What is Anarchy?

Which is why I answered you when I mentioned a specific case, if you go
back & read it you'll find your answer there. I was just being extra-cautious
seeing as you'd asked for another poster to clearly define what is meant by
consent to exploitation so I thought I'd give an example of how people
consent to exploitation in the previous example of mine you called into
question. Furthermore, I'll add that it's not only us who'll consent to
this kind of exploitation. The mothers who were told due to the success
of nestle's marketing that this milk was alright for their children consented
to using a product that had to be mixed with water in countries where
drinking water needs to be sterilized. They wouldn't even print the
sterilization procedure's in the correct languages for these people, in fact
they still haven't if you read the links... They also offered free
samples in hospitals to mothers while in hospitals "but because the
supplementation has interfered with lactation the family must continue
to buy the formula. ".
You'd think such a trivial fact about maternal lactation patterns would
have crossed someone's mind :rolleyes:

Whether it's the working class here or the working class in another
country this is what we have to expect from people who are only
looking out for their own self interest as expressed through monetary
accumulation. How, under a libertarian governance, are we to expect
anything better from people who'll not only follow a similar pattern of
capital accumulation but will have less pressure from governmental
institutions to provide some form of safety regulations which do
cost an awful lot to company owners?

Also, I don't think workers consent to company owners organizing
strike-breakers & scab firms that will take the place of the roudy workers
when they demand equality from their benevolent bosses.

I'm not characterizing anyone as anything I've given plenty of links to
back up what I'm saying to try to avoid anyone resorting to some idea of
knocking a charicature, or flogging a dead horse etc... It's just a fact that
these things currently exist, would be worse were it not for the actions of
people striking, labor unions fighting, etc..

Well it's nice to hear idea's being evaluated on the merit's of their size
& not their content, maybe that's why the one sentence comments get all
the thumbs up even when they make points that don't stand up to any
scrutiny... Funnily enough in the thread on Atlas Shrugged I was
hearing the same argument from someone arguing for libertarian ideas
'you're posts are too big' :rolleyes:
When you're dealing with detailed concepts expect detailed answers...

Also, you're response clearly indicates you didn't read my post nor
watch the Pinker lecture nor understood the point I was trying to make...
I was wary that people wouldn't want to sit through an 18 minute lecture
regardless of how interesting it is so I explicitly mentioned just watching to
the 4 minute mark would be enough to get the point across.
Furthermore, the other video was not condescending it was an explanation of the
argument you took @ face value & didn't question. I'm sure it seems
condescending when it's pointing out that you're making assumptions & not
questioning them but really, who's fault is that...?

EDIT: Could you point out where I am defending the current style of government...?
I would do no such thing, I believe it really needs to be sorted out!!!
Again, you're misunderstanding the whole point of me even mentioning the Pinker video,
the reason I brought it up is buried in one of those arduously long posts

Well I was quoting a lot of stuff from Chilean history so that you wouldn't
think I was making that sh*t up, seeing as you didn't agree with what I
was saying I just felt it necessary to give you enough evidence to ensure
I'd actually convince you that you were wrong in what you were saying.
I would think it takes a good bit of evidence from governmental documents
& such to convince you that it was just a free trade myth about Chile.
I just put the quotes in the middle of the page so that you would
differentiate between small quotations & large ones, also the multi-
colouredness was simply for emphasis of the crazy

Guys/Girls I'm just here to learn why you believe what you believe, why
you like/dislike the theory of anarchism if you know anything about it & I'm
also interested in why you'd think libertarianism to be so wonderful.
If you want to talk about the shape of my posts instead that's fine but
that's not enough of a reason to get me to come back to this thread...

McDougal wrote: »

I could easily claim that private property is theft.

Not a chance. The very idea is a contradiction.

McDougal wrote: »

Capitalists have a very strange idea of theft.

It's very straight forward really.

McDougal wrote: »

Socialists do not believe in relying on capitalists for jobs. We believe in public ownership, collectives and co-operatives.

Who creates jobs?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're right, in fact that is the very idea (s)he was trying to argue for.
There will be no need for one person/family/small group to own the
factory & reap the benefits of the workers by exploiting their labor ,
the workers themselves can be in control of the factory as a group
effort, make decisions with an equal vote with no mans opinion/authority
as taking precedent over anothers unless the group agree to that set-up.

The idea of profit does not need to be an oligarchical concept in which
there are losers and winners & the stakes are your house,
living conditions etc... Tell me how a company in which it's
workers are the owners is a bad concept, especially If the factory makes
buckets of money and expands it creates new jobs. But wait, the
new workers aren't
making a healthy profit without leading to the monetary inbalance
we see in the world today. The concept of libertarianism takes
no notice of whether or not a monetary imbalance in the world will
occur "naturally", it certainly would not correct this if it were to happen.
Furthermore, libertarian ideology states everyone is free yet the
workers aren't free to reap the profits of their labor, they are free
to make the person who started the factory huge profits. In many
cases what was the owners input into the set up? Merely a huge
monetary investment. That, under our current society & the one
libertarians advocate, is what constitutes freedom & justification
for raking in the dough...
You see my confusion & bemusement at the idea, that's only further
elucidated when I remember that the classical liberals were propertied men
whose philosophy was certainly in their class interests. The one advocated
today is very similar - as I said in a previous post -
this is not a poor mans philosophy...

If workers who start up factories etc... are given a relatively risk-free
opportunity to create a job in which profit can be made we eliminate the
exploitation, we eliminate the difficulties in life these people face just
coping with house payments, child care etc... They are paid a fair
wage, even if it's menial work, based on the success of the company that
they all contribute to. That to me steals all of the positive aspects of
the philosophy you've advocated & yet encounters none, to my mind,
of the glaring fallacies underneath the surface...

Just this kind of a philosophy can help to construct a society in which
people are actually valued as opposed to struggling due to the absolute
necessity of doing so. Incentives is a word thrown around a lot, that is a
concept you ought to question by applying it to not only the capitalists
but to the workers, let alone the poor who have no work

We've only heard of the capitalists incentive, what about a workers
incentive? Work or die?? It's in a workers interest to form a company
in which they are paid better than in the system currently, yet
this is a relatively rare occurence at present.
Where are your incentives to explain that phenomenon?
The last link on this page outlines just one example of how you can
get a relatively risk-free situation occuring, & it's even feasible in a
capitalist society it would just end the exploitation of workers :cool:

There are still a few billion people who, due to economic disparities,
have little-to-no input into the global economy, and definitely not an input
that is set up such as to ensure it works in their interests, so therefore we
have no idea how much of a positive input they can bring. Needless to say
technology has barely been used in the ways it could. Agricultural,
electronic, scientific advancements are such that we have tools to stop
focusing on profit before people, we can actually ensure all of those
neglected people in the world, both in our own society & others,
have a chance at a better way of life.

As regards socialism, I think people are completely misinterpreting the
concept by thinking about Russia or some other tyrranically centralized
authoritative state...
Socialism is not a way of thinking it's a way of living, i.e. making sure
people aren't made homelesss because of trivial things like paying your
bills. Nor would families have to struggle each & every year to buy their
children school books. I believe families can barely do that now & we need
to provide socialist welfare benefits to these people just to make sure they
can manage.

Has this fantasy idea of workers taking control of the factory ever
occurred before?
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=4930
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/argentina-archives-32/1875-argentine-factory-in-the-hands-of-the-workers-fasinpat-a-step-closer-to-permanent-worker-control-

http://www.marxist.com/canadian-workers-occupy-auto-factory.htm

As we feared, the deal negotiated by the CAW leadership only
provided $400,000 for the workers, which is paid by Chrysler and not
Catalina Precision Products. This is $1.3 million less than what the workers
are actually owed. It appears that Lewenza and the CAW bureaucracy
wanted to do everything possible to bring the occupation to an end before
it spread or became a focal point for a larger struggle to save
manufacturing jobs. Hopefully workers at the next occupied plant will know
not to end their occupation unless a full vote of all the workers has been
taken. (March 20, 2009)

:rolleyes: Goodness of their own hearts...

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Sacked+workers+to+open+new+wind+turbine+factory&NewsID=251015

http://www.sustecweb.co.uk/past/sustec11-6/firms_do_better_when_workers_tak.htm (Great!)

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

(Made it small so the post doesn't look so big :pac:)

I think it's obvious I was using the word factories to refer to jobs in general
as run by an owner supervising it's workers. Maybe socialists do assume
that but nowhere in my post did I assume a factory was in any way a
given or in any way natural. The only a priori assumption I've made is that
there are jobs to be taken in which the worker is not
paid fairly for the work he does and that is wholly dependent on the
confines of the conversation i.e. capitalist/libertarian modes of capital
accumilation in which the wealthy minority form the companies in which the
free members of society must subjugate themselves to the wages dictated
by either the owners themselves (in a libertarian society) or the government
(in ours, unless it's a better job in a capitalist society, then you're worth more...).
I could dredge up much a posteriori evidence to back this up but I think
you understand what I'm saying and know this yourself anyway...

Also, I think it's quite obvious I'm not arguing from the perspective of a
menial worker expropriating the gains of a company because of some
exclusive right to the fruits of his labor but I'm arguing from the point of
any worker who takes a job in which they produce more for the company
than they are paid for - in most cases it's much more & always has been.
At no point have I claimed the person who makes or creates the product
should be deprived - in fact I'm arguing the exact opposite of this. Read
my post again & you'll see that.

I think you'll agree that in our current economic order it is the people who
take the greatest financial risks that stand to make the most profit.
The wager is simple, invest a lot of money in a company in which
others work & if it pays off you stand to gain imensely for years to come.
The people in your "factory" (be it a hotel, a restaurant, a car business, etc...) are the
ones who produce your product day in, day out & they receive a fixed
wage that society has determined. They receive none of the profits &
are given daily quota's to fill, constantly pushed to maximize profits on
pain of reprimand &/or firing. There is no choice in the matter on behalf
of the workers. This is one aspect of why strikes occur...
Explain the fairness in this set up when a company decides to move to
a country where it's cheaper to produce their product...?
Who are the people that got company X successful only to be repaid
for all their hard work by being dropped.

donegalfella wrote: »

You write about "the system" as if it were
set in stone. It's not—it can be redefined by anybody who thinks they can
improve things.

Lol, I included the word "currently" to explicitly point out that it's not
set in stone!!! Of course I don't think it's set in stone ffs, I wouldn't have
included that word if I didn't think it was a variable
Guess what I meant by "at present" :pac:

donegalfella wrote: »

Libertarians have no objection whatsoever
to workers' collectives. If workers can run a profitable factory under this
exploitation-eliminating philosophy, good for them. But history would
suggest that this is not a good way to run a business.

I'd appreciate the historical examples of companies failing because
a collective of workers that formed a company failed due to their
choices & not external ones that any company deals with.

I'm glad you concede there is an exploitation philosophy, now I wonder
how you can convince people that they should give up one system of
exploitation (capitalism) to get them to give up another system of
exploitation (libertarianism) in which they live in a very similar manner
except the governments role is reduced. By government you're arguing
against all of the measures that people through much protest & suffering
have put in place to ensure companies ended the exploitation of it's
workers. Examples are the 8-hour workday, children not allowed to work,
minimum wages etc... etc... You seriously have to look at history &
realise your arguments are to curb, if not reverse, all of the advancements
made by these people.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Should his money give him the right to reap all of the benefit of the
produce his employee's produce for him? His sole source of authority
is the fact he invested money ergo he derives the profit & choice to
either re-invest it in the company, end the company or move the
company to another country in which he can make even more.
This is a freedom conceded by each & every emploee who joins
the ranks of company X & when society is structures so as to
guarantee every company has a very similar philosophy there is very
little leeway in the matter unless worker Y wants to give up a lot of the
other things in life that matter, besides money, to create his own
company. We're creating a society more sharply focused on freedom as
dictated my monetary worth with this philosophy...
A huge monetary investment in a company to get it started should in
no way guarantee patriarchal privelidge over the workers who
produce the product in general but that seems to be the concept that
is most valued...

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No it's not a coincidence they don't live in liberal capitalist societies,
they live in those societies because countries like Britain, France, America,
Holland etc... have spent a great deal of time depriving these people of
their monetary gains by not only stealing people but their industries too.

Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa wrote:

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, and for most o the 19th century,
the exploitation of Africa and African labour continued to be a source for
the accumulation o capital to be re-invested in Western Europe.
The African contribution to European capitalist growth extended over such
vital sectors as shipping, insurance, the formation companies, capitalist
agriculture, technology and the manufacture of machinery. The effects
were so wide-ranging that many are seldom brought to the notice of the
reading public. For instance, the French St. Malo fishing industry was
revived by the opening up of markets in the French slave plantations; while
the Portuguese in Europe depended heavily on dyes like indigo, camwood,
Brazil wood and cochineal brought from Africa and the Americas. Gum from
Africa also played a part in the textile industry, which is acknowledged as
having been one of the most powerful engines growth within the European
economy. Then there was the export of ivory from Africa, enriching many
merchants in London’s Mincing Lane, and providing the raw material for
industries in England, France, Germany, Switzerland, and North America —
producing items ranging from knife handles piano keys.
link

This is a rabbit hole that goes very deep...