I Want an Anarchic Revolution not Capitalism

AS LONG AS YOU PUT PRODUCTIVITY AHEAD OF THE AVOIDANCE OF CAUSING SUFFERING, REGUARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU USE GUNS, GREED, idiology, belief, OR ANY DAMD THING ELSE, AS AN INCENTIVE FOR DOING SO, THAT IS WHAT KEEPS EVERYTHING SCREWED UP! (NOT idology or belief, ANY idiology or belief.)

it is only when we stop doing THAT that we will have any kind of "most great peace"!

no revolution, for nor against, ANY idiology is going to do that for us.

i aggree though, that everything that is worth a dam gets labeled 'anarchy' by those who immagine hierarchy, ANY hierarchy, hierarchy itself in any form, to be inheirently bennificent.

yes infrastructure CAN be run and maintained by volunteers, and it IS infrastructure, not the pretentions of economics or government that IS 'civilization', by which i mean the bennifits sometimes called comfort zone that a majority are so unwilling to relinquish. and lets face it, they ARE a majority. deluded by expecting the conventionalities they are familiar with to perpetuate how their comfort zones are accomplished, immagining, at least partially incorrectly that they could not exist otherwise, but a majority none the less.

any plan of transition does have to somehow deal with this. the fiate of force invariably leaves loose ends that come back to bite and haunt.

but if everyone nonconfrontationally boycotted any kind of aggressiveness, as a kind of general strike omnilatterally, that would bring the whole house of cards of hierarchism down. and anyone can start doing so now and making it their way of life for the rest of living.

if only a few of us do so, we end up having to sleep under bridges. but really, that isn't such a bad thing either. not when you consider the hundreds of thousands of sensless murders that would be hindering, possibly even preventing.

but if enough of us did so, en masse, though would really chainge things, without any of us having to engaige in behavior that would itself contribut to the problem rather then solving it.

there are a number of caveats but i still support the general concept.
SOME KINDS of crimes would not exist, or very nearly not exist, without the incentive of symbolic value and thinking of everything, even real value, in terms of it.
but no, not ALL crimes. still if there were no government to stop you from defending yourself, this would be less worrysome then the scale of mass murder that it takes a government and an army to commit.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Thats just plain wrong. In Communism the whole idea is to work for the state. Right now I can work for myself. If I don't like it I can change my job, study, start a business of my own, emigrate, etc... I don't see where earning my own money to spend on what I like = working for the state.

 

The difference is in the nature of the state. Under true communism, I wouldn't mind working for the state-- because if I didn't like my job, all of the education needed to succeed at the opportunities you described would always be there, and at a cheaper price.

The difference is that under capitalism you usually end up working for people who exploit you, working to make rich people richer, or finding yourself unable to compete with a much bigger company.

EDIT:

After reading your rant against communism, I'm forced to conclude that you're actually just selfish. You seem to want the freedom to waste what you don't even need just because you don't want somebody else to get it. I bet if you see a homeless person on the street you tell him or her to get a job instead of giving him or her money. You don't know anything about these people, but you see them and make assumptions, because it makes you feel better.

That's one of the problems with capitalism-- that annoying sense of ENTITLEMENT. Like you somehow deserve more than others, and others deserve more than you... for what? Look at the jobs they are doing! Mostly, people get rich if they're good at exploiting others.

Meawhile, someone may do a fantastic job teaching kids, changing their lives forever and inspiring them to go on and be something, and they'll never in their entire lives make as much as some sociopath who stabs his friends in the back and makes shady deals on Wall Street. Someone might be a fucking master when it comes to unclogging drains, but he'll never be held in as high a regard as some asshole hollywood movie producer, who only got the job through his asshole hollywood movie producer uncle.

It's this whole notion of 'people deserve what they get' that's wrong. You think the people in the poorest parts of Africa deserve to be dying of AIDS?? That they don't have proper education, all due to the fact that fucking American businessmen refuse to put any money into their country, while simultaneously preventing them from ever developing their own industry, and refusing to let them use their own natural resources as it would lead to global warming?? This after ruining their country with droughts ultimately caused by our own pollution!!!

There is absolutely no reason why some people should be living in multi-million dollar mansions and living off of trust funds while others
are working two shitty, draining jobs just to try to put food on the table. If you think sitting in an office all day means you deserve a trip to Hong Kong every now and then while someone in Kyrgystan gets sold into sex slavery trying to earn enough to buy an apartment, then you're more fucked up than I could possibly even imagine.

Heaps of people never travel a day in their lives... that's something the rich get to do. They get to fly around the world spewing pollution into the atmosphere whenever they want. They get extensive vacations and trips to the spa, while people in Africa get to burn pig shit for light and die when they're 35.

I notice you wrote most of that article in the first person-- a good sign of just how self-centred you are. Don't worry, you're not alone.

BTW: Communism doesn't mean you don't get to have any luxuries, just that you get them at a single, state-controlled price-- which, under true communism, would be cheaper... everything would basically be wholesale. It wouldn't need to be as flashy and it wouldn't exist solely to promote your status, but it would get the job done and you wouldn't need to feel guilty about all the people who were exploited just so you could wear Nikes instead of the state-sanctioned footwear, basically the same thing without the brand name attached.

 

As for the original post-- there sure are a lot of prefixes and suffixes being thrown around... but I think I get your drift.

Obviously, America was built by capitalists. The problem now is just how extensively capitalism has shaped and continues to shape our world.

But if we organized all of the world's money into one central location it would be possible to undertake a massive worldwide project to reshape the planet so that it is better organized-- both to promote harmony with our natural surroundings and to equalize all living conditions for humans. We have so much to gain by concentrating our industries into fewer, state-controlled locations... I mean, instead of shipping materials all around the world, instead of wasting time, materials, and generating pollution all around the world, we could relocate all production of a certain product/good/whatever to a single location. It would be more efficient, cheaper, consume less resources, and in all likelihood reduce the amount of pollution produced.

Of course, the problem is that the current power structure fully supports the class system, and supports the watering-down of the education system and a sensationalistic media. People are losing their creativity, and losing their happiness to the lure of capitalistic success, which is ultimately grounded in the class-based notion of STATUS. If we haven't yet hit the point where the system is more oppressive than empowering yet, then we're definitely not far off-- the gap between upper and middle classes is getting larger and larger.

Still, I suppose it's quite possible for communism to peacefully develop from some sort of impending global oligopoly...

 

In capitalism, you don't work for yourself. You work for the capitalist machine, inputting a lot of effort into a relatively unimportant task that is part of a bigger whole, and getting comparatively little (you may get a lot in terms of money, but little in terms of satisfaction). You have no freedoom to easily change your job because you lose your benefits and have other setback that come with the process if changing it. Then, when you get to an old age, you are treated like gardbage, regardless of how hard you worked during your career.

If you are on an enterpreneur, it's even wrose. You spend all of your time working out your company plans, and little or no time doing personally enjoyable activities. Ask any rich businessman whether or not he/she is happy, and the answer will in 99% of cases be "no". Ask why they hold on to the capital, and the answer is "that's the only way to survive in this system". But it is also because many of them are one of those people, whose intelligence is enough to succeed in the business world, but not enough to see the big picture: At the top, there is boredom and despair. Here's an excerpt from an essay, "Neo's Freedom... Whoa!", which depicts this:

If you spend your life making money your self-goal, a question arises... What's the use of money if you can't live, in the full sense of the word? Yes, you get entertainment, you get to go on expensive trips and to top notch restaurants, but this life is synthetic and lonely. The real life, which is derived from (a) close and respectful face-to-face relationships and activities between people, (b) full control over oneself, and (c) doing whatever is your passion at your own speed, is no longer possible, because (a) you are not empowered with time for this kind of commitment, money as self-goal is propagated, which implies dirty kind of relationships, and the fact that parents do not have the time to educate kids (b) you are not empowered with time or means necessary to acquire and practice the skills necessary for such control, (c) you are not empowered with time or means for real leisure, because pace of everything is so rapid, and all things are a private property.

In a communist system, as it existed in USSR, you did a whole-piece kind of job, closely tied to reality - for example, a shoemaster created shoes from scratch using raw materials. The job brought satisfaction because (a) it was your choice and (b) you had a sense of power over the resulting outcome of the job. You were paid a nominal amount, but that was fine because:
a) shelter of a very good quality was provided by the government for free (which is not mentioned in any economics textbooks in the u.s.)
b) high education (universities + colleges included) and clubs (sports and others) were funded by the government and provided for free to the citizens; at the same time, education was of much better quality than in many of the today's commercial institutions in the u.s. (which is also not mentioned in any economics textbooks in the u.s.)
c) food was good but very inexpensive, and it was, basically, the only thing that you had to pay for on a constant basis... the salaries were enough over the top for this purpose.
d) clothing you had to save up for, BUT: it was of a very good quality, and the people knew how to combine different pieces of clothing to make an impression that they have a lot of different clothing... even though clothing was in limited availability, people dressed with style and it was enjoyable to just to go outside and see them... not happening now, because clothes are in abundance, but they are of very low quality, and people don't know how to dress anyway, because they don't have the time to worry about learning about it.
e) you had a lot of spare time, which provided personal fullfillment; depression or feelings of inferiority were unheard of, because everyone could live to the fullest; because money was not self-goal, friendships and relationships in general were much stronger than they are in the united states; also, some people knew how make their own clothing, which, too, brought fullfillment because it was in close touch with reality, and it gave a sense of empowerment and control over oneself...

So, this is the kind of state it would be enjoyable to work for, which cannot be said about capitalist countries.

Harmony with our natural surroundings can never be achieved while there is technology or any sort of industry whatsoever. This is explained in a very clear fashion in the Unabomber's Manifesto, which I recommend as a first read to anyone who is interested in a revolution. Yes, Unabomber is a criminal, and most, if not all, of the crimes he has committed were unjustified, but the manifesto contains a lot of useful information for any revolutionaires, and non-revolutionaires alike, just as a starting point of insight into the issues that we have today.

Yes, and it's not just the gap, but also the stress that comes with it. The system can solve it via genetical engineering and programming of human behavior, but this would be a very scary outcome for a number of reasons...

 

I disagree completely. The main problem with industry now isn't that it exists, but that it exists with few restrictions and exists solely to generate capital. If it existed purely to provide the people with a means to an end, and not to make money, it would be a lot more environmentally friendly... because it would not be necessary to be producing as much, and it would not be necessary to be producing such variety in the models-- personal 'definition' as a social advantage would no longer exist. Ultimately, a car is a car, a stereo is a stereo.

There's no reason to go back to the dark ages-- that's definitely not better living. But there are plenty of reasons to try to understand each other as human beings, and the world around us as whatever it is. Because I really don't think that many of us know.

Capitalism is responsible for the class system, and the class system serves only to alienate. That's why it's becoming so important to know what's in the food we're eating, or where our shoes came from, or where our computers are made... earlier, nobody gave a shit. Food was food, who cares where it came from??? Capitalism doesn't stop with the exploitation of people-- it is also the exploitation of the planet, of spirituality, of family, basically, everything is only as good so long as it gets us "ahead", socially, politically, intellectually-- and the reason we know things this way is because we're all conditioned to instinctually gravitate towards those things that get us "ahead", or give us some kind of advantage.

Romantic relationships are like job interviews... and candidates are often selected based on some kind of ability to provide, or to get the other person 'ahead'. There is often very little in terms of genuine spiritual connection. Our cities are striving to become living pornography-- advertisements, name brands, and the people who buy into it all, and perpetuate it.

The alienation has become so severe that people are CRAVING to understand what's happening around them, and no one really knows. Paranoia and mistrust are everywhere. But really, we understand the bourgeois as much as the bourgeois understands us... and we all have mutual contempt for each other, because of alienation.

 

I just wanted to stress again how much I think the whole 'hardworking people get ahead in capitalism' thing is complete and utter bullshit.

When you have people who determine how much one kind of work is worth and how much another kind of work is worth, you do not get equal opportunity. You get selectivity and oppression... and it means you can only get ahead by becoming part of the system, that cycle of exploitation and oppression.

 

It's easy to determine what kind of work should pay what...

McDonalds Fryman = Easy job, doesn't pay much
Doctor = Hard job, Pays lots

I'm not trying to say that a McDonalds Fryman works at his craft less hard than a doctor, just that a doctor has to work very to get to their position.

 

Isn't organized anarchy an oxymoron?

 

To save time rehashing , here is a link.
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166208&page=82&pp=10

 

We should start living the revolution and suddenly it will come. But do not try to deside what is good for people

 

Well, technically MacDonald's should be illegal because they promote bad diets and exploit their workers... but that's not the point. The point is that everyone who works for MacDonald's SHOULD have equal shares of the company. I mean... where would the company be without the people making all the crap food and selling it? But of course, as it is, you have almost everyone at the bottom and only a few people on top.

You say a doctor's job is hard, but I think it's way harder to try to support a family... not to mention have some sense of personal worth... if you're working at MacDonald's, or one of the other low-paying jobs that most people in this world currently have to work at just to get by. A capitalist society defines your personal worth by how much money you make-- the most respected professions are those which allow us to make the most money.

Capitalism is as much a part of our thinking as it is of our economy-- but in the end, a job is a job. You should always do your best and take pride in what you do... but of course, this is currently impossible because there's a hierarchy, and because we are living in a plutocracy which inflicts a low sense of self-worth upon certain professions, because it actually reinforces the power of the capitalists who control things.

When someone feels like a failure, they will not object to being treated like a failure, ie: they think they deserve to make next to nothing and be raped by rich people, because that is the respect afforded them because of their social standing, which is assigned to them based on their profession.

 

The problem is that people nowadays are thinking up new ways to make themselves rich, and not new ways to help out their fellow humans. Everything is an industry and every industry rises and falls, and the money flows from industry to industry....

I read the other post about 'greed' (Gordan Gecko, yah?)-- but you should know that communism isn't about putting everything on hold and just chilling out and stagnating... there's absolutely no reason why we would stop trying to improve the quality of life for ourselves, or why we would all want to settle for less...

In fact, if anything, we would all be getting more than we have right now!!! You think about exactly how far ahead of us the military is, then think that before we get what we have now, all of that technology has passed through a series of hands and been converted and changed around... and how long does it take before most people can even AFFORD the latest gadgets??? Well, if we redistributed the wealth, that wouldn't be a problem anymore, would it???

Scientists could develop the technology, and then it would just be a matter of shipping it out... you wouldn't have to go through the patents and deals and marketing and shit because people wouldn't need to 'protect their investments' (ie, make sure the right people got paid)... it would all be state-funded and all our needs would be provided for, so really, it would all be happening for the good of our species.

Yet another example of why capitalism is an inefficient, alienating system that is currently doing way more harm than good, and needs to be disposed of.

And wow... I don't know where this whole 'living off the land' thing came in... communism definitely isn't about everyone becoming a farmer. It wouldn't make sense if everyone became a farmer, because then a lot of human needs would not be met. Marx never once suggested that progress or technology was at odds with communism...

The whole point is to eliminate the class system and try to equalize things-- this would not effect the middle class at all, but it would effect the very rich, and the very poor... ie: the rich would be forced to give up their extravangances and the poor would find their daily burdens lifted a bit. Think of what the middle class has now... and that's what everyone would have under communism. You'd still have a TV, a stove, a house, a car... you'd still have a computer and the Internet. You could still go places and see things... there would be a limit to how much you could have, but you would get everything you needed and more. It would be like Bill Gates decided he wanted to live next door to you, and live exactly like you do, and everything else was put into health care, education, scientific research, medicine, culture, etc.

Communism would mean a universal middle class!!!!

The problem is that this is not what's happening. If anything, we are moving towards an even greater division between rich and poor than ever.

 

In making everyone equal how would you handle fame, like popular authors, actors, sports stars, musicians, etc..? These types of people always appear to have more than everyone else.

 

Fame is stupid-- everyone knows that. The fact is that what they do is a job just like what everyone else does is a job.

There's this great book called 'The Theory of The Leisure Class' by Thorstein Veblen which explains that our society is not driven to acquire what it needs, but to elevate those who seem to have a social 'prestige', basically the have-nots are economically convinced that the haves are their natural superiors.

The truth is that it's retarded that someone who plays a fucking GAME for a job makes more than someone who teaches thirty-five kids about who they are and where they come from for a whole year!!! Exactly HOW is playing a GAME even important??

I would even say that a lot of philosophers and authors and such are attracted to the musician/artist lifestyle, not because they actually have anything to say-- anyone can string three chords together, grow their hair long, and wow all of a sudden you're fucking Nickelback. They're not even making music or trying to make something beautiful, they're just doing what they do because it's what they've always done, and because they know they can keep selling records if they do it. There's no real inspiration, no grand ambition. That's probably one of the reasons WHY they're famous in the first place. Talented musicians who actually have something to say and want to try new things all the time aren't 'safe' or 'marketable'... people have grown up expecting consistency, and get upset when they don't get it.

And look at Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil... these people make millions upon millions by sitting on their fat asses and talking to people about shit they probably could have figured out anyway if they weren't too lazy or too stupid.

Look, there's no reason why someone who writes a good book or makes a good movie shouldn't get recognition for it, but saying they deserve more than someone who works their asses off in a fucking factory to make sure some rich asshole gets a nice pair of shoes. You don't see them putting their names onto every pair of sneakers they assemble, even though they did it, and what they did is important, because hey-- you're wearing THEIR sneakers.

Look-- most rich people have already figured that all the brand name bullshit is just that, bullshit. They don't buy into it because they know it doesn't make a difference-- it doesn't make you a better person, it doesn't make you happier, it doesn't do anything except maybe make superficial people like you a bit more, but not really like you, just like your clothing.

Our entire culture is superficial and shallow. It's all expensive dazzle with no real intellectual or spiritual value. Sports heroes and authors and musicians are just brand names on products, that's all. They're merchandising tools.

Then look at the publicly-funded TV channels and radio stations-- they tend to play intelligent programs, and they don't talk down to their audience... they address their audience as human beings who are capable of understanding articulate speech. This is because they don't have to rely on artificial methods or promote other privately-funded crap culture that's more flash than substance-- crap that's been so heavily advertised on MTV and on the private radio that people have eventually grown to accept it, and then to like it, because they don't have a choice, because it's been crammed down their throats!!!!

So yeah, I guess you could say that there's a lot of problems with fame and popular culture in general.

 

Off topic, but in response to a few other posts I've read:

While people are equal, their labour is not. Some skills are in more demand, and people are willing to pay more to have access to those skills. Some workers are lazy or inefficient and see less pay rises than their better colleagues. This is completely fair. Guys who make millions playing sports or making movies get paid that amount because lots of people are willing to pay to get access to their skills or products. There is nothing sinister in that, and its perfectly natural.

It is completely within a citizens power to reinvest in himself/herself. A person can emigrate, study or find a better job. They can take part in voluntary work to develop new skills which find them more profitable work. My parents did it. I've done it. Its not hard, it just takes effort and the will. While there are many people who are genuinely in need, there are also a lot more who whine while they have the power to help themselves and don't.

I think a small amount of Socialist policies are fine (the best systems are a blend of different ideas), so the poor can get help from the state. However, beyond that its up to people to better themselves. When I was just out of college I leaned to the left, but after I began working, and observing human nature and working practices, I learned more about the system to appreciate why things are the way they are. I now lean a little to the right.

I think some people are jealous of the wealthy without really understanding anything about their lives. They are often dehumanised and portrayed as greedy and bad by certain groups, and this is so wrong. There are bad eggs amongst the rich, just as there are among the not-rich, but there are also plenty of good rich people too.

I believe that people often mistake not being rich, for being poor. This is false. Poor people are the ones without shelter or food. If you have a home and food, you're not poor. If you play Nintendo instead of Xbox, you're not poor. You're not rich either, but that doesn't make you poor.

I live in the UK, which is slightly more socialist than the US (for instance we have a national health service) and I believe this is fine, but thats where it should end. Our system isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it needs replacing. I wouldn't object to a slight rise in taxes to help the poor, but a complete socialist system is a very bad idea. For a start, you can't achieve 100% socialist/communism without seriously cutting down on human rights and freedoms, and I know many of you care about our rights. Take these for example:

"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others."

"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

"Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."

These are a few of the rights we would have to kiss goodbye, and its totally not worth it when there are alternatives which can do the same job. In fact, I would go so far as to describe the unnecessary efforts to remove these rights as evil.

I wonder how many people who support any kind of collectivism welcome homeless people into their homes to help them out? Do these people give their spare cash to people who don't have enough? Do they help the needy themselves, or is it only people richer than them who have to share? Its easy to give away other people's property.