community at odds with capitalism?

[enfp can be shy]

The assignment of people's worth is more role-playing which our extremely neuroplastic brains are prone to adapt to. Some of the other arguments are like saying: slavery brought us such great accomplishments, and any other system falls back to implicit slavery, so it's probably in our genes and what we really need.

 

[NeverAmI]

Well firstly, I think communal and capitalism are both too generic of terms to apply a blanket statement, but here I am doing it anyway.

Every communal is different from another. Although I would think that generally a communal is built around the support and care of one another. How those communities act towards others is not always the most pleasant.

Capitalistic values seem, to me, to stem around making money and using any resources available to accumulate as much money as possible without violating ethics to the point of causing massive retaliation. Whichever kid claims the most resources as his own before anyone else wins. As you can tell, I have an obvious bias against capitalism. That is because a capitalistic society tends to model itself around the accumulation of resources as aggressively and as quickly as possible. Example: The kid at recess has the right to claim the jungle gym as his own and require everyone else to pay to play on it.

Many communities have plenty of ignorance of certain things and any influence from the outside helps to increase knowledge to shed such ignorance. However, in my opinion capitalism promotes and awards those whom seek greed and use it to their advantage. I think many times the influence of a capitalistic society on a communal society is a double-edged sword. On one hand they are thankful for the knowledge and technology. On the other hand they don't like the fact that those whom seek to take advantage of everyone else then flourishes.

I think capitalism is good to a certain point. But when a company gets large enough that it can influence the entire world by its actions, and its actions don't take the well-being of the world in mind then there is a problem.

There was a really interesting video about just this topic from Juba, Sudan. I will try to remember to post it when I get home tonight.

 

[NeverAmI]

The assignment of people's worth is more role-playing which our extremely neuroplastic brains are prone to adapt to. Some of the other arguments are like saying: slavery brought us such great accomplishments, and any other system falls back to implicit slavery, so it's probably in our genes and what we really need.

The science of emergence when coupled with biology and perhaps etiology studies how organisms tend to follow the same path as others, think of the path of least resistance. Also the way we learn is through imitation which also plays into it, but I would say that is but one aspect of the emergence we see in situations like this. Get a couple of psychopaths with some amazing abilities to sugar coat things to set up a crazy new framework and you wind up with tons of people following that same process.

We call this sheeple, but this is how communities and societies flourish. I think the best thing humanity can do is to be educated enough not to let these sweet talking scum get their way. Although values of different communities will always be at odds.

In societies, argumentation, and general social interaction we need some sort of a bedrock agreement. Everyone has to agree to comply at some level or there is anarchy. There are some that don't comply and whether they are actually detrimental or beneficial over the long term determines how much they are honored by a society.

Most people are inclined to comply more often than not, and we are taught this as a child, because it is necessary for the growth of society.

 

[muir]

It's clear to me that I can't convince you to change your opinion, just as it's a slim possibility that you can change mine. I'm responding regardless partly because it's fun, and partly because I hope others reading this from a third perspective realize some greater thruth through our debate.

LOL. So i have a closed mind whilst yours is assured of its correctness but is still open?

That kind of two edged thinking is in the realms of Orwellian 'doublethink'. It is usually a good indication of indoctrination.

This mindset is often needed to allow morally wrong behaviour. An example of this is when the nazis told people that jews were subhuman

A good tool for creating this mindset is religion which convinces some that they are saved whilst others are doomed. If they are doomed anyway then why respect them...right? If you are one of the chosen ones then it is easier to look down on others. An example is the crusades where thousands of 'infidels' were slaughtered

If you want to understand what is going on then you have to understand the games that are being played and have been played throughout history. It is essentially a story about the rich and powerful controlling the rest. They use many different methods to do this. In the US they use the media and the education system to control what the people think about things.

For example newspapers. Newspapers are owned by rich proprietors. These capitalists want their papers to reflect a certain view or put over a certain message, so they hire editors who ensure that every article in the newspaper is 'on message'. The message might be pushing the capitalist agenda, stiring up hatred of another country (before invasion) or creating fear amongst the populace (to keep them weak and compliant). All areas are regulated for example the film industry famously clashed with the 'House Committee on Un-American Activities'.

Those imposing the doublethink from the top are fully aware of their lies. For example George Bush telling you that other countries are 'evil'. The people are generally not aware and become indoctrinated because they don't have enough information; they become dogmatic and belligerent in their ignorance and effectively hold a distorted view of reality. The power elites then harness this using nationalism.

For example in the US you are taught to salute the flag and sing warlike songs about bombs bursting in the air and you are told that the US is basically gods chosen country. Nationalism drove the animosity behind the world wars.

The capitalists will tell you that they are trying to improve your quality of life whilst they are making you pay more taxes, work longer hours and retire later. They will tell you capitalism gives people homes as they create a housing market bubble which results in thousands losing their homes. They will tell you that you are the good guys whilst you invade or destabilise other countries and impoverish other countries. They will tell you capitalism is the only way while it is destroying the environment. They will tell you that they take care of your health, education and safety whilst standards drop in all these areas. They will tell you that they are 'creating wealth' when what they are doing is moving the wealth from public hands into private hands (neoliberalism)

This is a regrettable truth about the United States. Our government falsely manipulated interest rates with the intention of benefiting our economy, inadvertently causing the 2008 burst of the bubble. Our government covers our trade deficit to China by selling them more and more bonds. China is ammasing a great amount of wealth at our expense. The Obama administration is spending more and more with seemingly no intention of repaying our debt.

You are going to blame Obama for a process that was happening under Bush? Thats that distorted doublethinking again

Globalisation has meant that business is not confined by national borders. Companies are owned by people from other countries. Shareholders have stakes in many different companies. Everything has become more interlinked. You just cannot see things in isolation anymore, that would be a distortion of reality.

Markets are not able to take into account the human costs or the environmental costs involved in global trade. Capitalism branched out into other countries (imperialism) and exploited them. This lead to competing capitalist countries getting into conflict as they competed with each other (the world wars). The cold war saw the world polarise between those willing to recognise the US's dominance and those that refused to recognise it. The US has found new ways of exerting control and exploiting other countries (neo-imperialism). It uses the IMF and World Bank, it uses embargoes, coercion, assassination, corruption, dollar dominance and military might.

Yet all of this is a problem with our government, not the idea of Capitalism. Our government meddles and we pay the cost. Meddling goes against the idea of freedom, which is what Capitalism stands for. Ergo, our governments failures stem from departing from true Capitalism.

You can keep repeating 'capitalism means freedom' as if it is a mantra if you want but it doesn't make it true. If your government hadn't stepped in to save the markets they would have crashed.

By 'true capitalism' i take it you mean free markets? Look at all the financial turbulence the world has seen over the last 30 years (including the latest crisis) because of free market fundamentalism

I don't think it's an admission that they're ruining the atmosphere so much as an appeal to public opinion. I agree that there is a great deal of pollution going into the atmosphere at present, but I also think that the earth can hold out for a few more years while we naturally transition towards renewable fuel. We're going to run out of oil in, what, fifty years? The scaricity will naturally drive prices up, and formerly expensive methods of acquiring energy will become cheaper and fill the gap. I'm not worried. This also has little to do with Capitalism. Capitalism is about free-trade, about the concept of laissez-faire - "hands off!"

'appeal to public opinion'? LOL....how much say do you think you will have under capitalism. Remember that capitalism is a system where a few people hold all the power and wealth (it grew out of fuedalism)


Laissez-faire means exploitation on a huge scale. An example is the slave trade....that is what happens when capitalist investors are allowed to do what they want.

Capitalism is... what? I may be misinterpreting you here, but if you intended to say that "Capitalism is excluding large parts of the world's population who happen to be less-fortunate," then my answer is that those areas of the world are not Capitalistic. Also, before Capitalism took hold around the time of the Industrial Revolution, we didn't have nearly the same amount of power to help those in need as we do now. Capitalism breeds wealth, which can be liquidated into whatever individuals like. Charity, food, warmth, whatever.

Capitalism has exploited other countries...that is its form of 'wealth creation'. For example the stealing of Iraq's oil

Charity? Charity is only needed when a system is failing to look after people. Charity is asking the people to pay to clear up the mess created by capitalism; an example would be chairty for the starving in Africa which has been exploited, invaded, colonised, raped and impoverished by capitalist countries

Capitalism does not share the warmth and food around that is why there is so much poverty, hunger, wealth disparity, poor health, homelessness. If you are not seeing this it is because they have done a hatchet job on your brain......distorted reality, doublethink again

Well they of course aren't exclusive, but I guarantee that everything I named was provided through Capitalism, as a product of Capitalism. I'm sorry you misinterpreted me, perhaps I wasn't being clear. Those products were provided with ease becasue of the generally-Capitalistic nature of the United States economy.

No they weren't provided by the generally capitalistic nature of the US they are produced because people need them and they will be produced under any system...arguably more efficiently

To me, Capitalism is defined by laissez-faire trade. See the quote below:
Laissez faire, telle devrait

 

[WaeV]

First Block:
Muir, I can counter that entire first block of text by assuring you that I meant we are BOTH unlikely to change each others' opinions. I meant that my type of argument doesn't affect you, and that your type of argument doesn't affect me. You can think of that as saying "we're both closed-minded" if you like, but that's not what I intended.

Second Block:
I was trying to blame the entirety of the United States Government and thought to give an example. Here, I'll give another one: "Bush spent a lot of money on a war that imo should never have happened." I'm not playing favorites with presidents, I just thought a more recent one would be more applicable.

The US has found new ways of exerting control and exploiting other countries (neo-imperialism).

Look, I already said that I disagree with the United States government in general! Neo-Imperialism is not Capitalism. It involves enslavement over freedom. I like freedom.

Ask anyone who works in mental health...they will tell you there is a link between debt and poor mental health

Heh, I wonder where they got the money to pay for their degree? I don't plan to live in debt forever, mate. I already said it was a freeing choice. I plan to surge past debt into the clear.

Do you really think people should be able to live without any effort on their part? Go live in a nomadic farming society and try not raising any cattle or growing things for a couple years. You'll be just about as well off.

No i don't believe that at all (that is a distortion....doublethink again)

Yeah, you're right. It IS doublethink that you don't see what I'm saying. Why would you expect anyone to be able to survive for two years without any effort under any system? Do you really think that anyone (excepting those unable to work) should just be allowed to take more than they produce?


My ideas stem from the desire for freedom. It's possible that we both like the idea of freedom but have different interpretations of what it is or how to acheive it. Do you think that's the case?

 

[muir]

First Block:
Muir, I can counter that entire first block of text by assuring you that I meant we are BOTH unlikely to change each others' opinions. I meant that my type of argument doesn't affect you, and that your type of argument doesn't affect me. You can think of that as saying "we're both closed-minded" if you like, but that's not what I intended.

Second Block:
I was trying to blame the entirety of the United States Government and thought to give an example. Here, I'll give another one: "Bush spent a lot of money on a war that imo should never have happened." I'm not playing favorites with presidents, I just thought a more recent one would be more applicable.


Look, I already said that I disagree with the United States government in general! Neo-Imperialism is not Capitalism. It involves enslavement over freedom. I like freedom.


Heh, I wonder where they got the money to pay for their degree? I don't plan to live in debt forever, mate. I already said it was a freeing choice. I plan to surge past debt into the clear.



Yeah, you're right. It IS doublethink that you don't see what I'm saying. Why would you expect anyone to be able to survive for two years without any effort under any system? Do you really think that anyone (excepting those unable to work) should just be allowed to take more than they produce?


My ideas stem from the desire for freedom. It's possible that we both like the idea of freedom but have different interpretations of what it is or how to acheive it. Do you think that's the case?

I can tell you categorically that i am not closed minded. It is my open mindedness which has enabled me to see past the capitalist indoctrination i have been subject to whilst growing up.

Forget everything you have been told and look at the picture objectively. Look at what is happening at home and abroad but don't look at it as 'an american' or as a 'capitalist' or a 'christian' just look at it as a human being and what do you see?

Imperialism and neo-imperialism are a direct product of capitalism.

What is the nature of capitalism? It is basically one of people competing. They must try and raise themselves up because the lower down you are the worse your pay will be, the worse your work conditions will be, the more shit you will have to take off your boss and the system.

It is about competing. You can then scale that up to what nations are doing. Capitalism saw nations competing. This competition meant that they had to invade other countries for their resources or their competitors would do it and then they would get stronger. Britain and France fought each other over america because of the vast wealth it offered. That is imperialism

Freedom is great, i agree with you on that. Different people may see different things as freedom though. Because your country is so capitalistic you have to pay VAST amounts of money to do a degree. My country has slightly more socialist leanings so education is cheaper. As a result I have two degrees and no debt. Is your country really giving you the best deal?

Education has become an industry in itself. It is about the money and not about what it can do to fulfill the potential of the people. As a student you will now start your working life in so much debt that the system essentially owns you. Debt is a form of control. The 1960's saw massed student demonstrations against the government. That is unlikely to happen now because students are in so much debt to the system....now they will behave like nice little cogs in the machine OR ELSE!

Concerning your comments about contributing to society: you are doublethinking again (sorry if that seems offensive...i jut want you to see how there are distorted views being imposed on us from above). I am not saying people shouldn't contribute. Read my post on anarchism. Capitalism sees an unequal amount of contribution.....that is what we have right now...yes?

When you evaluate 'freedom' you must bare in mind that what you have has come at an expense for people in other countries (in the same way slavery operates) and people in your own country.

Globalisation was supposed to source out business and manufacturing abroad where labour was cheaper. Those that lost their jobs in this process were supposed to be 'upskilled' into for example the service industry. In reality it has caused massed unemployment and large numbers dependent on welfare. These people then fall back on drink, drugs and crime. The welfare is paid for out of the taxes of the working and middle classes. The super rich avoid paying taxes by registering their companies in tax havens and themselves as non domiciled.

There are small buildings in the caymens which supposedly contain hundreds of companies head offices. Its all a big scam.

People point to improvements in society and say capitalism brought those, but there were improvements to the living conditions of slaves as well (to improve productivity and reduce the chance of rebellion).

My ideas stem from the desire for freedom. It's possible that we both like the idea of freedom but have different interpretations of what it is or how to acheive it. Do you think that's the case?

I don't know...what does freedom mean to you?

 

[WaeV]

Okay, I fully read your post as well as what you said in the anarchy thread. Ideally, I think that the government's only role should be to protect our rights. I believe that we have the rights to property (which includes the right to one's life, really), as well as liberty (which includes the pursuit of happiness).

I do not think that people have the implicit right to be provided with food, medicine, shelter, or education. I DO think that people have the right to earn those things, however. My problem with government-provided food, medicine, shelter, education, and other such things is that it necessitates the redistribution of wealth, which goes against the right of property.

My definition of freedom is more "freedom from interference". I think that people's actions should be unrestrained except where they interfere with the rights of others.



I see what you mean about debt and education, however. Does your definition of freedom mean something along the lines of "freedom from want of basic necessities" or something along those lines?

 

[muir]

Okay, I fully read your post as well as what you said in the anarchy thread. Ideally, I think that the government's only role should be to protect our rights. I believe that we have the rights to property (which includes the right to one's life, really), as well as liberty (which includes the pursuit of happiness).

I do not think that people have the implicit right to be provided with food, medicine, shelter, or education. I DO think that people have the right to earn those things, however. My problem with government-provided food, medicine, shelter, education, and other such things is that it necessitates the redistribution of wealth, which goes against the right of property.

My definition of freedom is more "freedom from interference". I think that people's actions should be unrestrained except where they interfere with the rights of others.



I see what you mean about debt and education, however. Does your definition of freedom mean something along the lines of "freedom from want of basic necessities" or something along those lines?

All this stuff they tell you about 'freedom from interference', 'liberty', 'pursuit of happiness'......this is their sales spiel

This is them pursuading you to go along with their order of things. They can say to you that you are free but without a point of reference how do you know you are free?

For example they spun that line about all men being equal...yes? Meanwhile they supported slavery and women didn't have the vote.

Ok so recognise it is all bullshit....throw it all away and reevaluate it from your own observations

There is a political interviewer on British TV called Jeremy Paxman, he's not very nice but people like to watch him because he asks politicians awkward questions and makes them squirm a bit. He once said to someone that his interview style is this: when he is interviewing a politician he is always saying to himself, in his head, 'why is this bastard lying to me?'

Lol...that might sound harsh but really that is a good defensive stance for him to take baring in mind the kind of people he is interviewing.

I think we must always remain skeptical so that we aren't sold a load of BS whilst at the same time not becoming cynical. The average person on the street is basically decent, but i think if we are not to be taken for a complete ride we should always question what people in power are saying to us.

In fact that is our responsibility as voters in a democratic system to keep ourselves informed and act as a check and balance on power....so the theory goes. In practise it is somewhat different.

I share your suspiscion of goverment. But why are you not equally suspicious of the people who hold all the wealth? (of course there is an overlap between government and big money...the two are in bed together)

Do you think if we open the markets up it will create an equal playing field? Look the game is well advanced....it is already out of balance and totally rigged. If you open the markets it does't reset everything and give us all an equal opportunity in some mad dash for wealth. They ALREADY CONTROL the wealth.

Personally i see the government as a kind of intermediary between the people and big money. If the people get restless....say for example after the latest financial crisis, the government is the mechanism through which the capitalists can give something back to the people in order to calm them down again. For example reforms to healthcare (gotta look after the wage slaves or they might rebel, or just drop out of the system and overburden it; for example through unemployment, poor health, crime or mental illness. You gotta give them more than beer and crap TV)

If you believe in freedom from interference then you should be standing on the same side of the fence as me: libertarian socialism!

In a nutshell this is what i think people need:

Children need:

1. A good education
2. Supportive carers
3. Good role models
4. An enquiring mind
5. Room to make mistakes
6. Awareness of a larger world, full of wonders

Adults need:

1. Security both material and emotional
2. To be part of a community
3. To feel useful
4. To feel authentic / Not having to wear a mask
5. To feel in control of their future
6. To avoid false values of: fame, money, materialism, status


I do not believe capitalism best provides these things

 

[WaeV]

I really don't like how you're portraying my point of view as mindless acceptance of others' brainwashing.

Stop talking about "they"! It's hard to retain an objective perspective when I'm being irritated. I'm not supporting the status quo or condoning slavery. I am not "they", I am ME. MY ideas make sense to ME because I thought them.

I share your suspiscion of goverment. But why are you not equally suspicious of the people who hold all the wealth?

It's not that I'm not suspicious of them as much as that I'm not concerned with them. Also, I intend to become wealthy and don't want people taking what I've earned. Every dollar in my possession is representative of work I have performed, and if it's going to be spent then I'm going to say where it is spent, which could be a charity just as well as a couch for my living room or something.

If you open the markets it does't reset everything and give us all an equal opportunity in some mad dash for wealth. They ALREADY CONTROL the wealth.

Yes, this is a problem. Yet it doesn't justify violating the right to property. That's why I wouldn't just flop the world on its head with a change of legislation. I think we should stop meddling with interest rates and lower taxes in order to approach laissez-faire.

Personally I see the government as a kind of intermediary between the people and big money.

Currently? Perhaps. As I said, though, I think that the government's sole purpose SHOULD be to protect rights.

If you believe in freedom from interference then you should be standing on the same side of the fence as me: libertarian socialism!

I thought freedom from interference was a bullshit sales spiel?


I can accept what you presented as needs. I don't equate needs with rights, though. Laissez-faire best provides for RIGHTS.

 

[muir]

I really don't like how you're portraying my point of view as mindless acceptance of others' brainwashing.

Stop talking about "they"! It's hard to retain an objective perspective when I'm being irritated. I'm not supporting the status quo or condoning slavery. I am not "they", I am ME. MY ideas make sense to ME because I thought them.

'You' are a product of various influences

There are tectonic plates of thought operating in the world. These affect how people see each other. At the moment you are arguing for a way of thinking that in the past has encouraged slavery....don't take it personally...just realise what the implications of various modes of thought are

It's not that I'm not suspicious of them as much as that I'm not concerned with them. Also, I intend to become wealthy and don't want people taking what I've earned. Every dollar in my possession is representative of work I have performed, and if it's going to be spent then I'm going to say where it is spent, which could be a charity just as well as a couch for my living room or something.

You should be concerned with them they are a major influence on everything

Every dollar you earn is not a representation of the work you have performed, it is an abstract notion of value created by people powerful enough to decide people's pay

Look around at what people are being paid and what their contribution to society is.....its not a very good correlation is it? Also how well are you going to treat your workers as you amass your fortune or do they not matter?

Yes, this is a problem. Yet it doesn't justify violating the right to property. That's why I wouldn't just flop the world on its head with a change of legislation. I think we should stop meddling with interest rates and lower taxes in order to approach laissez-faire.

Currently? Perhaps. As I said, though, I think that the government's sole purpose SHOULD be to protect rights.

I am not against people having personal possessions, i am against a few people controlling the means of production

What you are talking about....laissez-faire has already been tried...we are now left with a financial hurricane of piss to clear up

I thought freedom from interference was a bullshit sales spiel?

smart ass . Have a look at what libertarian socialism means and see if you don't think it offers the individual more freedoms

I can accept what you presented as needs. I don't equate needs with rights, though. Laissez-faire best provides for RIGHTS.

'Rights' are whatever the power elites decide they are

 

[WaeV]

So you basically want to eliminate the concept of power?

 

[Kavalan]

Muir, Libertarian socialism in the vein that you are describing is anarchism. In such a system you are advocating no power structure yet to stay pure to your ideal one must have a power structure to check and insure now other power is being generated and thus you compromise your core tenet. If you are to follow the belief and not install a check system nothing is there to stop another hierarchy to form.

 

[muir]

So you basically want to eliminate the concept of power?

I would like to see people having control over their work, their lives, their happiness, their time, their minds and their futures

Whereas fuedalism had serfdom, capitalism has wage slavery. I think that any gains under capitalism have come as a reluctant concession from the powerful

I think control should come from the bottom up instead of the top down

I think we need to ask some serious questions about who is really running things and why we don't have more say in what is going on

 

[muir]

Muir, Libertarian socialism in the vein that you are describing is anarchism. In such a system you are advocating no power structure yet to stay pure to your ideal one must have a power structure to check and insure now other power is being generated and thus you compromise your core tenet. If you are to follow the belief and not install a check system nothing is there to stop another hierarchy to form.

Do you mean checking abuses of power from within or without?

What i envisage is a more transparent and accountable system. Anarcho communism would grow more successful as it spread.

That is why capitalism was so paranoid about communism...it was terrified it would spread. Capitalism has instead gone global, taking war, exploitation and environmental destruction with it

Sustainablility is not built into the capitalist model. It is about consumption

 

[Kavalan]

Do you mean checking abuses of power from within or without?

There are two examples in my post the first half deals with disconnect with an internal check and how it itself is a form of power that can be abused and the latter is the problem of not having the internal check and how it would lead to its own downfall.

What i envisage is a more transparent and accountable system. Anarcho communism would grow more successful as it spread.

From here on out the recurring theme will be that people are greedy and seek a hierarchy. This is not the product of capitalism, it is the product of our species. As such a direct democracy of 300 million people and the lack of class will be unsustainable. People will find a means to order themselves into better and worse as we are not all endowed with the same abilities. As for the direct democracy(this seems to be a main point by most anarcho communist correct me if I'm off your idea) personal gain will influence ones voice; historical predisposition for certain needs, goods, etc. will also make group consensus problematic

That is why capitalism was so paranoid about communism...it was terrified it would spread. Capitalism has instead gone global, taking war, exploitation and environmental destruction with it

You blame the folly of man on an idea created by man yet fail to recognize your solution is also the creation of man and fails to treat humans as humans. Humans are the problem. Everyone isn't going to play by the rules, period. No one pure system will work and a compromise will need to be made.

Sustainability is not built into the capitalist model. It is about consumption

Sustainability and consumption is not found in the capitalist model it is those who run it who decide whether it will be one or the other. Greed drives business to the consumption model as it would provide the greatest profit.

 

[testing]

... and greed is old, much older than capitalism. As old as the human race, I'd guess.

First, get rid of greed and then you have yourself a workable anarcho- system.

 

[muir]

There are two examples in my post the first half deals with disconnect with an internal check and how it itself is a form of power that can be abused and the latter is the problem of not having the internal check and how it would lead to its own downfall.

Societal norms themselves provide a certain amount of internal check. In our society i am always dismayed how people pressure each other to conform to certain negative behaviours.....they are acting as their own and each others prison guards. In an anarcho communist system people would have to find ways to overcome the inevitable problems that would arise. I believe in the ability of people to collectively come up with creative solutions. If people worked within a fairer system there would it follows be less need for people to cheat (in whatever form)

I am not sure how anarcho-communism would take on an aggressive capitalist alliance from without. I guess it depends on where it took root. Perhaps the ground isn't yet fertile enough in the developed countries. It might take a real shake up first. As someone once put it to me...it only has to win once whereas capitalism has to keep winning

From here on out the recurring theme will be that people are greedy and seek a hierarchy. This is not the product of capitalism, it is the product of our species. As such a direct democracy of 300 million people and the lack of class will be unsustainable. People will find a means to order themselves into better and worse as we are not all endowed with the same abilities. As for the direct democracy(this seems to be a main point by most anarcho communist correct me if I'm off your idea) personal gain will influence ones voice; historical predisposition for certain needs, goods, etc. will also make group consensus problematic

The current system is problematic!

When people question the feasibility of anarcho communism i always think...yeah it is ambitious, yeah it would mean big changes (people are scared of big changes but they have always happened under capitalism...look at the pace of change in the last century)....but where is our current trajectory taking us?

You blame the folly of man on an idea created by man yet fail to recognize your solution is also the creation of man and fails to treat humans as humans. Humans are the problem. Everyone isn't going to play by the rules, period. No one pure system will work and a compromise will need to be made.

Necessity is often the mother of invention

Sustainability and consumption is not found in the capitalist model it is those who run it who decide whether it will be one or the other. Greed drives business to the consumption model as it would provide the greatest profit.

How to safeguard against that then? A more benign form of capitalism?

The same problems will arise again. It needs a new approach

My 'core tenet' is ending the exploitation of man by man. I am open to solutions to that end.

That is what we should strive for (whether you think it is possible or not) as any improvement is still progress

 

[muir]

... and greed is old, much older than capitalism. As old as the human race, I'd guess.

First, get rid of greed and then you have yourself a workable anarcho- system.

Capitalism is a continuation of older exploitative systems

Capitalism has taken greed and run with it

 

[Kavalan]

Societal norms themselves provide a certain amount of internal check. In our society i am always dismayed how people pressure each other to conform to certain negative behaviours.....they are acting as their own and each others prison guards. In an anarcho communist system people would have to find ways to overcome the inevitable problems that would arise. I believe in the ability of people to collectively come up with creative solutions. If people worked within a fairer system there would it follows be less need for people to cheat (in whatever form)

You are still banking on the humans doing the total opposite of what humans do. So long as people have the right so say whatever they want(not condoning its elimination) people will be fanatical in their beliefs. I probably am too. Moderation and the concept of compromise when dealing with societal issues needs to be used. I support a system of capitalism on a very short leash. Capitalism allows for more competitive system to drive society and the short leash is an analogy to regulation for protection of the people.

I am not sure how anarcho-communism would take on an aggressive capitalist alliance from without. I guess it depends on where it took root. Perhaps the ground isn't yet fertile enough in the developed countries. It might take a real shake up first. As someone once put it to me...it only has to win once whereas capitalism has to keep winning

I can only see concession of individual freedom for collective security thus creating a power structure that can be exploited.

The current system is problematic!

When people question the feasibility of anarcho communism i always think...yeah it is ambitious, yeah it would mean big changes (people arte scared of big changes but they have always happened under capitalism...look at the pace of change in the last century)....but where is our current trajectory taking us?

Big change over a great amount of time and the rapidity of considered normal change has accelerated with technology. Problems abound every system... People are bitch to account for too bad we're not robots.

Necessity is often the mother of invention

theory and reality are two very different creatures.

How to safeguard against that then? A more benign form of capitalism?

One could call it benign capitalism. Heavy regulation for the protection of the people, incentives/regulations to maintain industry inside the nation(i.e. tax brackets/tariff for corporations that have X%> of workforce stateside and higher taxes/tariff for those who do not meet the req.), end free trade as it would only be good if all things were equal... which they aren't, and safeguards to not allow laissez-faire to surface, once again ideals to work in reality.

The same problems will arise again. It needs a new approach

It will only happen so long as people think that ideals work in practice, you too are also guilty of this.

My 'core tenet' is ending the exploitation of man by man. I am open to solutions to that end.

That is what we should strive for (whether you think it is possible or not) as any improvement is still progress

You are in an arms race where you will always be one step behind people. People will always strive to create class to create a stratification that makes it so there are those who have and those who have not.

 

[muir]

You are still banking on the humans doing the total opposite of what humans do. So long as people have the right so say whatever they want(not condoning its elimination) people will be fanatical in their beliefs. I probably am too. Moderation and the concept of compromise when dealing with societal issues needs to be used. I support a system of capitalism on a very short leash. Capitalism allows for more competitive system to drive society and the short leash is an analogy to regulation for protection of the people.

What is it humans do? Despite living in a system that exploits them, drives wedges between them and atomizes society most humans are still very communally minded. Imagine what they could be like if you unlocked that communal potential

Anarcho communism is about people working together...it is all about moderation and compromise. There is nothing moderate or compromising about capitalism.

What do you mean by driving society? What is it that needs driving that cant be accomplished under anarcho communism? Anarcho communism because of its cooperative nature and sharing of work would allow everyone more time to pursue science and art and any other interests.

I can only see concession of individual freedom for collective security thus creating a power structure that can be exploited.

No once again you have things the wrong way around there. Individual freedom would increase under libertarian socialism....that is practically its raison d'etre....collective security would increase also. Capitalism does a pretty half assed job of both of these

Anarcho communism is about creating a system of delegates elected by the workers. The delegates are instantly revocable if they betray their mandate. They in turn elect delegates to represent them at a higher level...this way the voice of the people is carried upwards...whereas capitalism dictates to the people how things are going to be (except where people have fought for their rights eg civil rights movement)

Big change over a great amount of time and the rapidity of considered normal change has accelerated with technology. Problems abound every system... People are bitch to account for too bad we're not robots.

Capitalism wants you to be robots, little consumerist units, cogs in the machine. In fact 'individualism' has been marketed, packaged and sold as a product under capitalism.

Do a survey of the population...ask them how many of them feel like they are required to be like robots in their work. Specialisation has increased under deregulation...making people more and more like robots.

Did you watch 'generation kill' when it was on? There was a great line in that when someone complains to their NCO that the order they have been given is an affront to their 'warrior spirit'...the NCO replies 'you are not a warrior...you are a low skilled machine operator'

How many jobs under capitalism are directly beneficial to society?...many of them are non jobs. Is that an efficient way to 'drive society'

Anarcho communism seeks to free people from wage slavery so that they can get in touch with their humanity. Humans have evolved over their existence (200,000 years) to work together. Farming has only been around for 10,000 years. A surplus kick started trade which in turn created civilization which lead to a more stratified society. This has reached its zenith under capitalism. You could argue that we have not evolved to live the way we are living....it is a very new situation. It is not agreeing with a lot of people which is why depression is rampant as is crime and despondancy.

Anarcho communism would see people restored to a state of working together without coercion from above. By cooperating people could have more time to develop technological advancements but hopefully ones that benefit society rather than ones which destroy people or things (which are needed under a competitive system such as capitalism)

theory and reality are two very different creatures.

Yes....we are basically each saying what we would do if we were king for a day for the sake of a discussion on the internet

One could call it benign capitalism. Heavy regulation for the protection of the people, incentives/regulations to maintain industry inside the nation(i.e. tax brackets/tariff for corporations that have X%> of workforce stateside and higher taxes/tariff for those who do not meet the req.), end free trade as it would only be good if all things were equal... which they aren't, and safeguards to not allow laissez-faire to surface, once again ideals to work in reality.

This is theory not reality. The reality of capitalism is widespread exploitation

It will only happen so long as people think that ideals work in practice, you too are also guilty of this.

'Works?' Capitalism 'works' it just works very badly, causes a lot of misery and is ruining the environment

You are in an arms race where you will always be one step behind people. People will always strive to create class to create a stratification that makes it so there are those who have and those who have not.

I am not sure i like the analogy 'arms race'. Arms races are what capitalism likes to drive because it is paranoid and because they are good for business....military industrial complex

People do not strive for stratification it is imposed on them from above by people who then gain advantage from their position