This movie was by far my favorite of the three. There wasn’t actually anything I disagreed with this time. None of the religious conspiracy theories. I’m very impressed, I recommend you watch it.
Archive for the Capitalism Category
Some words from the French Anarchist historian Gaston Leval who was an active participant in the Spanish Anarchist Revolution:
In Spain during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties (republicans, left and right Catalan separatists, socialists, Communists, Basque and Valencian regionalists, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high salaried managers, or the authority of the state.
Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, ‘From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.’ They coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men, ‘survival of the fittest,’ by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity…
This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other.
I’m so sick of all the miss-used terminology being thrown around. So lets set things straight.
Capitalism is not the free-market.
Pure Capitalism is where all things are individually owned.
Corporate Capitalism is where all things are owned by either individuals or corporations. It’s the closest thing to what we have today.
The Free-Market is where all ownership is decided purely through voluntary association.
Free-Market Capitalism is where all things have been made to be owned by individuals though voluntary association. Which, believe it or not, is nearly impossible. It just doesn’t work out that way when things are left to be on their own.
Socialism is where the means of production is collectively owned(which could either be by the community or just by the workers).
Free-Market Socialism is where the means of production have been made collectively owned through voluntary association. Yes, that’s right, I said Free-Market Socialism. It’s no oxymoron.
In a Free-Market there is a choice, Capitalism and Socialism are simply two choices to be made.
I would argue that in a truly Free-Market both Capitalism of the extreme right and Communism of the extreme left would be incredibly rare. The most probable thing to emerge is a system in which all things being individually used are individually owned and all things collectively used are collectively owned, which implies Socialism.
When people pull for supposed Free-Market principles in the classical economics of today, all their really doing is supporting Corporate Capitalism because they propose less public control over economics while at the same time supporting the existence of Corporations, which are invented by the government. They claim they are granting freedom. And they absolutely are–freedom for the tyrants to control the common man.
Free-Market Socialism is true freedom.
One wants all things to be individually owned.
The other wants all to be collectively owned.
And neither of them see the obvious problem with that?
I do not adhere to a labour nor to a need-theory of property, rather a consequentialist-based property theory.
The most practical system, the one that would seem to offer the most efficient results, is one in which all things individually used are individually owned and all things collectively used are collectively owned.
It’s pretty straight forward people.
Further; workers are the ones who use the work-place faculties and would thus be the more proper owners.
Worker ownership of the means of the production is the very definition of Socialism.
Socialism is not some extreme left. It is the mid-way point between Communism and Capitalism.
This first one is my personal theme song.
Are you cold, forelorn, and hungry?
Are there lots of things you lack?
Is your life made up of misery?
Then dump the bosses off your back!
Are your clothes all torn and tattered,
Are you living in a shack?
Would you have your troubles scattered,
Then dump the bosses off your back.
Are you almost split asunder?
Loaded like a long-eared jack?
Boob — why don’t you buck like thunder,
And dump the bosses off your back?
All the agonies you suffer
You can end with one good whack-
Stiffen up, you orn’ry duffer –
And dump the bosses off your back.
—John Brill (1916)
I have found that time and time again I have been converting people after simply explaining to them what Anarchy actually is.
Now keep in mind that there’s a group of people called Anarcho-Capitalists who would completely disagree with me on this. Even though every time I debate the semantical topic with them, they are left confounded and unable to defend their stance. Not the stance on whether Anarcho-Capitalism is preferable or not but just whether it should actually be referred to as Anarchy.
Now, Anarchy in Greek means “No Rulers”.
However, Anarchy does not mean chaos and does not even mean the absence of rules as you have so been told. There indeed are rules, just no rulers. I have many friends who proclaim themselves Anarchist, many of them Anarcho-Capitalist and I am sure they would all agree with me on that.
Here is where I split ways with Anarcho-Capitalists: They say Anarchy is simply a entirely voluntary society; one without government. But I say it is more than that. I think the correct term that Anarcho-Capitalists are looking for is Panarchism. I say Anarchism is actually the complete absence of hierarchies, which would include the Capitalistic hierarchy. Panarchism means you have a choice, while Anarchism is a specific choice to be made.
I will come back to Panarchism in a bit. Because an Anarchy cannot exist unless there is also Panarchy. But first I will go over how exactly a society functions without hierarchy.
In an Anarchist society, as I define it, everyone has the same amount of political power. No single individual has anymore power than any other single individual. Instead of the decision-making process being structured like a pyramid or a ladder, it is a completely level field.
To say that one person has authority over another is to say that such a person has more rights than the other.
So Anarchism can actually be summed up in just one single word; equality. If you follow that one simple thing to it’s rational ends, you will have Anarchy.
Hierarchy and equality cannot co-exist. You must pick one; I picked equality.
The most technical way I can sum-up Anarchy is that it’s a Socialist Direct-Democracy which takes place in a Panarchy, which is to say voluntary.
And now you may ask; why Socialist? or why Democracy?
Well like I said, Anarchy does indeed have rules. It is no free-for-all.
The definition of Socialist that I am using here is worker ownership of the means of production. What that means is that workers self-manage themselves democratically instead of having a boss. This is the traditional meaning of the word Socialist.
Unfortunately the word has been confused with both State-Socialism, which I adamantally abhor, and redistribution of wealth, which I am in favor of but still find it unfortunate that the term Socialism has been confused with it for the most likely reason that most Socialists favor it.
State-Socialism is state ownership of the means of production as opposed to true Socialism, as I mentioned, is worker ownership of the means of production.
If workers owned their own work-space there would be no need for minimum wage, no need for the 8 hour day, no need for vacation time rules or regulations demanding for a decent working environment, because the workers would be able to make the suitable conditions they favor for themselves. No longer could you be fired and sent to starve simply because a boss didn’t like your hair or a face you gave him or because he was in a bad mood that day. Perfect balance between suitable working conditions and economic efficiency would finally be found.
And what about Direct-Democracy? Well, what Socialism already makes is Direct-Democracy within the work-place. And what Panarchism does, which I’ll get into next, is turn governments in businesses. So turning the government into a direct-democracy is only a rational extension of putting Panarchism and Socialism together.
And now for Panarchism. This is the even more misunderstood part. People assume that because Anarchies(or Panarchies) are voluntary, it means you get to do whatever you want; just go ahead and start shooting people in the streets, you’ll choose not to go to jail. But that is simply not how it works.
Panarchy, as I mentioned, is turning governments into businesses. What this means is that you can choose to have a government’s services or not by choosing to pay for them. So instead of a government forcing you to use it’s services and also forcing you to pay for them, both acts are voluntary. When this happens, borders disappear. In other words, you are able to choose your government without moving.(keep in mind that it may not be particularly correct to refer to them as governments since they are voluntary, perhaps they should be called communes) But it it would probably be more beneficial for you to pick one of these communes which are stationed near you, for quick use of emergency services.
It is also an open choice for you to pick no commune at all. Which means you abide by no laws on your own property besides your own. However, this would be unreasonably risky for you since you would have no aid if someone commits a wrong against you or your property. Not picking a commune does not mean you would be able to freely torture and kill people on your property. Chances are that the people you’re doing such a thing to would have their own communes which would intervene if they found out. And even if they didn’t have such communes, good Samaritans would most likely still intervene or some commune may wage war against you as larger nations do against each other today.
To further illustrate my point of turning governments into businesses; I could contrast it with what would happen if you turned businesses into governments. People say that forced government is necessary because we need policing. But do we not need food just as much as policing? The answer is yes, we obviously need food. So imagine that one day a grocery store comes to town. This grocery store then forces you to take it’s products and then forces you to pay for them. It also declares that you cannot buy from any other grocery store, in order to do so you would have to move out of town. You may not want the food from that store, the prices may be too high, or you may not agree with where some of the money goes. For this scenario to happen, I’m sure you agree, would be complete lunacy. So why has government gotten away with it? Because you can’t shoot people with food.
So now I hope you understand what Anarchy is. If you have questions, please feel free to ask them in the comments area below.