"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[ksen]

The US only attacks those who cannot defend themselves.

And China is an example of totalitarian capitalism. Immoral but not a failure.

It failed in it's communism attempts and has opened up to capitalism and is now working better. The US and the world aren't going to sit around and let a country kill all it's citizens again.

Rwanda called and would like lodge a formal disagreement.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It failed in it's communism attempts and has opened up to capitalism and is now working better. The US and the world aren't going to sit around and let a country kill all it's citizens again.

Rwanda called and would like lodge a formal disagreement.

So if the US chooses to ignore it how are they seen? So I guess unter has a country to show us how great anarchism is, Rwanda.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It has been attempted many times and it has been brutally attacked by the US. Especially in the Western hemisphere.

You somehow think no more moral progress is possible.

Despite the clear historical evidence to the contrary.

Your position is not even closely grounded in reality. It is a sick desire to defend economic dictatorship.

An appeal to immorality.

Both China and the Soviet Union weren't attacked by the US and those systems of implementing a workers paradise failed. All you have is one example and of course taking away property is going to result in a fight.

Both were attacked by the concerted efforts by the international community. The Great Leap Forward was only proposed by Mao because USA had manage to cut off all imports of steel to China. It was a desperate measure by a desperate country because of USA.

There are more ways to fight wars than boots on the ground

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh, like support from USA you mean? That's always ended in workers paradise. Or France or England. Colonialist oppression you say? Never. China? Lol.

If you're going to fight a war you're going to need money from somewhere. What rich fantasy nation would support the anarchist cause?

There is always a well organised authoritarian group waiting in the wings, ready to exploit any opening. And guess what, there's always at least one rich country willing to back that group, no matter how nuts they are. History has taught us that much.

I think your naive rose tinted view of the world is dangerous. It's people like you that lead to pointless revolutions, started by people who don't understand how politics work which inevitably lead to authoritarian regimes. Nothing is more dangerous than naive idealists. Africa and South America is full of examples of this going bad.

The US is the biggest menace in the world.

Many things cannot exist because of constant US violence and interference.

Maybe it will take the collapse of the US imperialist regime.

But it is possible.

If we collapsed you would see more Stalins, not societies you want.

The basic problem with your society is that it's unstable. It can't defend itself against those who would conquer it, whether from outside or in.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Both China and the Soviet Union weren't attacked by the US and those systems of implementing a workers paradise failed. All you have is one example and of course taking away property is going to result in a fight.

Why stop there? How about Cambodia? Same ideas, just taken farther. Even Mao had sense enough not to go there.

And Spain "worked" because it got a free infusion of capital and didn't have the security spending it needed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Getting rid of dictators in the workplace creates a completely different kind of society and people.

What assurance can you offer that it will be any better than what we have now? My company has a Dictator (aka a CEO). If we got rid of him, the company would immediately go belly-up and 25-30 people who want to work for us would be out of a job. How is that an improvement?

Yup. I've seen what happens when that "dictator" falls. We were quite lucky that all the second level people were competent and interested in the welfare of the company which held it together for a while. What we couldn't do is choose a better path.

And he was nothing like a dictator anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

What assurance can you offer that it will be any better than what we have now? My company has a Dictator (aka a CEO). If we got rid of him, the company would immediately go belly-up and 25-30 people who want to work for us would be out of a job. How is that an improvement?

This is not about destroying current arrangements instantly, which would be a disaster. It is about building a society and supporting different kinds of arrangements moving into the future.

Dictators are not needed.

Leadership and ideas are.

And as always these things will have rewards.

But nobody will be rewarded with their own dictatorship to control.

The problem with this approach is that leadership ability doesn't translate into ability to lead to the right place. Your world follow Trumps.

- - - Updated - - -

It failed in it's communism attempts and has opened up to capitalism and is now working better. The US and the world aren't going to sit around and let a country kill all it's citizens again.

Rwanda called and would like lodge a formal disagreement.

There is little we could have realistically done about the Rwandan genocide.

 

[J842P]

And the other issues is that because of the human rights abuses that these utopians systems tried to put in place in the past 100 years the world leading countries aren't going to let it happen again. So something has to be in place to prevent what happened.

You've got to be pretty fucking naive to think the US gives two-shits about human rights abuses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Both China and the Soviet Union weren't attacked by the US and those systems of implementing a workers paradise failed. All you have is one example and of course taking away property is going to result in a fight.

Both were attacked by the concerted efforts by the international community. The Great Leap Forward was only proposed by Mao because USA had manage to cut off all imports of steel to China. It was a desperate measure by a desperate country because of USA.

There are more ways to fight wars than boots on the ground

The Great Leap Forward was far more than a failed effort at small scale steel production.

There was a wide attempt to level society on the basis that position is due to power, not to merit, akin to what our Superman-wannabe is after. It was disastrous, megadeaths due to mismanagement.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Both were attacked by the concerted efforts by the international community. The Great Leap Forward was only proposed by Mao because USA had manage to cut off all imports of steel to China. It was a desperate measure by a desperate country because of USA.

There are more ways to fight wars than boots on the ground

The Great Leap Forward was far more than a failed effort at small scale steel production.

There was a wide attempt to level society on the basis that position is due to power, not to merit, akin to what our Superman-wannabe is after. It was disastrous, megadeaths due to mismanagement.

I'm in no way defending Mao or the Chinese communists. But when there's new management it's good if it gets to stay the same a while until the new management gets comfortable. Successful change is usually gradual and over time. Because China was surrounded by enemies they had to get wise fast. Russia was early allies, but Mao realised pretty fast that getting help from Russia meant becoming a Russian puppet. And Mao had gotten to power by promising land reform. He couldn't really wait on that one.

Yes, the Great Leap was a disaster and would probably had failed no matter what. But it really didn't help things that they didn't have time to plan for it or get organised, and that the rest of the world was conspiring to see them fail.

 

[untermensche]

The problem with this approach is that leadership ability doesn't translate into ability to lead to the right place. Your world follow Trumps.

Trump is currently the US president.

That is not my world. That is the world of everybody.

In my world there is no single executive with the power Trump has.

His power would be spread thin in a democratic body.

The US president is a remnant of the King. A monstrosity.

It should be abolished and replaced with a democratic body.

Maybe 50 people. One from each State.

 

[LordKiran]

The problem with this approach is that leadership ability doesn't translate into ability to lead to the right place. Your world follow Trumps.

Trump is currently the US president.

That is not my world. That is the world of everybody.

In my world there is no single executive with the power Trump has.

His power would be spread thin in a democratic body.

The US president is a remnant of the King. A monstrosity.

It should be abolished and replaced with a democratic body.

Maybe 50 people. One from each State.

Nope for several reasons.

-Giving states representation rather than people is a bad idea. Why should a state with a population smaller than some US cities be allowed to dictate policy to much larger states? Especially when said larger states carry the majority of the nation's economic burdens? I mean if you're going to drastically restructure the American political apparatus, then at least have the vision to dissolve the states entirely in favor of districts. States are an unnecessary and superfluous middle man between citizen and government the way I see it.

-If you abolish the presidency then who is in charge?? This isn't like you trying to set up a fun little baking company with your mother. Militaries and governments do not work when ruled exclusively by committee. At the end of the day, in a time of crisis it REALLY helps to have an established hierarchy so that decisions can be rendered immediately as needed.

 

[iolo]

I don't think comparing slogans is particularly helpful. The problem with Anarchism is it lost Barcelona and now barely exists in Spain, as it lost the Ukraine, with similar results; the problem with Communism is the inevitable reliance on the Party, which you have to have to make successful Revolution, but which turns into a new form of capitalism under pressure. With us the South Wales Miner's Federation, basically syndicalist, was as good as a non-party class combat organisation gets, and the boys were forced back towards politics by economic conditions. It is something we need to learn from, history, not a place to learn how to score off one another.

Capitalists have a stranglehold on world power.

And they gladly attack anything that threatens their dominance.

Anarchism can gain power only through democratic means. Not through force.

It actually flows naturally as democracy and democratic thinking increases.

Anarchism doesn't want, surely, to gain power but to abolish it? Wherever real social change has been voted for, so my reading tells me, it has quickly been over thrown by the local military or foreign intervention. After Brexit and Trump I find it difficult, myself, to suppose that democracy or democratic thinking are showing much sign of increase.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Capitalists have a stranglehold on world power.

And they gladly attack anything that threatens their dominance.

Anarchism can gain power only through democratic means. Not through force.

It actually flows naturally as democracy and democratic thinking increases.

Anarchism doesn't want, surely, to gain power but to abolish it? Wherever real social change has been voted for, so my reading tells me, it has quickly been over thrown by the local military or foreign intervention. After Brexit and Trump I find it difficult, myself, to suppose that democracy or democratic thinking are showing much sign of increase.

I think the biggest challenge for anarchism is that so many people want to be dominated. Being in charge is scary for most people.

 

[iolo]

Anarchism doesn't want, surely, to gain power but to abolish it? Wherever real social change has been voted for, so my reading tells me, it has quickly been over thrown by the local military or foreign intervention. After Brexit and Trump I find it difficult, myself, to suppose that democracy or democratic thinking are showing much sign of increase.

I think the biggest challenge for anarchism is that so many people want to be dominated. Being in charge is scary for most people.

There's that. I suppose that's why we need to develop co-operation, workers' control and so on. It is difficult to imagine such a state of mind, or believe in it, but I think you could make a strong case. I myself find the whole concept of being controlled by anyone else, ever, to be horrifying, and would, I hope, kill myself sooner.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think the biggest challenge for anarchism is that so many people want to be dominated. Being in charge is scary for most people.

There's that. I suppose that's why we need to develop co-operation, workers' control and so on. It is difficult to imagine such a state of mind, or believe in it, but I think you could make a strong case. I myself find the whole concept of being controlled by anyone else, ever, to be horrifying, and would, I hope, kill myself sooner.

Even by your doctor when you are sick? Do you like the concept of traffic laws and that they're enforced forcefully by the police?

Like it or not, we've all, in modern society, in many ways submitted to another's power because it makes life easier. The border between social contract type power and exploitative power is not always that clear. An example could be when you've entered into a contract which at the time of signing was fair, but there has since popped up competitors and you'd be better off if you could switch. Grey area.

I've thought about this a lot, and people often zero in on one little thing which is within their control, and then boldly proclaim they're the master of their fate. While in reality they have almost no control over their lives.

 

[iolo]

There's that. I suppose that's why we need to develop co-operation, workers' control and so on. It is difficult to imagine such a state of mind, or believe in it, but I think you could make a strong case. I myself find the whole concept of being controlled by anyone else, ever, to be horrifying, and would, I hope, kill myself sooner.

Even by your doctor when you are sick? Do you like the concept of traffic laws and that they're enforced forcefully by the police?

Like it or not, we've all, in modern society, in many ways submitted to another's power because it makes life easier. The border between social contract type power and exploitative power is not always that clear. An example could be when you've entered into a contract which at the time of signing was fair, but there has since popped up competitors and you'd be better off if you could switch. Grey area.

I've thought about this a lot, and people often zero in on one little thing which is within their control, and then boldly proclaim they're the master of their fate. While in reality they have almost no control over their lives.

I don't think I'm controlled by doctors - I can get up and go unless I'm drugged, and the traffic regulations are something we all agree on. I was once in the RAF: I spent most of my time making escape plans, and I shall never, never, never put myself in such a position again. I was warned, but thought I was the master of my fate. I learned my lesson: all power stinks, everywhere and always.

 

[untermensche]

Trump is currently the US president.

That is not my world. That is the world of everybody.

In my world there is no single executive with the power Trump has.

His power would be spread thin in a democratic body.

The US president is a remnant of the King. A monstrosity.

It should be abolished and replaced with a democratic body.

Maybe 50 people. One from each State.

Nope for several reasons.

-Giving states representation rather than people is a bad idea. Why should a state with a population smaller than some US cities be allowed to dictate policy to much larger states? Especially when said larger states carry the majority of the nation's economic burdens? I mean if you're going to drastically restructure the American political apparatus, then at least have the vision to dissolve the states entirely in favor of districts. States are an unnecessary and superfluous middle man between citizen and government the way I see it.

-If you abolish the presidency then who is in charge?? This isn't like you trying to set up a fun little baking company with your mother. Militaries and governments do not work when ruled exclusively by committee. At the end of the day, in a time of crisis it REALLY helps to have an established hierarchy so that decisions can be rendered immediately as needed.

In a 50 person body no single person can dominate or dictate anything.

And their democratic decisions are what is "in charge", not the caprice of one individual. We see what happened after the last "crisis", after 911. The executive lied to start a war in Iraq, disaster.

Humans do not need dictators in any form.

 

[untermensche]

Capitalists have a stranglehold on world power.

And they gladly attack anything that threatens their dominance.

Anarchism can gain power only through democratic means. Not through force.

It actually flows naturally as democracy and democratic thinking increases.

Anarchism doesn't want, surely, to gain power but to abolish it? Wherever real social change has been voted for, so my reading tells me, it has quickly been over thrown by the local military or foreign intervention. After Brexit and Trump I find it difficult, myself, to suppose that democracy or democratic thinking are showing much sign of increase.

You can't abolish power. Things need to be done.

Anarchism wants to spread power as far as possible. As many checks on power as possible.

Democratic control as far as possible.

 

[untermensche]

Anarchism doesn't want, surely, to gain power but to abolish it? Wherever real social change has been voted for, so my reading tells me, it has quickly been over thrown by the local military or foreign intervention. After Brexit and Trump I find it difficult, myself, to suppose that democracy or democratic thinking are showing much sign of increase.

I think the biggest challenge for anarchism is that so many people want to be dominated. Being in charge is scary for most people.

When people ARE dominated. When their spirits are crushed by a system of dictators they become sick.

Anarchism is the cure.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think the biggest challenge for anarchism is that so many people want to be dominated. Being in charge is scary for most people.

When people ARE dominated. When their spirits are crushed by a system of dictators they become sick.

Anarchism is the cure.

So sound awfully sure of yourself. How could you possibly know this?