"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Wow... "an educated populace"? They are more out of their minds than Libertarians!

 

[untermensche]

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.

That is not close to a proven fact.

Actually top down dictatorial structures are very inefficient and insular and hard to penetrate with new ideas.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Wow... "an educated populace"? They are more out of their minds than Libertarians!

Nobody is claiming the current US populace is an educated populace.

A lot of current education is trying to get people to accept the bad idea of capricious top down dictatorial power because that is what they will be facing after graduation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow... "an educated populace"? They are more out of their minds than Libertarians!

Nobody is claiming the current US populace is an educated populace.

There is no such thing as an "educated populace". We are in the information age and people seem to be as dumb as they ever have been... or at least allow themselves to be. Dreams of an educated populace are about as far out there as "world peace" or "good Italian at Olive Garden".

A lot of current education is trying to get people to accept the bad idea of capricious top down dictatorial power because that is what they will be facing after graduation.

They are teaching that in Algebra?

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

That is not close to a proven fact.

Actually top down dictatorial structures are very inefficient and insular and hard to penetrate with new ideas.

The have some strong efficiencies going for them and they have some weakness. But it's just one type of way to organize, but one with many advantages.

 

[untermensche]

That is not close to a proven fact.

Actually top down dictatorial structures are very inefficient and insular and hard to penetrate with new ideas.

The have some strong efficiencies going for them and they have some weakness. But it's just one type of way to organize, but one with many advantages.

Yes, dictatorship is one way to organize.

An immoral inefficient way.

In terms of government most can clearly see it.

In terms of the totality of life some still have double standards there.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The have some strong efficiencies going for them and they have some weakness. But it's just one type of way to organize, but one with many advantages.

Yes, dictatorship is one way to organize.

An immoral inefficient way.

In terms of government most can clearly see it.

In terms of the totality of life some still have double standards there.

It's immoral because someone under that system has no chance to decide on something different. That is not the case when you choose to work for a large organization, a medium sized one, a small one, or run your own business.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, dictatorship is one way to organize.

An immoral inefficient way.

In terms of government most can clearly see it.

In terms of the totality of life some still have double standards there.

It's immoral because someone under that system has no chance to decide on something different. That is not the case when you choose to work for a large organization, a medium sized one, a small one, or run your own business.

That's not what's immoral about it.

It is immoral for one person to have another as their tool. The master/slave relationship is immoral. It is a violation of human freedom and dignity.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's immoral because someone under that system has no chance to decide on something different. That is not the case when you choose to work for a large organization, a medium sized one, a small one, or run your own business.

That's not what's immoral about it.

It is immoral for one person to have another as their tool. The master/slave relationship is immoral. It is a violation of human freedom and dignity.

Because the slave system wasn't voluntary. There is no system that can't guarantee that you won't have to work for the other necessities in life until humans get rid of that need for things in life.

 

[Elixir]

... top down dictatorial structures are very inefficient and insular and hard to penetrate with new ideas.

That depends on the "dictator". Top down structures in the SB corporate environment that you call dictatorial are VERY efficient if the lead person/persons are truly open to any and all input from those below. Options are considered by the management as a whole (which is easy to gather in a small company) and correct decisions can be made quickly. I have made a living for decades (except when I was in radio*) off being part of an entity that was more nimble than its larger counterparts.
The larger a company gets, the less benefit comes from that dynamic, and by the time you're talking about a COUNTRY, it's outa control inefficient.

This whole thing has roots in evolutionary tribalist tendencies. There is a point of diminishing returns in the growth of a tribe, when a point is reached where individuals can no longer be reliably reined in by the tribal "gestalt".


* Oh yeah - the footnote;
Q: What's the difference between a radio professional and a large pizza?
A: A large pizza can feed a family of four.

 

[repoman]

Somehow I think that Jevon's Paradox fits into this:

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Hypothetical situation.

An investor sees that in Town A there is a tanner selling leather. He buys it for a mutually agreed upon price. He hires a driver at a mutually agreed upon price to take it to Town B where there is a cobbler. He commissions the cobbler to turn the leather into shoes, at a mutually agreed upon price. He hires a driver at a mutually agreed upon price to take it to Town C where he sells the shoes for a profit.

Who did he steal from to make the profit?

 

[coloradoatheist]

... top down dictatorial structures are very inefficient and insular and hard to penetrate with new ideas.

That depends on the "dictator". Top down structures in the SB corporate environment that you call dictatorial are VERY efficient if the lead person/persons are truly open to any and all input from those below. Options are considered by the management as a whole (which is easy to gather in a small company) and correct decisions can be made quickly. I have made a living for decades (except when I was in radio*) off being part of an entity that was more nimble than its larger counterparts.
The larger a company gets, the less benefit comes from that dynamic, and by the time you're talking about a COUNTRY, it's outa control inefficient.

This whole thing has roots in evolutionary tribalist tendencies. There is a point of diminishing returns in the growth of a tribe, when a point is reached where individuals can no longer be reliably reined in by the tribal "gestalt".


* Oh yeah - the footnote;
Q: What's the difference between a radio professional and a large pizza?
A: A large pizza can feed a family of four.

There's been studies that at 250 people it becomes too complex to really know everyone involved and different rules start applying.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hypothetical situation.

An investor sees that in Town A there is a tanner selling leather. He buys it for a mutually agreed upon price. He hires a driver at a mutually agreed upon price to take it to Town B where there is a cobbler. He commissions the cobbler to turn the leather into shoes, at a mutually agreed upon price. He hires a driver at a mutually agreed upon price to take it to Town C where he sells the shoes for a profit.

Who did he steal from to make the profit?

Probably no one because he only sold a few pair of shoes. You can watch a movie about this called Hobson's Choice.

 

[Elixir]

Hypothetical situation.

An investor sees that in Town A there is a tanner selling leather. He buys it for a mutually agreed upon price. He hires a driver at a mutually agreed upon price to take it to Town B where there is a cobbler. He commissions the cobbler to turn the leather into shoes, at a mutually agreed upon price. He hires a driver at a mutually agreed upon price to take it to Town C where he sells the shoes for a profit.

Who did he steal from to make the profit?

Here's a niggle: "there is a tanner ... He buys it"

People are not usually sold like that any more. Nor are they referred to as "it".

If you meant "He buys the tannery", then when he moves it away from the tanner (who lives in Town A) the new owner will need to hire a tanner and manage the tannery. Chances are that whoever he hires is not as experienced as the tannery owner from whom he purchased the business. The new owner presumably now has a new distribution model as well, unless the previous owner already had transport and customers in Town C. What this comes down to, is that the buyer cannot afford to give the owner of the tannery a multiple of earnings or of revenue that would apply if, say, an employee of the original owner were to buy it and operate it while getting consultation from his former boss. THAT is what the complainers are bitching about - in your scenario, despite mutual consent, the tannery owner is "getting screwed". I vehemently disagree with that, even though I'm more like the tannery owner than the buyer. That buyer (in the real world more often than not, it's a hated "Vulture Capitalist") is assuming a bunch of risk and has a ton of work to do before any profit is realized, and the cost of that to the former owner is what anti-cap complainers focus on.

Just my $.02...

ETA: In the past when selling business I have stayed on for a while, consulting or actually working in the business. But have demanded YUUUGE compensation for my input, knowing that what I have to contribute isn't readily available elsewhere. More out-of-scale costs to the buyer... VC isn't as easy as people make it out, at least from what I've seen.

 

[untermensche]

Because the slave system wasn't voluntary. There is no system that can't guarantee that you won't have to work for the other necessities in life until humans get rid of that need for things in life.

The master/slave relationship is inherent to any top down dictatorship.

One person serving as a tool for another is inherent to any top down dictatorship.

It is an inherently immoral structure. Besides being highly inefficient.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

Your reading comprehension sucks. I can't do much about that. If you read what I wrote more carefully and write a relevant comment I might have something to respond to. But this is just silly.

Yes, the communists helped destroy the Spanish anarchists, but not because they were super different. The soviets didn't like rival groups representing the socialist creedo. Stalin was really worried that socialists in the USSR might get anti-authoritarian ideas. Which is just Stalin's paranoid brain, and has nothing to do with ideology.

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."

I don't think you understand Orwell's political views at all. It's like you read the words but project something else onto them.

He was a socialist. But had no illusions about it, and had no problems with making fun of himself or his team. He wasn't a propagandist. He was an artist just writing what he saw. "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" wasn't just a poke at Stalin. It was a poke at what he saw om leftists everywhere. That's what's so great about Animal Farm. It's quite general.

 

[Elixir]

Because the slave system wasn't voluntary. There is no system that can't guarantee that you won't have to work for the other necessities in life until humans get rid of that need for things in life.

The master/slave relationship is inherent to any top down dictatorship.

One person serving as a tool for another is inherent to any top down dictatorship.

So the only kind of "business" that should be allowed to exist is in the Co-Op model?
What's the largest "Co-OP" you've ever seen? Could it do mineral exploration/extraction or manufacturing and distribution?
Once again, you're stuck with something that only works at the small tribal scale.

 

[untermensche]

Your reading comprehension sucks.

You're understand of Anarchism and the history of Anarchism in Spain sucks.

You have everything backwards.

The Anarchists were destroyed by the Communists because they were opposed to the top down structures inherent to Stalin's Communist state.

They were not close to the Communists in philosophy.

I don't think you understand Orwell's political views at all. It's like you read the words but project something else onto them.

I gave you a direct quote where Orwell sang the praises of the Spanish Anarchists.

I can help you understand no greater than that.

 

[untermensche]

The master/slave relationship is inherent to any top down dictatorship.

One person serving as a tool for another is inherent to any top down dictatorship.

So the only kind of "business" that should be allowed to exist is in the Co-Op model?
What's the largest "Co-OP" you've ever seen? Could it do mineral exploration/extraction or manufacturing and distribution?
Once again, you're stuck with something that only works at the small tribal scale.

Mondragon Corporation

By 2015, 74,335 people were employed.

This framework of business culture has been structured based on a common culture derived from the 10 Basic Co-operative Principles, in which Mondragon is rooted: Open Admission, Democratic Organisation, the Sovereignty of Labour, Instrumental and Subordinate Nature of Capital, Participatory Management, Payment Solidarity, Inter-cooperation, Social Transformation, Universality and Education.[20]

This philosophy is complemented by four corporate values: Co-operation, acting as owners and protagonists; Participation, which takes shape as a commitment to management; Social Responsibility, by means of the distribution of wealth based on solidarity; and Innovation, focusing on constant renewal in all areas.[21]

This business culture translates into compliance with a number of Basic Objectives (Customer Focus, Development, Innovation, Profitability, People in Co-operation and Involvement in the Community) and General Policies approved by the Co-operative Congress, which are taken on board at all the corporation’s organisational levels and incorporated into the four-year strategic plans and the annual business plans of the individual co-operatives, divisions, and the corporation as a whole.[22]

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