All_Nite_Dinah

I mention anarchim and socialism in the same breath because they are both radical anti-capitalit ideas. The argument that anarchism would result in extreme capitalims has no base. In an anarchistc society people would get theproducts they desire through cooperation and free assosiation. Town a has lots of turnips ton b has lot of hats, town a trades turnips for hats. Granted under anarchism one would be allowed to try to institute some sort of capitalist endevour, but no person would be obligated to participate. I could open a shoe factory and pay my employees and dictate their hours if the place i lived allowed it, but its up to the people to do what they want. There would also hypothetically be no need for capitalist enterprise because people would no longer feel the need to buy useless junk to feel good about themselves as a status symbol. A society of equals. This is why anarchy promises nothing, but gives everything. No government, no economy, no currency, no hieracrchy.

Your definition of socialism is completly backwards. In a socialist economy the PEOPLE own the means of production. GOvernment officials are directly eected with the possibility of instant recalls. The government officials would hypothetically be payed no more than the wrking individual thus insuring that they have similar intrests. The point of socialism isn't just to neifit the working class, but to create a classless society in which the state would "wither away". Socialism and communism are largely synonomous. Communism was coined by marx as his interpretation of socialist policies aplieing real world statistics to utopian socialist ideals. It sounds like your confusing socialism/communism with Stalinism, which is NOT communism/socialism. Thats just another lie your told in high school thats left over from the red scare. Socialism is not about giving more power to the government, its about giving all power to the people.

It sounds like you are trying to argue some sort of libertarian/objectivist platform that the government shouldnt have any control over the economy, and laissez faire capitalism is the best bet. This philosophy is pretty easy to rebut as capitalism has pven time and time again that when left unwatched it acts on its worst behavior, hence the formation of anti-trust laws, and the burgening socialist movements in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Contrary to your very Malthusian(1) philosophy that any economic system end in peple getting screwed we live in a world today where it is entirley possible that everyone could live together as equals, however as has been stated under capitalism there is no concept of equality. Thus yes as long as rampant capitalism remains there will be inequality, but if there is no buck to lose then ther is no buck to make.

__________________
If I cant dance I dont want to be part of your revolution.

DEATH TO FALSE DUDES!

chumb

This doesn't really make much sense to me. What you're talking about here is not just a different political/economic system, but a complete shift in the public mindset. There is a gap between "no government" and "no hierarchy" whatsoever. If you just stick to "no government," and people are allowed to freely trade goods (free trade... uh oh) those who can get their hands on the stuff people need most (be it jewels, oil, wheat whatever) will be free to charge whatever they want for it... even if we get rid of money as well they can demand absurd exchanges for their goods. Nobody would be forced to trade to get his goods, but if they NEED them they will. If people were capable of holding hands and cooperating to get everything they needed, they would do so under capitalism. The idea that removing all government control would somehow lead to the abolition of corporations and a turnaround of the laws of supply and demand is absurd to me.

In response to the stuff about socialism, the ultimate goal of socialism may be to put all the means of production in the hands of the people, but the policies of most socialist parties in Europe are to nationalize industry and provide better welfare, which is a sort of indirect "power to the people" thing because it helps out the lower classes and eases some of the harshness of capitalism, but it's still a stones-throw from communism. I agree that there is a difference between this and the transitional socialism which Marx envisioned.

All_Nite_Dinah

Yes, I am talking about a complete change in mindset. I fully understand that at first it is difficult to grasp the concept that no one has to die in order for us to live, and that instead of having a society of competiition and death and destruction we could build a society that caters to the needs of everyone. That is the hardest part of talking revolutionary politics. Since birth people have the idea that capitalism is the only way to live, and that it is the best way to live. You are told that there will always be leaders and followers, and fed this idea of social darwanism. Fed the lies about communism, and before communism emerged as a threat fed lies about anarchism. Once you understand that there is MORE than capitalism you can begin to understand. In a anarchist society there would be no need to "charge whatever you want" because 1.There would be no reason to have more than someone else. 2. If one member of a collective group of a people is exploiting the other members they would have the ability to deal with it. 3. Once one understands that capitalism is fuled by surplus (be it labor or goods) and excess there is no need for things like $500 sneakers or $1 mil. cars. You have to try to understand that anarchism is a SOCIAL movement first, an economic idea second. If you can not liberate your mind from the confines of capitalist thought, you wil never be able to live as neither master nor slave. There is no way I could even hope to try to explain all parts of anarchist theory or answer all your questions, because I am far from a scholar on it. I dont know all the answers, but one thing I do know is that it is bickering over anarchism and communism that allows capitalism to thrive.

While we kick our feet and debate on the merits of socialism people are dying for no reason. This is not an exageration, only the stark reality of what our decadent culture has brought. You can argue that capitalism can be brought to a more "humane" form, but there will always be a need for "lower costs of production" and higher income, therfore someone will always be exploited. This is inherint in capitalism and can not be disputed. But once one frees ther mind of the lies that you are told about the benifits of competition and looks at the facts that are right there in front of there face, the homelessness, the poverty, the crime committed for material(capital) gain, the war, it becomes rather obvious that something must change. Keep in mind that capitalism as we know(post industrial) it today has only been around in the US for around 50 years, and already we are floating on debt bankrupting socil security(the supposed last stronghold for the poor) and engaged in endless wars. Go ahead and stand by capitalism or libertarian policies, but keep in mind that this system is weak and it's collapse is inevitable.

Before someone pulls out the example of the supposed prodigal son of capitalism, India. I would like to nip that in the bud. Look at the murder and suicide rates of India as coorelating with the GDP in of India. Or look at the amount of small farmers put out of work, giving up a traditional lifestyle carried out for generations to work in call centers for american companies. There was and excellent speaker on this topic in my town, unfortunetly I can't remember his name.

Indirect power to the people is better than no power to the people. Also keep in mind that most "socialist" countries in Europe are just social democracies. If you want to get into theory than according to Marx a true socialist revolution must occur around the world, it is impossible for one country to maintain a true socialist government alone.(Read the last line of the Communist manifesto) Hence the ability for countries to take the full leap into socialism. However something is better than nothing. Also ironicly the socialist candidate for president of france lost to Sarkozy who is a Gaulist. Taking control of the country at a time strikeingly similar to the social conditins of 1968.

This is baisically the point when you and I either agree to disagree, or you look at things in a different frame of mind. I repeat that the last thing I expect anyone reading this to do is become a devoted anarchist/socialist, as it is much easyier to just go wih the flow, than to voice opposition. Voiceing opposition can result in being beaten, arrested, and ortasized from your community. If you are genuinly intrested in anarchism or socialism I would recomend going to www. infoshop .org for alot of free resources. A much easier to read version of the stuff can be found at www. crimethinc .com which is a bsic primer to anarchist though without breaking down into in depth analysis. I also highly recomend touching bases with The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engles and What is to be done by Lenin. Civil disobedience by thoreau, The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin, and Anarcho Syndicalism by Rudolpf Rocker for anarchist(Krpotkin and rocker anre anarcho syndicalists) thought.

If your still bent on the idea of competition being good read mutual aid by kropotkin. It was written in the hey day of social darwanist thought.

If you feel like you are pissed off and want to do something about it the best thing you can do is get educated. Learn as much as you can so that when someone comes spouting lies you can rebut them. That and quit living your life for some phony ideal of a house and a little house wife and two cars and a dog named spot. That has never been reality. Capitalism only truely worked for about 20 years following WWII, and even then people watched Leave it to Beaver and wondered why their lives wern't like that. Live your life for you not some silly capitalist. Buy less, work less, spend more time doing things you want, develop a way to make money without working, quit the system, and continue to agitate by going to protests and doing anything you can. There is alot that we can do once we start living or lives for ourselves. You can call me an idealist, but I'll call you jaded and boring.

__________________
If I cant dance I dont want to be part of your revolution.

DEATH TO FALSE DUDES!