Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

So I got in this debate the other day

Discussion in 'Anarchism and radical activism' started by anthonyjosafiend, Jun 22, 2010.

  1. anthonyjosafiend

    anthonyjosafiendMember Forum Member


    24

    0

    0

    Oct 8, 2009
     
    It was about Anarcho-syndicalism, and the person I was debating, their pro-capitalist argument was this...

    "Pretending to be anti-authoritarian while advocating the forceful denial of the private acquisition and production of capital is hypocritical and wrong. If a little village where everyone knows everyone else unanimously decides to share all ownership of their collective capital, that's great. Apply it at any scale greater then that and you will with out question need a forceful governing body to keep people like me from being greedy capitalists and hoarding wealth. Thus the failing of AnSyn, it has no application outside of little sovereign micro-communities."

    I could only counter that with (my argument) "Are saying private property and wage slavery is freedom? Can't many Micro-communities, make up a country? Aren't they called Towns, Cities, and States? And no one is saying you have to stay if you perfer a diffrent ideology (in your case capitalism). There wouldn't be a Government saying you can't privatise here, it would be your peers. If you're not a colective, you have mangers, and don't have a union (ie. private bussiness) no one would want to work for you in this sort of society. Therefore you couldn't embrace capitalism, if none of its infastructure is accepted by anyone. It isn't a government, it's a general consensus, of the populus, against capitalism, amoungst other things."

    Correct me if I'm wrong in any way...

    What would your argument be?
     

  2. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,720

    171

    716

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    I would just shoot him! No but seriously your argument was the right one but realistically it would be more than one person feeling as he does and that's where armed struggle is necessary to the process and Anarchism does become Authoritarian to prevent Counterrevolution, sad but true....
     
  3. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    I think he'll go bankrott on his very own heap of trading goods - 'cause I wouldn't have a single reason to work/slave for him or buy something from him.
    Why buy something from his business - when my syndicate is supporting me with everything I need 'cause I'm part of the local community with all my abilities and needs. If the local syndicate isn't able to give me a specific item 'cause there is no local production, the syndicate will be able to trade with another syndicate if I and all the other people of my group agree about the need to do so. Trading between groups will be a way to avoid only personal interest and capitalist ambition.
    Another Idea: Some claim that it will be necessary to abolish the money system because it's vital for capitalism, making an easy way to accumulate profits/values/worth. You can sleep quite comfortable on a shitload of papermoney, but it's not that comfortable to sleep on a big heap of safetey pins you've produced to sell them to rotten 77'scum like me. Somebody still trying the banking business will run out of storage space if a Anarcho-capitalist is trying to deposit his property...
    You can still embrace capitalism, it's up to you - but I can't see the reason to do so - blinded by the sheer number of glorious collective alternatives...
    It's just the problem that people everywhere are used to the ol' system, but we can tell them/ show them just to make it better, maybe...
     
  4. kaoskat

    kaoskatActive Member Forum Member


    36

    0

    3

    Nov 16, 2009
     
    You'd think the recent collapse of our economy would be all the argument you needed. Eventually the people with more goods/property etc do everything they can to keep it--which means avoid paying the people slaving for you, while getting the most work out of them possible, and then making pacts with other capitalists in a "if you can't beat them, join them" routine that ends with even MORE abuses. I reasearched the hell out of early colonial America, with a focus on Philadelphia history. Our country's first politicians were businessmen, because the logic was that successful businessmen are smarter, more educated, and have more invested in the country/state/city than everyone else. But they were BUSY and didn't want to take responsibility for stuff like making sure the streets had gas lamps and that they actually got lit--it got to the point where a guy got threatened with jail time for trying to refuse the office of mayor. So they started hiring people to represent them. Our first politicians WERE the lobbies--basically thugs hired by businessmen that didn't want to take time away from their businesses to actually run things. They stuffed the ballot boxes, threatened people, and gradually grew more refined in their tactics from there. So the concept of "taking our government back" gets a lot of cynism from me--it was never ours to begin with! We're just trying to take our government, period! But hey, I'm preaching to the choir here.

    When I tried explaining that, WITH the facts to back it up -- /points at the Philadelphia: A Three-Hundred Year History, among other things.
    I was dismissed as having a too-cynical opinion. People keep using that word, I do not think it means what they think it means. Anyway, as far as I can tell, people want to keep finding excuses why capitalism works, because it's all they know, and they' still have fascist Cold War stuff stuck in their heads. But in the meantime, capitalism gets to keep repeating the same fucked-up pattern, and collapsing, and nobody will admit that in it only works for the few people that make it to the top of the pyramid--and that's only if you don't count the dehumanising aspect of what it takes to be a successful captitalist. I think its hurts everyone, personally. Capitalism is like the sociopathic dog--it doesn't care who feeds it, it'll still bite you in the ass.
     
  5. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
     
Loading...