A question for Anti-Capitalists....

[IMHO]

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.

Thank God for rich capitalist shysters, then. Without them no sweatshop, no work, starvation.

 

[IMHO]

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?

They may only need cabbage soup and a knitted jumper. But they may WANT a whole lot more. And "communities" implies that no-one is anti-social, and that everyone wants to help each other.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

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?

No, god no. Born in 85, if anything i was a skatepunk.

How big was the mod revival in the 80's? revolved around the jam didn't it?
Apparently mod is big in france (or was a year ago).

Was working at a paul weller gig - best dressed crowd i hav ever seem UnBELIVABLE cloting, beatiful suits. How much do you pay for a bespoke suit? I want one badly

Want contemporary bands do you consider mod?

 

[_pH_]

They may only need cabbage soup and a knitted jumper. But they may WANT a whole lot more. And "communities" implies that no-one is anti-social, and that everyone wants to help each other.

I tend to think that too. People tend to be by nature aspirational and maybe even a bit competitive; unfortunately there will always be those are quite happy to shaft others to get what they want.

 

[TremulousTetra]

so there's NEVER going to be any capitalism again. i don't think we need worry too much about a resurgence of capitalism under those circumstances...

Didn't know you were in the KPD.

 

[In Bloom]

They may only need cabbage soup and a knitted jumper. But they may WANT a whole lot more.

And as long as they work it out for themselves, without hurting anyone, I don't see a problem with that. If people start trying to steal or behave anti-socially, the community can deal with it in an appropriate manner.

 

[Fullyplumped]

If people start trying to steal or behave anti-socially, the community can deal with it in an appropriate manner.

Now it's necessary to define "steal", to define behave "anti socially", to define "community", to define "an appropriate manner". One wee sentence with a world of implications.

In a society organised at a level bigger than the family or household, unless these things are done in a completely random or arbitrary manner, you need institutions, defined and thus written rules, means of allocating resources, means of resolving disputes, means of accounting, means of auditing, and so on. You get a state, in other words, and you get law and police, and bureaucracy, and management. You need to address corruption and crime, as In Bloom suggests, you need to work out who acts for the community, and you need to regulate this.

So a first question is whether you have a state and how it is arranged and controlled.

 

[Fullyplumped]

They may only need cabbage soup and a knitted jumper. But they may WANT a whole lot more.

Suppose those who want more organise politically and try to take control of the state, perhaps by asking for some kind of "elections"? Do you explain why "the time isn't quite right, citizen" with the aid of informative pamphlets and if necessary state security police? Or make some tiny gesture to appease them? Or lose the subsequent election and give in gracefully?

Oh look... post-revolutionary socialist politics - coming to Cuba soon!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Now it's necessary to define "steal", to define behave "anti socially", to define "community", to define "an appropriate manner". One wee sentence with a world of implications.

In a society organised at a level bigger than the family or household, unless these things are done in a completely random or arbitrary manner, you need institutions, defined and thus written rules, means of allocating resources, means of resolving disputes, means of accounting, means of auditing, and so on. You get a state, in other words, and you get law and police, and bureaucracy, and management. You need to address corruption and crime, as In Bloom suggests, you need to work out who acts for the community, and you need to regulate this.

So a first question is whether you have a state and how it is arranged and controlled.

Aren't you assuming there that politics can only occur at the national level though? Whereas I think several of the posters on here would want to see most political decisions occurring at some more local or municipal level.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Aren't you assuming there that politics can only occur at the national level though? Whereas I think several of the posters on here would want to see most political decisions occurring at some more local or municipal level.

My point about laws and bureacracy applies at any level beyond households or family. Unless relations over shared resources are to be governed by the principle of a Post-It note on the fridge door.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

My point about laws and bureacracy applies at any level beyond households or family. Unless relations over shared resources are to be governed by the principle of a Post-It note on the fridge door.

Sure, but the size of the political community does matter. If most important political decisions are being taken at the level of say 5000 people, an individual has some chance of influencing decisions taken in their name, but once it's happening at the level of 60 million people, then the only views that are going to be consistently listened to are those of organisations with the resources to effectively lobby those in power. Plus a few thousand people in marginals every few years.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Sure, but the size of the political community does matter. If most important political decisions are being taken at the level of say 5000 people, an individual has some chance of influencing decisions taken in their name, but once it's happening at the level of 60 million people, then the only views that are going to be consistently listened to are those of organisations with the resources to effectively lobby those in power. Plus a few thousand people in marginals every few years.

You're right. A good example is the US municipalities which elect their Sheriffs and Judges.

I think the first decision many sensible communities might make, though, is to merge with neighbours to pool resources. How would a commune of 5000 people handle detection and investigation of a crime like murder, extradition of suspects, and indictment, trial and disposal of a prosecution? What if there was an imbalance of need at a larger than communal level?

That's an example to do with criminal justice - unless serious crime was to evaporate along with capitalism. But what about organisation of health services like cardiology, oncology, etc.? The green revolution might abolish heart disease and cancer but presumably not overnight.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The argument isn't that you don't have any social structures above the 5000 level say, it's that you don't do anything above that level that can be done at a lower level. So for example a community of 5000 can support a primary school or a health centre, but would need to federate or something in order to support a university or teaching hospital. Centralising for the sake of it just makes it easier for the government to simply ignore the interests of citizens in favour of the larger organisations that are set up to lobby at national level.

 

[Fullyplumped]

The argument isn't that you don't have any social structures above the 5000 level say, it's that you don't do anything above that level that can be done at a lower level. So for example a community of 5000 can support a primary school or a health centre, but would need to federate or something in order to support a university or teaching hospital. Centralising for the sake of it just makes it easier for the government to simply ignore the interests of citizens in favour of the larger organisations that are set up to lobby at national level.

I agree completely. Boring or what?

 

[lewislewis]

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

I want the world to be nicer.

Its just stupid and childish to not answer the question properly and not give an explanation of the system to replace capitalism.

 

[In Bloom]

Now it's necessary to define "steal", to define behave "anti socially", to define "community", to define "an appropriate manner". One wee sentence with a world of implications.

In a society organised at a level bigger than the family or household, unless these things are done in a completely random or arbitrary manner, you need institutions, defined and thus written rules, means of allocating resources, means of resolving disputes, means of accounting, means of auditing, and so on. You get a state, in other words, and you get law and police, and bureaucracy, and management. You need to address corruption and crime, as In Bloom suggests, you need to work out who acts for the community, and you need to regulate this.

So a first question is whether you have a state and how it is arranged and controlled.

There is a difference between having a state and having a well organised administration of things.

 

[In Bloom]

You're right. A good example is the US municipalities which elect their Sheriffs and Judges.

I think the first decision many sensible communities might make, though, is to merge with neighbours to pool resources. How would a commune of 5000 people handle detection and investigation of a crime like murder, extradition of suspects, and indictment, trial and disposal of a prosecution? What if there was an imbalance of need at a larger than communal level?

That's why anarchists are federalists. You are conflating large scale organisation with centralisation.

 

[Fullyplumped]

There is a difference between having a state and having a well organised administration of things.

You call it a "well organised administration of things", I call it a state. Do you agree that the institutions and systems I described would need to be organised, one way or another? If not, how would you address my original question?

 

[Fullyplumped]

That's why anarchists are federalists. You are conflating large scale organisation with centralisation.

Well, you'd need an awful lot of committees. Who'd take the minutes?

 

[In Bloom]

You call it a "well organised administration of things", I call it a state. Do you agree that the institutions and systems I described would need to be organised, one way or another?

With the exceptions of "police, and bureaucracy and management", yes, but they would need to be organised by the people effected by them and run as decentralised as is practical.

Edit: easier if we do this in one post each

Well, you'd need an awful lot of committees. Who'd take the minutes?

Whoever volunteered to do them. Though ideally a few people would be best off taking minutes in any really big meeting, IMO, to ensure accuracy.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullyplumped
Well, you'd need an awful lot of committees. Who'd take the minutes?

Whoever volunteered to do them. Though ideally a few people would be best off taking minutes in any really big meeting, IMO, to ensure accuracy..

Er, does Unison know about this?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

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

I'd emphasise also, the ability to meet the subsistence and other basic needs of the community using its own internal resources. That's very important for several reasons. First, it offers a measure of protection against the damage randomly caused by events in the global markets or by government policies intended to improve business profitability at the expense of wage earners and those on benefits, Secondly, it radically simplifies the logistics in a way that undercuts a lot of the arguments for centralising power in a state, rather than taking most political and economic decisions on a human scale. Thirdly, for various mostly technical reasons (e.g. nutrient recycling) self-supporting communities of around 200-2000 tend to be most effective for maximising sustainability, although there's no reason not to cluster these.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Thirdly, for various mostly technical reasons (e.g. nutrient recycling) self-supporting communities of around 200-2000 tend to be most effective for maximising sustainability, although there's no reason not to cluster these.

Whoa, Betty!! "nutrient recycling?" Does that mean what I think it means ??

Now, see, you almost had me there, with your decentralised federation and such. But I knew it was too good to be true!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sadly, nothing so exciting. Growing food requires sun, water, soil and three major nutrients, in addition to many minor ones. The three major nutrients are Nitrogen and Potassium, both readily available and Phosphorus, which is less readily available. Currently what we do is mine it in places like Nauru, turn it into fertiliser using large amounts of fossil fuels and then pour most of it into the seas. Either via agricultural run-off or by flushing it down the toilet. Supplies are limited and sustainability requires that we conserve them, by recycling such limited resources as locally as possible.

Human sacrifice, while more entertaining, is not required for this.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Although, now you mention it, perhaps a valid argument could be made on the grounds of cultural diversity and respect for native British religions.

I shall write to my MP (Frank Field) to see if he accepts these arguments.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

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

I know. It was a joke - it was a famous banner that someone had at one of those anti capitalist May day demos. "Abolish capitalism and replace it with something nicer". I Agree, completely idiotic.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Although of course, the banner itself may have been an ironic jibe at people who said they had no actual alternatives...

 

[IMHO]

And as long as they work it out for themselves, without hurting anyone, I don't see a problem with that. If people start trying to steal or behave anti-socially, the community can deal with it in an appropriate manner.

I agree with you. The reason I've highlighted without hurting anyone is that some posters here consider employment ("working for a boss") to be exploitation. The old "surplus value" thing. I'd say that the employer is owed the surplus value for risking capital to produce something which, before initial release, may be worthless if insufficient people buy it. That's before we start talking about marketing costs and a whole array of other expenditure. BUt I'm not looking to derail the thread with a critique of Marxism. I'm simply saying that a communal, free society should not exclude the choice of setting up as an employer, or the choice of working for an employer.

 

[IMHO]

If people start trying to steal or behave anti-socially, the community can deal with it in an appropriate manner.

Trouble is, one community may decide a different punishment from another community. Would that be fair, or should all communities get together and decide a code for all transgressions? Personally, I'd say it doesn't matter if punishment varies because, in the great scheme of things, what's really "fair" anyway?

 

[IMHO]

Now it's necessary to define "steal", to define behave "anti socially", to define "community", to define "an appropriate manner". One wee sentence with a world of implications.

In a society organised at a level bigger than the family or household, unless these things are done in a completely random or arbitrary manner, you need institutions, defined and thus written rules, means of allocating resources, means of resolving disputes, means of accounting, means of auditing, and so on. You get a state, in other words, and you get law and police, and bureaucracy, and management. You need to address corruption and crime, as In Bloom suggests, you need to work out who acts for the community, and you need to regulate this.

So a first question is whether you have a state and how it is arranged and controlled.

My bottom line is that, if capitalism ground to a halt (say through something far worse than the Wall Street crash -- almost total unemployment, no liquidity to run businesses) and everyone was sitting on their arse wondering what to do, then what? The opportunity would be to grow your own crops in your 10th story windowbox, or fight someone for the local wasteland. Then it really WOULD be the survival of the fittest -- no, the strongest: best enforcers (ala the Cray twins).

Unless, of course, you could sit down with the local strong boys and persuade them that there were far more "nice" people here than the thugs, and that the nice people would pull up the thugs' crops if they didn't fall in line. The greater "weak" numbers intimidating the fewer "strong".

Hmmmm ...

I think the fact is that most people would drift about like farts in the breeze. In the current system, there are far more followers than leaders, because most people don't have the confidence, the vision, or the desire to lead. In a post-apololictic scenario, a few people would gravitate to organise, and the rest would follow. It's usually been that way.

In essence, I think that after a while in the wilderness, the strong will lead the meek.

Capitalism ... again