(November 18, 2011 at 4:56 pm)paintpooper Wrote: I think we are still doing things 1800's style, but we have 2000's technology. That is a fundamental problem.

Communication
Computers

Why do we need a ruling class, we are all connected. Free ideas can flow, instant communication.
Why can't I vote on bills on my smart phone?
Why do we still work 8 hours a day, I'm sure 8 hours a day in 1900 was way less productive then 2000. So if we increase efficiency we just work the same to generate more product? Why not increase human leisure time.

Wow, you sure work less than we do!
Just 8 hours, and you still complain?

(November 18, 2011 at 4:56 pm)paintpooper Wrote: I think we are still doing things 1800's style, but we have 2000's technology. That is a fundamental problem.

Communication
Computers

Why do we need a ruling class, we are all connected. Free ideas can flow, instant communication.
Why can't I vote on bills on my smart phone?
Why do we still work 8 hours a day, I'm sure 8 hours a day in 1900 was way less productive then 2000. So if we increase efficiency we just work the same to generate more product? Why not increase human leisure time.

The fundamental problem is the same today as it was in the 19th century i.e. the capitalist system ensuring the wealth and power possessed by the few whilst the many are exploited. The ruling class is not interested in giving up its privilege. Never has, never will.
Contemporary technology is always be used by the ruling class to protect its interest. You can't just wish away the ruling class, it exists.
Extending leisure time to the working class is low on the list of priorities for the exploiting class. Profit is the priority, the workers the means of achieving it.
Capitalism is in crisis around the world, so don't expect the bosses to have enlightened policies like working less hours on their agenda.
I grew up in the 1960's and I was greatly impressed by predictions that due to technology, when I reached working age I would not be worrying about how long I spend at work, rather considering how I would spend the extra leisure time technological advances would afford me. That never happened in times far better than now, so don't expect anything other than struggle today.

(November 18, 2011 at 8:20 pm)bozo Wrote:

(November 18, 2011 at 4:56 pm)paintpooper Wrote: I think we are still doing things 1800's style, but we have 2000's technology. That is a fundamental problem.

Communication
Computers

Why do we need a ruling class, we are all connected. Free ideas can flow, instant communication.
Why can't I vote on bills on my smart phone?
Why do we still work 8 hours a day, I'm sure 8 hours a day in 1900 was way less productive then 2000. So if we increase efficiency we just work the same to generate more product? Why not increase human leisure time.

The fundamental problem is the same today as it was in the 19th century i.e. the capitalist system ensuring the wealth and power possessed by the few whilst the many are exploited. The ruling class is not interested in giving up its privilege. Never has, never will.
Contemporary technology is always be used by the ruling class to protect its interest. You can't just wish away the ruling class, it exists.
Extending leisure time to the working class is low on the list of priorities for the exploiting class. Profit is the priority, the workers the means of achieving it.
Capitalism is in crisis around the world, so don't expect the bosses to have enlightened policies like working less hours on their agenda.
I grew up in the 1960's and I was greatly impressed by predictions that due to technology, when I reached working age I would not be worrying about how long I spend at work, rather considering how I would spend the extra leisure time technological advances would afford me. That never happened in times far better than now, so don't expect anything other than struggle today.

Well, I wonder if you wonder when you will be out of work when some machine will replace whatever you're doing right now.
Indeed, you can spend less time at work, however, will you earn the same wage for the less amount of work that you do? And do you actually expect to earn that wage with the less amount of work that technology will do for you? What keeps technology from replacing you altogether then?

(November 18, 2011 at 9:28 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

(November 18, 2011 at 8:20 pm)bozo Wrote:

(November 18, 2011 at 4:56 pm)paintpooper Wrote: I think we are still doing things 1800's style, but we have 2000's technology. That is a fundamental problem.

Communication
Computers

Why do we need a ruling class, we are all connected. Free ideas can flow, instant communication.
Why can't I vote on bills on my smart phone?
Why do we still work 8 hours a day, I'm sure 8 hours a day in 1900 was way less productive then 2000. So if we increase efficiency we just work the same to generate more product? Why not increase human leisure time.

The fundamental problem is the same today as it was in the 19th century i.e. the capitalist system ensuring the wealth and power possessed by the few whilst the many are exploited. The ruling class is not interested in giving up its privilege. Never has, never will.
Contemporary technology is always be used by the ruling class to protect its interest. You can't just wish away the ruling class, it exists.
Extending leisure time to the working class is low on the list of priorities for the exploiting class. Profit is the priority, the workers the means of achieving it.
Capitalism is in crisis around the world, so don't expect the bosses to have enlightened policies like working less hours on their agenda.
I grew up in the 1960's and I was greatly impressed by predictions that due to technology, when I reached working age I would not be worrying about how long I spend at work, rather considering how I would spend the extra leisure time technological advances would afford me. That never happened in times far better than now, so don't expect anything other than struggle today.

Well, I wonder if you wonder when you will be out of work when some machine will replace whatever you're doing right now.
Indeed, you can spend less time at work, however, will you earn the same wage for the less amount of work that you do? And do you actually expect to earn that wage with the less amount of work that technology will do for you? What keeps technology from replacing you altogether then?

The capitalist exploiting class would love to see humans replaced by machines that simply work and demand no wage. We aren't there yet I'm pleased to say. If a time comes when machines can do it all, then I hope the capitalist system has given way to a system that we all benefit from no work and all play, not just the employers.

(November 18, 2011 at 9:45 pm)bozo Wrote:

(November 18, 2011 at 9:28 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

(November 18, 2011 at 8:20 pm)bozo Wrote:

(November 18, 2011 at 4:56 pm)paintpooper Wrote: I think we are still doing things 1800's style, but we have 2000's technology. That is a fundamental problem.

Communication
Computers

Why do we need a ruling class, we are all connected. Free ideas can flow, instant communication.
Why can't I vote on bills on my smart phone?
Why do we still work 8 hours a day, I'm sure 8 hours a day in 1900 was way less productive then 2000. So if we increase efficiency we just work the same to generate more product? Why not increase human leisure time.

The fundamental problem is the same today as it was in the 19th century i.e. the capitalist system ensuring the wealth and power possessed by the few whilst the many are exploited. The ruling class is not interested in giving up its privilege. Never has, never will.
Contemporary technology is always be used by the ruling class to protect its interest. You can't just wish away the ruling class, it exists.
Extending leisure time to the working class is low on the list of priorities for the exploiting class. Profit is the priority, the workers the means of achieving it.
Capitalism is in crisis around the world, so don't expect the bosses to have enlightened policies like working less hours on their agenda.
I grew up in the 1960's and I was greatly impressed by predictions that due to technology, when I reached working age I would not be worrying about how long I spend at work, rather considering how I would spend the extra leisure time technological advances would afford me. That never happened in times far better than now, so don't expect anything other than struggle today.

Well, I wonder if you wonder when you will be out of work when some machine will replace whatever you're doing right now.
Indeed, you can spend less time at work, however, will you earn the same wage for the less amount of work that you do? And do you actually expect to earn that wage with the less amount of work that technology will do for you? What keeps technology from replacing you altogether then?

The capitalist exploiting class would love to see humans replaced by machines that simply work and demand no wage. We aren't there yet I'm pleased to say. If a time comes when machines can do it all, then I hope the capitalist system has given way to a system that we all benefit from no work and all play, not just the employers.

Well, it already has reached a level similar to it in most developed countries.
Like manufacturing and agriculture are now generally done by machines, and where exactly is the labor of a person focused on?
You may actually invent a machine that, say, builds parts faster and more accurately than a human does. However, you cannot replace an engineer, can you now(AI is not really that sophisticated yet, although it is able to perform complex calculus, but again, only with people that posess the know-how to use it), and it cannot replace scientists, that invent stuff, yes?
I must say that the "working class" as we know it, and as it is defined by Marx and Engels(proletariat), will be no more. At least in developed countries.
Besides, it is true that they exploit not just people, but laws, governments, and whatever suits them to increase profit, however the people depend on them for other goods and services. Unless you are independent from these companies, how can you expect to combat them?

mehmet,
In answer to your last question---public ownership replaces private.

(November 6, 2011 at 6:50 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism

Syndicalism is a type of economic system proposed as a replacement for capitalism and an alternative to state socialism, which uses federations of collectivised trade unions or industrial unions. It is a form of socialist economic corporatism that advocates interest aggregation of multiple non-competitive categorised units to negotiate and manage an economy.[1]

For adherents, labor unions are the potential means of both overcoming economic aristocracy and running society fairly in the interest of the majority, through union democracy. Industry in a syndicalist system would be run through co-operative confederations and mutual aid. Local syndicates would communicate with other syndicates through the Bourse du Travail (labor exchange) which would manage and transfer commodities.

Syndicalism is also used to refer to the tactic of bringing about this social arrangement, typically expounded by anarcho-syndicalism and De Leonism, in which a general strike begins and workers seize their means of production and organise in a federation of trade unionism, such as the CNT[2] Throughout its history, the reformist section of syndicalism has been overshadowed by its revolutionary section, typified by the IWW or the Federación Anarquista Ibérica section of the CNT.[3]


In otherwords, to simplify Syndicalism in one word - Its a "co-op".

Rev, I've read the wiki page among others, this answered precisely none of my questions.

Rev Wrote:Well, I wanted to answer your questions, but some of them I could not answer. You may ask "why cant you answer some of them?". If you do, then I figured you would have already assumed that I was advocating at least a limited government.

This is an anarcho system I am describing. This is a Co-op I am describing. If people are not willing to participate freely for a project then perhaps it is not worth doing.

You've got a contradiction here, you can't be advocating both a limited government and anarchism, the two are mutually exclusive.

As for your co-op, in principle there is no reason why a collective can't operate in a free market, people who chose to join a collective in exchange for agreeing to some terms would be acting entirely consistent with a free market - should they believe that participation in the collective is more beneficial than seeking their own opportunities in the market you should have no problem establishing one - There are a number of collectives that have a natural place in such an economy, like buying collectives, insurance cooperatives and the like - Unburdened by the requirements of the state people would be more free and more easily able to form such groups - I'd go so far as to argue that a free market would be the only truly ethical and consistent place for such syndicalism to form, the alternatives in other systems are all uprisings and seizing of property.

Quote:In America Anarcho-capitalists are called "Libertarians" while "Anarcho-socialists" (syndicalists) are commonly refered to as "Anarchists". Left Libertarians have a long history of being demonized, as whenever anything close to a mob forms on the street they are called "anarchists" even though the mass majority of them may be Democrats or Republicans or most are social miscreants.

Rev, Libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism are two distinct things, even in America. Someone who calls himself a libertarian and the says something about the abolition of the state is 'confused'. From the mainstream point of view I'm sure they think there is little to no difference between the two but there is really a fundamental ethical disagreement at the root of the divide, something that in turn yields to very different systems once extrapolated.

It's unfortunate that rioting/protest and anarchy have become synonyms to the public,

Rev Wrote:So now we are at a disadvantage. not only do we see differently on the issue of money, but we also have differences on what we both consider to be efficient. You may consider quick and decent as "efficient". I consider (usually) steady and precise to be efficient.

Maybe if you were more efficient in your questions, then I could answer them efficiently.

Rev, Stop avoiding the question PLEASE. It shouldn't be difficult to answer. I'll state it as clearly as possible:

1. Bob works for the cheese makers union producing cheese. Bob would like a guitar, a computer and a bag of weed.

Question:

1. How does Bob go about obtaining these items given he has no medium of exchange? (please explain in detail)
2. How do the other unions decide what the contributions of the Cheese makers union are worth relative to their own products and whether or not the trade is fair?
3. What if the other unions do not need/want cheese, how does the cheese makers union go about exchanging their products for a guitar on Bob's behalf?
3. How do people know that bob isn't taking an unfair share of goods/services?

VOID Wrote:Rev, I've read the wiki page among others, this answered precisely none of my questions.

Void, I will be more than happy to answer your questions if I can. Please post the exact questions you wish for me to answer and I will try to answer them. I am NOT an expert in syndicalism...but I am patient and always willing to hear your point of view

VOID Wrote:You've got a contradiction here, you can't be advocating both a limited government and anarchism, the two are mutually exclusive.

I understand your misconception. It is a very common misconception. Allow me to give you a quick explanation of why your misconception is common.

This is the symbol of Anarchy:


The "A" = Anarchy. Anarchy is the opposition to LEADERSHIP. Anarchy means "without rulers". Nothing more, nothing less.
The "O" surrounding the anarchy = Order. Most people misconstrue anarchists as "chaos on the street" type people. This is merely demonization. In reality those people are miscreants in the most part, and sometimes are actual anarchists. It really depends on what the situation is.
Anarchists want a stateless and leaderless order.
---
Allow me to also show you an example of another misconception

Now you tell me... do you agree with this image? I USED to. Now I know there is a bit of a difference between Classic Libertarians and Anarcho-capitalists.
---
So, I havent really argued a "limited govt" per se, but more have argued that government and state be replaced by trade unions (which is the exact definition of "syndicalism", French for "Trade unionism")

VOID Wrote:As for your co-op, in principle there is no reason why a collective can't operate in a free market, people who chose to join a collective in exchange for agreeing to some terms would be acting entirely consistent with a free market - should they believe that participation in the collective is more beneficial than seeking their own opportunities in the market you should have no problem establishing one - There are a number of collectives that have a natural place in such an economy, like buying collectives, insurance cooperatives and the like - Unburdened by the requirements of the state people would be more free and more easily able to form such groups - I'd go so far as to argue that a free market would be the only truly ethical and consistent place for such syndicalism to form, the alternatives in other systems are all uprisings and seizing of property.

Exactly. Thats why I avoid using terms like "free market", since they arent very precise. free market does not require capitalism (or in this sense, "monetarism"), nor does it require communism. Free market can dwell under both and many other types of commerce, and can even cross communicate. Right libertarians and left libertarians can be neighbors, though there would be obvious tensions...our biggest commonality would be individual freedoms. Right libs would try to offer us their money. Chances are we might turn our nose up to it, depending on how you value them (left libs DISPISE most if not all artifical currency). It would more than likely be an exchange of commodities upon agreed values of the moment. In other words, barter would be the best method of transaction between left and right lib societies. We will shun credit and other capitalistic tricks and traps.

VOID Wrote:Rev, Libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism are two distinct things, even in America. Someone who calls himself a libertarian and the says something about the abolition of the state is 'confused'. From the mainstream point of view I'm sure they think there is little to no difference between the two but there is really a fundamental ethical disagreement at the root of the divide, something that in turn yields to very different systems once extrapolated.

It's unfortunate that rioting/protest and anarchy have become synonyms to the public,

I think I clarified that in the image above which I said that I now know the difference. I merely pointed out the lacking of American thought on politics.

VOID Wrote:Rev, Stop avoiding the question PLEASE. It shouldn't be difficult to answer. I'll state it as clearly as possible:

Im not doing it on purpose. I am working 60 hours a week of hard physical labor (I have been running a jack hammer for the last 2 days, 10 hours per day...its quite exhausting)

VOID Wrote:1. Bob works for the cheese makers union producing cheese. Bob would like a guitar, a computer and a bag of weed.

You are asking me to predict an unpredictable market. That would be the same thing as me asking you to define all of the variables from a libertarian market and prove to me that it would be efficient.
...now..
These questions are good questions.
In an Anarcho-syndicalistic system, bob would go to what we call "The labor exchange" (the syndicates version of a market). Bob has quite a few wheels of cheese in his posession. He barters them for a guitar and a computer. Chances are that Bob's neighbor has some good shit growing in his back yard, and he will more than likely trade a few good slices of his product for a nice fat sack.

VOID Wrote:1. How does Bob go about obtaining these items given he has no medium of exchange? (please explain in detail)

He does have a medium of exchange. The medium is his PRODUCT.

His cheese



..you said so yourself. He is a member of the cheese makers union. WHAT? You think the union is going to take his cheese? No. they only ask for a percentage of it in the interest of the union itself.

VOID Wrote:2. How do the other unions decide what the contributions of the Cheese makers union are worth relative to their own products and whether or not the trade is fair?

Please remember that a union in syndicalism is the sum of its members. Please also remember that this is NOT an authoritarian community. Therefore the trade union is NOT the government of society. It is merely a collective of, in this instance, cheese makers. they vote up or down on what is best for the trade of cheese. Nothing more, nothing less. if they manage their cheese production poorly, then it may or may not reflect poorly on them.

VOID Wrote:3. What if the other unions do not need/want cheese, how does the cheese makers union go about exchanging their products for a guitar on Bob's behalf?

Every member of an electrical union will not want cheese? Every member of a steel workers union will not want cheese? Every member of every union do not want cheese?
Well, I promised to answer your questions. If every member of every union no longer wanted cheese, then I would suppose that cheese production would stop. Bob would have to find a new trade to get that guitar.

the nice thing is, in a syndicate, Bob would still probably get a few tokes of his neighbors weed (that is if he isnt growing it himself, which it would be legal in this sense), and his other computer geek neighbor would more than likely allow him some computer time to search out a new trade.

Syndicalism is about PRODUCTION. Not paper shufflers, money movers, and overseer foremans.

VOID Wrote:3. How do people know that bob isn't taking an unfair share of goods/services?

LOL, your number system went out the door long ago...LOL

Im not making fun of you...just laughing with you....your questions are good questions.
To answer your question I would say right off hand that he would have his "ticket" displayed publicly while he traded his wares. This would be known as a "dues receipt" showing his level of knowledge in the trade.

Now, if you are asking about wether people can tell if he is a thief or not.. then...well... thieves can be pretty slick cant they?

They can dwell in our current capitalistic society quite openly, and even wield tremendous power...look up BP, Shell, Enron, Aramco, etc...etc...

Rev Wrote:In an Anarcho-syndicalistic system, bob would go to what we call "The labor exchange" (the syndicates version of a market). Bob has quite a few wheels of cheese in his posession. He barters them for a guitar and a computer.

A FUCKING BARTER SYSTEM?

Epic fail, Rev, EPIC FUCKING FAIL.

Last I checked many world transactions are based off of barter.

Said amounts of rice in exchange for said amounts of gold, said amounts of technology for said amounts of food...all based on the agreed upon transaction.

My apologies, I mistook what you meant as "medium of exchange". You obviously meant "medium" as "money".

I thought I made it clear that this was a typically NON monetary system