«123456. . .503504»
That really isn't explaining the concept. BUT, moving along.
As a thought experiment, what if we achieved an anarchic society in the next few years, and the idea of workers managing the means of production becomes popular... then, however, it turns out that for some reason it just isn't very efficient. Old-style factories pop up again, with a separate class of employers and employees. These for whatever reason do better than the other factories—they're able to produce more, sell more, buy larger plots and better technology for their production, etc. until they're dominating the industry of, say, cheese-making. Will you allow this? Remember again, this is all voluntary; the employees are not being forced to work there, and presumably the other factories would be just as willing to take them in, so we're assuming here that the only reason a worker would choose the old-style over the new is because somehow the pay or benefits would have to be better, or maybe for just job stability? Whatever the reason is, there has to be a reason, we know that much. So, given this hypothetical problem, what is the solution? Do you allow it, simply accepting that you lack an understanding of what is optimal, or would you seek to use force to repress this?
Banned for 3 days from the forum for linking to porn-while THEY are advertising dating sites all the time...
Mb start a riot here?
Also,private items (including homes) and means of production are two totally different concepts-unless you use to wear your factory.
"is because somehow the pay or benefits would have to be better, or maybe for just job stability"
How come?Even if the profits as a total are much less,the average worker will get much more,due to a much higher profit share,and a solidarity spirit between workers will ensure firings will be much rarer than today.
NO-ONE will choose a boss over freedom if he/she has the choice-that's not just ideology,it's common sense.
As for optimal,do you rly think it is optimal for corporations to give out bonuses to CEOs instead of reinvesting(see USA)?
Also,do not forget the power game rule of Hahnell-if a technology/mean of production increases efficiency but increases worker empowerment as well-ie for skilled IT staff and computers- then management will only apply it if they have to,as to not have subordinates they can't control-leading to inefficiencies.
"is because somehow the pay or benefits would have to be better"
Pay benefits? We're talking about an anarcho-communist society here. There is no wage. Consumption and distribution would be self-determined by the individual, and the workers producing said goods. An economy where goods and services are produced by workers and distributed in community stores where everyone (including the workers who produced them) is essentially entitled to consume whatever they want or need as "payment" for their production of goods and services. This is a system of bartering known as a gift economy.
Somehow I believe we should all consume less and live a more minimalistic life. So I can find myself in the thought that profits as a total can be less. If the result would be a solidarity spirit between workers: even better. I see the discussions on this regional board are very idealistic, even a kind of elitair, if I can say so. It all seems a bit far away from a reality in which the average worker of our society is a chinese minor or an underpaid south american. Not to mention almost the entire African continent in which a majority of people simply have no job. On the other hand, being a 'worker' in a high end industry (... me ending up behind a silly computer for hours), I actually have the choice to be my own boss and have employees for myself, however - due to my common sense - I wisely let the entrepreneurial risks for my boss.
B.T.W. I think my new flag and the flags of my puppets look rather nifty (don't they)?
YoriZ
Lands of the lost
Magnox
Brussels capital
http://www.militaryfreezone.org/ do not work
Is that...The Anarcho-Capitalist flag? Awwwww shyat. Don't make me pull out my critique of Austrian Economics D:<
Greetings fellow neighbors. The new Free Land of Networkis will hereby remain here as an anarchist state for its future. A short overview:
The Free Land of Networkis is a nation governed by no government. The Internet is the center of this nation and every hacker or anyone closely in love with their computers and the cyber world reside here. There is no army and there is no need of an army. A central mainframe server is monitored 24/7 by a semi-self-aware AI. Economy is assisted by any technological/electronic corporation willing to take advantage of the regulationless land for a better profit in return for a tributarial monthly payment sent to the AI which sends everyones "paycheck" to their accounts(AI calculates cost spread).
Also,forgot to mention,most of our population resides underground while the much less "anarchist" and much more "conservative" people reside on the surface. Factories and Commercial buildings also are on the surface with many that have underground access chambers. Our nation is very technologically advanced(as in high population expertise in all things electronic,electric,information technology and computer engineering.)
Reichtag, well, imagine we're talking about a "mixed" anarchist society in which some places have the sort of society you're describing, and then places where private property is respected. Or something similar in that people are agreed to own the means of production. It really doesn't have to be called property as long as the end result is the same.
Anyway, and in these places where they do not have a gift economy, they offer something in exchange for labor. What if workers decide to work there? Would you prevent them?
Every time there is a strike, it means there's a fundamental disagreement between "employer" and "employee" about what to do with company resources or how to run the company. There really is only one way the "employer" can get what he wants in this case: by using force - either forcing "employees" to follow his orders, or focibly ejecting "employees" from their workplaces.
Do "employees" have to use force on the "employer"? Well, certainly some have in the past, but there's no fundamental reason they need to. They can simply ignore the orders of the "employer" and go about their daily jobs as before.
Thus the real power in this case lies with the "employees" - not only that, morality is on their side as well, as well as the means to keep the company going. Only violence, oppression, and demagoguery are on the side of the "employer".
Welcome, TFLN :)
Congratulations to 
Postapocalyptic Terror for having the Worst Weather in Anarchy!
Seeya, but what's the difference between an employee refusing to stop doing work, and any other random guy coming into the factory, regardless of who controls it, and refusing to leave?
You're framing this as a moral debate, with the employees as those who can do no harm, with their labor as the morally neutral action and everything else revolving around that, but there's no reason to think of it that way. You could just as easily consider the factory as naturally being owned by no one, so that even the employees going in to work there are acting against the natural order, as well as the employers ordering the employees and claiming ownership. If you're going to say that the employees can just ignore the employer and carry out their daily jobs, you have to explain why this is not wrong, but why it would be if instead during a strike, the employers bring in new employees to work the same jobs.
@ The Imperial Reichtag:
The AnCap-flag was well identified indeed. Anarcho-capitalism (or anti-state capitalism, or one of the other names for the same thing) is the post-classical current of anarchism I follow most. In my opinion it is the strongest oponent of fascist theory. In fascist theory, business becomes an arm of government; in anarcho-capitalism, government becomes various arms of business. As a short lecture to motivate my choice in anarchist theory, that can count, doesn't it? Critique on the Austrian School economics are always welcome :D, I underscribe the point that it isn't a rigorous based scientific economic model and it's first point was to counter socialist theories.
Hi, everybody, decided to join a region not created by me for the purposes of managing my puppets for once.
There is in fact little difference. You know the old communist saying, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Well, if you wanted pure freedom, you'd have to take issue with the first part, since you can't really force people to work. However, I fully support the "to each according to his need" part - if some random unemployed guy has no other way of making a living, then it would be immoral to prevent him from showing up at any place of work and trying to make a living.
Of course, if you think he's only getting in the way, it would be in the interest of everyone to either give him the proper training to do what he wants, provide everyone with enough goods so that there would be no fight over resources, or convince him to want to do something else with advertising.
As for scabs, we both know that only happens because scabs live in fear. They have already accepted the current order of capitalist domination, and are just subservient enough to pick up the bits and pieces of what the oppressors are willing to offer them. Anarchists would of course encourage scabs to act just like the rest of the employees - scabs do have a right to survive as well - and there's no reason they need to obey capitalists in order to do it.
Sure, there are many "True Believers" among scabs that love capitalism, but that's only because they've been brainwashed by capitalist-owned media.
You can't force people to work, however, you can disassociatie with those who are able, but not willing. In a gift economy, you would be barterting with your labour. Everyone has access to the fruits of your labour, as long as you have access to theirs. If someone has not produced anything for you to have access, however, (NOT counting the disabled, mentally ill, elderly, and young children), then they would be disassociated with, having access to nothing. Because a man who IS able to work, and doesn't and still accesses the products of workers labour, is exploitation, which un heirarchial and not permitted in an anarchist society.
Seeya, well, sure, but you're ignoring the reason I brought it up. Do workers have a right to use force to prevent scabs from working?
Same question to you: Do "employers" have a right to use force to prevent "fired employees" from working?
Let me tell you when I would use force or encourage violence: when people's lives are at stake. If someone is currently being attacked, then lethal force to stop the attack is justified if there are no alternatives. In addition, if someone is actively preventing someone from eating or getting proper medical treatment, then lethal force is similiarly justified. However, I would stop there - if the murder was in the past, or the starvation was in the past, I would oppose attempts to kill the murderer or capitalist as he tries to run away, since his current behavior is not a threat.
However, if you believe his future behavior can still pose a threat to others, while lethal force is not justified to stop him, non-lethal force is - which is why we have stuff like arrest warrants.
[Of course, if the murderer or capitalists attempts further violence when the anarchists come for him, well, he should've known better =]
In the economic crisis the Hattifatteners are in. We urge - power to the people! The Joule have never been this low....
... that isn't the same question. That's an entirely different question.
But what I don't understand is... how can you establish that workers have some innate right to work in a certain factory, or farm a field... but no one else does? How can other workers who will agree to the conditions that the guy who claims to be owner has set not be as legitimate as the workers who decide to ignore the guy who claims to be owner? By what standard?
I ask this because I have never once had this meaningfully addressed by communists, anarchists, or anyone one else who supports "socialism" (in quotes because to be fair, most people I've talked to about it probably don't understand it very well and I know that has left me with a bad impression of it so I have to try very hard not to let that influence my judgement). But I am truly curious to know, this isn't just some set-up to denounce unions as evil. I really want to know, do you or do you not support the use of force to prevent others from working, if they would agree to the conditions set by the "owner"?
Because if you don't, though I still would not agree with "socialism" necessarily, it certainly alters my perception and respect for the movement to organize workers, which would go from detrimental (just look at public sector unions and tell me with a straight face that those are there for the good of the workers) to justified.
THATS what your asking? Of course you wouldn't deny anyone the chance to work. If someone decides to come in and completely go crazy and screw things up on puprose, of course he wouldn't be allowed to work there. That is not cohersion by the workers, that would be cohersion by the saboutuer for trying to exploit and destroy the work of the workers, so denying someone who is puprosely being a detrement to something is completely justified. You DO have the right to defend yourself, and your well being, or in that case, the well being of all.
"How can other workers who will agree to the conditions that the guy who claims to be owner has set not be as legitimate as the workers who decide to ignore the guy who claims to be owner? By what standard?"
You fail to see the point. There is no guy claiming to be the owner, because there is no one owner. It is owned as a collective, and all of the workers decide how it will be ran. To think that people would randomly show up and say "this is MINE NOW!" is flawed, because it's anyones who wishes to work there, so of course it's theirs. It's everyones. To think that such a scenario would occur is simply false, because private property would be no more, so the entire concept and that line of thinking would be completely useless. There would simply be no need or motive for it, and history is on my side with this one.
I would suggest to read up on the concept of usage is post revolutionary society, because your argument is flawed for many different reasons, as I have clearly pointed out.
As for unions, they were very crucial in establishing the middle class, and have protected workers rights very well. However, nowdays, most unions have lost their revolutionary spirit, and simply exist to appease the working class with whatever the capitalists are willing to give them, and as long as they're playing by the rules of the capitalists, they will never go anywhere.
Of course with the exception of the CNT-FAI and the IWW, who have always maintained that spirit. Here is a very good article on it all
http://afed.org.uk/publications/organise-magazine/177-issue-74-spring-2010.html
most importantly the section headed "Grassroots and Syndicalist unions":
[Quote]The argument we want to make here is that the problem with unions isn’t that they aren’t under the control of their membership, but that their function within capitalism is to negotiate the conditions of exploitation of their members. They are the mediating organisations of labour-power, and serve to mediate the conflict of interests between employers and the workforce. It is this representative function which is the problem, and remains the problem whether or not the mediating organisation is a bureaucratic TUC-affiliated union or a member-controlled union with a revolutionary constitution. Insofar as they are the recognised representatives of workers, and seek to make deals on their behalf, they stand to run into the same pitfalls. ... ... ... In the pamphlet, the only current example we gave of these “syndicalist-type” unions is the Industrial Workers of the World. Though the IWW seeks to become a functioning union, it has had few job shops in the UK, and has less than 1000 members. In practice, it is used by its members as a form of industrial network, and many of its advocates point to this side of the IWW as its most promising quality. While we recognise this, and see any networking between pro-revolutionaries and other militant workers as important, this is not without its own problems. Part of the problem is that despite this the IWW isn’t clear about how it sees itself - and in On the Front Line we repeated this uncertainty. On the one hand it is an expressly radical organisation, with a preamble and constitution arguing for the abolition of wage labour and “industrial democracy”. As we have seen, its members frequently posit it as a network for radical and militant workers to stay in touch with each other, Dual-carding with other unions in their workplace in order to agitate a more militant line. On the other hand, it posits itself as a “union for all workers”, seeks legal recognition as a functioning union and the ability to organise workplaces itself. Insofar as we treated the IWW as a useful networking tool in On the Front Line, we failed to square this with how it sees itself and its stated function as a “union for all workers”. In its incarnation as a “union for all workers”, it styles itself as the answer to the problems of TUC unions: “We are a grassroots and democratic union helping to organise all workers in all workplaces ...We are NOT: • Full of stifling bureaucracy or linked to any political party or group. •Led by fat cat salary earners who carry out deals with bosses behind your back. •Going to sell you services, life insurance or credit cards” But why do unions “carry out deals with bosses behind your back”? It is because of the obligatory representative functions that legal unions carry. They have a legal obligation to enforce anti-strike legislation on their members, with the threat of the union being crippled by legal action from employers otherwise. If the IWW became the functioning union it aimed to be, it would still face these realities. It would have the option of either enforcing the atomising and demoralising legal processes of building to strike action on its members, or it would have to have named representatives with the legal responsibilities they carry. Whether the IWW wanted to or not, the organisation would be required to either police its membership, or be litigated out of existence. It isn’t ultra-left dogmatism to recognise this – its about understanding the legislative reality of 21st century Britain. To take an example from above, how would the IWW have acted if it was the union representing construction workers during the disputes in oil and construction sector last year? Perhaps it would have been less nationalistic in its rhetoric, but ultimately it would have been forced into the same position as the TUC unions – between attempting to take control of the struggle and sabotaging it. If it openly participated in organising secondary action it would be faced with the full weight of anti-strike legislation, and crippled through the courts. This means its options would have had to have argued against secondary action and unofficial walkouts, or to advocate them and risk its own future as an organisation. Likewise the mass meetings at Lindsay which decided on demands and voted on whether to accept offers would have had only faced the difference of what union to ignore, as decision-making power was in their hands and they weren’t bound by the same legal strictures Of course, it is all well and good to criticise something, but in the absence of an alternative the exercise isn’t a positive one. In contrast we argue for an industrial network of militant workers who would put forward the perspective that workers should control their struggles through mass meetings and act as a militant presence in a workplace, sector or industry and for the extension of struggles when they arise. In contrast to the IWW in its incarnation as a legal, functioning union, it would not seek to negotiate deals with management, but would seek for mass meetings of workers to make decisions – in the teeth of anti-union laws and the machinations of the unions. Unlike a legal, registered union, it would not aspire to organise any shops as the representative union; it would have no named officials (whether called “delegates” or not) and not be bound by anti-union laws.[/QUOTE]
«123456. . .503504»
Advertisement