A question for Anti-Capitalists....

[Japey]

Each continent to be run by a charismatic leader claiming to hear messages from God.

Asia would specialise in biotechnology and so its population would turn into human hybrids - bat-humans, horse-humans, shark-humans etc.

Europe would go the other way and become a medievalist feudal state with serfs, chivalry et al.

Africa would unite into a vast tribe practising chaos magick with legions of witch doctors and enchanted lions to fight its battles.

Australasia would become a new age utopia with rugged hippies sailing thousands of miles around pacific islands on rafts simply to share cosmic vibrations.

North America would become a cyber nation with every citizen permanently wired up to the internet. Privacy would be eliminated - everybody would know exactly where anybody else was and what they were doing, and so conformity would become total.

South America would use its vast array of natural drugs and poisons to control its population. Each person's mood will be perfectly optimised to work towards the greater good. It will eschew conventional warfare and instead focus on clandestine poisoning of opponents.

The five continents will be in a state of perpetual warfare for all eternity.

Antarctica will become a refugee colony for capitalists - they will be free to make as much profit as they like from penguins, rocks and snow.

 

[mod]

Still waiting....

 

[bluestreak]

Still waiting....

you're still waiting because we've done tis a hundred times before and there is still no actual agreement because everyone has their own ideas based on their own philosophies, many of which will require a lot of writing, and inevitably lead to much bickering and snide comments and generally make every feel like giving it up altogether.

answering this question on a bulletin board is far more trouble than it's worth.

let the answer: something nicer, based around people rather than profits, be enough.

 

[mod]

So be it. Let the debate commence. Surely its possible to answer the question in a brief paragraph to give this capitalist an idea of what people believe. Sure there are serious problems within any democratic, capitalist state but I'd like to know what you'd prefer. Come on you may even convert me!

 

[In Bloom]

Its not 'my' wish mate believe me. Just thought someone who dreams of such things could enlighten me as to which political system they would like to replace capitalism.

My point was that framing the question in terms of "What if capitalism collapsed completely tomorrow?" is stupid. I'm sorry but it is.

We have to start building the new world in the shell of the old, and all that

 

[In Bloom]

So be it. Let the debate commence. Surely its possible to answer the question in a brief paragraph to give this capitalist an idea of what people believe. Sure there are serious problems within any democratic, capitalist state but I'd like to know what you prefer. Come on you may even convert me!

You call yourself a capitalist, out of curiosity, how many people do you employ? How many businesses do you own shares in?

 

[mod]

I asked first In Bloom.

 

[In Bloom]

I asked first In Bloom.

Fine, if you will insist upon obfusticating.

I believe that the best feasible replacement for the current system would be a federated system of self-managed communities, who run their own affairs along libertarian lines. Exactly how individual communites would work would obviously vary from place to place, but the basics are:

• Mutual aid, that is to say, people contribute what they can to the community and take what they need in return
• Democracy, that is to say, decisions would be made by the community, e.g. by regular referendums at local community meetings, and carried out by elected, recallable delegates who would have no power to make decisions for the communty, only carry out decisions already made.
• All work carried out by self managed groups, that is to say, the workers manage the factories and the farmers manage the fields. For examples of exactly what this would mean, look at independent workers co-ops that exist today.

Furthermore, I don't believe that this is something that can be done after capitalism has fallen, it is something we have to work towards in the here and now by organising as a class within the workplace and in the community, creating unions, social centres and other community projects being a big part of this.

That's about it, really

 

[Streathamite]

So be it. Let the debate commence. Surely its possible to answer the question in a brief paragraph to give this capitalist an idea of what people believe. Sure there are serious problems within any democratic, capitalist state but I'd like to know what you'd prefer. Come on you may even convert me!

do you have ANY idea how much this one has already been done, done to death?
move on. wheel been invented. nothing to see here...

 

[lewislewis]

'Something nicer' is an awful, sad, childish answer.

 

[Ryazan]

do you have ANY idea how much this one has already been done, done to death?
move on. wheel been invented. nothing to see here...

Maoism has been done too, but that doesn't stop you cheerleading Nepal's "People's" War.

 

[Streathamite]

Maoism has been done too, but that doesn't stop you cheerleading Nepal's "People's" War.

if you actually bothered to open both eyes and looka t any and all that i said, i fully admitted that the Maoists in question were a bunch of vicious little fuckers, and I said that I'd much rather have some nice, ethical, fluffy option 'C ', but as there wasn't likely to be one - ever - i'd choose the CPN(M) over the monarchy thanks. coldblooded, yes. cynical, yes. cheerleading, no.
and that's entirely irrelevant. here we have the endless rehashing of a question that has been debated unto infinity, or at least to a point where I can see no more gain to be had from yet another rehashing.
there we had what i believed for the nepalese was a choice of a devils alternative.
apples and oranges, in other words.
v poor. 1/10

 

[bluestreak]

'Something nicer' is an awful, sad, childish answer.

not wanting the world to be nicer is a pathetic, nasty, and thoroughly cunty attitude.

 

[catch]

In Bloom has given as good a short explanation as you're likely to see, especially given the way you've phrased the opening post.

 

[Streathamite]

and thank fuck he did, saves the rest of us the trouble.

 

[bluestreak]

so yay for in bloom, a man more dedicated than the rest of us.

*salutes*

 

[butchersapron]

'Something nicer' is an awful, sad, childish answer.

It's also an allusion that you've evidently missed.

 

[TAE]

Some fairly random thoughts from utopia:

------

One thing that REALLY bothers me about capitalism is that those who get the most out of it are not the ones who work the hardest.

In a truly fair system, those who work the hardest should get the most reward.

One problem with that is of course that someone who bothers to invent and uses a tool may work less hard and yet get more done than someone who does the same task without any tools.

-------

I sometimes wonder what would happen if it were possible for all companies to be briefly nationalised and then everyone were issued with equal shares of all companies, and nobody was allowed to trade those shares in any shape or form. The only income anyone would get would be from the dividends of those shares.

In theory everyone would have an equal motivation to see all companies succeed, and everyone would have an equal share in the rewards of that success. The hoped result would be good willed cooperation accross the country.

--------

Socialism only really works if everyone really cares about society. In small groups, such as a shared house, socialism works very well. For some reason, it seems that the bigger the group becomes, the less individuals care about the group.

--------

 

[IMHO]

In an "equal" world, with "equal" shares, why would you prevent someone working twice as hard gaining twice the benefit? Why prevent someone with a great idea HIRING people (their choice to be hired) to get the idea off the ground and potentially make more for the hirees? It's called freedom.

In a NEW world I would HOPE everyone had freedom of C H O I C E.

Not the shitty "you have a greater vision, but fuck you, let's drag you to the bottom."

 

[colacho]

In an "equal" world, with "equal" shares, why would you prevent someone working twice as hard gaining twice the benefit? Why prevent someone with a great idea HIRING people (their choice to be hired) to get the idea off the ground and potentially make more for the hirees? It's called freedom.

In a NEW world I would HOPE everyone had freedom of C H O I C E.

Not the shitty "you have a greater vision, but fuck you, let's drag you to the bottom."

FFS, what amounts to choice? You imply that capitalism = freedom. But that depends on how you define freedom. Low paid workers don't work in sweat shops because they like it and therefore choose it. They have no choice. Rich capitalist shysters exploit their impoverishment to get'em to do their work for him. Very, very basic. Let's think, now, shall we, "shall I do a shit job or starve"? (A bit like "Socialism or Death".) Oh well, shit job it is. But thank God I'm free!

 

[Ryazan]

That is an extreme example though. Low paid workers exist here too, not sweated, but.... It is often a habit for people who consider themselves left to talk about a problem that isn't in their faces.

 

[PrinceToad]

You imply that capitalism = freedom. !

A point you have there. A property right is a restriction on a person's freedom. A private property right is a restriction on everybody's freedom except the owner's. A system based on private ownership of all tools and capital is obviously very limited in terms of freedom.

Especially when most people own nothing. This brings me back to the old question I asked a few months ago: how many capitalists can there ever be in a capitalist society?

 

[Japey]

Especially when most people own nothing. This brings me back to the old question I asked a few months ago: how many capitalists can there ever be in a capitalist society?

Depends how you define a capitalist. If it is one who makes a living from the surplus value of somebody else's labour, then you would have to do an equation to see how many people could live off the value of one person's labour.

e.g. imagine a tiny society where there is a large powerful family who employ a highly skilled artist to make things which they then sell overseas. They pay the artist a living wage, and live grandly off the profits.

In this society, the ratio of capitalists to workers is extremely high. The answer to the question then is that it depends on how much surplus value is available.

 

[fishfingerer]

Every community in the world would be run just like Ramsay Street, with punishments of the utmost severity for any deviationism.

 

[In Bloom]

In an "equal" world, with "equal" shares, why would you prevent someone working twice as hard gaining twice the benefit? Why prevent someone with a great idea HIRING people (their choice to be hired) to get the idea off the ground and potentially make more for the hirees? It's called freedom.

In a NEW world I would HOPE everyone had freedom of C H O I C E.

Not the shitty "you have a greater vision, but fuck you, let's drag you to the bottom."

But why would people want to work for somebody if they can get what they need anyway simply by doing their bit within their own communities? The point is not to brutally suppress any attempt to hire people post-revolution, but to render it utterly pointless by changing the way society is structured.

 

[General Ludd]

Jesus at least you can get a debate out of right wing people.

Give us something worth debating then. You asked a stupid question so you've gotten a stupid thread.

 

[General Ludd]

So be it. Let the debate commence. Surely its possible to answer the question in a brief paragraph to give this capitalist an idea of what people believe. Sure there are serious problems within any democratic, capitalist state but I'd like to know what you'd prefer. Come on you may even convert me!

As people have said already on this thread, no-one gives a shit about any blueprint for a post-capitalist society. Nothing could be more irrelevant. The process that removes capitalism (because, like every social system before it, capitalism is not the end of history) will create something in the image of that process. (the means are the ends etc etc)

If, as I'd like, capitalism is undermined by people taking control of their own lives and communities through organisations free of bosses and politicians and instead controlled directly by those involved then the new society created would be based on those principles.

What such a society would look like is anyone's guess, if you put 60 million people in charge of their own lifes and communities who knows what they'll create - I very much hope that the views of any political current, anarchism included, are largely irrelevant when it comes to the creation of such a society - the millions of non-anarchists out there are going to have infinitely many better ideas between them.

So, in conclusion, I don't really give a shit about the question. Practical ways of organising our own lives, and helping other workplaces and communities do the same thing, is what concerns me and most of the anarchists here.

 

[mod]

General Ludd...granted my question may not have been well written but it was meant to be hypothetical. Far from stupid in my opinion though and if you think the thread is why contribute? I’m actually enjoying reading some of the replies (In Bloom in particular) and will respond in due course.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

were you really a mod?

 

[mod]

No in the 1963 sense no as i wasn't born but i joined the 80s revival and have remained into the music, clobber and scooters since. You?