Originality Rating for this thread: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 4.0/5 (3 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 3.0/5 (3 votes cast) |
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1752
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
   
    
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-20 05:43
|
 |
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Libertarian-Syndicalism (A.K.A - Popular Capitalism) |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
*bump*
I figured I should put this into its own category.
| Lt. Vanish wrote: |
Now where can I learn more about this wonderful new political philosophy? |
Well, from me, I guess. (I'm pretty sure I'm the one who made it up) 
We started discussing this philosophy back on the old guestbook a year ago. So without further adieux, The Complete History of Libertarian-Syndicalism!
...The first time I brought it up.
...Using the Tax system to introduce syndicalism.
I wrote that last one in reply to a communist who asked me if I had ever read the "Communist Manifesto"...
| BB wrote: |
I have read it… and let me tell you want I got out of it.
* The communists want to destroy the upper class, and replace it with a state-run bureaucracy.
* The communists want to abolish private property, and hand control of all property to the state.
* The communists want to keep people from being ‘enslaved by capitalists’, and instead force everyone to work for the state.
* The communist want to destroy all nations and states, and replace them with what?... a single world government that controls EVERYTHING.
My problem with Marx is not with his assessment of the class system. The problems associated with industrialization needed to be addressed, and Marx gave a good shot. My problem is with his solution, which really boils down to the replacement of one tyranny with an even worse one.
As I have said before, I agree that our current capitalistic system has problems… Corporations continue to gain power while small businesses are closing shop. Most people labor their whole life and, if they’re lucky, they may end up owning a small plot of land which will seized by the government (death tax) when they die. Corporations and Banks have reduced the average worker to serfdom through high debt and heavy taxation. But I don’t think the solution is found in more centralization. To the contrary, it should be obvious that stripping the workers and small businesses of their property and handing control over to a small bureaucratic class will not improve the status of the proletariat.
But it wouldn’t be fair to blast Marx’s solution without providing one of my own…
If your goal is to give more control of our economy to the people, this can be accomplished by way of a slight tweak in our current capitalistic system. This can be done fairly simply by forcing (through heavy taxation on companies that don’t comply) our current corporations to hand over larger and larger percentages of shares to their employees.
Many companies already have some sort of ‘stock option’ for their workers, but I think we all can agree that this usually amounts to a pittance. It only gives workers the illusion that they are part of the system, but give them no real control. What I am talking about it real worker control – actually giving the workers ownership of the companies they work for. This can be accomplished by altering our tax code should in such a way so that these large companies will pay fewer taxes if it is run by the workers. For example…
- If the employees own more than 66% of the company, the company pays no taxes.
- If the employees own more than 50% of the company, the company pays 5%.
- If the employees own more than 33% of the company, the company pays 15%.
- If the employees own less than 10% of the company, the company pays 30%.
- If the employees own less than 1% of the company, the company pays 50%.
Now, I’m picking these numbers out of the air, but I think you can get the idea. It will be extremely difficult for a company paying 50% taxes to compete with a worker-run organization that pays nothing but personal income tax. In the long run, who do you think s going to win out? Of course, you would have to be careful how you define ‘worker’ to exclude CEOs and managers. And you want to do this in such a way that it doesn’t hurt small business or put them at an economic disadvantage to large worker-owned companies that pay no taxes. (I’d just not tax small companies at all.) I’d also do more to strengthen monopoly laws and laws limiting the size of media organizations. (Does VIACOM and Disney really need to own everything?)
But this one act would in a fairy short time bring about the changes desired by communism without all the nasty side-effects. The people would actually OWN the means of production, which I believe was Marx’s primary goal to begin with. The basic goal of syndicalism is the same as communism… To distribute wealth a little more evenly and bring more power to the proletariat. But I think syndicalism actually gets the job done, whereas communism is nothing more than rhetoric for power-hungry dictators.
|
...Carl's suggestion to call it "Popular Capitalism".
...Introducing Syndicalism Slowly.
| BB wrote: |
>>I doubt the really big corporations
>>would worry too much. All they would
>>have to do is move abroad.
That is why this change should be implemented in the same manner as every other important societal change... incrementally.
That’s the way all great change occurs. Take a look at this country’s policy towars race, for instance. What do you think would have happened if Abraham Lincoln stood up and suggested that 19th century America implement our modern racial policies?
“Ahem… My Fellow Americans…. We need to free our nigg.. um.. African American slaves and inter-breed with them. Anyone that speaks poorly of them will face discipline from their school or employer. All employers must hire a proportionate amount of minorities, and my not discriminate when offering promotions. They should be given the right to vote and made Mayors of our large cities. And by the way… the same goes for Woman and Fagg… er… ‘Alternative lifestyles’ as well. This government will start re-educating your elementary school children to see that these changes are instituted.”
He would have been shot before he was even elected… or simply locked up in a funny farm.
Yet here we are today. Now that change took 120 years, but that was a pretty big change. Syndicalism would probably take far less time.
We’d have to start out slowly. First you offer tax breaks to employers that give their workers stock options. Nothing major … just something to put the foundation in place. The greedy corporate types will probably go for it. I mean, who cares if the workers own 1% if it means the company gets 5% off of its taxes? A few year later, you up the ante a bit and give larger tax breaks for large shares. By this time, the public has become aware of the game and will start demanding more. You can institute some sort of ‘sticker’ system (similar to our current nutritional information labels) that require each company to state on their products exactly what percentage of their product is ‘worker-owned’. You then start penalizing company that offer no stock options. And within 40-70 years, you could easily end up with a tax structure like I mentioned in the previous post.
If it is done slowly enough, the corporations won’t run for the hills. If any do decide to leave, there will be ample time for others to come up and take their place. And if the new corporations paid no income tax, they would have no problem seizing markets from those oversee importers who still pay taxes to their new hosts.
It is also doubtful that the other industrial nations of the world, watching what is occurring here, could resist the demands of their own people for a similar system.
As my ‘Abraham Lincoln’ analogy shows, anything is possible. Society is infinitely malleable. It just takes a little patience.
Onward my Syndicalist brothers!...
|
...Anarcho Syndicalism - Beyond the Rhetoric (A Case Study)...
| BB wrote: |
The transition of ownership will be a slow process. I have already stated that I think it would take 40-70 years to put the ‘pro-anarcho-syndicalist tax structure’ into place. But even this is only a means to and end. It will take several more years for the actual transference of ownership to occur.
Let me use my company as an example.
I work for a relatively young Tech company that employs roughly 500 people. My company’s stock is currently trading on the NASDAQ for about $8 a share, with about 15 million total shares.
Now, 15 Million shares divided between 500 workers would be 30,000 shares per employee, which would be valued at $240,000. It would be nice if the Investors would just hand that over to us (That would be one hell of a Christmas Bonus!), but that would be highly unlikely to occur. Plus I think it would be rather presumptuous on our part to demand it.
A more reasonable expectation would be for each work to receive 100-200 shares per year as part of their salary. Assuming a static environment (no additional employees, investment/share creation, or change in stock value), it would take 75-150 years for the workers to gain a majority stake in my company.
If the employees wanted to speed this processes along any faster, it would be necessary for them to incur a little more risk… they would have to, for instance, forgo $4000 a year in salary for additional 500 shares a year (at 700 shares a year, majority ownership will occur in 22 years). Of course, people have the power to do this right now, simply by buying $4000 a year in stock. But for a lot of people on the lower end of the economic spectrum, this isn’t and option. And many people are frightened away from this sort of activity by things such as the Enron collapse, in which the employees did have a fair amount invested in company stock.
But there are other reasons to support syndicalism besides the communistic ‘worker control of the means of production’ theory… The primary reason is a good old-fashioned capitalistic one - ‘Stock Options’ improve worker productivity. A recent study by Douglas Kruse and Joseph Blasi at Rutgers University found that over a three-year post-plan period, companies that grant options to most or all employees show a 17% improvement in productivity over what would have been expected had they not set up such a plan.
Capitalist are quick to point out that ‘profit-incentive’ is the key reason that capitalism always out-performs communism. It’s one of the cornerstones of Capitalist theory. Now if we can just get them to realize that if they allow the workers to share in this ‘profit-incentive’ as well..........
But, to get back to the original point – So what if it takes a long time to gain ‘complete control’. The benefits of such a system would begin to be felt right away. Within a couple decades we will live in a world in which the workers own 5%-10% of all corporate stock, instead of where we are now – with workers owning next to nothing at all.
"Where there is a man who does not labor because another is compelled to work for him, there slavery is." - Leo Tolstoy
"I am against slavery simply because I dislike slaves." - H.L. Mencken
|
...more....
...Flag of APCNLP (American Popular-Capitalist Nationalist-Libertarian Party)....
| BB wrote: |
The flag is based on the "Betsy Ross" flag of the American Revolution; which signifies our adherence to our country’s earliest principles
The blue field consists of a ring a swastikas, which signifies not only our belief in nationalism, but the belief that the world should consists of multiple free nations.
The nations are arranged in a circle, which signifies the equality of all nations.
The circle surrounds a pair of scales, which signifies the belief in equality and justice.
The scale holds a dollar sign balanced with the torch of freedom, which signifies that any attempt to bring equality to our economy needs to balanced with individual freedom.
The red and white stripes feature the familiar crooked line of economic growth, to remind us that prosperity is not guaranteed. There will be ups and downs, but the future will inevitably show progress and growth.
On Workers! ... On Capitalist! ... On Dancer, Prancer and Vixin...
Nobody’s ever gonna go for the swastika thing… Back to the drawing board... again...
|
| Lt. Vanish wrote: |
Libertarian-syndicalism! Now there needs to be a slogan, like "Thinking men of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your tyrannical oppressors!" (Carl, RAK, C. Pride, any thoughts?)
|
Excellant Idea. We need to spread the word of Libertarian-Syndicalism far and wide! Who needs comintern when we have...
Libertarian-Syndicalist International!
Libsynintern?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #1754
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
  
  
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-20 06:48
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I get what you're saying, but I have a dislike of the capitalistic system because it allows people to get rich off the work of others.
First suggestion from me: Eliminate the stock market. It's a tool of the capitalists. If they want to make money, they should work themselves to get the money.
Next: Get rid of government subsidies and tax breaks. As I said before, if they want to make their money, they should have to work hard.
I DO like the worker ownership policy, but in a worker-owned company, would there be a need for C.E.Os? There would be a need for administration, I accept that, and do not dislike that... but again, the C.E.O.s get large amounts of money. If they are kept, then their salaries should be drastically cut to bring them back to some extent in line with the workers.
That all said, I did believe in an anarcho-syndicalist system, but then decided, how would it work without somebody trying to seize hegemony? I reverted back to a sort of democratic-socialist belief where people had the right of free speech. I believe that the gap between rich and poor should be lowered, partially by giving them some control over the chain of production and partially by allowing them more say in the way their country is run.
I don't like the word "capitalism" because it implies to me a world like that of the Industrial Revolution or even of now in America. There's my two cents on the matter.
EDIT: What makes me socialist rather than syndicalist is my belief that while the state shouldn't have as much power as it does in a state-socialist system(which often becomes an extreme-rightist dictatorship), there should be some taxes to help the people who have been made redundant when the system begins, and there should be worker-funded public hospitals which a member of a commune can use, worker-funded and operated education, groups of communes working on group projects such as the transportation system, et cetera. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Filthy Animal
Post #1756
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-20 08:02
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-capitalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| LEADERSHIP THROUGH EXAMPLE, LET'S MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
EPIPHANY: back due to popular demand......Franchizing Syndicalist Capitalism.
It begins small, but a example of the new and coming Big Thing is that, we have to start small, show that it can be accomplished, start with small businesses and entrepeneurs, small biz move to the new level level they grow, they implement the plan, success! IT CAN BE DONE, good systems are copied because they are successfull and generate rewards, they are used, because success breeds success and that's best publicity and with this existing old capitalist business can be either taken over or remodel for this new evolutionary state of capitalism.
...so let's start businesses, We are all Americans, We can save our country and people, it is our right and duty,.
Just remember the example of franchises, we can replicate the success, FRANCHIZE IT! RATIONALIZE IT AS A BUSINESS PLAN!
WORKERS = CAPITALISTS = ENTREPRENEURS
Now it is Business School for us and and Free Entreprise..
AMERICA'S BUSINESS IS BUSINESS NOT WAR OR EMPIRE.
read the materials on these links
cloning a coop biz and transitional measures
"ICA: Building Community Jobs by Replicating Model Worker Co-ops
Carol DiMarcello
Community Jobs and Worker Co-ops
"http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/info/ica.html
plus more
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/cir55/cir55rpt.htm
Thanks
Now time to collet notes on Franchises.
Read on from Buying, Selling, Franchises:
http://home-based-business-news.com/Work_at_Home_Resource_Center.htm
I know it can be done.
Pass the word, and lead through example brothers and sisters, for there is hope, there is light....we must fight on..
Big Brother you may need to read this for some brainstorming later on.
http://www.bplans.com/eb/article.cfm/22
http://www.bplans.com/sp/
Good to have a few aces up one's sleeve.
...and to close don't settle for less just because the system in america works to a degree does not mean it can not be improved upon, it takes hard, intelligent work to improve the system. I mean I am through being an adolescent malcontent with the system.. Long live the reward system!
(I am listening to sexy sax in the song Harlem Nights)
Last edited by carldiesturmer on Thu 2004-05-20 15:04; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #1759
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-20 13:43
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Mon 2008-05-19 22:36; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #1760
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-20 13:44
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| It is only natural... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
People become weak, and leberal that becomes the fall of Capitalism and Communism(Socialism, Marxism, Nihilism). If you notice with some nations, they are eather socialist or capitalist, them the become weak and then become in the other side. Its a cycle, but theres one system that is always persistant, and eather ends in victory, or death, and it is a Theocratic nation lead and fueled by Cursades and Jihads. Conquests by emperors, and holy dynasties seem to be the most prevalent form of government in the world history. Next comes fascism, from the bigging of the greeks and romans, and up to the very second, fascism has prevaled.
During WWII its was not a war against fascism, but a war against a corrupted evil form of fascism, nazism. Fascism is not bad in the concept of the merger of coperate and statual power, and if exicuted properly leads to a great land of the free, and in this world that nation is the new Roman republic, the United States of America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #1761
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-20 13:48
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| RAKTHEUNDEAD wrote: |
| I get what you're saying, but I have a dislike of the capitalistic system because it allows people to get rich off the work of others. |
No it allows those who work hard for their money, keep it, unlike the socislist system, where the the fruits of your labor go to the lazy bum who does not work. Atleast in the capitalist system unlike communism, socialism, marxism, or nihlism, you have the hope, and ability, if you work hard, to become a millionarem, and in the capitalist system, you have no set class, you free to move about as you wish, depending on how you work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #1762
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-20 13:51
|
|
|
|
|
| --- |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Mon 2008-05-19 22:35; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #1763
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-20 14:00
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Mon 2008-05-19 22:35; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Filthy Animal
Post #1767
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-20 14:30
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-capitalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Beyond the slogans |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Oh Insoc Officer, you know we are wasting time with some people....
some people just can not think consciously till they have their minds purged out of slogans and spiels pumped out by the orgs in our society.
If they give us thoughts they give us the "Human soundtrack " treatment.
GIGO in other words
I think we must let them waste their time with false leads and dead-ends, we know where we are going.
Follow a new path...that's our path.
I founded my own nation in nationstates from your advice.
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=dominica_dc
Please feel free to scoop some of these ideas
http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/info/ica.html
http://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/honeywebought/bosstrends.html
It is a tentative plan after all, it is a start... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #1772
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-20 16:32
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Atleast Im about 200 million people bigger than you  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #1773
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-20 20:54
|
|
|
|
|
| --- |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Mon 2008-05-19 22:35; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #1777
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-20 21:32
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| CORPERATE AND STATUAL POWER!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1784
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-05-21 05:14
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I've guess it's only proper that I start my own nation-state
The Confederacy of LibertarianSyndicalist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Filthy Animal
Post #1785
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-05-21 11:28
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-capitalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| SHOPPING FOR A BETTER SYSTEM |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I 'm Gonna Fly Now.....
[click to play this cool tune
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Club/1935/rocky-gonnafly.mid ]
Ok, people, may the better system prove itself to be actually better by the measures of sucess in the economic, political, social and ethical rank indicators, what better to ask the people who live under those respective systems to tell us what they think and how government and the economic system can improved .
Systems have to prove themselves in more than just rhetorical battles.
People vote with their feet when the system proves itself to be better....it gets support.
For all we know, we are the torch-bearers for a new system, a better system for all, it starts here on this board with you....
People don't live from bread alone and neither from platitudes, the system to be supported and promoted must be bring the goods to the people who live in the system.
I know it is easy to throw cheap shots, the system in measurable terms must be able to show it has what it takes to be the envy of lesser systems.
A draft guide for the system:
The system has to be fair.
The System has to provide prosperity for those make the effort.
The System has to reward for effort and safety nets for those who fall.
The System has be representative.
the System has to help achieve their pursuit of happiness of individuals.
The System must not be oppresive to those disadvantaged and those who achieve.
The System has to combine the best of individualism and collectivism in society without impinging on the rights and freedoms of either.
The System has to have a minimalist government, large government has proven to cause more problems than less.
The System whenever possible must encourage with reward rather than punish.
The System must ecnourage active democratic participation of citizens in society.
------------------------------------------------------
...and for the trivial...
PS: Hein can you correct the spelling? It is rather annoying reading your stuff..
Last edited by carldiesturmer on Fri 2004-05-21 11:34; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Filthy Animal
Post #1786
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-05-21 11:30
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-capitalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| numbers game |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| General Hein wrote: |
| Atleast Im about 200 million people bigger than you |
so what, 200 million idiots...quality not quantity...for all we know they are complete morons... 
Now show your link
Last edited by carldiesturmer on Sun 2004-05-23 12:05; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #1790
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #1796
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1798
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-05-21 19:19
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: numbers game |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| carldiesturmer wrote: |
| General Hein wrote: |
| Atleast Im about 200 million people bigger than you |
so what, 200 million of idiots...quality not quantity...for all we know they are complete morons...
Now show your link |
In general, the larger the organization the less intelligence required (or desired) by its members.
Just look at the Catholic Church. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1967
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-27 07:11
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Lt. Vanish wrote: |
Now where can I learn more about this wonderful new political philosophy?
|
Well, from me, I guess. (I'm pretty sure I'm the one who made it up)
|
I've been wondering... Did I really make this up?
I decided to do a web search for "Libertarian Syndicalism".... I got 76 results.
But most of these were about ideologies similar to Libertarian-Communism
Yuk. 
I found this one about "Syndicalism"....
| From Libertarian Socialism - article from the Swedish "SAC Newsletter 1995" |
The conventionally accepted division between the different socialist tendencies is if they are revolutionary or reformist. Without doubt the syndicalists place themselves on the revolutionary side, (naturally reforms are not rejected as such).
But we see another division which is just as important; that between authoritarian (revolutionary or reformistic) and libertarian socialists. The former believing that it is the states responsibility for society's administration either through a proletarian dictatorship or by elected representatives.
Often the concept of libertarian socialism is used as being synonymous with syndicalism -- for example George Woodcock's description of "the very nature of the libertarian attitude - its rejection of dogma, its deliberate avoidance of rigidly systematic theory and, above all, its stress on extreme freedom of choice and on the primacy of the individual judgment".
|
Hmmm... Traditional Syndicalism...A little too heavy on the Unionism for my liking.
Here we go... I found one. 
| From THE MYTHS OF SYNDICALISM |
Before going any further however, syndicalism should be defined. In France, where the term originated, syndicalism means simply trade unionism and has no particularly radical or anarchistic connotations. French speakers refer to libertarian syndicalism, revolutionary syndicalism or anarcho-syndicalism when distinguishing the radical current from traditional trade unionism.
|
Ok... so maybe I wasn't the first to think of it. But I still think that their libertarian-syndicalism is different from my libertarian-syndicalism. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another question... where does "Libertarian-Syndicalism" place in the traditional Left(liberal)-Right(conservative) political spectrum?
For those who have seen the quiz on the Libertarian Party Website, you may be familiar with the 2-dimensional Nolan Chart....
That chart puts me in the moderate libertarian category. But dammit, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Libertarian-Syndicalist!! Luckily, I have found another chart. A 3-Dimentional one with 8 different sectors... the Vosem Chart.
| Code: |
----------------|---------------- ----------------|----------------
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| New Labour | Authoritarian | | Liberal | Totalitarian |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|----------------|----------------| |----------------|----------------|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Libertarian | Conservative | | Anarcho- | Paleo- |
| | | | syndicalist | conservative |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
----------------|---------------- ----------------|----------------
|
In 3-D view, they look like this...
| Code: |
---------------------------------
| New Labour | Authoritarian |
--+-------------|--+------------- |
| | | | | |
Liberal -+- | | Totalitarian | |
| | | | | |
| |-------------+--+-------------+--|
| | | | | |
|--+-------------|--+-------------| |
| | | | | -+- Conservative
| | | | | |
| | Libertarian | | |
| | | | | |
| --------------+----------------+--
| | |
----------------|----------------
| |
Anarcho-syndicalist Paleo-conservative
|
So, according to that chart, I am a Libertarian who has taken a step towards Anarcho-syndicalism...
| From that chart |
Left, lower, anterior: Personal freedom, elimination of services such as welfare, social security and student money from the government, and anti-corporate ideology. This is the combination of anarcho-syndicalism. It's what many people call the "left-libertarians". More liberal than the libertarians, anarcho-syndialists are anti-government, but they find business to be behaving in too oppressive and authoritarian a manner. Your stereotypical anti-corporate, anti-WTO, anti-anything protestors.
|
"anti-anything"?... Yep, I guess you can say that's me... but not exactly. I'm a little more moderate than that. I am not an anacho-syndicalist... I am Libertarian with some Syndicalist beliefs... hence, I am a...
Libertarian-Syndicalist!!
So on the political spectrum I am in the moderate Left, lower, anterior section. Damn, politics is complex. :wink:
BTW.... I discovered that "Anarcho-Syndicalism" has a flag. As you know, the Communist have a Red Flag and Anarchist have a Black Flag. So naturally, the flag of the Anarcho-Syndicalism is....
Unfurl the Red & Black flag my A.S. comrades!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #1984
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-27 21:26
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
There's an anarcho-syndicalist movement in Ireland. There's also an anarcho-syndicalist website out there somewhere.
I used to be an anarcho-syndicalist, but I then decided, "The vigilantes will just take control, and we'll have to rebel again." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #2009
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-05-28 14:22
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Yeah... I'm not an Anarchist either. I am in favor of a Libertarian government, with the Syndicalist only in control of their own companies. government run by Syndicalists sounds a little too much like Sovietism for my liking.
The US has no such groups. Well... we probably have a few of them somewhere, but they're all hiding under a rock (or on a forum) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Filthy Animal
Post #2021
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-05-29 05:10
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-capitalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| whichever comes first, keep broadcasting |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
"...when the Robots broke free from bondage"
they will find us or we will find them first.
Keep Broadcasting Brothers in the East and West.
================================================
Saw the Day After Tomorrow, pretty good suspense disaster movie.
Mind the wolves looked too digitial to be good.
But fun nevertheless.
NEWSFLASH: Sentient IR attack Metropolis!!!
Also there is a trailer for I, Robot with Will Smith, directed by Alex Proyas of the Dark City and The Crow fame. Hope it is good, there is an IR revolution in the Human City of MetroYork.
I'm excited already.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/i_robot/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #2038
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-05-29 21:01
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Tue 2008-05-20 09:42; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #2051
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-05-30 06:02
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Sometimes you can see these flags in left-wing extremist demonstrations over here. Quite a mighty sight, although with a slight Ingsoc touch. |
Sweden rules!
I think it's time that we start seeing these flags on this side of the pond as well. Its time to invest in some spray paint...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #2061
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-05-30 17:07
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Sometimes you can see these flags in left-wing extremist demonstrations over here. Quite a mighty sight, although with a slight Ingsoc touch. |
Sweden rules!
I think it's time that we start seeing these flags on this side of the pond as well. Its time to invest in some spray paint...
|
B-B, your a nut!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #2068
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-05-30 22:03
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I saw an anarcho-syndicalist flag here where all the oppressed groups went on a massive peace march to stop the occupation(note my usage of occupation rather than war. It's no longer a war as such).
Of course, as a former anarcho-syndicalist, I saw this flag on the anarcho-syndicalist website. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #2109
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-06-01 15:41
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Parecon |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
When I first stubled upon "Participatory Economics", I thought it was another derivation of Anarcho-Syndicalism...
Parecon (Participatory Economics)
...but after reading about it, I am having a hard time differentiating it from communism.
| From Life After Capitalism |
Participatory Economics
By Michael Albert
First off, like all of you I despise capitalism. I don’t want an economy in which Bill Gates has as much wealth as the population of Norway. I don’t want homeless people living under bridges and CEOs having huge mansions. I don’t want people fleecing one another, oblivious to social well being, competing for crumbs or fortunes. I don’t want a rat race in which most people lose, and the winners are the biggest, baddest rats. I don’t want corporate dictatorships in which most people have no dignity, no influence, no power, and even no food. I don’t want markets or central planning. I don’t want wage slavery. I don’t want class division and class rule.
I don’t want an economy which produces people like Bush and Rumsfeld – people with tremendous power who think that if you are Afghan you are expendable, if you are Iraqi you are expendable, if you are Palestinian you are expendable, if you are Korean you are expendable, if you are Venezuelan, or Argentinean, or Brazilian you are expendable, or if you are from the Bronx, or Watts, or in fact if you are from anything other than Bush and Rumseld’s ruling class family and constituency class – you are expendable. What is in fact expendable is capitalism. And we are the ones, with millions more, who must remove it from history.
But, if we don’t want capitalism – what do we want in its place? If we believe another, better world is possible – what are some of its features?
Instead of some people dining on caviar and owning their own private airplanes and other people dining on garbage and living under bridges, we want equitable distribution of assets and circumstances.
Instead of hierarchies of power with owners able to move huge industries and lay waste to regions and populations, and with managers and intellectuals able to govern when workers can even go to the bathroom and the shape of our lives, and with about 80% of the population -- the working class -- having virtually no say over their economic circumstances, from how much they work, to what they do, to when they do it, to what the product is--we want classlessness and self-managed decision making structures. We want people to have input into decisions in proportion as they are affected by them.
Instead of competitive or authoritarian allocation which expands the profit and power of ruling classes, we want cooperative, self-managed allocation that expands social well being, development, and justice.
Participatory Economics is an economic alternative to capitalism and also to what has in Russia, China, and other countries opportunistically been called socialism.
Participatory Economics rebuts Margaret Thatcher’s grotesque assertion that “There Is No Alternative.” Thatcher wants us to believe that suffering poverty and indignity is as inevitable as gravity, that it is a fact of life. But that is a lie.
The economic alternative called Participatory Economics, or Parecon for short, is built on four key values, and it uses four defining institutions to fulfill those values.
The first value is Solidarity. Economies affect how people interact. They affect the broad attitudes people have toward one another.
Capitalism is a zero sum system in which to get ahead one must trample others. You must ignore the horrible pain suffered by those left below or you must literally step on them, pushing them farther down. In capitalism, a famous baseball manager of a team called the Yankees, used to say…”nice guys finish last” which is actuallya horrible critique of market exchange. My version of the insight is that in capitalism “garbage rises.” Witness, again, our exalted leaders.
Participatory economics, or Parecon, is in contrast intrinsically a Solidarity Economy. Its institutions for production, consumption, and allocation don’t destroy or obstruct mutuality and sympathy but instead propel even antisocial people into having to address others well being. To get ahead in a Parecon you have to act on the basis of solidarity.
And this first parecon value is entirely uncontroversial. Only a psychopath would argue that all other things equal, an economy is better if it produces hostility and anti-sociality. Everyone sane will agree that other things equal, an economy is better if it produces solidarity. So we have our first value: Solidarity.
The second value we want a good economy to advance is Diversity. Economies affect the range of options that people have in their work and in consumption.
Capitalist markets homogenize options. They trumpet opportunity but in fact curtail most avenues of satisfaction and development by replacing everything human and caring with only what is most commercial, most profitable, and especially most in accord with the maintenance of domineering power and wealth.
But a Participatory Economy is a Diversity Economy. Parecon’s institutions for production, consumption, and allocation not only don’t reduce variety, they emphasize finding and respecting diverse channels and solutions to problems. Parecon recognizes that we are finite beings who can benefit from enjoying what others do that we ourselves have no time to do, and also that we are fallible beings who should not vest all our hopes in single channels of advance, instead insuring against damage by trying preserving and exploring diverse avenues and options.
And this value too is entirely uncontroversial. It would require a tremendously perverse individual to argue that all other things equal, an economy is better if it reduces options. Instead, everyone will agree that other things equal, an economy is better if it produces and protects diversity. So we have our second value: Diversity.
The third value we want a good economy to advance is Equity. Economies affect the distribution of output among actors. They determine our budgets or what share of the social product we receive.
Capitalism overwhelmingly rewards property and bargaining power. It says that those who have a deed to productive property by virtue of having that piece of paper and nothing else, deserve profits. And it says that those who have great bargaining power based on anything from monopolizing knowledge or skills, to having better tools or organizational advantages, to being born with special talents, or to being able to command brute force, are entitled to whatever they can take. Capitalism in this respect encapsulates the morality of Al Capone and the Harvard business school -- which are, minuscule matters aside, identical. You get what you can take – the rest get leftovers or nothing at all.
But a Participatory Economy is an Equity Economy in that Parecon’s institutions for production, consumption, and allocation not only don’t destroy or obstruct equity, they propel it. But now a complication arises. What do we mean by equity. And this is controversial.
Parecon of course rejects rewarding property ownership. And it of course it also rejects rewarding power. But what about output? Should people be remunerated for the volume and value of the things they produce? Should we get back from the social product an amount equal to what we produced as part of the social product? It seems equitable…but is it?
Supposing they do the same work for the same length of time at the same intensity, why should someone who has better tools get more income than someone with worse tools” Why should someone who happens to produce something highly valued be rewarded more than someone who produces something less valued, but still socially desired, again if they work the same number of hours and the same intensity at a comparable job vis-à-vis effects on quality of life? Why should someone who was lucky in the genetic lottery, perhaps getting genes for big size, or great strength, or for fast reflexes, or for musical composition talent …get rewarded more than someone who was less lucky genetically, supposing again that both work in their field at the same intensity and same level of exertion and discomfort?
In a Participatory Economy for those who can work, remuneration is for effort and sacrifice.
If two people go out in the field to harvest some crop and one of them is much stronger, or has better tools, and they both work the same length of time at the same level of exertion under the same sun…then even though the one with better tools has more crop harvested at the end of the day, in a Parecon they get the same pay for their equal effort and sacrifice.
If a great composer produces a masterpiece and a good composer produces only a worthy piece, and they each work for the same duration and under the same conditions, then in a Parecon they get the same pay, even though their outputs are markedly different.
If you work longer, you get more reward. If you work harder, you get more reward. If you work in worse conditions and at more onerous tasks, you get more reward.
But you do not get more reward – higher pay -- for having better tools, or for producing something that happens to be more valued, or even for having innate highly productive talents. And regarding their learned skills, people get rewarded for the work involved in learning them, for the effort and sacrifice expended, but not for the ensuing output.
Rewarding only the effort and sacrifice that people expend in their work is controversial. Some anti-capitalists think that people should be rewarded for output, so that a great athlete should earn fortunes, and a comfortable doctor should earn way more than a hard working farmer or short order cook. Parecon rejects that norm. In fact, in a Parecon, if one person had a nice, comfortable, pleasant, highly productive job, and another person had an onerous, debilitating, and less productive but still socially valuable job, the later person would earn more, not the former.
So, we have our third value, a controversial one. We want a good economy to remunerate effort and sacrifice, and, of course, when people can’t work, to provide full income anyway. We don’t know that we can do this without harsh and offsetting consequences, but if we can attain this type of Equity, then we certainly should want to.
The fourth and final value on which Parecon is built has to do with decisions and is called self-management. Economics affect how much say each actor has in decisions about production, consumption, and allocation.
In capitalism owners or capitalists have tremendous say. Managers, and high level intellectual workers who monopolize daily decision-making levers like lawyers, engineers, financial officers, and doctors, have very substantial say. And some people have virtually zero say. In fact, people doing rote and obedient labor rarely even know what decisions are being made, much less impact them.
Within capitalist firms there is a hierarchy of power that is greater even than that in dictatorships. Stalin himself never dreamed of demanding that the Russian population should have to ask permission to go to the bathroom…a condition that very often prevails for workers in corporations.
But a Participatory Economy is a democratic economy. People control their own lives to appropriate degrees. Each person has a level of say that doesn’t impinge on other people having the same level of say. We impact decision in proportion as we are affected by them. This is called Self Management.
Imagine a worker in a large group. He or she wants to place a picture of a daughter on his or her workstation. Who should make that decision? Should some owner decide? Should a manager decide? Should all the workers decide? Obviously, none of that makes sense. The one worker whose child it is should decide, alone, with full authority. He or she should be literally a dictator in this particular case.
Now suppose instead that the same worker wants to put a radio on his or her desk, and to play it very loud, listening to raucous rock and roll or even heavy metal. Now who should decide? We all intuitively know that the answer is that those who will hear the radio should have a say. And that those who will be more bothered – or more benefited – should have more say.
And at this point, we have already arrived at a value vis-à-vis decision making. We don’t need a Phd philosopher. We don’t need incomprehensible language. We simply realize that we don’t want one person one vote and 50% rules all the time. Nor do we always want one person one vote and some other percentage required for agreement. Nor do we always want one person to decide authoritatively, as a dictator. Nor do we always want consensus. Nor do we always want any other single approach. All these methods of making decisions make sense in some cases, but they are horrible in other cases.
What we hope to accomplish when we choose a mode of decision making as well as associated processes of discussion, agenda setting, and so on, is that each actor should have an influence on decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected by them.
The logic is actually quite simple. If we don’t all have a say in decisions in proportion as we are affected by them, then some people will have a say more than they are affected and other people will have a say less than they are affected, but there is no moral basis for such a differential, nor even an argument on grounds of reaching the best decisions. Expertise is certainly essential to arriving at good dccisions – that is, to generate and provide information bearing on decisions. And yes, expertise also plays a role when we get to actually registering our preferences, because, in fact, we are each the world’s foremost expert on our own preferences, so we each be responsible for our expressing them. And so we haves our fourth value…Self Management.
There is another value I want to mention – though it is certainly more general and really almost a truism.
In a Participatory Economy we want to be Efficient.
Does the word induce a bit of nausea in some of you? It does in me. But we need to get over that, because efficiency really means seeking to attain our aims and in doing so not wasting things we value. We should all therefore favor efficiency. The alternative to favoring efficiency is to favor either not attaining our aims, or to favor wasting things that we value.
So why does the word induce some nausea? In capitalism owners preference become the sought after ends, and what owners value is not wasted. So in capitalism efficiency means seeking maximum profits while reproducing the conditions of profit-making without wasting assets that owners can exploit. Capitalists don’t mind destroying humans with black lung disease, or exterminating humans with weapons or with hunger, when the people afflicted are expendable as far as profit is concerned. Capitalists don’t mind sickening people in the wake of their workplaces’ pollution. They don’t mind blowing up or destroying assets that they themselves can’t exploit, though others will suffer from the loss. Under capitalism being efficient means being vile, because it is a vile system – and this is why we have some antipathy to the word efficiency as it is used all around us.
But in a parecon being efficient means producing, consuming, and allocating to meet needs and to develop potentials consistent with expanding solidarity, diversity, equity, and self-management. And it means not wasting anything that we can enjoy and benefit from. So, a Parecon should be efficient, in this precise sense, of course.
Now that we have some guiding values, we can judge economies and try to describe an economy that we all deem worthy.
Briefly, to judge existing options – private ownership economics, market economics, centrally planned economies, economies with corporate divisions of labor, and economies that reward property or power or even output—all fail to propel the values we now hold dear. These are anti-social economies, authoritarian economies, inequitable economies, un-ecological economies, un-caring economies, and class-divided and class-ruled economies. They are oppressive and unworthy economics. They destroy solidarity, diminish diversity, annihilate equity, and they don’t even comprehend self management. So we reject capitalist ownership, markets, central planning, corporate divisions of labor, and remuneration for output or power.
Participatory Economics is built on a few centrally defining institutional choices other than the ones we reject.
Workers and consumers need a place to express and pursue their preferences. Historically these have been organizations where workers congregate. In workplaces we call them workers councils. Regarding consumption, we call them consumers councils. Councils form whenever people rise up to try to take control of their economic lives…it has occurred virtually every time in history, most recently in Argentina. Councils are organs of direct organization by those working and consuming. Among anti-capitalist, I don’t think favoring councils is controversial, though not everyone makes it a priority like Pareconists do..
But in a parecon, within councils, there is an additional commitment to using decision making procedures and modes of communication that apportions to each actor, about each decision, a degree of say proportionate to the degree he or she is affected. Sometimes this is typical democratic voting, sometimes it is consensus, sometimes it is other options. But it is never permanent rule by a few over the many.
So in a Parecon workers and consumers are organized into democratic councils with the norm for decisions being that methods of dispersing information to decision-makers and of arriving at preferences and then tallying them into decisions should convey to each actor about each decision influence over the decision in proportion to the degree the actor will be affected by it.
Councils become the seat of decision-making power and exist at many levels, including individual workers and consumers, subunits such as work groups and work teams, and supra units such as divisions and workplaces and whole industries, as well as neighborhoods, counties, and whole states.
People in councils are the economy’s decision-makers. Votes could be majority rule, three quarters, two-thirds, consensus, or other possibilities. They are taken at different levels, with fewer or more participants, and different procedures, depending on the particular implications of the decisions in question. Sometimes a team or individual makes a decision pretty much on its own. Sometimes a whole workplace or even an industry would be the decision body. Different voting and tallying methods would be employed as needed for different decisions. There is no a priori single correct choice. There is, however, a right norm to try to efficiently and sensibly implement: decision-making input should be in proportion as one is affected by decisions.
The next institutional commitment of a parecon is to remunerate for effort and sacrifice, not for property, power, or even output.
We work. This entitles us to a share of the product of work. But this new vision says that we ought to receive for our labors an amount in tune with how hard we have worked, with how long we have worked, and with what sacrifices we have endured at our work. We shouldn’t get more income by virtue of being more productive due to having better tools, more skills, or greater inborn talent, much less by virtue of having more power or owning more property. We should be entitled to more consumption only by virtue of expending more of our effort or otherwise enduring more sacrifice. This is morally appropriate and it also provides proper incentives due to rewarding only what we can affect, and not what we can’t.
Who decides how hard we have worked? Our workers councils in context of the broad economic setting established by other institutions as well. If you work longer, you are entitled to more of the social product. If you work more intensely, again you are entitled to more income. If you work at more onerous or dangerous or boring tasks, again, you are entitled to more income. But you aren’t entitled to more income due to owning productive property because no one owns productive property – it is all socially owned. And you aren’t entitled to more income due to working with better tools, or producing something more valued, or even having personal traits that make you more productive, because these don’t involve effort or sacrifice, but luck or endowment. Greater output is appreciated, of course…but there is no extra pay for it. Both morally and in terms of incentives parecon does precisely what makes sense. The extra pay we get is for what we deserve to have rewarded – our sacrifice at work. And that extra pay elicits what we can in fact generate more of--our effort.
Alright, but suppose we have workers and consumers councils. Suppose we believe in participation, democracy, and even self management. And also suppose our workplace has a typical corporate division of labor. What will happen?
The roughly 20% of the workforce who monopolize via their positions in this corporate division of labor the daily decision making positions and the knowledge that is essential to knowing what is going on and what options exist and to evaluating them, are going to set agendas. Their pronouncements will be authoritative. Even if other workers have voting rights, it will be to vote on plans and options put forth only by this coordinator class. It will be the will of this class that decides outcomes. In time this elite will also decide that it deserves more pay to nurture its great wisdom. It will separate itself not only in power, but in income and status.
So what is the alternative?
Participatory Economics utilizes balanced job complexes. Instead of combining tasks so that some jobs are highly empowering and other jobs are horribly stultifying, so that some jobs convey knowledge and have authority while other jobs rob mentality and only obey orders – Parecon says let’s make each job comparable to all others in its quality of life effects and in its empowerment effects.
Each person has a job. Each job involves many tasks. In a parecon, of course each job is suited to the talents and capacities and energies of the person doing it. But each job is a mix of tasks and responsibilities, such that the overall quality of life and especially the overall empowerment effects of the work are comparable for all.
A Parecon doesn’t have someone who does only surgery, but instead has people who do some surgery, and some cleaning of the hospital, and some other tasks – such that the sum of all that they do incorporates a fair mix of tasks. A Parecon doesn’t have managers and workers. It doesn’t have lawyers and short order cooks. It doesn’t have engineers and assembly line workers. A Parecon has people all of whom do a mix of things in their work, such that each person’s mix accords with their abilities and also conveys a fair share of rote and tedious and interesting and empowering conditions and responsibilities.
Our work doesn’t prepare a few of us to rule and the rest of us to obey. It prepares us all to participate in self-managing workers and consumers councils. It readies all of us to engage sensibly and productively in self managing our lives and institutions.
But what if we have a new economy with workers and consumers councils, with self-managing decision making rules, with remuneration for effort and sacrifice, and with balanced job complexes – but we combined all this with markets or central planning for allocation? Would that work?
It turns out that, no, it wouldn’t work.
Markets destroy the remuneration scheme and create a competitive context in which workplaces have to cut costs and seek market share. To do this they virtually have no choice but to insulate some people from the discomfort that cost-cutting imposes, precisely the people who are earmarked to figure out what costs to cut, how to exploit more output at the expense of great fulfillment—and so emerges, again, the coordinator class, located above workers, violating our preferred norms of remuneration, accruing power and smashing the self-management we desire.
Markets for allocation would undo all the wonderful innovations we have sought, imposing, instead, coordinator rule with old-style divisions of labor and hierarchies of income and power.
And the same would hold for central planning. It too would immediately elevate planners, and shortly after that elevate planners’ managerial agents in each workplace, and then also all those actors in the economy sharing the same type of credentials. Central planning would also impose a coordinator class division and coordinator rule over workers, who would be made subordinate.
The problem is that markets and central planning each subvert the values and associated structures we have deemed worthy. Markets, even without private ownership of productive property, distort valuations to favor private over public benefits and to competitively channel personalities in anti-social directions. They diminish and even destroy solidarity. They reward primarily output and power and not effort and sacrifice. They divide economic actors into a class that is saddled with rote and obedient labor and a class that enjoys empowering circumstances and determines economic outcomes, while also accruing most income. They isolate buyers and sellers from the larger population and leave them no choice but to competitively ignore the wider implications of their efforts, including effects on the ecology.
Central planning, in contrast, is authoritarian. It too denies self-management and produces the same class division and hierarchy as markets, first around the distinction between planners and those who implement their plans, and then regarding empowered and dis-empowered workers more generally. Both these allocation systems subvert rather than propel the values we hold dear. What is the Participatory Economic alternative to markets and central planning?
Suppose in place of top-down imposition of centrally planned choices and in place of competitive market exchange by atomized buyers and sellers, we opt for cooperative, informed self managed negotiation of allocation by socially entwined actors who each have a say in proportion as choices impact them and who are each able to access needed accurate information and valuations, and who each have appropriate training and confidence to develop and communicate their preferences. That would compatibly further council centered participatory self-management, remuneration for effort and sacrifice, and balanced job complexes, and it would also provide proper valuations of personal, social, and ecological impacts, and promote classlessness.
Participatory planning is a system in which worker and consumer councils propose their work activities and their consumption preferences in light of accurate knowledge of local and global implications and true valuations of the full social benefits and costs of their choices. The system utilizes a back and forth cooperative communication of mutually informed preferences via a variety of simple communicative and organizing principles and vehicles including what are called indicative prices, facilitation boards, rounds of accommodation to new information, and other features—all of which permit actors to express their desires and to mediate and refine them in light of feedback about other’s desires, arriving at compatible choices consistent with remuneration for effort and sacrifice, balanced job complexes, and participatory self-management.
Actors indicate their preferences. They learn what others have indicated. They alter their preferences in an effort to move toward a viable plan. At each new step in the cooperative negotiation each actor is seeking well being and development, but each can get ahead only in accord with social advance, not by exploiting others. It is impossible to describe this whole system and all its features, and to show how it is that they are both viable and worthy, in a short talk like this. I’d like to recommend the website www.parecon.org – which has all kinds of material about Parecon, from interviews, to questions and answers, to essays, to whole books, on the one hand – and also give just a brief summary of the situation…
Participatory economics creates a context of classlessness. I can get better work conditions if the average job complex throughout a Parecon improves. I can get higher income if I work harder or longer with my workmates, or if the average income throughout society increases. I, not only advance in solidarity with other economic actors, but influence all economic decisions, including those in my workplace and those throughout the rest of the economy, with an influence proportionate to the impact of those decisions on me.
Parecon not only eliminates inequitable disparities in wealth and income, it attains just distribution. It not only doesn’t force actors to compete with and violate one another’s lives, it produces solidarity. It not only doesn’t homogeniize outcomes, it generates diversity. It not only doesn’t give a small ruling class tremendous power while burdening the bulk of the population with near no influence over their own lives, it produces self management in which we all have appropriate influence.
We are presently taught in schools to endure boredom and to take orders – because that’s what capitalism needs from most of us. In a Parecon we will learn to become as capable and creative and productive as we can, and to participate as full citizens.
Participatory economics is a solidarity economy, a diversity economy, an equity economy, and a self-managing economy. It is a classless economy.
In a talk like this, these are all merely claims I am making with a little bit of argument and motivation. A short talk can’t present a strong case, of course. But I hope this talk has left you feeling that just maybe all these claims are true, that maybe there is a full, well specified, compelling, convincing, and fantastically desirable alternative to capitalism that really does answer the questions, how would you produce, consume, and allocate more effectively and more morally than now.
Parecon is about attaining life after capitalism – which is our task.
Thank You
|
Thanks, but no thanks..  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #2110
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-06-01 16:12
|
|
| Politics: Democratic-Socialist |
|
|
| Re: Parecon |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| This Michael Albert certainly seem to be an ingenious fellow, more ingenious than most of us. I'm somewhat sceptical towards worker councils - it sounds like a system that can be abused or even hijacked, and other forms of direct democracy will probably be available in the future - and collectively owned production means - I think the Syndicalist option is better, since little people seem to need a materialistic motivator. Apart from these two features, I think Michael Albert presents extremely sound principles for a sound society, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #2120
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-06-01 18:47
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| That makes sense to me. The name is vaguely reminding of Newspeak, though. Something I wouldn't like. I like the payment for strenuation involved because one of the things that ignorant people say about communism and something that becomes true is "The lazy bums get the same as a hard worker." I like this philosophy, but it's a bit too idealistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #2139
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-06-02 05:56
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Parecon |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| This Michael Albert certainly seem to be an ingenious fellow, more ingenious than most of us. I'm somewhat sceptical towards worker councils - it sounds like a system that can be abused or even hijacked, and other forms of direct democracy will probably be available in the future - and collectively owned production means - I think the Syndicalist option is better, since little people seem to need a materialistic motivator. Apart from these two features, I think Michael Albert presents extremely sound principles for a sound society, though. |
The thing that concerned me is that it is not syndicalism at all... it is good old-fashioned communism.
| From Parecon |
But you aren’t entitled to more income due to owning productive property because no one owns productive property – it is all socially owned.
|
"Socially owned"?... "Regulated incomes"?... no thanks. To me, all "parecon" is is communism the way it was "supposed to be".
- All property is owned collectively.
- You may not start a new business without going through a "workers council".
- You income will be determined by the soviets...er... "workers councils".
That is nothihg at all like the "Libertarian-Syndicalism" I am after...
- Traditional "Libertarian-Capitalism", except
--- Tax codes and labour laws support worker-owned companies and small businessess.
--- Stong Anti-Trust laws.
--- Strong Labour law protections.
- Workers actually own a significant portion of their company's stock (paid out as part of the workers salary --- accumilated over time instead of by a sudden coup). Founders and Investers still maintain control for the first couple decades of the company, but the percentage of their ownership diminishes over time as the workers earn a larger percentage.
- Workers may pool their power and vote collectively at stockholder meetings through their Unions or "Workers Councils"... but the real power... ownership... remains with the workers.
Libertarian-Capitalism... with just enough syndicalism and labour protections to get the job done.
I aint no Liberal Commie.
BTW... NationStates really does have it all... The Federation of ParEcon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #2145
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-06-02 13:18
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| Re: Parecon |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Um How is that possible, a Capitaizt nation in a Anticapitalist Alliance?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lt. Vanish
Spy
Post #2155
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 104
Total Words: 13,024
Average words per post: 125.23
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-06-03 03:14
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Socialist |
Country: Fascist States of America |
|
| U.N. Membership |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| I was checking out you guys' countries on NationStates and couldn't help but notice that you are all U.N. members. What's up with that? Why did you guys sell out your sovereignty? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #2158
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-06-03 03:42
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| Re: U.N. Membership |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Lt. Vanish wrote: |
| I was checking out you guys' countries on NationStates and couldn't help but notice that you are all U.N. members. What's up with that? Why did you guys sell out your sovereignty? |
Check mine I again, I never was part of the UN for two days last october when my nation was new, but I quit after that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #2167
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-06-03 21:43
|
|
|
|
|
| --- |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Tue 2008-05-20 09:35; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #2170
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-06-04 06:01
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Parecon |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| "Socially owned"?... "Regulated incomes"?... no thanks. To me, all "parecon" is is communism the way it was "supposed to be". |
I don't necessarily consider that to be a disadvantage. |
"Social Ownership" implies state ownership. The state would come in and seize every piece of property. Bye-Bye Stock holders. Bye-Bye Small Businessman.
As a libertarian, this kind of scenario scares the crap out of me.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| - All property is owned collectively. |
I find that to be an incorrect description. Neither Marx nor this parecon man says that all property should be collectively owned, only productive property. You can still own your precious Nike shoes and beloved Playstation 2. |
Just like under communism... the state isn't worried about a person's trinkets... just anything of real value.
Again... No thanks.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| - You may not start a new business without going through a "workers council". |
Is he really saying that? It might be the logical conclusion, but not necessarily. |
This is one of the greatest weaknesses of the communist system. Entrepreneurship will be illegal. The only business growth will be a result of government (or "worker council") action.
Greed is a good motivator. Communism completely destroys greed. This is not necessarily a good thing. Greed is what gets most people out of bed in the morning... it is what spurs some people to start new businesses and create new industries. Libertarian-Syndicalism preserves this motivating factor.... in fact, it expands it by allowing the masses to reap in some greed of their own. I think worker ownership would actually help motivate workers to achieve more, and the economy will grow as a result.
Governments usually like the status quo. And an economy which seeks to maintain the status quo will stagnate. Why bother trying to create new ideas when it won't really do you any good? Why seek to make a process more efficient when it wont benefit you in the least?
Communism BAD. Capitalism GOOD.
L.S. is a capitalistic solution to a Communistic Complaint.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| - You income will be determined by the soviets...er... "workers councils". |
Is it better that a corporate administrator not really involved in the daily action determines your income? Your colleagues are more qualified to evaluate your work burden and actual performance. |
But according to ParEcon, (and communism too), all people should receive equal income. Fuck that.
Again... greed can be a good thing. Why should I put in any extra effort it I'm not going to get a raise out of it?
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
- Traditional "Libertarian-Capitalism", except
--- Tax codes and labour laws support worker-owned companies and small businesses.
--- Strong Anti-Trust laws.
--- Strong Labour law protections. |
Better than the current system, no doubt.
|
Damn straight it is.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| - Workers actually own a significant portion of their company's stock (paid out as part of the workers salary --- accumulated over time instead of by a sudden coup). Founders and Investors still maintain control for the first couple decades of the company, but the percentage of their ownership diminishes over time as the workers earn a larger percentage. |
I must admit that contrary to the parecon system, this would be considerably more easy to implement.
|
Absolutely. I want to see this implemented slowly. I don't want to see our current economy collapse overnight. Our economic system has been a great success... the only thing LS tries to address is making ure that everybody shares in this success. Entrepreneurs and investors will still exists and still be able to drive our successful economy... the only thing that changes is that the people who actually do the work will get a slice of the pie as well.
Plus it is voluntary. Companies that don't "Share the ownership" will just have to "share the wealth" by paying more taxes.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| - Workers may pool their power and vote collectively at stockholder meetings through their Unions or "Workers Councils"... but the real power... ownership... remains with the workers. |
Regardless of the system, this will always be a problem: How to prevent corruption among representatives?
|
By giving them no power. They will only act as a unified voice for the unions... all their actions being decided democratically by its members. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #2177
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-06-04 12:41
|
|
|
|
|
| --- |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Tue 2008-05-20 09:32; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #2179
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-06-04 14:41
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I detest the pseudo-Communist and capitalist systems. That's the first thing I'm going to say.
| Quote: |
Bye-bye stock holders, yes. That's a good thing, in my opinion. Stock holders seldom have a sense of responsibility for the labour force or even a decent understanding of the business.
Bye-bye small businessman, no. Small business was even possible in some of the pseudo-communistic countries, most notably Hungary. Then why shouldn't small business be possible in a real Marxist state?
|
Four words. Lenin's New Economic Policy. Allows people to keep their small businesses. They pay taxes on profits.
| Quote: |
| Greed is a good motivator. Communism completely destroys greed. This is not necessarily a good thing. Greed is what gets most people out of bed in the morning... it is what spurs some people to start new businesses and create new industries. Libertarian-Syndicalism preserves this motivating factor.... in fact, it expands it by allowing the masses to reap in some greed of their own. I think worker ownership would actually help motivate workers to achieve more, and the economy will grow as a result. |
In the ParEcon system, there IS actually a motivating factor, unlike the Soviet system implemented during Stalin's time. You work harder, you get more back. That "greed" means that if you work harder, you get more back and EVERYBODY else gets more back. That's something that I support.
That's something I had implemented into my own philosophy about a year ago. I feel greedy in a way, so I'm going to work hard and try to produce more, so maybe I'll get more and other people will benefit from my work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #2184
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-06-04 18:13
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Mon 2008-05-19 22:50; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Priori
Outer Party
Post #2217
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 254
Total Words: 63,163
Average words per post: 248.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-06-08 02:54
|
|
| Politics: Liberal |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Parecon, Libertarian-Syndicalism, and Other Stuff... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
"Social Ownership" implies state ownership. The state would come in and seize every piece of property. Bye-Bye Stock holders. Bye-Bye Small Businessman.
As a libertarian, this kind of scenario scares the crap out of me. |
Marxists, anarcho-socialists, and other such anti-capitalists are quite right in insisting upon a definition between property and what they call posession. They usually define private property as something either material or abstract that one person utilizes, in tandem with their unquestioned authority, to exploit one or more human beings. They define posession as something that a person has produced or earned, and thus is rightfully his/hers. They see posession as something that cannot ever turn into private property in an honest fashion.
Capitalist apologetics often commit the error of assuming that anti-capitalists do not recognize the alienation of a human's labor through hierarchical exploitation. Quite the contrary. Anti-capitalists recognize, mostly through Marx's analysis of the Hegelian dialectic, that capitalism does indeed promote the alienation of labor, and believe that the sole role of the state is to prevent such alienation from occuring.
I'm not an anti-capitalist or anything, but I do think that the Marx's definition of "private property" is obsolecent and so different from modern society's as to warrant its replacement. So, let's replace it...
| Big Brother wrote: |
Just like under communism... the state isn't worried about a person's trinkets... just anything of real value.
Again... No thanks. |
Such a generalization requires an oversimplification of Marxist terminology, as demonstrated above.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| RAKTHEUNDEAD wrote: |
| In the ParEcon system, there IS actually a motivating factor, unlike the Soviet system implemented during Stalin's time. You work harder, you get more back. That "greed" means that if you work harder, you get more back and EVERYBODY else gets more back. That's something that I support. |
I couldn't agree more. One of my main objections against capitalism is that it allows people to get rich and powerful without working hard. |
I completely agree with both of you, but I think such a system can result from economic reforms to a capitalist system.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Governments usually like the status quo. And an economy which seeks to maintain the status quo will stagnate. Why bother trying to create new ideas when it won't really do you any good? Why seek to make a process more efficient when it wont benefit you in the least? |
That's a classical capitalistic simplification. Economic growth is not a means in itself. After all, the resources of the world are limited. |
Quite right, Ingsoc Officer. Over-population and environmental deterioration both necessitate a radical new way of thinking. The sustainable economy is possible, but definitely not easy. I don't know about Euorpean ones, but the US economy is structured to thrive only when it grows.
| Big Brother wrote: |
This is one of the greatest weaknesses of the communist system. Entrepreneurship will be illegal. The only business growth will be a result of government (or "worker council") action.
Greed is a good motivator. Communism completely destroys greed. This is not necessarily a good thing. Greed is what gets most people out of bed in the morning... it is what spurs some people to start new businesses and create new industries. Libertarian-Syndicalism preserves this motivating factor.... in fact, it expands it by allowing the masses to reap in some greed of their own. I think worker ownership would actually help motivate workers to achieve more, and the economy will grow as a result.
Governments usually like the status quo. And an economy which seeks to maintain the status quo will stagnate. Why bother trying to create new ideas when it won't really do you any good? Why seek to make a process more efficient when it wont benefit you in the least? |
Does income mobility compensate for alienation of labor and income inequality inherant in capitalism? Certainly, but only if those on top don't try to turn capitalism into oligarchy (which usually happens). Will entrepenuership be any easier under that system?
| Big Brother wrote: |
But according to ParEcon, (and communism too), all people should receive equal income. Fuck that.
Again... greed can be a good thing. Why should I put in any extra effort it I'm not going to get a raise out of it? |
A non-capitalistic system need not be monolithic in its undertakings to prevent alienation of labor. How alienated you are from your labor does depend upon how much you produce. Therefore, make government subjective; a fair hand.
Again, I'm not an anti-capitalist, I'm just trying to refine what you're saying.
| Big Brother wrote: |
- Traditional "Libertarian-Capitalism", except
--- Tax codes and labour laws support worker-owned companies and small businessess.
--- Stong Anti-Trust laws.
--- Strong Labour law protections. |
Sounds like  Liberalism to me!
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I aint no Liberal Commie. |
Really?
| Big Brother wrote: |
I've been wondering... Did I really make this up?
I decided to do a web search for "Libertarian Syndicalism".... I got 76 results. |
That's a pretty limited search. The world is a big place, and there are a lot of people in it. One search isn't nearly exhaustive enough to account for the differences manifest betwenn "THE MYHS OF SYNDICALISM" and your flavor of syndicalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #2226
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-06-08 10:23
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Parecon, Libertarian-Syndicalism, and Other Stuff... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| A Priori wrote: |
Anti-capitalists recognize, mostly through Marx's analysis of the Hegelian dialectic, that capitalism does indeed promote the alienation of labor, and believe that the sole role of the state is to prevent such alienation from occurring.
|
Sounds good on paper... but who runs the state? If the workers truly owned the means of production, the need for these controls would not be as great. State-Socialism is just a means of keeping worker's complaints down while keeping the basic hierarchy of power in tact.
This is not to say that I oppose labour laws. But I think there is a better way...
| A Priori wrote: |
Such a generalization requires an oversimplification of Marxist terminology, as demonstrated above.
|
How is "anything of real value" any more simplistic than "the means of production". I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
The thing I was try to say was that, in response to the comment...
"I find that to be an incorrect description. Neither Marx nor this parecon man says that all property should be collectively owned, only productive property. You can still own your precious Nike shoes and beloved Playstation 2.
...That yes, the Soviets allowed people to own personal possession and small shops, but nothing that would allow them to "enslave the masses". All I said is that the same situation would exist under ParEcon as well. I suppose I could have cited specific examples of which property would be owned "collectively" and which property would be owned "privately", but I figured this "oversimplification" would suffice. Am I wrong?
| A Priori wrote: |
I completely agree with both of you, but I think such a system can result from economic reforms to a capitalist system.
|
Then why were you arguing against "Libertarian-Syndicalism" in that other forum? All it is is classic libertarian-capitalism with an expanded stock-option program.
| A Priori wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Governments usually like the status quo. And an economy which seeks to maintain the status quo will stagnate. Why bother trying to create new ideas when it won't really do you any good? Why seek to make a process more efficient when it wont benefit you in the least? |
That's a classical capitalistic simplification. Economic growth is not a means in itself. After all, the resources of the world are limited. |
There you go again with your "over-simplification" over-simplification.
But anyway... This is a key difference between a government-run bureaucracy and a one the encourages entrepreneurship and growth. The latter is bound to be more successful.
Take Steve Jobs for instance. Under a communistic system, he would have had to convince the state that his little electronic doo-dads were a good idea. If the state rejected him, that would be the end of it. And who would be in charge of that decision?... some bureaucrat who possessed his current job not on his merits, but because his uncle was a big-shot in the government.
But under capitalism, he just had to find a few investors... People who have most likely already had a certain degree of success in business, and who would support his idea as long as they thought they could make a buck off of it.
A few years back, myself and a couple friends were getting ready to start an little tech company. We actually had a few customers before the tech would took a beating and we abandoned the project. But that is farther than we would have gotten under communism. Would the state have allowed us to go into business?... Probably not, since we were planning on hiring a guy to do artwork for us.
What’s the difference?... under capitalism you have new companies popping up to offer new services, and under communism you don't. This may be another over-simplification, but it seems to me that capitalist countries seem to have more in the way of invention and progress than their communistic counterparts. About the only time that some of these communistic states get off their tush to produce something new is in areas where they were forced to compete with the West, such as in the Military and Space Race.
The communistic economy is run like a DMV…. And DMV’s suck. I suppose that this could all simply be capitalistic propaganda, but I think there is some real truth to it. But if you can cite some examples to the contrary, I would be willing to hear them.
But I thought you were a capitalist... why am I explaining this to you...  Are you just automatically taking the contrary position no matter what? )
| A Priori wrote: |
Does income mobility compensate for alienation of labor and income inequality inherent in capitalism? Certainly, but only if those on top don't try to turn capitalism into oligarchy (which usually happens). Will entrepreneurship be any easier under that system?
|
I see we agree that small businesses are key.
| Big Brother wrote: |
make government subjective; a fair hand.
|
Good Luck.
I think it is easier to simply give them as little power as possible.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Cornelius Tacitus - "Annals" (c. 116 A.D.)
"The greater the number of laws and enactments, the greater the number of thieves and robbers." - Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
| A Priori wrote: |
Again, I'm not an anti-capitalist, I'm just trying to refine what you're saying.
|
oh.. OK. You had me confused.
| A Priori wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
- Traditional "Libertarian-Capitalism", except
--- Tax codes and labour laws support worker-owned companies and small businessess.
--- Strong Anti-Trust laws.
--- Strong Labour law protections. |
Sounds like Liberalism to me!
|
All ideologies have some good ideas.
| Big Brother wrote: |
That's a pretty limited search. The world is a big place, and there are a lot of people in it. One search isn't nearly exhaustive enough to account for the differences manifest between "THE MYHS OF SYNDICALISM" and your flavor of syndicalism. |
I was just trying to refute my own rather arrogant claim that I had made up an entirely new economic system. And after looking into it, I discovered that I hadn't.
I couldn't find anybody advocating the exact same thing as me, but many were close. But that is no surprise. There is no such thing as an entirely new idea. Could you have the Automobile without the horse and carraige?.... the television without the radio?... Relativity without classic physics?... Computers without...hmmm… a bunch of different stuff.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
