Saddam's WMD. The great "lie."

[Peter Parka]

Anti-corporation liberals, as you called them, are for the workers if they know what they're talking about. Get rid of corporations, let people work as a community and co-operate. It's not as scary as people seem to think.

Careful! You'll be accused of being one of those evil Commies in a minute!:24:

 

[Obdurate]

lol To be honest I don't know where I stand. I haven't quite figured it out. At times I think I'm anarcho-communist but then other times I'm not so sure. All I know is that I'm a social anarchist.


Here's another thing from Crimethinc that I like (Gracie didn't like the pic I posted from there last time )
http://www.crimethinc.com/tools/downloads/pdfs/wash_your_own.pdf

 

[GraceAbounds]

What you don't get Grace is that society is a balance between corporations (the employers) and their employees. We are a country of people and we are supposed to be a team.

Wrong. I totally get that, but that is not what was being discussed in the post I addressed. And in my post please note that I agree'd that workers are not treated fairly. But you can't only address one end of the problem.

Both ends of the problem that are feeding into the middle .... greed and the laziness. The greed and laziness in our society feeds into the problem. Both ends want what they don't deserve at the cost of others.

You have the lazy on one end of the spectrum, the greedy at the other end, and the balanced, honest hardworkers in the middle that take it up the arse because of the greedy and the lazy.

 

[Obdurate]

Wrong. I totally get that, but that is not what was being discussed in the post I addressed. And in my post please note that I agree'd that workers are not treated fairly. But you can't only address one end of the problem.

Both ends of the problem that are feeding into the middle .... greed and the laziness. The greed and laziness in our society feeds into the problem. Both ends want what they don't deserve at the cost of others.

You have the lazy on one end of the spectrum, the greedy at the other end, and the balanced, honest hardworkers in the middle that take it up the arse because of the greedy and the lazy.

I can get behind that even though we think different things for a solution.

 

[Minor Axis]

You have the lazy on one end of the spectrum, the greedy at the other end, and the balanced, honest hardworkers in the middle that take it up the arse because of the greedy and the lazy.

Your description is just a generalization. Is this just rhetoric or do you have some documentation describing the lazy employees in this country? Greed definitely exists and I can reassure you that average employees have no opportunity to be greedy. Greed applies mostly top leadership who believes they are worth every penny they take from the company. Every thing I've read indicates productivity has done nothing but go up.

I have no problem in a troubled economy (a different subject for blame) with tightening my belt. I just have a problem when leadership thinks they are above the pain. That's the result of becoming huge egotists. In the company I work for the employees works their butts off, while top management tells us we have to tighten our belts while rewarding themselves lavishly for kicking the shit out of us their employees. Instead of rationalizing, you don't see a problem with that?

 

[NicAuf]

oh hai

 

[Tim]

So if anyone debates with you, they need to take an economics class? Wow.

and you cannot have a free market for very long without the whole thing collapsing.

Don't you realize that the mess that the economy is in right now has EVERYTHING to do with letting the market do as they please. There are antitrust laws for a reason, there are rules and regulations for a reason. If a "free" market were not held in check by government, it would collapse.

Free market? Go take an economics class, would ya?

 

[Obdurate]

This kind of statement never fails to amaze me. You realize that has already been attemped numerous times--its communism. You really need to take an economics class. There is a reason why the standards of living are so high in countries that have economically free markets where the corporate structure is critical to venture capital. Without corporations, we would not be able to easily raise capital. If you can't easily raise capital, you can't get people to take a risk to develop new products and concepts. Without corporations, many of the things you take for granted today would not exist--you wouldn't be on the Internet right now reading this--there would be no micro-computers as an example. If you want to know what its like to live in a place without corporations, go to Africa and visit some of the nations that have no means of raising capital--no means of developing business and commerce. Honestly, some of the shit some of you people come out with is downright scary in its ignorance. You have got to fully understand how things work before voicing opinions like you did.

Okay first of all. Don't try to insult me, it says a lot about who you are.

Second, your concepts only work in a capitalist society. I've said it before, I -- and other anarchists, who by the way, have the only real solution to the problems the world faces, not just temporary solutions -- don't want a capitalist society. Which means the economics you like to go on about would be completely changed and void. And your "education" would be meaningless.
So really you have to take that into consideration. Different levels of argument. If you can grasp that then we'll talk, until then we won't.

And just so you know, I don't propose communism as you know it. If I was to propose any type of communism, it would be anarcho-communism and yes it is different.

Africa could survive but we're fucking them. They've been ravaged by capitalism as well, without being able to have any of the "benefits."

 

[Alien Allen]

Second, your concepts only work in a capitalist society. I've said it before, I -- and other anarchists, who by the way, have the only real solution to the problems the world faces, not just temporary solutions

Ok I will take the bait. Exactly what is it you and your anarchy buddies have in mind that will save the world?

And would you care to show another example of where a society survived let alone thrived under anarchy?

 

[Obdurate]

You eliminate capitalism, private property, government, the state, authority (maybe saying that is redundant), corporations, etc (you should get the point.. it's basically a complete overhaul).

I'm not saying that the world will be a Utopia once it's gone, or if society is an anarchist one, I'm just saying that you eliminate capitalism and by default you get rid of problems such as greed, poverty, etc.
If you're actually interested in the theory, and not just seeing my response so you can attack it, there's a pretty decent FAQ here:
Infoshop.org - An Anarchist FAQ - Version 12.1
It may not be the best but it gives a good idea.


I don't know of any societies that have ever actually been anarchist (though I'm not as well read on the history of anarchy as some others), but I don't think there ever has been an anarchist society. So there ya go.

Edit: And I'd like to apologize for how hostile my previous post came off. It wasn't meant to be that way.

 

[Minor Axis]

This is the same old tired sterotypical rhetoric and its a perfect example of you not understand reality. Do you know what an LLC is? An LLP? Do you know how corporations are taxed? Do you know the tax rates? Do you understand even one iota or shred of financial and tax data? No--absolutely not--you argue from ignorance (and that's not an insult its a statement of fact). What you don't grasp is that NEVER in the history of America has there been so much benefit obtained from so many in this country. NEVER has there been less poverty--NEVER has have so many (the masses) had so much. Go and actually check facts for once. Your problem is you see these 1 in a 100,000 corporate executives who make a big salary and you are so envious that you let it color your entire viewpoint about corporations. Most of small mom and pop operations that are struggling to survive under the enormous amount of onerous legislation and frivilous lawsuits that liberals have brought on over the past few decades. You people are trying your damndnes to to kill the golded goose and you are doing it. Pretty soon, there won't be any corporate executives for you to villainize.

No one is advocating socialism or communism. And you can stop talking to me about mom and pop corporations, as I explained a long time ago that they were not the target of my criticisms. And I am not going to waist much energy arguing these issues with you as it is a waist of time.

What I've described is reality whether you like it or not. Asking me about corporate details is totally beside the point as I've never have advocated the abolition of Corporations. I'm talking Corporate attitudes and morality regarding their employees. Not all corporations are bad, but thousands of them have shown more than a willingness to screw their employees. Quote me how many jobs have been exported overseas? This article from 2003 estimates as many as 500,000 high tech jobs were exported overseas by U.S. Corporations from 2001-2003. The total job loss estimate is millions of jobs. This is not some rare occurrence, it's happening on a regular basis. The ego zone is not my imagination either. Top corporate officers in many large corporations have been overcome with the ego and greed bug. Stop making excuses for them and acknowledge there is a problem. Just today the leadership salaries of Fanny May has come under scrutiny. If you want to argue these things, please at least get on the same page about what I'm talking about.

 

[Obdurate]

First of all, I didn't insult you. I really don't know why some of you argue here--if you are going to voice an opinion that is based on complete ignorance of a subject, then I have the right to point that out. Calling you ignorant is not calling you stupid--you are stating a viewpoint that makes absolutely no sense in the real world and that's what I've told you--that's my opinion. I am under no obligation to respect an opinion that is completely invalid in any known rational world.

The problem here is some of you people immediately fall back on the "don't insult me" excuse as soon as someone calls you on bullshit.

Insults insults insults.

lol You always attempt to insult the person when you argue. I've seen you argue your ideas tons of times and it's always the same. This is called an insult:
Honestly, some of the shit some of you people come out with is downright scary in its ignorance.

So you like to bring people down when you argue. Which is the key word here, you don't debate, you argue.

I haven't been called on any bullshit. Anarchism is a growing theory that changes with the times. If you had a clue what it was then you'd know that
You're not the only person who knows a little something about the way the world works.

That's a irrational point of view--can't you see that? You are advocating something that you admit has never worked anywhere in the world at anytime. Why in the world should be move to a form of government (or a lack of it) where our economy and standard of living will devolve into anarchy? I just don't get what you think is going to be accomplished by that. I mean if you want to concede that we will all be far worse off economically but that somehow that will make it more fair, fine. But state what it is you expect this anarchist society to accomplish that is better than the societies we have now.

And don't tell me it will eliminate poverty because no economic system in the world has ever been able to eliminate poverty and there is a reason for that--if you sit down and research it you'll realize why there will always be a strata of society that will fail--the best we can do is keep it to a small a strata as possible--but it is impossible to eliminate--at least with out current technology--maybe in 100 years or 1000 years or maybe longer--but not now.

I see what you did there! You spun my words to fit your agenda. Actually I advocate something that hasn't been attempted in any form that would be sustainable. There's a difference there. But people are too scared to try it because it might make them free. DAMMIT!

How much do you know about anarchism? It's actually a very rational theory that places freedom above everything else, along with the will to do what you please, according to your strengths and interests while taking into consideration your weaknesses.
What wouldn't it accomplish? It'd change everything. We wouldn't have jobs (we'd work, difference there), we'd be free, we'd be communities, nobody would be exploited, everyone could follow their interests more closely and succeed in ways that are very difficult in our current system, poverty would be eliminated (more on that below). So really, any of the problems that capitalism has brought with it would be eliminated. Surely a few problems would pop up in an anarchist society, but like I said in another thread, getting there is harder than sustaining it.

How will we be worse off? And stop thinking in terms of our current economy when you answer that, because it wouldn't exist, meaning it wouldn't be a problem anymore.

Poverty wouldn't exist because money wouldn't exist, simply put. You got no rich, you got no poor. And everybody lives comfortably, because people will work to survive, to give themselves or others stuff, instead of paying an exaggerated amount of money just so a corporation can turn profit. From a business stand point, yes, I understand profit, but it's unnecessary in an anarchist society. And don't fall back on demand exceeding supply because it's a ridiculous idea to any anarchist.


Your problem is you're so caught up in what we're living in, you think there's no alternative that's any better. But there is Muldie and I'd like for you to join me. I think it's irrational to live in a world where people are starving, where jobs that are a low key form of slavery exist, where people are exploited, where there's a huge gap between the rich and poor.
It's okay to you when people are left with just enough stuff to scrape by, but aren't allowed to actually go ahead and get more to have a decent life?

 

[Alien Allen]

Damn hippies anyway.

Can't get a rational thought out of em.

so is this gonna be a hybrid type of anarchy?

Dream on there Obdurate :24:

 

[Zorak]

Damn hippies anyway.

Can't get a rational thought out of em.

so is this gonna be a hybrid type of anarchy?

Dream on there Obdurate :24:

Well I thought a lot of what Ob posted was coherent and interesting.

It's a lot easier to label a hippy than to try to explain what would entail a social and economic upheaval.

 

[Obdurate]

Thanks Zorak

The only thing that keeps anarchy from being possible is people like Allen. That's it. People standing in the way of it for whatever reason, which usually seems to be because they think it's just a dream (like trying to achieve something that's ultimately very positive is a bad thing, lets' insult those damn hippies), at least in my experiences.

Allen didn't even read the FAQ, I'm guessing. Agreeing or disagreeing with anarchism is one thing, dismissing it as irrational is completely ignorant. And I can't force the beliefs onto anyone because that's not how anarchists operate. Some may be okay with violent actions in certain situations -- and that's a subject that's good to debate -- but if you force your beliefs onto anybody, you run the risk of becoming an authority figure yourself, and that's not anarchism, that's Marxism.

 

[Minor Axis]

Those jobs are outsourced primarily due to unions--I am sure you know that.

Either you need to get yourself educated or your promoting out right falsehoods to further your agenda for our society.

 

[dt3]

Allen didn't even read the FAQ, I'm guessing.

Or maybe he made it to this point and realized it's all nonsense:

A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?

No. Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to "do whatever they like," because some actions invariably involve the denial of the liberty of others.

For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it. The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a "right" to rule others. As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports "freedom for everybody . . . with the only limit of the equal freedom for others; which does not mean . . . that we recognise, and wish to respect, the 'freedom' to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and certainly not freedom." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 53]

How can you be against rape, etc... but also be against any organization that could stop it? It's a catch-22. We don't want crimes against people, but we can't stop the criminals because that takes away their liberties. It's nonsensical.

 

[Tim]

Those jobs are outsourced primarily due to unions--I am sure you know that.

Once again you are caught with your pants down... Due to unions? How many tech unions do you know about? Maybe you can put up a list of unions that have pushed these high tech jobs out of the country....
:willy_nilly:

 

[Obdurate]

Or maybe he made it to this point and realized it's all nonsense:



How can you be against rape, etc... but also be against any organization that could stop it? It's a catch-22. We don't want crimes against people, but we can't stop the criminals because that takes away their liberties. It's nonsensical.

No, it's not even like that.

The only point that what you posted made was that authority figures aren't needed. Nothing nonsensical about that. Any position of power can come with the ability to exploit those underneath you, and so often it is done in some way. Just because there'd be no police doesn't mean that the people can't solve problems... now thinking cops are needed is nonsensical.

Furthermore, if a true anarchist society was brought about you wouldn't rape someone. And if you did, it could be dealt with. Do you honestly think that police are the only solution to the problem? I don't deny that some cops think they're doing well or are trying to, and I don't oppose each cop as an individual, I oppose the concept of authority. What the hell, that quote even says that anarchists would stop people who were exploiting/harming others.

Edit: I just want to stress that when I say things like "authority figures aren't needed," I mean in the future if there was an anarchist society. I am well aware that right now the world is so fucked that cops can be helpful. I can even admire the willingness to put your life in danger. I know there are some people who have something to do with the police force here and I don't mean to offend them.
However, without them realizing what they're doing, they are helping protect a system that does not work, simply put. Unintentionally maybe, but it's still happening. And just to criticize myself, I am also helping protect a system that does not work, because at this point it's really difficult not to to some degree.


Edited again: Here's a view on how crimes could be solved:

Punishment: who watches the watchers?

There are three possible aims of punishment: restraint, revenge or reform Capitalism only seems to succeed at the first two. The retributive and vengeful "justice" of the present system has been a total and utter failure.
Attempting to reform people through coercion and force can never succeed. Arguments based on fear and terror are never very convincing. The institutionalised murder of the death penalty has never had the slightest effect on violent crime figures. It amounts to no more then revenge. Prison, if it achieves anything, tends to perpetuate crime with minor offenders often going on to commit greater crimes. Why not re-offend if nothing has changed when you get out?
Capitalism can not solve the problem. It creates the conditions which lead to most crimes. The supposed system of justice amounts to a closed caste of judges and legal professionals. These are initiated into a tangled web of complex rules and regulations, where any concept of justice or fair play intrudes purely randomly.

ANARCHIST POLICE?

Getting rid of capitalism, and replacing it with an anarchist system, will greatly reduce crime. But what about the mentally unbalanced or "crimes of passion"? Their is no doubt that some form of incarceration will be needed in particular cases. There are people who will have to be removed from society for their own good and that of others.
This in turn implies some form of law enforcement agency (or whatever title you come up with) will be needed. Of course this will be smaller, and fully answerable the the community as a whole. It will focus purely on the detection of individuals and their imprisonment. There must be no element of revenge. The aim, where possible, should be their reform and release.
These are some ideas on crime and punishment. Obviously there is no 100% perfect solution, though we think we can suggest a drastic improvement. The issue of crime and punishment in a future anarchist society does raise some complex questions. The WSM doesn't claim to have all the answers.
Housebreaking...joy riding ... heroin pushing ... mugging ... rape : Crime, Criminals, Punishment an anarchist view (for the full article, and a site with many more... it'd be more in depth that way)



It's a funny contradiction though, for sure.

 

[nTejas]

Saddam was an evil dictator who deserved what he got. Death by hanging. The world is better off without Saddam......regardless of whether WMD's were found.

The war could have definitely been managed better.....for example, the US could have assassinated Saddam with a sniper of something.......the real motive for going into Iraq was OIL.....

however, people have to remember 9/11......and the fact that there has NOT been an attack on US soil since 9/11......something is working.