I'm switching parties!

Ask a Wal-Mart employee if he gets his fair share of Wal-Marts wealth.

So why in 1934 did US companies try to turn the US into a military dictatorship? Why did US companies support the Nazi party? why are Nike factories sweatshops? Why did Coke hire terrorist to kill union organizers in Columbia? There is a long list of atrocities from corperations and it keeps getting longer.

If Stalin had enough military might, he would have succeed. Yet military might has nothing to do if your moral or not.

Their labour is still underpaid.

Yes but they are not as good at spreading revolutionary ideas.

What about the rest of the word, it needs saving. The message needs to get out, in hope the workers of the world will declare their work place independant from their owners. Before you say it is theif, the US declared independace from Britian and Britian invested alot in the US colonies so what is the difference? Give me one good reason why GM workers declairing their factory independant from GM, is different from the USA declairing indepenace from Britian.

Argentina is slightly better off, thanks to Anarchist getting the word out.

What are you doing to end poverty? voting every 4 years for more of the same?

Just because you are good in the battle field, doesn't mean your cause is just. Anarchist suck in the battle field, that doesn't mean they cause isn't just. Therefore Anarcrhist fight a battle of ideas, to get workers declare independance.

Not at the first

Anarchist Spain only failed on the battle field, as a society it did work. Might is never right.

 

Where do I start?

Not all U.S. corporations supported the Nazi Party. In fact, the vast majority did not. What you consider a "sweatshop" other workers in other parts of the world consider a living wage. I have lived in the "third world", and it costs much less to live there. Pay is scaled, that's how the real world works.

By whose standards are they underpaid? Yours? I have a lot of family in korea, and they do just fine. A day's work for a day's pay. I suppose everyone would be living like kings under you failed conceptions of an economic system, though.

The US was seeking political freedom. Privately held companies were not co-opted by the american revolutionaries. Revolutionary movements in other countries have attempted to do what you suggest. The result is always the same--failure. I don't know how co-opting a manufacturing facility will result in more freedom for the "oppressed third world".

Any increased prosperity in Argentina has nothing to do with "anarchists getting the word out". How does that increase their standard of living?

What I am doing to end poverty is working hard to enhance my PERSONAL wealth, and paying taxes, much of which goes to the poor, and donating to charity. What everyone else does is their own business. It is neither my responsibility nor my concern. Isn't that what you supposedly think you espouse? Personal freedom? What you actually espouse is redistribution of wealth, where there is no freedom involved. Violent overthrow, robbery, and murder. Say what you want about "direct democracy": were that ever to happen, it would become an authoritarian tyrrany. SOMETHING has to fill the void, and rather than capitalism and representative democracy, which have evolved over time as the most successful system ever to exist, you will have tyrrany. Dictatorship. Mob rule followed by authoritarian rule (see the French revolution). Anyway, what are YOU doing to end poverty? Spewing a lot of crap on the internet? How is that helping anyone? You make your own ridiculous ideas actually sound even more ridiculous, if that's possible.

Do you actually think they are winning in the battle of ideas? Justifying idiocy in the face of all logic, experience, and fact? If your concept of anarchism (still trying to figure out what that is) were effective, feasible, or even possible, it would exist as more than a utopian ideal. It would exist somewhere, at some time (and don't try to bring up spain again. They were indebted to the communists for one, and for two, if you want to live in that type of environment, with "people's courts" stringing people up in cemetaries because of personal vendettas and indiscriminate killing of those who think the "system" is idiocy, have at it. Rule by the mob--good times! Again, Kim Jong Il would be happy to have you).

The spanish republicans, and I include the anarcho-syndicalists and the communists, and the socialists, all failed ideologies, they also failed to win over the spanish people, not only the war. The spanish people saw the degradation of their society, culture, and everything they believed in at the hands of the anarcho-syndicalists and communists. The republicans would have, and could have, and by many measures should have (lots of rubles from the USSR + widespread support at the outset) prevailed, if the PEOPLE wanted it. Remember, the nationalists were the revolutionaries, and the republicans well established, entrenched even. That is why whatever you ARE espousing will NEVER exist. Anyone with an ounce of sense, or who has had to live in the real world, and not fantasy-land, knows it will not, ever, work.

 

The company makes tons of money while the swatshop workers make a dinky wage and have horrible work conditions.

By the fact their bosses make far more money, for less work.

If done right, by having democratically run work places: improved working conditions, more employment, higer wages and lower prices.

15,000 workers that have better working conditions, higher wages and lower prices (they even donated alot of goods)

So your are just being greedy and not caring about the rest of humanity. You have your freedom but at the expense of the poor. 30% of Americans go below the poverty line at least once in their life time (1998, Lost Angeles Time, Auguest 10, Section A p.15)

As more me I do volunteer to help out as best I can but the system has got to change, it doesn't matter how much charity work I do, Capitalism just keeps the poor coming. You have the owners at Wal-Mart raking in the cash, while their employees go to food banks because they can't make a living on their wages. In fact most people that need food banks do have jobs, if this not a sign that Capitalism doesn't work I don't what is.

History shows sooner or later the poor will rise up and demand their fair share and I am on their side.

Currently a tiny example is the 200 cooperatives in Argentina. Expand the model to cover the entire world and we can end poverty.

 

How do you know the conditions of the workers in different countries? Have you been there? Or is it just more B.S. propaganda you've read? And again, the "dinky" wage you, as a priveleged canadian consider insufficient, pays for food, housing, medical care, and discretionary spending for someone not as priveleged as you are.
"improved working conditions, more employment, higher wages, lower prices" blah blah blah-show me somewhere this has actually happened, besides in theory. As for you argentina example: what's your source? I don't buy it.
It is not up to me to care for the rest of humanity. It is my responsibility to care for myself and my family. I donate money and volunteer because I want to. Not because I feel guilty, because I've worked hard for everything I have. I have been below the poverty line, and you know what (you probably don't). It sucks. That's why I busted my ass to get through school, all at my own expense, working 2-4 jobs, until I achieved my goal, which I still have not yet accomplished (another concept likely foreign to you). More people DO NOT need food banks than have jobs. I'm really interested to know your source on that one. There are plenty of co-ops here too, in the U.S.. How does that prove your point? Look at the data. Many of the co-ops are subsidized in some way, so that proves they do NOT work.
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing....

 

If Psy Fox actually knew anything about Chinese history, he could tell you Mao Zedong actually kept Capitalism in place for about 6 years before going to communism in order to GROW the economy. After Mao put in motion the socialist revolution, the economy went stagnant, and the next leader began to turn the economy towards a more free market system, and their economy improved.

 

The fact that they continue to work at those places indicates that THEY don't consider the wage to be "dinky" nor do they consider the work conditions to be "horrible." They're free to quit any time they want, and pursue employment elsewhere.

I'm sorry that the standard of living in the third-world doesn't meet up to your self-righteous, Americentric definition of what "good work conditions" are. If the people working in those places felt the same way, they'd quit.

And (in most cases) it's not as though they grudgingly work jobs they hate, so that they don't starve. Unlike you, I've actually been to many third-world countries. I've spent time in Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia. Most of the people seem every bit as happy as Americans, and are GRATEFUL for the companies that invest in their countries and provide them with jobs.

But the work of the bosses is more PRODUCTIVE than the work of the subordinates. The AMOUNT of work doesn't matter, it's how productive you are that counts.

You really don't understand even the most basic principles of economics. A company (regardless of how it's run) can't just suddenly decide to do all of those things, and still remain competitive. They can make those changes if the market demands them, but if they unilaterally lower their prices below the market rate they'll quickly find themselves out of business.

Oh cry me a river. The only people who have EVER gotten rich under communism are the cronies in charge of the government. Compare that with capitalism, where a person can be born in poverty, and still grow up to be successful. It may be more difficult for a poor person to become successful than for a rich person to become successful, but it is by no means impossible or even extremely difficult. And you don't have to exploit other people to do it, either.

The problem most minimum wage workers have is that A) they mismanage their money, or B) they come to RELY on things like the government-funded food banks. A person working at Wal-Mart for 2,000 hours a year, earning $6 an hour, will make $12,000 per year. That's not a lot of money, but it is enough to provide for food, clothing, rent, power, and insurance, if spent properly. $12,000 is still a lot more than most of the world's people earn per year.

History shows this? When have the poor EVER risen up and demanded their "fair" share? There was the French Revolution and various communist revolutions...all of which ended in disaster, as totalitarian governments were formed.

 

www.lp.org

 

Priveleged? I'm unemployed, have been for a year.

Ha, if you belive that, you have never worked for minimum wage.

Why don't you buy it? Because you don't belive in humanity? I can give you souces but you'll probably won't belive Indymedia or ZNet.

Under Capitalism, someone has to lose and that is why Capitalism is evil.

I know alot of poor people, minimum wage + intrest on student loans doesn't leave enough for food. I know tons of people that huge debts for education that are working at theaters, drug stores and movie rental stores.

You have to do it right, the 200 in Argentina are not there to make the workers rich but improve the quality of community and the workers.

 

First off, I've worked below minimum wage many times. And I got by, supported family, AND paid for higher education. Second, everything you've said has not refuted any of my points. I do, however, tend to find that those who consistently FAIL are those who endorse either marxism, communism, or whatever it is you are in favor of. Your case proves nothing different to me. BTW those big subsidy cheques you get off the backs of the canadian taxpayers is close to what the average person in the "third world" would make in half a year, and they would and do live well.

And again, in argentina, of all places, the little co-ops and other B.S. HAVE TO BE SUBSIDIZED BY THE STATE TO SURVIVE. How does that demonstrate solvency or efficiency? As long as SOMEONE is footing the bill, all the ZEROS can live in fantasy-land. If not, they will starve. They cannot get by on ANYTHING of their own making--it has to be stolen, or taken. And it's not the fault of the affluent that some people fail--it is some people's foolishness, laziness, or short-sightedness. I almost feel like I should be paying you, you provide so much entertainment for me right now.

 

How the hell does a thread about someone making a commitment to the Libertarian party devolve into another Pinko vs Pig thread? C'mon people, there must be a couple dozen CvsC threads already, go there if you want to beat that dead horse. I'm not in favor of enforcing strict guidelines, but please try to keep the thread at least slightly on subject.

 

The thread goes where it wants. There is one dead horse who tries to keep on going.
Do you really want to be on a site where EVERYONE stays ON TOPIC at all times? What the hell is this, russia?

 

No, I'm just tired of EVERY OTHER FUCKING THREAD IN THIS FORUM turning into another godsdamned pinkos vs pigs debate. Not that I don't like making fun of silly pinkos, but it could be that I want to discuss Libertarianism and it is really fucking difficult when three pages of off-topic shit I've heard several dozen times before pops up between every post about libertarianism.

Oh, and by the way, true anarchists (not this silly communist "anarchy"{ha! communist anarchy!}) would probably find the libertarian philosophy quite appealing. While it certainly doesn't advocate total anarchy, the libertarians are the most anti-authoritarian party that I know of.

 

I can't disagree with that. That's what I've been trying to say. If you're pissed off about it, start you own thread. Otherwise, I find it amusing to see what this f***head will say to justify his position. Maybe it's just me. I dunno...

 

"Bush is really a far leftist."

For such a smart guy, that was a really stupid statement. I agree that Bush and the new republicans ("neo-cons") aren't traditional conservatives by any stretch...they are corporate oligarchs pushing for a theocratic world government. But the label of "far leftist" is pretty dumb. They are as rightwing as you can possibly get, in the context that "rightwing" means total dictatorial control. Rightwing fundamentalism is not the same thing as conservatism. Not even close. I know these are just labels and labels aren't all the important, but sometimes they need to be chosen carefully, so as not to confuse the less-informed. And if you want to confuse the "new" activist, that's the perfect way to do it. Call Bush a "far leftist"! lololol

Jesuswasamonkey (pathetic name, but whatever), why don't you check out 1 or more of the many articles contained in the www.infoshop.org website. Then and only then will you have the legitimacy to comment on what true anarchism really is. Thus far, you don't seem to have a clue.

 

#1, neo conservative doesn't mean new republican, and it has very little to do with economic policy or religious fundamentalism at home. Neo conservatives are primarily concerned with foreign policy and US security.

#2, "the label of "far leftist" is pretty dumb. They are as rightwing as you can possibly get, in the context that "rightwing" means total dictatorial control". This is indefensible. Is there anyone that doesn't believe that the far left believes in total dictatorial control?

But OK OK OK i agree this is a LP thread. I don't reveal my votes, but at the moment I am against the LP and pro Republican because I think Bush has given every indication he will steer closer to conservative economics in his second term, and I am much more confortable with his foreign policy after the last few months developments.

LP is supposed to represent social liberalism and economic conservatism. Democrats and Republicans always offer half and sometimes deliver none. But the reality is that the LP doesn't keep itself free of crackpots and fanatic purists, exactly the kind of people that are prominent in any party which intends to talk and act like it can never get elected. More REALISTIC policy proposals and less zealotry (i.e. income taxes are illegal) would help.

But every time an election comes around, I'm told that the Republicans are run by the religious right and the democrats are god hating communists. Neither are true, in fact both images are just fund raising strategies of their opponents (and supporters). The fact is that with congress, the senate, and the white house, Bush isn't using his political capital to ban abortion or gay marriage. The religious rights will never catch on, they are just free votes who can be appeased with a few crumbs. I'm tired of hearing of the impending apocalype, the sky which is ever-falling. Bush is for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage becuase he knows it will never happen. If it were actually a realistic possibility, he wouldn't have stuck his neck out.

Now I know I can't get everything from the Republicans. They will never do enough to protect gays from discrimination, and will never legalise drugs. Many more things. But EVERYBODY could vote for some small fringe party that supports exactly their positions the dozens of major issues. It is pointless. In the end, I have to vote for the party that I think will give me the most of what I want and the least of what I don't want. I get to vote locally, state, federally, congress, senate, president, etc. I can mix my votes to support libertarian candidates, or libertarian republicans, or democrats who are leaning the right way on issues critical to me. So its not always a binary democrat-republican choice anyway.

 

Revomystic, (Absolutely fucking brilliant fucking name, you must be godsdamn proud, but whatever) I don't give a fuck what people call themselves. I guess if some crazy guy downtown calls himself Napoleon, he is, in a sense, Napoleon, but that doesn't make him Napoleon by the real definition of the word, even if he writes an umphteen page essay on why he is in fact Napoleon. Sure, ignorant punk kids and their sinister puppetmasters have been calling marxism anarchy since at least the seventies, but that doesn't change the definition of anarchy. Anarchy, by definition, is complete absence of any official governmental institutions. Wealth cannot be redistributed without some form of government, whether it acknowledges itself as government or not, any group which exercises control over everyone else's life, financially or otherwise, is a government.

Here's a quote from a source respectable enough to not have to brag about how awesome and respectable they are on the front page, the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM

You want an example of real anarchy in action? The Hell's Angels. Not those politically motivated dickheads who fucked up a perfectly good peaceful protest in Seattle (thus eroding the right to peaceful protest for all Americans), not those stupid socialist spraypunks in London. The Hell's fucking Angels were true anarchists, they just did whatever the fuck they wanted. It was like the wild-west on wheels, and the only time they had anything at all to do with government was when they got arrested, which was something they tried to avoid as a rule of thumb.

You're certainly free to share what you wish in an anarchist society, and even steal if you can avoid being shot, but if there is government, which is required to redistribute wealth (except in utopian fantasyland), there is no anarchy except among the few who live outside of the system.

Oh, and by the way, since you seem to be some sort of communist, marxist, "anarchist", socialist, whatever, and these philosophies are all about the rule of the working class, what do you do for a living?

Oh jesus, you pulled me fucking off topic. Well, I'll say it again. Libertarians are about as close as you can get to anarchy in a political party(since anarchists, by definition, do not participatte in politics). Libertarians are for minimal government, self empowerment, and the freedom to do whatever you please so long as it doesn't harm others. It's just too bad that anarchists don't vote. Oh well, they're certainly welcome to become libertarians.

I'm not an anarchist, I'm a libertarian. I believe that some government is neccesary basically for national defense (not preemptive bullshit, but sending out tanks in case Canada decides they're invading Alaska{or whatever, I just used Canada as a humorous example}), for keeping people from murdering, stealing, raping, or otherwise harming each other, and for providing certain things such as roads and schools that private entities are unwilling or unable to provide, but which are neccesary for a healthy modern society. I also happen to believe in social darwinism. I think that the human race ultimately benifits from letting the weak die out naturally, but I also believe that evil is cheating nature as much as charity is and only the weak need evil to prosper, and evil should be avoided and shunned as well. Do what you will, but fuck you if you try to screw me over. (yeah, I used a fuzzy word, evil, but you know what I mean)

 

I'm not about the rule of anyone...not a working class, corporate class, or communist one. I don't label myself as anything. My philosophy, however, can be closely aligned with anarchism...and I mean the real version, not the false one you learned about and still believe to this day. Sorry bud, but like I said in my prior post, until you learn the real definition of what anarchism is...don't pretend you do. I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but I hate when people knock something they don't understand. It happens all the time and it pisses me off, especially when it's based on a false definition that the ruling class is happy to have you believe.

 

No, the previous poster is correct about the definition of anarchy. "Archy" means government or ruling structure. "An" means none.

Anarchy means no government and is utterly incompatible with Marxism or any other form of forced wealth redistribution (other than random robberies).

 

I agree with this.

 

The ruling class has helped the world work very well for a very long time/