"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[coloradoatheist]

Why are you definining 1% as capitalist? That's arbitrary. There are different types of capitalists. And if we discuss principled capitalists, Trump is not one.

A capitalist is somebody who gains wealth by controlling others with capital, not through labor.

The 1% are not the only people who do this, but many are a clear example of it.

Most people have wealth that way in some manner directly and indirectly, so it's more like 99% instead of 1%.


I would also consider you an anarchist because you believe in the principle, not because you live in a system that isn't.


A capitalist is some as dismal pointed out, who truly believes in mutually beneficial exchanges and private ownership of property.

 

[untermensche]

A capitalist is somebody who gains wealth by controlling others with capital, not through labor.

The 1% are not the only people who do this, but many are a clear example of it.

Most people have wealth that way in some manner directly and indirectly, so it's more like 99% instead of 1%.


I would also consider you an anarchist because you believe in the principle, not because you live in a system that isn't.


A capitalist is some as dismal pointed out, who truly believes in mutually beneficial exchanges and private ownership of property.

They do not have any control.

Only a very few actually have control over what they invest in.

To invest without control is just gambling and many times just being a sucker. It is not being a capitalist.

 

[KeepTalking]

The Anarchist movement still exists, you seem to be part of it, so surely you know this. As applied as a form of government, which is the true test of a political ideology, it did not even last 3 years. That is my point. If you want to show how successful Anarchism can be as a modern form of government, you need to find a better example of that happening. Too bad that Spain is the one and only example you have, with nothing else to fall back on.

I would define the Amish as anarchists, or possibly kibbutz. The actual line is a little tough.

The Amish bear very little resemblance to anarchists, they actually shun individualism. Kibbutz is a much better analogy to how the Amish organize, which is really a religious form of communism.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I would define the Amish as anarchists, or possibly kibbutz. The actual line is a little tough.

The Amish bear very little resemblance to anarchists, they actually shun individualism. Kibbutz is a much better analogy to how the Amish organize, which is really a religious form of communism.

I guess that's the real issue with anarchism, what it actually is. But even in a society a structure will be created and people will become in charge, just as they did in the Spanish Anarchist movement.

 

[untermensche]

The Amish bear very little resemblance to anarchists, they actually shun individualism. Kibbutz is a much better analogy to how the Amish organize, which is really a religious form of communism.

I guess that's the real issue with anarchism, what it actually is. But even in a society a structure will be created and people will become in charge, just as they did in the Spanish Anarchist movement.

Anarchism is not anarchy.

It is not the absence of structure or leaders.

It is at it's core an examination of human power structures, and a commentary on them.

Top down dictatorial power structures must prove they are legitimate and needed to be supported.

Anarchists in Spain shouted slogans like "No Bosses", and it was true, not "No Structures".

 

[DrZoidberg]

I would define the Amish as anarchists, or possibly kibbutz. The actual line is a little tough.

The Amish bear very little resemblance to anarchists, they actually shun individualism. Kibbutz is a much better analogy to how the Amish organize, which is really a religious form of communism.

Wait a minute. Early anarchists were not individualists. That was associated with liberalism which anarchists viewed with great suspicion. 19'th century and first half of the 20'th century anarchists were absurdly conformist. They were quite similar to communists. Anarchist ideas stem from Rousseau. His views of the noble savage. The idea was that when we return to that "savage" lifestyle we'll be infinitely good, supportive and generous.

To understand this we need some background. Rousseau lived in Calvinist Geneva. These ideas come from Calvinism. Where the noble savage is Adam and Eve and humanity needs to get back to the state of innocence.

Calvinist Geneva controlled people ever second. They were encouraged and forced to report on eachothers infringements as if it was a police state. The goal was to root out unchristian and corrupt behaviours. Stuff like sexually fancying women. Or having a glass too much of wine. Rousseau had no problem with this. Rousseau just removed God. But we still needed to have a police state to root out our civilised and corrupting behaviours.

And once all those corrupt behaviours had been rotted out the world would turn into a paradise on Earth.

I think the Amish is probably very similar to how Spanish Anarchist communes were. They were most often horrendously oppressive communities. Constant show trials were people who had committed some sin of capitalist greed would be publicly humiliated, or sometimes shot. "Individualism" was a swear word to them. They all dressed exactly the same. They all wore uniforms. Just like the communists. And fascists. These were people with totalitarian ideologies. We should be very happy they didn't win.

I think you're thinking of the Sex Pistols and the Punk movement? They used the term with it's liberal connotations. To them anarchy was both freedom from rules and free expression but also destruction.

 

[iolo]

No capitalists ever did any productive work. Thieving is what capitalists do.

Sorry, but I have worked for capitalists that most certainly did productive work.

What did they produce themselves? Like many confidence men they got the mugs to finance them.

 

[untermensche]

Wait a minute. Early anarchists were not individualists. That was associated with liberalism which anarchists viewed with great suspicion. 19'th century and first half of the 20'th century anarchists were absurdly conformist. They were quite similar to communists. Anarchist ideas stem from Rousseau. His views of the noble savage. The idea was that when we return to that "savage" lifestyle we'll be infinitely good, supportive and generous.

Not from his idea of the Nobel Savage, which is just the idea that man is basically good and if not made bad by bad parents or a bad society will remain good. Anarchism, in part, comes from his ideas of a social contract.

From there many authors add to Anarchist thinking.

Which is absolutely opposed to and opposite the thinking of the Communists.

The Communists proposed an elite "vanguard" that would rule in the name of the people. Nothing but dressed up dictatorship.

Anarchists are rabid believers in extending democracy as far as possible. They believe in the collective wisdom of an educated populace, not a ruling vanguard.

Communism is far closer to top down capitalism than it was to Anarchism.

 

[iolo]

A capitalist is somebody who gains wealth by controlling others with capital, not through labor.

The 1% are not the only people who do this, but many are a clear example of it.

Quite a few people get a few pennies by gambling on the stock exchange, just as they do on horses and (here) football pools. The questions is what they live on.


Most people have wealth that way in some manner directly and indirectly, so it's more like 99% instead of 1%.


I would also consider you an anarchist because you believe in the principle, not because you live in a system that isn't.


A capitalist is some as dismal pointed out, who truly believes in mutually beneficial exchanges and private ownership of property.

Many people gain a few pennies gambling on the stock exchange, horses, the lottery or (here) football pools. The question is whether they can live on it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Quite a few people get a few pennies by gambling on the stock exchange, just as they do on horses and (here) football pools. The questions is what they live on.


Most people have wealth that way in some manner directly and indirectly, so it's more like 99% instead of 1%.


I would also consider you an anarchist because you believe in the principle, not because you live in a system that isn't.


A capitalist is some as dismal pointed out, who truly believes in mutually beneficial exchanges and private ownership of property.

Many people gain a few pennies gambling on the stock exchange, horses, the lottery or (here) football pools. The question is whether they can live on it.

It's bigger than you think with retirement plans, both individually, and from their company or government job. But you can always move to a country that doesn't have a stock exchange and see how good things are there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then there are no capitalists.

You can quit blaming them for everything.

There are plenty of capitalists. The 1%. The Donald Trumps of the world. As we can see intelligence is not a prerequisite.

They are rare however.

The progression of a capitalist system is that more and more people end up serving less and less.

They are not only immoral but continually unstable.

No, His Flatulence is not a capitalist by your own definition--he manages his companies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I guess that's the real issue with anarchism, what it actually is. But even in a society a structure will be created and people will become in charge, just as they did in the Spanish Anarchist movement.

Anarchism is not anarchy.

It is not the absence of structure or leaders.

It is at it's core an examination of human power structures, and a commentary on them.

Top down dictatorial power structures must prove they are legitimate and needed to be supported.

Anarchists in Spain shouted slogans like "No Bosses", and it was true, not "No Structures".

You're 37 years out of date.

 

[untermensche]

There are plenty of capitalists. The 1%. The Donald Trumps of the world. As we can see intelligence is not a prerequisite.

They are rare however.

The progression of a capitalist system is that more and more people end up serving less and less.

They are not only immoral but continually unstable.

No, His Flatulence is not a capitalist by your own definition--he manages his companies.

He is not the manager of any of his real estate. I assure you.

Nobody calls the donald if their toilet doesn't work.

That would be a waste of time. He is unable to do any real work.

 

[untermensche]

Anarchism is not anarchy.

It is not the absence of structure or leaders.

It is at it's core an examination of human power structures, and a commentary on them.

Top down dictatorial power structures must prove they are legitimate and needed to be supported.

Anarchists in Spain shouted slogans like "No Bosses", and it was true, not "No Structures".

You're 37 years out of date.

Are you sure not 38?

You have no moral defense for top down dictatorial structures.

You merely falsely claim they are somehow needed when it was proven longer than 37 years ago they are not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sorry, but I have worked for capitalists that most certainly did productive work.

What did they produce themselves? Like many confidence men they got the mugs to finance them.

Your illusions do not match up with reality.

1) Businesses do not start out with bank loans. It's always either personal assets or loans from friends.

2) While I have not been privy to the start of any of the businesses I have seen how the operate. The boss is always highly involved, probably working the longest hours. Bank loans only exist when secured by substantial physical assets. (Land, heavy machinery, vehicles.)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wait a minute. Early anarchists were not individualists. That was associated with liberalism which anarchists viewed with great suspicion. 19'th century and first half of the 20'th century anarchists were absurdly conformist. They were quite similar to communists. Anarchist ideas stem from Rousseau. His views of the noble savage. The idea was that when we return to that "savage" lifestyle we'll be infinitely good, supportive and generous.

Not from his idea of the Nobel Savage, which is just the idea that man is basically good and if not made bad by bad parents or a bad society will remain good. Anarchism, in part, comes from his ideas of a social contract.

From there many authors add to Anarchist thinking.

Which is absolutely opposed to and opposite the thinking of the Communists.

The Communists proposed an elite "vanguard" that would rule in the name of the people. Nothing but dressed up dictatorship.

Anarchists are rabid believers in extending democracy as far as possible. They believe in the collective wisdom of an educated populace, not a ruling vanguard.

Communism is far closer to top down capitalism than it was to Anarchism.

I assure you that communism and anarchism share the same roots and were virtually indistinguishable right up until the 1980'ies. The ruling vanguard thing isn't core communism. It's something that Lenin added because... well... I'm not sure why he called himself a communist frankly. Maybe it was opposite Tuesday?

Communist agitators around the world would read from Prodhoun's texts as if was sacred scripture. They did so in the USSR. He's the father of anarchism as an ideology if you didn't know. He was all about the workers organising themselves (ha ha lol, organised anarchists) into collectives where they'd force each other to conform to the will of the collective. But no boss. Anarchism really doesn't imply any freedom what so ever. It's all about collectivism and collective power. Rule by committee. Prodhoun was against private property. The collective had a right to do whatever with anyone's stuff.

Orwell's Animal Farm is as good a critique of communism as it was anarchism. Orwell lived in Spain fighting for anarchism. He wrote from experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon#Marx

 

[coloradoatheist]

You're 37 years out of date.

Are you sure not 38?

You have no moral defense for top down dictatorial structures.

You merely falsely claim they are somehow needed when it was proven longer than 37 years ago they are not.

Top down organization is just the most efficient way to organize a large group of people.

 

[Elixir]

1) Businesses do not start out with bank loans. It's always either personal assets or loans from friends.

2) While I have not been privy to the start of any of the businesses I have seen how the operate. The boss is always highly involved, probably working the longest hours. Bank loans only exist when secured by substantial physical assets. (Land, heavy machinery, vehicles.)

I've been part of at least three startups, 2 in which I had vested interest. That was the case in all three. I can't even relate to what some people in this thread are saying, other than to think "there must be some other way to do it that cheats the system, avoids hard work and yet results in a profitable, growing business".

 

[untermensche]

I assure you that communism and anarchism share the same roots and were virtually indistinguishable right up until the 1980'ies.

You clearly don't have a clue.

The Communists were really the group that destroyed the Anarchists in Spain.

They infiltrated and murdered and took over Anarchist areas with force.

As I said Communism, in action, there really is no strict guidebook, was a top down dictatorial system that sought to provide a few social services to pacify the population.

Anarchism is opposed to top down dictatorial structures.

Like most of the capitalist structures that have power and matter.

Orwell's Animal Farm is as good a critique of communism as it was anarchism. Orwell lived in Spain fighting for anarchism. He wrote from experience.

That's funny and totally wrong.

Orwell praised and admired the Anarchists. You can read about it in 'Homage to Catalonia'.

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

 

[coloradoatheist]

You clearly don't have a clue.

The Communists were really the group that destroyed the Anarchists in Spain.

They infiltrated and murdered and took over Anarchist areas with force.

As I said Communism, in action, there really is no strict guidebook, was a top down dictatorial system that sought to provide a few social services to pacify the population.

Anarchism is opposed to top down dictatorial structures.

Like most of the capitalist structures that have power and matter.

Orwell's Animal Farm is as good a critique of communism as it was anarchism. Orwell lived in Spain fighting for anarchism. He wrote from experience.

That's funny and totally wrong.

Orwell praised and admired the Anarchists. You can read about it in 'Homage to Catalonia'.

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

So no irony in one group who opposes capitalists defeating another group that hates capitalists?