Does Capitalism Work?

[Peter Parka]

All that happened in Spain between 1936 -8 was a lot of chaos, bloodshed and help from the Nazis. That example makes me thing it's something which I hope never happens again. Oh, and an example of events for 2 years dosent exactly strike me as being a success, anyway

 

[Zorak]

Would you really?

That wouldn't make sense at all, not in a system of shared ownership... you'd technically be stealing from yourself... not particularly smart...

So hang on, you're telling me that the only reason you don't round up a posse and go looting right now is because of the authority in our society?

that's pretty darn shocking Zorak. Shocking.

So if you and a friend have £10 between you, and you steal his share.... That's stealing from yourself?

In a system of anarchy, I'd take what I want when I wanted it, yes. And I guarentee you, a lot of other people would too. Then I'd have to take on my rivals, and there'd be a bit of bloodshed. But I'd emerge victorious, and I'd take the car from Mad Max 2: Road Warrior and recreate some of the major scenes from that movie. :24:
It will be harmless fun like Mad Max... Not like The Road. That was pretty disturbing.

 

[Zorak]

As for proof, I posted a link to a list of historical precedents for anarchist societies, obviously with Spain 1936-38 being the prime example. Plus, look at how much in the world is organised without hierarchy - if you think about it, there's quite a lot.

Spain 1936-1938.
The persecution of catholics?

Also, was that the wiki? Because that was greatly inaccurate.

 

[edgray]

All that happened in Spain between 1936 -8 was a lot of chaos, bloodshed and help from the Nazis. That example makes me thing it's something which I hope never happens again. Oh, and an example of events for 2 years dosent exactly strike me as being a success, anyway

well it didn't "fail" because of itself, by all accounts it was working pretty well. The fascists won out because of their force and brutality, the short-lived nature of this shining example of anarchy had nothing to do with any failures of the system itself, but to external forces, so you can't talk of it not being a success. It shows the possibilities of this system, and surely that is something to strive for?

 

[edgray]

Spanish Revolution (1936–1938)
Main articles: Spanish Revolution and Anarchism in Spain

In 1936, against the background of the fight against fascism, there was a profound libertarian socialist revolution throughout Spain.

Much of Spain's economy was put under direct worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy Socialist influence. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers. George Orwell describes a scene in Aragon during this time period, in his book, Homage to Catalonia: [ISBN 978-0156421171, Harvest Books, Fort Washington]

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life– snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.– had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

The communes were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," without any Marxist dogma attached. In some places, money was entirely eliminated. Despite the critics clamoring for maximum efficiency, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely egalitarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy. It is generally held that the CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes.

In addition to the economic revolution, there was a spirit of cultural revolution. For instance, women were allowed to have abortions, and the idea of free love became popular. In many ways, this spirit of cultural liberation was similar to that of the "New Left" movements of the 1960s.

 

[Peter Parka]

well it didn't "fail" because of itself, by all accounts it was working pretty well. The fascists won out because of their force and brutality, the short-lived nature of this shining example of anarchy had nothing to do with any failures of the system itself, but to external forces, so you can't talk of it not being a success. It shows the possibilities of this system, and surely that is something to strive for?

Bingo! It didn't last because it couldn't stand up to evil people who will always rear their ugly heads and try and take advantage. Your Anarchist system failed to beat these bastards, who did though? Oh yeah, Capitalist and Communist governments.

 

[edgray]

Bingo! It didn't last because it couldn't stand up to evil people who will always rear their ugly heads and try and take advantage. Your Anarchist system failed to beat these bastards, who did though? Oh yeah, Capitalist and Communist governments.

Well they certainly tried to stand up, but their defeat was an inevitability due to the size of the force they are up against. The Nazi's were pretty much defeated solely by the communists, we just saved our own little neck of the woods...

I really do see how that is anything of a reflection of the viability of an anarchist society. The "evil-doers" these days are the US and it's whipping boy the UK, if they were to be the countries to change....

Just because one example was defeated, doesn't mean it would have to be that way. Plenty of capitalist and communist states have lost wars.

 

[Peter Parka]

Well they certainly tried to stand up, but their defeat was an inevitability due to the size of the force they are up against. The Nazi's were pretty much defeated solely by the communists, we just saved our own little neck of the woods...

I really do see how that is anything of a reflection of the viability of an anarchist society. The "evil-doers" these days are the US and it's whipping boy the UK, if they were to be the countries to change....

Just because one example was defeated, doesn't mean it would have to be that way. Plenty of capitalist and communist states have lost wars.

Sorry but I take offense at that remark, my great uncle died and my granddad was fucked up for life fighting the Nazis. This is an insult to every Brit, American, Frenchman, Aussie, Pole ect who died fighting in WWII. Of course the Russians played a huge part in it and the war, wouldn't have been won without them but nor would it without the afore mentioned. You seem to me blocking out and making up history to back up your point. Pray tell me where the anarchists were when it came to ridding the world of this great evil?

 

[edgray]

Sorry but I take offense at that remark, my great uncle died and my granddad was fucked up for life fighting the Nazis. This is an insult to every Brit, American, Frenchman, Aussie, Pole ect who died fighting in WWII. Of course the Russians played a huge part in it and the war, wouldn't have been won without them but nor would it without the afore mentioned. You seem to me blocking out and making up history to back up your point. Pray tell me where the anarchists were when it came to ridding the world of this great evil?

I take offense at the remark too Peter, like you, I lost family in the war and had my great uncle Charlie confined to wheel chair for his efforts on D-Day. It's not insult to every Brit, it's just simply down to numbers: the far majority of nazi's that died in WW2 died on the Eastern Front.

We're getting quite a way off topic here though...

 

[Peter Parka]

I take offense at the remark too Peter, like you, I lost family in the war and had my great uncle Charlie confined to wheel chair for his efforts on D-Day. It's not insult to every Brit, it's just simply down to numbers: the far majority of nazi's that died in WW2 died on the Eastern Front.

We're getting quite a way off topic here though...

And Russia paid huge losses in human life to that front too, it was quite proportional to the Eastern front and if Hitler hadn't made the monumental mistake of fighting on both fronts, there's a more than good chance he would have won.

But I agree, back on topic...so where were these anarchists again after their system got destroyed after just two years?

 

[edgray]

And Russia paid huge losses in human life to that front too, it was quite proportional to the Eastern front and if Hitler hadn't made the monumental mistake of fighting on both fronts, there's a more than good chance he would have won.

But I agree, back on topic...so where were these anarchists again after their system got destroyed after just two years?

well there's a large anarchist movement still here in Spain, and they're responsible for a lot of social and policy change through their political activism. Anarchists are a driving force, as I mentioned, behind the anti-globalisation movement amongst other things. You think of any major policy change or mass protest over war or injustice, and you'll find the anarchists there in large numbers.

 

[Peter Parka]

well there's a large anarchist movement still here in Spain, and they're responsible for a lot of social and policy change through their political activism. Anarchists are a driving force, as I mentioned, behind the anti-globalisation movement amongst other things. You think of any major policy change or mass protest over war or injustice, and you'll find the anarchists there in large numbers.

Oh, I've no doubt of that, I've known a few who took part in the Poll Tax riots. They played a huge part in getting that rid of and ultimately Maggie out but I've yet to see any with a serious , workable way of running the country.
They basically seemed to want to get rid of this and that, rightly so too but had no clue about what to replace it with. They got rid of the poll tax but the Capitalist government came up with the replacement, council tax, not the anarchists.

 

[edgray]

Oh, I've no doubt of that, I've known a few who took part in the Poll Tax riots. They played a huge part in getting that rid of and ultimately Maggie out but I've yet to see any with a serious , workable way of running the country.
They basically seemed to want to get rid of this and that, rightly so too but had no clue about what to replace it with. They got rid of the poll tax but the Capitalist government came up with the replacement, council tax, not the anarchists.

Yeah I remember all that, even my mother, an ardent thatcherite was against the Poll Tax. What an absolutely absurd idea...

I see your point. But the anarchists do have ideas, it would be difficult to implement them in a capitalist society though - anarchists see that the entire system needs changing....

 

[Accountable]

When you describe it like that, it does sound like a fair system. However, painting a picture of a relationship between 2 people isn't at all realistic and it seldom plays out that way. How can a system be fair if it puts all of the money and power in the hands of private tyranny?

I'm afraid I don't share your faith in "natural" market forces...

Then we're done because you talk about no government from one side of your mouth and strict regulation and redistribution of wealth out of the other. You trust people to treat each other as equals, but you don't trust that people can carry out simple win-win business deals without one automatically and spontaneously jumping to tyranny. You call a system that has existed and continues to exist in every society either openly or as blackmarket, as unrealistic, then say billions of people can act exactly as dozens of hunter-gatherers did tens of thousands of years ago with no problem.

Do me a favor? If I fail to resist the impulse to engage with you in a conversation about your personal brand of "anarchy" remind me that I've sworn that off.

 

[Minor Axis]

The anarchy sales job may have run it's course, at least in this forum.

 

[edgray]

Then we're done because you talk about no government from one side of your mouth and strict regulation and redistribution of wealth out of the other. You trust people to treat each other as equals, but you don't trust that people can carry out simple win-win business deals without one automatically and spontaneously jumping to tyranny. You call a system that has existed and continues to exist in every society either openly or as blackmarket, as unrealistic, then say billions of people can act exactly as dozens of hunter-gatherers did tens of thousands of years ago with no problem.

Do me a favor? If I fail to resist the impulse to engage with you in a conversation about your personal brand of "anarchy" remind me that I've sworn that off.

The regulation couldn't come from any higher authority, it would come from the people. Given the choice, would you willingly give people a large share of your hard-earned money, or would you demand a fair share? It's basically that simple: there would be no need for regulation if the people had the power to decide what happens to the wealth. In our current systems, the wealth is taken from our labour efforts and shuffled up to the few. I very much doubt that people, given the power to do something about it, would accept that. There's no need for regulation when the people make the decisions.

Your win-win business ideal is fine on a one to one basis, except for that it infringes on the employees freedom. No matter how you look at it, "renting" yourself out to someone else, giving them control of 8, 9 or 10 hours of their day, removes their freedom to dictate their own life. And as soon as it happens once, it happens again, and again and again, and suddenly the employer is employing 500 people, all subjugated to his idea of what they should be doing, and the employer building up an extraordinary collection of wealth and therefore power. This is how private tyranny is created, and this is what we have now. There is no democratic way to change that power, the employer, a totally unelected official, is given way too much power with justification for it.

There's no mention of acting like hunter-gatherers.

You know you can't resist the debates, but I will mention your oath in the future

The anarchy sales job may have run it's course, at least in this forum.

Anarchy sales job? I'm not selling anything, just debating and defending the attacks on my beliefs. As long as I can get people to recognise anarchist philosophy as something other than chaos, I'll be happy...

 

[Zorak]

Anarchy sales job? I'm not selling anything, just debating and defending the attacks on my beliefs. As long as I can get people to recognise anarchist philosophy as something other than chaos, I'll be happy...

Show me somewhere someone has mentioned the word chaos anywhere, that's the problem with you anarchists. You all sit around saying how no one really understands you... :24:

 

[edgray]

The word "chaos" hasn't been used in this thread, but it's been more than implied (by yourself included):

Minor Axis
Some kind of a system other than the free-for-all Anarchy represents is needed in any kind of a substantial organized group of people. Representatives are needed because it makes organizational sense whether the discussion is about Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. Anarchy is about anti-organization. I don't see it as a fit for any substantial orderly soci....

Minor Axis
Now when you are talking about a million people living in a city, what makes you assume it will be orderly?

Alien Allen
There is no order in Anarchy

Zorak
You own a wheat field. Another man owns a gun.
You no longer own wheat field.

Minor Axis
Anarchy is a free for all. Most people do not choose anarchy.

Minor Axis
Nothing I've read about anarchy indicates "highly organized", nothing

If I had time I could look at all the other threads this has cropped up in, the general misunderstanding is that anarchists want chaos, when in fact we strive for organisation.

Show me somewhere someone has mentioned the word chaos anywhere, that's the problem with you anarchists. You all sit around saying how no one really understands you...

That's the problem with us anarchists? That's a rather sweeping statement. And no, I don't care if people understand me, I want people to understand the philosophy...

 

[Alien Allen]

the problem is you are trusting people to get along Ed

which flies in the face of human nature

You are describing utopia and not anarchy

 

[edgray]

the problem is you are trusting people to get along Ed

which flies in the face of human nature

You are describing utopia and not anarchy

One aspect of human nature we can be 100% sure about is that we are social creatures, so I don't think it flies in the face of human nature. Human habit, maybe.

I'm describing anarchy as political system. You can call it Libertarian Socialism if that makes you feel more comfortable.