed, and thus they had no recourse when the stormtroopers came to put them on the death trains. The fatal instability of constitutional democracy killed over twelve million people. And I see nothing intrinsic in the American system to prevent a future Holocaust. Especially not when many Americans seem bent on disarming their neighbors, and dismantling the very check that Jefferson and the other Founders were attempting to build into our system with the plain words of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

I am left with the bleak conclusion that no attempt to hold the arrogance of government in check will work -- because a majority of the people themselves are too easily seduced into abandoning their own institutional protections against tyranny by the false promises and poisonous dreams of statist propaganda.

That is why I am an anarchist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Shai-Hulud]

nice flame war you guys have going

This is a civilized discussion

"Why I Am An Anarchist" had some good argumentation but I think it relied too much on one example. Weimar's Republic certainly proved that democracy is vulnerable to totalitarian ideology, and the fall of democracy in Germany is not the only example. There were other Europian nations which fell into dictatorship prior WW2. Still, it's hardly an example which can prove anarchism as a solution.

[Ramo]

Because they realize that the ideals are unattainable and are more interested in the truth that changing it to suit their ideas (like socialists are in the business of doing ).

Then you crazy libertarian capitalists should give up your ideal if you realize it is flawed, like I did when I switched to anarchism.

Which is also a factor in capitalism. The small businessman (baker, tailor) owns his means of production, but would not be considered proletariat.

Well, if you want to get pedantic, every free system could, in a sense, be considered a "capitalist" system. The thing is, they're almost invariably socialist as well.

Bullshit!

No ****! One piece of bullshit deserves another (though I kinda butchered the sentence; the second "ineffecient" should be "efficient" ).

Do the !kung really count as a positive example of the concept though?

Why not? He didn't add the qualifier that the example should be civilized. In fact, hunter-gatherers were better than civilized examples in that context because they've been around so much longer.

Commies and anarchists have shared short and long term goals. It's the immediate and medium term goals on which we differ. We both agree on the need to overthrow capitalism and the need to build a stateless society. It's just we disagree on how to get there, both in terms of actions to be taken now and following the revolution.

Fair enough.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
Well, let's say that workers take over the capitalism. To be able to do that, workers must be stronger than capitalists. The society is once again at the mercy of the strong. When talking about ethics, there aren't any more than "water-thin statements". Ethics are a matter of opinion and can not be argued from facts of any kind.

If there´s a socialist revolution we won´t just "take over" capitalism. We will replace it with a more democratic economic system. And once we´re in power the society will not be at the mercy of us, but rather we´ll make sure that as many as possible can and will take active part in the governing of society. It´s as simple as that...

Capitalist is not a despot. Capitalist is a citizen of capitalist society and is restricted by its rules and those rules are a result of democratic process where votes are not determined by capital. And the society is greatly influenced, but not dictated by the capitalists. Lower classes of societies have their share of both economic and political power through democracy, consumerism and trade/labor unions.

You´re talking about a capitalism that doesn´t exist in reality, it just rears it´s ugly head in the editorial pages of bourgoise newspapers and textbooks in political economy, Frankly, I think your view of society and the position of classes of societies is extremly distasteful and reeks of old stuffy conservatism. It´s quite clear that we live in totally different worlds...

I want a society where I have the freedom to reach for a higher standard of living. If by your definition it's frightening, then I must want a frightning society. And you're not the first one who has said that to me...I call it individual freedom.

I call it egoism or selfish, but I´ll guess we´ll have to agree to disagree

That's true. I can give you more statistics. There are seven million upper class people in this world, that's 0.1% of world population. This upper class owns capital worth of 30 trillion dollars, far less than 0,0001 percent of US GNP.
But you can't force both freedom and equality, you have to compromise. I vote for both of them but I always keep the freedom ahead of equality. Because from where I'm standing there is no equality of any kind without this freedom that enables classes.

No, it´s so much easier to just look at the numbers and say "Oh well, a handful of people own as much money as Africa but I think it´s OK, It´s what I call freedom"

I'm concerned of humanity...and of any emotionally gifted self sentience. If we must waste and pollute some environment to make our life just a bit easier - I'm ready for it.

WTF?? Are you totally ****ed in the head? That´s the most egoistically selfish thing I have EVER heard

I think I´ll have to end this discussion before I say something I will regret

[Shai-Hulud]

If there´s a socialist revolution we won´t just "take over" capitalism. We will replace it with a more democratic economic system. And once we´re in power the society will not be at the mercy of us, but rather we´ll make sure that as many as possible can and will take active part in the governing of society. It´s as simple as that...

Democratic economy? I hold on to my previous argument about the democratic nature of capitalism. All of us are part of the economy, things have changed since the 19th century. Some individuals have bigger role in economy because, in most of the cases, they have earned it. Forgive me for saying but...because they are so damn good at what they do. I see your view of capitalism radically differs from mine, but I consider capitalism the most democratic system ever. And, actually, this is pretty much true since, so far, socialism on a grand scale has failed. People, all people who want, can take an active role in governing of the society. Within the limits of representative democracy.
Every socialist revolution has been exploited by powerhungry and immoral dictators. How come you be so sure that you're great socialist revolution is not going to re-create totalitarian dictatorship?

You´re talking about a capitalism that doesn´t exist in reality, it just rears it´s ugly head in the editorial pages of bourgoise newspapers and textbooks in political economy, Frankly, I think your view of society and the position of classes of societies is extremly distasteful and reeks of old stuffy conservatism. It´s quite clear that we live in totally different worlds...

Yes, it does. It really does exist in the reality. Even in the United States, to some extent. The unions have less power over there and capitalists do play a bigger role in the society and I'm not saying it's a good thing. But unions are up to the people to be found. Companies are concerned of profit and workers need to make the difference. In many Europian countries social democracy has a very important role in the political and economical life. The capitalism described earlier exists, at least, in these societies.

There has always been classes in societies. But only capitalism has made it possible for people to shift from one social class to another. And in more nation than one, social class is a question of will power. We are living in a class society and have been ever since the society was founded. To think that every person would have a same socio-economic role in the society is absurd - if you ask me.

I call it egoism or selfish, but I´ll guess we´ll have to agree to disagree

I don't know about you Kamrat X but I want to success, in more ways than one, but one of them is socio-economic success(=social class). Yet, I have ethics of humanism and I believe in many ideals originally created by socialism. However I cling into capitalism, not only because of my needs, but because of needs of any willing individuals.

No, it´s so much easier to just look at the numbers and say "Oh well, a handful of people own as much money as Africa but I think it´s OK, It´s what I call freedom

Freedom of competition over limited resources. Not all people compete as well as others. Why to deny luxuries from everyone? State can give necessary commodities even to those who fail. I'm in support of social security and a common sense.

WTF?? Are you totally ****ed in the head? That´s the most egoistically selfish thing I have EVER heard

Look. Are you a communist or an environmentalist? Because all communists I know are most concerned of humanity. I put people before the environment and I have hard time trying to understand why some people don't.

I think I´ll have to end this discussion before I say something I will regret

Say what you want to say comrade. You can't hurt my feeling in a debate over politics and I hope I won't hurt your's either. I'm glad that people disagree. Don't you want show me that my perfect capitalist dream isn't that perfect? As long as there are communist parties, whether on Apolyton...or somewhere else, there are serious problems in capitalism. And believe it or not, you're making a difference right now.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why not? He didn't add the qualifier that the example should be civilized.

I think that we both know that he was refering to instances where the people don't constantly suffer from disease and starvation. Don't we?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then you crazy libertarian capitalists should give up your ideal if you realize it is flawed, like I did when I switched to anarchism.

Anarchism doesn't work either. And I never called myself a utopian . I'm a realist.

Well, if you want to get pedantic, every free system could, in a sense, be considered a "capitalist" system. The thing is, they're almost invariably socialist as well.

So now the farmers in the early US were socialist?

[Ramo]

I think that we both know that he was refering to instances where the people don't constantly suffer from disease and starvation. Don't we?

Well, his examples referred to feudal states, which definitely suffered from chronic disease and starvation.

Also, hunter-gatherers really work better in the context provided.
Vel was, after all, claiming that human societies had always been authoritarian. Hunter-gatherers were around so much longer than the feudal states, so they're better refutations of his assertion, than say, Catalonia during the war.

Anarchism doesn't work either. And I never called myself a utopian . I'm a realist.

Anarchism, from my perspective (learning about it after libertarian capitalism), is a realist approach to libertarian capitalism. It fixes the errors of the system, but you seem to prefer some ideological limbo.

So now the farmers in the early US were socialist?

Again, the workers owned the means of production, therefore their economic system was socialist.

As for what their personal beliefs were, socialism was hardly developed as a philosophy at the time.