- 24 May 2013 14:51
#14242003
How does this even happen?
To be clear we are talking about transforming the existing world in a realistic way.
New syndicates do start up, so I'm not quite sure where you're going with this.
Oh, I might have my objections. But it is not entirely up to me. What I am questioning is how this actually happens in a socialist world. Similarly to how a redistribution of justly acquire possessions happens. You seem to want to gloss over the fact that socialist anarchism begins as a movement by the people and that is worked out by those people for their own destiny. It is not some idea that is dropped on their heads. So presumably, as has happened in every socialist revolution and strike, there is a considerable amount of education, solidarity, and commitment to worker control. Presumably the institutions they create are democratic and controlled by workers themselves. So not only has private property been abolished, but so has an entire class of wage labor.
What events, Eran? What events are you going to just let unfold? The current state of affairs as they are now? A social revolution? Or are we still just talking about an abstract ideal situation where we are all equally without context and simply decide on what state of affairs we want? Or do you have in mind some kind of Lockean thought experiment of the original human being rummaging around and claiming his/her own land and resources?
Isn't this what the US and England claimed to have had in the 20th century? At any rate, as an anarchist, I view the state as both a symbol of existing hierarchical power structures and as a tool to enforce them, as well as enrich itself. This is why anarchists are against the state, and also why they have traditionally rejected the institution of private property, because in some way or form it seems inevitably linked to enforcement and centralized control.
OK--I grant evolution, in fact welcome it. But don't you see why I would find it strange to call capitalist development "evolution" when that is the very thing we revolutionized from? From my perspective it would be an anarchist society gone wrong, just as if some form of Feudalism developed. We have to be clear here: in the case that authoritarian relations develop, that does not make them any more valid given they derived from a set of voluntary circumstances. Something has gone wrong, particularly because we work from the assumption that humans do not naturally want to be in bondage. But, as I have said before, authoritarian relations can never be entirely overcome. There is always a risk of them cropping up, and we have to deal with them as a community.
You also have to keep in mind the difficulty for capitalist start ups that I mentioned in my previous post. You may want to assume that these things would naturally occur, but there is no reason to assume this just because it is your ideological belief that capitalist practices are natural.
Eran wrote:What if our starting point was one of full redistribution of current assets?
How would capitalists come to control most of the capital, if workers consistently prefer working for syndicates?
From a position of equal distribution of assets, then, would you relax your opposition to private ownership of the means of production?
How does this even happen?
To be clear we are talking about transforming the existing world in a realistic way.
How do you explain the fact that most new businesses are started on the capitalist, rather than syndicate model?
If capitalists controlled most of the capital, how is it that new entrepreneurs are able to raise capital, but new syndicates aren't?
New syndicates do start up, so I'm not quite sure where you're going with this.
Fine. So you would have no objections to capitalists enterprises being allowed within your society?
Oh, I might have my objections. But it is not entirely up to me. What I am questioning is how this actually happens in a socialist world. Similarly to how a redistribution of justly acquire possessions happens. You seem to want to gloss over the fact that socialist anarchism begins as a movement by the people and that is worked out by those people for their own destiny. It is not some idea that is dropped on their heads. So presumably, as has happened in every socialist revolution and strike, there is a considerable amount of education, solidarity, and commitment to worker control. Presumably the institutions they create are democratic and controlled by workers themselves. So not only has private property been abolished, but so has an entire class of wage labor.
I am prepared not to make any assumptions, but rather to let events unfold naturally, without interference.
What events, Eran? What events are you going to just let unfold? The current state of affairs as they are now? A social revolution? Or are we still just talking about an abstract ideal situation where we are all equally without context and simply decide on what state of affairs we want? Or do you have in mind some kind of Lockean thought experiment of the original human being rummaging around and claiming his/her own land and resources?
Since you obviously find such scenario threatening, I would be happy to discuss a democratically-controlled minimal state, engaged exclusively in prevention of crime and maintaining security, but dis-engaged from the economic sphere (as current governments are dis-engaged from the sphere of religious practice).
Isn't this what the US and England claimed to have had in the 20th century? At any rate, as an anarchist, I view the state as both a symbol of existing hierarchical power structures and as a tool to enforce them, as well as enrich itself. This is why anarchists are against the state, and also why they have traditionally rejected the institution of private property, because in some way or form it seems inevitably linked to enforcement and centralized control.
I will grant you your wishes, but then explore the potential for further evolution from there.
Previous conversations explored how small capitalist enterprises might start even from a perfectly socialist starting point.
OK--I grant evolution, in fact welcome it. But don't you see why I would find it strange to call capitalist development "evolution" when that is the very thing we revolutionized from? From my perspective it would be an anarchist society gone wrong, just as if some form of Feudalism developed. We have to be clear here: in the case that authoritarian relations develop, that does not make them any more valid given they derived from a set of voluntary circumstances. Something has gone wrong, particularly because we work from the assumption that humans do not naturally want to be in bondage. But, as I have said before, authoritarian relations can never be entirely overcome. There is always a risk of them cropping up, and we have to deal with them as a community.
You also have to keep in mind the difficulty for capitalist start ups that I mentioned in my previous post. You may want to assume that these things would naturally occur, but there is no reason to assume this just because it is your ideological belief that capitalist practices are natural.
Truth lives, in fact, for the most part on a credit system. Our thoughts and beliefs 'pass,' so long as nothing challenges them, just as banknotes pass so long as nobody refuses them.
--William James
--William James