 |
|
PeteH
|
|
Considering you have to pay for a roof over your head and food, I don't know that you can call a paycheck simply an incentive
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bosh
|
 |
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
A distribution of power that produces justice and happiness. |
Which would entail what exactly?
quote:
that is real socialism involving collective ownership -more accurately, collective management (I am toying with the idea that companies should not be "owned" at all, just like people are not "owned" at all)- of the means of production. |
This doesn't really work because whoever controls the property is the de facto owner. Collective ownership is also superior to collective management since otherwise you get X-inefficiency (ie "why the hell should we work hard if we don't reap the benefits of our hard work?").
quote:
So, you'll have companies, and corporations, with the main difference is that they're democratic, and their shares are equally distributed between the workers in one way or another. This doesn't in any way destroy the current profit system under which the profit is the sole goal of a company, and not just a tool to measure it's efficiency. |
That's not anarcho-socialism, that's Worker Capitalism. Worker Capitalism is to Anarcho-Socialism what Social Democracy is to Leninism. This isn't to say that Worker Capitalism isn't a massive step forward.
quote:
Therefore, there is nothing keeping those same corporations committing the same wrongdoing they do under the current system. |
To give one simplistic example, a worker-owned factory would have an incentive to pollute less since the owners would be the ones breathing in the pollution.
And they certainly wouldn't have an incentive to **** their workers over.
quote:
Anarchists want to skip all these steps and jump straight to communism. |
That's a gross over-simplification. I certainly believe no such thing. But I think that something like Worker Capitalism (with no BS about a "proletarian state") and the setting-up of an egalitarian banking system etc. make for a much better transitional stage than the Marxian Socialist stage.
quote:
Anarchists frequently eschew workers struggles for better wages, job saftey, etc., decalring that we should not be struggling to gild our cages |
So do a lot of Commies. Pretty silly really, those struggles are necessary to build up functional organizations.
quote:
I suppose it is some sort of idealized state where "power" is equitably distributed to all. It just seems illogical. |
For me at least, anarchism is more of a process than a system. For example, the current US is a hell of a lot more Anarchistic than, say, fuedal France. Its basically all comes down to kicking things in the right direction.
quote:
essentially removing it by force from those who have accumulated it |
I'm a gradualist, so I'm not in favor of the force bit so much.
quote:
Finally, you will need to set up and interpret rules, and adjudicate disputes. Whoever does this has an unequal power, and it seems to me to be contrary to anarchism. |
For me being an anarchist means having as little of this stuff as possible, not being a purist and trying to magically change the world into a utopia overnight.
If the best we can get is minarcho-socialism (ie socialism with only a small, weak, decentralized state) then so bit it, that's good enough for me.
quote:
Okay, so you want Anarchy and no banks |
Which is silly. Collective banking has always been a central bit of anarchist theory all the way back to Proudhon.
quote:
And, so, chegitz, if after the revolution a majority of the population decides they don't like it and wants to vote the old system back in, they shouldn't be allowed to? |
Yet another problem with State Socialism is where you draw this line, Socialists haven't historically been too good at accurtately what's a real socialist and what's a counter-revolutionary in disguise or whatever. Which is why its better to keep socialism in what is now the "private sphere."
quote:
I believe that working within the system is perpetuating the system. |
Which, again, is silly. There hasn't been any successful revolution that wasn't accomplish, to at least a large degree, piecemeil (sp?). But you're right in that that doesn't split Anarchists and Communists, you get gradualists and revolutionaries in both camps (despite che's incorrect talk about all anarchists wanting to skip directly to utopia).
[quoteIf it isn't, the company is wasting money, so it is less competitive.[/quote]
But if the people who set executive salaries are executives you'll get high executive salaries wether its competitive or not. That also doesn't explain why US executive salaries are so much higher than those in other industrialized countries.
quote:
This is what makes capitalism unethical, and we plan to make necessary changes. |
Oh yes 
We just have very different ways of going about it (I wouldn't confiscate anything, there are plenty of voluntaristic ways to get the job done).
quote:
What kind of society/ecopoltical system was being advocated in fight club? |
Sort of a twisted primitivistic Nitzchean (sp!) version of anarchism.
quote:
Anarchists (except syndicalists) eschew these sorts of activities. |
But the entire 'poly anarchist contingent (both of us ) is Syndicalist.
quote:
Exactly, Che. Force. |
You don't need force to get to sociaism. Just a strong labor movement with a hell of a lot of backbone.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-03-2004 01:13
|