Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Anarchy, Socialism, Communism, and community gardens

582 replies to this topic
Moth
  • Moth

    Sheamus McF*ckyourself

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2006
  • Canada

#61

Posted 22 June 2015 - 09:14 AM

 

 

 

 

What do you do about external actors? If South America entirely decides to do your system and 5 years later they are cooperative communes what stops the rest of the world from rolling in and taking over and enslaving everybody? 

What's stopping them from doing it now? Regardless, anarchism is internationalist. You don't stop the revolution at an arbitrary national border.

 

 

So anarchism requires an international effort to work... So in essence, it's f*cking impossible to achieve. Nevermind the fact that everything else needs to run perfectly without any oversight. 


Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#62

Posted 22 June 2015 - 09:28 AM

 

 

 

 

 

What do you do about external actors? If South America entirely decides to do your system and 5 years later they are cooperative communes what stops the rest of the world from rolling in and taking over and enslaving everybody? 

What's stopping them from doing it now? Regardless, anarchism is internationalist. You don't stop the revolution at an arbitrary national border.

 

 

So anarchism requires an international effort to work... So in essence, it's f*cking impossible to achieve. Nevermind the fact that everything else needs to run perfectly without any oversight. 

 

No, you can have an anarchist community surrounded by authoritarian states. You just wouldn't accept that your human neighbours are living under hierarchal rule and oppose it in whatever way you can. 

 

And if you think anarchism is about 'no oversight' then you don't understand it. 

  • make total destroy likes this

Moth
  • Moth

    Sheamus McF*ckyourself

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2006
  • Canada

#63

Posted 22 June 2015 - 09:37 AM

 

 

And if you think anarchism is about 'no oversight' then you don't understand it. 

 

No oversight is what exactly it is. You expect everyone to just report or tell someone to get off of their ass? And the fact that person will listen?

 

 You just wouldn't accept that your human neighbours are living under hierarchal rule and oppose it in whatever way you can. 

 

 

lol. Yeah, this would go so well. Either they won't do jacksh*t and just complain on internet forums like you do, or they start terror cells and those countries will squash yours cause you attacked them.

  • Irviding and GTA_stu like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#64

Posted 22 June 2015 - 09:55 AM

 

No oversight is what exactly it is. You expect everyone to just report or tell someone to get off of their ass? And the fact that person will listen?

guiguilgg try reading my f*cking responses. Worker owned companies are more successful than the wider market. We already have socialist enterprise and the lack of managers hasn't proven to be a concern yet.

 

 

 

lol. Yeah, this would go so well. Either they won't do jacksh*t and just complain on internet forums like you do, or they start terror cells and those countries will squash yours cause you attacked them.

This is the stupidest f*cking sh*t I've heard all week. Every other poster in here has well developed points and at least a cursory understanding of what anarchism actually entails. You've just barged in with some half-baked criticisms that stem from a pretty impressive misunderstanding of anarchism and the wider politically workings of our world. 

 

Are you arguing that it's impossible for systems to expand over national borders? 

  • Tyler and make total destroy like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#65

Posted 22 June 2015 - 09:59 AM

It's not impossible, but it doesn't exactly have a great history when it comes to revolutionary sociopolitical change in the modern era.
  • Irviding and Tyler like this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#66

Posted 22 June 2015 - 10:11 AM

How would it be applicable to huge cities like New York, Tokyo etc? Would they invariably have to break down into smaller communities to keep things functional? What if I want to move from one "community" to another, how would I arrange something like that? 

 

You mentioned that the community members would take turns doing the "public service" things, like cleaning the streets, organizing stuff, keeping things nice and tidy. What about those whose occupation requires them to stay on their job nearly 24/7? Air traffic controllers, nuclear powerplant operators and the like, will they be excused from such tasks? How would jobs be divided? Based on skill? Who decides who will be the doctor, and who will be a surgeon, and who will pilot airplanes, and who will be held accountable should there be some issue with it?

  • Irviding likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#67

Posted 22 June 2015 - 10:23 AM

How would it be applicable to huge cities like New York, Tokyo etc? Would they invariably have to break down into smaller communities to keep things functional? What if I want to move from one "community" to another, how would I arrange something like that? 

Cities have administrative divisions. I really don't get this question. And I imagine you'd just move?

 

 

 

 

What about those whose occupation requires them to stay on their job nearly 24/7? Air traffic controllers, nuclear powerplant operators and the like, will they be excused from such tasks?

I really don't understand this question either. What is exceptional about these jobs? People come in, do them and then leave, just like every other job. 

 

 

 

How would jobs be divided? Based on skill? Who decides who will be the doctor, and who will be a surgeon, and who will pilot airplanes

You would decide for yourself, just as you do now? 

 

 

 

who will be held accountable should there be some issue with it?

Whoever is actually culpable? Why would you assign blame arbitrarily? 


Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#68

Posted 22 June 2015 - 11:23 AM

 

How would it be applicable to huge cities like New York, Tokyo etc? Would they invariably have to break down into smaller communities to keep things functional? What if I want to move from one "community" to another, how would I arrange something like that? 

Cities have administrative divisions. I really don't get this question. And I imagine you'd just move?

So there is some form of government in place, to keep track of all those kinds of things? I ask because since there is a bigger emphasis on the community, there would surely be losses to the community if people with X skill just decided to leave.

 

 

 

What about those whose occupation requires them to stay on their job nearly 24/7? Air traffic controllers, nuclear powerplant operators and the like, will they be excused from such tasks?

I really don't understand this question either. What is exceptional about these jobs? People come in, do them and then leave, just like every other job. 

They are extremely stressful/time intensive skill, different from most other jobs. I ask because since people will have to do some form of community service outside their own profession of choice to keep things going smoothly, will those with more intensive/important/critical professions be excused of those tasks. Why put a guy who has a degree in nuclear physics to clean the streets?

 

 

 

How would jobs be divided? Based on skill? Who decides who will be the doctor, and who will be a surgeon, and who will pilot airplanes

You would decide for yourself, just as you do now?  

But as I do now, there are a lot of factors into play that wouldn't theoretically exist if there was anarchy. Right now we have entities and authorities that all but decide if you are fit for certain jobs. Would those continue existing? Without the profit motive, wouldn't there be a shortage of labours in some areas, that could become catastrophic?

 

Mind you, some of these questions might not make sense to you, but they do to me. Same as some things may be blatantly obvious to you, since you're far more acquainted with the theories than I am, but they won't be so to me. So forgive my ignorance.

 

Which brings me on to another set of questions. If there is no profit motive, how will people be compensated? Or will there be no compensation, and people will just have to do what they have to do because they like doing so? What about food? Will everyone have to grown their own food, or you will have people dedicated to farming and such? How about any form of exchange of services? How would bartering occur?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#69

Posted 22 June 2015 - 12:06 PM

No one has any response to the question on the last page?
  • Irviding likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#70

Posted 22 June 2015 - 01:26 PM

So, as I posted in the other thread, one question which I've never seen properly resolved is the question of how a society decides what constitutes unnecessary frivolity or wastefulness. The aim of course is for a communal society to produce and grant its citizens whatever they need, but even the concept of need is a fairly subjective one once you get to outside of the basics.

Is the very principle of having more than you require an affront to a society that's based on communal equality? As far as I can tell there's no cohesive or regimented policy towards actual frivolity as long as it isn't the result of unequal accumulation of wealth, property or capital, but on the other hand you commonly see people decrying the principle in extremis but seldom ever actually offer an explanation to at what point the possession of unnecessary things (and I use necessity in its more narrow definition there) becomes socially unacceptable.

An example, if you will. Say you have a young family with a child, living in a two bedroom house provided by the community. The woman is expecting a second child and they'd really like to move into a larger house. They don't actually need one, but its difficult to argue that it won't benefit them- however would this constitute a social faux pas? Or would that be dependent on the state if wider society, the availability of housing elsewhere, et cetera.

Whether or not children should have their own room is pretty subjective. If it's the norm for children to share a room then it probably would be seen as a faux pas to explicitly seek out housing where your children can have a room each, although presumably housing would be standardised anyway. 

 

I don't think anyone would really have to worry about consuming too much. Social mores do a good job of putting appropriate limits on consumption. Even amongst the super-rich there are socially imposed limits on how much you can consume. Riding a limo is seen as tacky etc. 

 

With regards to food and clothing, personally I think there should be no limits on former, social or otherwise, and I think social mores would take care of the latter. I've met people who spend ~$200 a week on clothes and almost never wear the same outfit twice, but actually find it really embarrassing when it's pointed out to them. I think we should have appropriate, standardised shelter, transport*, education and healthcare, unlimited access to media entertainment (we already do anyway), food, alcohol, drugs and probably clothing and technology (phones, kettles etc.), and everything else should be public property where you schedule in a turn. There's not really much point in people owning speed boats or cabins in the country that they aren't using 51 weeks out of the year. And don't even get me started on people who own horses. 

 

*Of note is that we'd probably be living in a transnational period for a while. Currently housing and transport isn't standardised, so some people will arbitrarily have a pool in their backyard and some will be driving a bigger car. Eventually after a generation or so we'd all have access to the same amount of shelter, and identical transport.

  • make total destroy likes this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#71

Posted 22 June 2015 - 01:33 PM

Doesn't sound like people are going to have a lot of fun.  Our founders have already decided what fun is.  It's not riding a speed boat.  Or a horse.  But hey, at least fewer horse carriages on the roads.

  • Irviding and Raavi like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#72

Posted 22 June 2015 - 01:43 PM

Doesn't sound like people are going to have a lot of fun.  Our founders have already decided what fun is.  It's not riding a speed boat.  Or a horse.  But hey, at least fewer horse carriages on the roads.

Learn to share tbh. 


Raavi
  • Raavi

    Mornings are for coffee and contemplation

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • European-Union
  • Best Moderator 2016
    Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#73

Posted 22 June 2015 - 01:47 PM

Jumping on the yacht example as I used that in another thread.

 

What is this 'committee' you keep referring to? The idea is that sh*t that fits in your apartment is up for grabs. 

 

Someone's gotta decide what constitutes something "nobody should own". Nuh? Besides I bought that stuff, it's my stuff, you're not going to take my stuff- if you try prepare to get your ass kicked. Like would any common thief that tried to rob me of my stuff. 

 

I think all the boats at the marina should be collective property and you should have to schedule a turn.

 

"But mommy it's sunny out, I want to go out on the water!" "Sorry child, it's not our turn today, our turn to use our own yacht we worked our asses off to purchase is in December when it will be freezing out. "This is starting to sound awfully dystopian.

 

What's the point in me owning a boat that I don't use 340 days out of the year? 

 

Because I want to? Because I like yachting? What happened to free will?

 

  • Irviding and GTA_stu like this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#74

Posted 22 June 2015 - 01:48 PM

 

Doesn't sound like people are going to have a lot of fun.  Our founders have already decided what fun is.  It's not riding a speed boat.  Or a horse.  But hey, at least fewer horse carriages on the roads.

Learn to share tbh. 

 

 

I would be willing to share, I do like entertaining people after all, but others probably not.  But I'd most likely be controlling the boat, it requires training after all to sail one.  Like a horse.  But I can still own either, right?

  • Irviding likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#75

Posted 22 June 2015 - 02:03 PM Edited by Melchior, 22 June 2015 - 02:05 PM.

Someone's gotta decide what constitutes something "nobody should own". Nuh?

We have a word for that. It's called 'policy.' At no point as anyone suggested that policy should be decided by a small handful of people.

 

 

 

Besides I bought that stuff, it's my stuff

lol

 

 

 

"But mommy it's sunny out, I want to go out on the water!"

"Mommy that cloud looks like a mushroom!" "Sorry child, we had alternatives... but we just couldn't ask the upper middle class to share their speedboats. I'm so sorry."

 

 

 

Because I want to? Because I like yachting? What happened to free will?

Well why can't I use it? What's your deal? 

 

Anyway good luck sailing when the oceans turn acidic.

 

And let me tell you what is 'dystopian.' A society built around the domination of the many by the few, constant war, starvation, exploitation, crime through the roof... not a society in which you're asked to share your f*cking motherf*cking speedboat. 


Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#76

Posted 22 June 2015 - 02:17 PM

I am sorry to hear the thermonuclear war is upon us.  Welp, I think we humans did all right.  Not great, but all right.  6/10, would live again.

  • El Diablo, Otter, Spaghetti Cat and 1 other like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#77

Posted 22 June 2015 - 02:24 PM

So there is some form of government in place, to keep track of all those kinds of things?

I think the issue is that when you hear 'no government' you hear 'no census' and such. The opposition is to governments as power structures, people aren't opposed to the banal administrative workings of the state. Obviously we would need a census. 

 

 

 

Why put a guy who has a degree in nuclear physics to clean the streets?

The idea is to avoid having an underclass of people who perform society's most menial and soul destroying labour by spreading the responsibility out amongst the entire population. A guy with a degree in nuclear physics isn't too good to do the sweeping up, and nobody's time is worth more than anybody else's. 

 

 

 

But as I do now, there are a lot of factors into play that wouldn't theoretically exist if there was anarchy. Right now we have entities and authorities that all but decide if you are fit for certain jobs. Would those continue existing?

You mean like licensing? Sure.

 

 

 

Without the profit motive, wouldn't there be a shortage of labours in some areas, that could become catastrophic?

I don't think so. Even if it were true, that can be dealt with. People aren't going to watch a 'catastrophe' unfold in front of them. 

 

 

 

Or will there be no compensation, and people will just have to do what they have to do because they like doing so? What about food? Will everyone have to grown their own food, or you will have people dedicated to farming and such?

No concept of compensation, just free access. Personally I think we should all contribute to communal crops. 

  • Tchuck likes this

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Mornings are for coffee and contemplation

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • European-Union
  • Best Moderator 2016
    Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#78

Posted 22 June 2015 - 02:56 PM

We have a word for that. It's called 'policy.' At no point as anyone suggested that policy should be decided by a small handful of people.

 

Policy to decide what items of leisure and luxury to banish? What's the point of such "policy"? Whom does it serve?

 

lol

 

Well it is, even if by some magic happening a portion of the people forfeited their right to private property, another big big portion yours truly included won't just give everything they worked their asses off to get, and will still consider what they have their property. And defend it accordingly, which will lead to unrest and will naturally inspire the formation of factions that will rebel.

 

"Mommy that cloud looks like a mushroom!" "Sorry child, we had alternatives... but we just couldn't ask the upper middle class to share their speedboats. I'm so sorry."

 

So now communism is the only way to prevent armageddon? 

 

Well why can't I use it? What's your deal? 

 

Never said you can't, we might have differing political views, but you seem like a good guy. Though I probably would have to insist that I'd stay on board, for fear of you sinking my bourgeoisie symbol (I jest). And I really don't have a problem with sharing it with the people I'm friendly with, in fact that's pretty much the norm in the sailing/yachting community. I'm just not going to let every random individual roam free on my boat, who knows they might wreck it.

 

 constant war

 

So under your envisioned system wars would just stop? Religious tensions would be magically eradicated?

 

exploitation

 

With everything moving towards automation, you can in the not too distant future scrap exploitation off that list, no need for clothing stores to employ sweatshops in Bangladesh when the work can be done more efficient, cheaper, and closer to home so the business can cut down on logistical costs and have it be ethical in the process. Win win.

 

starvation

 

Nobody will have to starve if they have a universal basic income.

 

crime through the roof... 

 

Uh crime is actually dropping. 

 

http://www.reuters.c...N0IU1UM20141110

http://www.theguardi...-level-33-years

https://translate.go...echt&edit-text=

 

Just to give a few examples.

  • Irviding likes this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#79

Posted 22 June 2015 - 03:40 PM

It does seem to me that, should humanity make it through the next few hundred years without a major global disaster, anarchism, or at least a very close attempt at it, will be our default landing position. If technological wonders solve most of our greatest needs and automation produces abundance for us, then we can all have yachts.

I've got quite a lot more reading to do regarding what an anarchist society would actually look like, but I'm still skeptical of a few core concepts: that our reliance on hierarchy is a manufactured illusion. That we can actually function without a top-down leadership. That we'd be able to feed everyone.

I am, however, loving a lot of the core concepts, and having been self employed for the past decade, defying arbitrary hierarchy makes a lot of sense to me.

Here's an oddball question: are there any decent novels that take place in a functional anarchic society?
  • Tyler and Fonz like this

Fonz
  • Fonz

    Passarim quis pousar, não deu, voou

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2014
  • None

#80

Posted 22 June 2015 - 04:34 PM

Otter, try George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. It's a not really a novel, but a journalistic report of his experiences fighting alongside the anarchists and the Trotskyists. So it's a good real-life example seen from the inside. It's a very nice read :)

  • Tyler and Melchior like this

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#81

Posted 22 June 2015 - 06:52 PM

Okay so here's my counter argument to the idea of automation ending exploitation...

 

Say I own a power company, and I noticed your plant is using tons and tons of more power than the average consumer.  I'm going to charge you a higher rate to also make more money off that switch to automation.  Or perhaps the state imposes rate-hike restrictions, what if I'm the manufacturer that produces the semi-conductors for the machine?  I could start charging whatever I wanted for my semi-conductors and just tell all the other people manufacturing them, "Hey, raise your prices too, it will be good for all of us."  For every new "market" there's a new racket.


Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#82

Posted 22 June 2015 - 07:19 PM Edited by Irviding, 22 June 2015 - 07:24 PM.

People enjoy their work. If your only reason for leaving the house is to get something in return, you may as well stay in bed. Should there be a limit on how much you consume? Probably, yeah. If I get a shiny new jacket I shouldn't be picking up a flatscreen TV that same week. So if you want a little more stuff than I guess you can do a little bit more work. Seems fair.

What if I work for 90 hours in a week so that I can get a new flatscreen TV for my kids as well as a nice new jacket for myself? I'm sorry but I will never agree with a system, and neither will the majority of the world, wherein if you work extra hard you can't get more benefits.

 

The idea is that everyone should have their skill, ie you're doctor or a mechanic or something, and both jobs are viewed as equally valuable. The highest and lowest tier positions should be abolished and divided up equally amongst the population. ie, everyone sits in parliament at one point for a few weeks, everyone spends a few days out of the year driving street sweepers and digging ditches. The military and the police should operate the same way- everyone's a member, and there's a minimum and maximum amount of time you can serve.

But being a police officer or a military member requires a lot of training and knowledge... as does being a doctor and even operating a street sweeper. Are you saying that people who are doctors and mechanics will also rotate positions? As in, everyone has to know how to be not only a doctor but also how to operate a crane? If not, and if you allow the doctors and other top level positions that require years of learning to not be rotated, then those holding those positions will become the elite and we will go back to what we had already but 100000x worse.

 

 

 


What is this 'committee' you keep referring to? The idea is that sh*t that fits in your apartment is up for grabs. Nobody should own a yacht. I think all the boats at the marina should be collective property and you should have to schedule a turn. What's the point in me owning a boat that I don't use 340 days out of the year?

Why can't I own a yacht? f*ck you would be my attitude to the asshole who tells me I can't have a yacht after working years for it before I put a bullet in his head. Most people would agree. You can pry my stuff I worked for from my cold dead hands. As Raavi said, boaters are happy to share with other boaters and friends... boaters are some of the friendliest people. Out on the water everyone helps one another. But if you think I'm going to let some asshole who's from Montana and has never seen a boat before take my boat and drive it around, you're out of your mind. Again, most would agree.

 

 

 

What's stopping them from doing it now? Regardless, anarchism is internationalist. You don't stop the revolution at an arbitrary national border.

The international system stops them from doing it now. The world itself is an anarchical, self help system wherein each state is concerned about its own security and power relative to that of others.

 

 

Why would someone steal if everything is free anyway? Who are you going to sell it to? I imagine theft would exist on a small scale where unique goods are concerned and probably always will, but it's not a huge consideration. If someone steals once write it down and let them go. If someone steals ten times, rehabilitate them. Murder of course will always exist, but just as with theft, these would be isolated acts rather than a societally enforced patterns of behaviour. If someone murders rehabilitate them. Keep some manner of courts, and a rehabilitation centre which is something like a prison.

Not everything would be free, though. That isn't possible... craftsmen who are skilled should just give away their livelihood for nothing? And sorry bud, you can't rehabilitate everybody. 

  • Raavi likes this

make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    love or a garbage disposal unit

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#83

Posted 22 June 2015 - 08:03 PM Edited by make total destroy, 22 June 2015 - 08:18 PM.

 

What if I work for 90 hours in a week so that I can get a new flatscreen TV for my kids as well as a nice new jacket for myself? I'm sorry but I will never agree with a system, and neither will the majority of the world, wherein if you work extra hard you can't get more benefits.

 

 

Why would you work 90 hours a week if there's 'no incentive to work' (your words)? But for real, I'd much rather live in a society where people don't lose their hands making TVs they'll never afford anyway. In any case, I'm sure there'd be enough TVs for everyone m8. We've over-produced them under capitalism. We have a surplus already.

 

The majority of the world works extra hard and resides in slums, or factory housing, and most of them probably don't even dream of owning a flatscreen TV.

 

 


But being a police officer or a military member requires a lot of training and knowledge... as does being a doctor and even operating a street sweeper.

There's a difference between learning basic self-defense and the like, and receiving an extensive medical education. We won't be swapping doctors out every week.

 

 

Are you saying that people who are doctors and mechanics will also rotate positions? As in, everyone has to know how to be not only a doctor but also how to operate a crane?

No, he isn't saying that.

 

 


Why can't I own a yacht? f*ck you would be my attitude to the asshole who tells me I can't have a yacht after working years for it before I put a bullet in his head. Most people would agree. You can pry my stuff I worked for from my cold dead hands.

In the context of capitalist society, who owns yachts? Is it people that sell their labor in exchange for a wage, or is those that live on the backs of labor (i.e. wealthy captalists)? I don't know too many carpenters or fast food cashiers that own yachts. In fact, I'm fairly sure the vast majority of people don't own yachts. If you own a yacht, it's likely a product of exploitation, rather than your own hard work.

 

In any event, I don't think we'll have an issue with prying it from your cold dead hands.

 

 

As Raavi said, boaters are happy to share with other boaters and friends... boaters are some of the friendliest people. Out on the water everyone helps one another. But if you think I'm going to let some asshole who's from Montana and has never seen a boat before take my boat and drive it around, you're out of your mind. Again, most would agree.

Why do I feel like this wouldn't cause society to crumble?

 


Here's an oddball question: are there any decent novels that take place in a functional anarchic society?

 

As Black_MiD pointed out Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell is good non-fiction set during the Spanish Civil War. As for fiction, check out The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin. I've yet to read it myself, but I've heard a lot of great things about it. (And it's free at the Anarchist Library!)

  • Tyler, Melchior and Fonz like this

Spaghetti Cat
  • Spaghetti Cat

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2009
  • None

#84

Posted 22 June 2015 - 09:25 PM

Well you're not getting my yacht that's for sure!  (kidding kidding)

 

 

Having a time trying to picture this society you guys are building.  If you don't mind, let me ask in a historical context.  

 

 

So on a scale of 0-10 how would you rate the following*:  

 

With 0 being evil greedy capitalistic society and 10 being a (insert your -ism or -ist here) Utopian paradise.  

 

Cuba -

 

North Korea -

 

Former Soviet Union -

 

China (pre capatilist reforms) -

 

 

* just asking about the societies.  This isn't a gotcha question.  I think we can all agree that many of those places have bad human rights records.  Just asking in terms of economies and societal make-up.


make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    love or a garbage disposal unit

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#85

Posted 22 June 2015 - 09:53 PM

All states listed above are capitalist states, so, 0 across the board,  I guess?

  • Otter and Fonz like this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#86

Posted 22 June 2015 - 10:43 PM Edited by Irviding, 22 June 2015 - 10:45 PM.

You didn't answer my question about what happens when you don't rotate positions like doctor and highly skilled and educated folks. Then there's your new political elite.

In the context of capitalist society, who owns yachts? Is it people that sell their labor in exchange for a wage, or is those that live on the backs of labor (i.e. wealthy captalists)? I don't know too many carpenters or fast food cashiers that own yachts. In fact, I'm fairly sure the vast majority of people don't own yachts. If you own a yacht, it's likely a product of exploitation, rather than your own hard work.

My family owns a small 27 foot boat that my father works his ass off to afford and occasionally goes into debt paying to maintain. I know a family who owns a yacht and the father is an entrepreneur that created a prosthetics business and pays his people very fair wages and I saw cry when he had to fire somebody for stealing... Not every person with money is an exploitive dick.
  • Moth likes this

make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    love or a garbage disposal unit

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#87

Posted 22 June 2015 - 11:05 PM

You didn't answer my question about what happens when you don't rotate positions like doctor and highly skilled and educated folks. Then there's your new political elite.
 

I don't follow your logic. How do they then become the new political elite? I could see how they could become authorities, but only in the sense that, say, a shoemaker is an authority on shoes.

 

What happens when you don't rotate those positions is that you have people capable of fulfilling those roles. Anyone could become a doctor, but not everyone is interested in becoming a doctor, nor are they going to just up and become a doctor one day without years of education and training.

 

My family owns a small 27 foot boat that my father works his ass off to afford and occasionally goes into debt paying to maintain. I know a family who owns a yacht and the father is an entrepreneur that created a prosthetics business and pays his people very fair wages and I saw cry when he had to fire somebody for stealing... Not every person with money is an exploitive dick.

 

By definition, anyone who owns capital is an exploitive dick. Whether or not they cry--how touching--after they fire their employees is irrelevant.

 

And you admittedly come from a 'well-to-do' family, so I think it's safe you are not our target audience.


universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, WILLY!

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Conversion 2016 [GTA: Underground] [Contribution]
    Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#88

Posted 23 June 2015 - 01:33 AM

By definition, anyone who owns capital is an exploitive dick.


So people who have money automatically exploit people? I've got about ten dollars in my wallet, who am I exploiting?

make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    love or a garbage disposal unit

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#89

Posted 23 June 2015 - 01:39 AM

Having money in your wallet =/= owning the means of production for your own private interests.

  • Melchior likes this

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, WILLY!

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Conversion 2016 [GTA: Underground] [Contribution]
    Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#90

Posted 23 June 2015 - 01:41 AM

Having money in your wallet =/= owning the means of production for your own private interests.


Didn't you buy your computer or phone or whatever you're posting on with capital?

Wouldn't that mean you're exploiting people just by having a phone, or computer, or tablet, etc., i.e. capital?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users