Anarchists...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just wait until worker owned companies have to deal with boom and bust, they'd never be able to do it.

Boom and bust is inherent to the capitalist system, with worker controlled economy there´s no such things

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Seriously, the people who wanted would organize into some kind of syndicate, while the people who didn't want to participate would be left alone.

And what would happen to those worker owned businesses when the people practicing libertarian capitalism whooped 'em in the marketplace?

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Kamrat X


Boom and bust is inherent to the capitalist system, with worker controlled economy there´s no such things

Yes, they skip the boom

[Skanky Burns]

Heres a site you might be interested in. Its a test that determines whether you are closer to Authoritarian or Libertarian, and closer to Left or Right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org

Dont know where Anarchists would fit in with that... but seems interesting

EDIT: Typo

[axi]

Yes, they skip the boom

The biggest economic boom ever took place in the Soviet Union in the 30's. Stalin had them capitalise 1/3 of their GDP for several years, resulting into quadrupling their economy in less than a decade. That cost them 10 million deaths and unmeasurable suffering however. Still, after the war, the USSR had reached a growth rate of 12% while the maximum any capitalist country could reach was Japan with 7%.

[Shai-Hulud]

It's been said that one of the main reasons for the failure of socialism was that people felt no responsibility of their work and capital. Simply because they didn't own anything, state did. But even if you had a system were people would equally own the capital of society...it's impersonal and doesn't motivate individual. Now, syndicate sounds like a better idea, but still inferior to capitalism.

I'm not really an essentialist(if that's the word), much more existentialist. I believe that we can shape our destiny out of our own choices. But it seems that "the ownership" is a very universal concept in any developed culture. The individual has to be able to define himself through his possesions(capital).

The class society is full of conflicts, because of "the clashes of the classes"(sounds incredibly stupid). But I don't really think there is anything wrong in class society. In a legitimate and equal system people have the freedom of competition over limited resources and some success better than others, their societal status is heightened. Competition doesn't have to mean poverty and conflicts, but not everyone can be a success.

The question is: Whether I'm ready to share my capital with those individual who produce less? I consider myself as a humanist with empathy towards any man but I want the right to enjoy from my success. I believe few people would be ready for "perfect equality".

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Another good point.

I would say to that though, that had humanity no "essential nature" tending toward groups then, that we would be asexual creatures who did not need a mate in order to further our kind.

As this is not the case, clearly, there is a "built in," inherent NEED for a group, even if that group only consists of two.

Else, the individual who chooses to go off on his own is assured that his "kind" will last exactly one generation, and then be no more.

-=Vel=-

Biological "drives" like sex are not instincts or "essential nature" because the demands they make are met through culturally sanctioned actions involving intention and choice(<== there's that word again!). There are always alternatives to anything that counts as a human action. You seem hung up on this idea of unconcious forces pushing us to do this or that. The very idea of the unconcious was conceived in bad faith -- it's an attempt to make excuses for which there are no excuses.

We are free to do anything we choose at any moment, though we might desire to give up the enormity of this freedom. Our imaginative abilities are not causal; emotions are not instinctual responses, but rather our consciousness creates these things in order to relate to the world. Desire to mate, for example, is a way to relate to an object; it is not a mysterious urge.

Now that I've proved that humans are not "tribal in their essential nature" and saved the anarchists from, in your words, "denial of their true nature", let me make a comment about tribes, society, and individuals and then wind up with a comment that deals directly with the topic of this thread, "anarchists".

The social conditions which shape the lives of individuals in a particular society are the product of the specific needs of said individuals when interacting with their environment. A Yanomamo Indian may be wise to launch pre-preemptive violence against his neighbors in the pristine state of nature that is the Amazon rain forest, but if he continues in the same vein when transplanted to Middletown, New Jersey, the residents will be justified in locking him up. To sum up, human values and human society are the subjective constructs of free individuals interacting with their environment, not objective structures imposed from without by "God" or "Nature," demanding obedience to further some arcane teleological end.

As far as anarchists are concerned, to the extent that a pattern of conduct is defined as the conduct of an anarchist and to the extent that a person has undertaken the project of being an anarchist in good faith believing that what is good for him is good for all, then I have no problem with such a person unless their actions interfere with my freedom.

[Velociryx]

Ohhhhhkay. Having caught up on the thread this morning, it seems that my earlier view of “anarchist ideology” was pretty much dead-on, despite claims to the contrary that I “didn’t have a clue what an anarchist was.”

But before I get to that point, some comments on the other stuff:

Vel: “The example of obeying your mom is a good one, but, would you not agree that in any case, your mom has no *political power* over you?

Ramo: “I obey through my consent, so she has no "power" over me.
And what's the import of the distinction between a political and nonpolitical power? Why shouldan armed thug that calls himself the state be set in a different class from one that doesn't?”
Vel: “Differences between political and non-political power: So....in your mind then, there is no difference between the concensual agreements and structure made in a familial group to society as a whole? That's...interesting to me.” (Referencing the above, in which Ramo blurred the distinction between the consensual agreement “I consent to obey my mom” with the notion of political power, by asking what was the important distinction between political and non-political power)

Ramo: “I don't know what you're asking...

What I did write was that there's no substancial difference between a state that extorts you and a gang that extorts you.”

***
So….which category does your mom fall into then? Is she the ‘gang of thugs’ or is she the King(Queen)—of whatever title of ruler falls into that aforementioned “other class”?

On the changing nature of words and Language:
Ramos’ definition of Anarchy, tracing it back to its greek roots: "without a ruler,"

Vel’s (Webster’s) definition of Anarchy from two days ago: Anarchy
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER

***
Three thousand plus years that the word has been around, and it doesn’t look like its definition has changed all that much. A state without a ruler is, by definition a state with the absence of government and political disorder.

Ramo: “point me to a single society in which there were no voluntary bonds…”

Can’t do it….every society has informal (voluntary) arrangements. That’s simple human nature. Point ME to any society (past or present) which existed for a significant period of time in which the structure OF that society and the basis of its power came from strictly voluntary sources.

Now…as to the answers to my questions, and how it has shaped my views of this “anarchistic ideology”
Two of the strongest pillars of America are these: a) Reward for innovation and b) Strength of capital markets. The first leads to what has been called “brain drain,” where the brightest minds from all over the world flock here to do their thing, cos they KNOW that we reward innovation in this country. The second allows for the rapid expansion of business concerns that go FAR beyond the scope of anything a group of individuals could ever hope to achieve in their lifetime through other means.
First, we must take cause and effect into account. If we converted every business in the country into a worker controlled and owned enterprise, the first thing that would have to happen would be the complete dismantling of our capital market. Stock ownership would be meaningless, since its existence would countermand the new “workers own this” mandate. So that’s the first step….dismantle the strongest capital market in the world…and, you’ve also gotta do away with the banking system too, but I’ll get to that in a bit. So…first step, listen for that vast, huge sucking sound as several trillion dollars worth of wealth are instantly destroyed by your plan. (Note that this alone would likely cause a world-wide recession in the best case, outright depression or worse (including invasion of the USA) being more likely).
Second, such a system does away with the rewards system for innovation. If everything is controlled “by the workers” then one worker is as good as another worker, even if it’s not true in terms of innovation or productivity. Since there is no incentive that rewards hard work and innovation, there will BE very little of either. What WILL happen though, is that we’ll start experiencing brain drain as our best and most innovative simply pack up and leave for other countries that still reward innovation (unless your plan involves keeping them against their will, which begins to sound suspiciously Communistic in the Stalinist flavor).

Thus, the two most immediate impacts of your plan as it concerns corporations will be to get us into wars with people who have suddenly lost trillions (if you do not think that other nations invest heavily in this country you delude yourself…and you delude yourself further if you believe they would not react violently to the sudden destruction of their investment), and the destruction of the twin pillars that make our economy strong.

A comparative example of what would happen if you took two groups of people (one composed of anarchists and one not) and dropped them off in some remote place with a couple of shovels, axes, a bow and some seed packs.
We’ll call the Anarchists “Group A” and the others “Group B”

Day One:
::speaking softly from the announcer’s booth of the new game show, “Utopia.” Well…everyone’s here…the two teams are all set, and we’ve got our hidden camera placed around the camps of both teams to see what they’re up to…we’ll bring you live coverage now.”
“In the camp of Group A…well, it looks like they’re off to an interesting start…they’re all sitting around discussing the formation of a syndicate so that no one feels infringed upon. We’ll check back with them in a few hours to see how they’re doing since it doesn’t look like much of anything but talk.”

“In the camp of group B…well, these guys have been busy! While we were watching the guys over in group A talk about how they’re going to structure their syndicate, it seems that the folks in the B group have gravitated around a charismatic man named Mike, who seems to have a plan for them to get started. He’s organized his team along lines of specialization, has created a pair of woodcutters and diggers, has appointed a hunter and given him the bow, and has the rest of the team out planting those seeds. In a few months, if all goes well, they’ll be eating well indeed!”

*That Evening*
“D’oh! That thunderstorm has GOT to suck for Team A! Their syndicate discussion lasted far into the night and they never quite got around to actually DOING anything. Good thing for them that the guys of Team B had constructed two extra makeshift shelters which they offered to trade to team B for one of their axes and one of their shovels.

-=Vel=-

[Shai-Hulud]

That might have been a bit of a caricature Vel, but it has a point. I agree with your statement mostly. Although the separation of USA's strenght in two pillars is irrelevant. Capitalism always rewards inventions with capital and USA simply has a strong capitalist system. The capitalims is taking over the world and we can not overthrow it. Unlike some people suggest capitalism is actually a fair system based on democratic beliefs. Democracy doesn't work without capitalism. The foundation of democracy is private ownership and a freedom of individual which can only be achieved in capitalist system.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Yes, they skip the boom

Possibly, but they also skip the bust, which is my point. 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.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Heres a site you might be interested in. Its a test that determines whether you are closer to Authoritarian or Libertarian, and closer to Left or Right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org

Dont know where Anarchists would fit in with that... but seems interesting

EDIT: Typo

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.50
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -6.56

Left-libertarian that is, well, well...

But still I recognize the need of leaders in a society Is the test inadequate, or am I utterly confused?

Interesting that they considered Maggie Thatcher and Milton Friedman as more right-wing than Adolf Hitler

[Velociryx]

Skanky! Just went to the compass site! That's good stuff, bro! Took my test and wound up:

Economic Left/Right: -1.63
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.28

Not too far from the center, but I must admit that I found my position on the graph somewhat surprising....pretty cool....good site!

-=Vel=-

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Economic Left/Right: -1.63
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.28

Not too far from the center, but I must admit that I found my position on the graph somewhat surprising....pretty cool....good site!

Would that be right-libertarian near the center?

Edit: Never mind, I figured it out myself...

[Ramo]

Point them out. They were no where near the scale of GM,

Granted.

and they only lasted 2 years.

What about the various instances of French socialism (before gov't repression due to the successes and diffusion of worker-owned businesses)?

If they were allowed to last 20, the economy would have been utterly ruined. Just wait until worker owned companies have to deal with boom and bust, they'd never be able to do it.

And I suppose you have extensive data to back up such an absurd assertion.

And what would happen to those worker owned businesses when the people practicing libertarian capitalism whooped 'em in the marketplace?

First of all, libertarian capitalism for any decent amount of time is a fairy tale. Secondly, in practice, the opposite is generally true.

So….which category does your mom fall into then? Is she the ‘gang of thugs’ or is she the King(Queen)—of whatever title of ruler falls into that aforementioned “other class”?

I just explained this; neither. She doesn't rule me.

Please reread what I wrote. That comment was referring to your assertion regarding the supposed distinction between "political" and "non-political" power.

Vel’s (Webster’s) definition of Anarchy from two days ago: Anarchy
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER

***
Three thousand plus years that the word has been around, and it doesn’t look like its definition has changed all that much. A state without a ruler is, by definition a state with the absence of government and political disorder.

First of all, if you were paying attention to anything I've written, many anarchists, including myself, do believe in a minimal government. Secondly, a dictionary definition is absurd source from which to understand a political ideology. Thirdly, you have been continually referring to "order." You did not make a distinction between authoritarian and voluntary order.

Can’t do it….every society has informal (voluntary) arrangements. That’s simple human nature.

My point exactly. Therefore your assertion that because the state has generally been the the source of ALL order, to be against the state is to be against order, is bull****. That's simple common sense.

Point ME to any society (past or present) which existed for a significant period of time in which the structure OF that society and the basis of its power came from strictly voluntary sources.

I've already answered your question; any number of hunter-gatherer societies. And they've been around far, far longer than your more authoritarian examples.

b) Strength of capital markets.

Bull****. American industry has traditionally prospered because of protectionism by the state from the tariffs protecting American mills from foreign competition in the 19th century to today's subsidies, trade quotas and so forth protecting the industries in which America is currently prospering such as computers and biotech at the expense of the rest of the world.

So…first step, listen for that vast, huge sucking sound as several trillion dollars worth of wealth are instantly destroyed by your plan.

That's absurd, unless you're actually burning several trillion dollars worth of assets in your strawman.

Second, such a system does away with the rewards system for innovation. If everything is controlled “by the workers” then one worker is as good as another worker, even if it’s not true in terms of innovation or productivity.

That's patently absurd! There is no reason why the workers, of their own accord, shouldn't reward the more productive members of their business with higher wages. Since the workers own the business, they have incentives to run it competently and reward innovators.

Thus, the two most immediate impacts of your plan as it concerns corporations will be to get us into wars with people who have suddenly lost trillions (if you do not think that other nations invest heavily in this country you delude yourself…and you delude yourself further if you believe they would not react violently to the sudden destruction of their investment), and the destruction of the twin pillars that make our economy strong.

That's another strawman. I assumed you meant foreign investors as well. In any case, I do not advocate seizure of property, so these businesses wouldn't be completely worker owned and controlled.

“In the camp of group B…well, these guys have been busy! While we were watching the guys over in group A talk about how they’re going to structure their syndicate, it seems that the folks in the B group have gravitated around a charismatic man named Mike, who seems to have a plan for them to get started. He’s organized his team along lines of specialization, has created a pair of woodcutters and diggers, has appointed a hunter and given him the bow, and has the rest of the team out planting those seeds. In a few months, if all goes well, they’ll be eating well indeed!”

*That Evening*
“D’oh! That thunderstorm has GOT to suck for Team A! Their syndicate discussion lasted far into the night and they never quite got around to actually DOING anything. Good thing for them that the guys of Team B had constructed two extra makeshift shelters which they offered to trade to team B for one of their axes and one of their shovels.

That's a silly strawman. Team B could just as well have consisted of anarchists and A of capitalists, unless this Mike fellow physically threatened the other members of his team to do their jobs.

[Shai-Hulud]

not-so-nice features of capitalism like over-production, waste and the destruction of the enviroment for profit.

Talking about not-so-nice features over economic systems. Don't you find it interesting that these problems were most clearly visible in socialist countries? Not to say that you really support soviet communism which I believe you don't. But still, you'd think these were problems of capitalist society...

My results:
Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.77

Halfway libertarian, but only 1/3 right wing. That's pretty much it, this test almost works...in my case.