"workers of the world unite 2.0"

[Platon]

The latest from the loudmouth Celente. He is hilarious but I kind of like him. Even if his predictions are exreme, his basic analysis is correct!



I predict (and hope) for revolutions that will end up in 2 different directions -(unless a WW3 comes along and brings us back to -45. But I hope we can stop that). One direction is communism (a decentralized one this time), and the other one towards a sort of anarcho-libertarian system. I think both are fine as long as we respect eachothers views, we engage in fair trade, have NO military, and NO banking system (other than under the communitys control)

National Governments can still exist but 90% of the (very low) taxes should go to the local Govs. where people have better control. The local communities can decide by themselves whether enterprises should be private or collective.

what do you think?

[Amagi]

But communism is not the answer.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

But communism is not the answer.

Jewish bankers keeping thw white man down eh Amagi?

[Koelkastmagneet]

But communism is not the answer.

You can't randomly connect the crimes of a regime with it's offical form of ideology and neither can you blame 'the bankers' for everything, many of them had fewer to do with it than the common man did.

Jewish bankers keeping thw white man down eh Amagi?

It's Jewish Zionist baby-eating Bolsheviks this week.

[Enemy of the State]

Wow, this is unexpected. It's good to see that some on the revolutionary left are beginning to see that market anarchists are not their enemies. Would be wonderful if we could co-exist, and work together towards the common goal of freedom.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Wow, this is unexpected. It's good to see that some on the revolutionary left are beginning to see that market anarchists are not their enemies. Would be wonderful if we could co-exist, and work together towards the common goal of freedom.

Anarcho-Cappies are our enemies.

[Platon]

Wow, this is unexpected. It's good to see that some on the revolutionary left are beginning to see that market anarchists are not their enemies. Would be wonderful if we could co-exist, and work together towards the common goal of freedom.

The biggest problem with market anarchy is that some companies always finds ways to create monopolies and therefore pervert the true freedom of the market. In communism we have the problem of corruption among the leadership, at least in a centralized state.
But I guess thats a secondary problem. The most important thing is to destroy this global financial oligarchy thats ruling the world!

[Bovril]

Wow, this is unexpected. It's good to see that some on the revolutionary left are beginning to see that market anarchists are not their enemies. Would be wonderful if we could co-exist, and work together towards the common goal of freedom.

Depends what you mean by market anarchist. Anarcho-capitalist, which I suspect from your sig link, you are, is an oxymoron. Anarchism is against hierachy and pro-participatory decision making. Private ownership is pro-hierachy and anti-participatory decision making. You guys already stole the term libertarian from us in the anglophone world. We're not letting you have anarchist as well. Of course, private ownership does not necassarily imply markets, and markets do not necessarily imply private ownership. This is an important caveat.

[Count of Montesano]

Capitalism can still thrive and workers can be well-treated and fairly compensated. These things don't need to be either-or. Henry Ford realized that if paid his workers well, they would be able to go out and buy the cars they made.

[Guy]

Capitalism can still thrive and workers can be well-treated and fairly compensated. These things don't need to be either-or. Henry Ford realized that if paid his workers well, they would be able to go out and buy the cars they made.

Slave Labour for Children in Africa



Please stop while you're behind.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Slave Labour for Children in Africa



Please stop while you're behind.

That's slavery man not Capitalism, in a capitalist production system, workers are 'exploited' and 'dominated' but they are free. Marx himself said that.

[Hattushilish]

That's slavery man not Capitalism, in a capitalist production system, workers are 'exploited' and 'dominated' but they are free.

Free to do what? Get a job from the Magical Job-Granting Fairy?

That's not slavery. Read the article. Those kids look for those jobs. They aren't forced to work on those plantations. They're "free" to pick whichever plantation they like.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Free to do what? Get a job from the Magical Job-Granting Fairy?

That's not slavery. Read the article. Those kids look for those jobs. They aren't forced to work on those plantations. They're "free" to pick whichever plantation they like.

Let me quote something

In almost all cases, according to some of the children who managed to return, they ended up in arduous and poorly paid jobs on plantations or in domestic service, often at great risk to their health, sometimes beaten or prey to sexual predators. Eric Bationo, a child in Réo, was kidnapped in 1997 and did not come back until three years later, suffering from gangrene, according to his mother.

Sounds like forced working to me. Kidnapped, does that ring any bells to you? Even in a highly inhumane laissez-faire system like the one of the mid 1800's workers are/were not kidnapped.

And capitalism doesn't force you to work by the way that's why you are free. Please understand that we are talking in Marxist terms here, If I changed the premises for non-Marxist ones things would change radically.

[Count of Montesano]

Slave Labour for Children in Africa



Please stop while you're behind.

You do realize that many of the countries with the worst records in human rights violation and forced labor by children are either Communist or former Communist countries?

I never said that modern capitalism is perfect. I merely pointed out the fact that most of the socialists and communists refuse to acknowledge - it's in the best interests of companies to fairly compensate their employees because those employees then go out and buy products. Keeping employees dirt poor may seem like a great short-term strategy, until no one can afford anything beyond subsistence items like flour.

Discussion of what's happening with bailouts of central banks is another discussion entirely, but I'd argue that it's not capitalism taking place.

[Jingles]

You do realize that many of the countries with the worst records in human rights violation and forced labor by children are either Communist or former Communist countries?

Correct, however only amongst the non-communist ones are all of the above legal.

I never said that modern capitalism is perfect. I merely pointed out the fact that most of the socialists and communists refuse to acknowledge - it's in the best interests of companies to fairly compensate their employees because those employees then go out and buy products. Keeping employees dirt poor may seem like a great short-term strategy, until no one can afford anything beyond subsistence items like flour.

In communism, prices are determined in relation to wages. In capitalism it's the other way around. And in relation to the third world, this is a moot point, since the Chinese/African/Indian workers aren't the ones who are going to buy their products. These workers are what we call Alienated, and as such, it's not in the company's interests to pay them enough to buy their products - it's the magic that is globalisation.

Discussion of what's happening with bailouts of central banks is another discussion entirely, but I'd argue that it's not capitalism taking place.

No, but it is the inevitable cost of keeping capitalism running smoothly. You can't deny that without capitalism there would be no bank bailouts.

[Count of Montesano]

Correct, however only amongst the non-communist ones are all of the above legal.



In communism, prices are determined in relation to wages. In capitalism it's the other way around. And in relation to the third world, this is a moot point, since the Chinese/African/Indian workers aren't the ones who are going to buy their products. These workers are what we call Alienated, and as such, it's not in the company's interests to pay them enough to buy their products - it's the magic that is globalisation.



No, but it is the inevitable cost of keeping capitalism running smoothly. You can't deny that without capitalism there would be no bank bailouts.

Globalization is not perfect, but overall absolute poverty is dropping across the world and hundreds of millions of people can now enjoy the middle class lifestyle. Where would all these poor Indian kids be without globalization? Probably starving or dead. Now, they at least have a shot to work their way up from factory to call center to Microsoft corner office. And don't say that doesn't happen, because I've met dev managers at big Seattle companies with these exact same rags-to-riches stories.

My only rebuttal to the whole "Communism guarantees wages so everyone can live happily" nonsense: Mao's Great Leap Forward.

And final point - there's no proof that the credit crisis was inevitable. With proper regulations, it would never have happened. Unfortunately, politicians dismantled fire walls like Glass Steagal while at the same time pushing their own party agendas (hey let's give housing to everyone with a pulse!)

Besides, in a true capitalist system, there would be no such thing as "too big to fail." The bailouts are one of the big reasons a lot of people are angry.

[Count of Montesano]

Double post - sorry.

[dogukan]

I am member of a Trotskyist party which have contacts with other internationalists parties all over Europe. And lately, we are doing great. More people joining, our voice is heard more and things are changing.
So yeah, WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!
Coordinated worker strikes will change the money flow from banks to people. Hopefully.

[Rextherock]

I miss Marx...He seemed reasonable a tad paranoid but then again who isent a bit paranoid in politics.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I miss Marx...He seemed reasonable a tad paranoid but then again who isent a bit paranoid in politics.

Marx system is completely flawed, even his analysis method the Materialistic Dialectic, would lead him to a never ending cycle of clashes between classes.

Wow, this is unexpected. It's good to see that some on the revolutionary left are beginning to see that market anarchists are not their enemies. Would be wonderful if we could co-exist, and work together towards the common goal of freedom.

Well that's very nice thing to aspire too, but most Left-anarchists will turn Trotskyst when it comes to actually acting therefore, pan anarchism seems not likely, even though in my opinion seems like the most reasonable form of anarchism.

The biggest problem with market anarchy is that some companies always finds ways to create monopolies and therefore pervert the true freedom of the market. In communism we have the problem of corruption among the leadership, at least in a centralized state.
But I guess thats a secondary problem. The most important thing is to destroy this global financial oligarchy thats ruling the world!

And there you go, the famous monopolizing argument, since the rules of market anarchism are...

NO RULES OR RESTRICTIONS.

It's only reasonable to reach one conclusion and that is as long as the rules are being followed none will be able to monopolize anything eternally, and even for a short period of time.When the big guy starts getting bigger a small guy will find a new and more effective way of doing the things that the big guy was already doing, therefore consumers turn to the small guy who in turn becomes bigger, and while that is happening a third gut smaller that the other 2 finds and ever better idea in the same field and he starts competing etc. Of course this is all theoretic and in reality people ca be s, but it seems like a nice ideal to pursue, just like anarcho-collectivism is a nice one too.