by Sam Livingston Fri Mar 14, 2008 04:02

What makes you think people are all like you, in that they
1. will work hard even when they don't like the job they got assigned?
2. Will think that system you're proposing is the better then free experimentation?
3. will agree among themselves on what someone else's needs or efforts are?

What makes you think everyone shares your views of ideal society or even a better society?

What makes you think everyone shares your understanding of fairness and justice.

What makes you think that world is so simple and people are so straight forward that YOU can conjugate a system where everyone will be better off.

Why do you still want to experiment with the same ideas that directly lead to so much misery and bloodshed.

What makes you think that:
1. people will prefer to get tasks assigned when capitalism allows them to choose where they work
2. People will prefer someone to decide what they need, when capitalism allows them to buy get exactly what they need AND want
3. people will prefer to associate themselves with their geographical community, while capitalism allows them to move freely and associate with any community they like
4. people will continue getting as much education without incentive, while capitalism pays them greatly for education.

You are, I am sorry to say, a redundant pusher of a borrowed, discredited by death of millions), 200 year-old delusion.
Everything you write is has been regurgitated over and over by similar ilk since 19th century - with only a cosmetic changes. You ignore the progress constantly occurring in society.

Bottom line: since MAJORITY are not anarchists and don't even sympathize with anarchist/communist ideas - YOU HAVE NO MORAL AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A WAY OF LIFE ON A MAJORITY !

by Ilan S. Sat Mar 15, 2008 00:05

Question:
What makes you think your vision is possible?
by Sam Livingston Thursday, Mar 13 2008, 9:02pm

Answer:
Just extrapolation from private experiance of years of life in communes... and some scientific research of the human animal.

Qustion:
What makes you think people are all like you, in that they
1. will work hard even when they don't like the job they got assigned?
2. Will think that system you're proposing is the better then free experimentation?
3. will agree among themselves on what someone else's needs or efforts are?

Answer:
In the alienated capitalist system, most people work hard though they don't like the job they are assigned.

All people experiment throughout their life one way or another. Nearly all of them limit their experimenting in consideration of objective and subjective obstacles.

Many die or become ill or get unpleasant feedback when experimenting was not wise.

People agree among themselves on what someone else's needs are or what efforts one has to do.... in the family, among friends or in a commune. When people live in equality and freedom, solidarity enables them to solve such questions.

Question:
What makes you think everyone shares your views of ideal society or even a better society?

Answer:
For sure most people in Israel and the world do not share my views on society.... I just think that anarchist-communists may find my ideas interesting.

Question:
What makes you think everyone shares your understanding of fairness and justice.

Answer:
Anarchists usually agree about some basics regarding "fairness and justice".

Question:
What makes you think that world is so simple and people are so straight forward that YOU can conjugate a system where everyone will be better off.

Answer:
The world is so complicated and people's minds are so twisted that a society based on equality and direct democracy is the only remedy that can save humanity from self-destruction.

Question:
Why do you still want to experiment with the same ideas that directly lead to so much misery and bloodshed.

Answer
The ideas of freedom & equality & solidarity were applied in small communities. While environment enabled it - people were much happier than the others out of the communes as long as they were allowed to exist in the capitalist system....

Question:
What makes you think that:
1. people will prefer to get tasks assigned when capitalism allows them to choose where they work
2. People will prefer someone to decide what they need, when capitalism allows them to buy get exactly what they need AND want
3. people will prefer to associate themselves with their geographical community, while capitalism allows them to move freely and associate with any community they like
4. people will continue getting as much education without incentive, while capitalism pays them greatly for education.

Answer:
My text was not intended to convince people who are not against the capitalist system that it is a bad system... It was intended for revolutionary anarchists who just have some remnants of the the Authoritarian capitalist Mindset.
Human beings are very curious creatures. If they get the appropriate environment they will "play" and acquire a lot of wisdom.

Question:
You are, I am sorry to say, a redundant pusher of a borrowed, discredited by death of millions), 200 year-old delusion.
Everything you write is has been regurgitated over and over by similar ilk since 19th century - with only a cosmetic changes. You ignore the progress constantly occurring in society.

Bottom line: since MAJORITY are not anarchists and don't even sympathize with anarchist/communist ideas - YOU HAVE NO MORAL AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A WAY OF LIFE ON A MAJORITY !

Answer:
Writing a text or blog or even a website is not imposing anything on anyone.

The commenter should really be sorry as jumping to conclusion with out basic knowledge of the subject is not a promising life style.

by José Antonio Gutiérrez D. Mon Mar 17, 2008 21:02

I think Sam Livingston comments are interesting and valid, and actually, anyone who's been around for a while and has extensively worked with non-anarchists (just people on the grounds, whether in trade unions, campaigns, community groups and so on) will have come across similar opinions. These opinions are legitimate and I think we should learn to deal with them NOT in a defensive, arrogant and dismissive way.

First of all Sam, we have to acknowledge that people and society are very complex and that a single solution is just not possible. Therefore, anarchists are not (or should not be) "utopians", meaning people who come with a master plan to apply to society as a form of social engineering. Anarchism is a political programme that offers some categories of analysis, some proposals and some "tools" for political intervention. It is not a masterplan that will regulate everything from your family life to your working life. Those utopian visions are discredited and rightly so.

It is not a "hermetic" system that you can go "take it or leave it". It has to become a living experience through revolutionary struggle. And revolutionary struggle starts today, when we go out campaigning and organise on a libertarian basis. There people have a real school of empowerement and of experiencing different ways to interact with one another. Practice is the most valuable source of revolutionary inspiration. People are not static beings -they change at all times, and in revolutionary times people have shown a sense of solidarity that is in sharp contrast with their frame of mind under a capitalist system. Our desires, aspirations and a number of other human motives are shaped according to what type of society do we live in.

Secondly Sam, you start from some false premises:

1. you say that "capitalism allows them (the people) to choose where they work". I don't know your social background, but in my experience, I have never had a job I chose. I always had to work in whatever there was a job available, and true as it is that some jobs are more appealing than others, I never was in the position to fully decide "this is what I want to do". That's the case for 99% of the population, except for the ultra-rich that have the money to do anything they want. Even, in most of the world actually having a job can be a real difficulty -think of Haiti with 80% unemployment, Bolivia with a 70% or Iraq with a 60% unemployemnt rate.

We anarchists believe work could be creative, productive and non-compulsory and some of our ideas have been put to practice, mainly, on the Spanish revolution. So while we admit that difficulties and unpleasant tasks will exist, the aim is for everyone to share those unpleasant tasks among everybody, so everyone has more time for pleasant activities instead of condemning one person to clean the toilet for all of her-his lifetime.

2. "People will prefer someone to decide what they need, when capitalism allows them to buy get exactly what they need" Again that's another false premise. In capitalism most people can't even get the basics to make a living and daily 23,000 people die of starvation because they are unable even to feed themselves. I don't want to think you are a racist and think that "people" lives only in the US and Europe, and maybe Australia, and the rest of us are savages barely distinguishable from beasts. So if you think everyone is "as people as others".... why do you fail to realize the conditions of existence from most of the world's population? Capitalism is unable to deliver basic welfare to all of these people.

Capitalism not only makes it impossible for most of humanity to buy anything, but even to provide the very basics. And even in the central economies or the "advanced countries", most of the people are in debt or can't afford some basic things such as housing. so much for the market freedom of capitalism.

We anarchists believe that people should get first what they need in the quantity necessary to make a living. That's the principle to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability. To create a society of abundance is not difficult: the technological development of capitalism could allow it today -we'll have to get rid of the awful waste and unnecessary production capitalism breeds, and also, we'll have to make sure that technology is susteinable. Not easy tasks, but possible.

3. "people will prefer to associate themselves with their geographical community, while capitalism allows them to move freely and associate with any community they like" I really don't know Sam what's your background, or what is your notion of life "out there", but most people find it really tough to move from one place to another because of the artifical State boundaries imposed. Who can move freely to whatever community they like? The hundreds of Mexicans who die every year trying to cross the US broder? The hundreds of a Africans who die trying to reach Europeans shores? The many thousands who are trafficked every year and face prostitution, forced labour and all sorts of apalling conditions with the hopes of finding their way into Europe, the US or Australia?

It is us anarchists who have been consistently fighting against fortress Europe, against border control in the US and who genuinely advocate for people to be free to live wherever they want.

4. "people will continue getting as much education without incentive, while capitalism pays them greatly for education." No; capitalism don't put incentives on education but barriers. Most people that are able to get an education cannot get it because they have to work from an early age, they have to quit because they can't afford it, etc. People with university education are usually the better off layers of society, not necessarily the smartests -look at Bush for instance (any gorilla in the zoo may have more of a clue).

Your view (the capitalist view) of human nature there is extremely simplistic: you think people does things only because of money? well, capitalism conditions people to be that. But humanity is older than capitalism and if you study other types of societies you'll find out that there are plenty of extra-monetarial incentives (starting by personal satisfaction)

5. "Bottom line: since MAJORITY are not anarchists and don't even sympathize with anarchist/communist ideas - YOU HAVE NO MORAL AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A WAY OF LIFE ON A MAJORITY!" Another false premise: though most people are not "anarchists" as such, most people do actually sympathise with anarchists ideas quite a lot if they are explained properly (and not in a dismissive and arrogant fashion). People tend to like more ideas of solidarity than competition. People tend to like more to have a voice of themselves than being ignored. People, to sum up, don't dislike the basic anarchists ideas -usually the problem is to convince them that it is possible and that we should fight right now for them.

Certainly the capitalists and the rich don't like them. But that's why revolutions are needed. This capitalist minority have actually imposed, through force, their own ideas and way of life to the vast majority of the world population for thei own exclusive interest.

We, anarchist, don't want to impose our own ideas on others. We want a healthy society, built up from the bottom up, with no class distinctions (and no sexism, racism, etc.) We know this society cannot be imposed: it rather has to be created from the bottom up, by the bulk of the people. That's why we don't aim at seizing power. We, as anarchists, have valuable ideas for a better, bottom up, socialist society to become a reality, that's all. We are not Moses with a revealed truth. Our ideas spring out from historical experience and they enrich everyday.

by Sam Livingston Wed Mar 19, 2008 01:49

Ilan S. Friday - you're hopeless. You need to get more exposure to environments other then Kibbutz in order to broaden your horizons. Then you will be ready for conversations with anyone outside of your cocoon.

José Antonio Gutiérrez D - you are reasonable man - I will write a response to you shortly.

by Ilan S. Wed Mar 19, 2008 19:06

José Antonio Gutiérrez D. criticizes my "harsh" responce to Sam Livingston... But I did not respond to Sam. I didd not try to convince him. I commented in a non-didactic mode to anarchists who may read the text.

Jose writes:
"I think Sam Livingston comments are interesting and valid, and actually, anyone who's been around for a while and has extensively worked with non-anarchists (just people on the grounds, whether in trade unions, campaigns, community groups and so on) will have come across similar opinions."

Ilan
Sure there are such opinions. Some of them are even interesting... but like interesting opinions of authoritarians of the left their place is really not in an anarchist space.

Jose:
These opinions are legitimate and I think we should learn to deal with them NOT in a defensive, arrogant and dismissive way.

Ilan
Opinions are opinions... there is no place to label them "legitimate" or "non-legitimate".

by Sam Livingston Thu Mar 20, 2008 01:34

About the author:
Such an intolerance for someone who himself is on outskirts of society – is ironic.
Like José said – one must purge his own authoritarian devils before preaching it to others.

José
Thank you for the first and especially for the second paragraph. Because I believe that it's an adherence to a single vision that really drives the wedge between all numerous anarchist/liberal groups making them unable to agree even among themselves.

Since you pointed to it numerous times - I will tell you my background so you can ascertain my biases (and "deal with them" accordingly). I am an immigrant from Russia came here with $200 and my parents. Got college education on government grants in public college. Now work in Financial industry making good living. In college and at work I met a lot of people from all over the world including from South America. For some of them their families have no college education. Invariably they all experienced one thing – if you get a college education a decent life if virtually guaranteed if you are not lazy. Most of them had no money to pay for college and either got grants/loans or worked for it part time. The system in US has plenty of various grants and charity foundations for people who are in need and are proactive enough to do their due diligence and apply.

Now can you tell me your background? Have you lived and worked in any developed capitalist country?

Now to the arguments:

I noticed that some of your arguments against my premises are of the form:
“Well people in other countries like Haiti are still suffering so your premise is wrong”

- I don’t deny that there are plenty of places all over the world where people are suffering. Since my premises are about capitalism I thought you would understand that I only think those premises apply in capitalist countries. I do realize other countries still have all sorts of misery, but that’s mostly (I believe) because normal capitalism is largely absent from them.
So let’s agree to view my premises as applied to developed Capitalist countries.

1. You said:
“So while we admit that difficulties and unpleasant tasks will exist, the aim is for everyone to share those unpleasant tasks among everybody, so everyone has more time for pleasant activities instead of condemning one person to clean the toilet for all of her-his lifetime”

-Don’t you think you have an implicit assumption in your reasoning that Work can be distributed an redistributed among people in purely mathematical manner? As if people are some kind of machinery. You really think if you have 10 people and 10 jobs, and each does 1/10th of every job - it will be as efficient as each concentrating one separate job? So your assumption that there will be same amount of unpleasant work is wrong - there will be a lot more of it because there won't be anyone who is good at it.

2. Capitalism is not heaven where everyone can afford everything. Capitalism allows over 95% of population in a capitalist countries to afford housing (even as rent) and food at the very least (most have cars, TVs, cell phones etc) which is much more then can be said of ANY other system. Just look at poverty statistics of US/EUROPE vs. any other non capitalist country.

You said:
“That's the principle to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability”

-what bothers me about this is WHO will determine what I need? – I never heard a satisfactory answer to that.

You said:
“we'll have to get rid of the awful waste and unnecessary production capitalism breeds”

-You know I lived in a country and time when that kind of problem meant – the country is doing great! It’s the other end that’s much more scary – when you don’t have ENOUGH production which ABSENCE of capitalism breeds – don’t you think?

3. You said:
“with the hopes of finding their way into Europe, the US or Australia”

-Do you think all those people are crazy to want to get to a capitalist country? Don’t they realize how “bad” it’s over here? – People migrating in great numbers to capitalist countries vote with their feed for capitalism and against other systems (including anarchy or communism)

You said:
“It is us anarchists who have been consistently fighting against fortress Europe, against border control in the US and who genuinely advocate for people to be free to live wherever they want”

-Why? – why don’t you instead build a better life according to your principals in your country – then may be people will be rushing from capitalist countries to you. I am sure you will have plantry of excues why you can't. People in capitalist countries didn't need excuses - they got toghether and built a better life for themselves.

4. Plenty of grants here – just do your research.

You said:
“Your view (the capitalist view) of human nature there is extremely simplistic: you think people does things only because of money?
well, capitalism conditions people to be that. But humanity is older than capitalism and if you study other types of societies you'll find out that there are plenty of extra-monitorial incentives (starting by personal satisfaction)”

-Human nature is a result of natural selection under tough conditions. No matter what they think – they all wont assurance that tomorrow they will have something to eat. People don’t do things because of money – but because of what money represents. You have to not kid yourself about what money is. Money is your personal time and effort in paper form. In life everything essential and non essential – takes someone’s time and effort. Monitory system allows you to exchange your time and effort for someone else’s. So if you want to buy an apple – you don’t have cultivate land grow apple tree and then collect it. Money assures that you will have something to eat tomorrow, that you will have shelter tomorrow. People are fond of money because it’s their way of storing their time and effort for rainy day in the future. It’s a mistake to take it lightly – or think that just because people want money – means they are shallow greedy bastards.

Also a couple of tings about ideal of having people work where they like.
a). In capitalism people work where they are needed first and foremost. So in very direct sense capitalism serves to fulfill human needs. You say – forget all that, let people work there they please – but who said that people’s collective choices of work and collective needs will match? The is no reason they will – and guess what will become of the gap – it will manifest itself in shortages in products and plenty of mandatory labor – exact opposite of what you want. Capitalism works beautifully in a sense that the greater the need – the more it compensates people for working toward fulfilling it. No one decides for you what your needs are, or who should do what - people decide all them on individual basis for themselves - in a sense it’s a lot more real freedom then you can get with any other system. Through in a social safety net for people with disabilities, older generation and people with down on their luck – and you’ve got everything you can hope for.
b). You forget that people’s interests are not limited to where they work. We all have hobbies – (may be more than one) we have social life, outside interests. A lot of people don’t want to make work out of their hobbies – they are happy to work on what they are good at and get paid for it – and spend the rest of the time and money on their hobbies, pleasures etc. Your fixation on work – makes you blind to people’s other needs. The main idea of capitalism is for you to work as much as you choose toward the life that you want to live. How much work vs. how much luxury – is your choice. That’s an ideal, I know, for a lot of people – but that’s where have been heading for the past 2 centuries in capitalist countries are making great progress at that.


5. You said:
“People, to sum up, don't dislike the basic anarchists ideas -usually the problem is to -convince them that it is possible and that we should fight right now for them.”

- This assumes the following: people are dumb and can’t figure things out for themselves, that’s why we need to “convince” (read brainwash) them to believing that we have the answer. Capitalism is not trying to convince anybody – yet millions of people are migrating toward it based on their free will.

Ok I could not help to point out the irony in your next sentence:
“We, anarchist, don't want to impose our own ideas on others”

- what do you call “convince” is? - Convince – presupposes that you have the right answer – and you just need to make others see it your way. So I guess that idea that YOU could be wrong has left you a long time ago. Like you said:

“We are not Moses with a revealed truth”

- do you really believe that?

Now that’s not to say that capitalism does not have it’s share of problems – but what system does not. I don’t believe in any perfect system because human beings are not perfect. The true question becomes – can anyone do better? History shows that no (even Kibbutz went the route of privatization eventually). And I am sorry if I don’t take 3 years of Spanish revolution as example of a better life – because, seriously, in any developed country there is less violence and higher standard of living then during those 3 years in Spain. Kibbutz and Amish are a much better examples – but they don’t even come close to proving that it’s suitable for any sizable portion of population. If you are to seriously consider if anyone can do better then capitalism – you have to weigh pros and cons. Capitalism brought the greatest amount of people out of poverty not just in developed countries but also in countries like China and India (now Russia and Eastern Europe too) I don’t know of any other system that can empirically beat that record – do you?

by José Antonio Gutiérrez D. Thu Mar 20, 2008 05:26

Ok Sam, I'm glad to engage in respectful debate and hoepfully it remains as such, and the main thing in such an exercise is to try to understand what the other person is trying to say: I see that there are some differences in our understanding of things or the concepts we use and this is the starting point for a proper debate. Sometimes we take for granted what other people mean, and often it is not half as straight forward as we would like to believe.

I will say, again, that you start from a false premise which is that capitalism is a "single country" system. You say: "Since my premises are about capitalism I thought you would understand that I only think those premises apply in capitalist countries."

Well, actually capitalism is a world system -what they now call globalisation- and there's not such a thing as capitalist and non-capitalist countries. They all interact within the rules of monetarism, global markets, etc. The fact that the vast majority of countries of the world belong to the WTO (with the sole remarkable exceptions of Somalia and North Korea), which sets pretty much the rules for international capitalism, is very indicative. Capitalism started and developed as a global system from an early time in the XVII century with the so-called Atlantic circuit: merchants would sail from Europe, would sell manufeactures to Africa, get slaves there, then move to the Colonies in America, sell more stuff there (including the slaves), then get some raw material or tropical staples, come back to Europe, sell them and the circuit would start all over again. It is the massive ammount of profits created in this circuit that allowed the Industrial Revolution in the late XVIII century and the birth of the modern capitalist class. So from the very start you can realize that capitalism was a global system -although not every component in this global system played the same part or "benefited" evenly from it (classes and regions).

It is a false premise to say that countries in which their population suffers an awful lot is because they do not have "normal capitalism". There is not such a thing as normal capitalism! Capitalism is a system based on contradictions at different levels, starting on the basic class contradictions up to contradictions between poor countries and rich countries to put it in simple terms (some call it central and peripheral countries or economies). This is so because capitalism -and this is a proven fact accepted by any capitalist- is a system based on the extraction of wealth from some to others (whether as direct surplus or indirect surplus through means such as trade). The misery of some countries is actually the direct result of their violent incorporation to the capitalist order through colonialism, so a massive amount of wealth was transferred from the colonies to the centres. Famines did not exist in Africa before colonialism. The conquest of America meant that bankers in Germany and Flanders were getting all the gold that was extracted through forced labour to the indigenous populations of America.

If you look at the geography of colonialism, you will see the geography of impoversihed, dependant and vulnerable economies today. (the only former colonies that made it to accumulate wealth were those colonies were, instead of transferring wealth to the metropolis they accumulated Capital locally -that is settler colonies like USA and Australia. But it only happened by replacing the original population with white population -so those succesful examples could only be so at the expense of genocide)

Colonialism was the basis for a massive accumulation of Capital in the different metropolis -that process was actually capitalism, and the kind of capitalism that most of the world had to endure. Haiti, Africa, Latin America are the direct result of capitalism and not just countries with not a fully developed capitalism. The old theory of "developmentalism" somehow revived with the charity boom of the 80s (post-Ethiopian famine) but now discredited even in the NGO circle, starts from the false premise that if we develop more of capitalism (ie, free market, etc.), one day, passing through different stages of development, under-developed countries would end up being like European ones. But this linear picture of capitalist development does not hold to the facts of historical development -colonialism, slavery, the Atlantic circuit, protectionism, all contributed to the "original" accumulation of Capital which was not based on free trade but on brute force, as China's rise to a super-power shows us 200 years later.

Since developmentalism was fundamentally flawed, a number of South American academics (Enzo Faletto and Cardoso) developed a theory called dependancy theory, which has been quite influential in Latin American circles. Their book "Dependency and Development in Latin America" is seminal and I recommend it to you (it is not very famous in English speaking circles, but English translations are available). They put the record straight: the problem of "poor" countries was not lack of capitalist development, but the very capitalist development in the way it happened.

So I don't believe you can say, "well, I apply my premises to this countries and not to others", since capitalism is a global system. If you want to talk about the US, you ought to talk of Latin America and the Caribbean which have been looted by this country, creating fabuluous wealth. for each good thing capitalism creates an ugly side effect: you have rich because you have poor and so on. Some countries can be rich, because others are starving, etc. This is the basic reality of capitalism: life standards in the West can only be maintained through the shameless over exploitation of others. This is a well researched fact and I would recommend you the book I told as it is a good introduction to this.

The problem is: it is possible to have a different world, based on solidarity and not in your ability to exploit and loot others? That's what anarchists fight for and should study in order to improve this senseless world, full of death, wars and poverty (mostly created by capitalism development)

But now I'll reply quickly to your points

Sam: 1. "Don’t you think you have an implicit assumption in your reasoning that Work can be distributed an redistributed among people in purely mathematical manner? As if people are some kind of machinery. You really think if you have 10 people and 10 jobs, and each does 1/10th of every job - it will be as efficient as each concentrating one separate job? So your assumption that there will be same amount of unpleasant work is wrong - there will be a lot more of it because there won't be anyone who is good at it."

Simply: in my neighbourhood someone has to take the rubbish out. You don't need to be Einstein to do that job (as you don't need to be an Einstein to do most unpleasant work as they are usually repeptitive, simple, manual tasks -as soon as you get some skill needed, there are people interested). And every now and then it is my turn and I don't complain: I would if I had to do it for the rest of my life. Rotation does not need so hard mathematics. At my own job, every now and then someone has to do the cleaning of toilets etc. No one is condemned to do that forever, but we all do it every now and then and it is fine. I don't see the difficulty of applying this socially -except for the fact that keeping some people in repetitive jobs allow others the priviliges attached to "intellectual" work.

Sam: 2. "Capitalism is not heaven where everyone can afford everything. Capitalism allows over 95% of population in a capitalist countries to afford housing (even as rent) and food at the very least (most have cars, TVs, cell phones etc) which is much more then can be said of ANY other system. Just look at poverty statistics of US/EUROPE vs. any other non capitalist country."

Again -that amount of wealth is possible only at the expense of a system of looting of whole countries as the US is right now doing in Iraq and has done for sooooo many long years in Latin America and elsewhere. and not only it is possible at the expense of a hard time for the bulk of the world -it is not possible to sustain in the long term! Look at the terrible enviromental crisis we are facing because of the awful waste of capitalist society -if every country had the same level of emissions as the US, we would have been long gone as a human race!

Remember what Mahatma Ghandi wisely said "the world is rich enough for the needs of everyone but not for the ambition of everyone".

Still, an awful lot of people live in actual deprivation (not only in material conditions) and to most people are not able to buy a house at least in Europe, where I live right now (and believe me, when you have a child the pressure that you could be kicked out at any time is awful)

Sam: "-what bothers me about this is WHO will determine what I need? – I never heard a satisfactory answer to that."

Well, we advocate for grassroots organisations where people collectively take responsibility. Therefore WHO determines is the bulk of the people in democratical assemblies. This is a common practice in many poor countries and does work even in contexts of scarcity. In a post-scarcity society there's no reason why it should not work -but this is not the convenience of the privileged few. The experience of the Spanish revolution (before being militarily crushed by the Nazis and Fascists) is another good example of how it is possible to the great satisfaction of people involved in communities and direct democratic organisations in the great difficulties posed by revolutionary war.

Sam: "-You know I lived in a country and time when that kind of problem meant – the country is doing great! It’s the other end that’s much more scary – when you don’t have ENOUGH production which ABSENCE of capitalism breeds – don’t you think?"

Well, the current environmental crisis will make you think twice on this point. There's an awful lot of waste and the world can take so much. Obviously you do not have children -if you had them, you would be thinking a bit more in the long term.

And communism (particularly in its anarchistic form) starts from the principle of post-scarcity, but sustainable, that means, production first of what is needed to satisfy peoples needs, and then (if there's will, time or interest) to satisfy vanity and so on... there's so much stuff produced we just don't need!

Sam: "-Do you think all those people are crazy to want to get to a capitalist country? Don’t they realize how “bad” it’s over here? – People migrating in great numbers to capitalist countries vote with their feed for capitalism and against other systems (including anarchy or communism)"

No, those people are not crazy -in fact, I moved to Europe from Latin America as I had the chance. The problem is not that -it is that those people are dying to get there because of the barriers imposed by capitalism to the poor (as the rich can go wherever they want). They are not dying because they are crazy -they are dying because of a system that wants to keep them in their own countries as cheap labour and puts borders for that purpose.

This shows that capitalism is unable to create wealth back at home, because all the surplus and Capital produced is taken by a few (nationally and abroad). Another false premise of you: immigrants from Africa and Latin America are not running from communism but from Capitalism in its most deformed and horrible version! (That which billions suffer so a few can get cars and mobile phones in central economies).

Sam: "-Why? – why don’t you instead build a better life according to your principals in your country – then may be people will be rushing from capitalist countries to you. I am sure you will have plantry of excues why you can't. People in capitalist countries didn't need excuses - they got toghether and built a better life for themselves."

In our capitalist countries people have an awful time fighting for better conditions and we usually suffer terror and dictatorships so we cannot achieve our goals. Look at the record of interventions of the US in the world. Those are not excuses but naked facts. That's why we advocate revolutionary struggle, so we can get rid of capitalism which causes the mosery in our countries and is often kept by force alone... and yes, "capitalist" countries as you call imperialist ones "did it" -at the expense of genocide and colonialism. Well done!

Sam: "-Human nature is a result of natural selection under tough conditions. No matter what they think – they all wont assurance that tomorrow they will have something to eat."

Exactly: that's what Marx acknowledges as his starting point of "the German Ideology" -in order to have history, people have first to eat. That's call historical materialism and it is the theoretical background of class struggle. But there are many ways to solve the problem of eating -and they are socially conditioned. Humanity is some 2 million years old; capitalism is just 400 and at this step, with Global warming at all, it won't last for so much longer.

Sam: "People don’t do things because of money – but because of what money represents. You have to not kid yourself about what money is. Money is your personal time and effort in paper form. In life everything essential and non essential – takes someone’s time and effort. Monitory system allows you to exchange your time and effort for someone else’s. So if you want to buy an apple – you don’t have cultivate land grow apple tree and then collect it. Money assures that you will have something to eat tomorrow, that you will have shelter tomorrow. People are fond of money because it’s their way of storing their time and effort for rainy day in the future. It’s a mistake to take it lightly – or think that just because people want money – means they are shallow greedy bastards."

True, money is necessary in capitalism. True that no one likes money just because of its colour or so. But money is also a way of exclusion for most of the world and instead of representing tomorrow's shelter, for most people in this capitalist planet it means the force that brings you away from your shelter. Money is the way to get things now. We stand for a society where people's rights are beyond their ability to afford them.

On a separate note, I find the most rewarding in my own life those things that can't be bought or sold, and capitalism tries to truns everything into business in order to make a profit, sacrificing the very meaning of things. Now in central economies, like the US, there's a number of people whose favorite past time is... shopping! (read any interviews to models) If you ask me that is soooo, but sooo sad. Really sad and shows you how empty is the life of so many in this system. we have to learn to regain control over our basic lives and realize that the best in life does not have a price!

Sam: "a). In capitalism people work where they are needed first and foremost."

That's false; not where they are needed, but where the capitalists need them in order to make profits, not to satisfy social needs. That is that a lot of people end up working in useless stuff. Take for instance pornography.

Sam: "but who said that people’s collective choices of work and collective needs will match?"

This can only be determined by the people themselves through grassroots democracy, not by the democracy of the rich few.

Sam: "Through in a social safety net for people with disabilities, older generation and people with down on their luck – and you’ve got everything you can hope for."

Social welfare is unheard of in most of the capitalist world and even in central economies it is being attacked at all times.

Sam: "b). You forget that people’s interests are not limited to where they work. We all have hobbies – (may be more than one) we have social life, outside interests. A lot of people don’t want to make work out of their hobbies – they are happy to work on what they are good at and get paid for it – and spend the rest of the time and money on their hobbies, pleasures etc."

We understand that. And that's why sharing socially useful work means that people will reduce work time so everyone can have more time to spare.

Sam: "Your fixation on work – makes you blind to people’s other needs."

You are wrong there. Tell me exactly where do you think I've a fixation with work? I'd rather be dancing, but I do what I have to do first. It is capitalism that have a fixation with work: "the protestant morality" and all that rubbish.

Sam: "The main idea of capitalism is for you to work as much as you choose toward the life that you want to live."

No, in capitalism most people break their backs and they don't have enough to pay the rent or feed their children properly!

Sam: "- This assumes the following: people are dumb and can’t figure things out for themselves, that’s why we need to “convince” (read brainwash) them to believing that we have the answer. Capitalism is not trying to convince anybody – yet millions of people are migrating toward it based on their free will. "

Capitalism does not convince people, it imposes its wil through force of weapons and most commnoly through force of needs... most people doesn't like this system and prefer other basic values which are represented by anarchism. They don't think it is possible not because they are dumb but because it is all they know. We don't brainwash people -we don't have the means to do that! That's what the New York Times can afford to do and they were really successful with you! :)

Anarchism is not an articifical and alien set of ideas: it is a coherent political view, that develops from a number of opporitunities created in nowadays society, of pratcices and values that exist in every days life, and which are hindered by capitalism.

Sam: "Ok I could not help to point out the irony in your next sentence:
“We, anarchist, don't want to impose our own ideas on others”

- what do you call “convince” is? - Convince – presupposes that you have the right answer – and you just need to make others see it your way. So I guess that idea that YOU could be wrong has left you a long time ago. Like you said:

“We are not Moses with a revealed truth”"

Sam, please let's be serious and go back to basic definitons:

Convince: persuade with arguments;

Impose: supress someone elses will and change it for your own through means of cohersion...

it is very different concepts aren't they?

It is foolish to hold ideas you think are wrong. Obviously I think my ideas are right and try to persuade others of them. But I don't believe my ideas are perfect and I'm open to improve them as well as to the fact that I may be wrong and that's why I find it valuable to engage in debates with people. I try to learn all the time. But up to know, neither you or others can convince me that anarchism is wrong. So therefore, if I hold to my beliefs and ideas is because I think they are right and they have a lot to say (right is not the same as perfect by the way). If I thought they were wrong... I would change them!

Sam: "I don’t believe in any perfect system because human beings are not perfect. The true question becomes – can anyone do better?"

I agree with you. And my reply is: yes, there's far more for humanity than the awful problems created at a global scale by capitalism and the enormous suffering it produces for the happiness of just 5% of the world population.

That's why revolutions will keep happening and that's why most of the world is in turmoil in one form or another. We are really far from the end of history and anarchism does have a lot to offer for the prospect of a civilized and susteinable society. We exist because of the failures of capitalism, not exactly because of their successes.

My background, by the way, is very different to yours. I'm a Latin American resident in Ireland who grew under the terror of US sponsored Pinochet and his forceful programme of neoliberalism which turned Chile into the 7th country with the worst distribution of wealth. I don't care really that much about personal backgrounds... they are relevant but I don't believe they determine absolutely people's ideas. I was just saying that I did not know your background for you seem to have experiences so different to mine and to the experiences of 95% of the people!

by yeah right! Thu Mar 20, 2008 06:45

I was a poor Russian arriving with U$200 dollars and my parents to the land of opportunities where I could become a self-made man. what a lie! then how did immigration let you in with that little money? no one gets into the US with 200 bucks mate. and if you do, you end up picking cherries or workin for a pimp, not in college. Don't lie please. probably you did arrive with 200 and your daddy with millions on the bank account?

by Sam Livingston Thu Mar 20, 2008 13:11

FIrst a word to "yeah right"!
- I know it's easier to deny then face the facts when they don't fall neatly into your world view.

To Jose
Everything that you write makes me understand that you are a sansible and decent man. I may disagree with your opinionns 70-80% but I respect what you have to say.

Correct me if I am wrong but seems like our opininos have been greatly influenced by our respective experiences in life. Despite the fact that we both started out in developing countries and moved to developed ones for a better life - we experienced different sides of capitalism/communism.

I started out in a country whose problems I blame on communism/anarchism (anarchism played instrumental role in Russian revolution). I then moved to a much better one where I credit capitalism for creating a heavn of a country compare to where I came from. So naturally blame communism/anarchism for all the ills, and see capitalism as a winning system.

You on the other hand, having started out from a developing country as well, hold capitalism responsible for all the ills of that country. And moving to Europe you saw that in some parts people are able to live in close, friendly communities with shared chores and not affected by rampant consumerism.

Would you say that's correct so far?

Now which one of us is right? may be we both are. Since we can't deny each of our experiences - we can only argue about our theoretical understanding of larger forces that may have caused them. I gues where I am driving at is, since our arguments are theoretical - let's establish common grounds.

For example you keep calling developing countries - capitalist, only because they've been involved in trade with developed capitalist countries, or had their regimes subverted by a capitalist country. How about I apply the same logic and start arguing with your about dangers of anarchism/communism based on ex Soviet Union, Mao's China etc. Do you see where I am going with this?
Let's at least agree that you can only call a country capitalist/communist if it trully followed, in its internal structure, capitalist or communist principals.
Because otherwise we will be stuck in this loop: you will be iterating every single bad thing that happened in, let's say Haiti, as evil of capitalism, while I will be iterating every bad thing that happened in Soviet Union as evil of communism/anarchism.

Let's agree that what happened in developing countries and ex Soviet union are not true manifistation of either capitalism or communism, but as a bad sideeffect of the two. If we can consede on that ground we will come closer to mutual understanding much sooner.

Now I can acknowledge theoretical beauty of anarchism (and even communism) - I also acknowledge that under right circumstances some groups of people could live such lifestyles in a sustanable maner. May be even we will all evolve enough to be able to live in that beautifull state some day.

But I would like show you the theoretical beauty of capitalism and how it does not really work by robbing the poor anymore then anarchism/communism works by robbing the rich.

...but that I will continue tomorrow (have to get some sleep)

by José Antonio Gutiérrez Fri Mar 21, 2008 22:57

Sam, I appreciate your kind words. When we engage in a debate, we have to start from the ground that the other persons (those we disagree with) have good intentions, unless we know for a fact that this is not the case. That's the basic assumption that creates fruitful discussion and respect. This is particularly relevant in a froum like this where you don't know me and I don't know you, so all we have is that basic trust. Otherwise, there's no point in debating.

This does not mean we have to agree on everything or even on most, but this means that we do an actual effort to understand where the others are coming from and where the stand, and try to separate real differences from misunderstandings. This is something, by the way, we try to stimulate in this website (that's why insults and slander, so frequent in many other forums, are banned). So I'm glad to see we are keeping that space of respect in the discussion, even if we have enormous differences.

Now, on what you said, I disagree with your description of Russia and Latin American countires as two examples of "developing" countries, and not only because I disagree with the concept of "developing countries" altogether (in favour of the concept of "dependancy" already explianed in my previous post). Indeed, the USSR, with Russia at its heart, was one of the world global powers for most of the XXth Century -I would not call "developing" country, one which was able to send the first man into space and had a very advanced scientific research -let alone education, health and social security guaranteed for all of its citizens. Russia was "successfully" turned into a modern, industrialized, country from being one of the most backwarded and impoverished European countries by the hand of a party dictatorship. Certainly, the USSR was not what we mean by socialism -that was, coldly analyzed, nothing but State Capitalism. An excellent collection of essays on this, written by Wayne Price, can be found at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3311

Certainly, as you said, I can't disagree with your own experience, but with some of the concepts as you use them. For a start, we don't blame the problems of the Russian experience on socialism or communism, but actually on the lack of it! By 1921, with the NEP the leadership of the CP had already given up seriously the battle for socialism, favouring a neat Capitalist State, where the State, in the words of Lenin, had became a single huge "trust". Then Socialism became the "ideology" to justify one-party rule, and the privileges of the bureaucracy. Anarchism played some role in the revolution, but it was unable to influence it in the long term for a number of insufficiencies that it is not the case to deal extensively here, but which some anarchists have put some serious thought on, in order to overcome them. Anarchists were indeed the first victims of "revolution" -imprisoned, exiled, censored, persecuted. We were all along the CP dictatorship in the opposition, not supporting it. To hold anarchism accountable for what happened in Russia is wrong and misleading- although I admit our political current had a responsibility in terms that it could have offered an alternative and was not up to the task back then, and wherever it was, it gives us a glimpse of how different things could have been. This was the case in the Ukraine were anarchism played a major role and where Makhno, vilified in Soviet propaganda, is a popular figure up to the present.

As an interesting note on experiences, an uncle of mine was (is) a member of the Chilean communist party, and when Pinochet's coup came in 1973, he was exiled into the USSR, to Minsk actually; and his view of the Soviet Union maybe is quite similar to your own view of the USA. There he got opportunities, education, decent social services. He called it the workers paradise (I, like any anarchist, am far from believing it was and it has been a point of frequent discussions with him). I'm quite sure his experience was different to those who had been born there, just as it is, compared to your own, the experience of so many born in the US or being immigrants from less fortunate places such as Central America or Mexico, whose immigrant population suffers an awful lot of discrimination and racism most Eastern Europeans don't have to deal with.

In relation to my own experience, I think we are lucky to live in a somehow small country where there's still some sense of community life in some areas out of the large city. In my own neighbourhood, yes, we share some basic task together -though the relationship between everybody is not necessarily friendly. Some neighbours are a real pain in the bottoms end, and yet, still we can divide chores successfully. But consumerism is huge here -particularly because over the last while Ireland overcame austerity and people have now the actual chance of comfortably buying stuff for the first time.

I'll reply quickly to some of the points you raise:

"For example you keep calling developing countries - capitalist, only because they've been involved in trade with developed capitalist countries, or had their regimes subverted by a capitalist country."

No; it is indeed because of property rules, the existence of a capitalist market over all, and because of its class relations (the existence of a class wich enriches on the exploitation of the wealth produced by workers). Trade is indeed an integral part of it and so is the need of keep the rabble on line.

"How about I apply the same logic and start arguing with your about dangers of anarchism/communism based on ex Soviet Union, Mao's China etc. Do you see where I am going with this?"

I see it. But the case is not the same, for whether it is quite easy to prove that what you have in, let's say, Haiti, is a capitalist system, it can be proven (even from an orthodox Marxist point of view) that what you had in the USSR or China was not socialism but State Capitalism. This is an important point, and often we anarchists receive criticisms for what people of the likes of Stalin did, in spite of the fact that he was quite happy in slaughtering as many anarchists as he could!

"Let's at least agree that you can only call a country capitalist/communist if it trully followed, in its internal structure, capitalist or communist principals. Because otherwise we will be stuck in this loop: you will be iterating every single bad thing that happened in, let's say Haiti, as evil of capitalism, while I will be iterating every bad thing that happened in Soviet Union as evil of communism/anarchism."

I always try to apply that scheme of calling themes by their name instead of using strawmen: that's why I would not call the USSR socialist and why I would actually call extremely backwarded countries such as Bolivia capitalism! Capitalism is a global system and the evils in Haiti are not isolated, if you study them, from the evils in other parts of the world -or actually from the wealth produced somewhere else. Capitalism is based nationally on contradictions (of a class nature) and internationally it is the same. In as much as Stalin got it wrong with his theory of "socialism in one country" it is wrong to believe that there could be "capitalism in one country". This is well understood by the big capitalists, who make sure that no country in the world is in position to challenge the world order.

Also, the evils of the USSR should be studied and remembered so we don't repeat the same fiasco again in the name of socialism.

"Now I can acknowledge theoretical beauty of anarchism (and even communism) - I also acknowledge that under right circumstances some groups of people could live such lifestyles in a sustanable maner. May be even we will all evolve enough to be able to live in that beautifull state some day.

But I would like show you the theoretical beauty of capitalism and how it does not really work by robbing the poor anymore then anarchism/communism works by robbing the rich."

Theoretical beauty is important, for we want our model of society or our set of ideas to be apealing and desirable, but what really matters at the end of the day is what happens in reality. Capitalism in 400 years of existence has not been able to produce a harmonic society, but in fact, through different stages, have created an ever-growing gap between rich and poor, a huge problem of food security in many countries forced into mono-production, a number of imperial wars caused by competition of external markets and now an enviromental crsis of yet unsuspected proportions. This cannot be seen as side effects, but as direct results of a model which main purpose is the quest for profit. On the other hand, the experience of the USSR proves that Marxist-Leninism and their stage by stage road to socialism was a complete disaster in the end. and although the theory of it could have been very sound, the practice shows that there's no point in stubbornly insisting on it. We, as the broad left, have to move forward from that worldview installed by the Soviet Union (the anarchists have been insisting for long in this). And again, dictatorship and repression were not side effect either, but the direct result from a system based on the conquest of State.

We have to acknowledge also, that capitalism has indeed produced some positive aspects, although at the expense of enormous human suffering, like the industrial revolution and today the IT revolution. This is all going to be useful in an anarchist society. Certainly the concept of representative democracy was better than, let's say, absolute monarchy. We want to get rid of the negative aspects of current society, we do not turn our backs to "modernity". But we know that more can be achieved and that class division and the capitalist world order is a problem that hinders the achievement of a better society which it is possible with the current level of technological and social development. We do not see things in terms of black and white.

So here we are: with two failed models, that in theory can be very beautiful but whose practice was rather ugly. The problems remain there and the lives of billions are testimony of this. So what do we do in order to produce a fair society, in freedom and equality and solidarity which is worthwhile living in? To answer that question, we believe that anarchism does not have all the answers, but has many. It has a lot of flaws, but its merits outweight, from my point of view, the flaws. It is an alternative in the making and if it is to be real, it has to count with masses of people that everyday, particularly in the most deprived areas of the world, fight against all odds for a better society. Anarchism should not be a utopia to be told, a master plan of society to impose them, but should be there to offer concepts for analysis, proposals and solutions to be applied in reality by those who need them. Anarchism has both a constructive and a "destructive" role to play (destructive in terms of its criticism, in its attack to oppression, exploitation, racism, sexism and all artificial).

And the biggest problem remain for us to be if this new society is possibly achievable -this can only be learned as we walk. And there is Sam where I think we should be looking for a common ground: in the defence of some principles and values we believe to be non-negotiable, instead of trying to look for them in the defence of two systems that, in the name of all that's positive in humanity, should be left behind.

by Sam Livingston Sat Mar 22, 2008 08:39

In response to some of your statements which to me show obveous misconseptions about capitalism I want to give an example of how capitalism works without having to rob anybody like anarchists/communists suggest.

"This is so because capitalism -and this is a proven fact accepted by any capitalist- is a system based on the extraction of wealth from some to others (whether as direct surplus or indirect surplus through means such as trade)."
- ok this seems to be a misconseption held by every anarhist communist - that someone can get rich - only when someone else gets poor.
To correct you, CAPITALISTS think that wealth is CREATED by creativly combining less valuable components. Communists/Anarhcists think that wealth needs to be STOLEN from whoever has it in order to enrich others.
So rational people believe that WEALTH is created though hard work and criativity which capitalism facilitates.

To say that Developed countries got rich ONLY at the expence of poor countries is to assume that those poor countries HAD all that wealth that we are enjoying now. I wonder then where were they hiding it all: those cars, airconditioners, computers, TVs, buildings, roads etc?
And why where not they rich themselves when they had it before it got stolen from them by those evil capitalist pigs?

I am making fun of it of cause - because the idea that all that wealth existed is intelectually indefencible.

Imagine two people living in the woods separately. A year comes by and ane build himself a hous our of wood, hunted and gathered to make himself meals, managed to catch a horse, build a carrige and now has transportation. While the other did not do any of those things because he didn't know how.

It's obviouse that the first one has wealth while second one does not. Would you say that the first one STOLE from the second one. or would you say that he got wealthy at the expense of the second one?
I hate to be repetative but this is what it takes to create wealth - hard work and creativity.

Here's the rest of the story. One winter a third man wonders into the woods, he sees both men: one with everything and another with nothing. The 3rd man decides that it's unjust for the second to have nothing. So he tells the second:
"-it's not right that you have nothing while the other one has everyting"
"did not the forest belong to both of you so you should have part of his house"
"did not the horse belong to the wild and each of you have equal rights to it?"
"did not the carage made out of common wood should be common between you two?
The second man thinks - "you're right - it should all belong to me too - and that man kept it from me out of his greed"
So two man go and tell the first one that he has to share his belongings. The first man disagrees.
The two man fired up by the first man's insulance and greed - attack and kill him.
After killing him they share his wealth.
But since neither of them know how to maintain the house and carrige - they broke down within two years.
Since neither new how to take care of the horse - the horse ran a way.
And the weatlh was gone, and the two man where back where they started - with nothing.

I can assure you that though the eyes of the first man - that's how capitalists see communists/anarchists.
You offered me a reading - I will offer you one as well, read Orwel's "The animal farm".


"The misery of some countries is actually the direct result of their violent incorporation to the capitalist order through colonialism, so a massive amount of wealth was transferred from the colonies to the centres"
"Famines did not exist in Africa before colonialism"
"If you look at the geography of colonialism, you will see the geography of impoversihed, dependant and vulnerable economies today. (the only former colonies that made it to accumulate wealth were those colonies were, instead of transferring wealth to the metropolis they accumulated Capital locally -that is settler colonies like USA and Australia. But it only happened by replacing the original population with white population -so those succesful examples could only be so at the expense of genocide) "
"Colonialism was the basis for a massive accumulation of Capital in the different metropolis -that process was actually capitalism, and the kind of capitalism that most of the world had to endure."
"you have rich because you have poor and so on. Some countries can be rich, because others are starving, etc"

Collonialism, famin, oppresion, slavery existed as long as man did - yet they did not lead to such tramendous wealth as exists in the world today.
Evils of the world existed as long as man did - because they are a function of man - and not a system.
Have you ever though why slavory was abolished in capitalist countries - because it functions on the principle of free trade - you are offered money in exchange for your effort. It's your decision to make that trade or not.
Neither capitalism nor any other system can guarantee good conditions for everyone so that everyone has a complete freedom of choice of where to work, what to do and how much of it.

And I hate to tell you that basis for massive wealth occumulation happened due to invention of machinery which enabled mass production of affordable goods. Which incidentally put a lot of people out of work - in fact progress and capitalism function on efficiency - the less people used the better.
Invention of electricity auto transportation allowed everyone in a country eazy acces to virtually all goods.
Nither of those two breakthougs were done in a 3rd world by millions of exploited people - that's what is called CREATION of WEALTH out of CREATIVITY.
By the way how will you explain that while North and South America were colonized pritty much at the same time - yet US and Canada - are countries with high standard of living, while Mexico and South america are not?
Does not that defy your logic of colonization.


"I don't see the difficulty of applying this socially -except for the fact that keeping some people in repetitive jobs allow others the priviliges attached to "intellectual" work"
- right to "intelectual" work can not be given to anybody - it has to be earned though education. Do you want to live in society where you assign a part time job of a doctor to someone who doesn't know first thing about medicine.
Or enginnering a plane to someone who can't finish highschool?
I see it as a common thread in anarchist thinking - that somehow proffecional jobs can be given away like candy to all just for the asking. There will have to be some separation of labor based on people's apptitutes.

"The experience of the Spanish revolution (before being militarily crushed by the Nazis and Fascists) is another good example of how it is possible to the great satisfaction of people involved in communities and direct democratic organisations in the great difficulties posed by revolutionary war."
- experience of Spanish revolution showed the same thing any revolutions shows - that when you rob and kill the rich you will have anough goods to last you for couple of years - then shortages and starvation. Spanish revolution luckaly for them did not last long enough to get to starvation - Russian revolution did. They had enough for a few years - but after a while millions were starving to death.


"Money is the way to get things now. We stand for a society where people's rights are beyond their ability to afford them."
- no, money is the way to get things later. The way to get things now - is to work literaly for food!

"Really sad and shows you how empty is the life of so many in this system"
- apparently, seems like you like judging what others do with their free time. Well I am not surpired, communism built on the concept that your community knows best what's good for you. While capitalism is built on convept that you decide what's good for you. And you somehow still think communism gives your MORE freedom!?

"That's false; not where they are needed, but where the capitalists need them in order to make profits, not to satisfy social needs."
- ok I don't even undertand the reasoning behind this - where do you think reveniews (that generate profits) come from? You need to have customers, whose needs/wants your are fullfilling in order to have reveniews.
Your production needs to be efficient enough so that costs are less then reveniews. So you sutisfy needs and create efficiency at the same time!
How can you invert it to think the oposite - is beyhond me!



"That is that a lot of people end up working in useless stuff. Take for instance pornography."
- no that's a lot of people having jobs, feeding their families, while sutifying the needs of others. Needs - that apparently you don't recognize. If you just analize your mindset towards the parnography - you will realize that it is purely authoritarian mindset that makes you think you know better what other people should spend their time and money on.
It should be self evident to you that:
a) it is none of your business if people like or dislike pornography, just as it's none of your business if people are gay or streight
b) you should not judge others unless they do harm to somebody - and last time I checked - pornography is like any other job - valantary and you get paid for it. So unless you want to act like those conservatives who want gays, pornography, vondoms and black people banned - I suggest you reconsider your propensity to judge others
- I also want to add that since pornography is a trillion dollar industry, and it is a nuber 1 search in any internet search engine - it shows that it is a HUGE need of society, I can't stress that enough - HUGE. And the fact that you don't recognize it - shows how out of touch with reality you are, and how mistaken you are about human nature!

You want to convince people to choose anarchism - and yet you want to prohibit them porno. What else - alchohol, sex before marriage, religion?

"Social welfare is unheard of in most of the capitalist world and even in central economies it is being attacked at all times."
-I don't know what planet are you from - but literaly EVERY developed capitalist county has HUGE social safety net as wellfare or aid. And as to being attacked - whell that's what happens in democratic society - lots of people have lots of different opinions - and every thing that happens in such society has pros and cons. You should look at it as a sign of a healthy society. It is much more dangerouse to have a lot of conencus, first of all it's unknatural, second it's usually a sign of coersion. Notice that it's only in totalitarian societies you have 99% approval rating of anything or anybody.

"We understand that. And that's why sharing socially useful work means that people will reduce work time so everyone can have more time to spare"
I see two problems with this statement:
a) again you are assuming that "work" is somekind of defined finite object that can be devided as you please.
b) people sole wish is less work. It may come as a surprise to you but a LOT of people prefer to work MORE so they can afford MORE luxuries. You on the other hand want to offer those very hardworking people alternative of having lesser lifestyle and less work - they don't want that!
Capitalism allowes people to work as much as they please - and the one workohollic works - the less someone else has to. It is a perfect system - you shift bulk of work to those who actually want it!
Again - this shows that you think you know best as to what people want - you don't!
You think that just because a lot of people you know are unhappy with their job, don't get payed enough, don't have high aspirations - that's all going to change once they achieve anarhism/communism. You're saidly mistaken - nothing produced more unhappy, schared, hungry people then attempts of communism/anarchism.
Better yet ask yourself, are those people encouraging their kids to to get colledge education? do they spend enough effort and save all the can for their kids to be educated?
Capitalism better then anyother society gives you a cance at better life (that's why you migrated here), but EDUCATION is the KEY! effort in education is required.

"in capitalism most people break their backs and they don't have enough to pay the rent or feed their children properly!"
- here again commiting falacy - balming all worlds problem on capitalism as if no problems existed before it.


"Anarchism is not an articifical and alien set of ideas: it is a coherent political view, that develops from a number of opporitunities created in nowadays society, of pratcices and values that exist in every days life, and which are hindered by capitalism."
When you talk about "values" and how society "hinders" them, explain to me how are you different from conservatives that prich "moral" values of abstanence and segregation and white supramacy.
Progressive people realize that noone should dictate of judge others for their values being different from their own.

"Sam, please let's be serious and go back to basic definitons:
Convince: persuade with arguments;"

- I am very serious. Convince works fine in democratic society such as you live in today. What happens with "convince" tomorrow if you get your revolution? judging from posts of Ilan Shalif and the like (and I've talk to many), who is already unwiling to communicate with "outsiders", your benevolent "convince" will become "if you are not with us - you're against us" - like it did during EVERY revolution. In other words after revolution, people like me who disagree with you - will become counterrevolutionaries, and your people will be killing us off. Again I am judging based on precedent - every communist revolution. I also want to take this oportunity to point out that while this society allowes you and me to so casually talk about revolution and such - we are still free and don't fear someone knocking in our door. Yet you are unable to appreciate this freedom, which you will not have after revolution. To me it just shows that while concentrating on problems (all fixable) of this society - you completely ignore/forget all positives (which are anparrallel in history, scope and goodness)

by Sam Livingston Sun Mar 23, 2008 06:06

"Indeed, the USSR, with Russia at its heart, was one of the world global powers for most of the XXth Century -I would not call "developing" country, one which was able to send the first man into space and had a very advanced scientific research -let alone education, health and social security guaranteed for all of its citizens."
- correction guaranteed to Urban citizens, rural areas experienced massive starvation in the first half of 20th century, and a status of a second class citizens with bare minimum of services such as hospitals and electricity reaching them in late 20th century.
Incidentally that luck of oportunities in rural areas lead to mass migration of people to cities causing farther decline of Russia's agricaltural state which among other things lead to shortages all over Russia prompting for humanitarian help from US. I personally was receiving humanitarian aid living in Moscow in 1990s.

Russia was "successfully" turned into a modern, industrialized, country from being one of the most backwarded and impoverished European countries by the hand of a party dictatorship.
- The expense at which it acchived "modernity" was higher then any capitalist system: 10s of millions were killed by own government or died of starvation, and the regime altimately collapsed under it's own weight.

"Certainly, the USSR was not what we mean by socialism -that was, coldly analyzed, nothing but State Capitalism"
- at this point I have to ask you to define what do you mean by Capitalism - so far it seems to me you call capitalism anything you don't like.


Here's my understanding of what defines Capitalism (in no particular order)
1. Democracy and equality of people's rights
2. Rule of law (minimum corruption)
3. Open, non coersive trade among interested parties defined by inforcable contracts
4. Protection of Private property and personal rights.
5. Do no harm (as understood by a resonable person)

Please note that non democratic states are by definition NOT capitalist. They are by definition - totalitarian. That nominclature is accepted by academics all over the world. Let's stick to it ok?
Another aspect of capitalism is presence of middle class as a majority of population in a country. If you don't have that in a country - that means capitalism did not take hold - and all you have is a pseudo feudal system.
Usually that happens in countries ridden with corruption on all levels (all of South America and Africa)

Incidentally to me Anarchism is defined by what you CAN NOT do
1. can't freely trade eforts (work) for goods (money)
2. Can't decide what to consume (a counsil will)
3. Can't freely move (because that would take resources and you need approval for it)
4. Can't save up money so you don't have to work all your life
5. Forced to do some designated part time labor
6. Can't choose where to work (community will decide where you are needed)

To me Anarchism/Communism is one step above prizon - everything will be decided for you for the good of the colony.

by José Antonio Gutiérrez Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:12

Hi Sam, excuse me if I don’t reply line after line what you say because this last comment is really long and family pressures (and other stuff I have to write and finish this long weekend) don’t let me deal in such a detail with all you said. But it is good to deal with the overall arguments.

On Capitalism:

Wealth is not created out of the blue. We don’t leave in Walt Disney’s world where Donald Duck’s uncle has his gold in a big building and gets richer by finding treasures around in exciting adventures. It is created by labour, by work, by people on the ground. It is telling that often those who work harder are the poorest of the poorest. So where is that wealth going? Because society is divided in capitalism between those who own land, property, etc. (who are often referred to as “the bourgeoisie”, or the capitalist class, but you can call them bosses, entrepreneurs, employers, etc. however you like) and those who only own their labour force, that is, their capacity to work (often referred to as proletariat, workers, employees, “team”, etc. call them, once again, however you want, as this will not change facts). So basically workers give their labour, they apply their skills, they work, and those who own the property and those who manage other people’s labour are the ones who get what’s called the surplus, that is, the profits. Workers are given a salary, that is only a tiny fraction of what they have produced (in Mexico, for instance, it is estimated that out of an 8 hours work Mexican workers are paid the value equivalent to 7 minutes only! And certainly you can go lower elsewhere). And when you have enough capital, you can go for other options like speculation, what is basically a gamble over labour yet to be materialized.

But at the end of the day, wherever there are profits and Capital being accumulated, this is only done by this process of getting surplus produced by other workers and paying them a minimal fraction of their labour value in terms of wages. That is why one of the big issues for capitalists is how you keep wages low (competitive in their jargon) and that’s why jobs go overseas –wherever they can pay as little as possible and care as little as possible to their workers as they can. That is why Nike takes its assembly factories to Asia, where workers will toil for 12 hours, they will get paid peanuts (and even less if they are kids doing the job) and will have little health & safety protections –so the companies can do more of a profit. Bosses want to get as much of a profit as possible (so for that they have to make sure how they keep wages as low as possible), and workers want naturally to increase their wages and living standards (what have a direct impact over profits) and this conflict of interests is often referred to as class struggle.

These are just some basic facts of capitalism that are openly discussed in magazines like the Economist, Financial Times, etc. when discussing of market opportunities and so on, and I find it surprising, really surprising, that a staunch defender of capitalism does not know how capital and wealth are produced and how the system works, buying into the fantasy of “creativity” magically producing wealth (then artists should be in the top list of rich people in the world, wouldn’t they?). You may think that this is a morally correct way to operate things, but I don’t, and it actually does create poverty and endangers constantly the standards of life of workers. The European Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson is now in a crusade to make Europe “more competitive” so this means an open attack on the standards of life of everyone here –end of social security, lower down wages, all for the ambition of the business syndicate of ERT. You may find this to be correct (particularly if you are at the other end of the social ladder than me), but I don’t. As a friend of mine told me once: the only people who would defend capitalism are those who don’t understand how it works, or those few who actually get the lion’s share.

How those capitalist pigs (as you called them and I don’t disagree –he, he) became rich and got to control the means of production is a historical process, which started in the middle age with the expulsion of peasants from their lands (and the subsequent peasant wars in Germany and elsewhere), then with the exploitation and pillage of the great civilizations of Africa and Latin America and through forced labour in the form of slavery. Nothing of what created the big capitalist empires is morally right. Indeed, capitalist accumulation was and still is when necessary (like Chile under Pinochet), a violent process imposed through force. Lloyd’s, the famous English firm, was challenged last year, in the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade that the bulk of its wealth was built on slavery. They were one among many in France, England and indeed the USA.
And indeed, capitalist accumulation everywhere lead to famines and genocide: the building of State capitalism in the USSR as you mention, or China, but also the building of English capitalism, which lead to the extermination of tens of millions in India, Ireland, Kenya, etc. or in the USA itself, where the settlers colony exterminated millions, entire Native American populations. On the genocide that laid the foundations of the USA you can read Howard Zinn’s “ a people’s history of America”.

Certainly, colonialism and slavery existed for long, but the conditions of the XVI century (particularly developments in the fields of navigation, but also the development of the bourgeoisie and banks since the XIVth century) permitted them to flourish in a way like never before, at an industrial scale. In ancient wars people took slaves, but nothing compared to the 12 million slaves traded by England, France, Portugal, the USA and Holland between the XVI and the XIXth centuries. Why they stopped colonialism? Read Basil Davidson’s brilliant book “the African Slave Trade” or James Walvin “Making the Black Atlantic”… but I’ll give you a clue: because they discovered that making Africans work in Africa was more profitable than taking them to colonies! So slavery gave birth directly to modern colonialism, again at a level never seen before. And what replaced slaved in the colonies? Indentured labourers from India, a form of work that uncomfortably resembled quite a lot slavery itself.

Still, it is very telling that “free labour” (free as your hunger allow you to be free), although at the core of capitalism, is not the only form of labour and that forced labour is still widespread: indeed, there are 27 million slaves today in the world. More than there were on the year 1807, when the Atlantic circuit was abolished. Human trafficking produces U$13.000.000.000 yearly, being one of the most profitable industries of the illegal world, together with arms smuggling and drug trafficking. And this is not something that affects distant places such as Bangladesh: in Europe, during the ‘90s, it is estimated that only through the Slovenian border, 35,000 were trafficked yearly into Europe; in the USA it is estimated that there are 20,000 yearly trafficked into the USA (your “heaven” must seem very different to all those). Many work picking fruits, others as prostitutes, others as domestic servants, etc. (These figures are actually taken from the following sources if you don’t believe me: National Geographic –issue Sept. 2003-, The Economist Dec. 2006 and the following website http://www.antislavery.org/)

I’ve written a lenghty essay on slavery in Spanish if you can read it:
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=5201

ps. 1- (I decline to comment on the extemely ill informed statement “And why where not they rich themselves when they had it before it got stolen from them by those evil capitalist pigs?”. It is enough to say that both in Africa, America and Asia, there were empires with extremely wealthy and advanced societies, who were defeated militarily by European forces and whose looted wealth ended up building up the wealth of the XVIth century which served as the foundation of modern capitalism. After the defeat, racism turned us into what Wolff called the societies with no history. I would recommend you on this the reading of the book “Guns, Germs and Steel” of Jared Diamond, not a socialist at all by the way, who explains pretty well how the Europeans managed, by a number of circumstances, to dominate societies that were in many ways superior to them and certainly wealthier).

Ps. 2- I decline to comment also on why Latin American colonies (colonies of exploitation) have quite a different story to the colonial USA (a colony of settlement where capital was actually accumulated). I explained that in a previous comment, so I don’t want to repeat my arguments time and again. On that you could read Barbara and Stanley Stein’s book “the colonial legacy in Latin America”.

Ps. 3- ”I don't know what planet are you from - but literaly EVERY developed capitalist county has HUGE social safety net as wellfare or aid.”

I can easily tell from that sentence above what part of the planet do you come from: the USA, and certainly not from the half of the population that relies on the scarce social welfare provided there. Out of Europe and Australia, social welfare is unheard of. As I’ve stated, most of the capitalist countries (all of the world) don’t have any social welfare system at all, not in Africa, not in Latin America, and certainly not most of Asia. I already have given a definition (empirical and based on standard concepts, shared by right, left and centre) of why those countries you reject as capitalists are so. Instead, I still don’t get your basic definitions.

On Freedom and Social Needs:

Capitalism does not create freedom, but actually the illusion of freedom. Noam Chomsky is very good at analysing the various mechanisms through which this is achieved, to varying degrees of success. But in reality, in capitalism your freedom goes as far as you can afford it. How can you be free when people are not directly involved in the process of making decisions that will affect them? Decisions at the workplace, in communities, in the country, are taken with not the most basic sense of democratic rule: those decisions are taken by bosses and politicians and all the majority of the people, or the working class if you prefer, those who live off their wages, can, at best, vote every four, every five or every six years for their next ruler, but cannot have a direct voice in their own affairs. That’s why anarchists believe and hold the existence of councils at a local level, federated on a national level, open to everyone who wants to go and actively participate in the political life of the community.

It is such a community which can better decide what do they want, and how do they want to organise things in society and will accept the participation of all in this decision making process (this, again has been practiced in revolutionary experiences in the past, but nowadays, thanks to the IT revolution it is all made much easier).

In your passionate defence of pornography, you attack my concept of socially necessary work. According to your capitalist frame of mind, anything that creates jobs is necessary so therefore pornography is socially necessary. Following your same line of argument, drug dealing, hitmen, or anything that creates jobs is socially necessary because it creates jobs –the absurdity of such a line of thought is self-evident. But I’ll deal with a bit more in detail. First of all, pornography is only an example that came to mind. If a community decides that pornography is crucial, as crucial as having doctors, I would maybe object it, but would accept majority rule.

So why do I say pornography is not socially necessary? Not because I’m a puritan, what I’m certainly not. So yes, I agree with you that it is not my business if people want to do whatever as long as you rightly say, they do not harm others. As you, I think pornography, from a CAPITALIST MARKET point of view, is a job like any other –but there’s an awful lot of unnecessary jobs in society besides pornography, like soldiers, like models, etc. when I’m talking about useless jobs, I’m not a right wing conservative who believes in the sanctity of marriage above everything. I’m just stating an obvious fact that you don’t seem to get:

-That Humanity does not need pornography or models or advertisement professionals in order to survive.

In society there are certain essential activities that are absolutely needed in order for society to exist with a certain level of comfort: health, food, manufacturing, transports, communications, etc.

People have a need of sex. People are extremely sexual creatures, and the fact that we have created a whole industry of sexual representation out of the very sexual repression, mainly of the youth, is a demonstration of how freedom is reduced to a market relationship in capitalism. The fact that pornography flourishes like nowhere in the extremely conservative and puritan USA is telling of its real social role. While the USA preaches the whole world the moronic teaching that the way to combat AIDS is abstinence, it feeds its own youth an overdose of pornography instead of “the real thing”. In capitalist society, the mass media exists in order to make people live the lives of others, fantasize and thus to be happy henchmen, who get as a consolation of their own sexual repression (and all that shit in US school that they don’t even are told of sex or anything) the possibility of dreaming about others. Wherever you have a sexually satisfied person, you get someone more interested in enjoying her-his own sexuality instead of just watching the TV!

We anarchists advocate free sexuality, that people enjoy their own bodies in whatever way they like, what implies a morality equally distant from neo-conservatives (in power in the world capital of pornography!) as well as that of the “liberals of the brothel”. Both liberals and conservatives will agree in the basics, what it is that, if you can make money out of it, go for it. Liberals will be open while conservatives will be secretive about it. But we defend a different type of sexuality –for us free sexuality is not only about not using force on others, but it is also about proper consent, free of economic pressures, free of the market. As you may see, I’m not at all making a “conservative” argument, quite the contrary!

I’m not talking about prohibiting pornography, and that shows how wrong you are about my argument! If people want to tape themselves doing whatever they are free to do it and to share it with as many people as they want! If that makes you happy, fair play! And if others have the time and the stomach, and also if they are so unhappy sexually speaking to watch you doing stuff that they could be doing themselves, that’s brilliant, you got your audience! But I don’t think in any way you can compare the social importance of a farmer to that of a porn actor. While from a market point of view is a job like any other, it is not from a socialist point of view, where we recognize that some chores are necessary and therefore should be collectively distributed, and some others not being necessary, could be done in the spare time. To put the example of my neighbourhood: I love dancing and often organise parties at home where people dance until dawn. None of my neighbours care as long as I do my chores, such as taking the bins out when is my turn.

The same could be said about pornography: people should first do productive chores and then do anything they want in the free time. An awful lot of tasks (like cleaning, building, caring for the elder, etc.) could be easier going if shared socially among the majority of the population. So instead of having one person cleaning up the toilets of your work, everyday of their lives, you could have everyone rotating and having a day every six months to do it. That way life should be easier and better for everyone. If most people were employed in what is absolutely necessary (as stated above), work in the heaviest tasks could be reduced to three hours a day, so the rest of the day you use it for whatever you want -arts, science, studies, debating, idleness, working harder if you prefer, working in something you like, or having sex (and if you want to tape it and give it around is your own business).

This said, I don’t find it necessary to deal with your non-sensical claims of anarchist Puritanism, segregation and even white-supremacy you seem to derive (with a little bit of bad faith) from my plain statement that pornography was not socially necessary. This is arguing with a straw men, not a very honest way to discuss if you ask me, when anarchism has always being in the forefront of the struggle against white-supremacy and racism, and segregation and even Puritanism, all of them agitated from time to time by capitalist politicians in order to get votes. We as anarchists stand and will always stand for equality, against sexual, racial or class oppression and for freedom to love, freedom to create, freedom to express, not determined by your capacity to pay for them as it is in capitalism.

On Political Persuasion and Freedoms:

This is linked to the problem of freedom. As Chomsky has vastly demonstrated, there’s largely an illusion that we are free when we are not. Convincing, you say works well in capitalism... but how well?

For a start the concentration of the means of communication in capitalist countries is massive and renders the whole point of freedom of information meaningless. Papers, TV, Radio Stations, all of them belong to a couple of powerful business holdings specialized in media, which represent the exclusive class interests of those big capitalists. Alternative media does exist, but in no way is able to compete with the mouthpieces of the rich and when it does get successful, an awful lot of effort is invested by the rich to limit it or even close it.
When it comes to ideas, as soon as ideas that are seen as subversive (that means that challenge the system and propose a different one) spread, they are persecuted. Think of the Red Scare in the USA. Think of the Chicago Martyrs. Think of Sacco and Vanzetti. Think of McCarthysm and the Communist persecutions back in the ‘40s. That, in the very US speaks loads for the limits of “freedom of expression” in capitalist societies. You are free to speak as long as:

1. you criticise the rules of the game, but not the game itself (that means as long as you keep your criticisms within the limits of the system)

2. or if you decide to criticise the system, you will only be tolerated as long as you are not taken seriously. As soon a there’s some following behind you, you will have laws, persecution and even the death sentence waiting for you. The history of the USA is proof of that.

But there are many other examples out of the USA. Capitalist countries are full of laws of exception and every time the capitalists can’t control the rabble, there’s always the resort to military dictatorship.

I do accept that your point on the importance of freedom of expression is of paramount importance for revolutionaries, for we do not want to reproduce a system of censorship, oppression and lack of freedom. And because it is true that most of the socialist currents, being authoritarian, do not give an awful lot of credit to this important right. And because it is true that most revolutions, up to now, where authoritarian revolutions, and not libertarian ones, it is true that the result have been oppressive regimes more interested in building up quickly their own State capitalism than in producing genuine workers control and direct democracy. When you say, however, that every revolution ended up silencing opposition, this is partially true: I say partially, because often during the very revolutionary moments there’s an actual “orgasm of freedom” and different voices and expressed and people can discuss and debate as they never could under capitalism –it is only since one party seized power that this liberation of opinion produced by revolution is curbed down and then suppressed. And it is often in this very moment where counter-revolution starts. If you analyze carefully revolutions, starting by Russia, you will realize this fact.

The problem I see is when libertarian socialists do behave in intolerant ways and are not open to discussion. This I think is something we should fight with all of our energies and I agree with you that it is scary to see people in our ranks who are just not interested in what others have to say. I actually wrote another article in Spanish on this http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=6854

But I don’t think that there are many virtues from the capitalist end of the business. Remember that this society allows us to speak of revolution when it is not possible –but as soon as it looms in the horizons, we are not going to be able to speak of it as freely as we are speaking now. This is not the case in Colombia, it is not the case in Chile, it is not the case anywhere the State feels threatened enough to throw its full weight and give up the “ideological” repression in the favour of “open” repression. I know personally some of the risks of talking too loud, and many people I’ve known in Latin America knows of this fear of people knocking at your door. The IWW knows about this, through their history of repression as they were tried to be crushed. The same could be said about the Afro-American movement. When the system feels threatened they turn anywhere into a Guantanamo.

You are wrong when you said that I don’t appreciate freedoms of liberal democracy: I do. And I do because I know what open dictatorship is like. But I know also that, as long as the “capitalist pigs” as you called them, run the game, the freedoms we enjoy can be done away with as soon as the capitalists don’t feel they look after their own interests anymore. When they feel the rabble has gone too far, they limit freedoms, they declare state of emergency, they do coups, they put dictators, they go for totalitarianism.
Still, this does not excuse the fact that we should build, in the left, a culture of tolerance and a culture of true people’s direct democracy, built on respect and dialogue, and debate. This is important if we want a genuine revolution, one that expands freedom and social justice, to take place. Again, I don’t expect much from Leninism in order to pursue this objective, but anarchism I believe has a lot to say.

ps. The Animal Farm, by the way is a book I’ve read and which is great. You will be surprised to know that was actually written by a socialist, George Orwell, who criticized the transvestite version of “socialism” produced by the USSR. Not only Orwell was a convinced socialist of a libertarian strand, but also he fought with arms against fascism alongside the POUM and the anarchists in the Spanish revolution. Seemingly, the person that should read it again is you: if you read it well, is a staunch defence of socialism and how the USSR ended up subverting socialism in favour of State capitalism, and how the party leadership ended up behaving just like the capitalists. This book is hardly a defence of capitalism –quite the contrary...

by Sam Livingston Sun Mar 23, 2008 15:15

Unfortunately I don't speak Spanish - but I think you are getting your points across very well so hopefully I am not missing too much.

Honestly your response is probably bigger and definitely more impressive then the article itself!

You said:
"The same could be said about pornography: people should first do productive chores and then do anything they want in the free time. An awful lot of tasks (like cleaning, building, caring for the elder, etc.) could be easier going if shared socially among the majority of the population. So instead of having one person cleaning up the toilets of your work, everyday of their lives, you could have everyone rotating and having a day every six months to do it. That way life should be easier and better for everyone. If most people were employed in what is absolutely necessary (as stated above), work in the heaviest tasks could be reduced to three hours a day, so the rest of the day you use it for whatever you want -arts, science, studies, debating, idleness, working harder if you prefer, working in something you like, or having sex (and if you want to tape it and give it around is your own business). "
- Again, I simpathise with that - everyone shares arguous tasks and has fun at all other times - who would be against that!
Couple of questions:
1. Would you allow couple of people excahnge their jobs or time slots if they freely desire so?
2. would you allow people exchange goods and services in their free time again if they freely desire so?


You said:
"1. you criticise the rules of the game, but not the game itself (that means as long as you keep your criticisms within the limits of the system)"
"2. or if you decide to criticise the system, you will only be tolerated as long as you are not taken seriously. As soon a there’s some following behind you, you will have laws, persecution and even the death sentence waiting for you. The history of the USA is proof of that."

- How can you explain then, that while every totalitarian regime was afraid and actively suppresed any whimp of dessent, capitalism actually tolarates critisim as long as it's not mainstream?
- Why don't they stop Chomsky from going on the air and publishing books (he seems known enough to me!)?
- Can you give me any recent examples, like from the last 30 years in US, were someone's ideas resulted in "persecution and even the death sentence"?
- Also how would you explain the fact that long standing communes like Amish in US and Kibbutz in Israel were able to form and are tolerated in Capitalist countries, while nothing similar has such a long record of existance anywhere else?

You said:
"it is only since one party seized power that this liberation of opinion produced by revolution is curbed down and then suppressed. And it is often in this very moment where counter-revolution starts. If you analyze carefully revolutions, starting by Russia, you will realize this fact."
- so, a million dollar question, how would you prevent that regress to authoritarianism after revolution happens?


A word about Orvel:
I look at his book as an ilustration of something that starts out as a good idea, then gets subverted into something ugly and dangerous.
I think he made a very explisit observation of one aspect of human natrue - there can never be a power vacume. The best that people were able to do so far is to put a restraint on it like they did in Capitalist system and even then it's getting subverted by human nature to some degree. Those who seek to exist with no central power - I believe destined to relive animal farm scenario.

A word about Chomsky:
This is just my personal opinion - not to convince you or anything - I understand that you probably respect him very much.
I was a big fan of Chomsky for about 2 years - read a lot of his books, until I started noticing a consistent bias in his works against any western countries and for non western countries regardless of circumstances. Then I started picking up on his selective use of sources - let me explain what I mean: whever a mainstream paper printed something supporting his views he would quote it with delight, but when they published something against his views, he called them tools of corporate propaganda. Also he oftentimes quoted very obscure sources saying "that's what seriouse scolars have to say". I couldn't understand how he thought them serious when some of them hardly had education, or were accepted by any serious organization.
Anyway - soon I hit a saturation point when everything he wrote seemed repetative to me. Then I started thinking - how come with all the changes in the world over the last 50 years he always stuck to his view since he was 13 (as he proudly admits himself). How come over the course of his life he never though he was wrong on any point. And then it hit me: what kind of man always thinks he is right, and never has to change his views regardless of what happens in the world - a fanatic, a true conspirathy theorist.
And that's all he is to me, and sad to say, to a lot of his academic peers at this point.
- please don't reply to this particular point. I am well avare of everything that his critics and his proponents have to say - I am just not interested in that anymore.


I found this very interesting transcript of a debate that I think would of great interest to you. It occured in US in 1921 between two proffesors: one - pro capitalism, another is against. The topic: CAPITALISM vs. SOCIALISM”
I think it's interesting for 2 reasons:
1. They rehash many of similar arguments you and I are going through.
2. We can evaluate their statements through the lenz of time

http://debs.indstate.edu/s466d4_1921.pdf

by José Antonio Gutiérrez Mon Mar 24, 2008 01:13

Hi Sam, hope you are enjoying your long weekend. I’ll quickly go through your points raised and some of your questions:

“1. Would you allow couple of people excahnge their jobs or time slots if they freely desire so?”

Of course! Anarchists hold, above everything, the right of people to decide their own destinies and what they want to do with their lives. One of our problems with capitalism is, in fact, that people in political power and the big capitalists can decide what’s best for millions! I think that, overall, a lot of people tend to think that all socialists are the same as the Leninist current, and that they all demand top-down regimentation of daily life, and so on. When anarchists have always stood up for the opposite: bottom up direct democracy. It is people who should collectively decide how to share the productive and necessary toil so it is democratically distributed among everyone, but then if two persons want to reach to a private agreement of how to distribute things better between them it is fine and it is no one else’s business as long as: the chores get done (if they don’t that would not be fair on others) and that there’s no exploitation involved or cohersive means used in the agreement.

When we talk about councils, or direct or grassroots democracy, we mean mechanisms for decision making that are participatory and inclusive of everyone who will be affected by decision taken. We don’t mean a council above the people, or representing the people, but one composed of those, everyone, who wants to actively participate.

There’s a very interesting French socialist, by the way, called Daniel Guerin. In one of his works he analyzes the socialist tendency of direct democracy and how Leninism took an awful lot from a radical liberal trend, that of the Jacobins, into his own vision of socialism. Needless to say, jacobinism was in conflict with everything most socialists have fought for during the XIXth Century.

”2. would you allow people exchange goods and services in their free time again if they freely desire so?”

Again, the answer is yes. People should be free to do anything they want in their spare time, as long as they have done their democratic share of the socially needed chores. In their free time they can do what their favourite activity is (whether productive or non-productive).

“How can you explain then, that while every totalitarian regime was afraid and actively suppresed any whimp of dessent, capitalism actually tolarates critisim as long as it's not mainstream?”

I think Sam you are confusing two terms there: liberal democracy with capitalism. Capitalism, as an economic system, has existed with a variety of different political systems. Pinochet was a die hard capitalist and so was Ronald Reagan –actually, the two of them were neoliberals indeed. But while one was a brutal dictator, Reagan lead internally a liberal, representative, democracy (his behaviour externally, particularly in regards to Latin America or Africa was more of a “global dictatorship”, favouring authoritarian regimes and movements almost everywhere).

So capitalism can be totalitarian or it can be liberal. Certainly, most capitalists prefer liberal democracy, and prefer to be running business in a society which largely won’t question their class rule and which will be obedient to their economic dictates. They will let dissidents speak all they want, as long as they do not become a threat to the status quo –actually, this works better for them than repression. If they apply naked repression (as a totalitarian regime) then people would immediately feel sympathy towards the persectued ones. The merit of Chomsky has been to demonstrate the mechanisms of social control and ideological repression in “democratic” societies.

They would even let “alternative” lifestyles take place as long as they don’t threaten the system –communes can exist on the margins of the system and they really don’t harm anyone and being closed, out of the mainstream experiment, they will definitely not become a “dual power”. They can accept this co-existence, so as long as the system is not challenged from within.

The problem is that this is only sustainable for some while. In the long term, discontent eventually builds up, criticism mounts, and the “state of emergency” or “exception” has to be declared. And they always resort, as history proves time and again, to totalitarianism as soon as liberal democracy does not work anymore to keep up their privileges. It is a bit like Roosevelt’s theory of the stick and carrot approach.

In the US, they have not resorted to this totalitarian solutions over the last couple of decades because, all and all, the last 30 years have seen quite a weakened revolutionary movement and left overall, compared to that of earlier in the XXth century and up to the ‘60s, which really faced a severe repression (lynchings, deportations, extra-judicial executions, persecution, etc.). Still, the outstanding case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, which has been denounced for decades internationally as an unfair trial and a prime example of political persectuion, stands as a living proof of the limits of the system.

”- so, a million dollar question, how would you prevent that regress to authoritarianism after revolution happens?”

That is indeed the million dollar question. This is the sengle most relevant question that people ought to ask to anarchists. We have to be humble when it comes to this point and admit that the solution to this problem is not an easy one, and I would suspect of anyone coming to me with masterplans and simple minded solutions for such a complicated problem. Because there are many sources for authoritarianism, because people has been raised in the principle of blind acceptance of authority, because culture is very dynamic and does not change over night, and because human interaction is indeed very complex. This said, we do have ideas and insights though which I will explain now that can be useful tools to prevent reversion to authoritarianism. Probably they may be incomplete and need to be developed by practice itself, because at any given moment and in any given place, the problems concrete people face are particular, and I’m very suspiscious of any blanket solutions to be applied anywhere and at all times!

For a start, we believe that State per se, any State, has a tendency towards developing authoritarianism, by taking away the decision making capacity from the people and turning them into ruled ones. The State is, by definition, a political institution that divides society in “managers” or “rulers” and “ruled or manged ones”. The most totalitarian regime has this in common with the most liberal of the democracies. They may have siginficiant differences when it comes to some prerrogatives of citizens –in the most liberal of democracies, these pregorratives can include regular and fair elections of representatives, some crucial issues may be put to national referenda, etc. But all of them take away the power from every day decision making from citizens. So therefore, anarchists reject State in favour of a federated system, starting at the local level, that can make sure people participate actively in decisions which will affect them. Therefore, we do not propose a power vacuum, but power to be socialized, just as resources, just as means of production.

So a full socialisation of life, of means of the economy and of power, are key elements to avoid a reversion to authoritarianism (socialisation does not mean regimentation or uniformity, but sharing the commons and the basics of public wealth)

Apart from building up a grassroots democracy, we believe it is important to keep always a vigilante position –the importance of delegates rotation, of accountability mechanisms and so on can never be overestimated.

Last but not least, education is the key to empower people. And the best way to educate is having open debates, discussion, so I would reject any notion that there’s a single party with the correct line and therefore is the only one allowed to exist. Single party solutions have always proved disastrous from the point of view of education and empowerement of the people. Education and building up a real culture of debate is not only a task for society at large –it is, most importantly, a task for revolutionaries and anarchists to learn as well.

On Orwell, well, literature like any other form of art is open to different legitimate interpretations, irrespective of the intentions of the author. Some people may feel peace at a painting which others feel fills them with anxiety! Anyway, I feel it is important to stress that he was actually a socialist and one who was aware of the risks of authoritarian socialism.

(Cautionary note: I read your suggestion not to reply to your bits on Chomsky after I’ve written this bit, and I’m not in the mood to take it out after writing so much. Sorry for that) On Chomsky, I think personally that he has done a great contribution to progressive movement by his work on how propaganda works as a mechanism of control in societies of “consent”. He’s done a great work and I think he has dealt with your criticisms at different times in his career. I’ll only repeat his own statements as I remember them, so this should not be seen as me excusing him (as I don’t think it is my role to speak on behalf of anyone else), but I have to admit that I thought they were quite solid reasons:

1. On the bias against Western countries: He said once in an interview that his role as a US citizen (he was talking in the times of the Cold War) was to criticize the wrong doings of his own country instead of those of the USSR. He mentions that every day you hear the evils of the Soviet Union, but you are hardly ever told what the West is doing. So that was his role –to criticize the society he was living in and not his neighbours! If you think of today, it is true that awful stuff is going on in Iran, but you would hardly have a trouble if you denounce this in the US. It is a different story when you criticize Guantanamo or if you criticized the Iraq invasion, at least in the beginning and before the fiasco was too evident to be hidden (people like Charlie Sheen or Susan Sarandon got an awful lot of hassle for their opposition from the start).
2. On the selective quotations from the media: that is his main thesis –that Western media mixes facts and accurate statements with propaganda. So therefore he is not selective, but is showing that to slip in one page which is critical to the US amongst thousands who are blind propaganda to whatever heinous action they are doing, fulfills the role of giving the impression of a democratic media, when the bias is all too obvious. He refers a bit to this in the documentary “Manufacturing Consent” when he compars the coverage of atrocities in Cambodia and East Timor.
3. On repetition: I think it is unfair to say he has not changed since 13. Obviouly he has an everyone does. What he referes to is as he has not changed his political commitment and convictions. Of the rest, I think he is quite flexible to understand changing circumnstances. You have to take into account that he is a linguist, so what he does in analysis of discourse of power to justify an unjust state of affairs. And actually what he convincingly demonstrates is that, the mechanisms of ideological control and the discourse of power has not basically changed since the end of the Second World War. So despite all, the arguments of power remain pretty much the same, though some actors change (now it is not the evil empire, but the axis of evil, etc. But if you look well the motives are the same).

I’ll have a read on the transcript as soon as I can, what I don’t think will be any time soon, unfortunately...

by Sam Livingston Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:31

“1. Would you allow couple of people exchange their jobs or time slots if they freely desire so?”
You said: Of course!

"2. would you allow people exchange goods and services in their free time again if they freely desire so?”
You said: Again, the answer is yes.

Ok, imagine this scenario. Every house in a community gets scheduled repairs done by whatever group that's designated upto the task at the time. However one guy wants to improve his house beyond what community is willing to allocate him community labor for. So man makes a deal with a carpenter (who is considered one of the best in a community) to make the improvement for him in exchange for taking on carpenter's duties as a sanitation worker.
They agreed. Carpenter in his free time worked on the man's home and man performed Carpenter's sanitation duties on top of his own. When the job was over a lot more people started wanting extra improvements made to their houses as well and all offered to take on all of his mandatory duties. Eventually carpenter never had to do community chores, he only worked as a carpenter.

My question to you - would you allow the above scenario develop? and if yes - can you imagine same happening for electrician, doctor, others, i.e. can you see how job concentration will happen around skilled people who will not be doing any of community chores?
Would you be against this naturally forming order of things?

You said:
"Capitalism, as an economic system, has existed with a variety of different political systems"
"So capitalism can be totalitarian or it can be liberal. Certainly, most capitalists prefer liberal democracy"
"They can accept this co-existence, so as long as the system is not challenged from within"

-Well if you acknowledge that capitalism can exist in various political systems then why lay all society's ills on capitalism and not on a particular political system it's in.
It seems that, like you yourself admit, capitalism mostly thrives under liberal democracies. And since it tolerates some descent (may be not to capitalism itself, but definitely to political system) we can build a better political social system on top of capitalism. The reason to consider that instead of just pure revamping the system and building it totally a new from the ground up, is because from-ground-up approach leads to a lot more uncertain outcomes. Like you admitted yourself, channeling force of revolution into the non authoritarian path, is not a simple problem. And while, like you said, there are ideas out there on how to go about safeguarding revolution from authoritarian tendencies, none of them, as I am sure you would admit, are foolproof. And I would agree that theoretically you may build a much better system from revolution then we have right now, but you also have to consider the downside - which is significant as we saw in Stalin's and Mao's time. In other words the revolution can not be advocated lightly due to significant potential human cost involved. So would you consider, that it may be more worthwhile to try to change political environment in which capitalist system functions (which is peaceful and you can get a lot more people fired up about it), rather then keep advocating revolution route which is even more uncertain and could prove to be catastrophic (like turning a country back to totalitarianism with repressions and starvation for the next 70 years)?

You replied to my question about example of free speech opression:
"outstanding case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"
-by giving me a since 50 year old example of a man arrested for murder with witnesses - you're saying you can't point to more recent cases in US?
Because if you can't - what other evidence would you require to convince you that US has freedom of speech?

You said:
"But all of them take away the power from every day decision making from citizens"
- Can you give me several examples of most important decisions you want to be making day to day as a citizen, that you can't make today in US or Europe?

You said:
"So therefore, anarchists reject State in favor of a federated system, starting at the local level, that can make sure people participate actively in decisions which will affect them."
- How would delegates or higher councils in federated system be different from elected governors today (is it only the ability to recall them, or there is something else)?
- Also would federated delegates be able to make any decisions? - or every single decision has to be discussed at the lowest grassroots levels?
- And how many levels of councils do you think there should be, between the ground level to the top federal council?

by José Antonio Gutiérrez Wed Mar 26, 2008 20:24

Excuse me if I'm brief, but these are very hectic days for me...

"Ok, imagine this scenario. Every house in a community gets scheduled repairs done by whatever group that's designated upto the task at the time. However one guy wants to improve his house beyond what community is willing to allocate him community labor for. So man makes a deal with a carpenter (who is considered one of the best in a community) to make the improvement for him in exchange for taking on carpenter's duties as a sanitation worker.

They agreed. Carpenter in his free time worked on the man's home and man performed Carpenter's sanitation duties on top of his own. When the job was over a lot more people started wanting extra improvements made to their houses as well and all offered to take on all of his mandatory duties. Eventually carpenter never had to do community chores, he only worked as a carpenter.

My question to you - would you allow the above scenario develop? and if yes - can you imagine same happening for electrician, doctor, others, i.e. can you see how job concentration will happen around skilled people who will not be doing any of community chores?
Would you be against this naturally forming order of things?"

There are some things to be said on this:

1. It is not up to the anarchists to allow (or not to allow for that matter) the above scenario to develop -when I explained what we understand for grassroots and direct democracy, I wanted to make it clear that arrangements on collective work and all the rest should be done by whole communities -and not just by one party or individual in power.

2. Personally, I don't see a problem with the highly ideal scenario above mentioned. As I tried to make as clear as I could, we anarchists believe that decisions that affect two people are the affair of those two people alone. And they are free to decide whatever they want, as long as there's no coercion of any kind (or any form of compulsory pressure) and as long as these decision does not affect the rights of others. In this case, I wouldn't see this happening.

We believe that those directly affected by decisions, should have a voice and vote on them -that's the reason of our basic rejection of State.

3. The idea that people share some tasks (socially necessary work) is not a capricious one -it is born by experience that there will be certain tasks that people will not be enthusiastical in doing, however necessary they may be, and therefore, as people will not been so keen on them, they have to be democratically shared among everyone so no one gets the burden on his or her exclusive shoulders. If there are people willing to do something that others regard as unpleasant, there's no reason to tell this man or woman that he or she can't do more of that labour that his or her assigned lot. Everyone should be free to do with their spare time whatever they want.

Anarchism is about freedom to develop your potentials as a human being and to do what you want to do -in the understanding that we all should have equal social responsibility. As the First International said "no rights without duties, no duties without rights".

If people want to dedicate full time to clean toilets, that's their own business. The problem is that in capitalism it is not the free will of the person that makes this decision, but their social class -that's why abolition of the class system is so important for a truely free and directly democratic society to emerge. I don't know any son of a doctor who decided to be a toilet cleaner. Likewise, most people in the working class would like to do other stuff as well and most of those who take particularly burdensome activities are not quite happy with their jobs.

If there are exceptions, they are that, exceptions and should not be treated as a rule. Our point is that we have to start from the basis that there will be a need to divide collectively certain tasks, so more people can enjoy other activities as well.

"Well if you acknowledge that capitalism can exist in various political systems then why lay all society's ills on capitalism and not on a particular political system it's in."

Because the political system is not the problem, but the economic system that sustains it. Whatever political system is it, under capitalism they will all be in charge of the surplus extraction of workers, with all the nasty side effects that come with it. As long as there is capitalism, even the mildest freedoms will not be secured, for if there's a threat to the system, the ruling class can always resort back to authoritarian solutions.

"It seems that, like you yourself admit, capitalism mostly thrives under liberal democracies."

Not necessarily. Primitive accumulation (the name given to the process of accelerated capital accumulation from scratch, after a war, or at the beginning of the historical process of capitalist emergence) has always happened and need to happen in conditions of compulsory work. Indeed, whenever the capitalist system was in a so called crisis of accumulation, coercive methods were always resorted to. Dictatorships in Latin America are a good example of that, and so was the 1980 dictatorship of Turkey for instance.

"And since it tolerates some descent (may be not to capitalism itself, but definitely to political system) we can build a better political social system on top of capitalism."

The problem is that capitalism, because of wealth concentration, puts the limits to the system. If I can criticize the political system, but not its roots, then I am not interested in that type of "democracy"!

I can't keep going now, I'm quite busy, but I'll try to continue later on, so please I would ask you to wait until then, cheers,