Anarchists...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
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...

Yeah, it´s ironic isn´t it? Fortunately the Soviet system is far from my view of socialism

[Velociryx]

Okay....a clarification is in order, I see.

This discussion began as one of the virtues (if any) of Anarchism as a *POLITICAL* Ideology.

Thus, discussions of informal arrangements made between individuals have no bearing here. That is simply not politics, and without politics my friend, it is....somewhat difficult to discuss political ideology. Thus, whether or not there is a certain "orderliness" to some set of informal arrangements between individuals in a given society is utterly irrelevant to the discussion of political power. So when I say "ALL ORDER" given the bent of the discussion, it is clearly implied to mean order as it pertains to the POLITICAL arena.

We are talking politics, after all, right? Not why or how you listen to your mom? Sorry to say, you can't run a country on the basis of informal arrangements....well, if you strip away human nature, and do it on a VERY small and preferably agrarian scale you can....as long as the population remains fairly static or tightly controlled, but then, that sorta defeats the "ideology" itself, wouldn't you say?

As to hunter gatherer societies being based around these informal arrangements you keep referring to....I'm not sure what you mean. Every hunter gatherer society I've ever been in, around, or studied has been set up along a more primative version of classic feudalism. That is to say, the tribe is ruled by a chief and in some cases (generally, the larger the tribe, the more likely) he has a council of advisors. The chief appoints one man as head of his warriors, answerable directly to him. Sound familiar? Rather like the whole King/Lord setup in Europe perhaps? And THIS is your example of an informal arrangement? Ohhhhhkay then!

So I ask again....point to me one single country...ANY member state of the world community that's set up purely on the basis of these elusive informal arrangements? Where are they? If it was such a great, effective system, you'd think that somewhere in the whole of human history someone would have tried it and had it succeed, yes? I'm looking over a world map and ticking off countries on my fingertips and I've so far found....none. The big zipola.

It would seem then, that the weight of HISTORICAL EVIDENCE is against you, yes?

Granted, sometimes history is wrong. Sometimes people prove it. Earlier you mentioned the syndicates of Barcelona. If it was so stunningly effective, then where are they now? Why don't they make the news?

-=Vel=-

[steelehc]

I'm gonna jump back off topic here....

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%.

I have to disagree with you here. I would say that the largest economic boom in history was the US in 1941. Overnight (within a few months) any program in the country could have all the money it wanted. In 1940s dollars, the Manhattan Project was and is the single most expensive project ever undertaken by any nation, ever. In 1944, a tank rolled off an American assembly line every four minutes, a fighter aircraft every seven minutes, a heavy bomber every ten minutes, a ship was launched every two days. It is possible I am wrong with this, please post a source if I am.

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.

Socialist economies do not always "skip the bust." In the 1980s, the economy of the USSR was going down the sh1tpipe, at a very fast pace.
Don't even talk about destruction of the environment.

The Soviet Union was the worst polluter that this planet has ever known, and is likely to know. The government dried up the Aral Sea, bringing its surface area down to a third of its previous size. Chernobyl released thousands of times more radiation then Three Mile Island. Russian "farming" destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of the most fertile farmland in the world in the Ukraine.

Steele

[Ramo]

This discussion began as one of the virtues (if any) of Anarchism as a *POLITICAL* Ideology.

It's a political ideology in the sense that there's a LACK of politics. Just like how nihilism is a philosophical ideology.

Sorry to say, you can't run a country on the basis of informal arrangements....

Again, I advocate a minimal government. I'm not arguing with you, here.

As to hunter gatherer societies being based around these informal arrangements you keep referring to....I'm not sure what you mean. Every hunter gatherer society I've ever been in, around, or studied has been set up along a more primative version of classic feudalism. That is to say, the tribe is ruled by a chief and in some cases (generally, the larger the tribe, the more likely) he has a council of advisors. The chief appoints one man as head of his warriors, answerable directly to him. Sound familiar? Rather like the whole King/Lord setup in Europe perhaps? And THIS is your example of an informal arrangement? Ohhhhhkay then!

That's a silly assertion. Many hunter-gatherer societies were rather egalitarian and had essentially non-existent governments. Consider the modern !kung, for instance. If the chief had any power in hunter-gather societies, it was extremely limited.

So I ask again....point to me one single country...ANY member state of the world community that's set up purely on the basis of these elusive informal arrangements?

Again, the !kung.

If it was such a great, effective system, you'd think that somewhere in the whole of human history someone would have tried it and had it succeed, yes?

*Sigh* You're not listening to me.

Granted, sometimes history is wrong. Sometimes people prove it. Earlier you mentioned the syndicates of Barcelona. If it was so stunningly effective, then where are they now? Why don't they make the news?

I was referring to Barcelona in particular because that's where the industry was concentrated in Spain. But during the Spanish Civil War, anarchism was instituted in various places around the nation, including Catalonia and large portions of Aragon and Andalusia.

Why aren't they here now? The fascists under Franco with help from Hitler and Mussolini and the Republicans with help from Stalin and some of the Western gov'ts were actively crushing the anarchists. Why didn't it make the news? Because none of the governments liked anarchists.

[Velociryx]

Oh, I *am* listening to you, Ramo....it's just that the more you say on the matter, the more convinced I become that the whole ideology is one of those that looks GRAND on paper but has no real-world practical application.

We do, after all, live in the real world (errr...well, I do most of the time anyway), and so, for a political ideology to have significant weight or bearing, one of the prerequisites (I would think) would be that it is effective IN THE REAL WORLD.

The real world, I'm (partly) sorry to say, graduated from hunter-gatherer societies looooong time ago (in case you hadn't noticed), and so, into this discussion of modern politics and ideologies comes....the !kung.

The !kung.

Who are they? WHERE are they? What's their standard of living like compared to say, the Bulgarians? Has their system of highly minimalized government and leaders who are so marginalized in their powers helped them achieve any level of greatness or sophistication? What's their GDP, for example? Life expectancy? Infant mortality rate? These are all pretty standardized measures of society in today's world, so how do they stack up?

I ask these questions in all seriousness, and of genuine curiosity, because frankly, before you typed that word and published it here, I had never heard of them.

I can tell you that the native americans who were here before us were hunter gatherer societies, and nomadic too! And their system of government was quite feudalistic in its structure....so silly assumption or no, there it is.

The Aztecs with their God-King? Does that sound even VAGUELY like the devine right of kings in Europe? A wee little bit? Nawww...you're right....my statement was....absurd.

As to your statement that no wealth would be lost when transferring power and control of corporations into the hands of the workers themselves, it is clear to me that you have limited understanding of the way our modern economy works. I would invite you to browse through some books on economics and reconsider your position there. The simple fact is, such a displacement would distroy TRILLIONS of dollars worth of wealth in this country. That's just simply the way it is man....a part of me wishes it weren't so, cos I'd really like to be able to hold up something of this...."plan" as being a good thing, but it's just not there for me.

The fundamental problem with minimalist governments relying on goodwill, cooperation and informal arrangements to bolster them is that it's not scalable.

Informal arrangements can be made to work on the micro level, but not the macro. No way in hell that a minimalist government supported by such arrangements could run a country of this size, or even one the size of Spain.

None of the data I've seen here, or in history itself supports the claim that it could reasonably work in the real world.

Human beings are strange critters, and into your Anarchistic utopia would step someone with the charisma and magnetism to distort the system into something else.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

PS: By the way....if you, as an Anarchist, are in favor of even a MINIMALIST government, I assure you that there *would be* politics, making your statement that Anarchism represents an ideology with a LACK of politics a paradox.

You realize that, yes?

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

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%.

I wouldn't consider the Soviet Union to be an example of worker owned economy would you?

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.

Actually they'd probably have more overproduction and waste. You don't think the workers would vote for overproduction? Obviously you know nothing about agriculture . The government has to pay farmers not to overproduce to keep the prices high, so they can make some money.

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

See above... overproduction would be rampant. And then during the bust, it'd be next to impossible to fire anyone from a worker owned corporation, which might be necessary to save the company from bankrupcy. Layoffs are something necessary for the saving of many companies when the economy takes a downturn. Worker owned corporations can't, and thus will suffer with more bankrupcies.

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

Same with worker owned businesses. Even more a fairy-tale.

Like I've said, anarchists are living a fairy tale. At least some libertarian capitalists admit their ideas are utopian in nature. Anarchists suffer from delusions and think their crazy ideas can come true without comprimise.

[Ramo]

The real world, I'm (partly) sorry to say, graduated from hunter-gatherer societies looooong time ago (in case you hadn't noticed), and so, into this discussion of modern politics and ideologies comes....the !kung.

Ummm.. I believe the sub-discussion was over hunter-gatherers. If you want civilized examples, here are a few:

Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, the Ukraine following the Russian Revolution, Paris during the Franco-Prussian War, the majority of the early Nothern US, etc.

Who are they? WHERE are they? What's their standard of living like compared to say, the Bulgarians? Has their system of highly minimalized government and leaders who are so marginalized in their powers helped them achieve any level of greatness or sophistication? What's their GDP, for example? Life expectancy? Infant mortality rate? These are all pretty standardized measures of society in today's world, so how do they stack up?

They're h-g's from the Kalahari Dessert (in particular, in certain areas of Botswana, Angola, Namibia) who have lived in a stable culture for thousans of years. As for your other questions, obviously they're far inferior than the Bulgarians in these respects, but that's completey irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I can tell you that the native americans who were here before us were hunter gatherer societies, and nomadic too!

Some of them were, but a whole lot of them weren't.

And their system of government was quite feudalistic in its structure....so silly assumption or no, there it is.

Not at all. First of all, the very definition of feudalism implies a state where lands are the basis of power. In a hunter-gatherer society, there is no agriculture, so land is not valuable. Furthurmore, the populatin densities were so low, there was next to no conflict over lands. Finally, hunter-gather societies moved with the seasons, so they were not connected to the land in which they temporarily lived.

That means, no one in such a society would've been able to monopolize the wealth, and therefore, political power in such a culture. Saying that hunter-gatherers were authoritarian is logically and anthropologically incorrect

The Aztecs with their God-King? Does that sound even VAGUELY like the devine right of kings in Europe? A wee little bit? Nawww...you're right....my statement was....absurd.

The LAST thing that the Aztecs were, would be hunter-gathers. They extensively farmed crops such as maize, built up cities rivaling those of Eurasia, and extended their influence, warring across Central America. The main difference between the Aztecs and the Spanish was that the latter had domesticatable animals at their disposal.

As to your statement that no wealth would be lost when transferring power and control of corporations into the hands of the workers themselves, it is clear to me that you have limited understanding of the way our modern economy works. I would invite you to browse through some books on economics and reconsider your position there. The simple fact is, such a displacement would distroy TRILLIONS of dollars worth of wealth in this country. That's just simply the way it is man....a part of me wishes it weren't so, cos I'd really like to be able to hold up something of this...."plan" as being a good thing, but it's just not there for me.

I don't know what you meant in specific, but what I had in mind was for the workers to buy up the stocks of their companies or something along those lines. I've only had a couple formal classes in econ, but I'm fairly sure this won't cause trillions of dollars of loss in wealth in this country.

The fundamental problem with minimalist governments relying on goodwill, cooperation and informal arrangements to bolster them is that it's not scalable.

That's where the socialism comes in. Because the income distribution would be quite a bit more egalitarian, less charity would be needed for everyone to have a decent quality of life. Furthermore, there wouldn't be any interests, be they for the rich or poor, to increase the jurisdiction of the state. It really is an elegant philosophy.

None of the data I've seen here, or in history itself supports the claim that it could reasonably work in the real world.

Why not?

By the way....if you, as an Anarchist, are in favor of even a MINIMALIST government, I assure you that there *would be* politics, making your statement that Anarchism represents an ideology with a LACK of politics a paradox.

You realize that, yes?

Some anarchists do believe in no state; it's just that I'm not one of them. You were questioning their belief, so I defended it.

Worker owned corporations can't

Why not? It sounds to me you have some particular system in mind.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why not? It sounds to me you have some particular system in mind.

I don't think that an organization run by workers would allow themselves to be fired.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by axi


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%.

And backyard steel foundries in China worked great... until they realized that industrial capacity cannot be sustained by idealism alone.

When you have no economy, it's easy to predict how many tractors you need, because you start from scratch. But with no invisible hand to compensate for market shortcomings, the economic system deviates from the needs of the market as a function of time.

War is also easy; when building tanks instead of industrial goods, the gov. is the only purchaser, so you know what you need. Thus, quick boom is easy, and wartime economies are easy, but sustaining a productive self-contained peacetime economy through a controlled economy? Impossible.

Plus, the most relative argument of all: I was joking hence the

[Velociryx]

Hey again Ramo! And although we are at opposite sides of this particular coin, let me just say that I DO greatly appreciate the fact that you're still here arguing for the other side. Though we disagree, these discussions are fascinating to me!

As to your civilized examples. I'm glad you brought them up! It's proof positive that the Anarchist have tried, but my question would be...where are they now? If it were the case that their ideologies and methodologies were superior to the methodologies/ideologies of surrounding states, it would be reasonable to assume that once anarchistic superiority had been demonstrated, other areas would have followed suit.

That did not happen.

In fact, the Anarchist movement in NONE of the places you mentioned exists today...is that not so?

Why is that, do you suppose? Was it that, in spite of the superiority of the positon, they were simply overwhelmed by the status quo, or (more likely, IMO) was it that they just couldn't hang with the big dogs?

Feudalism: I'll not deny an important component of Feudalism was centered around the land, however, the Devine Right of Kings is what kept the power centralized in the hands of the King and those loyal to him. The land was a factor, to be sure, but if you study European history, you will quickly realize that the Church had a VAST influence over the minds and hearts of the people, and the Church ordained most (not all, but most) of the Kings that ruled Europe in that time. The King was the central authority figure in the equation, not the land. Rents OF the land were simply one means (by no means, not the only one tho!) of assuring the status quo and lining the pockets of the ruling class.

Thus, my comment that many (not all) of the Amer. Ind. societies had a more primative version of the same structure, and that is plain to see if you study the tribes in depth. The word of the chief was every bit as final and binding as the word of a European king, land or no. To believe otherwise is to simply avert your eyes from the truth because you don't happen to like it.

Worker-owned corporations: I don't know what the market capitalization of GM is at this moment, but I'd guess it runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars, so your plan could only work if the employees of GM had a few hundred million bucks (each) lying about to buy up all the stocks. The only other solution is to simply declare the stocks void and have the workers take physical control of the assets. This sudden rendering of 500,000,000 shares of stock or so from GM alone would destroy a HUGE amount of wealth, and that's just one company. Multiply that out over Boeing, Microsoft, Ford, etc,.and you begin to see the sheer magnitude of what I'm talking about, and that doesn't even scratch the surface!

Quite simply, the workers just don't have the cash to pull it off, leaving the other alternative, which would utterly destroy the Financial Market in the USA, instandly reducing us to a second rate power (at best).

Socialism: I'm afraid you can't have it both ways, Ramo. Earlier you mentioned that in a worker owned corporation, they'd not have to worry about the brain drain effect, because the workers would choose to reward their most productive and innovative employees with higher salaries. Doing this DOES NOT make for equitable, egalitarian income distrubutions. Another paradox of the ideology. It simply cannot be both ways!

In short, if this were to happen tomorrow, not only would we cripple the USA economically, but the vast majority of our best and brightest would simply leave.

In many ways, your ideology strikes me as sort of a "kinder gentler Communism." It won't work. Stalin knew that, and you know how he avoided the whole brain drain effect? By simply killing off hordes of people so that his best and brightest would know beyond all doubt that if they tried to leave, they'd suffer a fate of either death or worse.

It's a dream. In some respects, it has the makings of a beautiful dream, but it won't work, bud.

Even if it did work in the short term, you can't escape the human factor. Humans have this eerie drive and desire for power. So even if you set up some smallish isolated utopian community based on these concepts, the whole thing would get distorted the moment some charismatic leader appeared in the midst and began exerting his will. The FIRST time that happens, the whole thing goes up in flames. Becomes something different. And it will happen. Every time, I'm sorry to say.

You know, I've been doing a lot of reading about something that caught my eye not long ago....this theory that Homo-Habilis (our direct descendant) used to co-exist with the Neanderthal.

Now, if you stack the two hominids side by side, it's no contest....the Neanders were physically larger, stronger, many had more advanced technology for the day (things like fire, and organized religion, for example)....and they had this stuff a LONG time before we did (or so some folks say).

And yet...where are they now?

Lots of interesting theories about that.

Some say that we simply bred them out of existance. Mated with them and formed a new hybrid until we were so intermingled that we were functionally the same. And it's true, for the most part, a human male will **** just about anything...but that's another topic, I suppose.

Another, more interesting theory is that we exterminated them.

A systematic race war that took place thousands of years before the written word.

There was actually a fiction novel written that was based on that very theory...good read, by the way.

The crux of this theory was that, for all their technological advances, the Neanders had no formalized language, and that was our ace in the hole.

Without a formalized language, they could not lie.

But we could.

So, the theory goes that we lied and cheated our way from an inferior position to ultimate victory over them.

We...the underdogs...the anglers and tricksters of the hominids, came out on top.

And one look under the hood of the human heart and human nature reveals those very same tendencies, even today (and even if the, admittedly rather fanciful but cool nonetheless) theory is not true.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

No prob, Vel. I'm always interested in beliefs contrary to my own.

As to your civilized examples. I'm glad you brought them up! It's proof positive that the Anarchist have tried, but my question would be...where are they now?

Crushed, undermined, and destroyed by the state.

If it were the case that their ideologies and methodologies were superior to the methodologies/ideologies of surrounding states, it would be reasonable to assume that once anarchistic superiority had been demonstrated, other areas would have followed suit.

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. The failure of anarchism is due to statist tyrants, not any inherent inferiority.

I'll not deny an important component of Feudalism was centered around the land, however, the Devine Right of Kings is what kept the power centralized in the hands of the King and those loyal to him. The land was a factor, to be sure, but if you study European history, you will quickly realize that the Church had a VAST influence over the minds and hearts of the people, and the Church ordained most (not all, but most) of the Kings that ruled Europe in that time. The King was the central authority figure in the equation, not the land.

You won't find many, if any, analagous institutions in hunter-gatherer societies (and again, the Aztecs most certainly are not h-g's).

Rents OF the land were simply one means (by no means, not the only one tho!) of assuring the status quo and lining the pockets of the ruling class.

Again, there is no excess wealth in h-g societies. That means everyone was involved in food production, quite literally. That means no ruling class. It's as simple as that.

Thus, my comment that many (not all) of the Amer. Ind. societies had a more primative version of the same structure, and that is plain to see if you study the tribes in depth.

Again, not all Amerindians were hunter-gatherers. Not even most of them were. In fact, I would say that hunter-gatherers probably were nothing more than a sizeable minority in the Americas by the time Columbus set his foot on Hispaniola.

The word of the chief was every bit as final and binding as the word of a European king, land or no. To believe otherwise is to simply avert your eyes from the truth because you don't happen to like it.

Again, that's only true in certain hunter-gatherer societies, and even then nowhere to the extent that it was in Europe. Perhaps you're thinking of farmers (such as the Aztecs), but this certainly doesn't characterize h-g societies.

I don't know what the market capitalization of GM is at this moment, but I'd guess it runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars, so your plan could only work if the employees of GM had a few hundred million bucks (each) lying about to buy up all the stocks.

Such a method is more practical in some situations than others. Of course, if everyone turned into anarchists, the stockholders would voluntarily give up their stocks to the workers, right?

Furthermore, many large businesses rely on gov't subsidies and other forms of protection to keep afloat. In a more free, libertarian environment, competitive pressures would reduce the power of these businesses, and make buying them up more practical.

Anarchism is a gradual philosophy. It certainly won't happen tomorrow, and probably won't even happen within my lifetime. But I can wait for liberty.

The only other solution is to simply declare the stocks void and have the workers take physical control of the assets. This sudden rendering of 500,000,000 shares of stock or so from GM alone would destroy a HUGE amount of wealth, and that's just one company. Multiply that out over Boeing, Microsoft, Ford, etc,.and you begin to see the sheer magnitude of what I'm talking about, and that doesn't even scratch the surface!

I don't advocate that in the US, by any means.

The chief problem with seizing wealth in such a manner is simply that it gives the state more power. Where it can be avoided, such as in the US and other Western nations, it certainly should. And when you "temporarily" give someone power, they are not likely to relinquish it (see the Soviet Union).

Socialism: I'm afraid you can't have it both ways, Ramo. Earlier you mentioned that in a worker owned corporation, they'd not have to worry about the brain drain effect, because the workers would choose to reward their most productive and innovative employees with higher salaries. Doing this DOES NOT make for equitable, egalitarian income distrubutions. Another paradox of the ideology. It simply cannot be both ways!

I didn't say anthing about a perfectly egalitarian income distribution, just something more equitable.

In many ways, your ideology strikes me as sort of a "kinder gentler Communism."

Communists and anarchists might have the same short term goals, but believe me, the ideologies are quite different.

It won't work. Stalin knew that, and you know how he avoided the whole brain drain effect? By simply killing off hordes of people so that his best and brightest would know beyond all doubt that if they tried to leave, they'd suffer a fate of either death or worse.

That's absurd. It worked quite beautifully in places such as Catalonia, rather than the various examples of Communism that we have seen..

Even if it did work in the short term, you can't escape the human factor. Humans have this eerie drive and desire for power. So even if you set up some smallish isolated utopian community based on these concepts, the whole thing would get distorted the moment some charismatic leader appeared in the midst and began exerting his will. The FIRST time that happens, the whole thing goes up in flames. Becomes something different. And it will happen. Every time, I'm sorry to say.

Again, the mechanism preventing such a situation is the socialism. Libertarianism and socialism are complementary.

You know, I've been doing a lot of reading about something that caught my eye not long ago....this theory that Homo-Habilis (our direct descendant) used to co-exist with the Neanderthal.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Homo Habilis was in fact one of the antecedents (and IIRC, went extinct ~1.8*10^6 years ago) of both Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and modern man. Rather, it was the Cro Magnon - Homo Sapiens Sapiens exterminating/inter-breeding with the Neanderthals.

I tend to agree with the extermination hypothesis, myself. In fact, there's a Micheal Crichton novel, "Eaters of the Dead," which contains a [real] account of an Arab traveling among the Rus, and participates in a war against people who are most probably Neanderthals.

Without a formalized language, they could not lie.

But we could.

So, the theory goes that we lied and cheated our way from an inferior position to ultimate victory over them.

That seems like a silly hypothesis to me. Language can have much more significant benefits on a society. For example, complex innovations spread faster and more easily and between generations.

Also, our ancestors were probably smarter than the Neanderthals despite their greater brain size; the genus homo follows an inverse coorelation between brain volume/body mass and intelligence.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by steelehc
Socialist economies do not always "skip the bust." In the 1980s, the economy of the USSR was going down the sh1tpipe, at a very fast pace.
Don't even talk about destruction of the environment.

Steele, did you even read my prevoius post and the answer to Shai?

Note that I say democratically planned economy. This implies descisions of the people for the people, not descisions of the party for the party

[Zoid]

Actually they'd probably have more overproduction and waste. You don't think the workers would vote for overproduction? Obviously you know nothing about agriculture . The government has to pay farmers not to overproduce to keep the prices high, so they can make some money.

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 feel though that this is slightly off-topic, since anarchists don´t want to plan anything very much, it´s somehow inherent in the ideology

[Shai-Hulud]

Note that I say democratically planned economy

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.