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 Socialism 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.
I am so sick and tired of all the contorted ways in which the term Socialism is now used.
Socialism does not mean big government. The entire point of Socialism is to decentralize power so that no one becomes abused.
So now-a-days when true Socialism is being referred to we need to use the phrase Libertarian-Socialism.
When the word Libertarian was first invented it always referred to Socialists, yet now people will scoff at the phrase Libertarian-Socialism as being a contradiction in terms.
But this is ridiculous!
Here’s Noam Chomsky on why Libertarian-Socialism is not a contradiction in terms
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)