communism(discuss)

[kolte]

I'm not talking about any single forum of government in the past. But a totally new one. One based soley on the basis of Anarchist Communism. Where every single person is equal. Nobody has more power then anyone else.

"Anarchist communism is a form of that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favor of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs.
Anarchist communism stresses egalitarianism and the abolition of social hierarchy and class distinctions that arise from unequal wealth distribution, the abolition of capitalism and money, and the collective production and distribution of wealth by means of voluntary associations.
In anarchist communism, the state and property no longer exist. Each individual and group is free to contribute to production and to satisfy their needs based on their own choice. Systems of production and distribution are managed by their participants.
The abolition of wage labor is central to anarchist communism. With distribution of wealth being based on self-determined needs, people will be free to engage in whatever activities they find most fulfilling and will no longer have to engage in work for which they have neither the temperament nor the aptitude. Anarchist communists argue that there is no valid way of measuring the value of any one person's economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations.
Anarchist communists argue that any economic system based on wage labor and private property will require a coercive state apparatus to enforce property rights and to maintain the unequal economic relationships that will inevitably arise.
" - wikipedia

"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." - Gerrard Winstanley

The indians of native america saw that the world belonged to nobody. And its true. These borders, these signs, these fences. They mean nothing to me. The world is yours and mine, and we should share and produce for ourselves and eachother.

What do you think about communism in the raw theory.

[Ravenous]

I think its a fucking brilliant idea, but sadly this world could not handle the change from corrupt capitalist society to communistic eutopia. There aren't enough people to support a revolution yet, maybe one day, we can dream...

[Grotesque]

I disagree with it. People that work harder should get and have more than people that don't. In the Communist system, work ethic is often overlooked.

[Makod]

Karl Marx and Lenin would be proud.

And yes I would support this. However, it will probably never happen because people are fucking greedy :\.

[Bobby]

about any single forum of government

I had to take the opportunity to correct Kolte......sorry


I don't agree with communism, i think it's way of being fair, is unfair.


Didn't I make the topic a long time ago???

[redcar]

I don't agree with communism, i think it's way of being fair, is unfair.

communisim is actually pretty fair, although no system yet has worked properly.

but Kolt is an interesting theory, one that looks good written down. but in reality it could never work. there are always people who strive for better things, its a human trait or flaw depending on how you look at it.

people need a leader, people need to be lead. wheather its by a council or one person, humans as a collective left to their own devices i do not think are the smartest creatures.

[Bobby]

My point is, that people should be able to be better than others.... to gain power...to gain better values

[kolte]

"all men are created equal"

there is no need for the opressed and the opresser
there is no need for a master and a servent
all people should be equal
this world should be shared
and you say it only looks good on paper
so does the capatilist system
a government is only a strong and powerful as its lowest citizens.
that being said.
the united states is nothing.
nor is any other country.
this world is full of the rich controlling the poor..
I'm here to say I refuse to be a part of it.
and thats all you have to do.
refuse to be a part of it.

[redcar]

but you see when we are all equal, there would still need to be people to organise others. there always will have to be someone that is a leader or someone that is sort of above others in a way.

even looking at the animal kingdom there is always the dominent male or female which the others follow. i just think en masse humans are not capable of being able to survive without some sort of authority.

[0=]

It is true that we would need officials, but they would be elected solely by popular vote, and only to help organize, not to actually be in charge, if you give someone more power, then you have strayed form the idealistic society and greed will take over. Computers being the "guiding voice" would be perfect, they think purely logically.

[redcar]

but then the problem arises, everyone is not equal then. we have "officials" or what ever name you want to call them, we start to have a hierarchy, and then it will get bigger and the fundamental idea of everyone being equal is lost.

and computers wouldnt work, we are humans, we have emotions, so it could never work.

[0=]

Not necessarily peopel with power, but another position in society that would simply organize the ideas and problems of the people, and present them to the people for decision, rather than making the decisions themselves.

[redcar]

but the equality is still lost. this person could start with organising on a small scale, then gradually move on, they delegate tasks to others, still mainting the "equality" ethos, but everyone would not be equal.

plus anyway it is our nature to strive upwards. like if we asked members here, who would like to be a manager someday? who would want to go into politics? even something simple like who wants to be a mod?
wheather its large or small a vast number of us want to better ourselves and not be equal in that sense.

[Grotesque]

People are NOT equal and some people are more brilliant and work harder than others. Those people should be rewarded. It is incredibly foolish to say that everyone should get the same pay and everyone should have equal everything. Some people are just BETTER than others. I, for one, would never allow myself to be in the same social/wealth class as a pathetic/retarted/lazy bum. I am worth more and therefore, should earn more..because I deserve it!

[xTheLordsServantx]

but the equality is still lost. this person could start with organising on a small scale, then gradually move on, they delegate tasks to others, still mainting the "equality" ethos, but everyone would not be equal.

plus anyway it is our nature to strive upwards. like if we asked members here, who would like to be a manager someday? who would want to go into politics? even something simple like who wants to be a mod?
wheather its large or small a vast number of us want to better ourselves and not be equal in that sense.

yes, i fully agree with this. But i also agree with Kolte's idea, because i believe communism would work if there wasnt a corrupt or power-driven leader, because then that would undermine the whole idea of having "equality". But i do think government is good to a certain degree. For example, in this country i do not like our democratic system, because it is starting to become more like an oligarchy, where the rich have lots of governmental push, while the poor have almost little to no say in the affairs of the government.

People are NOT equal and some people are more brilliant and work harder than others. Those people should be rewarded. It is incredibly foolish to say that everyone should get the same pay and everyone should have equal everything. Some people are just BETTER than others. I, for one, would never allow myself to be in the same social/wealth class as a pathetic/retarted/lazy bum. I am worth more and therefore, should earn more..because I deserve it!

People are equal, and u cant say that just because someone is retarted, that u are better than that person. DO U THINK THAT PERSON CHOSE TO BE RETARTED??? Thats just like saying that ur better because ur white. Well im black and i believe everyone is equal because my people experienced inequality for hundreds of years. "I am worth more" is a statement, which u shuld never use again.

[Grotesque]

So YOU are worth more than/the same Bill Gates? What have you contributed to society? Yes, some people are of more value. I cannot fathom your logic. How is a lazy hobo of equal importance to a great person and how can you say someone that works 24/7 should get paid the same as a lazy person? Laziness is not a disease. If you knew no matter how hard you worked that you'd never get any more money for yourself or your family, what would be your drive to work harder?

[xTheLordsServantx]

So YOU are worth more than/the same Bill Gates? What have you contributed to society? Yes, some people are of more value. I cannot fathom your logic. How is a lazy hobo of equal importance to a great person and how can you say someone that works 24/7 should get paid the same as a lazy person? Laziness is not a disease. If you knew no matter how hard you worked that you'd never get any more money for yourself or your family, what would be your drive to work harder?

Ok look, i am a strong Christian. Thus, i believe that in God's eyes we are all equal. So I think that Bill Gates giving a lot of his money to the poor or whoever is good, but God has given him that blessing, so its not even his. A hobo may not seem "worthy" in your eyes, but i guarantee God loves the hobo just as much as Bill Gates and You and Me. That means that we all are equal = EQUALITY

[Makod]

How is a lazy hobo of equal importance to a great person and how can you say someone that works 24/7 should get paid the same as a lazy person?

If you think hobos are hobos because of being lazy you are dead wrong.
So I think that Bill Gates giving a lot of his money to the poor or whoever is good. A hobo may not seem "worthy" in your eyes, but we all are equal

Exactly, everyone is equal (wow I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with you.) No one is supperior to another.

[kolte]

Austin if you can’t be nice, I'm going to ask you to leave. Considering you as my friend; I hope you know I don't mean you any offense. You say you are an intellectual, yet you cannot show any respect to anyone else? Surly if you were an intellectual you would have the common curtsey to be open minded.



We don't need people to lead us, and in a communist society there is no money. We would all work to produce shared goods and services. We would all volunteer to better the community. We would learn what we chose to learn, and pursue things that make us happy as individuals.

There are close to 7 billion humans on the earth. Surly we can manage to create enough shared goods and wealth so that everyone is taken care of. With this system, we could grow mentally as a global community. Combine and share our knowledge together. No more divide, and no more hatred.

I'm not saying it will be easy or that it will be instant utopia. And I know it may not seem better in the beginning. But there is hope for a secure, peaceful future. There will be opposition; people who think they are better then the rest. But you take what you need and work if you can.

It’s not right that there are children in this world trying to fend for themselves, and it’s not right that there are elderly men and women who die still working tirelessly.

Communism can be an end to our suffering. You say things like “somebody will always become greedy” but look at us now! Look at all the greed and corruption. At least in a communist society, the majority of the people will be able to stifle any inner corruption. In a capitalist society, we are lead like sheep by people who are blacked with hatred and lust for money.

Imagine. All the people. Living for today. No hunger. No one to kill or die for. A brotherhood of man. Imagine. All the people. Living for today.

[Makod]

If I recall correctly, you used to hate the thought of Communism, what made you change your mind?

If I recall wrong, disregard this post.

Edit: A beautiful post, but I fear the thoughts displayed will never come true. Humans were doomed from the start to suffer, or to trample over those who suffer.

[kolte]

I was very opposed to the idea of dictoral communism. And I still am, and anyone who thinks thats good can burn in hell. Literally. Burn please. Socialism became my new obsession though, and finally i discovered anarchist communsim, and I love the idea of it.

hope I answered your question.

[Makod]

You did.

When Karl Marx first introduced the idea of Communism it was very similar to this "anarchist communism" that you have mentioned.

The reasons that dictoral communism cannot work are.

1. Human greed.
and
2. No single person could ever create or manage an eutopia because there is no such thing as a "perfect being."

A good example of a failed dictoral communist government is shown in George Orwell's 1984.

[kolte]

I think a perfect example of a failed Communist society would be the USSR.
I think a perfect example of a failed Capatilist society would be the USA

[Makod]

But 1984 is an interesting read though!

Have you read 1984?

Yes the USSR is a good example too.

But what about China?

I personally believe that China is doing fairly well compared to what has happened to other Communist societies. For instance, the "One Child Plan" is a good idea imo.

[kolte]

I don't think killing hundreds of protesters in the Tiananmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989) square incident doing fairly well. *yikes*

[Makod]

Doing fairly well compared to USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, and others, yes it is. All forms of governments make huge mistakes, not one of them is better than another, however none of them will work because of the way humans act.

[kolte]

I don't think that killing hundreds of monks and innocent civillians in Tibet and opressing millions in Tibet fairly well.

When was the last time Cuba did anything bad?
or Vietnam.
or laos

[kolte]

I am confused. People say they don't support communism becasue it will have people who will not follow it. But it is way better then the capatilist ideal. In the capatilist society, we are lead. In a communist society. We are free. I don't understand why people don't like it. They want to be lead? Or do they want to be the leaders. Thats just wrong.

[Makod]

I don't think that killing hundreds of monks and innocent civillians in Tibet and opressing millions in Tibet fairly well.

When was the last time Cuba did anything bad?
or Vietnam.
or laos

Where is Laos? And Vietnam basically took over it's southern section through brute force and has not allowed the democracy in the south continue.

China, when it regained Hong Kong, has let it continue democracy. Vietnam is Democracy turned Communist, China is monarchy turned Communist. Their laws are much more lenient and reasonable then other Communist countries. Cuba is led by a man who killed his friend so he could have complete control over it. He lied to his people, promising a revolution, and that they would gain equality in the end.

Tianamen Square and what happened in Tibet were deffinitely a huge blunder on their governments part. But do you hate the British government (now the UK) because they, at one point made huge blunders on their part? IE, The wars with France and Scotland? All governments make poor judgements at some point, all humans make poor judgements at some point.

They're economy is much better than that of other communist nations. Don't tell me you think China's standard of living is less than Cuba's.

[cmpcmp]

Communism can't won't and hasn't ever worked, and its becuse humans are flawed.

Communism is great in theory, and only in theory, and i will explain why.

Like everything in nature, humans are neither good nor bad, they are both. But through what we experience and how we are, we decide what to do.

the MAIN point of this post is to establish ONE THING, and that is
>---human require motivation to what ever they do---<

-some ppl are born motivated, in a way, and will contribute cuz they want to (which is their motivation)
-the other 99% id say (I just made these #'s up BTW) of ppl need external motivation to do what they do

Perfect example right here.
>>>>-You are given an assignment to do a paper on what ever you want for school, it must be 2 pages-<<<<
SCENARIOS
1. The paper is graded as usual, if it is late u get marked down, if it is bad u get marked down, if it is incomplete you get marked down.
-most ppl will do the paper and turn it in so that they will eventualy get a passing grade (hopfully a good one)
2. The paper is mandatory but has no requirement in content only length and a due date.
-most kids will turn in a sheet w/ their name on it and like a sentence about their topic, and then the letter "a" for 2 pages (aaaaaaaaaaaaa) for full credit
3. A paper is assigned, but won't be graded, looked over or aything at all
-no one (cept the teachers pet) will do the assignment

This is true for government and ppls real live to.

In capitalism the ideal, and the general reality (w/ exceptions such as inheritance) is that if u work you get money, if ur a good worker u get more money for your work. Money motivates, plain and simple, and as u can see in america today it does alot of motivating.

By no means am i trying to say that money is purely good, it is like humans both good and bad. This is because money motivates things like robery, illegal bussiness practice, and general greed.

Capitalism is a system that can work in the real world and if used correctly can actualy work, and thats not to say it is pure good either.

Let me list some bad things about your idea of communist anarchy:
-there is no motivation to work hard other that keeping yourself alive, thus society will never advance.
-there is no one to provide things to ppl that they alone can't make/must be hughly organized and specialized. These things are things like: roads, communications (internet, phones), some means of defence, some way to maintain law and order, emergency relief, hospitals, fire department,and others.
-what will we do with mentaly disabled ppl?
-what will we do w/ criminals?
-what happens if some one makes some kind of make shift money? (as they inevitably will) how will they be stoped?

[kolte]

Ant. CmpCmp. Your analagies and your instances were both in regards to children and teenagers lol. Both of which need guidence. Do you honestly think that educated, consenting adults need athoritairan figures keeping them in check. Its true, sometimes this athority is needed, but this is only because of our capatilist societies unstableness. Communism hasnent ever worked in the past, becuase its never been fully implemented. What need to people have to rule when they are completly free? Yeah, I'm a moderator, i keep the peace, or at least try. But you guys are teenagers, and many of you are much to immature to handle the responsibility of thinking for yoruselves.

Ant. cmpcmp. Do you think you need me to lead you. I doubt it. I think You guys and I could live quite peacefully without eachother ruling one another. Don't you agree?

And just because everyone is equal, that doesnt mean nothing will get done. I really don't see your logic there. There will still be volonteer organizations all over. Hospitles, schools, construction crews, farmers, and even political, or should I say def. political organizations. People would organize these, and then everyone would be heard, and together they would decide on issues, and work as a community to better themselves.

You guys make me laugh talking down communism because its not perfect.
capatilism is so much worse then communism when it comes to perfection. And yet you defend it?

[Phantom2828]

I'm not talking about any single forum of government in the past. But a totally new one. One based soley on the basis of Anarchist Communism. Where every single person is equal. Nobody has more power then anyone else.

"Anarchist communism is a form of that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favor of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs.
Anarchist communism stresses egalitarianism and the abolition of social hierarchy and class distinctions that arise from unequal wealth distribution, the abolition of capitalism and money, and the collective production and distribution of wealth by means of voluntary associations.
In anarchist communism, the state and property no longer exist. Each individual and group is free to contribute to production and to satisfy their needs based on their own choice. Systems of production and distribution are managed by their participants.
The abolition of wage labor is central to anarchist communism. With distribution of wealth being based on self-determined needs, people will be free to engage in whatever activities they find most fulfilling and will no longer have to engage in work for which they have neither the temperament nor the aptitude. Anarchist communists argue that there is no valid way of measuring the value of any one person's economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations.
Anarchist communists argue that any economic system based on wage labor and private property will require a coercive state apparatus to enforce property rights and to maintain the unequal economic relationships that will inevitably arise.
" - wikipedia

"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." - Gerrard Winstanley

The indians of native america saw that the world belonged to nobody. And its true. These borders, these signs, these fences. They mean nothing to me. The world is yours and mine, and we should share and produce for ourselves and eachother.

What do you think about communism in the raw theory.Anarchist communism will only work intill I decide (not realy) to walk up to you and kill you or take the food you are eating out of your hands HEY ITS FROM THE EARTH SHARE! Its nice to dream though

[cmpcmp]

Do you honestly think that educated, consenting adults need athoritairan figures keeping them in check.
Yes, i do, lets take a look at some of the pretenses you put in that statment also shall we?

- interesting, u slipped in "consenting". If we lived in an anarchist communist society, when did they get asked wether they wanted to live in a communist anarchy? I assume that ppl would be born into it am i wrong?
-you also put in "educated" when do these ppl get educated in a anarchist communistic society? who pays, oops theres no money i forgot, the teachers to teach? in ur society there can be no education system, plz tell me how, if u plan on having one.

Humans need to constiantly be keeped in check, other wise they will display behavior that isn't predictable. the human (adult or otherwise), by nature is, unless otherwise forced or motivated, a lazy creature.

What need to people have to rule when they are completly free? Yeah, I'm a moderator, i keep the peace, or at least try. But you guys are teenagers, and many of you are much to immature to handle the responsibility of thinking for yoruselves.
Do you think that an adult only board wouldn't need Moderators? cuz i know for a fact they do have them. Are they just wasting their time having a mod? Humans aren't perfect, no matter what age.
"What need to people have to rule when they are completly free?'
(from above)
all ppl want power, power to do things, power to get what you want, and some ppl want complete power over ppl, its becuase they are human.

they would decide on issues
this sounds like democracy to me.... Ps how would thoes desisions be enforced? if there is an "enforcer" wouldn't there have to be some one with power to enforce?

I think You guys and I could live quite peacefully without eachother ruling one another.
On the scale of three ppl who are in my opinion probly rational and will be motivated by their instincts to survive, probly yes. But what happens if we are all working together and i decide that I don't want to work i just want to sit around would you still give me food? shelter? and everything?

now what if it was in the context of a communist anarchist society that had millions of ppl in it, and we all shared resourses, wouldn't ppl just lay back and not do anything and live off of others hard work? would this be motivating for the ppl who are working hard? the reality is that many ppl would do as little work as possible if they gain nothing by doing any work.

There will still be volonteer organizations all over.
I don't think so, why would someone be a teacher, maybe they want to be, but if there aren't enought volenteers then what? who is going to vollenteer to be a sewage plant worker? or a garbage man? or a laboring worker of anykind?

and work as a community to better themselves.
what if ppl don't want to better their comunity? and they just want to use what every one else has bettered for them?

You guys make me laugh talking down communism because its not perfect. capatilism is so much worse then communism when it comes to perfection. And yet you defend it?
I don't dislike communism because it is imperfect (as to imply "perfect capitalism" is better), it as a theoretical model is way better than capitalism. But in the real world, communism wouldn't work because there are too many ppl who try and freeload in a capitalist society, imagine in a communist society where everything is shared.

Also please tell me, how is order kept in ur society? If i want to steal your house from you how will i be stoped?, who will stop me?, and can i be punnished? would there be "laws"?

lastly who would stop me from just freeloading off of every one else?

[kolte]

“I have concluded that the two most prominent, although often unconscious, tendencies throughout our history have been first, a tendency towards integrating labor for the production of all riches in common, so as finally to render it impossible to discriminate the part of the common production due to the separate individual; and second, a tendency towards the fullest freedom of the individual in the prosecution of all aims, beneficial both for himself and for society at large. The ideal of the anarchist is thus a mere summing up of what he considers to be the next phase of evolution. It is no longer a matter of faith; it is a matter for scientific discussion.”

- Unknown anarchist

I’m going to share with you a story. This story will hopefully sway you to understand, if not accept, my opinions.
There was a time when every workingman worked for himself. There were no factories then and no big industries. The laborer had his own tools and his own little workshop, and he even bought himself the raw materials he needed. He worked for himself, and he was called an artisan or craftsman.
Then came the factory and the large workshop. Little by little they crowded out the independent workman, the artisan, because he could not make things as cheaply as the factory - he could not compete with the big manufacturer. So the artisan had to give up his little workshop and go to the factory to work.
In the factories and large plants things are produced on a big scale. Such big-scale production is called industrialism. It has made the employers and manufacturers very rich, so that the lords of industry and commerce have accumulated much money, much capital. Therefore that system is called capitalism. We all live to-day in the capitalist system.
In the capitalist system the workingman cannot work for himself, as in the old days. He cannot compete with the big manufacturers. So, if you are a workman, you must find an employer. You work for him; that is, you give him your labor for so and so many hours a day or week, and he pays you for it. You sell him your labor power and he pays you wages.
In the capitalist system the whole working class sells its labor power to the employing class. The workers build factories, make machinery and tools, and produce goods. The employers keep the factories, the machinery, tools and goods for themselves as their profit. The workers get only wages.
This arrangement is called the wage system.
Learned men have figured out that the worker receives as his wage only about one-tenthof what he produces. The other nine-tenths are divided among the landlord, the manufacturer, the railroad company, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen.
It means this:
Though the workers, as a class, have built the factories, a slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those factories. That's the landlord's profit. Though the workers have made the tools and the machinery, another slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those tools and machinery. That's the manufacturer's profit. Though the workers built the railroads and are running them, another slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the transportation of the goods they make. That's the railroad's profit, and so on, including the banker who lends the manufacturer other people's money, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen, all of whom get their slice of the worker's toil.
What is left then - one-tenth of the real worth of the worker's labor-is his share, his wage.
Can you guess now why the wise Proudhon said that the possessions of the rich are stolen property? Stolen from the producer, the worker.
It seems strange, doesn't it, that such a thing should be permitted?
Yes, indeed, it is very strange; and the strangest thing of all is that the whole world looks on and doesn't do a thing about it. Worse yet, the workers themselves don't do anything about it. Why, most of them think that everything is all right, and that the capitalist system is good.
It is because the workers don't see what is happening to them. They don't understand that they are being robbed. The rest of the world also understands very little about it, and when some honest man tries to tell them, they shout 'anarchist!' at him, and they shut him up or put him in prison.
Of course, the capitalists are very much satisfied with the capitalist system. Why shouldn't they be? They get rich by it. So you can't expect them to say it's no good.
The middle classes are the helpers of the capitalists and they also live off the labor of the working class, so why should they object? Of course, here and there you will find some man or woman of the middle class stand up and speak the truth about the whole matter. But such persons are quickly silenced and cried down as "enemies of the people', as crazy disturbers and anarchists.
But you would think that the workers should be the first to object to the capitalist system, for it is they who are robbed and who suffer most from it.
Yes, so it should be. But it isn't so, which is very sad.
The workers know that the shoe pinches somewhere. They know that they toil hard all their lives and that they get just enough to exist on, and sometimes not even enough. They see that their employers can ride about in fine automobiles and live in the greatest luxury, with their wives decked out in expensive clothes and diamonds, while the worker's wife can hardly afford a new calico dress. So the workers seek to improve their condition by trying to get better wages. It is the same as if I woke up at night in my house and found that a burglar had collected all my things and is about to get away with them. Suppose that instead of stopping him, I should say to him: 'Please, Mr. Burglar, leave me at least one suit of clothes so I can have something to put on', and then thank him if he gives me back a tenth part of the things he has stolen from me.
But I am getting ahead of my story. We shall return to the worker and see how he tries to improve his condition and how little he succeeds.

[Phantom]

“I have concluded that the two most prominent, although often unconscious, tendencies throughout our history have been first, a tendency towards integrating labor for the production of all riches in common, so as finally to render it impossible to discriminate the part of the common production due to the separate individual; and second, a tendency towards the fullest freedom of the individual in the prosecution of all aims, beneficial both for himself and for society at large. The ideal of the anarchist is thus a mere summing up of what he considers to be the next phase of evolution. It is no longer a matter of faith; it is a matter for scientific discussion.”

- Unknown anarchist

I’m going to share with you a story. This story will hopefully sway you to understand, if not accept, my opinions.
There was a time when every workingman worked for himself. There were no factories then and no big industries. The laborer had his own tools and his own little workshop, and he even bought himself the raw materials he needed. He worked for himself, and he was called an artisan or craftsman.
Then came the factory and the large workshop. Little by little they crowded out the independent workman, the artisan, because he could not make things as cheaply as the factory - he could not compete with the big manufacturer. So the artisan had to give up his little workshop and go to the factory to work.
In the factories and large plants things are produced on a big scale. Such big-scale production is called industrialism. It has made the employers and manufacturers very rich, so that the lords of industry and commerce have accumulated much money, much capital. Therefore that system is called capitalism. We all live to-day in the capitalist system.
In the capitalist system the workingman cannot work for himself, as in the old days. He cannot compete with the big manufacturers. So, if you are a workman, you must find an employer. You work for him; that is, you give him your labor for so and so many hours a day or week, and he pays you for it. You sell him your labor power and he pays you wages.
In the capitalist system the whole working class sells its labor power to the employing class. The workers build factories, make machinery and tools, and produce goods. The employers keep the factories, the machinery, tools and goods for themselves as their profit. The workers get only wages.
This arrangement is called the wage system.
Learned men have figured out that the worker receives as his wage only about one-tenthof what he produces. The other nine-tenths are divided among the landlord, the manufacturer, the railroad company, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen.
It means this:
Though the workers, as a class, have built the factories, a slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those factories. That's the landlord's profit. Though the workers have made the tools and the machinery, another slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those tools and machinery. That's the manufacturer's profit. Though the workers built the railroads and are running them, another slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the transportation of the goods they make. That's the railroad's profit, and so on, including the banker who lends the manufacturer other people's money, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen, all of whom get their slice of the worker's toil.
What is left then - one-tenth of the real worth of the worker's labor-is his share, his wage.
Can you guess now why the wise Proudhon said that the possessions of the rich are stolen property? Stolen from the producer, the worker.
It seems strange, doesn't it, that such a thing should be permitted?
Yes, indeed, it is very strange; and the strangest thing of all is that the whole world looks on and doesn't do a thing about it. Worse yet, the workers themselves don't do anything about it. Why, most of them think that everything is all right, and that the capitalist system is good.
It is because the workers don't see what is happening to them. They don't understand that they are being robbed. The rest of the world also understands very little about it, and when some honest man tries to tell them, they shout 'anarchist!' at him, and they shut him up or put him in prison.
Of course, the capitalists are very much satisfied with the capitalist system. Why shouldn't they be? They get rich by it. So you can't expect them to say it's no good.
The middle classes are the helpers of the capitalists and they also live off the labor of the working class, so why should they object? Of course, here and there you will find some man or woman of the middle class stand up and speak the truth about the whole matter. But such persons are quickly silenced and cried down as "enemies of the people', as crazy disturbers and anarchists.
But you would think that the workers should be the first to object to the capitalist system, for it is they who are robbed and who suffer most from it.
Yes, so it should be. But it isn't so, which is very sad.
The workers know that the shoe pinches somewhere. They know that they toil hard all their lives and that they get just enough to exist on, and sometimes not even enough. They see that their employers can ride about in fine automobiles and live in the greatest luxury, with their wives decked out in expensive clothes and diamonds, while the worker's wife can hardly afford a new calico dress. So the workers seek to improve their condition by trying to get better wages. It is the same as if I woke up at night in my house and found that a burglar had collected all my things and is about to get away with them. Suppose that instead of stopping him, I should say to him: 'Please, Mr. Burglar, leave me at least one suit of clothes so I can have something to put on', and then thank him if he gives me back a tenth part of the things he has stolen from me.
But I am getting ahead of my story. We shall return to the worker and see how he tries to improve his condition and how little he succeeds.Great read. But like I said thats all good and all it would only put mankind back about 5000 years, or intill (not realy) I walk up to you and kill you or take your food right out of your hands.

[kolte]

Great read. But like I said thats all good and all it would only put mankind back about 5000 years, or intill (not realy) I walk up to you and kill you or take your food right out of your hands - phantom



sombody wants to hear the rest of the story i can tell!


Just now I want to tell you why the worker does not take the burglar by the neck and kick him out; that is, why he begs the capitalist for a little more bread or wages, and why he does not throw him off his back, altogether.
It is because the worker, like the rest of the world, has been made to believe that everything is all right and must remain as it is; and that if a few things are not quite as they should be, then it is because 'people are bad', and everything will right itself in the end, anyhow.
Just see if that is not true of yourself. At home, when you were a child, and when you asked so many questions, you were told that 'it is right so,' that 'it must be so,' that 'God made it so,' and that everything was all right.
And you believed your father and mother, as they had believed their fathers and mothers, and that is why you now think just as your grandfather did.
Later, in school, you were told the same things. You were taught that God had made the world and that all is well; that there must be rich and poor, and that you should respect the rich and be content with your lot. You were told that your country stands for justice, and that you must obey the law. The teacher, the priest, and the preacher all impressed it upon you that your life is ordained by God and that 'His will be done.' And when you saw a poor man dragged off to prison, they told you that he was bad because he had stolen something, and that it was a great crime.
But neither at home, nor in school, nor anywhere else were you ever told that it is a crime for the rich man to steal the product of the worker's labor, or that the capitalists are rich because they have possessed themselves of the wealth which labor created.
No, you were never told that, nor did any one else ever hear it in school or church. How can you then expect the workers to know it?
On the contrary, your mind - when you were a child and later on, too - has been stuffed so full of false ideas that when you hear the plain truth you wonder if it is really possible.
Perhaps you can see now why the workers do not understand that the wealth they have created has been stolen from them and is being stolen every day.
'But the law,' you ask, 'the government -- does it permit such robbery? Is not theft forbidden by law?'

I'm giving you it in sections, so has to hopefully not bore you.

[Phantom]

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.

[Hyper]

I live in an ex Soviet union country but simply here is what I think

The overall idea is somewhat good but who are the ones who deal with managing this treasury? I ask this because this idea can only work if every completly every person in the world 100% belives it and if they dont some1 with higher power which would still exist in this system would take advantage.. I belive the world... Classes and so on is needed.. If people wouldnt work or would only do what theyd want to do the world would be in chaos.. I dont agree with the way the world and government is today but Communism is a silly dream a lie.

[mRojas2000]

In some part I do agree comunism... here in italy the first minister is comunism... things havent changed alot... but its because when they get to the power, they get obsessed... so anyways, I do agree with communism in some way... it's way more fair to people who is poor, and middle class...
The problem with lastest communism its that they don't know how to use it, and how to make things more fair, and make the people happy...
Just my thoughts

[kolte]

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.

[Phantom]

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.

[cmpcmp]

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)
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)

[kolte]

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?" (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI1.html#seci13)), 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 -- 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 [I]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 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI6.html) 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 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI4.html). 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 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI3.html)

[Phantom]

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?" (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI1.html#seci13)), 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 -- 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 [I]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 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI6.html) 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 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI4.html). 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 (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.

[cmpcmp]

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"

[kolte]

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.

[Makod]

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.

[cmpcmp]

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?

[Phantom]

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.

[kolte]

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)

[cmpcmp]

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?

[Grotesque]

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.

[kolte]

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. :yes:

[Makod]

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.

[Phantom]

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.

[Makod]

>.>....

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FGI/is_6_13/ai_88575610

There you go.

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

[Grotesque]

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. :yes:

Stereotyping, we will find another way to classify and create even more minorities, we always do.

[kolte]

>.>....

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FGI/is_6_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*

[Makod]

I can safly say thats a burn to phantom *pwned*


Stole the words right from my mouth.

[Phantom]

>.>....

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FGI/is_6_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:rolleyes:

[Makod]

Please look at the bottom/back of variouses pieces of hardware then come back here with proof that all things electrical are made by the USA, or any other high GDP country.

So therefore your argument was crap. Nice try though:rolleyes:

Edit: I'm see the old me, and it burns!
Oooooo Kolte's second personality ::points:: can we keep it? pweese?

[cmpcmp]

Ok can we get back to the subject of the Thread?

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)

In all seriousness what is to stop some on from riding the system?
IF the system is there to be riden I would say that many many ppl would take advantage of that oppurtunity, ppl aren't going to change their nauter just because there is no ownership of coprperations, but there is still money, so....?

[kolte]

allright, you win, imma go to work now. Work my ass off for 8 hours, making slightly enough to survive off of, and then i'm gonna volunteer my spare time educating myself and working at the Texas Democratic Party. Afterwitch i will go to sleep, only to wake up 5 hours later and do it all again.

You have fun mooching off mommy and daddys labour for now, but when the time comes that you work, and suffer, i don't want to hear you complain about the system.

[Phantom]

allright, you win, imma go to work now. Work my ass off for 8 hours, making slightly enough to survive off of, and then i'm gonna volunteer my spare time educating myself and working at the Texas Democratic Party. Afterwitch i will go to sleep, only to wake up 5 hours later and do it all again.

You have fun mooching off mommy and daddys labour for now, but when the time comes that you work, and suffer, i don't want to hear you complain about the system.This is why you go to college, educate yourself, get a good career in a profesion. Or just move to my state minnesota and mooch of welfare that the libs so kindly provide.

[kolte]

of fuck off. I cant afford college you foolish child. I can barley affort to stay alive. god, what do you understand. I just barley afforded my highschool education, what makes you think i can get loans for college. I hate you. People like you make me want to kill everyone. YOu should die. go away.

[Phantom]

of fuck off. I cant afford college you foolish child. I can barley affort to stay alive. god, what do you understand. I just barley afforded my highschool education, what makes you think i can get loans for college. I hate you. People like you make me want to kill everyone. YOu should die. go away.If you had gotten good grades and exceled at highschool you could have gotten a grant. Or why don't you just get a college loan lots of people do. I doubt you barely make enough to stay alive what with the welfare amounts given out. How can you afford the computer your on or internet. It has been proven by many people that if you work hard enough you can succeed. I am sorry you are having a hard time and takeing out your anger on the system. Would you preffer that everything just be given to you instead.

[Grotesque]

If you had gotten good grades and exceled at highschool you could have gotten a grant. Or why don't you just get a college loan lots of people do. I doubt you barely make enough to stay alive what with the welfare amounts given out. How can you afford the computer your on or internet. It has been proven by many people that if you work hard enough you can succeed. I am sorry you are having a hard time and takeing out your anger on the system. Would you preffer that everything just be given to you instead.

Do you realize that no one gets fully paid absolutely everything and how incredibly hard it is to get a huge grant for someone with not a bunch of money to get into collage? You are an idiot. The internet is a necessity these days and is quite cheap...I can imagine the hell teachers have to go through with you.
You may have money, phantom boy...but you lack intellect and therefore will be shit for a living. Don't try saying i'm stupid...i'm not. I'm 3rd in my class of 450. ;)

[Phantom]

Do you realize that no one gets fully paid absolutely everything and how incredibly hard it is to get a huge grant for someone with not a bunch of money to get into collage? You are an idiot. The internet is a necessity these days and is quite cheap...I can imagine the hell teachers have to go through with you.
You may have money, phantom boy...but you lack intellect and therefore will be shit for a living. Don't try saying i'm stupid...i'm not. I'm 3rd in my class of 450. ;)Accualy I am pretty poor, I personaly dont have any moeny, my mom is strugling with 2 jobs. Now its not nice to label people before you know them as you have shown. And no I dont lack intellect I have an IQ of 111 and get A's and B's. If its soooooooooo hard to succeed than how come so many people do it.

[kolte]

fuck. how come so many people don't. You mother works very hard eh? Then why arent you rich. FUcker. I work my ass off. I volunteer. I pay bills and have just enough to eat and sleep and crap. You don't understand life. Your an innocent little child that thinks they know something when they don't. YOu cannot possibly comprehend responsibilty, for you have none. YOu suck. Die.

I have no credit. I hve no loans
I stived in highschool and still sucked. I will get no grants.

I'm gonna be forced to go to community college.
and make subpar wages untill i die

you make me sick. *vomits*

(the old me is mean, I'm not sure I like him very much, but I can afford to renew my perscription, insurence can only cover so much, so I'm here and this is now and your gonna have to deal or bann me)

[Grotesque]

Accualy I am pretty poor, I personaly dont have any moeny, my mom is strugling with 2 jobs. Now its not nice to label people before you know them as you have shown. And no I dont lack intellect I have an IQ of 111 and get A's and B's. If its soooooooooo hard to succeed than how come so many people do it.


That IQ isn't really..good..at all...actually. There are not many people that are nearly poverty-stricken that turn into wealthy people. you are silly to think that your grades would get you anywhere either. a's and b's are about average for people wanting a "little" money to get into a uni. i dont really care about your domestic life, that is why i didnt ask...shoo

[cmpcmp]

You have fun mooching off mommy and daddys labour for now, but when the time comes that you work, and suffer, i don't want to hear you complain about the system.
im 15...... (im not even legally allowed to work that much at all)

maybe the sytem isn't "fair" but a C-A system wouldn't work at all, unless you have forced labor, or ppl infact aren't allowed to use the communities resources and who would force the labor?

[Makod]

If its soooooooooo hard to succeed than how come so many people do it.

rofl...

[Phantom]

That IQ isn't really..good..at all...actually. There are not many people that are nearly poverty-stricken that turn into wealthy people. you are silly to think that your grades would get you anywhere either. a's and b's are about average for people wanting a "little" money to get into a uni. i dont really care about your domestic life, that is why i didnt ask...shooaccualy 111 IQ is above average, and I am 14. I am going to go to college and work hard to get a good career. I am sure once I get out of the marines that will help me alot with all the benifits I will get.

[Phantom]

rofl...hmm I bet you are one of the idiots that think those "homeless" bums you see on the street are accualy homeless, well they aren't at least in my state MN its imposible to be homeless thanks to the liberal handouts.

[kolte]

I know people who are truly homeless you fool. That sleep under bridges, that starve. My father is one of them. My brother another. Thats very ignorant of you to say. BUt its not like I'm suprised to hear another ignorant comment from our young friend phantom. So simple minded you are.

Communism would work. You are just to foolish to reolize it. But oneday, when you come home so tired from a days labor that you vomit. Maybe you will reconsider.

[0=]

111 is 1 point above average if I remember correctly, and the margin of error is what, at least 5? Come back when your IQ is 135, then we'll talk.

[Grotesque]

I know people who are truly homeless you fool. That sleep under bridges, that starve. My father is one of them. My brother another. Thats very ignorant of you to say. BUt its not like I'm suprised to hear another ignorant comment from our young friend phantom. So simple minded you are.

Communism would work. You are just to foolish to reolize it. But oneday, when you come home so tired from a days labor that you vomit. Maybe you will reconsider.


Wow, i've never viewed it this way. I still dislike the idea, but you nudged me. I've always been wealthy, i probably won't or will never have to work and its not fair to so many

[Phantom]

I know people who are truly homeless you fool. That sleep under bridges, that starve. My father is one of them. My brother another. Thats very ignorant of you to say. BUt its not like I'm suprised to hear another ignorant comment from our young friend phantom. So simple minded you are.

Communism would work. You are just to foolish to reolize it. But oneday, when you come home so tired from a days labor that you vomit. Maybe you will reconsider.
I said MY state minnesota

[cmpcmp]

I know people who are truly homeless you fool. That sleep under bridges, that starve. My father is one of them. My brother another. Thats very ignorant of you to say. BUt its not like I'm suprised to hear another ignorant comment from our young friend phantom.
(ps when i read it seems the comment is directed at me, as you refer to phantom as my friend)
-I never said anything about homeless ppl
-I agree there are homeless ppl
-I don't know phantom at all other than this and a few other threads

this is an interesting read
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
Look at the gap between "wealth" and "income"
its in no way evenly distributed but a ton more than 'wealth' this makes sense because most anyone (5% don't) can get a job for at least minimun wage,

-which brings me to a good point, minimum wage should be increased. If it was, hard working ppl who were not born with money would have a lot better footing. Minimumwage should be by cost of living, and then some, In a city the cost in much higher, in the country it is much lower, but the same minimum wage, doesn't make sense.

It is possible to get ahead in america many ppl have done 'dramatic' opera type stories, but thoes are a lot fewer ppl than the scale in which "middle calss" can be established. The realistic american (capitalistic) ideal is that through a highschool and or community college education, you will get to be middle class staus.
71% of people without disabilities own homes
whitehouse.gov
(ps. that was the only #i could find quickly, i don't hate on disabled ppl or anything like that)
If america was really so uneven that ppl who weren't born ahead couldn't get to be, well not behind, then how do 71% of ppl (not disabled) own a house? the ppl who give home loans aren't stupid, other wise they would all run out of money.

[Makod]

He did not say or meen to say that Phantom was your friend.

[cmpcmp]

He did not say or meen to say that Phantom was your friend.

ummm...

BUt its not like I'm suprised to hear another ignorant comment from our young friend phantom.

this isn't really that importiant but am i missing something here?

[Makod]

Heh, yes you are.

[cmpcmp]

any ways..... do u have any good reason why ppl wouldn't want to just ride the system? Not having to do anything is what ppl strive for, its why they play the lotto, to give them the choice of
-doing nothing and still getting every thing they would have gotten anyways
-work hard and get the same thing that they would have if they did nothing

the point is ppl need motivation
-to not break the laws
-and to work doing something productive

I IS impossible to do this w/o some kind of motivation. From what your telling me there really isn't any ounder C-A except to better ur community, not every body will volenteer, over time IMO very few would want to at all. Thus draging the system down, eventualy to a comlete hault.

[kolte]

well, if you don't make food, then you don't eat food. If you don't help the community, then you are shuned from the community. The masses will take care of any moochers.

[Phantom]

well, if you don't make food, then you don't eat food. If you don't help the community, then you are shuned from the community. The masses will take care of any moochers.
This would reduce us back to nothing more than a hunter gatherer society. If you want that please move to africa and live with some tribe.

[cmpcmp]

The masses will take care of any moochers.
the masses? there will be no trials? a kangaroo court?

-how would you make sure that every one had a job who was ususing the resources?
-are there police to enforce this? or is it all played out in the trial of public opinion? are there votes on that to, or are there "judges" and or a "jurry" to decide it?


-assuming that the "masses" decide not to mooch for w/e reason, and they do decide to work, but they all choose "easy" jobs, or ones they personaly enjoy like working with children and designing video games or w/e it really doesn't matter. If there are certian necesary jobs that aren't filled, what happens then? are ppl forced into thoes jobs? if so who would be forced, if every one is equal?
-If ur really bad at your job/you are a slacker, then how do you get fired? is there some one w/ authority? (manager/ceo or w/e) or is everything voted on on that level also?
(sounds like a rediculios amount of voting to me, and a popularity contest also)

[cmpcmp]

are there no awnsers because you have no awnsers?

If so thats why i don't think C_A would work

[kolte]

I don't have a fucking degree in fucking socialist theory or anything you fucker. God I wish I could slit your throat online. You annoy me.

And phantom, primitive anarchism and anarchist communism are two completly different things.

CmpCmp, there are no answers becasue I work for a living and don't have too much time to sit in front of my comptuer and vegitate, If I don't work, I don't eat, I don't pay bills and I suffer and die a premature death, which is what you will suffer by my hands one day if you don't stop badgering me for answers. Pick up a book you fool, read something that explains it, I don't have time to teach you every little detail. If there was a political party, or perhaps an organization that had a platform or something similer I could answer these question no problem. But AC is a political ideology. To try and answer yoru questions would be to make smoething up. I'm not going to do that because I dont' fuking know. But I'm sure I allready fucking said that.

fool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/revpamphlets/anarchistcommunism.html
http://www.zabalaza.net/platform.htm
http://www.af-north.org/principles.htm
http://flag.blackened.net/af/
http://www.answers.com/topic/anarchist-communism
http://www.nefac.net/
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3694\
http://flag.blackened.net/af/org/issue42/acbrit.html
http://flag.blackened.net/heatwave/
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1900s/01_07_x01.htm
http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/kropotki/sp000065.txt
http://www.answers.com/topic/melbourne-anarchist-communist-group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1840/prin-com.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0813068.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/
http://www.worldsocialism.org/
http://www.socialism.com/
http://www.answers.com/topic/socialism

go to any one of these links and you will find any answer you were looking for I'm sure.

[Phantom]

I don't have a ing degree in ing socialist theory or anything you er. God I wish I could slit your throat online. You annoy me.

And phantom, primitive anarchism and communism are two completly different things.

CmpCmp, there are no answers becasue I work for a living and don't have too much time to sit in front of my comptuer and vegitate, If I don't work, I don't eat, I don't pay bills and I suffer and die a premature , which is what you will suffer by my hands one day if you don't stop badgering me for answers. Pick up a book you fool, read something that explains it, I don't have time to teach you every little detail. If there was a political party, or perhaps an organization that had a platform or something similer I could answer these question no problem. But AC is a political ideology. To try and answer yoru questions would be to make smoething up. I'm not going to do that because I dont' fuking know. But I'm sure I allready ing said that.

fool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/revpamphlets/anarchistcommunism.html
http://www.zabalaza.net/platform.htm
http://www.af-north.org/principles.htm
http://flag.blackened.net/af/
http://www.answers.com/topic/anarchist-communism
http://www.nefac.net/
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3694\
http://flag.blackened.net/af/org/issue42/acbrit.html
http://flag.blackened.net/heatwave/
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1900s/01_07_x01.htm
http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/kropotki/sp000065.txt
http://www.answers.com/topic/melbourne-anarchist-communist-group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1840/prin-com.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0813068.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/
http://www.worldsocialism.org/
http://www.socialism.com/
http://www.answers.com/topic/socialism

go to any one of these links and you will find any answer you were looking for I'm sure.You should'nt need a degree to answer f*cking simple questions f*cker, if you cant answer such basic questions aparently its not going to work f*ck face

[kolte]

well if there were answers to those fucking questions Id fucking use them you dumbass

[Phantom]

well if there were answers to those ing questions Id ing use them you dumbassThere is not logical answers so therefore your little dream system fails.

[kolte]

no its beause its a political ideology, not a political part with a platforum, or a drafted consitution, or a drafted governing body.

god your an ignorant fuck.

[Phantom]

no its beause its a political ideology, not a political part with a platforum, or a drafted consitution, or a drafted governing body.

god your an ignorant .Go live with a tribe in africa

[cmpcmp]

I don't have a ing degree in ing socialist theory or anything you er. God I wish I could slit your throat online. You annoy me.
theres that killing ppl (me) thing again.......

Phantom and kolte, stop swearing, name calling, and making general asses of yourselves, u don't do anyone any good.

CmpCmp, there are no answers becasue I work for a living and don't have too much time to sit in front of my comptuer and vegitate
Ok, fine, but do take into account that you are on a debate forum, when some one asks you a question about what YOU think about a topic (the subject you brought up about C-A),

don't be offended that they (I) think you should have an opinion. and don't quote them 15 articles, after the 20 books, and the 9 page post. When u complain that you don't have time (don't you see that as hipocritical a little bit?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK now something constructive to say.....
-In order to advance as a society and live in a 'modern' world with advancement in science and technology, not every body can work their own land for their own food.
-in order for a society to not require this, ppl must be organized in what they do and be able to get what they need w/o providing it directly from their own labor. In most societys this is achieved using 'money'
-If there is a job unfilled, the money offered for that job will increase untill someone wants to do it for the right amount of compensation.
-with C-A this doesn't exist, so you have a few scenerios......

1. Your society trys to move forward w/o these jobs fufilled, and probly isn't succesfull. If you don't have, lets say garbage men (or recycle ppl or w/e) you will stack your trash prety high, which will cause big problems.
2. If there is no money, then ppl are gifted in other ways to preform their job. Unfortunately this can't happen as all you have done is rename money into something else, and then insto facto, you have wage labor (which is clearly against C-A).
3. You force some ppl to work at some job, but how could you do this? wouldn't it make labor involentary, and one step further, not even the labor you wanted? plus who would decide who worked where?

and...

If some one was bad at there job, who would fire them? would there have to be a vote?

it sounds like a lot of things to me,

- C-A either has forced labor, in which case you would have to have either authorities with power, or another vote. Also sounds like a popularity contest to me, as not every one in the country, sate, town or what ever knows them, it would only be the ppl that did know them that would vote.


- C-A is either a popularity contest democracy with absurd amounts of voting, or it has authorities with power (thus no longer an anarchy), or forced and or waged labor, which isn't C-A at all really. Plus there couldn't be laws with out a system to make them, enforce them, and some one with some kind of power. for these reasons, and others like ppl mooching off of the system, C-A wouldn't ever work, humans are the fault, not the system, if humans were perfect, we wouldn't need the system anyways.
-

[Makod]

Guys, every system of government is flawed no matter what you think, deal with it folks.

Also: when you completely ignore everything Kolte says he gets like this so... try listening to him sometime and maybe he won't get angry >.>.

Oh and by the way: Fuck the Fucking Fuckers.

[Phantom]

Native americans used to have some kind of C-A. Sure it sounds nice I am not sure how it would be to live in it but it would NEVER work.

[cmpcmp]

Guys, every system of government is flawed no matter what you think, deal with it folks.
-exactly what i have been syaing, and it is because humans are 'imperfect', so the only systems that work at all are ones that have built in mechanisms to deal with the unfortunate properties of human behavior/being.

-my argument isn't that C-A is imperfect and that capitalism is.

-neither are perfect, but capitalism can, and does work.

-Any form of government that expects that humans will do stuff and work hard to get the exact same thing as they would have doesn't make any sense

-IMO a C-A society would fail, and the only way to have it not fail, is to make it more like a representative domacracy (capitalistic), and then you really don't have a C-A.


Capitalistic R-D is the lesser of all evil that are Functioning governments.

[Makod]

-exactly what i have been syaing, and it is because humans are 'imperfect', so the only systems that work at all are ones that have built in mechanisms to deal with the unfortunate properties of human behavior/being.

-my argument isn't that C-A is imperfect and that capitalism is.

-neither are perfect, but capitalism can, and does work.

-Any form of government that expects that humans will do stuff and work hard to get the exact same thing as they would have doesn't make any sense

-IMO a C-A society would fail, and the only way to have it not fail, is to make it more like a representative domacracy (capitalistic), and then you really don't have a C-A.


Capitalistic R-D is the lesser of all evil that are Functioning governments.

Actually, no, all governments are faulted in the same way, there is no "lesser evil."

And, no, capitalism does not work for everyone; it may work for you, but people who are not well off in our society would beg to differ.

[Phantom]

Actually, no, all governments are faulted in the same way, there is no "lesser evil."

And, no, capitalism does not work for everyone; it may work for you, but people who are not well off in our society would beg to differ.Yeah for a bum that dosnt want to work. We have a thing called welfare (for some odd reason the libs wanna give more of it out) you cant work because you have a disablity you get welfare, hell you are a lazy bum that dosnt wanna work you can get welfare. There is no such thing as a not so well off person in a sense, sure you can be born rich but thats just because the people before you worked hard to make that moeny. If you work hard get an education accualy try you will be just fine. at least in my state it is impossible to be homeless because of the welfare, we have tons of people that just mooch of welfare which comes from the people that work hard.

[cmpcmp]

Actually, no, all governments are faulted in the same way, there is no "lesser evil."

And, no, capitalism does not work for everyone; it may work for you, but people who are not well off in our society would beg to differ.
-Capitalism is faulted
-C-A is faulted
-they aren't faulted in all of the same ways

WHat im saying is that a true C-A gov, wouldn't 'work' hardly at all, to todays first world standards. Democratic Capitalism does.
-if you want to argue that C-A would work reasonably well, then argue that, (you aren't doing that right now)
------------------------------
In capitalism ppl that inherit, and can afford a better education are better off. Even the poorest of poor in america can get a job, any one who is willing to work (asuming that it isn't a depression at the time) can get a job some where. Ppl are always looking for more workers that do a good job. From there you can work your way up, sure if ur unlucky this may never happen, but if you work hard, you will be in high demand, and thus move up on the ladder to some where that you are more usefull.

the whole point is that there are ppl born on the bottom, the middle the top and every where inbetween. If you are born high and are a terrible worker at w/e you do, you will probly get fired and move down, and some one lower will move up and take your place. A good example is my grand father, who's father was a junkyard owner and was very poor. Through hard work and investment, he has worked his way all of the way up to the top of the ladder. Was he lucky? yes, was it coincidental? no.

C-A
If there is no reason to try and 'climb the ladder' whats the point of even working in the first place? you were born on the middle of the ladder, you will live on the middle of the ladder, and you will die on the middle of the ladder no matter what you do

-is this =? yes,
-is it fair? no way. If you work hard all of youor life, guess where you will be? in the middle if you are a lazy shit guess where you will be? in the middle
----------------------------------------------------------------
if u argue that a C-A would 'work' up to todays standards of :
-communications
-roads
-police
-production
-and every thing else, then argue that, don't just tell me they are the same becuase they are both flawed, CUZ they are different, but both are flawed.

[Makod]

Did you not understand? All governments fail equally.

Yeah for a bum that dosnt want to work. We have a thing called welfare (for some odd reason the libs wanna give more of it out) you cant work because you have a disablity you get welfare, hell you are a lazy bum that dosnt wanna work you can get welfare. There is no such thing as a not so well off person in a sense, sure you can be born rich but thats just because the people before you worked hard to make that moeny. If you work hard get an education accualy try you will be just fine. at least in my state it is impossible to be homeless because of the welfare, we have tons of people that just mooch of welfare which comes from the people that work hard.

Heh, ok so bums are lazy, you ever talk to one?

[cmpcmp]

Did you not understand? All governments fail equally.
No u don't understand.
-If u think that all governments fail equaly, then you don't understand the concept of equality.
-Not all governemnts are the same, so differnet things happen,
-none are perfect but some are definitely 'better' than others.

Actually, no, all governments are faulted in the same way, there is no "lesser evil."
-is democracy a "lesser evil" than 'hardline islamic theocracy'?
-if you think that they are both equaly faulted i question your judgement.

-they aren't the same thing (democracy, and theocracy) so they produce different results, and different problems. So, one CAN be a lesser evil because thay are different form eachother.

[*Dissident*]

All governemts are doomed to fail. Greed is a product of the human instinct of self preservation, "I need this money". Think about it, to be fair in society, you have to be cruel. Just look at the famous utlitarian story: the only blacksmith becomes drunk and angery at a fellow bar mate, and stabs him to death in rage. The punishment for murder, in this society, is death. But, the blacksmith is the only one in the town, and they depend on him for his work. there are two bakers, and one is old, so he should die in the blacksmiths place. they end up killing the baker for the betterment of the town. No government can be fair and humane, and people cannot be led.

[Makod]

With good comes bad, and vice versa; there is no government that will, or could, ever satisfy everyone's needs or wants.

No u don't understand.
-If u think that all governments fail equaly, then you don't understand the concept of equality.
-Not all governemnts are the same, so differnet things happen,
-none are perfect but some are definitely 'better' than others.


-is democracy a "lesser evil" than 'hardline islamic theocracy'?
-if you think that they are both equaly faulted i question your judgement.

-they aren't the same thing (democracy, and theocracy) so they produce different results, and different problems. So, one CAN be a lesser evil because thay are different form eachother.
All I see here is a wall of opinions. But I digress, the world consists mostly of opinions.

[cmpcmp]

With good comes bad, and vice versa; there is no government that will, or could, ever satisfy everyone's needs or wants.

this is true, but some governemnts do meet a lot more needs of the ppl than others.

so my question to you is,
-If you had to be born into a society randomly (could be high class, could be low, or middle)
-would you want to be born into a specific type of government over another?

say democracy over theocracy or a similar choice.

[Makod]

Heh, we are talking about the concepts of governments, not the governments as they are today? Right?

If that is the case, I'd want to be part of a communist or aristocratic nation. However the ideal government is different for everyone, that is why all governments are equal, and there is no lesser evil.

If we are talking about governments as they are today, I would probably choose democracy, and live in Canada.

[Phantom]

Goverments are not evil, at least not most of them. Why dont the people that say goverments are evil go live in the bush in africa lets see how long they survive, probably intill sombody just walks up and kills they because there are no laws.

[Phantom]

Heh, we are talking about the concepts of governments, not the governments as they are today? Right?

If that is the case, I'd want to be part of a communist or aristocratic nation. However the ideal government is different for everyone, that is why all governments are equal, and there is no lesser evil.

If we are talking about governments as they are today, I would probably choose democracy, and live in Canada.But in canada the gov took their guns!!! lol. No not all goverments are evil, would you rather live in a democracy or a facism.

[Makod]

It's a matter of opinion and fascism, as far as I know, is not a type of government.

[Phantom]

It's a matter of opinion and m, as far as I know, is not a type of government.Yes it is it kinda falls under dictatorship or oligarchy

[Makod]

Hmmm... you're probably thinking of a theocracy. I'd prefer not to live in a theocracy but there are people who would disagree.

[Phantom]

Hmmm... you're probably thinking of a theocracy. I'd prefer not to live in a theocracy but there are people who would disagree.Theocracy is where the gov is governed by religion such as Iran.

[Makod]

Theocracy is where the gov is governed by religion such as Iran.

Exactly, is that what you ment by fascism?

[cmpcmp]

However the ideal government is different for everyone, that is why all governments are equal, and there is no lesser evil.
U don't think that most ppl would be happier in a Canada like setting than an Iran/former Iraq setting? clearly to most one is better then some other, and we should strive to be one that is 'best' and 'fairest' to every one.

Do you agree?

[Phantom]

Exactly, is that what you ment by m?Kinda, there are'nt to many facisms still around. Maybe north korea.

[Makod]

Kinda, there are'nt to many facisms still around. Maybe north korea.

North Korea is supposedly "Communist."

U don't think that most ppl would be happier in a Canada like setting than an Iran/former Iraq setting? clearly to most one is better then some other, and we should strive to be one that is 'best' and 'fairest' to every one.

Do you agree?
I agree that most people would rather live in Canada, yes. That doesn't meen there is any "lesser evil" because it's all based on opinions.

[Phantom]

North Korea is supposedly "Communist."Communism is a type of economy

[Makod]

Um... you serious? Then what type of government is China's government?

[Phantom]

Um... you serious? Then what type of government is China's government?Yes I am serious. Communism also refered to as a command economy.
China is turning into a market economy now also refered to as capitalism.

[Makod]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism

Just looked it up, it is both a system of government and a type of economy.

[Phantom]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism

Just looked it up, it is both a system of government and a type of economy.No its not they just taught us this in Goverment and economics in school. It usualy goes along with a dictatorship though so thats probably where you are getting this.

[cmpcmp]

Often times the government directly or indirectly controlls the economy.
-communism is a governemnt type, and it also controlls how the economy works (there are different types of communism)

North Korea is supposedly "Communist."

Many countries offical titles don't reflect there actual innerworkings. Ie "the ppls republic of....." is often used to stand (in reality) for the "fascist dictator ship of...."

further...
Facism:
1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Communism:
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Communism is both, facism can be an adjective and a system of goverment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope fully this will conclude this segument on definitions, can we get back to the actual topic?

My question is....
-Does any one here belive that a C-A system of governemnt would work in reality? If so would it work better than a capitalistic system with democracy? If you chose to defend it, Im aware that there are many differnet types and specific detail on each type of governemnt, so awnser to your opinion of what is best, cuz all of any type of gov aren't he 'same'.

[cmpcmp]

Is this thread no longer discussable? no one wants to argue communism?

[*Dissident*]

I have come to the conclusion that the idea of a nation is flawed. don't you think that there would be much less problems, and global equality, and peace, if there was just one Earth, and not 200 some nations? Why not consolidate? greed. those in charge dont want to sacrifice anything to help any other nation.

[Phantom]

I have come to the conclusion that the idea of a nation is flawed. don't you think that there would be much less problems, and global equality, and peace, if there was just one Earth, and not 200 some nations? Why not consolidate? greed. those in charge dont want to sacrifice anything to help any other nation.To bad that will never happen. Humans have a tendancy to split themselfs up in to groups. Why dont you go to the middle east and see if they want to combine with us lol.
Goverments are very good without them what would stop somone from just walking up to your and you.

[*Dissident*]

To bad that will never happen. Humans have a tendancy to split themselfs up in to groups. Why dont you go to the middle east and see if they want to combine with us lol.
Goverments are very good without them what would stop somone from just walking up to your and you.


if people didnt try or believe in things because they thought it would never happen, how many modern advances in technology, medicine, politics, etc would we be without?

[*Dissident*]

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

[cmpcmp]

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

.....Yes, to awnser your quesetion you are a dreamer. The dream or theory, or idea or w/e the is communism has been tried. But it is flawed badly and either fail or leads to tyrany/capitalism historicly.

The problem lies in the fact that ppl must at some point be told what to do (cuz no one wants to work in sewage treatment), and there has to be some one to tell them what to do, there fore there can't be equality.

As has been showed over and over power----->courption (usualy, and inevitably)

[*Dissident*]

but there would be no power...everyone is equal...

[cmpcmp]

Ok this is from a previus post but it is relevent,

C-A-communist anarchy (your supporting that right?)
In case you missed it C-A is communism that every one is equal there is no money, every one shares common resources and it sounds like what ur supporting or really close to it

(at that time it was directed at Kolte so it may be off in parts, but u talked about no power and stuff.... so yea.)

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

-In order to advance as a society and live in a 'modern' world with advancement in science and technology, not every body can work their own land for their own food.
-in order for a society to not require this, ppl must be organized in what they do and be able to get what they need w/o providing it directly from their own labor. In most societys this is achieved using 'money'
-If there is a job unfilled, the money offered for that job will increase untill someone wants to do it for the right amount of compensation.
-with C-A this doesn't exist, so you have a few scenerios......

1. Your society trys to move forward w/o these jobs fufilled, and probly isn't succesfull. If you don't have, lets say garbage men (or recycle ppl or w/e) you will stack your trash prety high, which will cause big problems.
2. If there is no money, then ppl are gifted in other ways to preform their job. Unfortunately this can't happen as all you have done is rename money into something else, and then insto facto, you have wage labor (which is clearly against C-A).
3. You force some ppl to work at some job, but how could you do this? wouldn't it make labor involentary, and one step further, not even the labor you wanted? plus who would decide who worked where?

and...

If some one was bad at there job, who would fire them? would there have to be a vote?

it sounds like a lot of things to me,

- C-A either has forced labor, in which case you would have to have either authorities with power, or another vote. Also sounds like a popularity contest to me, as not every one in the country, sate, town or what ever knows them, it would only be the ppl that did know them that would vote.


- C-A is either a popularity contest democracy with absurd amounts of voting, or it has authorities with power (thus no longer an anarchy), or forced and or waged labor, which isn't C-A at all really. Plus there couldn't be laws with out a system to make them, enforce them, and some one with some kind of power. for these reasons, and others like ppl mooching off of the system, C-A wouldn't ever work, humans are the fault, not the system, if humans were perfect, we wouldn't need the system anyways.

(don't awnser all of them do more of a summary if u can)

and please explain what the governemnt's response to these issues are (listed below)
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"

[*Dissident*]

wow, thats the best rebuttal i have ever seen on this forum. congratulations.

Unfortunatly, I am afraid I have to hand it to you, the system has some pretty major flaws. I am not as well versed on the subject as many (Kolte especially) and cannot give you a real answer. As far as my understanding goes, for communism to work, there has to be power in small buisnesses, like store managers. there would be no big corporations, and noe single buisness controling the whole of anything, like the US economy or microsoft or walmart or anything. there would be fair wages, i guess, until other matters can be worked out. everyone gets pretty much the same salary, but you can choose how to spend it. food, transportation, shelter, and neccisary services (mail, doctors office, etc.) will be provided by the government*, but anything having to do with pleasures or anything (such as a TV, or a couch, or basket ball) you will have the option of buying with what money you have. there will be no taxes, because there will be no need, all services will be provided by the private sector commisioned by the government.

now, when i say government, i mean it lightly. there will be no president, no ruler. there will be a legeslative system much like the United states, but much bigger, and less corrupt. they will decide the law, and commision private services to accomodate the citizens. it will be very large, and they will be elected in sets, a fourth of the members run for (re)election every year, with 4 year terms, and a 3 term limit. if one resigns, there will be a new election withen the next 2 months from whatever sector/state that representative was elected from. the two bodies, essentially the senate and house, will act just as the united states government works. however, they will be paid the same as everyone else, aproximatly 45-70 thousand "dollars" per year. they will not be able to change this. they may make laws in accordance with the constitution, which garuntees human rights and libreties. the constitutionality of these laws will go to the people to vote on. the congressenal system will be a body of the people. any changes to the law will be voted upon by the leaders of each individual person, or maybe city leaders. a 2/3 majority is required for a law to be passed. the only veto is by the people.

thats all i got for now, have to do homework. i am starting to like this debate.

[cmpcmp]

ok thats all fine and good, logical, democratic even. Theres just one problem.
**I know u can't speak for every one, so say what you think should be done**

What happens if i decide not to work?
-Would i still get paid?
-Would i still get medical, emergency services, and w/e that im asuming it is free to all workers (correct me if im wrong)
-Would i be forced to work?

-What if im terrible at my job, it could be form laziness or lack of skill, or im disabled or w/e; Do i still get paid as long as im working?
-If I can be fired then who can fire me?
-Could ppl choose w/e job they wanted?
-would there be entertainment jobs? IE: sports player, singer, clown.....
-If there was a job that no one wanted, but it was important to the community (like working at a sewage treatment plant) would someone be forced to work there? Keep in mind you can't "pay" them more than every one else, as every one gets paid the same amount.

is there investment?
If so who decides the investing, the ppl with their yearly salaries, or elected people?

[*Dissident*]

entertainment jobs are, as many agree, actually very valuable to society, for relaxation, enjoyment, and advertising as well (commercials on TV). Those unemployed will be unemployed for a good reason, such as disability, fired, etc, you will recieve government aid in the form of necessities, such as food, water, electricity, etc. you have 1 year to find a job until they start taking things away, starting with electricity, then transportation, etc, until all you have left is food and water and medical, after 2 years, i guess. im not so sure how this would work exactly, im only 15, but something along those lines. if you choose not to work, you get no salary, for one, and you have 1 year until we start taking things away, and you must work for another 5 years before you can choose to stop working and still recieve benefits, or something.

Now, comes small buisness management. those who are managers/owners of the buisness will have all rights to fire or hire whoever they please, but keep in mind they are losing an employee, and will have to hire another. these small buisness managers will be just that, managers. they oversee their individual locations. there wont be chain restaurants or movie theaters or shopping centers.

Now, as for investment. I am not well versed on capitalist investment either, so im just taking a guess. anyway, if its all small buisness, there will be no need for investment, really. if you really want to, i guess, than it has to be open to everyone with money. buisness growth is limited, i would have to say, because super corporations need to be avoided.

as to unfavorable jobs... i mean, you cant have 50 people working at a McDonalds, can you? you can only have so many employees at a certain location, that you just cant take on anymore. those that have been refused from other jobs may find that sewage or recycling work may be their only means of a salary, and continued government benefits.

Of course you could choose the job you wanted. you just apply for it, just like today. whether the manager of the buisness you are applying for wants you to work for them, is another story.

[cmpcmp]

Ok, youv sliped back almost to capitalism (u seem to be at a socialistic democracy), but with a few exceptions.

-how does one beocme the guy that gets to fire/hire ppl?
-how much power does he have?
-as he owns, or runs a bussiness, where does the money he gets paid go to?
-All back to the Gov, or does he and or his employees get to keep some?
-If he gets to keep some, then how is it not capitalism ?(profit?).....If he doesn't get to keep some, then why would he work hard? Why work at all?
-why have a bussiness at all, if you don't actualy get anything out of it?

[*Dissident*]

you basically cant earn more money than everyone else. you get a fixed salary, and maybe a little increase if you are the manager of the store. the purpose of getting money is just to be able to choose what you spend it on, i suppose. you could save it, spend it, throw it away, but you earn the same amount of money that everyone else does. This is the only limiting factor keeping somebody from just getting whatever the hell they want, or not being able to choose whatever they get. the managers would be either voted on by the employees of the store for someone who can accept resoponsibility and use it wisley. another thing i never mentioned, was that if you choose not to join a business, you can register as a frrelance (insert job here) this is for all the artisits or writers and jobs that dont take buisness' to do. Carl Marx always said socialism was the first step to true communism, when eventually you dont need the government to control buisness anymore.


another thing, i was hoping we could get away from exact specifics, because im only 15 and i dont like to discuss them. Communism as a general principle and a summary of how it would work, is where i would like to head back to.

[cmpcmp]

(i am 15 years old also)
another thing, i was hoping we could get away from exact specifics, because im only 15 and i dont like to discuss them. Communism as a general principle and a summary of how it would work, is where i would like to head back to.
-A summary is a summary, by definition it isn't the whole thing, and so it can't work on its own.

-The problem with ur latest adition is that there is no motivation to have a good bussiness, shop or w/e. No matter how "well" you do you can't ever get more money (or anything good), so there is no reason to serve the ppl well.
-Why would u "invest" some of your money into a bussiness that you aren't going to get anything out of? The point of investment is that you get more back later.
-lazy ppl would just become "artists" and do a lot of "thinking" (absolutely nothing)

tell me if u disagree w/ any on this/\or\/

The problem i see with communism (or extreme socialism) is that if you go too far then theres no motivaion (for most ppl, unless u have a dictator), if u have motivation then u have gotten urself all the way around the circle back to capitalism or something very similar.

[*Dissident*]

(i am 15 years old also)

-A summary is a summary, by definition it isn't the whole thing, and so it can't work on its own.

-The problem with ur latest adition is that there is no motivation to have a good bussiness, shop or w/e. No matter how "well" you do you can't ever get more money (or anything good), so there is no reason to serve the ppl well.
-Why would u "invest" some of your money into a bussiness that you aren't going to get anything out of? The point of investment is that you get more back later.
-lazy ppl would just become "artists" and do a lot of "thinking" (absolutely nothing)

tell me if u disagree w/ any on this/\or\/

The problem i see with communism (or extreme socialism) is that if you go too far then theres no motivaion (for most ppl, unless u have a dictator), if u have motivation then u have gotten urself all the way around the circle back to capitalism or something very similar.

you have raised very good points. I can see this working, by if you cant maintain a good buisness and a good work ethic, the government will cut your pay accordingly. working hard is important for
1) your manager wont fire you
2) the government will pay full salary
3) you might be (if you choose to run) elected for store manager

its not true capatilism, because the money is just a symbol to give you choice in what you want to buy. The government will give you anything you need, but you wont get the best cars, or the nicest of the houses, or any food for a special occasion, those are the things you can use your symbolic money on. money just represents credit you get for having worked, and those credits you can spend on whatever you like, save them up, spend it on a nice car, add a new bathroom and bedroom for your new baby, etc.

Now, This isnt Communistic Anarchy. That phase of government will have to come gradually, stemming from this phase. This is a kind of Democrasy, not the faux democracy we have today in the US (this is for another conversation). It would be better if every single citizen with a middle school education could vote on everything, but there are just to many people for that to work as a whole civilization, such as the US or Britain. This communistic democracy can really only work in small tribes, and maybe a city, but not for whole countries and maybe even the whole world. eventually, we would make minor changes to ease ourselves closer to less and less government control, less and less money, less and less of evreything, until all you have are people who are willing to live like this, to make things and give you things. It would require an unprecedented amount of generosity and understanding. The public institutions of today would shift to the private sector, and people would just live, no one actually owning anything, but everybody owning everything.
But, again, this is a long, long way off

[cmpcmp]

But, again, this is a long, long way off
-unless time changes human behavior and nature, then this eutopia ia a long way away indeed. Humans aren't perfect, never have been, so we must embrase a system that understands and has things set up for this.

-Communism, as i see it, doesn't do this, as at some point u are doing extra for nothing (not for your self) and u can't get many ppl to do something for nothing, when the alternative is being "lazy" and doing what u want. (Im not saying that communist dictatorships are really "communism")
-In recent (current) history, to get around this, "communist" countries have been ran by a dictator, with varying degrees or failure. Often, up to millions of ppl end up dying and usualy personal freedoms are heavily restricted.

Giving someone too much power, and no accountability, is a bad thing.

[*Dissident*]

I agree, and at a practical standpoint, C-A seems flawed unless we change the basis of the system, which I am to tired to do right now, thank you very much.

But on terms of fair-unfair, I think this system is utopian indeed, no?

[cmpcmp]

But on terms of fair-unfair, I think this system is utopian indeed, no?
It is not "fair" in any way, it is "equal". There is a differnece.
-Fair is every one gets what they deserve, and no more or less.
-Equal is every one gets the same amount.

Humans aren't the same thing as other humans, they are unequal. One person may be able to life 450 pound, and another only 100. One may type 1000 words per minute and the other 5. Is this equal? no.

while humans are unequal, the fundamental value that i live with and im pretty sure that you do to, is that the "value" or "sanctity" of a person is equal. (life has value that is =, human life=human life.) So we aford them the same rights.

A system that doesn't reward the hard working isn't fair, its unfair. A system in which ppl get just as much for being an artist, as a field laborer, as a teacher, as a musician, as a Hot dog stand worker.
-Lets say that the field worker works eight hours in 90* to restore electricity to the city.
-at the same time a teacher teaches 2nd grade and has the kids take nap time and then reccess. Should they both get paid the same since they are both working? NO.

(in respose to future possible comment)
The concept of the government paying ppl what they think that theyre worth (varying amounts) doesn't make sense either. Would the Gov look at every body and then decide? would the employer get to decide? (if the workers elect the employer, then wouldn't they elect one that would pay them as much as possible always?). Theyr are numerous problems with this system.

[*Dissident*]

Anarchist communists argue that there is no valid way of measuring the value of any one person's economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations.

does that work?

[cmpcmp]

Anarchist communists argue that there is no valid way of measuring the value of any one person's economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations.
does that work?
does that work?
Nope. Its still "unfair". But it is Equal.
Ur quote actualy goes to what i was saying about how the Gov can't possibly measure everyones economic contributions.

[kolte]

Fairness. Equality. Is that what we have now? Do you know what I see? I see a hungry child sifting threw a trash can behind a fast food joint, even when both is mother and father work double jobs. I see a shisty landlord robbing them of ever penny. I see a drug dealer become of there son, at the ripe old age of eleven. Fuck, there on welfare, but its a system that keeps them poor. Keeps them feed and working class. Its what we need to survive. I see gas prices skyrocketing a few old bastards become billionaires. I see a dollar bill with nothing backing it. Children dying in the streets of Iraq who whould have been alive if this war wouldnt have happend. North Korea blowing up nuclear missels. Iran preaching about the Death of the United States and Isreal. The united states and Isreal cleansing an entire people. And you know what, I laugh! I fucking laugh! I hope every last person on this world dies and that includes me. Screw em all I say, the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the Saints, the Children, the Adults, The sluts and the pimps, the cripples and the Physical Trainer. Fuck them. Sombody gets power they get currupt. We got half america living off fast food, dying at 40 from obeasity. It makes me laugh! I laugh at the fat MF's, and there piggy children. Bunch of nerds sitting on computers complaining about there freedoms. Bunch of nobodies with lots of talk and no action. Little babies whould piss there pants at the site of gun in the face. I want you to know I support the war in Iraq, In afghanistan, in Sudan, and the Terrorists. The more people who die the more happy I am. In fact I hope you die of starvation after your mother is raped in front of you with a splinterd tree branch. Go to hell you spoiled damn nerds.

cheereo!

[Makod]

Fairness. Equality. Is that what we have now? Do you know what I see? I see a hungry child sifting threw a trash can behind a fast food joint, even when both is mother and father work double jobs. I see a shisty landlord robbing them of ever penny. I see a drug dealer become of there son, at the ripe old age of eleven. Fuck, there on welfare, but its a system that keeps them poor. Keeps them feed and working class. Its what we need to survive. I see gas prices skyrocketing a few old bastards become billionaires. I see a dollar bill with nothing backing it. Children dying in the streets of Iraq who whould have been alive if this war wouldnt have happend. North Korea blowing up nuclear missels. Iran preaching about the Death of the United States and Isreal. The united states and Isreal cleansing an entire people. And you know what, I laugh! I fucking laugh! I hope every last person on this world dies and that includes me. Screw em all I say, the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the Saints, the Children, the Adults, The sluts and the pimps, the cripples and the Physical Trainer. Fuck them. Sombody gets power they get currupt. We got half america living off fast food, dying at 40 from obeasity. It makes me laugh! I laugh at the fat MF's, and there piggy children. Bunch of nerds sitting on computers complaining about there freedoms. Bunch of nobodies with lots of talk and no action. Little babies whould piss there pants at the site of gun in the face. I want you to know I support the war in Iraq, In afghanistan, in Sudan, and the Terrorists. The more people who die the more happy I am. In fact I hope you die of starvation after your mother is raped in front of you with a splinterd tree branch. Go to hell you spoiled damn nerds.

cheereo!

This is very true, yet insulting (also is sort of humorous in a demented way)... <3 Kolte, welcome back!

I want you to know I support the war in Iraq, In afghanistan, in Sudan, and the Terrorists.

Mmm... good way to combat the population growth, come to think of it.

In fact I hope you die of starvation after your mother is raped in front of you with a splinterd tree branch. Go to hell you spoiled damn nerds.
Omg you threatened me! /elawyer That's against the law! http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/dd/Iwillsue.jpg/elawyer

[cmpcmp]

Fairness. Equality. Is that what we have now?
-I never said that we had fairness, or equality. It was a discussion about a theorietical utopia (probly not based in reality)

I see gas prices skyrocketing
Funny, what have gas prices done in the last few months?

the more happy I am. In fact I hope you die of starvation after your mother is raped in front of you with a splinterd tree branch. Go to hell you spoiled damn nerds.
As long as were all being civil, rational and generaly NOT flaming or anything like that.
(theres that pesky u wishing death on me again, its like the 4th time this month.)

I see a hungry child sifting threw a trash can behind a fast food joint, even when both is mother and father work double jobs.
the average income is soming like
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/launchpad/5577/philo/incomes.htm

Percentile-50

Frequency-1 in 2

1968 after tax Income-7,000

1990 after tax Income-18,000

If 2 average ppl (50%ile) work 2 jobs each, then they should be making something like at least $37,000 a year. Thats enough to get food and an apartment. for the bottom 25%its 22k, also enough.

Poverty line for: Four people, including two children under 18 years -- $17,463

currently in the US 10% of ppl are below the poverty line, I think this # is way too large and we should do more to lower it.

Children dying in the streets of Iraq who whould have been alive if this war wouldnt have happend.
Its estimated that because of saddam and his actions, which lead to UN sanctions caused the easily avoidable death of someting like 500,000 children under saddam.
Thursday, August 12, 1999 Published at 14:02 GMT 15:02 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/418625.stm
At least she is surviving. Unicef estimates that at least 500,000 children have died, who ordinarily would have lived.

The united states and Isreal cleansing an entire people.
-where is this genocide happening? (i assume thats what u mean by cleansing)

[Makod]

If 2 average ppl (50%ile) work 2 jobs each, then they should be making something like at least $37,000 a year. Thats enough to get food and an apartment. for the bottom 25%its 22k, also enough.

That really is, not enough.

[cmpcmp]

That really is, not enough.
not enough to keep u out of the garbage can at McDonalds?

If thats not enough, why haven't ppl on other countries simply stavven to death? If 1/2 of america is eating out of the fast food garbage cans, then whos buying the MCdonalds in the first place? and half of americas sons are drug dealers? thats a lot of dealers.