I'm switching parties!

The "goal" of capitalism (if economic systems can be so simplistically reduced to goals) is to allow individuals to earn their living any way they please, as long as they aren't harming others. The wealth of the owning class is certainly not a goal of capitalism; in fact, if rich people sit on their asses they'll eventually become not-so-rich people (although it might take a few generations).

And it isn't just the "powerful of the world" defending capitalism. I bet the vast majority of workers in America support capitalism too...not because they're dumb and uneducated, but because the ideas of upward social mobility and rewards for ingenuity appeal to most people.

This is blatantly false. As the world has industrialized, opportunities for social mobility are BETTER, and poverty is LESSENED.

You are -NOT- an anarchist. The only way to redistribute wealth (Marxism) is through an enormous government. Furthermore, democracy is IMPOSSIBLE in an anarchy because there is no means of voting, nor any election guidelines, nor anything to vote on.

 

Wrong, for example the Wal-Mart capitalist are earning their living through the slavery of the workers of Wal-Mart.

You don't see the owing class doing any real work, for example a owner of mine won't go down to work with the minners.

Wrong, statistically upward social mobility is insignigant, it is rare when you take into account the 6 billion people and the vast majority of them do not move upward.

That is a lie, all you have to do is go to Mexico to see how fucked up your view of the world is. Capitalist go into poor nations to take advantage of desprate workers, then as soon as the workers demand labour rights, they close the factory. That is why Anarchist is telling workers of the world to overthrow capitalist and take over the means of production, for example Nike workers to take over the factory and declare independace from Nike and the captialist that call it theif can go fuck them self.

Did you even read the Anarchist FAQ I posted from a major anarchist website? Your ideas of Anarchism is no where near what Anarchist belive, infact I can put up links to tons of Anarchist websites, all showing you have no idea what they stand for.

 

If that's true (I haven't studied Wal-Mart much) that doesn't make the enslavement of workers a GOAL of capitalism.

This is very revealing that you only consider routine grunt work to be "real work." God forbid anyone tries to rise above mediocrity in the hopes of reaping the rewards. But hey, mediocrity is what Marxism is all about.

Sorry, it's not as bleak as you wish it was. In the United States, the correlation factor between parents' income and children's income is 0.4 (1 being perfect correlation, and 0 being no correlation) according to the Dept of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/ore/pdf/ec030010.pdf

Could we do better? Maybe. Is everyone locked into the position they were born in? Definitely not.

You're right, it's harder for most other nations to move up because they have not industrialized yet. In the places that have industrialized, there is a great deal of social mobility.

They didn't have to offer the workers the job at all. The factory owner and worker agreed on a salary or wage, because BOTH CONSIDERED IT FAIR. If they didn't, they wouldn't have agreed. "Taking advantage of desparate workers"? It's very sad that you'd rather have the workers wallow in poverty and unemployment, than be "taken advantage of", just for the sake of your ridiculous ideology.

Nope.

More people spouting the same nonsense that you are still doesn't make any of you anarchists. An anarchist believes in NO government. The only way to redistribute wealth is through a government. The only way to have a democracy and elections is through a government.

You're an authoritarian, not an anarchist.

 

That's OK, I've read enough propaganda today and I am well aware of what anarchism actually is. Look up anarchism in the dictionary, and you will see you are mistaken. You will also see that it exists, in varying degrees, in all of those nations. Any realist would understand that anarchism can never work, and if you would examine your beliefs seriously, without labels, you will see that you advocate authoritarian rule. For example, you believe that marxism is fine, if the people want it, and this is somehow compatible with anarchy. What if the masses want capitalism? Is their will to be subverted in favor of marxism? I think you are really a marxist who doesn't want to admit it.

You also state, in regards to home ownership that "It means you own production and leach off the work of others. A owner of a corperation owns the production of the workers even though they in no way contributed. The Anarchist solution is to have the workers run the production them selves with no owners (making it a common)."

That is pure marxist thinking. I own a house. How does that equate to production? I work very hard to pay for it and I am employed as an engineer. How is that leaching off the work of others? Even the "hated" heads of corporations have jobs to do, and they work just as hard as anyone else. All your talk of mines, means of productions, factories, etc. clearly indicates that your antiquated perceptions are stuck in the era when marxism came about. There are more jobs than miner/farmer/laborer these days. In your example, the mine owner or manager keeps the production going, employs individuals, provides benefits, and in the past provided housing, food, etc. The same today. Those who take the risks to open businesses are either rewarded with success and provide employment and livelihoods and services/products for others, or they fail and go into bankruptcy. How would society benefit by placing everything in the hands of a mob, who may not know how to run a business, or perform the tasks required? And even if the business is in the hands of the mob, it is still "owned" by them. Nothing ever gets divided equally, and even the quaint notion of "from each according to their ability, blah blah blah" never has, and never will happen in real life. Do you think all these members of the collective will honor the philosophy? No, there will be power struggles and exploitation, and probably worse. BTW, where do you live, in the woods? If homeownership is evil, have you renounced it? Or do you pay rent to a bourgeoisie who owns the means of providing a roof over your head?

 

Yeah, I think it's awfully funny that people who associate themselves with the far-left say they're anarchists, when everyone knows that leftism (socialism) equates to more government, which is the antithesis of anarchy. Then again, these people like to create their own meanings to things, or so it seems. Whatever best fits the "revolutionary" image they want to exude.

Morons.

 

The original goal of capitalism is to allow the owning class to get wealth without working.

Bill Gates has not coded in ages.

Even industrial nations have problems, for example Argentina that economy crashed because the IMF forced Argentina to change laws to allow multinationals to suck the wealth of Argentina in the name of capitalism.

No I am saying these workers should take over these factories. Under worker control, they can improve working conditions and employ more workers plus can use the wealth to improve the community and even build new factories that wouldn't be built by capitalist.

Try reading a encyclopedia, wikipedia agrees with me.

Your hopeless. They belive in no hierarchical goverment.

Again, Anarchism is against hierarchical goverment.

Now you don't know what authoritarian means.

Anarchist Spain did have some moneyless communities, based on interdependent producers cooperating via the organized intervention of the conscious actions of the massess.

 

The left today (liberal) stands for more government control economically, but less control over personal freedom. The inverse is true of the right - it seeks to limit personal freedom and reduce regulations on business. Most anarchists probably have personal freedom much higher on their priority list than the economic "freedom" offered by the right (freedom which is enjoyed mostly by corporations and which gives those corporations more oppurtunities to fuck us over. The common citizen might get a tax break. Yeehaw). Thus, they associate themselves with the left.

 

There is a difference between true conservatism and fake conservatism, as practiced by establishment Republicans.

True conservatives -- not Bush-loving Republicans -- believe in the preservation of the Constitution and civil liberties, and they are against corporate welfare and crony capitalism.

Socialism favors more government control over personal wealth, which ultimately leads to control over personal freedoms. This is what you're not grasping.

Besides, the far-left in this twisted country are every bit as fascist (probably even moreso) than the so-called far-right when it comes to free speech. Both sides hear only what they want to hear.

Don't be so reliant on labels. Liberalism (socialism) and neoconservatism (fascism) have more in common than you think. Or maybe they're both the same?

 

That explains everything to me, particularly your flawed reasoning. You consider wikipedia to be a legitimate encyclopedic source of information. Anyone can post "information" on wiki, and much of it is obviously biased and some of it incorrect. For all we know, you WROTE whatever little article you are referring to. Anarchism is by definition against any government. When there is no gov't, a tyrant will fill the void. "anarchist" spain was really "communist" spain and their little experiment failed miserably if you would study history. You sound really tired, man. Why don't you take a nap, then try to figure out what your beliefs are, and then don't get back to us. It is clearly obvious that you are in favor of dictatorial agrarian marxism, e.g. "stalinism", and when your jumping off point is that lunacy, there is little point in debate. Go live in North Korea; I think you'd be really happy there.

 

It is also in the Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia also Noam Chomsky along with most professors classed Anarchist spain as Anarchist.

I don't know what fucked up college or univeristy you got your education but you should demand your money back.

 

Noam Chomsky, there's a totally unbiased source.

 

what i8s libertarianism? could you tell me please?

thanks
muah

 

We generally believe in as small of a government as possible.
We generally believe in a free-market capitalist economy.
We generally believe that everyone should be able to live their lives as they please, without interference from the government, as long as they aren't hurting others.
We generally believe that people should have civil liberties and civil rights, and should be protected from force and fraud by the government.
We generally believe in low taxes, less government regulation, more localized government, more civil liberties, less interference in the affairs of other nations, and more economic freedom.

Libertarians span a wide range of political parties. Some choose to vote for the Libertarian Party candidate; others (like me) believe it is ineffective and tend to vote for the lesser of two evils (I voted for John Kerry in the last election; some libertarians voted for George Bush).

 

I hear you guys. I have agreed, more or less, with the Libertarian philosophy for some time, but I have always thought it a waste of a vote to vote for third(well, second) parties, but after this last fiasco I'm not too sure. I think that I will no longer vote for a "lesser evil" and vote for who I truly believe to be a good and honest candidate. I didn't really think Kerry was a great guy, in fact, I'm not even sure if he's human, but I voted for him because Bush pisses me off so much, but come to think of it, Kerry would piss me off just as much and he has basically the same policies as his cousin. Unless I truly believe them to be a good and honest politician (and there are still a few left out there) I do not think that I will waste my vote on Democrians and Republicrats any more. Libertarians might not stand a good chance of winning, but at least I can feel good about who I vote for, and who knows, if more people actually do grow the balls to vote for what they really believe in, the third parties really do have a chance.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that brought me a patriotic chuckle, it said: "Vote Libertarian and Win a FREE COUNTRY!"

By the way, when I move back to Texas in about two years, I might just run for some office. Something that will allow me to keep a civilian job, so something small, but when I do you guys should vote for me. After all, who would you rather have in office, a psychopath who admits it or a psychopath who pretends he's a saint?

 

There was no original goal of capitalism. Yet another examply of make-it-up-as-you-go-along economics by Psy Fox. Nobody thought up capitalism and then imposed it on a society. It develped on its own. Most "capitalist" theory is based on observations of a system that already existed. Obviously feudal lords could get wealth without working, they didn't need to "invent" capitalism.

There is more to microsoft than coding, genius.

One problem with capitalism is that, unlike theoretical economic systems, it doesn't promise utopia. You can definitely screw up capitalism. Sorry about that. Having said that, your facile logic still doesn't prove much because if multinationals sucked out wealth and caused collapse then why do most nations with multinational investment perform so well economically? Why to the world's poorest economies have so little multinational investment?

Wow, sounds like everything would be just PERFECT! What a brilliant system. I'm sure the birds would sing and the sun would always shine too. All it requires is an existing economy built by capitalists that the anarchists can then steal. Except working conditions have improved in capitalist societies over the long term, unemploment is very low in the US, taxes on corporations benefit the community, and capitalism has created more innovation and wealth generation than any other economic system. The real distinction is that capitalism creates these things in the real world, whereas anarchism is pure theory.

You can also guarantee that nobody will ever again invest in the anarchist country because property theft has become an official policy. Wealth would disappear as everybody raced to liquidate their assets and get whatever they can out of the country. It would be chaos.

One thing about the naive economics proposed by leftists, especially those with no real work experience or familiarity with investment, is that they walk out the front door of their parent's house in a wealthy country and think that god created the economy in seven days. GDP is a fixed number and we can just chop it up as distribute it as we please, because the income that makes up GDP just springs from the earth every year. i.e. anarchists can just build new factories. How? Where would they get the capital?

Well then go ahead and form one. There are communes all over america where you can live in a collectivist utopia. When you talk about stealing other people's property, that's when it becomes a problem.

 

A system that is ment to steal the value of the work of the working class.

The point is that Bill Gates does nothing that couldn't be done by democratic assemblies of the workers

Depends on how you measure performance. Yes Mexico has done well by Capitalist standards but if Mexico was doing so well why do they cross the border? The reason is Mexico has a huge class divide and a goverment that only repersents the class with money.

Capitalism is a global system, the US economy keeps people in Africa poor as Africa can't compete with the US. With Anarcho-Syndicalist (the form of Anarchism I am talking about) there is no longer a profit drive as the primary goal of production becomes to improve quality of life.

Just like how Anarchist spain did it. They just built new roads, with the productive output and manpower of the Anarchist society. Some of the Anarchist Spanish communities didn't even have a money system, everyone was apart of decision making, making everyone know their limitations for manpower and resources.

The problem is that Anarcho-Syndicalist are industrialist, for that to work they need all the resources one would need for a industrial society. How many communes do you know that have factories, railways, mines, mills, power plants and so on? Say they bought up a rundown US industrial town and got it running again, as the Anarcho-Syndicalist society prospers and becomes a industrial power house there will be a point of conflict. See regular communes are of no threat to the hosting goverment but a Anarcho-Syndicalist commune is a threat economically, since they can easily undercut the market since they don't have a owning class holding them back. A car built from a worker controlled factory would be cheaper and get more cheaper as more of the resources fall under worker control. Sooner or later a US Anarcho-Syndicalist commune will have to deal with tarifs, embargoes or even military invasion that will distroy everything they worked for.

This is what Anarcho-Syndicalist is a labour movement, a final solution for worker equality. No capitalist slavery (like the US) and no state slavery (like the USSR) since Anarcho-Syndicalist is for a society run by the workers, for the workers. If they can get a fast world revolution, they don't have to worry about tarifs, embargoes and invasion.

 

Then why have the working classes become so much richer over the last 200 years? Why have so many poor countries become prosperous since WWII? Are your theories completely impenetrable to historical facts?

Yes we all know that a committee will always produce better leadership than a spectacularly talented and driven individual. Except in reality.

No Mexico has not done well by capitalist standards. They cross the border because there are better work opportunities here. This disproves exactly nothing about capitalism.

How do we "keep them poor"? The poorest countries are those that we trade with and invest in the least. Yet you say trade and investment is exploitation. I know you'll never explain this paradox, I just wanted to point out that you keep avoiding it. Also, its getting a bit boring to hear you recite anarchist theory, i.e. "because in anarchy everything will be perfect because anarchy is good unlike capitalism which is bad". You are promising nothing different than the communists who pointed to their little red books and assured us that under communism there would be true democracy and no poverty because it says so right here in chapter 4.

Half the time you're telling us we can't compete with China because they pay "slave labor" wages and now slave labor countries can't compete with us. So which is it?

I really don't care if they could all agree to pick the carrots and mend the fences. We're talking about advanced, sophisticated economies, not simple agrarian societies.

This is just an excuse for why you can't be bothered to do anything except talk. Like I said, many societies have risen from simple beginnings to advanced, prosperous economies in the last few decades, e.g. Taiwan, Korea, etc. They didn't need to steal an industrial base from anyone. So if capitalists can build economies from scratch, why can anarchists sit on their ass and whine that nobody provides an industrial base for them to steal? Why can capitalism happily coexist with (supposedly superior) collective/cooperative/communal organisations, but anarchists need the entire planet to be remoulded in their image before anarchism will work? After all, is Linux illegal? No. Does Richard Stallman sit around complaining that he doesn't control factories, railways, mines, mills, power plants and so on? No.

Yes and when did South Korea, which was invaded by communists and forbidden to trade with the biggest country in the region for decades, complain that communists were preventing capitalism from working? Never. Capitalists don't whine and make excuses, because we never promised utopia. Anarchy and communism is about always having an excuse, always having someone else to blame.

 

Only a part of the working class gets richer.

By capitalist standards yes, you have very wealth capitalist in Mexico and shows the end result of Adam Smith's theory of greed without restraint

If we trade with them under capitalism, it is because of their cheap labour. As soon as their labour demands better, they'll close down and look for the next poor nation. Capitalism is only after profit, so flooding the market is a bad thing while, Anarcho-Syndicalist wants to flood the market to improve quality of life through abundance.

China won't use the wealth to improve the quality of life of the workers. This gives China a reason under the global capitalist system to invest in production. Police states work better with Capitalism since it give investors higher returns. If all of Africa was one big police state, like China it would be able to compete.

China is the perfect example of where Adam Smith's theory gets you. A police state to keep the workers in line since you need the labour as cheap as possible to generate maximum returns.

Anarchist Spain was industrial, they had factories, railways, mines and yes farms all under worker control.

Nazism was strong does that make it is better? Capiatlism is the dominant system because it is ruthless and inhumane.

Because Anarcho-Syndicalist are industrialist. A farming commune isn't going to threaten the world economy. What do you think will happen with a Anarcho-Syndicalist commune selling $1000 cars, of better quality then the capitalist manufactures? Anarcho-Syndicalist won't care if they can sell it at high prices since like in the worker controlled factories of Argentina, they don't want to rip of the community so they keep prices as low as possible. Yet the US would take this as economic warfare.

Anarchist have tried before, in Russia, Lenin shot them for being independant from the state, in Spain they had a civil war to deal with and had to fight both the communist and the fascist.

 

Bullshit. Compare the US to Bangladesh. Only "part" of the working class got better? Most of the working class left the working class completely, the rest are better off. We do not have 10 year old chimney sweeps anymore.

These are not capitalist standards and this is not what Adam Smith said. As I pointed out before, what success is there in this that was not already achieved in feudalism? You are totally unfazed when anyone points out the huge fallacies in your arguments.

Then why did Taiwan and Korea get richer? This completely contradicts your simplistic argument, which is why you will never respond.

This is such complete make it up as you go along nonsense that I think I will let it speak for itself.

Living standards are improving in China. As usual, you make up facts to fit your made up theories. And no, police states are not better investments. Rich, democratic countries attract the most investment. Ever wonder why? I doubt it.

I see, that makes sense because China wasn't a police state until it starting allowing capitalism. This is one of the most completely backwards and illogical things you have ever said.

I see, so Stalin's Russia or Mao's China couldn't succeed because they weren't ruthless or inhumane, unlike capitalist countries such as Norway and Taiwan? Again, you seem to be completely devoid of any understanding of history.

Capitalist undercut each other all the time. They try to drive each other out of business as a standard practice. And you are still pretending that collectivist/cooperative/communal enterprises don't exist. They do. You are offering nothing new, just more excuses why you need to sit on the sofa and watch MTV instead of starting your supposedly vastly superior anarchist enterprise, even as other people actually get off their asses and do it.

Again, you are ignoring that right here right now there are collectivist/cooperative/communal enterprises, and complaining that Lenin shot the anarchists a hundred years ago. Capitalists and democrats have sufferred war and repression too, yet their systems succeed. Why do you need so many excuses?

 

Noam Chomsky-now there's a balanced and impartial source. If you would read things besides propaganda, you would know that in the spanish civil war, there was a coalition between the communists, socialists and the so-called anarchists. The communists joined with the anarchists only because (or should I say the anarchists glommed onto the leftists, or "republicans") because they were united in their opposition to the Nationalists. Anyone who thinks the CNT (anarcho-syndicalists) were running the show, or that they were fighting against the communist-socialists, is deluding themselves. Both the communists and the CNT were heavily supported by the USSR, under the popular front they had formed, and if the republicans had been victorious, have no doubt, spain would have been another soviet satellite "nation". Which Uni did YOU go to anyway-Patrice Lumumba U. in Moscow? You certainly talk the talk, though I doubt you walk the walk. Like I said, you sound reeeaaallly tired-you should take a nap; you're contradicting yourself. You obviously could use the reconstitution. You guys who call yourselves anarchists are soooooo wacky! Are you sure you're not really a comedian?
BTW, why do you keep bringing up "anarchist" spain? It didn't work, it lasted barely months, it degenerated into a blood-bath of indiscriminate killing (even before the real fighting with the nationalists started in earnest), and it happened 70 years ago. Is this the ONLY means you have of illustrating your point? Oh wow, they built a few roads (paths, actually), took over some factories from their legitimate owners, held kangaroo courts where they killed indiscriminately or for vendetta (ever heard of the "red terror") and bombed several churches--are we supposed to be impressed?