Either way, whatever you say about this, in a free society you free to do whatever you want – want to start a cooperative? Please do. Want to live in a housing cooperative. You're welcome to do that. But how can you tell me that this is better for me? I'm pretty sure I should be able to own property or rent property if I want. If I want to be an employee or a freelancer, and take no part in ownership/management etc., I also should be able to do that, and I'm afraid that not you or anyone else may have a say in that. That's if you want a free society, not some sort of warped, quasi-free communes.
If something existed in the past, it doesn't mean that it can or will exist in the future. Statements based on anecdotes aren't arguments. History and its interpretations are too subjective for any reasonable theory.
All you are saying is that at a certain point in history business owners benefited from government protection. No shit Sherlock—if you haven't noticed—that exactly what's happening and what has been happening all the time, because people will always use the power of the state to protect their wealth if they have the opportunity to do so.
So how exactly would you make this 'taking back the means of production' happen?
Who exactly defines who is oppressed? Who decides when and how to expropriate? How and when does one decide he can 'expropriate' property? Or 'fight back'? Fight back to what precisely? I understand fighting against taxation, when they come for your money, but how do you establish who and when can one 'fight back' against things that happened centuries ago? And fight against whom? Precisely?
Well what if they don't want to work in your cooperative society, they just want to somehow benefit from whatever system that allows them not to work? Just like under state capitalism, in your ancom fairyland there will be people who will be exempt from this rule, because they will be able to live of (steal) someone else's labour.
"Right now, the top 400 richest americans have more money combined than the bottom 150 million americans. However, were you to take it away from the top and give it to the bottom equally, they might get an extra 1000 dollars each. Extend that to all rich and all poor, they might get an extra 3-5 thousand dollars each. But then there's all the starving people around the world, and were it extended to them to, we'd all end up with maybe 10 - 20,000 per year. The earth simply doesn't have the capacity to sustain 7 billion people in style and comfort."
This is completely besides the point. Anarcho-communists aren't arguing for a redistribution of money. We are arguing for the abolition of money. Have workers take control of the factories and give everyone access to the means of production.
The problem here isn't in the earth's natural resources, it's in the system we use to distribute those resources and the restrictive nature of capitalism when it comes to allowing people to access those resources.
We throw away roughly 30% of all produced food every day, we have the resources to feed alot more people we simply aren't using them efficiently. That's the problem. It's never about the amount of resources, it's about how you set up a system which allows for those resources to be accessed by more people.
"Think of a knife. You can use it to kill someone but that doesn't make knives bad. You could use it to perform an emergency appendectomy and save someone's life, but that doesn't make knives good.
It's the same with capitalism. Someone can use capitalism to screw over the little people and advance their own greed, but that doesn't make capitalism 'immoral', any more than someone using capitalism to make billions and donating it all to charity makes capitalism 'moral'. Capitalism is amoral. It is not an ideology. It doesn't have anything to say on the way society 'ought' to be run. It merely describes free trade. Some people may use it for good, some may use it for bad. It is an extension of the best and worst of human nature. Pointing out it's flaws is merely pointing out the flaws in humanity, and they don't magically disappear when you eradicate capitalism. The problem with marxism is that it is ideologically motivated. It makes moral pronouncements on the way the world and people 'ought' to be. The only way it can work is by forcing people to adhere to it, which means taking away the freedoms of people who have done nothing wrong."
Complete rubbish and totally a-historical. You have such limited understanding of the matter it's honestly frustrating to even talk to you.
Capitalism was imposed on people by the state and the rich, read up on the enclosure movement. This argument that Capitalism is just "natural" "apolitical" or has no intrinsic "ideology" is so far from the truth.
This is generally the problem with people like you, you have bought into neoclassical/neoliberal economic dogma and you will happily reconstruct history to somehow fit your narrative. Capitalism isn't natural, it's a state-imposed system that mainly favours the rich.
I hear this argument that Capitalism is somehow natural and Communism has to be imposed on people all the time, but historicaly the exact opposite is true. Capitalism was state-imposed, whereas commonly owned and shared land was pretty much the global norm in most societies throughout history.
I don't attribute this to malice on your part, I honestly think it's ignorance, read up on the violent history of Capitalism and how it was state-imposed, how commoners were expropriated by the state and their land was then given to the rich ruling class.
This is why Capitalism exists, it's not natural, in fact if anything commonly owned land was the natural order of things after feudalism and capitalism was then violently imposed on people.
""Can you guarantee that we will find a treatment or cure?"
"No, but it's possible."
"Is there a good chance you will find a treatment?"
"We have no idea till we try."
...however, person 'B' argues....
"We should use the resources to help the lives of people here and now."
"Can you guarantee that it will improve the lives of people here and now?"
*"Yes, absolutely. 100% guaranteed""
What an absolute shit thought experiment is that? If there is a potential cure for something communists would have as much reason to research that cure as capitalists would have. In fact if the cure wasn't financially lucrative communists would have even more reason to search for that cure than capitalists.
Take the example of magnetic trains, we have the technology, but no capitalist would ever invest in it because it's extremely expensive with almost no potential short-term profit. It might be profitable over 50 to 60 years, but why should the capitalist care given that he will probably be dead by then?
In a communist society we would collectively pool resources together to build those magnetic trains, because in our society we wouldn't value short term profit, in fact in an anarcho-communist society it wouldn't ever be about profit, but using resources to the benefit of all.
In many ways Capitalism actually slows down our progress, anything that shows no potential for short term profit necessarily needs to either be researched by the public sector or it won't be researched at all.
In a Capitalist system you have no reason to care about what happens in 40,50 or 60 years, because it's all about short term profit.
From a logical perspective Capitalists have no incentive to invest in things that may not be lucrative for another 40+ years, but they have incentive to invest in things that could turn a profit within the next 5-10 years.
In communism it wouldn't make any difference, as short term profit (I'm talking 5-10 years) wouldn't be the primary motivating factor of the economy.
"Elite private schools, hospitals and institutions which can afford state of the art equipment and the best teachers would be abolished, thus fewer people with elite educations to drive humanity forward. Landing on the moon and the space program would take a back seat to the physical and emotional well being of people living today, so we'd have no satellite network. Marxism is all about the well being of all peoples here and now, not what 'might' be possible."
BULLSHIT. Why would we abandon schools, hospitals and institutions with state of the art equipment? Our implicit goal would be to provide all schools, hospital and institutions with the same state of the art equipment.
And you are actually a moron, NASA and the space program are for the most part publicly funded programs, Capitalism has next to interest in space exploration because from a market perspective there is NO incentive to explore space as this could never be lucrative in the short term.
It's so incredibly stupid, you list examples of public funding and the public sector pooling together resources (in this case via the state) as examples of how great capitalism is, even though the capitalist market has next to interest in space exploration.
You gotta be fucking kidding.
Lets not forget, many former second wave feminists have seen the light when it comes to modern feminism too, former feminists like Dr. Warren Farrell, and Erin Pizzey, they are not anti-feminist, because of the cancer on society that modern third wave feminism has become.
Not all women are feminists, in fact, many think for themselves in a rational manner, and are anti-feminist.
- Dimitri RastoropovGuitar and Piano Teacher, 2006 - present
- Dimitri RastoropovArts Centre Coordinator at Bocs, 2013 - present
- Dimitri RastoropovComposer, present
- Lancaster UniversityContemporary Arts Practice - Music, 2012 - 2013
- St. Petersburg State ConservatoryComposition, 2008 - 2012
- International School of Latvia
- American International School of Rotterdam
My, your, our Riga 100 years ago - Google Cultural Institute
The Google Cultural Institute brings together millions of artefacts from multiple partners, with the stories that bring them to life, in a v
Dimitri Rastoropov | Artist and Creative Industries Professional
Dimitri Rastoropov is a sound artist, composer, guitar teacher, piano teacher, and creative industries professional
Кровь, бурьян и 20 триллионов. О чем Путин и депутаты говорили в Ялте
Президент России выступил в Ялте перед депутатами Госдумы и пообещал выделить 20 000 000 000 000 рублей на развитие вооружений. В ответном с
It’s not just David Byrne and Radiohead: Spotify, Pandora and how stream...
More musicians are taking aim at the rates paid by Spotify and Pandora, and warning whole genres are in danger
Gentrification: what happens to those left behind? | Society Professiona...
When the pub becomes a wine bar and the corner shop a coffee house, residents can feel isolated in their own communities • Beveridge revisit