Anti Capitalist Discussion Thread I: Seize the toothbrushes!

[Thermodolia]

Under a capitalist system, for sure. Which is one of the many issues capitalism has.

So under socialism people would still not be unemployed since they'd be hired to dig ditches and fill them up later.

Now a civil works program is not a bad idea. Roads, bridges, and just about everything else still needs to be repaired

[Kennlind]

Which of these poll options have actually been implemented? Which of these poll options have worked in the long term?

None have worked in the long term, and I believe all but distributism have been implemented.

[Thermodolia]

Which of these poll options have actually been implemented? Which of these poll options have worked in the long term?

None have worked in the long term, and I believe all but distributism have been implemented.

Syndicalism is debatable about having been tried or existing long enough to actually know if it would work long term

[Dejanic]

To all people who doubt the glorious anti revisionism of "Marxist-Leninist-Obamaism".

[Dejanic]

None have worked in the long term, and I believe all but distributism have been implemented.

Syndicalism is debatable about having been tried or existing long enough to actually know if it would work long term

It worked decently in Catalonia. But I personally think Syndicalism is largely pointless, at least when it comes to modern tertiary based economies with low union representation. For secondary based economies perhaps.

Bearing in mind Syndicalism isn't really an end game system, it was designed (at least in the Anarchist/CNT sense) to be a transitional system to eventual global Communism. It's more of a methodology to achieve Communism than an actual society, but I think where it has been implemented it seems to of been pretty successful; I just question its usefulness, at the very least in the highly developed third world.

[Thermodolia]

Syndicalism is debatable about having been tried or existing long enough to actually know if it would work long term

It worked decently in Catalonia. But I personally think Syndicalism is largely pointless, at least when it comes to modern tertiary based economies with low union representation. For secondary based economies perhaps.

Bearing in mind Syndicalism isn't really an end game system, it was designed (at least in the Anarchist/CNT sense) to be a transitional system to eventual global Communism. It's more of a methodology to achieve Communism than an actual society, but I think where it has been implemented it seems to of been pretty successful; I just question its usefulness, at the very least in the highly developed third world.

An independent Catalonia didn’t last long enough to accurately measure its usefulness. That’s what I’m getting at.

[Soviet Lestland]

i like this thread...

[Nulla Bellum]

Anti-Libertarian Thread woot lol

[Major-Tom]

To all people who doubt the glorious anti revisionism of "Marxist-Leninist-Obamaism".

(Image)

ACA starved Ukrainian peasants.

[Great Minarchistan]

So under socialism people would still not be unemployed since they'd be hired to dig ditches and fill them up later.

Now a civil works program is not a bad idea. Roads, bridges, and just about everything else still needs to be repaired

I'll honestly agree with you. However what Grene advocated was basically humans digging ditches as the scenario involved was automated labor.

[The Grene Knyght]

Now a civil works program is not a bad idea. Roads, bridges, and just about everything else still needs to be repaired

I'll honestly agree with you. However what Grene advocated was basically humans digging ditches as the scenario involved was automated labor.

Yep. Thats what I advocate. Nice one.

[The Grene Knyght]

What I mean is that, capitalism has created a paradoxical system where automation can be harmful to workers, because it's a system that requires work for the sake of work.

A worker works for the sake of producing a product, not to work. If you are laid off by a robot it is because you are no longer needed for the result. The big problem is that many of the recently unneeded workers cannot find ways to make themselves needed anymore.

You're agreeing with me in language that implies you don't...
You seem to be saying that automation is (or can be) a bad thing under capitalism, for workers. Thus, it is desirable for automation to be fought against by workers, in order to preserve their jobs, and therefore, manual human labour must be performed for the sake of labour, under capitalism, or else these workers will have no source of income (whihc is vital for everyone, under a capitalist system).

[MeeNMann]

I guess we should try out all of these economic systems just to see if they work. Imagine having a island with stranded people and force an economy on them, I would help pay for that. It's the only real way to figure out these things

[Foxiford]

"Virgin Discussion Board"

[Aillyria]

Syndicalism is debatable about having been tried or existing long enough to actually know if it would work long term

It worked decently in Catalonia. But I personally think Syndicalism is largely pointless, at least when it comes to modern tertiary based economies with low union representation. For secondary based economies perhaps.

Bearing in mind Syndicalism isn't really an end game system, it was designed (at least in the Anarchist/CNT sense) to be a transitional system to eventual global Communism. It's more of a methodology to achieve Communism than an actual society, but I think where it has been implemented it seems to of been pretty successful; I just question its usefulness, at the very least in the highly developed third world.

I don't understand, you believe syndicalism is insufficient for tertiary economies, but communism is? How is that so? I don't see communism even working in secondary economic setting. How would you make communism, which is centrally planned, work in a tertiary economy.

[Dejanic]

It worked decently in Catalonia. But I personally think Syndicalism is largely pointless, at least when it comes to modern tertiary based economies with low union representation. For secondary based economies perhaps.

Bearing in mind Syndicalism isn't really an end game system, it was designed (at least in the Anarchist/CNT sense) to be a transitional system to eventual global Communism. It's more of a methodology to achieve Communism than an actual society, but I think where it has been implemented it seems to of been pretty successful; I just question its usefulness, at the very least in the highly developed third world.

I don't understand, you believe syndicalism is insufficient for tertiary economies, but communism is? How is that so? I don't see communism even working in secondary economic setting. How would you make communism, which is centrally planned, work in a tertiary economy?

Communism is a classless stateless moneyless society, it's not centrally planned, I shouldn't have to explain this it's politics 101. Read some of the links in the OP if you're a newb.

Do you know the roots of syndicalism? What its purpose is? It's literally a method on which to achieve Communism, that's how the CNT saw it and how revolutionary Syndicalists throughout history have seen it. It isn't Syndicalism vs Communism. You could argue for Syndicalism vs State Planning as they're alternative forms of Socialist transitionary economics, but Syndicalism vs Communism isn't even a thing.

To answer your question specifically. Syndicalism is largely based on industrial action, so its more suitable for countries based around the secondary economy, as opposed to retail-based economies which usually lack heavy unionisation. I don't believe Syndicalism would have any purpose in a highly developed tertiary economy like Britain which produces very little for example, and has a large percentage of jobs which are based around self employment or the digital economy.Communism in its higher developed phase would utilise automation of some sorts, their wouldn't be a tertiary economy in the modern sense under the higher phase of Communism.

[Dejanic]

From Solfed, the British section of the International Workers Association, which was connected to the old Anarchist Catalonia and literally defined Syndicalism as a movement.

http://www.solfed.org.uk/?q=what-is-anarcho-syndicalism

Anarcho-syndicalists aim to promote solidarity in our workplaces and outside them, encouraging workers to organise independently of government, bosses and bureaucrats to fight for our own interests as a class. Our ultimate goal is a stateless, classless society based on the principle of ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need’ – a system of free councils made up of recallable delegates from workplaces and communities. This is libertarian communism.

Syndicalism is a method on how to achieve Communism, not an actual society. FTR I don't support pure state planning under a Socialist transitional state, more decentralised planning mixed with state planning in certain areas. I'm not a Stalinist if that's what you're assuming. It's worth also adding traditional Syndicalism is based around a mass strike across all sectors in an economy to break Capitalism, this may of been realistic in the 30's or 40's but when unionisation is at an all time low (especially in the developed 1st work) and the secondary sector is insignificant, such methods are outdated and pointless.

[Aillyria]

I don't understand, you believe syndicalism is insufficient for tertiary economies, but communism is? How is that so? I don't see communism even working in secondary economic setting. How would you make communism, which is centrally planned, work in a tertiary economy?

Communism is a classless stateless moneyless society, it's not centrally planned, I shouldn't have to explain this it's politics 101. Read some of the links in the OP if you're a newb.

Do you know the roots of syndicalism? What its purpose is? It's literally a method on which to achieve Communism, that's how the CNT saw it and how revolutionary Syndicalists throughout history have seen it. It isn't Syndicalism vs Communism.

I should clarify myself, I'm am not new to socialism. I am aware of the origins of both syndicalism and communism. I assumed you were a normal "communist" in the Leninist sense. But by your reaction, you're perhaps and anarcho-communists? The syndicalism I espouse isn't based on moving towards communism. I don't view communism as possible in an advanced economy for the very reasons you list, it is stateless and moneyless, the notion of "post-scarcity".

My primary influences are market socialism, mutualism, and Ricardian socialism on economy form, while my social class relation views and action theory are more aligned with Sorel's works.

[Great Minarchistan]

I guess we should try out all of these economic systems just to see if they work. Imagine having a island with stranded people and force an economy on them, I would help pay for that. It's the only real way to figure out these things

cough cough

[Dejanic]

Communism is a classless stateless moneyless society, it's not centrally planned, I shouldn't have to explain this it's politics 101. Read some of the links in the OP if you're a newb.

Do you know the roots of syndicalism? What its purpose is? It's literally a method on which to achieve Communism, that's how the CNT saw it and how revolutionary Syndicalists throughout history have seen it. It isn't Syndicalism vs Communism.

I should clarify myself, I'm am not new to socialism. I am aware of the origins of both syndicalism and communism. I assumed you were a normal "communist" in the Leninist sense. But by your reaction, you're perhaps and anarcho-communists? The syndicalism I espouse isn't based on moving towards communism. I don't view communism as possible in an advanced economy for the very reasons you list, it is stateless and moneyless, the notion of "post-scarcity".

My primary influences are market socialism, mutualism, and Ricardian socialism on economy form, while my social class relation views and action theory are more aligned with Sorel's works.

I'm somewhere in-between a Trot and a Luxembourgist, so I am a Leninist but not in the Stalinist sense. I believe in a planned economy under Socialism, but primarily based around decentralised worker control, with state control in significant sectors like healthcare and defence.

I don't view Communism (as in higher stage Communism) possible right now, but I believe it is possible, and inevitable once material conditions progress through Socialism (lower stage Communism). Do you believe as such? If so, how do you view such a transition arising through Ricardian Socialism and market utilisation?

[Orostan]

And you were wrong? Tsarist Russia suffered more with the Russo-Japanese War than USSR did with the WW2.


It was a small economy already, so small damages do great things proportionally. The facts are out there: The GDPpc fell 19.1% following Russo-Japanese War against 17.6% following World War II. For someone who has stated that the harm for Tsarist Russia due to such war was nowhere as bad as USSR with WW2 you are blatantly wrong.


Are you trying to just dismiss the facts that you don't like? Tsarist Russia suffered more with Russo-Japanese War than what USSR did with WW2, not "nowhere as much".


Interesting thing, since the Roman Empire suffered the collapse while it existed, while USSR passed the harsh times to the newly-formed Russia.

Empirically wrong. The USSR started to stagnate in the late 1970s and from then on started to grow as fast as a chicken flying:

Nonetheless, the USSR started the recession, and even if you blame market capitalism on it's depression, not doing the reforms would imply USSR be worst off than modern Russia:

1- The USSR seems to have had multiple periods of stagnation followed by growth, and the trend near the end of the USSR's life was started in the 1960s but interrupted by slow growth and stagnation sometimes. On this graph near the late 80s we see stagnation due to Gorby's Market reforms. In addition this is GDP per capita - which is not always a good measurement to use.

2- The big "recession" was the collapse of the USSR, which was started by Gorby being politically and economically incompetent. This graph is a GDP graph, which in our situation would probably be more accurate. We can see that the Soviet GDP, aside from a few bumps in the road, was rising at a relatively constant rate since the end of WW2. In 1982 (the year Brezhnev died), the economy began a recession and stagnation period after a decline in growth rates. The reforms only worsened the USSR's economic situation.

If we follow the trend from just before the collapse of the USSR, we would come out ahead of where the former soviet union is at the end of that graph. It looks like this graph takes the trend from a period of stagnation, which is a bit dishonest.

[Aillyria]

I should clarify myself, I'm am not new to socialism. I am aware of the origins of both syndicalism and communism. I assumed you were a normal "communist" in the Leninist sense. But by your reaction, you're perhaps and anarcho-communists? The syndicalism I espouse isn't based on moving towards communism. I don't view communism as possible in an advanced economy for the very reasons you list, it is stateless and moneyless, the notion of "post-scarcity".

My primary influences are market socialism, mutualism, and Ricardian socialism on economy form, while my social class relation views and action theory are more aligned with Sorel's works.

I'm somewhere in-between a Trot and a Luxembourgist, so I am a Leninist but not in the Stalinist sense. I believe in a planned economy under Socialism, but primarily based around decentralised worker control, with state control in significant sectors like healthcare and defence.

I don't view Communism (as in higher stage Communism) possible right now, but I believe it is possible, and inevitable once material conditions progress through Socialism (lower stage Communism). Do you believe as such? If so, how do you view such a transition arising through Ricardian Socialism and market utilisation?

Ah, ok.

I don't view communism as realistically possible on a national or global scale. I view market socialism, in some form, as the ideal and most realistic socialist end goal. I find the idea of post-scarcity as unscientific and not grounded in economic realism. Our goal should be to find the best way to manage natural scarcity in as humane and efficient manner possible.

[Great Minarchistan]

1- The USSR seems to have had multiple periods of stagnation followed by growth

None that lasted as much as the last.

and the trend near the end of the USSR's life was started in the 1960s but interrupted by slow growth and stagnation sometimes. On this graph near the late 80s we see stagnation due to Gorby's Market reforms.

It's interesting, since the stagnation was already there before Perestroika started in 1986. And there's more: even with the "socialist strength" before 1986, USSR couldn't reach the levels of Spain, Finland and Japan that started off roughly at the same bar.

In addition this is GDP per capita - which is not always a good measurement to use.

You say that after several of your arguments based on it? Wew.

The big "recession" was the collapse of the USSR

Which started when it existed.

which was started by Gorby being politically and economically incompetent.

You ignore the stagnation coming before.

This graph is a GDP graph, which in our situation would probably be more accurate.

GDP per capita in adjusted dollars, to be precise.

We can see that the Soviet GDP, aside from a few bumps in the road, was rising at a relatively constant rate since the end of WW2. In 1982 (the year Brezhnev died), the economy began a recession and stagnation period after a decline in growth rates.

Wrong, the stagnation began before 1982.

The reforms only worsened the USSR's economic situation.

Ah, so the reforms didn't cause the bad economic situation that later on ended up on the collapse, they (allegedly) worsened it.

If we follow the trend from just before the collapse of the USSR, we would come out ahead of where the former soviet union is at the end of that graph.

Because the economy entered on the longest slowdown of its history. Nonetheless, even with the fastest trend (1) it couldn't even keep up with Spain.

It looks like this graph takes the trend from a period of stagnation, which is a bit dishonest.

Because it became the new normal of USSR?

[Orostan]

1- The USSR seems to have had multiple periods of stagnation followed by growth

None that lasted as much as the last.

and the trend near the end of the USSR's life was started in the 1960s but interrupted by slow growth and stagnation sometimes. On this graph near the late 80s we see stagnation due to Gorby's Market reforms.

It's interesting, since the stagnation was already there before Perestroika started in 1986. And there's more: even with the "socialist strength" before 1986, USSR couldn't reach the levels of Spain, Finland and Japan that started off roughly at the same bar.

In addition this is GDP per capita - which is not always a good measurement to use.

You say that after several of your arguments based on it? Wew.

The big "recession" was the collapse of the USSR

Which started when it existed.

which was started by Gorby being politically and economically incompetent.

You ignore the stagnation coming before.

This graph is a GDP graph, which in our situation would probably be more accurate.

GDP per capita in adjusted dollars, to be precise.

We can see that the Soviet GDP, aside from a few bumps in the road, was rising at a relatively constant rate since the end of WW2. In 1982 (the year Brezhnev died), the economy began a recession and stagnation period after a decline in growth rates.

Wrong, the stagnation began before 1982.

The reforms only worsened the USSR's economic situation.

Ah, so the reforms didn't cause the bad economic situation that later on ended up on the collapse, they (allegedly) worsened it.

If we follow the trend from just before the collapse of the USSR, we would come out ahead of where the former soviet union is at the end of that graph.

Because the economy entered on the longest slowdown of its history. Nonetheless, even with the fastest trend (1) it couldn't even keep up with Spain.

It looks like this graph takes the trend from a period of stagnation, which is a bit dishonest.

Because it became the new normal of USSR?

1- The USSR's economy looks like it was recovering before the late 80s - when Gorby put into place his market reforms.

2- I've said it before and I'll say it again. The USSR was isolated from most of the rest of the world's resources and had to do with what it had mostly. Those countries may have started at the same point, but they had connections to the rest of the world that the USSR didn't.

3- I say that GDP per capita was not always accurate. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Near the end of the USSR's life I don't think it reflected what was actually happening on that 1st graph, for example.

4- Not exactly. When the USSR collapsed, it was not the USSR anymore. The worst of the recession followed the collapse of the USSR, and was a consequence of the rapid deconstruction of the Soviet system. The events that caused it to collapse started when the USSR was still around, yes, but blaming the Soviet Union as a whole for what happened after it is pretty historically ignorant.

5- Which the USSR was starting to recover from, and then Gorby made it worse.

6- That just says "Soviet GDP". Now that I look at the graph more carefully, it does seem like a GDP per capita graph. Oh well. At least it is more accurate than the 1st graph.

7- I look at the tiny ticks on the graph, it started in 1978. I was wrong there.

8- I never said the reforms caused the bad economic situation. If I did, whoops.

9- See 2.

10- See 5.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

I would say the best alternative to capitalism is probably a socialist state-run economy using automated labour. This would allow for the production of more goods for lower costs, which could then be distributed evenly amongst the populace, increasing the average standard of living.

I would prefer a capitalist computer-run economy using automated labor. This would allow for people to do whatever the **** they want.

Not really, if education matches the times. There will probably be something new to consume the 9-5 slot.
Maybe service jobs, maybe something else.

What I mean is that, capitalism has created a paradoxical system where automation can be harmful to workers, because it's a system that requires work for the sake of work. Applying the same logic to socialism is silly, because it assumes the same logic.
In short, while automation under capitalism isn't necessarily good for workers (because of unemployment) it is a good thing under socialism. ...

These are all valid points, which I totally agree with. And when we fully arrive in 50, 100 or 500 years, I'll switch to supporting socialism!

* edited for decency