"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[DrZoidberg]

In other words, democracy. Not anarchism.

Repesentative democracy. The quibble is over the degree of representativeness (representativity?). But there is no getting around the problems that arise from living in groups larger than the tribal units with which we evolved.

There's also the question of ability. I've had enough experience with project leading to have the greatest respect for anybody who manages to project lead an entire country. I may not respect their values and views. But I certainly respect their professional ability in getting shit done within the system. That's a dimension rarely these direct-democracy advocates take into consideration. Direct democracy will just lead to demagogery. If we think it's bad now, just wait until that happens.

I would much rather have a political representative in power than me being in power myself. I just don't have the time and energy to know what would be the best policies. The tiny window within which I have the merest clue is tiny. Also the older I get the more I realise I don't know. I doubt I'm alone. Our nations 20-somethings need to have their idiot ideas reigned in somehow. I did when I was 20.

 

[untermensche]

Repesentative democracy. The quibble is over the degree of representativeness (representativity?). But there is no getting around the problems that arise from living in groups larger than the tribal units with which we evolved.

I think the non-quibble here is about how resources are allocated to human wants and needs. The "capitalist" approach, which most of us use every day, is to vest property rights in resources to individuals and to allow those individuals to reach mutually voluntary transactions to exchange resources they own with other individuals. The anarchisismisticist approach is not entirely clear to me, but it seems to involve some indeterminate group process whereby others decide if I can eat a biscuit or not while presuming the lack of coherent processes to allocate resources among groups and to specific wants and needs within groups will in no way affect the amount of resources available.

There is nothing voluntary about submission to a system of wage slavery and a system where top corporate executives have inordinate power and influence on the government while ordinary people have none.

And of course the US is the beneficiary of "capitalism" not one of the many victims around the world.

The US invasion of Iraq was a capitalist invasion.

The GW Bush administration was a bunch of people who held high positions in the oil and energy industries.

The invasion was all about trying to secure control of oil resources.

That is modern day capitalism as well as somebody being able to scrape enough to defend against a government trying to destroy the only things that make capitalism bearable for most trapped in it, social services.

 

[Playball40]

What's the difference between a businessperson and a capitalist? I know that I work hard doing stuff that saves lives, I run a business, and I hope some day to make a (admittedly small) fortune from it. Am I a capitalist, a businessman or both?

ETA: I employ 20 or so people who are what have been called "wage slaves". In my business nobody's paycheck is less than 40% my own. Am I a wage slave to myself?

It's not the ratio of their earnings to yours that makes them slaves, it's all the chains and floggings.Unless they're into that sort of thing.

So is everyone that works for a wage/commission held in chains and flogged on a regular basis?

 

[Playball40]

Orwell was a lot more of a realist in the end. He says as much in Homage to Catalonia, where his eyes were opened.

You've just removed yourself from serious discussion.

Well, that's the problem with anarchist theory. It's fundamentally utopian. Based on Rousseau's ideas of the noble savage. The theory really is that if everybody is free then nobody would oppress anyone and stuff like rape wouldn't happen. Rape is a symptom of a sick society. But in a healthy society then that kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Anarcho-syndicalism is only slightly better. Which is what George Orwell was. That on the other hand is just as idealistic. If only this and that happens then everything will be great and perfect. Fundamentally also utopian. only a bit less so.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's not the ratio of their earnings to yours that makes them slaves, it's all the chains and floggings.Unless they're into that sort of thing.

So is everyone that works for a wage/commission held in chains and flogged on a regular basis?

He was being sarcastic. As an aside, I actually felt more like a slave when I was an owner. When you are an owner, you are locked into that job like a marriage. I felt like I could never get away. I took calls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It was very stressful. A wrong decision could cost everyone.

There are no sick days, no vacation, no holidays. If the company has slight downturn, no salary that month. The bank requires full guaranties. They will lean everything.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Orwell was a lot more of a realist in the end. He says as much in Homage to Catalonia, where his eyes were opened.

This is one of the reasons why I think Orwell is one of the most important political writers ever. There's nothing wrong with the ambitions of socialism. 20'th century history is to a large extent the history of socialism. It's rise (and perhaps fall). It just got caught up in a lot of symbolic bullshit along the way. I think socialism's greatest obstacle was overly energetic supporters. I think Orwell is a great commentator of that.

 

[untermensche]

Orwell was a lot more of a realist in the end. He says as much in Homage to Catalonia, where his eyes were opened.

Well, that's the problem with anarchist theory. It's fundamentally utopian. Based on Rousseau's ideas of the noble savage. The theory really is that if everybody is free then nobody would oppress anyone and stuff like rape wouldn't happen. Rape is a symptom of a sick society. But in a healthy society then that kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Anarcho-syndicalism is only slightly better. Which is what George Orwell was. That on the other hand is just as idealistic. If only this and that happens then everything will be great and perfect. Fundamentally also utopian. only a bit less so.

What Orwell saw was the murder of the Anarchists by the Communists.

There were a lot of people in the US and Europe that were supporters of Communism.

They did not like to read what Orwell said about what Communists, basically Stalinists, were doing.

That was his eye opening experience.

The Anarchists had been fractured and were losing control when Orwell saw them.

For the Anarchists the so-called Spanish Civil War was first being attacked and decimated by the Communists and then attacked by the Fascists.

The difference between Capitalism and Anarchism is that Capitalism is just an economic system with no inherent morality. The only morality in capitalism is: If you break the law make it cost effective. Anarchism is an economic system and a moral system.

A system fit for humans, not slaves.

 

[Playball40]

Did you read the same book? He talks about early on the Anarchists were organized, working together and for a short time a beautiful thing to behold (He SAW them on more than one occasion) But it was short lived - human nature is like that. Someone wanted more, someone wanted to 'rule'.....and it fell apart. ON IT'S OWN. He realized then, that it could not be sustained. This wasn't about what he was writing, this was a diary of his actual FIGHTING and serving in the Spanish Civil War. First hand account.

Orwell was a lot more of a realist in the end. He says as much in Homage to Catalonia, where his eyes were opened.

What Orwell saw was the murder of the Anarchists by the Communists.

There were a lot of people in the US and Europe that were supporters of Communism.

They did not like to read what Orwell said about what Communists, basically Stalinists, were doing.

That was his eye opening experience.

The Anarchists had been fractured and were losing control when Orwell saw them.

For the Anarchists the so-called Spanish Civil War was first being attacked and decimated by the Communists and then attacked by the Fascists.

The difference between Capitalism and Anarchism is that Capitalism is just an economic system with no inherent morality. The only morality in capitalism is: If you break the law make it cost effective. Anarchism is an economic system and a moral system.

A system fit for humans, not slaves.

 

[untermensche]

Did you read the same book? He talks about early on the Anarchists were organized, working together and for a short time a beautiful thing to behold (He SAW them on more than one occasion) But it was short lived - human nature is like that. Someone wanted more, someone wanted to 'rule'.....and it fell apart. ON IT'S OWN. He realized then, that it could not be sustained. This wasn't about what he was writing, this was a diary of his actual FIGHTING and serving in the Spanish Civil War. First hand account.

Nothing you say has any connection to history.

It was short lived because it was first attacked by Communist agents from Russia because Stalin wanted to take control of the "left" in Spain and eventually the whole country, and then attacked by the Fascists.

Not short lived because of anything to do with "human nature".

Human nature is humans are products of their environments and they can be different depending on which environment they are raised in.

Children born in dangerous inner city ghettos can suffer PTSD at an early age.