| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
>Eh? Of course it does. If the guy had land to grow his own food why would he work for a boss to buy food? Apart from maybe the cost of seed the food would be completly free if he had land to grow his own.
It isn't an example of someone working to obtain items that were once free. The reason - food was never free. Said farmer would have to work his ass of to get enough food to support himself during the off months. Just because he doesn't pay for the food itself, doesn't mean he doesn't pay for the land, equiptment, and many taxes that would be imposed on him because he owns land, in addition to putting in the many backbreaking hours of planting, maintaining, and harvesting his crop.
| |||||||
 BleaK paradox Registered: 06/23/02 Posts: 1,583 Last seen: 12 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
"It also forces us to work unessiarily for things that used to be free."
"Example, please." Land. You say we dont have enough space for everyone to grow their own food? Maybe. but i think that means we've already exceeded our limits. Oh well we murder pleanty of ppl. It'll work out eventually. -------------------- "You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma
| |||||||
 Evolving Resident Cynic  Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
In reply to: Communists are the world champs at this sort of thing. Where's 'Uncle Joe' when you need him? -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings. Edited by Evolving (12/06/02 03:16 PM)
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
So we should seize land from people who legally own and obtain it,
The people who "legally" own it? You mean the various kings and rich folk who "claimed" ownership of it with the help of a few thousand thugs? You ever heard of Robin Hood? 
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Communists are the world champs at this sort of thing. Where's 'Uncle Joe' when you need him?
How can you have communism in a dictatorship? Do you know what communism means? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Communists are the world champs at this sort of thing. Where's 'Uncle Joe' when you need him? How can you have communism in a dictatorship? Do you know what communism means? I know what communism means and is. It is a pie in the sky utopian fantasy for man that cannot be implemented in real life. That is why whenever it is attempted in real life, it quickly devolves into a dictatorship. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
I know what communism means and is
I doubt it. That is why whenever it is attempted Even Lenin said there would be at least 50-100 years of dictatorship in Russia before any attempt at communism could be made. Communism was clearly never implemented in Russia. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
I know what communism means and is I doubt it. Communism in a nutshell: The old order is overthrown. All property becomes owned by the state. A dictatorship is established("the dictatorship of the proletariat"). Any dissent of any kind is seen as "counter-revolutionary" or "bourgeois reformism" and is quickly quashed. The state controls every aspect of production, so that inequities are not possible(and by the way, ambition and freedom are not possible either). After the system is running smoothly, the state will whither away, and all that will be left are little communes where every bit of property and wealth is collectively owned, there is no hunger or strife, because everyone is taken care of, everyone is equal, everyone is happy,..... blah blah blah. I'd rather slit my wrists. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
In reply to: Communism is a dictatorship of the collective. Should we be happier that a million jack boots are pressing down on an individual's throat rather than only one? There is a term for people who believe the utopian ideals of communism, that one day the state will wither away, "useful idiots." The blood of millions is on their naive hands. -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
ooo Stranger Registered: 11/20/02 Posts: 23 |
| ||||||
|
nice soundbyte definitions.
from Merriam-Webster dictionary: Main Entry: com?mu?nism Pronunciation: 'k?m-y&-"ni-z&m Function: noun Etymology: French communisme, from commun common Date: 1840 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. Statism was a method preferred by the Marxists, Bolseviks, Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, and all their variations in order to reach the economic vision of "to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities." Proponents of such ideology believed that a strong state was a temporary, necessary evil in order to defend against the once-powerful capitalists. Some truly believed this, others were simply in it for the power (notice how so many former Soviet bureacrats easily switched over to neoliberalism in the early '90s - 'tis the hierarchial authoritarian mindset finding new ways to manifest itself) Power was often acquired by hijacking various worker's movements (many of which were quite libertarian). Regardless of individual motives, state socialism/communism turned out to be a failure and has set back the liberation from hierarchial systems (capitalism, statism, royalism, etc) many, many decades. Communism does not need to be reached via authoritarian methods, and in fact, some argue that authority hinders such an economy. Keywords: libertarian socialism, anarchism, anarcho-communism, self-management, council communism, deep ecology, anarcho-syndicalism, left Marxism, Rosa Luxembourg, Rocker, Kropotkin, Anton Pannekoek, autonomism, direct democracy, Spainish Revolution, situationists and Paris '68, Kronstadt, the Makhnovtchina, the anarchist Italian factory councils. Libertarian socialists/anarcho-communists/autonomists essentially wish to create a shadow economy that operates in a non-hierachial, cooperative way. They wish to create the new world within the shell of the old world. As this new economy develops on a small-scale via volunteers, it will grow and attract more people like gravity. The desire to engage in wage-labor and capitalism in general will grow more unnecessary and undesireable as human needs are met by this new economy. Here is an essay called Is Socialism still on the Agenda? by Micheal Albert. The essay is critique by Stalinist-turned-capitalist David Horowitz. Various exchanges between Albert and Horowitz follow (Albert destroys Horowitz, by the way). Check out the debates here: here. Highly recommended. Edited by ooo (12/07/02 12:51 PM)
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Libertarian socialists/anarcho-communists/autonomists essentially wish to create a shadow economy that operates in a non-hierachial, cooperative way. I am perfectly aware of what they want to create. What they want to create sounds all nice and dandy. But, things that sound good on paper, oftentimes do not work out as one had expected, because reality and people can be and are unpredictable at times. What they wish to create is only possible among very small groups of like-minded people. It is not possible in, or applicable to, a world with strained resources and six billion people who have a myriad of different opinions and beliefs. They wish to create the new world within the shell of the old world. As this new economy develops on a small-scale via volunteers, it will grow and attract more people like gravity. The desire to engage in wage-labor and capitalism in general will grow more unnecessary and undesireable as human needs are met by this new economy. You might be able to satisfy human needs with this anarchist fantasy of yours, but you will never satisfy human wants with it. Some of these people may be so enamored with this idea of simple and communal living, that they would be able to restrain their desire to engage in consumerism or economic development, but what about everyone else? For example, the people who desire material things(which are a large percentage of the population). What about the people who want to engage in labor in order to obtain money or resources that they happen to want for one reason or another? Would you try to restrain these "unenlightened" activities? The only way to make something like this work, is if everybody wanted to live like that. Not everybody wants to live like that. And, if you in any way attempted to control your fellow man, or the rest of the world for that matter, to implement some ideological dream of yours, that would make you no better than the dictators who have plagued mankind by using force to remake the world in an image that they happened to prefer. As I said in an earlier post: I would rather eat dirt and live in my own filth, than to live under a system or a mandatory communal attitude that dictated what I should do, how I should act, and what I should be. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
In reply to: How will private property be eliminated? Voluntarily? What will happen if people don't want to give up their private property? Bottom line, force will have to be initiated against those who don't wan't to play along with utopian fantasies. In reply to: What if a man creates something which he doesn't want to allow others to own? Who determines how goods are to be distributed? How is this distribution carried out if some don't want to go along voluntarily? Bottom line, force will have to be initiated against those who don't wan't to play along with utopian fantasies. If you want to implement communism on a large scale, it requires a dictatorship. This is the lesson of history which has been shown time and time again. I highly recommend two books for you to read, 'The Prince' by Machiavelli and 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell. Understand this, I have absolutely nothing against people voluntarily establishing communist societies. As a matter of fact this has been done numerous times within the United States, there are no laws against it. Check their track records, they aren't very successful due to human nature. -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
At least we've established that communism was never tried in Russia.
Here's a good explanation: Scientific definition: A classless society with no exploitation. No state machine used by one section of the population to oppress another section. No need for professional armies or police forces. No use of production for profit or exchange. Society runs in accord with the principle: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Bullshit definition (ie: commonly believed--but WRONG) Rule of society by a single party which maintains a monopoly of political power and suppresses all opposition. Control of the economy via centralized bureaucratic planning. Examples of bullshit definition: the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Bullshit definition (ie: commonly believed--but WRONG) Rule of society by a single party which maintains a monopoly of political power and suppresses all opposition. Control of the economy via centralized bureaucratic planning. Examples of bullshit definition: the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Scientific definition: A classless society with no exploitation. No state machine used by one section of the population to oppress another section. No need for professional armies or police forces. No use of production for profit or exchange. Society runs in accord with the principle: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Bullshit definition (ie: commonly believed--but WRONG) Rule of society by a single party which maintains a monopoly of political power and suppresses all opposition. Control of the economy via centralized bureaucratic planning. Examples of bullshit definition: the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Common sense definition: Unnattainable utopia that will never work. That is why the scientific attempts often turn into the bullshit attempts that you illustrated. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
So communism doesn't work because something that had nothing to do with communism didn't work? Not sure if that's too logical.
I don't think Stalin ever made a "scientific" attempt at implementing communism. He was a dictator. The complete opposite of a communist system. America under the new deal had a lot more to do with communism. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
So communism doesn't work because something that had nothing to do with communism didn't work? Not sure if that's too logical. When you say "work" I don't know what you mean. Do you mean an entire world that is communist, or just some small little community that is communist? Is there a body that controls things, or do people just magically get along? If this communist system is worldwide, is it broken up into tiny little communities(communes) or huge city-collectives? When you are referring to this brand of communism that you think will work for mankind, what exactly are you referring to? Functioning villages that are very very small and that are populated with like- minded people are POSSIBLE(not probable, but possible). The only way for Communism on a large scale to work is if EVERYONE'S efforts and ideals are focused toward the community. The only way to do this is if self- interest is abolished. The only way for self-interest to be abolished is if behavior is restricted. Some people will willingly restrict their behavior, but most will not. These "unenlightened" people(which would constitute a majority in my opinion) would have to be controlled. That is why the inevitable result of communism is dictatorship. RandalFlagg Edited by RandalFlagg (12/08/02 11:56 AM)
| |||||||
|
ooo Stranger Registered: 11/20/02 Posts: 23 |
| ||||||
|
In response to Randalflagg:
I am perfectly aware of what they want to create. No, I dont think you are perfectly clear. Re-read your definition of communism. Not quite accurate, but understandable given the terrible history of the 20th century. What they want to create sounds all nice and dandy. But, things that sound good on paper, oftentimes do not work out as one had expected, because reality and people can be and are unpredictable at times. Anarchist theory has been developed from decades upon decades of participation and struggle - actual experience . For example, look at spokescouncil meetings of affinity groups. The procedure of spokescouncil meetings has evolved naturally through practice, not through the theorizing of some distant academic in some ivory tower. Anarchist theory is not utopian, for it is practical and based upon working and contemporary models of decision making. Just in case you are not familiar with the heart of the anarchist decision making process, here's a primer: What is a spokescouncil? Large actions need a forum to discuss actions, enable co-operation and share information between lots of different groups. This process is facilitated by a spokescouncil. At a spokescouncil, each affinity group delegates a 'spoke' to act as a spokesperson to the those meeting. The 'spokes' can be rotated or for the duration. Often, the spokes will form a circle with the rest of the affinity group sitting behind them to feed back info from the affinity group to the larger meeting. Sometimes, a quick spokescouncil can be called consisting of the spokes, if it takes place while lots of other things are happening. Decisions made at the spokescouncil are not binding - which means that any decisions of the meeting as a whole are only given effect if there is consensus. This does not compromise the autonomy of the affinity groups present. As such, spokescouncils cannot impose codes of behaviour on the autonomous affinity groups or make decisions on behalf of those who are not present, and groups cannot try and stack out the meetings or impose their positions on those who have different ideas about tactics or aims. This enhances co-operation between a multitude of groups - otherwise, meetings can degenerate into groups trying to make their positions prevail. Moreover, it is not the job of spokescouncils to represent the event as a whole. Representation - to the media, to others generally - is the province of affinity groups. Spokescouncil is a practical device to facilitate co-operation. Spokescouncil procedure A facilitator is given the responsibility of steering the meeting in accordance with the broad consensus of those present. The facilitator has the responsibility of structuring the meeting, keeping to speaking lists, keeping discussion relevant and most importantly to look for consensual solutions/arrangements where possble. A facilitator may also be assisted by someone who?s role is to keep track of the speaking list. A typical spokescouncil would involve introductions , followed by reportbacks of relevant information, the forming of an agenda (often this may include prioritising and setting time limits), discussion of the agenda items and will end with any final announcements. The responsibilities of affinity groups are to delegate a 'spoke', and through this person to articulate clear proposals to the meeting at large. What they wish to create is only possible among very small groups of like-minded people. Among like-minded people? Agreed. Anarchism requires those who want to participate in their own decision-making. Period. Very small groups? Wrong. I have personally participated in spokescouncils of a thousands. During the Spanish Revolution of the 1930s (the largest anarchist experiment in modern times), a few million participated. It can be argued that anarchist theory handles complexity quite well. It is not possible in, or applicable to, a world with strained resources and six billion people who have a myriad of different opinions and beliefs. As if anarchists were like the USA or USSR who pretty much wanted to dominate the world at the expense of each other. Forcing political/economic structures upon the uninterested is the work of heriarchies. If people arent into it, then they arent into it. Yes, anarchists are internationalists. Anarchists work locally and maintain international solidarity with those who are working "locally" elsewhere. Read: voluntary association. You might be able to satisfy human needs with this anarchist fantasy of yours, but you will never satisfy human wants with it. Fantasy? Anarchist theory is put into place every day in most nations around the world. Anarchists are busy creating shadow economies - hardly a fantasy. So-called "human wants" are subject to change. "Human wants" can be manufactured by advertising. "Human wants" are not of human nature, but of human environment. Are the "human wants" of 12th century the same as they are today? Some of these people may be so enamored with this idea of simple and communal living, that they would be able to restrain their desire to engage in consumerism or economic development, but what about everyone else? Simple and communal living is often more than a preferance, but a necessity for the impoverished. Again, consumerism (as we know it in the contemporary western world of McDonalds and insane Christmas shopping sprees) is a product of our environment of advertising and wealth status, not of our nature. What about the people who want to engage in labor in order to obtain money or resources that they happen to want for one reason or another? Would you try to restrain these "unenlightened" activities? I do not believe those who must engage in wage-labor in order to survive are "unenlightened." If given the choice of participating in all of the decision-making processes that affect their lives (politically and economically - in the community and in the workplace), people still possess some weird fetish for having some BOSS, well man, that's their thing. The major pillars of anarchist theory include free, voluntary association and autonomy. The only way to make something like this work, is if everybody wanted to live like that. Agreed. It's called free, voluntary association and autonomy. And, if you in any way attempted to control your fellow man, or the rest of the world for that matter, to implement some ideological dream of yours, that would make you no better than the dictators who have plagued mankind by using force to remake the world in an image that they happened to prefer. Agreed, quite true. Now, I am curious - are the neoliberal capitalists bound to this as well? Randall, you're notions of what anarchism are way off. Perhaps read a some more. I suggest the Anarchist FAQ that I posted earlier.
| |||||||
|
ooo Stranger Registered: 11/20/02 Posts: 23 |
| ||||||
|
In response to Evolving:
How will private property be eliminated? Voluntarily? Yes. What will happen if people don't want to give up their private property? They will be left alone so as long as they do not disturb/exploit those who wish to be free. Bottom line, force will have to be initiated against those who don't wan't to play along with utopian fantasies. Wrong. What if a man creates something which he doesn't want to allow others to own? If this creation was created via a collectively owned machine or production line, then he would be stealing obviously. But I dont not believe you meant this. To answer your question, I refer you to the writings of Peter Kropotikin: ...when we see a peasant, who is in possession of just amount of land he can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work. . . when we see a family inhabiting a house which affords them just as much space as . . . are considered necessary for that number of people, why should we interfere with that family and turn them out their house? . . . And finally, when we see a . . . cutler, or a . . . clothier working with their own tools or handloom, we see no use in taking the tools or handloom to give to another workers. The clothier or cutler exploit nobody." If you want to implement communism on a large scale, it requires a dictatorship. Wrong. That was the mistake of the state-socialists of the 20th century. And your mistake as well. I highly recommend two books for you to read, 'The Prince' by Machiavelli and 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell. Yes, I have read those books. I am not a state-socialist, so what's your point? Understand this, I have absolutely nothing against people voluntarily establishing communist societies. As a matter of fact this has been done numerous times within the United States, there are no laws against it. Check their track records, they aren't very successful due to human nature. I would say that most communes that have operated in the later half of American history have been of a bohemian lifestyle and those of people who wish to live off the grid. The problems that they encountered were not of human nature but of lack of resources (health care, for example) usually due to their isolation and general lack of social theory (attempting to be social without practicing free association and non-hierarchial decision making). Anarchists extend communes and collectives to all socio-geographical areas (urban, suburban, rural) and maintain solidarity and mutual aid among these groups of people so that necessary resources are available. All decisions would be consensual, and the process of decision-making would be made by those who are affected by the decisions. Rural, urban, and suburban communes and co-ops that are operated in this fashion have been quite successful, unlike their hierarchial and isolated bohemian counterparts.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
ooo writes (quoting Kropotkin):
...when we see a peasant, who is in possession of just amount of land he can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. Nice to see you exercise such self restraint as to allow him to retain what is his, Peter old chap. Who decides what amount of land is "just the amount" that he (and his relatives, presumably) can cultivate? With modern farming machinery and prudent crop-rotation methods (allowing large portions of the farm to lie fallow in order to avoid soil exhaustion) a modern farm run by a single family can cover literally hundreds of acres, depending on which crops are grown. I doubt Kropotkin envisioned his hypothetical peasant ever being capable of cultivating that much space. He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work. . . This logically implies that SOMEBODY has the right to "interfere" (i.e. seize his property) with his work if he does "exploit" someone... i.e if someone asks if they may exchange their labor for a mutually-agreed upon amount of the crops, and the peasant agrees that they may. In the view of Kropotkin, such a laborer is being "exploited", even though the laborer may have been the one proposing the deal in the first place. ... when we see a family inhabiting a house which affords them just as much space as . . . are considered necessary for that number of people... Considered by whom? Who is in charge of deciding what is "just as much space as is necessary?" Is it "necessary" for adolescent females to have a separate bed from their adolescent male siblings? After all, it is possible for a fairly large family to sleep in a single bed... it was the norm in peasant households for centuries, and even the norm in Moscow for about seventy years of the Twentieth Century. ... why should we interfere with that family and turn them out their house? This logically implies that "we" should "interfere" with any family who does NOT squeeze themselves into what we approve of as the "necessary" space. . . . And finally, when we see a . . . cutler, or a . . . clothier working with their own tools or handloom... As opposed to someone working with a rented handloom, presumably. Where did said clothier GET his own handloom in the first place? If he obtained it through honest methods (by trading something else for it or by constructing it himself), who has the right to prevent him charging a fee to others for its use? ... we see no use in taking the tools or handloom to give to another workers. Again logically implying that "we" have the right to seize it from him and give it to another, but we magnanimously refrain from doing so -- for the moment. ...The clothier or cutler exploit nobody. Until (according to Kropotkin) the clothier agrees to allow another to assist him in his production of clothes for a mutually agreed-upon sum, at which point the clothier is guilty of exploitation. At this point our forbearance ceases, we seize his loom and give it to another. Individual rights necessarily include property rights. A human cannot exist without property. If everything one obtains (even what one obtains through voluntary exchanges) is subject to seizure by "The Collective", clearly one cannot continue to exist except at the whim of The Collective. This is why I (and market anarchists, sometimes called "anarcho-capitalists") say that the kind of "anarchy" subscribed to by the "anarchists" who set up the website you urge us to visit is not anarchy at all. It is merely another variant of a seemingly endless supply of Collectivist schemes. pinky -------------------- 
Edited by pinksharkmark (12/10/02 08:51 PM)
| |||||||
|
ooo Stranger Registered: 11/20/02 Posts: 23 |
| ||||||
|
With modern farming machinery and prudent crop-rotation methods...a modern farm run by a single family can cover literally hundreds of acres, depending on which crops are grown. I doubt Kropotkin envisioned his hypothetical peasant ever being capable of cultivating that much space.
Interesting how you include technological advancement in reply to a few lines that Kropotkin wrote over a century ago (when such technology did not exist or was not common). I included Kropotkin's words not as dogma or holy scripture but as a simple (and lazy) way to show the essence of anarchist thought - autonomy and free association (meaing, if individuals choice not to participate, they do not have to). You took it out of context, so let's be intellectually honest and bring the debate into contemporary times. If this technologically-advanced farmer of yours wants to create a mass surplus of this own crops with his own machines and his own labor (and that of his volunteering family), that is his desire and his reality. As an anarchist, I would not interefere, so as long as he does not interefere with my community and myself. This logically implies that SOMEBODY has the right to "interfere" (i.e. seize his property) with his work if he does "exploit" someone... i.e if someone asks if they may exchange their labor for a mutually-agreed upon amount of the crops, and the peasant agrees that they may. In the view of Kropotkin, such a laborer is being "exploited", even though the laborer may have been the one proposing the deal in the first place. First let's get a real definition of "exploit." from merriam-webster... Main Entry: 2ex?ploit Pronunciation: ik-'sploit, 'ek-" Function: transitive verb Date: 1838 1 : to make productive use of : utilize (exploiting your talents) (exploit your opponent's weakness) 2 : to make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage (exploiting migrant farm workers) Say a laborer has a full range of economic options (liberty does not exist if options do not exist) and decides to sell his labor for a truly mutually-agreed upon amount in wages. Say this laborer receives a truly just wage and is not overworked to his detriment. Say this laborer completely and fully agrees to this situation, then I would say he is not being exploited. Put the hypotheical aside and come to the real world: 1) Most workers do not negotiate wages. I personally have worked numerous jobs for over twenty years and rarely ever negotiated my wage as it was always a "take it or leave it" offer (and I usually had to take it because I didnt want to go hungry or homeless, just like any other human being). Saleries, however, are usually negotiated, but the common wage for the common worker usually is not. 2) Most workers in capitalism do not have a full range of economic options available to them. Working for wages is a matter of survival for most. That is why anarchists wish to create shadow economies so that a market place of options may be available. We believe that any sane, freedom loving individual would choose self-management and full participation over wage-labor and BOSSES AND OWNERS. 3) Most workers do not receive "just" wages. For example: I once worked in a warehouse where I counted thousands of received computer parts daily (incrediby mindnumbing and tedious) and lifted hundreds of heavy, heavy boxes daily (a human-forklift - all at the expense of my lower back). There was a man a few years older than me who would sit on stool or on a nearby electrical box and literally watch us toil. Every once in awhile he would bark out orders and tell us to work faster (even though we were working as fast as possible - we wanted to go home too). I was curious and looked into who this authoritarian asshole was - he was a relative of the head manager (read: no work experience), received three times what I received in wages despite doing incredibly less work than me (in my opinion he contributed nothing), and had less of an education than I did. Tell me how this is just... Such situations are quite common - this is the daily economic life of millions upon millions of laborers in the industrial world. I would say that such situations amount to exploitation. As opposed to someone working with a rented handloom, presumably. Where did said clothier GET his own handloom in the first place? If he obtained it through honest methods (by trading something else for it or by constructing it himself), who has the right to prevent him charging a fee to others for its use? Nobody so as long as the handloom is owned individually. If this clothier choices not to participate in his community's anarchy, he does not have to nor would anyone force him to. But he should expect not to receive other benefits generated by his community. Plus it is hard to imagine someone wanting to pay a user's fee to use a machine in anarchy where such objects would be free to all. But these people have a fetish for fees and usury, so be it. Edited by ooo (12/10/02 11:16 PM)
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
The Rise of Illiberal Democracy |  FrenchSocialist |
1,569 | 8 | 04/10/22 09:13 AM by Brian Jones |
|
 |
Only capitalism can save Africa |  Luddite |
2,503 | 17 | 12/04/07 11:24 AM by Silversoul |
|
 |
Amber alert, proof of a dictatorship? |  Learyfan |
1,032 | 17 | 05/09/03 04:27 PM by Learyfan |
|
|
Capitalism or Communism? Which is better? (  1 2 3 4 5 all ) |
 HagbardCeline |
7,223 | 95 | 06/27/03 12:28 AM by downforpot |
|
 |
Capitalism=Theft ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all ) |
 silversoul7 |
10,820 | 153 | 11/10/05 01:04 AM by Microcosmatrix |
|
|
Surveys: More Iraqis Want Democracy ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 luvdemshrooms |
2,687 | 40 | 05/15/04 11:55 PM by FrankieJustTrypt |
|
 |
Kasparov: Putin is destroying democracy in Russia | Luddite |
728 | 1 | 09/23/07 06:28 PM by Disco Cat |
|
|
God is an Anarchist. ( 1 2 all ) |
 Baby_Hitler |
4,958 | 33 | 07/21/05 01:12 PM by rogue_pixie |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 3,679 topic views. 2 members, 356 guests and 23 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||