Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 15:16:07 GMT -5
'Thread with no name' territory all over again............................
|
|
|
Post by rickypaglais on Nov 16, 2017 15:16:55 GMT -5
But it can't be. For true anarchy exist there cannot be an establishment of any kind to run any kind of voting in the first place. There may be a concept of Anarchism being a functioning thing, but as a philosophy it cannot exist more than a transitional period. In the video it linked me to, it had a Monopoly Man-type character charging people to use his scissors. What's the difference between that and someone charging for the use of their video equipment. Also, should this anarchy happen tomorrow, my family have owned a business for 30 years, which we have worked our bollocks off for, sometimes just to stay afloat. What would become of that? What? Anarchism is just the preference of equality over centralised power. An organisation that counts votes is not a centralised power. Voting is a massive, massive part of anarchism. It decides practically every issue. Your business would be taken off you and put under social control. It's wrong that you own it, and it was built off the work of the proleteriats. It's fine if you disagree, but that's the socialist perspective. Private property is the reason you had to do it just to stay afloat, we're not judging you. We're just saying no-one has the right to private property. Minging.
|
|
|
Post by ricardogce on Nov 16, 2017 15:18:55 GMT -5
I'm originally from Venezuela. I left to escape the "revolution" so many first-world socialists insist is not socialism. Which is the number one reason my normally very left-of-center self will never trust Corbyn any more than I trust May or Farage. Venezuela is what happens when you take all the lovely ideals of textbook socialism and attempt to impose them on a national scale. The members of the ruling elite change, but a ruling elite there is, always. Communal autonomy exists only as long as it sublimates itself to the elite's vision. Socialism doesn't work in practice, nor will it ever work. It requires both supreme trust from the individual and supreme selflessness from anyone holding any power. Socialism is a thought experiment people keep mistakenly thinking can work in the real world. The only real way forward is democratic socialism as practiced in Scandinavia. Neither pure market capitalism nor utopian socialism (which always, ALWAYS degenerates into autocratic despotism) are endlessly sustainable. It's not socialism. It's state-capitalism. Why is this hard to understand? Socialism = Worker's control of production. I agree that Venezuela is a terrible, corrupt place. The reason is because it's ran by state forces, not the people. This is NOT socialism. You're perfectly describing why state-capitalism (like the USSR and lots of China) doesn't work - it just replaces one ruling elite with another. I agree. But this is NOT socialism. Because socialism is worker's control of production. Scandinavia is also not socialist - why? Because the workers don't control production. What I'm trying to tell you is that there's no "worker's control of production" that doesn't involve autocratic control. And once autocratic control is in place, it stays there. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is supposed to end in theory, but never does, or will, in practice. How do you envision any existing country transitioning to worker control? Lay that out and we'll go from there.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 15:20:24 GMT -5
What? Anarchism is just the preference of equality over centralised power. An organisation that counts votes is not a centralised power. Voting is a massive, massive part of anarchism. It decides practically every issue. Your business would be taken off you and put under social control. It's wrong that you own it, and it was built off the work of the proleteriats. It's fine if you disagree, but that's the socialist perspective. Private property is the reason you had to do it just to stay afloat, we're not judging you. We're just saying no-one has the right to private property. Minging. Fair enough - you're for private property, I'm against it. I think it's fundamentally wrong, even if run and owned with great intentions. You disagree, cool. I just hate having people talking about state-ran societies and using it as an argument against socialism. I agree with all of you on how replacing the capitalists with state politicians is a bad idea that does nothing and will never work. I agree that politicians like Corbyn (and all politicians) should be viewed with suspicion. We have exactly the same opinion ideologically. The difference is that you think it's socialism, when it's not. Unless the workers own production socially, it's not socialism.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 15:23:07 GMT -5
It's not socialism. It's state-capitalism. Why is this hard to understand? Socialism = Worker's control of production. I agree that Venezuela is a terrible, corrupt place. The reason is because it's ran by state forces, not the people. This is NOT socialism. You're perfectly describing why state-capitalism (like the USSR and lots of China) doesn't work - it just replaces one ruling elite with another. I agree. But this is NOT socialism. Because socialism is worker's control of production. Scandinavia is also not socialist - why? Because the workers don't control production. What I'm trying to tell you is that there's no "worker's control of production" that doesn't involve autocratic control. And once autocratic control is in place, it stays there. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is supposed to end in theory, but never does, or will, in practice. How do you envision any existing country transitioning to worker control? Lay that out and we'll go from there. I agree, I'm against the Dictatorship of the Proleteriat too - that's why I'm not a Marxist I reckon we'd agree on entirely on using the state to bring about socialism, you make the exact same points as me. Once power is created, it never gives it up willingly, right? I don't have one specific vision of revolution, but I do have principles on which it should be based. One, like you say, is that it cannot be done through institutions of centralised power such as the state. The state should be dismantled along with capitalism. Workers would form syndicates and take over production, and a federation of largely autonomous communities would be created.
|
|
|
Post by rickypaglais on Nov 16, 2017 15:24:30 GMT -5
Fair enough - you're for private property, I'm against it. I think it's fundamentally wrong, even if run and owned with great intentions. You disagree, cool. I just hate having people talking about state-ran societies and using it as an argument against socialism. I agree with all of you on how replacing the capitalists with state politicians is a bad idea that does nothing and will never work. I agree that politicians like Corbyn (and all politicians) should be viewed with suspicion. We have exactly the same opinion ideologically. The difference is that you think it's socialism, when it's not. Unless the workers own production socially, it's not socialism. Our family business is pretty much service based, through our hard work through our choice. How is that built off the work of the proletariat other than our own? In an ideal world, you, an anarchic group, would come and seize our business off us tomorrow?
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 15:28:05 GMT -5
Fair enough - you're for private property, I'm against it. I think it's fundamentally wrong, even if run and owned with great intentions. You disagree, cool. I just hate having people talking about state-ran societies and using it as an argument against socialism. I agree with all of you on how replacing the capitalists with state politicians is a bad idea that does nothing and will never work. I agree that politicians like Corbyn (and all politicians) should be viewed with suspicion. We have exactly the same opinion ideologically. The difference is that you think it's socialism, when it's not. Unless the workers own production socially, it's not socialism. Our family business is pretty much service based, through our hard work through our choice. How is that built off the work of the proletariat other than our own? In an ideal world, you, an anarchic group, would come and seize our business off us tomorrow? So it's petit bourgeoisie? In other words, does your family control a workforce? If it's just your family, you can keep that of course, as long as it was ran democratically. If you have a workforce, they would organise and take control with you. The point is, all workplaces would have to be ran democratically.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Nov 16, 2017 15:29:55 GMT -5
I used them examples because they are all downstream from each other, in a Socialists eyes Socialism is only Socialism until it stops working, then it’s “not real Socialism” which is what you are peddling here, and because of the hypnotic riddles they explain themselves in....well.....nobody knows what real Socialism is... Name me one place where it has been a success, and the free market Scandanavian countries don’t count... Catalonia, Mahknovia, the Paris Commune...pretty much every time socialism is applied, it works. You don't get to not-know what socialism means, call countries like Venezuela socialist, and then when people go "that's not socialist", reply "A-ha! See! It's only socialism when it works!" Gonna say it again, mate, just so you understand: WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. You know i was trying to keep any condescension at bay given your vast knowledge and life experience of economic structures and principles at the age of what? 17? And the 3 examples you gave are just laughable.. You remind me of Matt Damon in the movie Good Will Hunting, obviously has read and obsessed on the subject, yet no tangable life experience to draw from on the matter... But we are lucky enough to be in the presence of someone who has lived through Socialism as pointed out by ricardogce, and i don’t think much more needs explaining... Keep trying though, you’ll evolve
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 15:33:29 GMT -5
Catalonia, Mahknovia, the Paris Commune...pretty much every time socialism is applied, it works. You don't get to not-know what socialism means, call countries like Venezuela socialist, and then when people go "that's not socialist", reply "A-ha! See! It's only socialism when it works!" Gonna say it again, mate, just so you understand: WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. You know i was trying to keep any condescension at bay given your vast knowledge and life experience of economic structures and principles at the age of what? 17? And the 3 examples you gave are just laughable.. You remind me of Matt Damon in the movie Good Will Hunting, obviously has read and obsessed with the subject, yet no tangable life experience to draw from on the matter... But we are lucky enough to be in the presence of someone who has lived through Socialism as pointed out by ricardogce, and i don’t think much more needs explaining... Keep trying though, you’ll evolve Look, I agree, they're not big examples that show socialism works. But what they are is socialist. Venezuela is NOT. You know why? Because in Catalonia, the workers control production. In Venezuela, they do not. In the USSR, they did not. In Mahknovia, they did. The ones that do are socialist, the ones that don't aren't. It's not wishy-washy. It's not only socialism when it works. It's socialism when the workers control production. Simple as. If you're willing to actually discuss socialism, and not Venezuela or China or other state-ran countries, I'd be interested.
|
|
|
Post by glider on Nov 16, 2017 15:34:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ricardogce on Nov 16, 2017 15:34:40 GMT -5
What I'm trying to tell you is that there's no "worker's control of production" that doesn't involve autocratic control. And once autocratic control is in place, it stays there. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is supposed to end in theory, but never does, or will, in practice. How do you envision any existing country transitioning to worker control? Lay that out and we'll go from there. I agree, I'm against the Dictatorship of the Proleteriat too - that's why I'm not a Marxist I reckon we'd agree on entirely on using the state to bring about socialism, you make the exact same points as me. Once power is created, it never gives it up willingly, right? I don't have one specific vision of revolution, but I do have principles on which it should be based. One, like you say, is that it cannot be done through institutions of centralised power such as the state. The state should be dismantled along with capitalism. Workers would form syndicates and take over production, and a federation of largely autonomous communities would be created. Assaults on the state would be countered by the military. If worker unions (which exist now) tried to take over any given business, they would be met with police force. That's the part you're missing: Your plan tacitly implies resistance would need to be neutralized somehow. You'd need either a military coup (how Chavez first attempted to seize power in Venezuela), or a popular revolt on a scale that would effectively constitute a civil war. There's a reason socialists speak of a "the new man" needing to be born. We're not wired for collectivism. I'm happy to pay taxes, and loudly advocate for a robust social safety net, but I'd rather eat a bullet than surrender my property to "the community". That's the point I join forces with every right-wing survivalist I know.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 15:39:27 GMT -5
I agree, I'm against the Dictatorship of the Proleteriat too - that's why I'm not a Marxist I reckon we'd agree on entirely on using the state to bring about socialism, you make the exact same points as me. Once power is created, it never gives it up willingly, right? I don't have one specific vision of revolution, but I do have principles on which it should be based. One, like you say, is that it cannot be done through institutions of centralised power such as the state. The state should be dismantled along with capitalism. Workers would form syndicates and take over production, and a federation of largely autonomous communities would be created. Assaults on the state would be countered by the military. If worker unions (which exist now) tried to take over any given business, they would be met with police force. That's the part you're missing: Your plan tacitly implies resistance would need to be neutralized somehow. You'd need either a military coup (how Chavez first attempted to seize power in Venezuela), or a popular revolt on a scale that would effectively constitute a civil war. There's a reason socialists speak of a "the new man" needing to be born. We're not wired for collectivism. I'm happy to pay taxes, and loudly advocate for a robust social safety net, but I'd rather eat a bullet than surrender my property to "the community". That's the point I join forces with every right-wing survivalist I know. There's two points here - one of which is really interesting, the other isn't You're right - the state exists to protect private property. If you try and take back control, they will kill you. But they are in the vast, vast, vast minority. I think there would have to be a long, long process of education, agitation, and organisation before a short revolution which would be en masse. This is all a while away, of course, but it's what I believe Property is not possessions. "The community" doesn't want your bed, just democratic control of production.
|
|
|
Post by fenderlender on Nov 16, 2017 15:39:41 GMT -5
Our family business is pretty much service based, through our hard work through our choice. How is that built off the work of the proletariat other than our own? In an ideal world, you, an anarchic group, would come and seize our business off us tomorrow? So it's petit bourgeoisie? In other words, does your family control a workforce? If it's just your family, you can keep that of course, as long as it was ran democratically. If you have a workforce, they would organise and take control with you. The point is, all workplaces would have to be ran democratically. I'm struggling to see how this would ever work practically. How big does the decision have to be to get put to a vote? Do all the workers in Tesco's vote on which brand of coffee to put on the top shelf? How long does the checkout worker spend in a day voting as opposed to working on the till? Do workers get paid to vote? I only ask because these things would have to be written into law to have any hope of the system being followed. Does it become criminal to not participate in the constant voting?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 15:40:20 GMT -5
The EU should be dramatically scaled back. As someone who has worked in this area and attended Council I can honestly say that it is every bit the obscenely power-hungry and wasteful bureaucracy that it's painted to be. The problem is that no one nation can expect to either significantly change it or withdraw without consequence. That's why I reluctantly voted remain.
A second referendum will be political suicide for whoever instigates it, but this current government isn't capable of delivering anything but the worst possible deal.
There was never a plan. Like I say, I was working in central government at the time of Cameron's attempt to gain reform and when the referendum came around. We weren't allowed to make any preparations for a leave vote. We were told that the government position was remain, so that was all we could work on.
Basically Brexit is undeliverable in any decent form. I would love it to happen, but not like this.
|
|
|
Post by rickypaglais on Nov 16, 2017 15:42:38 GMT -5
Our family business is pretty much service based, through our hard work through our choice. How is that built off the work of the proletariat other than our own? In an ideal world, you, an anarchic group, would come and seize our business off us tomorrow? So it's petit bourgeoisie? In other words, does your family control a workforce? If it's just your family, you can keep that of course, as long as it was ran democratically. If you have a workforce, they would organise and take control with you. The point is, all workplaces would have to be ran democratically. Jesus. It's just not even close to being realistic. How old are you, may I ask?
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 15:43:05 GMT -5
So it's petit bourgeoisie? In other words, does your family control a workforce? If it's just your family, you can keep that of course, as long as it was ran democratically. If you have a workforce, they would organise and take control with you. The point is, all workplaces would have to be ran democratically. I'm struggling to see how this would ever work practically. How big does the decision have to be to get put to a vote? Do all the workers in Tesco's vote on which brand of coffee to put on the top shelf? How long does the checkout worker spend in a day voting as opposed to working on the till? Do workers get paid to vote? I only ask because these things would have to be written into law to have any hope of the system being followed. Does it become criminal to not participate in the constant voting? Thanks for actually asking about the ideology I have, rather than Venezuela or something Well, it would be decided at the start of an organisation. So let's say there's a place where you can get coffee. At the start of this, the people involved would democratically decide who does what, as long as no-one has private ownership.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 15:44:22 GMT -5
So it's petit bourgeoisie? In other words, does your family control a workforce? If it's just your family, you can keep that of course, as long as it was ran democratically. If you have a workforce, they would organise and take control with you. The point is, all workplaces would have to be ran democratically. Jesus. It's just not even close to being realistic. How old are you, may I ask? Either tell me why you think it's unrealistic or agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 15:45:18 GMT -5
The EU should be dramatically scaled back. As someone who has worked in this area and attended Council I can honestly say that it is every bit the obscenely power-hungry and wasteful bureaucracy that it's painted to be. The problem is that no one nation can expect to either significantly change it or withdraw without consequence. That's why I reluctantly voted remain. A second referendum will be political suicide for whoever instigates it, but this current government isn't capable of delivering anything but the worst possible deal. There was never a plan. Like I say, I was working in central government at the time of Cameron's attempt to gain reform and when the referendum came around. We weren't allowed to make any preparations for a leave vote. We were told that the government position was remain, so that was all we could work on. Basically Brexit is undeliverable in any decent form. I would love it to happen, but not like this. Great post.
|
|
|
Post by rickypaglais on Nov 16, 2017 15:48:50 GMT -5
Jesus. It's just not even close to being realistic. How old are you, may I ask? Either tell me why you think it's unrealistic or agree to disagree. How old are you? If you cannot see why it is unrealistic then I would be utterly wasting my time attempting to make my point. The reason nobody is crying out for this ideology is because it benefits virtually nobody, aside from people with seemingly zero aspiration; and even more importantly would be absolutely impossible to implement. I have enjoyed discussing it with you though.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 15:51:34 GMT -5
Either tell me why you think it's unrealistic or agree to disagree. How old are you? If you cannot see why it is unrealistic then I would be utterly wasting my time attempting to make my point. The reason nobody is crying out for this ideology is because it benefits virtually nobody, aside from people with seemingly zero aspiration; and even more importantly would be absolutely impossible to implement. I have enjoyed discussing it with you though. Haha, really? The old "If you can't see what I'm claiming is true, I can't be bothered to explain it"? Come on, man... I would argue the reason not millions are crying out (there are more of us than you think) is because it's either ignored or related to places like Venezuela, which we are against. There's loads of great books on this, by the way. Like Chomsky said, limiting acceptable opinion (in things like education and the media) is the best way to control the population. Thanks, I'm glad
|
|
|
Post by glider on Nov 16, 2017 15:52:00 GMT -5
Is it still democracy when the people are misled and their decision is informed by information that isn't even true? No. Fuck off.
|
|
|
Post by rickypaglais on Nov 16, 2017 15:53:36 GMT -5
How old are you? If you cannot see why it is unrealistic then I would be utterly wasting my time attempting to make my point. The reason nobody is crying out for this ideology is because it benefits virtually nobody, aside from people with seemingly zero aspiration; and even more importantly would be absolutely impossible to implement. I have enjoyed discussing it with you though. Haha, really? The old "If you can't see what I'm claiming is true, I can't be bothered to explain it"? Come on, man... I would argue the reason not millions are crying out (there are more of us than you think) is because it's either ignored or related to places like Venezuela, which we are against. There's loads of great books on this. Thanks, I'm glad No, it's more so because you've named only 3 examples of where this has ever supposedly worked. 1 of which lasted 2 years. #3: How old are you?
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 15:56:42 GMT -5
Haha, really? The old "If you can't see what I'm claiming is true, I can't be bothered to explain it"? Come on, man... I would argue the reason not millions are crying out (there are more of us than you think) is because it's either ignored or related to places like Venezuela, which we are against. There's loads of great books on this. Thanks, I'm glad No, it's more so because you've named only 3 examples of where this has ever supposedly worked. 1 of which lasted 2 years. #3: How old are you? Well, that's fair enough. I'm open about it - there are no great historical examples of anarchism surviving over multiple generations. The reason for this is that, although they were internal successes, they were put under immense pressure from the states around them. If they continued to work, they were mass-murdered. This is how the state works. You might see this as showing that anarchism doesn't work, I see it as the state being undesirable.
|
|
|
Post by Gin & Tonic on Nov 16, 2017 15:57:12 GMT -5
Gonna go out on a limb here and say you haven't read much about anarchism, have you? Anarchism is totally predicated on voting. Like, entirely. No, he's not. This is a planned economy. In the video it linked me to, it had a Monopoly Man-type character charging people to use his scissors. What's the difference between that and someone charging for the use of their video equipment.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 16:01:19 GMT -5
Oh yeah, by the way, any office equipment used in live performances is punishable by ten years in the gulag.
Thanks comrades.
|
|