Virtual Teen Forums
 

Go Back   Virtual Teen Forums > >
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read Chat Room

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 15th, 2006, 10:49 AM   #41
Phantom
Awesome Poster
 
Phantom's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Location: U.S/ Minnesota
Age: 26
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolte View Post
You will not bore me kolte. I understand this it is an unfortunate byproduct of capitialism, think of it this way without capitalism you wouldnt have your computer that you are on your house or even a pencil, you know why because no one on the face of the planet is able you produce these products the tools to make them or the labor requiered to make them alone. Corportations can be corupt I understand that, thats why we have minimum wages which is still not enough I understand where you are coming from though. Corporations the workers unite they get supplys from all over the world and are able to make such advanced products like computers. Even the common pencil has supplys and parts From more than 8 diffent places in the world! no single person on the face of the planet could even manufacture a pencil alone or without a corporation with vast resources. - Phantom

What is it that you think I'm talking about here. Its not going to be a primitive world were we live in the woods and have sex with trees, and unforunatly I think this is what you invision. This is NOT what I'm talking about, and has not ever been when I'm thinking about. That would be awful. You see:

As anarchists use the term, workers' self-management/control means collective worker ownership, control and self-management of all aspects of production and distribution. This is achieved through participatory-democratic workers' assemblies, councils and federations, in both agriculture and industry. These bodies would perform all the functions formerly reserved for capitalist owners, managers. executives and financiers where these activities actually related to productive activity rather than the needs to maximize minority profits and power. These workplace assemblies will be complemented by people's financial institutions or federations of syndicates which perform all functions formerly reserved for capitalist owners, executives, and financiers in terms of allocating investment funds or resources.
o sorry I misunderstood. Ok few more questions. 1. what happens if I just walked up to you and killed you, I cant be put in jail because no one is better than me correct. 2. what happens if I walked up to you and took your food right out of your hands, or just followed you around taking anything you get lol. 3. what if U.S turned AC and then we got attacked by say china.
Phantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2006, 05:04 PM   #42
cmpcmp
Member++
 
Join Date: July 14, 2006
Age: 27
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
The New Law of Righteousness," that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man
From Koltes earlier post.

ok so there is no money right? then how did you come up with
(look for the underlines)
Quote:
anarchists use the term, workers' self-management/control means collective worker ownership, control and self-management of all aspects of production and distribution. This is achieved through participatory-democratic workers' assemblies, councils and federations, in both agriculture and industry. These bodies would perform all the functions formerly reserved for capitalist owners, managers. executives and financiers where these activities actually related to productive activity rather than the needs to maximize minority profits and power. These workplace assemblies will be complemented by people's financial institutions or federations of syndicates which perform all functions formerly reserved for capitalist owners, executives, and financiers in terms of allocating investment funds or resources.
If there is to be no money or buying or selling, how are there
-financiers?
-financial institutions?
-and funds to be invested?

keep in mind that money is money wether it is virtual, physical, or just writen down somewhere.

and please explain what the governemnt's response to these issues are (listed below)
-any kind of crime, is it punnishable? who does the punnishing? and can they be cut off from the resourses of the rest of the community? are there prisons?
-what happens to ppl that choose to be unemployed? how are they punnish, if they are punnished? are they cut off from the resourses of the community? if so isn't labor infact forced? (ps. labor of somesort is basicly forced in capitalism cuz other wise u live on the streets and can't afford to live)
-you say that no one will be forced to work somewhere they don't want to and there is no such thing as wage labor, so who would take the jobs that no one wants like sanitation engineer (garbage man) or sewage treatment? or hard labor? or secretary, janitor, ......(insert many other jobs here). If some one is really bad at their Job, or can't preform it well/at all, are they forced into another job? wil there be a job for philosophers/think-tank type things?
-will there be entertainers of sorts? pro sports players? or are all non productive jobs cut? if not wouldn't a lot of ppl be in this category as a job? if not just not working at all (refers to an earlier question).
-who makes the laws? who enforces the law? and if a law enforcer didn't agree witht that inparticular law he is enforcing would he be forced to enforce it?
-lastly, if every thing is basicly decided by every one, and no one has desicion making power over anyone else, wouldn't that make everything outrageously inefficient?

please awnser the preceeding questions, Capitalism has an awnser for all of em, and it still functions. That is why i like capitalism, in my opinion it is the lesser of all evils that are governments.

-edit
By capitalism i mean democratic republic (what the USA is)

Last edited by cmpcmp; September 15th, 2006 at 11:40 PM. Reason: clarification
cmpcmp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2006, 10:19 PM   #43
kolte
I am: I am
 
kolte's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matt
Join Date: May 31, 2005
Location: usa
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Read what you wish from the following:


So, as one might expect, since the essence of anarchism is opposition to hierarchical authority, anarchists totally oppose the way the current economy is organized. This is because authority in the economic sphere is embodied in centralized, hierarchical workplaces that give an elite class (capitalists) dictatorial control over privately owned means of production, turning the majority of the population into order takers (i.e. wage slaves). In contrast, the libertarian-socialist "economy" will be based on decentralized, egalitarian workplaces ("syndicates") in which workers democratically self-manage socially owned means of production. Let us begin with the concept of syndicates.

The key principles of libertarian socialism are decentralization, self-management by direct democracy, voluntary association, and federation. These principles determine the form and function of both the economic and political systems. In this section we will consider just the economic system. Bakunin gives an excellent overview of such an economy when he writes:

"The land belongs to only those who cultivate it with their own hands; to the agricultural communes. The capital and all the tools of production belong to the workers; to the workers' associations . . . The future political organization should be a free federation of workers." [Bakunin on Anarchy, p. 247]

The essential economic concept for libertarian socialists is workers' self-management (sometimes termed workers' control). This is essential to ensure "a society of equals, who will not be compelled to sell their hands and their brains to those who choose to employ them . . . but who will be able to apply their knowledge and capacities to production, in an organism so constructed as to combine all the efforts for procuring the greatest possible well-being for all, while full, free scope will be left for every individual initiative." [Kropotkin, Kropotkin: Selections from his Writings, pp. 113-4]

However, this concept of self-management needs careful explanation, because, like the terms "anarchist" and "libertarian," "workers' control"</I> is also is being co-opted by capitalists to describe schemes in which workers' have more say in how their workplaces are run while maintaining wage slavery (i.e. capitalist ownership, power and ultimate control). Needless to say, such schemes are phony as they never place real power in the hands of workers. In the end, the owners and their managers have the final say (and so hierarchy remains) and, of course, profits are still extracted from the workforce.

As anarchists use the term, workers' self-management/control means collective worker ownership, control and self-management of all aspects of production and distribution. This is achieved through participatory-democratic workers' assemblies, councils and federations, in both agriculture and industry. These bodies would perform all the functions formerly reserved for capitalist owners, managers. executives and financiers where these activities actually related to productive activity rather than the needs to maximize minority profits and power. These workplace assemblies will be complemented by people's financial institutions or federations of syndicates which perform all functions formerly reserved for capitalist owners, executives, and financiers in terms of allocating investment funds or resources.
This means that an anarchist society is based on "workers' ownership" of the means of production.

"Workers' ownership" in its most limited sense refers merely to the ownership of individual firms by their workers. In such firms, surpluses (profits) would be either equally divided between all full-time members of the co-operative or divided unequally on the basis of the type of work done, with the percentages allotted to each type being decided by democratic vote, on the principle of one worker, one vote. However, such a limited form of workers' ownership is rejected by most anarchists. Social anarchists argue that this is but a step in the right direction and the ultimate aim is social ownership of all the means of life. This is because of the limitations of firms being owned solely by their workers (as in a modern co-operative).

Worker co-operatives of this type do have the virtue of preventing the exploitation and oppression of labor by capital, since workers are not hired for wages but, in effect, become partners in the firm. This means that the workers control both the product of their labor (so that the value-added that they produce is not appropriated by a privileged elite) and the work process itself (and so they no longer sell their liberty to others). However, this does not mean that all forms of economic domination and exploitation would be eliminated if worker ownership were confined merely to individual firms. In fact, most social anarchists believe this type of system would degenerate into a kind of "petit-bourgeois co-operativism" in which worker-owned firms would act as collective "capitalists" and compete against each other in the market as ferociously as the real capitalists used to. This would also lead to a situation where market forces ensured that the workers involved made irrational decisions (from both a social and individual point of view) in order to survive in the market. As these problems were highlighted in section I.1.3 ("What's wrong with markets anyway?"), we will not repeat ourselves here.

-----------------------------------------

For individualist anarchists, this "irrationality of rationality" is the price to be paid for a free market and any attempt to overcome this problem holds numerous dangers to freedom. Social anarchists disagree. They think co-operation between workplaces can increase, not reduce, freedom. Social anarchists' proposed solution is society-wide ownership of the major means of production and distribution, based on the anarchist principle of voluntary federation, with confederal bodies or co-ordinating councils at two levels: first, between all firms in a particular industry; and second, between all industries, agricultural syndicates, and people's financial institutions throughout the society. As Berkman put it:

"Actual use will be considered the only title [in communist anarchism] -- not to ownership but to possession. The organization of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as the operating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the railroads, and so on. Collective possession, co-operatively managed in the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit." [ABC of Anarchism, p. 69]

-----------------------------------------

While, for many anarcho-syndicalists, this structure is seen as enough, most communist-anarchists consider that the economic federation should be held accountable to society as a whole (i.e. the economy must be communalized). This is because not everyone in society is a worker (e.g. the young, the old and infirm) nor will everyone belong to a syndicate (e.g. the self-employed), but as they also have to live with the results of economic decisions, they should have a say in what happens. In other words, in communist-anarchism, workers make the day-to-day decisions concerning their work and workplaces, while the social criteria behind these decisions are made by everyone.

In this type of economic system, workers' assemblies and councils would be the focal point, formulating policies for their individual workplaces and deliberating on industry-wide or economy-wide issues through general meetings of the whole workforce in which everyone would participate in decision making. Voting in the councils would be direct, whereas in larger confederal bodies, voting would be carried out by temporary, unpaid, mandated, and instantly recallable delegates, who would resume their status as ordinary workers as soon as their mandate had been carried out.

"Mandated" here means that the delegates from workers' assemblies and councils to meetings of higher confederal bodies would be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the workers who elected them on how to deal with any issue. The delegates would be given imperative mandates (binding instructions) that committed them to a framework of policies within which they would have to act, and they could be recalled and their decisions revoked at any time for failing to carry out the mandates they were given (this support for mandated delegates has existed in anarchist theory since at least 1848, when Proudhon argued that it was "a consequence of universal suffrage" to ensure that "the people . . . do not . . . abjure their sovereignty." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 63]). Because of this right of mandating and recalling their delegates, workers' councils would be the source of and final authority over policy for all higher levels of confederal co-ordination of the economy.

A society-wide economic federation of this sort is clearly not the same thing as a centralized state agency, as in the concept of nationalized or state-owned industry. As Emma Goldman argued, there is a clear difference between socialization and nationalization. "The first requirement of Communism," she argued, "is the socialization of the land and of the machinery of production and distribution. Socialized land and machinery belong to the people, to be settled upon and used by individuals and groups according to their needs." Nationalization, on the other hand, means that a resource "belongs to the state; that is, the government has control of it and may dispose of it according to its wishes and views." She stressed that "when a thing is socialized, every individual has free access to it and may use it without interference from anyone." When the state owned property, "[s]uch a state of affairs may be called state capitalism, but it would be fantastic to consider it in any sense communistic." [Red Emma Speaks, pp.360-1]

Clearly, an anarchist society is based on free access and a resource is controlled by those who use it. It is a decentralized, participatory-democratic (i.e. self-managed) organization whose members can secede at any time and in which all power and initiative arises from and flows back to the grassroots level (see section I.6 for a discussion on how social ownership would work in practice). Anarchists reject the Leninist idea that state property means the end of capitalism as simplistic and confused. Ownership is a juridical relationship. The real issue is one of management. Do the users of a resource manage it? If so, then we have a real (i.e. libertarian) socialist society. If not, we have some form of class society (for example, in the Soviet Union the state replaced the capitalist class but workers still had no official control over their labor or the product of that labor).

-----------------------------------------

A social anarchist society combines free association, federalism and self-management with communalized ownership. Free labor is its basis and socialization exists to complement and protect it.

Regardless of the kind of anarchy desired, anarchists all agree on the importance of decentralization, free agreement and free association. Kropotkin's summary of what anarchy would look like gives an excellent feel of what sort of society anarchists desire:

"harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.

"In a society developed on these lines . . . voluntary associations . . . would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent -- for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defense of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. "Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary -- as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the State." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 284]

If this type of system sounds "utopian" it should be kept in mind that it was actually implemented and worked quite well in the collectivist economy organised during the Spanish Revolution of 1936, despite the enormous obstacles presented by an ongoing civil war as well as the relentless (and eventually successful) efforts of Republicans, Stalinists and Fascists to crush it (see Sam Dolgoff's The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-management in the Spanish Revolution, 1936-1939 for an excellent introduction).

As well as this (and other) examples of "anarchy in action" there have been other libertarian socialist economic systems described in writing. All share the common features of workers' self-management, co-operation and so on we discuss here and in section I.4. These texts include Syndicalism by Tom Brown, The Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism by G.P. Maximoff, Guild Socialism Restated by G.D.H. Cole, After the Revolution by Diago Abad de Santillan, Anarchist Economics and Principles of Libertarian Economy by Abraham Guillen, Workers Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society by Cornelius Castoriadis among others. A short summary of Spanish Anarchist visions of the free society can be found in chapter 3 of Robert Alexander's The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War (vol. 1). Also worth reading are The Political Economy of Participatory Economics and Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel which contain some useful ideas. Fictional accounts include William Morris' News from Nowhere, The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin, Women on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy and The Last Capitalist by Steve Cullen.

Quoted from http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI3.html


""The New Law of Righteousness," that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself.""

Last edited by kolte; September 16th, 2006 at 10:37 PM. Reason: organization
kolte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2006, 11:42 PM   #44
Phantom
Awesome Poster
 
Phantom's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Location: U.S/ Minnesota
Age: 26
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolte View Post
Read what you wish from the following:


So, as one might expect, since the essence of anarchism is opposition to hierarchical authority, anarchists totally oppose the way the current economy is organized. This is because authority in the economic sphere is embodied in centralized, hierarchical workplaces that give an elite class (capitalists) dictatorial control over privately owned means of production, turning the majority of the population into order takers (i.e. wage slaves). In contrast, the libertarian-socialist "economy" will be based on decentralized, egalitarian workplaces ("syndicates") in which workers democratically self-manage socially owned means of production. Let us begin with the concept of syndicates.

The key principles of libertarian socialism are decentralization, self-management by direct democracy, voluntary association, and federation. These principles determine the form and function of both the economic and political systems. In this section we will consider just the economic system. Bakunin gives an excellent overview of such an economy when he writes:

"The land belongs to only those who cultivate it with their own hands; to the agricultural communes. The capital and all the tools of production belong to the workers; to the workers' associations . . . The future political organization should be a free federation of workers." [Bakunin on Anarchy, p. 247]

The essential economic concept for libertarian socialists is workers' self-management (sometimes termed workers' control). This is essential to ensure "a society of equals, who will not be compelled to sell their hands and their brains to those who choose to employ them . . . but who will be able to apply their knowledge and capacities to production, in an organism so constructed as to combine all the efforts for procuring the greatest possible well-being for all, while full, free scope will be left for every individual initiative." [Kropotkin, Kropotkin: Selections from his Writings, pp. 113-4]

However, this concept of self-management needs careful explanation, because, like the terms "anarchist" and "libertarian," "workers' control"</I> is also is being co-opted by capitalists to describe schemes in which workers' have more say in how their workplaces are run while maintaining wage slavery (i.e. capitalist ownership, power and ultimate control). Needless to say, such schemes are phony as they never place real power in the hands of workers. In the end, the owners and their managers have the final say (and so hierarchy remains) and, of course, profits are still extracted from the workforce.

As anarchists use the term, workers' self-management/control means collective worker ownership, control and self-management of all aspects of production and distribution. This is achieved through participatory-democratic workers' assemblies, councils and federations, in both agriculture and industry. These bodies would perform all the functions formerly reserved for capitalist owners, managers. executives and financiers where these activities actually related to productive activity rather than the needs to maximize minority profits and power. These workplace assemblies will be complemented by people's financial institutions or federations of syndicates which perform all functions formerly reserved for capitalist owners, executives, and financiers in terms of allocating investment funds or resources.
This means that an anarchist society is based on "workers' ownership" of the means of production.

"Workers' ownership" in its most limited sense refers merely to the ownership of individual firms by their workers. In such firms, surpluses (profits) would be either equally divided between all full-time members of the co-operative or divided unequally on the basis of the type of work done, with the percentages allotted to each type being decided by democratic vote, on the principle of one worker, one vote. However, such a limited form of workers' ownership is rejected by most anarchists. Social anarchists argue that this is but a step in the right direction and the ultimate aim is social ownership of all the means of life. This is because of the limitations of firms being owned solely by their workers (as in a modern co-operative).

Worker co-operatives of this type do have the virtue of preventing the exploitation and oppression of labor by capital, since workers are not hired for wages but, in effect, become partners in the firm. This means that the workers control both the product of their labor (so that the value-added that they produce is not appropriated by a privileged elite) and the work process itself (and so they no longer sell their liberty to others). However, this does not mean that all forms of economic domination and exploitation would be eliminated if worker ownership were confined merely to individual firms. In fact, most social anarchists believe this type of system would degenerate into a kind of "petit-bourgeois co-operativism" in which worker-owned firms would act as collective "capitalists" and compete against each other in the market as ferociously as the real capitalists used to. This would also lead to a situation where market forces ensured that the workers involved made irrational decisions (from both a social and individual point of view) in order to survive in the market. As these problems were highlighted in section I.1.3 ("What's wrong with markets anyway?"), we will not repeat ourselves here.

-----------------------------------------

For individualist anarchists, this "irrationality of rationality" is the price to be paid for a free market and any attempt to overcome this problem holds numerous dangers to freedom. Social anarchists disagree. They think co-operation between workplaces can increase, not reduce, freedom. Social anarchists' proposed solution is society-wide ownership of the major means of production and distribution, based on the anarchist principle of voluntary federation, with confederal bodies or co-ordinating councils at two levels: first, between all firms in a particular industry; and second, between all industries, agricultural syndicates, and people's financial institutions throughout the society. As Berkman put it:

"Actual use will be considered the only title [in communist anarchism] -- not to ownership but to possession. The organization of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as the operating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the railroads, and so on. Collective possession, co-operatively managed in the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit." [ABC of Anarchism, p. 69]

-----------------------------------------

While, for many anarcho-syndicalists, this structure is seen as enough, most communist-anarchists consider that the economic federation should be held accountable to society as a whole (i.e. the economy must be communalized). This is because not everyone in society is a worker (e.g. the young, the old and infirm) nor will everyone belong to a syndicate (e.g. the self-employed), but as they also have to live with the results of economic decisions, they should have a say in what happens. In other words, in communist-anarchism, workers make the day-to-day decisions concerning their work and workplaces, while the social criteria behind these decisions are made by everyone.

In this type of economic system, workers' assemblies and councils would be the focal point, formulating policies for their individual workplaces and deliberating on industry-wide or economy-wide issues through general meetings of the whole workforce in which everyone would participate in decision making. Voting in the councils would be direct, whereas in larger confederal bodies, voting would be carried out by temporary, unpaid, mandated, and instantly recallable delegates, who would resume their status as ordinary workers as soon as their mandate had been carried out.

"Mandated" here means that the delegates from workers' assemblies and councils to meetings of higher confederal bodies would be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the workers who elected them on how to deal with any issue. The delegates would be given imperative mandates (binding instructions) that committed them to a framework of policies within which they would have to act, and they could be recalled and their decisions revoked at any time for failing to carry out the mandates they were given (this support for mandated delegates has existed in anarchist theory since at least 1848, when Proudhon argued that it was "a consequence of universal suffrage" to ensure that "the people . . . do not . . . abjure their sovereignty." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 63]). Because of this right of mandating and recalling their delegates, workers' councils would be the source of and final authority over policy for all higher levels of confederal co-ordination of the economy.

A society-wide economic federation of this sort is clearly not the same thing as a centralized state agency, as in the concept of nationalized or state-owned industry. As Emma Goldman argued, there is a clear difference between socialization and nationalization. "The first requirement of Communism," she argued, "is the socialization of the land and of the machinery of production and distribution. Socialized land and machinery belong to the people, to be settled upon and used by individuals and groups according to their needs." Nationalization, on the other hand, means that a resource "belongs to the state; that is, the government has control of it and may dispose of it according to its wishes and views." She stressed that "when a thing is socialized, every individual has free access to it and may use it without interference from anyone." When the state owned property, "[s]uch a state of affairs may be called state capitalism, but it would be fantastic to consider it in any sense communistic." [Red Emma Speaks, pp.360-1]

Clearly, an anarchist society is based on free access and a resource is controlled by those who use it. It is a decentralized, participatory-democratic (i.e. self-managed) organization whose members can secede at any time and in which all power and initiative arises from and flows back to the grassroots level (see section I.6 for a discussion on how social ownership would work in practice). Anarchists reject the Leninist idea that state property means the end of capitalism as simplistic and confused. Ownership is a juridical relationship. The real issue is one of management. Do the users of a resource manage it? If so, then we have a real (i.e. libertarian) socialist society. If not, we have some form of class society (for example, in the Soviet Union the state replaced the capitalist class but workers still had no official control over their labor or the product of that labor).

-----------------------------------------

A social anarchist society combines free association, federalism and self-management with communalized ownership. Free labor is its basis and socialization exists to complement and protect it.

Regardless of the kind of anarchy desired, anarchists all agree on the importance of decentralization, free agreement and free association. Kropotkin's summary of what anarchy would look like gives an excellent feel of what sort of society anarchists desire:

"harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.

"In a society developed on these lines . . . voluntary associations . . . would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent -- for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defense of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. "Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary -- as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the State." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 284]

If this type of system sounds "utopian" it should be kept in mind that it was actually implemented and worked quite well in the collectivist economy organised during the Spanish Revolution of 1936, despite the enormous obstacles presented by an ongoing civil war as well as the relentless (and eventually successful) efforts of Republicans, Stalinists and Fascists to crush it (see Sam Dolgoff's The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-management in the Spanish Revolution, 1936-1939 for an excellent introduction).

As well as this (and other) examples of "anarchy in action" there have been other libertarian socialist economic systems described in writing. All share the common features of workers' self-management, co-operation and so on we discuss here and in section I.4. These texts include Syndicalism by Tom Brown, The Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism by G.P. Maximoff, Guild Socialism Restated by G.D.H. Cole, After the Revolution by Diago Abad de Santillan, Anarchist Economics and Principles of Libertarian Economy by Abraham Guillen, Workers Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society by Cornelius Castoriadis among others. A short summary of Spanish Anarchist visions of the free society can be found in chapter 3 of Robert Alexander's The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War (vol. 1). Also worth reading are The Political Economy of Participatory Economics and Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel which contain some useful ideas. Fictional accounts include William Morris' News from Nowhere, The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin, Women on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy and The Last Capitalist by Steve Cullen.

Quoted from http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI3.html
good read. Now I am interested. Ok first what happens to criminals. Next is there currently a funtioning AC society in the world. Last could you basicly sumarize the whole concept. Thanks.
Phantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2006, 04:49 AM   #45
cmpcmp
Member++
 
Join Date: July 14, 2006
Age: 27
Default Re: communism(discuss)

ok, you posted an eight page thing on the inner workings of CA (communist-anarchy) and happened to awnser very few of my questions, but in the process like 22 books were mentioned. i read the thing, so can u awnser there questions directly as i wan't able to tell the awnser from your last post.

and please explain what the governemnt's response to these issues are (listed below)
(ps there are some changes form the last post)

-any kind of crime, is it punnishable? who does the punnishing? and can they be cut off from the resourses of the rest of the community? are there prisons?
-what happens to ppl that choose to be unemployed? how are they punnish, if they are punnished? are they cut off from the resourses of the community? if so isn't labor infact forced? (ps. labor of somesort is basicly forced in capitalism cuz other wise u live on the streets and can't afford to live)
-you say that no one will be forced to work somewhere they don't want to and there is no such thing as wage labor, so who would take the jobs that no one wants like sanitation engineer (garbage man) or sewage treatment? or hard labor? or secretary, janitor, ......(insert many other jobs here). If some one is really bad at their Job, or can't preform it well/at all, are they forced into another job, and can their "pay" be decreased? will there be a job for philosophers/think-tank type ppl?
-will there be entertainers of sorts? pro sports players? or are all non productive jobs cut? if not wouldn't a lot of ppl be in this category as a job? if not just not working at all (refers to an earlier question).
-who makes the laws? who enforces the law? and if a law enforcer didn't agree witht that inparticular law he is enforcing would he be forced to enforce it? in what you posted last time it said that ppl won't be forced in society by laws, but will ther still be laws, im genuinely confused.
-In your post it talked about how the "profits" from each individual idustry would be divided among the workers either equaly or by the difficulty of their job, how does a "bussiniess"(what ever it is in a CA) in a society with no money make a profit?
-Is there state commisioned "marrige"
cmpcmp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2006, 09:26 PM   #46
kolte
I am: I am
 
kolte's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matt
Join Date: May 31, 2005
Location: usa
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Default Re: communism(discuss)

I don't have a phd in anarchist theory. I can barley answer your questions if they were in regards to the capatilist system. There are no answers in our system for that. Granted, each capatilist society does different things to solve there problems. Communism is a type of government, not an administration with preset personal morailty and policy standards. It would very from society to society, from community to community.


""The New Law of Righteousness," that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself.""
kolte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2006, 09:33 PM   #47
Makod
Member++
 
Makod's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Location: Western hemisphere
Age: 27
Gender: Undisclosed
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom View Post
without capitalism you wouldnt have your computer that you are on your house or even a pencil
Brought to you by the hard workers in China and Vietnam, which, I believe, are not Capitalist countries.

And so we ignore the beggar's cup
Praise your act in the Grand Finale
Teach the unborn the winners sign
a welcome grin to the world Royal
Makod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2006, 11:06 PM   #48
cmpcmp
Member++
 
Join Date: July 14, 2006
Age: 27
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makod View Post
Brought to you by the hard workers in China and Vietnam, which, I believe, are not Capitalist countries.
Capitalism isn't really a form of governemnet so much as an ideology on how the market should work, and in all of the countries that you list they may not be democratic, very free market, and the workers don't have many rights. So they aren't really capitalisitic, but they are all striving for more money, maximized profits and such. Plus i think the point made by who ever made the origional statement (i can't remember who) was made about if every country in the world was C-A,

PS. is there international trade in C-A?? (lol kolte jk)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can u argue for a form of government and not be able to awnser even basic questions about it? I could definitely give atleast a very general awnser for each question for each in relation to democratic-capitalism (as opposed to dictorial-capitalism or thoecratic)

can u atleast try and awnser some of the below more basic questions about C-A, the way that you think that it should be run.

-are there laws? if so are there inforcers?
-do ppl get free access to the supplies/resourses of the community? can they be shut off from it?
-(i still don't know as ur posts seem to contradict) is there some kind of money?
cmpcmp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2006, 04:19 PM   #49
Phantom
Awesome Poster
 
Phantom's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Location: U.S/ Minnesota
Age: 26
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makod View Post
Brought to you by the hard workers in China and Vietnam, which, I believe, are not Capitalist countries.
How bout BS. I doubt the average vietnamese working can assemble presision parts and run complex machines. How about the person that desined that brand new video card you bougt huh, they then sell it and make alot of moeny for their hard work desining that product. Thats capitalism. O yeah and basic stuff like clothes are mostly made in China, do YOU want to pay 200 for a shirt?and also it bolsters their economy tenfould.

Last edited by Phantom; September 18th, 2006 at 06:27 PM.
Phantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2006, 11:33 PM   #50
kolte
I am: I am
 
kolte's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matt
Join Date: May 31, 2005
Location: usa
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Laws could be decided by voluntary organizations. Each member having a say, and lobby for public support?

Supplies and resources are supplied by the community, and each member is allowed to use what he or she needs.

There are steps to money really. each different community could create its own system, but in the very least, the individual workers of a business would become much like partners in the company, helping decide amongst all employees and employers, democraticly, wages etc.

but In an idea society, there would be no currency. but that was answered in the post before last *my post before last)


""The New Law of Righteousness," that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself.""
kolte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006, 06:54 PM   #51
cmpcmp
Member++
 
Join Date: July 14, 2006
Age: 27
Default Re: communism(discuss)

maybe im missed something, which is entirely possible as the recent posts are quite lengthy,

but what is to stop some one form just riding the system, and who will take all of the "bad" jobs that on one wants?
cmpcmp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006, 07:04 PM   #52
Grotesque
Banned
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmpcmp View Post
maybe im missed something, which is entirely possible as the recent posts are quite lengthy,

but what is to stop some one form just riding the system, and who will take all of the "bad" jobs that on one wants?
Illegal mexicans. They cannot communicate to do anything better.
Grotesque is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006, 08:18 PM   #53
kolte
I am: I am
 
kolte's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matt
Join Date: May 31, 2005
Location: usa
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grotesque View Post
Illegal mexicans. They cannot communicate to do anything better.
Harsh Austin. There ware no "illegals" in a community with no governing body.

Well, who is to stop sombody from riding the system. They will be hated I assure you, probally killed, and hung for all eyes to see. (please disregard all of this, I'm really crazy right now, have been for past couple days)

Argh, imma stop digging my grave here.


""The New Law of Righteousness," that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself.""
kolte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006, 08:35 PM   #54
Makod
Member++
 
Makod's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Location: Western hemisphere
Age: 27
Gender: Undisclosed
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom View Post
How bout BS. I doubt the average vietnamese working can assemble presision parts and run complex machines. How about the person that desined that brand new video card you bougt huh, they then sell it and make alot of moeny for their hard work desining that product.
Heh. How about looking up stuff before you post.

And so we ignore the beggar's cup
Praise your act in the Grand Finale
Teach the unborn the winners sign
a welcome grin to the world Royal
Makod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006, 08:43 PM   #55
Phantom
Awesome Poster
 
Phantom's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Location: U.S/ Minnesota
Age: 26
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makod View Post
Heh. How about looking up stuff before you post.
LOL you think the average vietnamese worker knows how to operate advanced computer technology think again.
Phantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006, 08:48 PM   #56
Makod
Member++
 
Makod's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Location: Western hemisphere
Age: 27
Gender: Undisclosed
Default Re: communism(discuss)

>.>....

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...13/ai_88575610

There you go.

If you find the time maybe you'll actually read it.

And so we ignore the beggar's cup
Praise your act in the Grand Finale
Teach the unborn the winners sign
a welcome grin to the world Royal

Last edited by Makod; September 19th, 2006 at 08:55 PM.
Makod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006, 09:07 PM   #57
Grotesque
Banned
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolte View Post
Harsh Austin. There ware no "illegals" in a community with no governing body.

Well, who is to stop sombody from riding the system. They will be hated I assure you, probally killed, and hung for all eyes to see. (please disregard all of this, I'm really crazy right now, have been for past couple days)

Argh, imma stop digging my grave here.
Stereotyping, we will find another way to classify and create even more minorities, we always do.
Grotesque is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006, 09:22 PM   #58
kolte
I am: I am
 
kolte's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matt
Join Date: May 31, 2005
Location: usa
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makod View Post
>.>....

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...13/ai_88575610

There you go.

If you find the time maybe you'll actually read it.
I can safly say thats a burn to phantom *pwned*

I'm see the old me, and it burns! Were is my xanax, *renews percription*


""The New Law of Righteousness," that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself.""
kolte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006, 09:25 PM   #59
Makod
Member++
 
Makod's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Location: Western hemisphere
Age: 27
Gender: Undisclosed
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolte View Post
I can safly say thats a burn to phantom *pwned*
Stole the words right from my mouth.

And so we ignore the beggar's cup
Praise your act in the Grand Finale
Teach the unborn the winners sign
a welcome grin to the world Royal
Makod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006, 09:56 PM   #60
Phantom
Awesome Poster
 
Phantom's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Location: U.S/ Minnesota
Age: 26
Default Re: communism(discuss)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makod View Post
>.>....

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...13/ai_88575610

There you go.

If you find the time maybe you'll actually read it.
So you consider those people to be the AVERAGE vietnamse workers, hmmm I guess then I can call rocket scientists the AVERAGE workers of america. Like I said some guy in a sweatshop does not have the skills nessisary to operate complex machinery, and computers. So therefore your argument that all our crap is made by chinese and vietnamse workers is false. Nice try though
Phantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright©2000 - 2018
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, VirtualTeen.org