@TheAntiAuthoritarian Yes, "facism" is a term made up by society. Anything that is even remotely anti-populist will be labeled facist. We will then have facism of the majority.
@DaveElectric - Every single word is made up by people. I'm missing your point. People do use fascism incorrectly. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a real meaning.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Then let me rephrase myself so do, Every time I hear the word "Facism" it is always being used to further someone else's facism.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian My point is is "facism", "despotism", "tyranny", "authoritarianism", etc. They are all just words. Words to cover up the fact that freedom is relative. It doesn't matter if you are anti-facist. You still support an authoritarianism of your own.
@DaveElectric - That's because there is no such things as a society without authoritarianism. Either you live by the will of the majority (democracy) or you live by the will of the minority (despotism). I find living by the will of the majority to be less authoritarian. Because we are all "authoritarian" doesn't mean we shouldn't point out more extreme versions of authoritarianism like fascist dictatorships.
All economic systems are open to becoming despotic situations. But none have spilled more blood so far than those with a "big government" bent. And none have elevated the standard of living to a level where we can communicate via the internet, like capitalism. Let us always strive for individual liberty and let us always keep those in "authority" restrained and I think we will do well.
@8yerbrain - The problem isn't "big government" but the state itself. And there is no one who supports the state more than the plutocracy. And there would be no plutocracy without capitalism.
"And none have elevated the standard of living to a level where we can communicate via the internet, like capitalism."
That wasn't the result of capitalism. That was actually a result of government innovation. The internet was not invented in the "competitive" private sector.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian No plutocracy without capitalism, but I assure you of either an oligarchy or a single tyrant in a central planned economy. Once again just look to history...Stalin, Mao, Hitler. All operated under a system that believed the state could manage better than the people. If you are seriously arguing that the internet, and the computer you are using has nothing to do with capitalism, well...then I think you ought to check out the stock market sometime.
@8yerbrain - 1) Not in an anarchist society. In an anarchist society the government is voluntary, and there are competing voluntary governments. Not only is the state abolished in anarchism, but the tyranny of capitalism as well. But that should be known since capitalism doesn't exist without the state.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian You wrote that capitalism doesn't exist without the state, yet people barter goods or use intrinsic value based currencies all the time without any government involvement. That's the free market in action.
@8yerbrain - I think you are confused to what the free market entails, which is a private unaccountable monopoly over the means of production. Hmmm... sounds kind of like the state. Private ownership of the means of production is the only defining characteristic of a free market. And such a hierarchical system has never existed without the state.
@8yerbrain 2) The origins of the Internet reach back to research of the 1960s, commissioned by the United States government in collaboration with private commercial interests to build robust, fault-tolerant, and distributed computer networks. The funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s, as well as private funding for other commercial backbones, led to worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies, and the merger of many networks.
@8yerbrain - 3) Moreover, even though private interests have played some role, that doesn't mean if there wasn't private interests, that we wouldn't be where we are today. In fact, we could have been even more advanced by now.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian We "could" have been more advanced, but history shows that people work and innovate the fastest when they are financially benefited. Free markets work because they work with the reality of human nature. I am not saying that I like it much, but I do acknowledge it's productive qualities.
@8yerbrain - People are actually not naturally competitive, it's purely from societal conditioning. I know that I personally do a good deed because it makes me feel good, not because I hope to personally profit. Don't know about you...
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Watch children sometime, and observe the inherent selfishness that they have. Don't get me wrong, I believe that we are put on this earth to rise above our human nature, but I do believe that it is, by nature, a VERY competitive world. Evolution has demanded this, and has exterminated those unable to keep up. I don't like it, but I accept it and work within it. And the physical world rewards us for doing so. Now the spiritual world is another issue altogether... :)
@8yerbrain - That's straight up social darwinism straight out of Hitler's fascist manifesto. Kids are only selfish when they have parents that spoil them. Perhaps American parents just spoil their kids to much? A kid growing up having to work to get what they want instead of it being handed to them will not breed selfishness. You mean you'll accept it and work with it because a "free" market requires social darwinism? I'll never give in to greedy elitists.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian What does an infant do when you take it's food away from it and eat it yourself? It cries. And it covets. It is the same throughout the world. I don't think a free market requires social Darwinism. You are free to give away as much as you like to. But I think the striving to secure one's wealth is the best motivation for innovation, and the stats back me up. If you stop rewarding the innovators, they move to a place that is more rewarding. I would too.
@8yerbrain - "What does an infant do when you take it's food away from it and eat it yourself?"
So you consider hunger to be a sign of selfishness? LOL... This conversation just got to a new level of ridiculous. Please show me these statistics that greed = prosperity. You can send me the link a private message. Sweden's economy is doing much better than the U.S. and they tax at 90%.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Of course hunger is a sign of selfishness. That is the whole basis of free trade! That is the whole basis of existence upon earth. Lulz. You want stats? I would say just look to history, Sweden's economy might be okay, but what have they innovated? Besides furniture. Also, you might want to check the current status of their economy, the last report I read said it wasn't doing so hot after all.
@8yerbrain - I said Sweden's economy is doing better than ours, not "great." The Swedish are very innovative. I'll send you a link since I can't post it here. You can't make a claim that greed = prosperity without showing an example. The Bush/Paul/Obama tax cuts for the greedy have failed, not only in terms of deficits, but job growth. So it seems progressive taxation = prosperity. And why wouldn't it? The rich sit on their money, everyone else spends it immediately.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian If progressive taxation = prosperity, then the communist countries would have buried us. They haven't. Because the best and the brightest don't care to work for free. You get a "brain drain" as they look for work elsewhere. Spiritually I agree with you. Greed does not lead to prosperity. This is why I so freely share what little I have with those I care about. But as soon as someone with a gun comes along and forces a redistribution of wealth, it is no longer voluntary.
@8yerbrain - What communist countries are you speaking of? The USSR? That was a dictatorship and not an example of communism. Communism is communally ownership, not dictator ownership. That's closer to privatization that communism. If they are truly "bright" they are not doing it for a profit, but to better society. I would hope you agree. Also, I don't believe in "shared sacrifice," only the rich should sacrifice, for we already sacrificed most our wealth to make them rich.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Yes, as though tax cuts were the only thing happening in those adminstrations.....correlation fallacy.
Why is everyone spending their money immediately any better than money spent in the future? By that logic, NO ONE should ever save money. No one should ever delay gratification. So if I buy a $1 chocolate bar I am somehow more moral than if I wait to buy the $2 chocolate bar? Anyone can see the absurdity with this arguement.
This video is a pearl! Did you find it in a morgue? It's great, the old way to teach triviality with propaganda. I don't see any parallel between Nazi-german and despotism. It's the christian theocratic regime, related to monarchy and right to rape, etc. USA is a fundamentalist country, the topnotch in the west, but not despot.
Oligarchical Capitalism, where the rule of few large corporations that owns a number of brand names is despotism. Capitalism from the standpoint of sociology works with human nature. However, humans will be humans and shall be advantages over all among there own against the good of the many. Both Communism, better yet Socialism and Capitalism be integrated in order to work with human nature and be a check to it.
@emhot20 - I view all capitalism as oligarchical since it entails private ownership instead of democracy (workers councils.) Very few are lucky enough to own a business since there are limited resources so the only fair system is communal ownership.
Democracy vs Despotism? A false dichotomy perhaps?
Democracy is rather despotic, as it assumes communal ownership of all individuals and their property - if this was not assumed then the collective could not legitimately vote on it.
And "Capitalism" seems like a broken term. It could mean,
1) The prevailing system.
2) A system of government privilege towards big business.
3) A system based on a separation of labour and capital.
@StatelessLiberty - democracy in an anarchist society does not assume ownership of all individuals, just the the means of production, as opposed to free market fascism where individuals have a dictatorship over the means of production, and workers are forced to take whatever shit salary the elites choose.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Firstly, democracy in anarcho-communism does assume the common ownership of all individuals.
Secondly, why draw this imaginary line between the means of production and other legitimate property? If the product of someone's labour happens to have the ability to transform resources to make them suitable for human use, how does that legitimise confiscating it?
If to own the product of one's labour capital must be commonly owned, what if the product of one's labour is capital?
@StatelessLiberty And thirdly saying "workers are forced to take whatever shit salary the elites choose" is just as fallacious as saying that if I hire a plumber, the plumber is somehow my slave because I can negotiate to pay him/her less. I want to buy for the lowest price, the plumber wants sell for the highest price and the value of the service determines the agreed price.
@StatelessLiberty - Hiring a plumber and being the dictator of the means of production(s) where you could be employing hundreds, or thousands, or hundred of thousands of people at a time are two separate things so that is disingenuous on your part.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian I don't think I was being disingenuous. It is very important to break things down into their component parts and not view the process "holistically". By using the example of the plumber I was breaking down the economic interaction into simpler terms. The difference between paying a plumber and hiring workers is scale. The latter is done in bulk to a single customer, for efficiency purposes.
@StatelessLiberty In both instances someone has 1) acquired property through labour, and then 2) has paid for someone to fulfil a task upon this property in order to boost the value of it.
The degree to which value is boosted will determine the what the agreed price of the task is. The capital is now capable of transforming natural resources to make them suitable for human use, and the plumbing is now also functional.
@StatelessLiberty I think it's important to note that I do hold a non-normative opposition to the wage system, as it is the product of government intervention on behalf of the privileged classes since the middle ages to maintain the masses as propertyless proletarians with unnaturally low bargaining power.
@StatelessLiberty - Well no, one is the result of having a dictatorship over the means of production, and one is the result of having a clogged pipe... lol. Sorry, it's not just the scale separating these two.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Using terms like "having dictatorship over the means of production" is not just assuming what you're trying to prove, but cuts logical corners and avoids breaking things down so that each component of "a wage" can be analysed. You should see these for more detail on my points:
Holistic thinking: /watch?v=dfifGqnZx_I
Debunking exploitation: /watch?v=lOavVv0DrbE
Wage slavery is a symptom of unfree markets: /watch?v=-DjBas4KPGY
@StatelessLiberty - It's not "assuming what I'm trying to prove," It's what the free market is. The free market entails a society free of regulations, meaning you can own (dictate) unlimited amounts of land, water, and food supply, and charge anyone whatever price you choose for their use. You can serve as the middle man between workers and their profit, reaping the benefits of their labour for yourself as you sit back on your fat ass and sip your martini. Capitslism is the state.
@StatelessLiberty - That's not what you said though. You said democracy itself assumes ownership over individuals, which is a fallacy. And your statement now that anarcho-communism assumes ownership over individuals is also false. The term "anarcho" means voluntary.
There's no imaginary lines being drawn. There IS difference between property intended for your own personal use and that not intended for personal use and solely "owned" to redistribute the wealth to a small few.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Well I should apologise and correct myself - when I said democracy, I was using that as a shorthand for the democratic political process - a mistake on my part.
Secondly, I think it's important to see how that contributing capital to production is the same as contributing labour, just one step removed. i.e. that one can either contributed labour to production directly, or one can labour to produce capital - and then contribute the capital to production.
The best solution is Distributism (see wikipedia) which is equidtsant from both capitalism and socialism. It seeks to break up monopoly which concentrates capital and power in too few hands and to encourage the widest possible ownership of private property to individuals beyond all centralist models.
"Well for one thing avoid the comfortable idea, that the mere form of a government can safeguard a nation against a nation. German under President Hindenberg was a republic. And in this republic an aggressive despotism took root and flourished under Adolf Hitler..." That is what is happening in the US but more subtle and over a longer period of time. The corporate/police/ military complex is the convoluted, secret Nazi party in the USA, doing covert and overt aggression here and abroad.
History does indeed repeat itself. How scarry it is that America today is like the McCarthy era, around the time this film(video) was made. Never forget that 911 was an effect of post ww2 US republic become empire's dastardly deeds in the middle east, asia, and latin america. Of course another wrong, the 911 attacks, does not make a right, it is understandable. The cia itself was predicting this blowback to our leaders covert and overt operations for the sake of the corporate/militarycomplex
@emotionalinvalid correction: what i meant to say is that this film was probably made as rightly adversarial to McCarthy and his witchhunting, or after McCarthy was finally shown for the demagogue he was and his witch hunts were stopped
@sauron170 Give you? Go get it, in Europe. And how did that work out for marx and stalin and lenin and mao and pol pot and fidel...oh there you go i heard the weather is nice there ,unlike the gov.
America is not a 'social democracy' in any sense. the USA is a kleptocratic plutocracy ruled by corporate fascists, Wall Street oligarchs and global banksters, oil & energy barons, rapacious industrialists... and this utterly corrupt empire is propped up by a savage military industrial complex (which Eisenhower warned the American people about before leaving office back in the 1960s). tragically, we didn't listen, and now look what's happened, unfettered GREED & predatory capitalism destroyed us
good/brave people of conscience and morals must rise up against this, b/c too much wealth & power is now concentrated iat the top. greed has ruined America and despotisim is already upon us.
@techcafe well said my friend. Conventional sensibility trumps over sense. It must see fascism in obvious forms, like leaders in military uniform, spouting hateful rhetoric, going off to war and killing off the "undesirables of the state, openly. Yet, especially since post ww2 our military, white house and representatives ruled by a handful of powerful corporate elite have done almost as much damage as Hitler, covertly, or overtly in so called lies called offensive wars of liberation, etc.
@TurpentineRec Our Capitalism have evolved into something evil if you don't believe me than please explain why 90% of everything is made in China or other parts of Asia. even tho the U.S.'s unemployment is at 10% that's what they want you to think. but unofficially it's really close to 18%. or why banks like Bank of America paid 0% in taxes last year thanks to corporate loopholes...?
@TheAmericanFreeBird I've read books and watched over a 100 Documentaries about the U.S. Government. including one called Collapse and if you don't see the unfairness in Capitalism ? you need to get you're head out of your ass, have a nice day...!
man, why you gotta play me like that? i love the socialists, but when there's this total wall, and i have hit this wall a few times, i just, i have very little respect for that. i think you oughta go back to the bascs. the fact that you see money as being more foundational than material goods for our economy says a lot. i don't care what you think of my arguement, just know that i have spent a good deal of care into our relationship, and i think reciprocation is the only real ethical order.
That was a good video. It's interesting how the pursuit of liberty has always been at the forefront of intellectual thought throughtout time, and how similar the models describing liberty can be even after 50 years of divergence
This foresightedness gives me hope for the future of mankind. How can bigotry thrive when the commonality of the human condition is so clear, even through time?
this is too old, but you like to debate, WELL DONE!
i suppose what needs exposition is the role of corporations. what interests me is the economic distribution scale. if multinational corporations can be said to heavily influence government, and most property is owned my a handful of corporations, what would a despotic corporate ruler look like?
refer to the film; the corporation. the corporation is bent on cheap success, at all cost. but the problem is the LEGAL status of corporations
I know right, way too old. We don't want any of that crap made you know, DIRECTLY after WWII by a Yale Professor! What exactly in the video do you disagree with so much, and why? The problem is theft. Capitalism is when there is a private sector bureaucrat between you and the market, stealing the fruits of your labour. Decisions should be made in workers in councils, not by a CEO plutocracy.
aww, thanks, ididn't know you cared. the presentation seemed over orchestrated, the music and voice were terrible. i am also an admirer of ron paul, and i saw a comment saying youre claims were discredited. but i'd say what i disliked the most was the annoying presentation. maybe citations?
yeah, i just checked, i applaud the effort, but i still don't like it, the timing is a bit bad too. i think you need to emphasize citations in your video, but i admit i shoulda clicked around. sorry
well, management is the name of the game here, isn't it? the question you have seems to be, 'why do we need management?' or 'why is management overvalued?' but i fail to see the problem with management aside from the difficulties that management faces in the demands that regulation and governments force. my point was that the legal definition of 'corporation' prevents accountability and although this might make corporations seem like the problem, the ACTUAL problem is the LEGAL definition.
"Management" is about a few having authority over the many, which is undemocratic. Democracy is a form of regulation, and is not compatible with "free" market capitalism. "Free" market means unregulated privatization of property.
You're poor Wall St capitalists are so heavily regulated! That must be why the richest 1%(Wall St, CEO's, Bankers) have more financial wealth than the bottom 95% (wage slaves) combined. The legal definition is only part of the problem.
well, you would agree with me that the problem here is not freedom from government, but freedom from material need. the problem here is a lack of ability to manage communities themselves, so that they become independent and self-sustaining ecologies or economies. the reason monopolies happen reflects the ease and efficiency of hierarchical management systems. there is no reason to oppose the efficiency because there is no meaningful diversity between communities. local privitization = solutn
Unregulated privatization would lead to fascism like it always historically has, and is the system we have currently which is a disaster. Unregulated privatization = unregulated plutocracy/mass wage slavery. What you are talking about is a "free" market "utopian" fantasy. Such a system has never actually existed on earth. Privatization never occurs democratically, only with state aid. Watch "workers self-management in Argentina" on youtube.
great video, i love free enterprise. how exciting it must be to work at that factory, learning all about management, and keeping money flowing into the community. but i am also aware that the whole beginning of the factory was invented by someone who got paid a hell of a lot more than each person in that factory earns, and so forth. was this unfair? no! i refuse to accept the proposition that every human being is the same, and should be treated equally all the time! this is a fallacy! BURN IT
The video wasn't demonstrating free enterprise, was demonstrating socialism. Yes, the factory was started by one dictator though the state (which makes it illegitimate.) So? That's no reason to defend asshole. No one ever said every human being is the same. I was just saying we should have a say in how dictatorships are run. I would think any liberty-minded individual would agree with that.
also, i am not taking about any kind of utopia, i am talking about hierarchy, i am talking about who gets to live and who gets to be sacrificed, i am talking about real GOALS, meaningful definitions of SELF and HOPE. reality is not all doom and gloom, but it's no cakewalk either, some people simply cannot make it and must be left to die in the flood. i hope that fewer and fewer will have to die and that more life is created than destroyed at the end of the journey, but along the way, casualties
That's pretty sickening. Hitler believed the same thing, "social darwinism" (survival of the richest, and whitest). Everyone must compete in this phony structure we made up and who ever fails, tough luck! That's slavery, and it's wrong.
hey! throw me a freakin bone here! what you are proposng (admit it!) is radical conservatism. there is only one way to do things for you, you are the dictator, you are keeping people from choosing their own social system by prescribing a moral hierarchy, and you are placed conveniently at the top! you are the authority? sorry bud, i know better. who's to say which structure is phony? let's compete and study which one serves the greatest number of interests, ok?
Racial conservatism? WTF are you talking about? You just described capitalism, what I am completely opposed to. Democracy is NOT a dictator ruling over the people, it's the complete opposite. You were the one saying your okay with slavery (lol) not me.
"who's to say which structure is phony?"
I'm just stating my opinion. In the end, the majority naturally rules. I'm not into "competing." I'd be glad to share thoughts with you.
hey, thanks man, i'm just meting out the facts as i understand them, and i see your strong moral stance on servitude as socially conservative, seeing as you would not accept any democratically derived system including slavery as 'legitimate' now, i totally understand that, but as long as the slaves get votes, why not just let the culture thrive or perish instead of getting pissed and crying 'injustice!' capitalism is like that culture, but hey, i know that the slaves are being killed too.
There is no such thing as democratic slavery, at least not in the extreme sense of the term. When "slaves" get the right to vote they are much less enslaved. People can vote to get rid of democracy and to be slaves, I just would strongly disagree with that decision, for I disagree with capitalism.
hey, i'm having a blast, but i feel like we're not agreeing enough. ron paul being right on only a few things is fair, to get two big parts of policy right is no small feat, but this rejection of hierarchy, that's nuts! i think you have to understand that i am not against socialism, i love socialism. i am actually rather socialist, but i am also an environmentalist, and although a scientifically aware socialism would be great, i think it would involve hierarchy and it would have to be small.
basically, a socialist system works when a population can achieve consensus. given that the size of our government in the united states has increased so much, shouldn't we be discussing ways to empower states and counties rather than the fed? i think capitalism is a starting point, we should encourage experimentation on a national level, and that means free trade. on a local level, socialize, criminalize, regulate, and enslave, as long as a reasonable consensus can be reached. free info trade
Doesn't really matter to me whether it's a small community thing or a global democracy, as long as it's voluntary. "Free" trade is really enslaving trade. "Free" trade is why there is a global corporatocracy where corporations are far more powerful than nations. Why do you have such a double standard with the state and corporations?
denying people what they want to buy doesn't make sense to me. if a small nation wants to boycott a corporation, they might give people the reasons, make public service announcements and maybe private stores would discontinue the product, but the press would do that anyway. information is a valuable commodity, why wouldn't the press sell it and the state use it? the reason corporations are so foul today is because of the STATE, the FDA, DOA, TORT LAW,et al, prohibiting reasonable competition
"Free" trade can have unwanted externalities on communities. People should have a say in how things are done to the extend to which they are affected by those decisions. The reasons corporations are so foul is because they can't afford to ethical in a monetary based economy.
A socialist and environmentalist for privatization and "free" trade? I think that's a bit of an oxymoron. How is utter dictator control for the global corporatocracy going to advance socialism in any way? Socialism is democracy! You've seen the corporation, you should know these people only care about the bottom line which is maximum profit or shareholders no matter the environmental costs!
you are delusional, corporations are not dictatorial, they obey the market, that's how they profit. if the state decides to protect corporations from the market, the market is restricted from hurting corporations that act against the market. if the market is free, and information is given to people who are concerned about the "externalities" the market will naturally cease to externalize them, and if corporations continue to externalize, the market will punish them.
I'm delusional? Sorry, I thought you knew how to have a constructive discussion. Let me know if I was wrong about that. The fact people can choose between one dictator or another, Walmart or Kmart, doesn't mean the dictator system is democratic. If Walmart and Kmart are run by the people who actually work there, that is democracy. And they still need to obey the market to survive, so that's double democracy. A dictatorship is when one has utter control over a geographical area.
i'm sorry, i meant that you have a delusion, not that you are generally delusional. i would like you to entertain that proposition, and just re-examine your arguement. if you refuse, we're not going anywhere so we might as well stop. take some time and think about it.
That's the point of discussions in general, to spread knowledge and correct "delusions." If you think I'm deluded, convince me otherwise. Simply saying I have a "delusion" won't make my change my mind on something.
you are mistaken about the economy being based on money as well. money is merely a measuring tool, a language for value. economies are based on value, but value is based on reality. the basics are very real, materials, energy, food, and the ingenuity needed to transform and use these real goods in various ways. you seem to want to control this use, so that a particular lifestyle that you deem correct is the only option. but to allow people to choose for themselves obviously denies you that.
i think this is where we differ, i think that if a culture wants to kill its slaves, and the culture is in general agreement about that, i'm not going to stop them. it's not great management over the long term, but hell, i don't have all the answers, and you don't either, we know that, it's what makes us anti-authoritarians. if we started saying, guess what, you are definitely wrong about your slave killing policy, then, we are being like christians against muslims again, or social conservativ
Just because something is accepted doesn't make it moral or correct. 80% of the country is Christian. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop pointing out their insanity. I would disagree with you saying you are anti-authoritarian if you support some sort of Minarchist state in long run like Ron Paul. I really hope you disagree with the large majority of his views. He's good on auditing the fed and foreign policy but that's about it.
and the legal definition is created by the state, which is supposedly democratic. but of course i agree that a direct democracy should occur in most local governments, but of couse we cannot forget that capitalism operated as a direct democracy anyway! the spheres of economy and government are not seperate in the real world, and although socialism might seem like a more free system, it turns out to be radically more conservative and arguably, oppressive.
"but of couse we cannot forget that capitalism operated as a direct democracy anyway!"
That's an oxymoron. The definition of capitalist is private ownership of the means of production. direct democracy and socialism are the same thing. State socialism is scary, though less scary than corporatism (which is the historically unavoidable second stage in the capitalism/fascism transition.)
going back to your comment on management. examine the reasoning! or madness! stop oversimplifying these terms. you can't say a system is undemocratic if the people in the democracy vote it into existence! and if capitalism is undemocratic, how come the consumer get's to CHOOSE what the market produces?! perhaps the regulatory democracy is just as undemocratic as a managed system where people do what theyre told to get what they want! if WE THE PEOPLE want to RULE, there goes democracy!
That's fallacious. People voted for Hitler. Does that mean Hitler's totalitarian regime was democratic? No. Your second fallacy is you think capitalism is democratic because you can choose from different "bosses" and products. That's the same argument the statist makes for the existence of the state. You can choose between all these countries, therefore the state is a legitimate and democratic structure. WRONG. Capitalism = wage slavery and no say in how management is run.
you know, this isn't about deomocracy. this is about the size of the state. this is about the classic debate about federalization. in capitalism as in the democratic socialist state, the smaller the firm or state, the more specific, free, independent, diverse, and as you like to say, democratic, the governmental forces are. agitate for local power, smaller states, innovative small business, state's rights, and the confederated power for defence and trade. be antiauthoritarian
Can you clarify that last point in the 1st comment? It seems a bit incoherent.
You don't need to preach that to me, I'm an anarchist. I'm for NO state or hierarchical plutocratic rule in any form. States historically are tools to defend hierarchy. So I'm being antiauthoritarian. You on the other hand, not so much.
haha, yeah, i guess you are correct there. but listen man, i have a good feeling about certain hierarchies, and i think slavery isn't all bad as long as consent is given. think of the scientific community, if there's a guy that's a genius at creating innovative experiments, he should be telling others how to do that and get whatever he wants in return. that's management. that's free market. sure there's gonna be a price, but if what he produces is desirable, then isn't the hierarchy worthit
The "innovative" person can quit the collective and work for himself if he wants, or make recommendations to his co-workers. But having utter dictator authority simply because he is viewed as "superior" doesn't sit well with me. There's literally nothing you could say to make me support dictatorships.
98% pay the price while 1 or 2 percent STEAL the profit from the workers. That's your free market. So yes, there is a BIG price for all us to pay with a free market.
the corporation wants money, if not for it's own security, the security of its owners, the security of its stock, and so on. the primal fear of death is what does this, loss aversion turns into slowed-growth aversion, or greed. this makes the corporation forget about purpose. the bottom line is an excuse to get greedy. and its bad for business to make your workers wage slaves, but it's also bad for business to pay people welfare when they have no purpose to be well for. what is your purpose?
It's not bad for business to have wage slaves. It's actually the opposite. It maximizes profit. Conservatives haven't stopped shopping at Walmart at the news of why their products are so cheap. That's the "democratic" free market for you! lol...
It is the equivalent of democracy. Totalitarian socialism is an oxymoron. Stalin was not a socialist, if he was he would have dethroned himself and allowed direct democracy.
Your definitely a nominee for the ignoramus awards. Thanks for the laughs!
i see you're from the US and i trust that you consider Barack Obama to be the best president ever and he will bring you the socialism you crave.
so enjoy your socialism. maybe you'll get a nice position in the youth corps and an opportunity to beat up all the people who doubted the superiority of socialism.
Obama is one your guys, not mine. Obama is a capitalist to the core. There's not single socialist who would support the Wall St bailout. Tell me... what has Obama done to transform illegitimate private property into communal property? Nothing.
You need to just change your name to "the authoritarian". You support the authority of some commune or series of communes over the authority of the person whose labor is most directly tied to the land (the homesteading principle).
We can argue the merits of such authorities, but to say that you're "not authoritarian" is either ignorant or dishonest. Also your prescriptions are much more alienated from labor than homesteaded private property, and are thus more of what makes a state a state.
Everyones labor is tied to the land and there are limited resources, so your "right" to own land can infringe on another's "right" to own land.
Saying I'm anti-authoritarian is neither "ignorant" or "dishonest." There's obviously no utopia, but I'm for the least amount of authority possible.
I remember you previously commented on my page about my username, and then blocked me before I could respond. That was very nice cs. Free speech is great!
Wasn't that clever of them to pick that name for their party? They fooled a lot of people with their left-wing rhetoric, while implementing the most right-wing policies in history. That's what fascists like Hitler and Mussolini are famous for. It's sort-of like how the right-wing stole the term "libertarian" from the left. Hitler did the same with the term "socialist" at the time.
@michaeltheman8888 fascism is a tendency within capitalism. It's basically what happens when bourgeois democracy adopts the structure of capitalism (i.e. a completely undemocratic hierarchy that functions only to create a profit for the enterprise, or more accurately those at the top.)
So yeah, America is a pretty fascist country, but a requirement for that is that it is capitalist.
Democracy = Socialism. In USA today, despotism stands a great chance. Private ownership cannot exist in a real democracy. Private ownership is equal to dictatorship and oligarky in the economy.
I agree. Sweden, on the other hand, is a much better country. I was just in Stockholm about a year ago, and your krona is stronger than our dollar. You're lucky to live there! I'm also 50% Swedish. Maybe that's why I have such communist tendencies!
Haha where did you find this? I agree with your assertion that democracy and socialism are a requirement for one another, but I don't think that is what the makers of the movie meant!
I'm not sure if they meant for it to be a pro-socialist movie, but it sure seems it. I guess one can't make an honest anti-fascist movie without it being pro-socialist. You would have to leave a whole lot of info about fascism out.
That couldn't be further from the truth. Capitalism is what enables people to have private sector dictatorships, by allowing the means of production to be owned by individuals. This redistributes the wealth to a couple elites, giving them supreme bargaining power of politicians, as we are seeing now with the US.
Which explains why the US, the first robust capitalism, attracted people from all over the world who were then sucked to death by the private owners resulting in the poorest nation in human history. Now, almost all Americans are dead or living in mud huts, save a very few private owners.
Thankfully the communist utopias that prevented private ownership proved to build almost unlimited wealth for all. Yes, private ownership is clearly a great evil!
The top 1 percent of the population are controlling more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent. 10% are unemployed. Capitalism is fucking awesome, huh?
You're sarcasm is pathetic, sick even, considering there are Americans homeless, starving, and dying. Keep joking, it will really sell your message to people who are struggling.
Wealth is not a fixed pie. One person having more than another does not mean the person having more is "controlling" the amount of total wealth.
But these utilitarian arguments are meaningless when it is basically a moral issue. It is wrong to steal from another person because that is an act of aggression. Therefore, anything BUT free-market exchange is inherently immoral.
"1 percent of the population are controlling more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent."
1. Can you cite an objective source for that figure?
2. If true, why should I care if that 95% have more wealth under capitalism than 95% under abolition of private property (communism)?
3. And your solution is to strip away the private property of the 95%, who you say don't have enough wealth. This is illogical. In fact you're actually complaining that the 95% own any wealth.
It was found by Citigroup's research staff. Citigroup is a corporation, which has no interest in seeing their companies demise.
Communism is based around shared wealth, so 1% holding 95% of the wealth would entail that it is not communist.
My personal view as an anarchist who have sympathy for communism, is that you own what your labor produces. So I'm not against wealth in general. I think owning another's means to live, is going too far however.
Communists do not want to strip away the private property of the people, they want to strip away the private property of the ruling class and distribute it to the people to create a classless society.
So the wealth of the 1% would go to the 95% who really needs it.
"Communists do not want to strip away the private property of the people, they want to strip away the private property of the ruling class ..."
I don't think it's even a case of property or capital, but of power. The problem in the capitalist system isn't about the wealth production, but about the power abuse. Wealth is power in a capitalist system, but power of one against another is abuse. Consider how wealth plays a part in politics and the markets of wealth production under capitalism.
With each individual his own sovereign. In a dictatorship, your master asserts authority over you. In a democracy, your sovereignty is at the mercy of the majority. Individual sovereignty is the third way.
This video uses a classic propaganda technique. It offers the premise that there are only two options, one obviously bad. The viewer is then tricked into agreeing with the "good" option.
It's like a politician saying "If you don't vote me into power, monkeys will burn your city to the ground. Those are your options, me in power or ashes for a city. The choice is yours." The listener is never given the choice that perhaps they could both not vote him into power and not have a burnt city.
Saying your for individual sovereignty is as meaningless as when Ron Paul says it. You have to give more detail for people to know what you mean by the term, and what it entails in the workplace. If you want people to support whatever your views are, you should maybe let them know what those views are first.
How are business decisions made in a business employing multiple workers, under your philosophy?
Just like nations claiming "sovereignty" over territory means they are claiming authority over the territory, having individual sovereignty means you are the authority over your own life.
Decisions about life should be made by the life's "owner". Business decisions should be made by the business's owner.
Individual sovereignty CAN mean self employment, but it is not restricted to it. I can be employed by someone else without that person being the authority over my life.
Why is owning something (being a "private dictator" in your usage) incompatible with individual autonomy? To deny someone authority over what they create with their labor takes AWAY individual autonomy. Someone has to be doing the denying. That person is asserting a position of authority.
Individual sovereignty can not possibly mean that all options presented to you in life are equally "easy". Ease has nothing to do with authority, sovereignty, ownership, or anything we have been discussing.
Saying that unless all employment choices in life are equally pleasant, you are no longer "individually sovereign" is to ignore the actual meanings of the words. One person making their own choice. Lack of pleasant choices does not mean you are being "ruled". Lack of pleasant choices does not mean that it is no longer anarchism.
I'm specifically referring to an individual claiming ownership over the collectively used means of production.
"To deny someone authority over what they create with their labor takes AWAY individual autonomy"
I agree, but that's what the "free" market is about. Having a boss sell the goods YOU produced, only giving you a fraction of profits, thus robbing you.
"I'm specifically referring to an individual claiming ownership over the collectively used means of production. "
I still ask, how is this incompatible with individual autonomy?
You are right, if a boss (or anyone) started selling what I produced with my labor, it would be robbery. In most situations however, the worker has made an agreement with the boss to give the boss authority over what he produces in exchange for wages. Part of owning something is the ability to exchange it, right?
Because individual autonomy would be workers having a say in how much they make opposed to the boss dictating the rules.
Sweat-shop workers are forced to work there or starve. They have no choice in some third world countries where U.S. corporation open up their slave-shops. So the contract argument is false.
How is someone claiming ownership over the means of production incompatible with the workers having a say in how much they make?
Lack good choices does not equal rule. Why is the contract argument false? If a contract is voluntarily accepted by both parties, (meaning no party threatens authority over another as a form of coercion), it is legit.
It's not incompatible. There could be a very nice dictator who says "I'm sick of stealing from my workers, and having dictator rule over them, so I'm going to give them direct democracy, where they can choose how much they get for their labor and not me!" But nice dictators do not justify dictatorships.
If I hold a gun to your head (like the factory dictator threatening starvation) and you voluntarily sign the contract, that equates anarchism? I think not.
I can''t begin to respond until you define what a dictator is. Traditionally, it has meant a single ruler claiming authority over a population. You keep switching between the words "owner" and "dictator" when they have separate meanings. Decide what we are talking about and I'll respond.
Holding a gun to my head comes from you. Starvation comes from within. Not the same thing at all. Holding a gun to my head is ruling me. Who is ruling me when I starve? Who is making a choice for me?
Owner and dictator are do not have two separate meanings. Ownership means you have singular authority over something. In this case, the means of production.
Starvation comes from an asshole not letting you use the means of production to produce and sell goods. The dictator is the one using authority and threatening force if they do not stop using "their" means of production.
That is NOT the traditional use of the word, because traditionally the word has only applied to authority over people. But I'll play along. I'm for dictatorships and anarchy then. Dictatorships where no man is ruled by another.
You get to the point of starvation by not eating. Am I a jackass for not asserting authority over the life of the boss?
Then you've changed the definition of anarchism. The word "an" means without, and "ismos" means rulers. You definition does not mention authority, rulers, or sovereignty. It does not mention the "ismos". It is not the traditional definition of anarchism.
so funny! there own 60 year old propaganda is coming back to bite them in the ass!
two0sixTay 2 months ago
Despot is callin the kettle black. Ha.
ceejcoins 2 months ago
"Despotism" is just whatever the masses hate. It is an abstraction made up by society.
DaveElectric 4 months ago
@DaveElectric - Just like "fascism" is whatever people hate right? Wrong. These terms have definitions which are dangerous to ignore.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 4 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Yes, "facism" is a term made up by society. Anything that is even remotely anti-populist will be labeled facist. We will then have facism of the majority.
DaveElectric 4 months ago
@DaveElectric - Every single word is made up by people. I'm missing your point. People do use fascism incorrectly. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a real meaning.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 4 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Then let me rephrase myself so do, Every time I hear the word "Facism" it is always being used to further someone else's facism.
DaveElectric 4 months ago
@DaveElectric - So when I refer to Hitler as a fascist I must be try to further my own fascism? I don't follow your logic.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 3 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian My point is is "facism", "despotism", "tyranny", "authoritarianism", etc. They are all just words. Words to cover up the fact that freedom is relative. It doesn't matter if you are anti-facist. You still support an authoritarianism of your own.
DaveElectric 3 months ago
@DaveElectric - That's because there is no such things as a society without authoritarianism. Either you live by the will of the majority (democracy) or you live by the will of the minority (despotism). I find living by the will of the majority to be less authoritarian. Because we are all "authoritarian" doesn't mean we shouldn't point out more extreme versions of authoritarianism like fascist dictatorships.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 3 months ago
All economic systems are open to becoming despotic situations. But none have spilled more blood so far than those with a "big government" bent. And none have elevated the standard of living to a level where we can communicate via the internet, like capitalism. Let us always strive for individual liberty and let us always keep those in "authority" restrained and I think we will do well.
8yerbrain 5 months ago
@8yerbrain - The problem isn't "big government" but the state itself. And there is no one who supports the state more than the plutocracy. And there would be no plutocracy without capitalism.
"And none have elevated the standard of living to a level where we can communicate via the internet, like capitalism."
That wasn't the result of capitalism. That was actually a result of government innovation. The internet was not invented in the "competitive" private sector.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 5 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian No plutocracy without capitalism, but I assure you of either an oligarchy or a single tyrant in a central planned economy. Once again just look to history...Stalin, Mao, Hitler. All operated under a system that believed the state could manage better than the people. If you are seriously arguing that the internet, and the computer you are using has nothing to do with capitalism, well...then I think you ought to check out the stock market sometime.
8yerbrain 5 months ago
@8yerbrain - 1) Not in an anarchist society. In an anarchist society the government is voluntary, and there are competing voluntary governments. Not only is the state abolished in anarchism, but the tyranny of capitalism as well. But that should be known since capitalism doesn't exist without the state.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 5 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian You wrote that capitalism doesn't exist without the state, yet people barter goods or use intrinsic value based currencies all the time without any government involvement. That's the free market in action.
8yerbrain 5 months ago
@8yerbrain - I think you are confused to what the free market entails, which is a private unaccountable monopoly over the means of production. Hmmm... sounds kind of like the state. Private ownership of the means of production is the only defining characteristic of a free market. And such a hierarchical system has never existed without the state.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 5 months ago
@8yerbrain 2) The origins of the Internet reach back to research of the 1960s, commissioned by the United States government in collaboration with private commercial interests to build robust, fault-tolerant, and distributed computer networks. The funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s, as well as private funding for other commercial backbones, led to worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies, and the merger of many networks.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 5 months ago
@8yerbrain - 3) Moreover, even though private interests have played some role, that doesn't mean if there wasn't private interests, that we wouldn't be where we are today. In fact, we could have been even more advanced by now.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 5 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian We "could" have been more advanced, but history shows that people work and innovate the fastest when they are financially benefited. Free markets work because they work with the reality of human nature. I am not saying that I like it much, but I do acknowledge it's productive qualities.
8yerbrain 5 months ago
@8yerbrain - People are actually not naturally competitive, it's purely from societal conditioning. I know that I personally do a good deed because it makes me feel good, not because I hope to personally profit. Don't know about you...
TheAntiAuthoritarian 5 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Watch children sometime, and observe the inherent selfishness that they have. Don't get me wrong, I believe that we are put on this earth to rise above our human nature, but I do believe that it is, by nature, a VERY competitive world. Evolution has demanded this, and has exterminated those unable to keep up. I don't like it, but I accept it and work within it. And the physical world rewards us for doing so. Now the spiritual world is another issue altogether... :)
8yerbrain 5 months ago
@8yerbrain - That's straight up social darwinism straight out of Hitler's fascist manifesto. Kids are only selfish when they have parents that spoil them. Perhaps American parents just spoil their kids to much? A kid growing up having to work to get what they want instead of it being handed to them will not breed selfishness. You mean you'll accept it and work with it because a "free" market requires social darwinism? I'll never give in to greedy elitists.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 5 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian What does an infant do when you take it's food away from it and eat it yourself? It cries. And it covets. It is the same throughout the world. I don't think a free market requires social Darwinism. You are free to give away as much as you like to. But I think the striving to secure one's wealth is the best motivation for innovation, and the stats back me up. If you stop rewarding the innovators, they move to a place that is more rewarding. I would too.
8yerbrain 5 months ago
@8yerbrain - "What does an infant do when you take it's food away from it and eat it yourself?"
So you consider hunger to be a sign of selfishness? LOL... This conversation just got to a new level of ridiculous. Please show me these statistics that greed = prosperity. You can send me the link a private message. Sweden's economy is doing much better than the U.S. and they tax at 90%.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 5 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Of course hunger is a sign of selfishness. That is the whole basis of free trade! That is the whole basis of existence upon earth. Lulz. You want stats? I would say just look to history, Sweden's economy might be okay, but what have they innovated? Besides furniture. Also, you might want to check the current status of their economy, the last report I read said it wasn't doing so hot after all.
8yerbrain 5 months ago
@8yerbrain - I said Sweden's economy is doing better than ours, not "great." The Swedish are very innovative. I'll send you a link since I can't post it here. You can't make a claim that greed = prosperity without showing an example. The Bush/Paul/Obama tax cuts for the greedy have failed, not only in terms of deficits, but job growth. So it seems progressive taxation = prosperity. And why wouldn't it? The rich sit on their money, everyone else spends it immediately.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 4 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian If progressive taxation = prosperity, then the communist countries would have buried us. They haven't. Because the best and the brightest don't care to work for free. You get a "brain drain" as they look for work elsewhere. Spiritually I agree with you. Greed does not lead to prosperity. This is why I so freely share what little I have with those I care about. But as soon as someone with a gun comes along and forces a redistribution of wealth, it is no longer voluntary.
8yerbrain 4 months ago
@8yerbrain - What communist countries are you speaking of? The USSR? That was a dictatorship and not an example of communism. Communism is communally ownership, not dictator ownership. That's closer to privatization that communism. If they are truly "bright" they are not doing it for a profit, but to better society. I would hope you agree. Also, I don't believe in "shared sacrifice," only the rich should sacrifice, for we already sacrificed most our wealth to make them rich.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 4 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Yes, as though tax cuts were the only thing happening in those adminstrations.....correlation fallacy.
Why is everyone spending their money immediately any better than money spent in the future? By that logic, NO ONE should ever save money. No one should ever delay gratification. So if I buy a $1 chocolate bar I am somehow more moral than if I wait to buy the $2 chocolate bar? Anyone can see the absurdity with this arguement.
DaveElectric 4 months ago
This video is a pearl! Did you find it in a morgue? It's great, the old way to teach triviality with propaganda. I don't see any parallel between Nazi-german and despotism. It's the christian theocratic regime, related to monarchy and right to rape, etc. USA is a fundamentalist country, the topnotch in the west, but not despot.
TurpentineRec 5 months ago
Oligarchical Capitalism, where the rule of few large corporations that owns a number of brand names is despotism. Capitalism from the standpoint of sociology works with human nature. However, humans will be humans and shall be advantages over all among there own against the good of the many. Both Communism, better yet Socialism and Capitalism be integrated in order to work with human nature and be a check to it.
emhot20 6 months ago
@emhot20 - I view all capitalism as oligarchical since it entails private ownership instead of democracy (workers councils.) Very few are lucky enough to own a business since there are limited resources so the only fair system is communal ownership.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 6 months ago
Democracy vs Despotism? A false dichotomy perhaps?
Democracy is rather despotic, as it assumes communal ownership of all individuals and their property - if this was not assumed then the collective could not legitimately vote on it.
And "Capitalism" seems like a broken term. It could mean,
1) The prevailing system.
2) A system of government privilege towards big business.
3) A system based on a separation of labour and capital.
4) A free market.
I oppose the first three, support the last.
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty - democracy in an anarchist society does not assume ownership of all individuals, just the the means of production, as opposed to free market fascism where individuals have a dictatorship over the means of production, and workers are forced to take whatever shit salary the elites choose.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 6 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Firstly, democracy in anarcho-communism does assume the common ownership of all individuals.
Secondly, why draw this imaginary line between the means of production and other legitimate property? If the product of someone's labour happens to have the ability to transform resources to make them suitable for human use, how does that legitimise confiscating it?
If to own the product of one's labour capital must be commonly owned, what if the product of one's labour is capital?
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty And thirdly saying "workers are forced to take whatever shit salary the elites choose" is just as fallacious as saying that if I hire a plumber, the plumber is somehow my slave because I can negotiate to pay him/her less. I want to buy for the lowest price, the plumber wants sell for the highest price and the value of the service determines the agreed price.
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty - Hiring a plumber and being the dictator of the means of production(s) where you could be employing hundreds, or thousands, or hundred of thousands of people at a time are two separate things so that is disingenuous on your part.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 6 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian I don't think I was being disingenuous. It is very important to break things down into their component parts and not view the process "holistically". By using the example of the plumber I was breaking down the economic interaction into simpler terms. The difference between paying a plumber and hiring workers is scale. The latter is done in bulk to a single customer, for efficiency purposes.
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty In both instances someone has 1) acquired property through labour, and then 2) has paid for someone to fulfil a task upon this property in order to boost the value of it.
The degree to which value is boosted will determine the what the agreed price of the task is. The capital is now capable of transforming natural resources to make them suitable for human use, and the plumbing is now also functional.
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty I think it's important to note that I do hold a non-normative opposition to the wage system, as it is the product of government intervention on behalf of the privileged classes since the middle ages to maintain the masses as propertyless proletarians with unnaturally low bargaining power.
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty - Government doesn't control your wage your employer (dictator) does, unless you are employed by the government.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty - Well no, one is the result of having a dictatorship over the means of production, and one is the result of having a clogged pipe... lol. Sorry, it's not just the scale separating these two.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 6 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Using terms like "having dictatorship over the means of production" is not just assuming what you're trying to prove, but cuts logical corners and avoids breaking things down so that each component of "a wage" can be analysed. You should see these for more detail on my points:
Holistic thinking: /watch?v=dfifGqnZx_I
Debunking exploitation: /watch?v=lOavVv0DrbE
Wage slavery is a symptom of unfree markets: /watch?v=-DjBas4KPGY
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty - It's not "assuming what I'm trying to prove," It's what the free market is. The free market entails a society free of regulations, meaning you can own (dictate) unlimited amounts of land, water, and food supply, and charge anyone whatever price you choose for their use. You can serve as the middle man between workers and their profit, reaping the benefits of their labour for yourself as you sit back on your fat ass and sip your martini. Capitslism is the state.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty - That's not what you said though. You said democracy itself assumes ownership over individuals, which is a fallacy. And your statement now that anarcho-communism assumes ownership over individuals is also false. The term "anarcho" means voluntary.
There's no imaginary lines being drawn. There IS difference between property intended for your own personal use and that not intended for personal use and solely "owned" to redistribute the wealth to a small few.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 6 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Well I should apologise and correct myself - when I said democracy, I was using that as a shorthand for the democratic political process - a mistake on my part.
Secondly, I think it's important to see how that contributing capital to production is the same as contributing labour, just one step removed. i.e. that one can either contributed labour to production directly, or one can labour to produce capital - and then contribute the capital to production.
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
The best solution is Distributism (see wikipedia) which is equidtsant from both capitalism and socialism. It seeks to break up monopoly which concentrates capital and power in too few hands and to encourage the widest possible ownership of private property to individuals beyond all centralist models.
0rbis2010 7 months ago
"Well for one thing avoid the comfortable idea, that the mere form of a government can safeguard a nation against a nation. German under President Hindenberg was a republic. And in this republic an aggressive despotism took root and flourished under Adolf Hitler..." That is what is happening in the US but more subtle and over a longer period of time. The corporate/police/ military complex is the convoluted, secret Nazi party in the USA, doing covert and overt aggression here and abroad.
emotionalinvalid 8 months ago in playlist ab queue
History does indeed repeat itself. How scarry it is that America today is like the McCarthy era, around the time this film(video) was made. Never forget that 911 was an effect of post ww2 US republic become empire's dastardly deeds in the middle east, asia, and latin america. Of course another wrong, the 911 attacks, does not make a right, it is understandable. The cia itself was predicting this blowback to our leaders covert and overt operations for the sake of the corporate/militarycomplex
emotionalinvalid 9 months ago in playlist aa queue
@emotionalinvalid correction: what i meant to say is that this film was probably made as rightly adversarial to McCarthy and his witchhunting, or after McCarthy was finally shown for the demagogue he was and his witch hunts were stopped
emotionalinvalid 8 months ago in playlist aa queue
give me communism (people's democracy) any day.
long live the working class, long live true democracy
sauron170 10 months ago
@sauron170 Give you? Go get it, in Europe. And how did that work out for marx and stalin and lenin and mao and pol pot and fidel...oh there you go i heard the weather is nice there ,unlike the gov.
MrCommiehater 10 months ago
@MrCommiehater i live in Europe.
sauron170 10 months ago
America is not 'a country' - it's a 'corporation'
techcafe 10 months ago 4
America is not a 'social democracy' in any sense. the USA is a kleptocratic plutocracy ruled by corporate fascists, Wall Street oligarchs and global banksters, oil & energy barons, rapacious industrialists... and this utterly corrupt empire is propped up by a savage military industrial complex (which Eisenhower warned the American people about before leaving office back in the 1960s). tragically, we didn't listen, and now look what's happened, unfettered GREED & predatory capitalism destroyed us
techcafe 10 months ago
good/brave people of conscience and morals must rise up against this, b/c too much wealth & power is now concentrated iat the top. greed has ruined America and despotisim is already upon us.
techcafe 10 months ago
@techcafe well said my friend. Conventional sensibility trumps over sense. It must see fascism in obvious forms, like leaders in military uniform, spouting hateful rhetoric, going off to war and killing off the "undesirables of the state, openly. Yet, especially since post ww2 our military, white house and representatives ruled by a handful of powerful corporate elite have done almost as much damage as Hitler, covertly, or overtly in so called lies called offensive wars of liberation, etc.
emotionalinvalid 7 months ago in playlist parenti, fisk, chomsky, wikileaks, tariq ali, et al
everything is heading down!!! poo :(
we're owned !!
gwald 1 year ago 2
Holy S*it Despotism is exactly like Capitalism, just a different name what have we done......?
METALMAN4Wii 1 year ago 5
@METALMAN4Wii I hope you're joking
TurpentineRec 5 months ago
@TurpentineRec Our Capitalism have evolved into something evil if you don't believe me than please explain why 90% of everything is made in China or other parts of Asia. even tho the U.S.'s unemployment is at 10% that's what they want you to think. but unofficially it's really close to 18%. or why banks like Bank of America paid 0% in taxes last year thanks to corporate loopholes...?
METALMAN4Wii 5 months ago
@METALMAN4Wii you need to read more books, i just cant stop laugh at your comment. lol
TheAmericanFreeBird 2 months ago
@TheAmericanFreeBird I've read books and watched over a 100 Documentaries about the U.S. Government. including one called Collapse and if you don't see the unfairness in Capitalism ? you need to get you're head out of your ass, have a nice day...!
METALMAN4Wii 2 months ago
@METALMAN4Wii capitalism ? in the US ? are you fucking kidding me ? if you want REAL capitalism go to hong kong.
the US is dying, and real capitalism died 100 years ago.
TheAmericanFreeBird 2 months ago
2:49 When you see a shirtless man defacing sheet music with Crayola street chalk, your country is screwed.
WildHunt25 1 year ago
How to correct a democracy once it's gotten out of control: watch?v=BBezaI0bnAQ&
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Wow, that was actually really good. I wonder where the maker of this film would put the U.S. today...
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
if the citizens can only vote the way they're told, a community approaches despotism... sounds like a 2party system....
methoxyroxy 1 year ago
Now this is what I'd call the definition of irony.
Homer177 1 year ago
man, why you gotta play me like that? i love the socialists, but when there's this total wall, and i have hit this wall a few times, i just, i have very little respect for that. i think you oughta go back to the bascs. the fact that you see money as being more foundational than material goods for our economy says a lot. i don't care what you think of my arguement, just know that i have spent a good deal of care into our relationship, and i think reciprocation is the only real ethical order.
goatstone 2 years ago
That was a good video. It's interesting how the pursuit of liberty has always been at the forefront of intellectual thought throughtout time, and how similar the models describing liberty can be even after 50 years of divergence
This foresightedness gives me hope for the future of mankind. How can bigotry thrive when the commonality of the human condition is so clear, even through time?
"The truth will set you free" etc
afaultytoaster 2 years ago
this is too old, but you like to debate, WELL DONE!
i suppose what needs exposition is the role of corporations. what interests me is the economic distribution scale. if multinational corporations can be said to heavily influence government, and most property is owned my a handful of corporations, what would a despotic corporate ruler look like?
refer to the film; the corporation. the corporation is bent on cheap success, at all cost. but the problem is the LEGAL status of corporations
goatstone 2 years ago
I know right, way too old. We don't want any of that crap made you know, DIRECTLY after WWII by a Yale Professor! What exactly in the video do you disagree with so much, and why? The problem is theft. Capitalism is when there is a private sector bureaucrat between you and the market, stealing the fruits of your labour. Decisions should be made in workers in councils, not by a CEO plutocracy.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
Oh, and thanks for one-starring my RP video. You could have been kind enough to have left an explanation though.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
aww, thanks, ididn't know you cared. the presentation seemed over orchestrated, the music and voice were terrible. i am also an admirer of ron paul, and i saw a comment saying youre claims were discredited. but i'd say what i disliked the most was the annoying presentation. maybe citations?
goatstone 2 years ago
Everything is cited and factual. You would have known that if you had checked the "more info" section. Which of my claims are "discredited?"
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
yeah, i just checked, i applaud the effort, but i still don't like it, the timing is a bit bad too. i think you need to emphasize citations in your video, but i admit i shoulda clicked around. sorry
goatstone 2 years ago
well, management is the name of the game here, isn't it? the question you have seems to be, 'why do we need management?' or 'why is management overvalued?' but i fail to see the problem with management aside from the difficulties that management faces in the demands that regulation and governments force. my point was that the legal definition of 'corporation' prevents accountability and although this might make corporations seem like the problem, the ACTUAL problem is the LEGAL definition.
goatstone 2 years ago
"Management" is about a few having authority over the many, which is undemocratic. Democracy is a form of regulation, and is not compatible with "free" market capitalism. "Free" market means unregulated privatization of property.
You're poor Wall St capitalists are so heavily regulated! That must be why the richest 1%(Wall St, CEO's, Bankers) have more financial wealth than the bottom 95% (wage slaves) combined. The legal definition is only part of the problem.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
well, you would agree with me that the problem here is not freedom from government, but freedom from material need. the problem here is a lack of ability to manage communities themselves, so that they become independent and self-sustaining ecologies or economies. the reason monopolies happen reflects the ease and efficiency of hierarchical management systems. there is no reason to oppose the efficiency because there is no meaningful diversity between communities. local privitization = solutn
goatstone 2 years ago
Unregulated privatization would lead to fascism like it always historically has, and is the system we have currently which is a disaster. Unregulated privatization = unregulated plutocracy/mass wage slavery. What you are talking about is a "free" market "utopian" fantasy. Such a system has never actually existed on earth. Privatization never occurs democratically, only with state aid. Watch "workers self-management in Argentina" on youtube.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
great video, i love free enterprise. how exciting it must be to work at that factory, learning all about management, and keeping money flowing into the community. but i am also aware that the whole beginning of the factory was invented by someone who got paid a hell of a lot more than each person in that factory earns, and so forth. was this unfair? no! i refuse to accept the proposition that every human being is the same, and should be treated equally all the time! this is a fallacy! BURN IT
goatstone 2 years ago
The video wasn't demonstrating free enterprise, was demonstrating socialism. Yes, the factory was started by one dictator though the state (which makes it illegitimate.) So? That's no reason to defend asshole. No one ever said every human being is the same. I was just saying we should have a say in how dictatorships are run. I would think any liberty-minded individual would agree with that.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
also, i am not taking about any kind of utopia, i am talking about hierarchy, i am talking about who gets to live and who gets to be sacrificed, i am talking about real GOALS, meaningful definitions of SELF and HOPE. reality is not all doom and gloom, but it's no cakewalk either, some people simply cannot make it and must be left to die in the flood. i hope that fewer and fewer will have to die and that more life is created than destroyed at the end of the journey, but along the way, casualties
goatstone 2 years ago
That's pretty sickening. Hitler believed the same thing, "social darwinism" (survival of the richest, and whitest). Everyone must compete in this phony structure we made up and who ever fails, tough luck! That's slavery, and it's wrong.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
hey! throw me a freakin bone here! what you are proposng (admit it!) is radical conservatism. there is only one way to do things for you, you are the dictator, you are keeping people from choosing their own social system by prescribing a moral hierarchy, and you are placed conveniently at the top! you are the authority? sorry bud, i know better. who's to say which structure is phony? let's compete and study which one serves the greatest number of interests, ok?
goatstone 2 years ago
Racial conservatism? WTF are you talking about? You just described capitalism, what I am completely opposed to. Democracy is NOT a dictator ruling over the people, it's the complete opposite. You were the one saying your okay with slavery (lol) not me.
"who's to say which structure is phony?"
I'm just stating my opinion. In the end, the majority naturally rules. I'm not into "competing." I'd be glad to share thoughts with you.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
hey, thanks man, i'm just meting out the facts as i understand them, and i see your strong moral stance on servitude as socially conservative, seeing as you would not accept any democratically derived system including slavery as 'legitimate' now, i totally understand that, but as long as the slaves get votes, why not just let the culture thrive or perish instead of getting pissed and crying 'injustice!' capitalism is like that culture, but hey, i know that the slaves are being killed too.
goatstone 2 years ago
There is no such thing as democratic slavery, at least not in the extreme sense of the term. When "slaves" get the right to vote they are much less enslaved. People can vote to get rid of democracy and to be slaves, I just would strongly disagree with that decision, for I disagree with capitalism.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
hey, i'm having a blast, but i feel like we're not agreeing enough. ron paul being right on only a few things is fair, to get two big parts of policy right is no small feat, but this rejection of hierarchy, that's nuts! i think you have to understand that i am not against socialism, i love socialism. i am actually rather socialist, but i am also an environmentalist, and although a scientifically aware socialism would be great, i think it would involve hierarchy and it would have to be small.
goatstone 2 years ago
basically, a socialist system works when a population can achieve consensus. given that the size of our government in the united states has increased so much, shouldn't we be discussing ways to empower states and counties rather than the fed? i think capitalism is a starting point, we should encourage experimentation on a national level, and that means free trade. on a local level, socialize, criminalize, regulate, and enslave, as long as a reasonable consensus can be reached. free info trade
goatstone 2 years ago
Doesn't really matter to me whether it's a small community thing or a global democracy, as long as it's voluntary. "Free" trade is really enslaving trade. "Free" trade is why there is a global corporatocracy where corporations are far more powerful than nations. Why do you have such a double standard with the state and corporations?
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
denying people what they want to buy doesn't make sense to me. if a small nation wants to boycott a corporation, they might give people the reasons, make public service announcements and maybe private stores would discontinue the product, but the press would do that anyway. information is a valuable commodity, why wouldn't the press sell it and the state use it? the reason corporations are so foul today is because of the STATE, the FDA, DOA, TORT LAW,et al, prohibiting reasonable competition
goatstone 2 years ago
"Free" trade can have unwanted externalities on communities. People should have a say in how things are done to the extend to which they are affected by those decisions. The reasons corporations are so foul is because they can't afford to ethical in a monetary based economy.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
A socialist and environmentalist for privatization and "free" trade? I think that's a bit of an oxymoron. How is utter dictator control for the global corporatocracy going to advance socialism in any way? Socialism is democracy! You've seen the corporation, you should know these people only care about the bottom line which is maximum profit or shareholders no matter the environmental costs!
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
you are delusional, corporations are not dictatorial, they obey the market, that's how they profit. if the state decides to protect corporations from the market, the market is restricted from hurting corporations that act against the market. if the market is free, and information is given to people who are concerned about the "externalities" the market will naturally cease to externalize them, and if corporations continue to externalize, the market will punish them.
goatstone 2 years ago
I'm delusional? Sorry, I thought you knew how to have a constructive discussion. Let me know if I was wrong about that. The fact people can choose between one dictator or another, Walmart or Kmart, doesn't mean the dictator system is democratic. If Walmart and Kmart are run by the people who actually work there, that is democracy. And they still need to obey the market to survive, so that's double democracy. A dictatorship is when one has utter control over a geographical area.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
i'm sorry, i meant that you have a delusion, not that you are generally delusional. i would like you to entertain that proposition, and just re-examine your arguement. if you refuse, we're not going anywhere so we might as well stop. take some time and think about it.
goatstone 2 years ago
That's the point of discussions in general, to spread knowledge and correct "delusions." If you think I'm deluded, convince me otherwise. Simply saying I have a "delusion" won't make my change my mind on something.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
you are mistaken about the economy being based on money as well. money is merely a measuring tool, a language for value. economies are based on value, but value is based on reality. the basics are very real, materials, energy, food, and the ingenuity needed to transform and use these real goods in various ways. you seem to want to control this use, so that a particular lifestyle that you deem correct is the only option. but to allow people to choose for themselves obviously denies you that.
goatstone 2 years ago
i think this is where we differ, i think that if a culture wants to kill its slaves, and the culture is in general agreement about that, i'm not going to stop them. it's not great management over the long term, but hell, i don't have all the answers, and you don't either, we know that, it's what makes us anti-authoritarians. if we started saying, guess what, you are definitely wrong about your slave killing policy, then, we are being like christians against muslims again, or social conservativ
goatstone 2 years ago
Just because something is accepted doesn't make it moral or correct. 80% of the country is Christian. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop pointing out their insanity. I would disagree with you saying you are anti-authoritarian if you support some sort of Minarchist state in long run like Ron Paul. I really hope you disagree with the large majority of his views. He's good on auditing the fed and foreign policy but that's about it.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
and the legal definition is created by the state, which is supposedly democratic. but of course i agree that a direct democracy should occur in most local governments, but of couse we cannot forget that capitalism operated as a direct democracy anyway! the spheres of economy and government are not seperate in the real world, and although socialism might seem like a more free system, it turns out to be radically more conservative and arguably, oppressive.
goatstone 2 years ago
"but of couse we cannot forget that capitalism operated as a direct democracy anyway!"
That's an oxymoron. The definition of capitalist is private ownership of the means of production. direct democracy and socialism are the same thing. State socialism is scary, though less scary than corporatism (which is the historically unavoidable second stage in the capitalism/fascism transition.)
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
going back to your comment on management. examine the reasoning! or madness! stop oversimplifying these terms. you can't say a system is undemocratic if the people in the democracy vote it into existence! and if capitalism is undemocratic, how come the consumer get's to CHOOSE what the market produces?! perhaps the regulatory democracy is just as undemocratic as a managed system where people do what theyre told to get what they want! if WE THE PEOPLE want to RULE, there goes democracy!
goatstone 2 years ago
That's fallacious. People voted for Hitler. Does that mean Hitler's totalitarian regime was democratic? No. Your second fallacy is you think capitalism is democratic because you can choose from different "bosses" and products. That's the same argument the statist makes for the existence of the state. You can choose between all these countries, therefore the state is a legitimate and democratic structure. WRONG. Capitalism = wage slavery and no say in how management is run.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
you know, this isn't about deomocracy. this is about the size of the state. this is about the classic debate about federalization. in capitalism as in the democratic socialist state, the smaller the firm or state, the more specific, free, independent, diverse, and as you like to say, democratic, the governmental forces are. agitate for local power, smaller states, innovative small business, state's rights, and the confederated power for defence and trade. be antiauthoritarian
goatstone 2 years ago
Can you clarify that last point in the 1st comment? It seems a bit incoherent.
You don't need to preach that to me, I'm an anarchist. I'm for NO state or hierarchical plutocratic rule in any form. States historically are tools to defend hierarchy. So I'm being antiauthoritarian. You on the other hand, not so much.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
haha, yeah, i guess you are correct there. but listen man, i have a good feeling about certain hierarchies, and i think slavery isn't all bad as long as consent is given. think of the scientific community, if there's a guy that's a genius at creating innovative experiments, he should be telling others how to do that and get whatever he wants in return. that's management. that's free market. sure there's gonna be a price, but if what he produces is desirable, then isn't the hierarchy worthit
goatstone 2 years ago
The "innovative" person can quit the collective and work for himself if he wants, or make recommendations to his co-workers. But having utter dictator authority simply because he is viewed as "superior" doesn't sit well with me. There's literally nothing you could say to make me support dictatorships.
98% pay the price while 1 or 2 percent STEAL the profit from the workers. That's your free market. So yes, there is a BIG price for all us to pay with a free market.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
the corporation wants money, if not for it's own security, the security of its owners, the security of its stock, and so on. the primal fear of death is what does this, loss aversion turns into slowed-growth aversion, or greed. this makes the corporation forget about purpose. the bottom line is an excuse to get greedy. and its bad for business to make your workers wage slaves, but it's also bad for business to pay people welfare when they have no purpose to be well for. what is your purpose?
goatstone 2 years ago
It's not bad for business to have wage slaves. It's actually the opposite. It maximizes profit. Conservatives haven't stopped shopping at Walmart at the news of why their products are so cheap. That's the "democratic" free market for you! lol...
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
yeah socialism is totally the equivalent of democracy. also it's super duper awesome because stalin kills everyone that disagres with you.
enjoy your stupidity, "antiauthoritarian"!
1schwererziehbar1 2 years ago
It is the equivalent of democracy. Totalitarian socialism is an oxymoron. Stalin was not a socialist, if he was he would have dethroned himself and allowed direct democracy.
Your definitely a nominee for the ignoramus awards. Thanks for the laughs!
:)
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
i see you're from the US and i trust that you consider Barack Obama to be the best president ever and he will bring you the socialism you crave.
so enjoy your socialism. maybe you'll get a nice position in the youth corps and an opportunity to beat up all the people who doubted the superiority of socialism.
1schwererziehbar1 2 years ago
Obama is one your guys, not mine. Obama is a capitalist to the core. There's not single socialist who would support the Wall St bailout. Tell me... what has Obama done to transform illegitimate private property into communal property? Nothing.
You're a dim one, Mr Grinch.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
you don't delude yourself about obama.
i give you that.
i thaught all socialists would be primitive enough to buy into his lies.
1schwererziehbar1 2 years ago
Obama is trying to SAVE capitalism. I have more to fear from Obama than you do.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
You need to just change your name to "the authoritarian". You support the authority of some commune or series of communes over the authority of the person whose labor is most directly tied to the land (the homesteading principle).
We can argue the merits of such authorities, but to say that you're "not authoritarian" is either ignorant or dishonest. Also your prescriptions are much more alienated from labor than homesteaded private property, and are thus more of what makes a state a state.
fringeelements 2 years ago
Everyones labor is tied to the land and there are limited resources, so your "right" to own land can infringe on another's "right" to own land.
Saying I'm anti-authoritarian is neither "ignorant" or "dishonest." There's obviously no utopia, but I'm for the least amount of authority possible.
I remember you previously commented on my page about my username, and then blocked me before I could respond. That was very nice cs. Free speech is great!
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
hitler belonged to the NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY. america is a fascist country not a capitalistic country.
michaeltheman8888 2 years ago
Wasn't that clever of them to pick that name for their party? They fooled a lot of people with their left-wing rhetoric, while implementing the most right-wing policies in history. That's what fascists like Hitler and Mussolini are famous for. It's sort-of like how the right-wing stole the term "libertarian" from the left. Hitler did the same with the term "socialist" at the time.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
Bravo! Keep helping others see or understand the bastardizations, IE, mention whenever you can. :)
NatureLegalized 2 years ago 2
@michaeltheman8888 fascism is a tendency within capitalism. It's basically what happens when bourgeois democracy adopts the structure of capitalism (i.e. a completely undemocratic hierarchy that functions only to create a profit for the enterprise, or more accurately those at the top.)
So yeah, America is a pretty fascist country, but a requirement for that is that it is capitalist.
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago 13
Democracy = Socialism. In USA today, despotism stands a great chance. Private ownership cannot exist in a real democracy. Private ownership is equal to dictatorship and oligarky in the economy.
smoskprosk 2 years ago
I agree. Sweden, on the other hand, is a much better country. I was just in Stockholm about a year ago, and your krona is stronger than our dollar. You're lucky to live there! I'm also 50% Swedish. Maybe that's why I have such communist tendencies!
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago 2
Haha where did you find this? I agree with your assertion that democracy and socialism are a requirement for one another, but I don't think that is what the makers of the movie meant!
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago
It was here on the tube. It's called "Despotism"
I'm not sure if they meant for it to be a pro-socialist movie, but it sure seems it. I guess one can't make an honest anti-fascist movie without it being pro-socialist. You would have to leave a whole lot of info about fascism out.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Power is concentrated in the hands of a few under socialist central planning, but is distributed over the many under consumer-driven capitalism.
iamgoddard 2 years ago
That couldn't be further from the truth. Capitalism is what enables people to have private sector dictatorships, by allowing the means of production to be owned by individuals. This redistributes the wealth to a couple elites, giving them supreme bargaining power of politicians, as we are seeing now with the US.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
Which explains why the US, the first robust capitalism, attracted people from all over the world who were then sucked to death by the private owners resulting in the poorest nation in human history. Now, almost all Americans are dead or living in mud huts, save a very few private owners.
Thankfully the communist utopias that prevented private ownership proved to build almost unlimited wealth for all. Yes, private ownership is clearly a great evil!
iamgoddard 2 years ago
The top 1 percent of the population are controlling more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent. 10% are unemployed. Capitalism is fucking awesome, huh?
You're sarcasm is pathetic, sick even, considering there are Americans homeless, starving, and dying. Keep joking, it will really sell your message to people who are struggling.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
Wealth is not a fixed pie. One person having more than another does not mean the person having more is "controlling" the amount of total wealth.
But these utilitarian arguments are meaningless when it is basically a moral issue. It is wrong to steal from another person because that is an act of aggression. Therefore, anything BUT free-market exchange is inherently immoral.
Masebrock 2 years ago
"1 percent of the population are controlling more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent."
1. Can you cite an objective source for that figure?
2. If true, why should I care if that 95% have more wealth under capitalism than 95% under abolition of private property (communism)?
3. And your solution is to strip away the private property of the 95%, who you say don't have enough wealth. This is illogical. In fact you're actually complaining that the 95% own any wealth.
iamgoddard 2 years ago
It was found by Citigroup's research staff. Citigroup is a corporation, which has no interest in seeing their companies demise.
Communism is based around shared wealth, so 1% holding 95% of the wealth would entail that it is not communist.
My personal view as an anarchist who have sympathy for communism, is that you own what your labor produces. So I'm not against wealth in general. I think owning another's means to live, is going too far however.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
Communists do not want to strip away the private property of the people, they want to strip away the private property of the ruling class and distribute it to the people to create a classless society.
So the wealth of the 1% would go to the 95% who really needs it.
VBranberg 2 years ago
"Communists do not want to strip away the private property of the people, they want to strip away the private property of the ruling class ..."
I don't think it's even a case of property or capital, but of power. The problem in the capitalist system isn't about the wealth production, but about the power abuse. Wealth is power in a capitalist system, but power of one against another is abuse. Consider how wealth plays a part in politics and the markets of wealth production under capitalism.
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
Then how should a workplace, with multiple workers, be structured?
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
With each individual his own sovereign. In a dictatorship, your master asserts authority over you. In a democracy, your sovereignty is at the mercy of the majority. Individual sovereignty is the third way.
Masebrock 2 years ago
This video uses a classic propaganda technique. It offers the premise that there are only two options, one obviously bad. The viewer is then tricked into agreeing with the "good" option.
It's like a politician saying "If you don't vote me into power, monkeys will burn your city to the ground. Those are your options, me in power or ashes for a city. The choice is yours." The listener is never given the choice that perhaps they could both not vote him into power and not have a burnt city.
Masebrock 2 years ago
Saying your for individual sovereignty is as meaningless as when Ron Paul says it. You have to give more detail for people to know what you mean by the term, and what it entails in the workplace. If you want people to support whatever your views are, you should maybe let them know what those views are first.
How are business decisions made in a business employing multiple workers, under your philosophy?
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
Individual sovereignty would be self-employment. Who makes the decisions of how the business is run? The workers or an "owner" dictator?
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
Just like nations claiming "sovereignty" over territory means they are claiming authority over the territory, having individual sovereignty means you are the authority over your own life.
Decisions about life should be made by the life's "owner". Business decisions should be made by the business's owner.
Individual sovereignty CAN mean self employment, but it is not restricted to it. I can be employed by someone else without that person being the authority over my life.
Masebrock 2 years ago
You are more in control of your life if you are part of a workers council than if you work for a dictator.
Business "owner" = dictatorship, not individual autonomy.
You should be able to choose to be a wage slave, but it should be just as easy for me not to be a wage slave. That's what individual sovereignty is.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
Why is owning something (being a "private dictator" in your usage) incompatible with individual autonomy? To deny someone authority over what they create with their labor takes AWAY individual autonomy. Someone has to be doing the denying. That person is asserting a position of authority.
Individual sovereignty can not possibly mean that all options presented to you in life are equally "easy". Ease has nothing to do with authority, sovereignty, ownership, or anything we have been discussing.
Masebrock 2 years ago
Saying that unless all employment choices in life are equally pleasant, you are no longer "individually sovereign" is to ignore the actual meanings of the words. One person making their own choice. Lack of pleasant choices does not mean you are being "ruled". Lack of pleasant choices does not mean that it is no longer anarchism.
Masebrock 2 years ago
I'm specifically referring to an individual claiming ownership over the collectively used means of production.
"To deny someone authority over what they create with their labor takes AWAY individual autonomy"
I agree, but that's what the "free" market is about. Having a boss sell the goods YOU produced, only giving you a fraction of profits, thus robbing you.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
"I'm specifically referring to an individual claiming ownership over the collectively used means of production. "
I still ask, how is this incompatible with individual autonomy?
You are right, if a boss (or anyone) started selling what I produced with my labor, it would be robbery. In most situations however, the worker has made an agreement with the boss to give the boss authority over what he produces in exchange for wages. Part of owning something is the ability to exchange it, right?
Masebrock 2 years ago
Because individual autonomy would be workers having a say in how much they make opposed to the boss dictating the rules.
Sweat-shop workers are forced to work there or starve. They have no choice in some third world countries where U.S. corporation open up their slave-shops. So the contract argument is false.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
How is someone claiming ownership over the means of production incompatible with the workers having a say in how much they make?
Lack good choices does not equal rule. Why is the contract argument false? If a contract is voluntarily accepted by both parties, (meaning no party threatens authority over another as a form of coercion), it is legit.
Masebrock 2 years ago
It's not incompatible. There could be a very nice dictator who says "I'm sick of stealing from my workers, and having dictator rule over them, so I'm going to give them direct democracy, where they can choose how much they get for their labor and not me!" But nice dictators do not justify dictatorships.
If I hold a gun to your head (like the factory dictator threatening starvation) and you voluntarily sign the contract, that equates anarchism? I think not.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
I can''t begin to respond until you define what a dictator is. Traditionally, it has meant a single ruler claiming authority over a population. You keep switching between the words "owner" and "dictator" when they have separate meanings. Decide what we are talking about and I'll respond.
Holding a gun to my head comes from you. Starvation comes from within. Not the same thing at all. Holding a gun to my head is ruling me. Who is ruling me when I starve? Who is making a choice for me?
Masebrock 2 years ago
Owner and dictator are do not have two separate meanings. Ownership means you have singular authority over something. In this case, the means of production.
Starvation comes from an asshole not letting you use the means of production to produce and sell goods. The dictator is the one using authority and threatening force if they do not stop using "their" means of production.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
Pardon the grammar.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
So you've got the definition of ownership down, but what about "dictator?"
"Starvation comes from an asshole not letting you use the means of production to produce and sell goods. "
That is physiologically untrue. Starvation comes from lack of food in your stomach.
Masebrock 2 years ago
Dictatorship is when you have singular authority over something. I thought I already made it clear that I think the terms are interchangeable.
"Starvation comes from lack of food in your stomach."
That's a jackass statement. I'm clearly talking about how one gets to that point.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
That is NOT the traditional use of the word, because traditionally the word has only applied to authority over people. But I'll play along. I'm for dictatorships and anarchy then. Dictatorships where no man is ruled by another.
You get to the point of starvation by not eating. Am I a jackass for not asserting authority over the life of the boss?
Masebrock 2 years ago
I finally understand what has been confusing you since the beginning.
Having singular authority over something≠ having singular authority over people .
Non-anarchism= having authority over people
THEREFORE
Having singular authority over something ≠ non-anarchism
Masebrock 2 years ago
Any hierarchical structure with elites claiming special rights is not anarchism.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
Then you've changed the definition of anarchism. The word "an" means without, and "ismos" means rulers. You definition does not mention authority, rulers, or sovereignty. It does not mention the "ismos". It is not the traditional definition of anarchism.
Masebrock 2 years ago
When you say "I own that, don't use it" that's an authoritarian relationship. Sorry to break it to you.
Wow, you can repeat yourself.
"Am I a jackass for not asserting authority over the life of the boss?"
I don't follow. Explain.
TheAntiAuthoritarian