Anyone who does substantially better under capitalism than they could hope to manage under anarchism is highly unlikely to work for the end of a system which does alright by them and their family. There’s various arguments you can employ but tbh there’s not a lot of point in spending resources on it when there’s 50 million other folk who could actively gain from a libertarian shift.
a good salary is more addictive than cocaine
WARNING reeking stench of christianity WARNING
Quote:
"will it come down to putting them against the wall if they dont repent?"
[/reeking stench]
there's a great poverty in all the "wealth" people are rewarded with for collaborating in their own destruction and in the destruction of all the world's natural wealth. everyone realizes this sooner or later. the hierarchies are all shot through.
i think you're right that charity slows society from deteriorating; it also provides tax breaks. when you have a huge amount of money, the state will be trying its best to take it from you to build its bombs and make its wars, and so you have to waste it on, for instance, in the financial sector, by buying a company to drive it out of business. This doesn't fit too well with the 'plain and simple' concept of capitalism as a way to profit off productivity that a lot of people seem to have -- strangely enough, business actually sabotaging production to control prices, and financing unproductive garbage is actually even more a part of it; you can declare a loss, and then write off everything and save the big money you've already got, so that's a way bigger motivation for charity than the awful suffering of human beings for the ruling class is.
no one is doing substantially better under capitalism than in anarchy. everyone's miserable now, rich or poor, whether they admit it or not. Why else would the 'doing so well' ruling class have such high percentages of prescription mood drug use?
there's billions of people on this planet who would not only actively gain from, but absolutely need, everyday, to have non-hierarchical structures and self-organization, and they employ anarchy in that way every day. total self-management would only amplify that already dominant characteristic of the lives of the majority of people; no one needs to be 'put against the wall' (i'm sure you're kidding, but if not that's some stalin/nazi/pol pot shit right there.) for that to happen, and they probably won't need our "education" either, but to have things happen in their lives that activate their thinking. You can be a part of that; but the latin root of the word 'education' (e = out, ducere = to drive) implies you driving something out of them that they have to get rid of themselves, their own inhibitions about facing the misery at all levels in this civilization and acting to stop the causes of that misery - hierarchy, money, and all the various other gods.
Quote:
no one is doing substantially better under capitalism than in anarchy. everyone's miserable now, rich or poor, whether they admit it or not.
Well thanks for that not-at-all sweeping statement, that's me put in my place 
.
Quote:
Why else would the 'doing so well' ruling class have such high percentages of prescription mood drug use?
Stats please?
well, according to the us Dept of Health and Human Services, 200.7 billion dollars were spent on "personal health care expenditures for prescription drugs." 25.4% of that money was out-of-pocket, and 47.4 from private health insurance. Only a mere 18.6% of it came from medicaid, 2,0% from medicare, and 6.6% from other state sources. in other words, since it's primarily the rich(er) who can afford private health insurance and to pay out-of-pocket, we can conclude just from these stats (which admittedly are not exactly the specific stats you're looking for -- you could probably call the DHHS for that) that the upper classes are doing a lot of prescription drugs, since they're the only ones who can really afford to pay for them like that; most of those drugs are mood altering drugs, which are huge sellers for the pharmy industry; check the sales volume for the popular brands and see. we know from other reports that "One in 10 American women takes an antidepressant drug such as Prozac, Paxil or Zoloft, and the use of such drugs by all adults has nearly tripled in the last decade, according to the latest figures on American health released yesterday by the federal government," and "Overall, 44 percent of all Americans, including children, were taking at least one prescription drug in 1999-2000," and it's apparently been following an upward trend since then.
thus, this is definitely not the poor that are filling themselves with anti-depressants that, at around 3 bucks a pill, can cost hundreds of dollars...
i hope this clarifies what i'm trying to get at here; a good salary may be more addictive than cocaine, but the anti-depressants and anti-anxiety pills that you'll probably need to be poppin' to keep your mind together under the pressures that getting that all-too-dissatisfying 'good salary' requires are pretty addictive too, and their heavy use is indicative, in my humble opinion, with the fact that MONEY IS NOT, and never can be, A SUFFICIENT COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF YOUR LIFE. i think you know this though, and I think that most people figure it out eventually too.
Those prove nothing. All the first one shows is that a lot of rich people are on prescription drugs, it doesn't say what those drugs are for (AIDS? Flu? Smallpox?). All the second one shows is that a lot of people are depressed and some of them may or may not be rich.
But lets assume that you’re right for a moment, I’m prepared to accept that it might be – I’d actually be pleased if that was the case.
The problem is that it doesn’t matter in terms of agit-prop, because as some might say it’s a hell of a lot easier to cope with being depressed if you’re rich than if you’re not. Why on earth would you give up the security and pleasures of wealth for the dubious possibility that you might be a bit happier after an upheaval which divests you of all your privileges and power, which pits you against your friends and family and is likely to end up with you being shot either by your old side or your new one?
well, because you suddenly realize that there's more to life than money, power, and eternal salvation, and spontaneously decide you want to, or because you find yourself in a situation where you have to make that choice, or because you see through the poverty of wealth and are alienated by all the back slapping bullshit you have to put up with in those milieus.
Quote:
well, because you suddenly realize that there's more to life than money, power, and eternal salvation
Erm, many of them have, that’s why they read the guardian, dress up like hippies, do yoga and go to festivals. Doesn’t mean they want to give up the mansion and Beemer while they do so. You’re working on the premise that people will make a lifestyle choice to back revolution. Why should they when they can do what they fuck they like without one?
Quote:
because you find yourself in a situation where you have to make that choice
They often do, and they usually back the status quo.
Quote:
or because you see through the poverty of wealth and are alienated by all the back slapping bullshit you have to put up with in those milieus.
Again, you’re working on the basis that these people suddenly decide to be nice and have a Jerry Macguire moment – it’s just not going to happen and it’s not worth anybody’s time when there’s far more people who aren’t rich and stand to materially benefit from change to talk to about it. I’m not saying don’t big up anarchism if you end up chatting to Lord Porky, maybe you can tap some of that cash, just don’t waste time targeting rich people specifically.
i'm not working on any premise, just playing . i don't think anyone's going to decide to have a jerry mcguire thing, it doesn't matter... capitalism will destroy itself better than revolutionaries ever could, and then we'll see how well prepared all this theory-drenched time wasting has made us
anarchyjordan I'm getting really tired of this bollocks anti-intellectualism you've got going on. One of the reasons you're getting comprehensively trashed in pretty much every argument is because you don't know enough to argue your case. Ignorance is not something to be proud of. Theory is a tool to help understand why things happen the way they do, it's not some sleight of hand being used to pull the wool over your eyes by trickster politicos. I say this, incidentally, as someone who has NOT read a lot of classic theory, because I rarely have time to do so.
I didn’t say it was a priority of mine, I said I was getting tired of you constantly swinging that chip on your shoulder around like some kind of war medal. If it was because you had something amazingly insightful to say which was stifled by the debating style of others it might be fair enough, but mostly you’re just embarrassing yourself when you come up against people who actually know what they’re talking about, which suggests you need to learn more, rather than whinging about everyone else being too intellectual.
Quote:
capitalism will destroy itself better than revolutionaries ever could, and then we'll see how well prepared all this theory-drenched time wasting has made us
If this is so, why are you bothering, shouldn't you be hanging with some primmos preparing for survival after the collaspe?
Quote:
n my humble opinion, with the fact that MONEY IS NOT, and never can be, A SUFFICIENT COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF YOUR LIFE. i think you know this though, and I think that most people figure it out eventually too.
Even if this is so, how do you think people get from here to 'anarchy'?
when did i "whinge" about people being "too intellectual?" here's something amazingly insightful - a good salary is nowhere near as addictive as mocking others from behind a veil of anonymity. i have no chip on my shoulder, but i do see a lot of pretty pointless and unnecessary put-downs on these forums...
"theory ...isn't some sleight of hand being used to pull the wool over your eyes by trickster politicos"
regimented ideology is, though. i
"embarrassing yourself when you come up against people who actually know what they’re talking about"
guess i shouldn't say anything on these forums without running it by the experts in what you're talking about to make sure it fits the orthodoxy then? and i don't actually think too many of you know what you're talking about as much as you'd like to think. if you did you wouldn't be practicing talking about it on some website.
you guys have a nice little insular community on here where you talk about your vacations and stuff. i guess it should be private.
Quote:
Quote:capitalism will destroy itself better than revolutionaries ever could, and then we'll see how well prepared all this theory-drenched time wasting has made us
If this is so, why are you bothering, shouldn't you be hanging with some primmos preparing for survival after the collaspe?
well because i don't feel unprepared.
Quote:
n my humble opinion, with the fact that MONEY IS NOT, and never can be, A SUFFICIENT COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF YOUR LIFE. i think you know this though, and I think that most people figure it out eventually too.
Even if this is so, how do you think people get from here to 'anarchy'?
is anarchy a place? can i go?
but anyway, as a completely separate question... i don't know how people get from here to anarchy. it's part of everyday life, it's a tension in society, but i don't think it's something people can get to, but rather something they make right where they are...
relative to society as a whole, there will never be a perfect society, if that's what you mean by "anarchy," but there can certainly be a far better one if we combat state, gods, and capital, as you well know.
otherwise, they can swim, bike, walk, roll, wander, stumble, crawl, hop, ski, or slip there among other ways
What i am asking is ... how do think we can realise this as... a tension in society? it's part of everyday life... something they make right where they are... how do we generalised this? or do we just wait fo the collaspe ? I am so glad your prepared for life after capitalism, but i am a little curious to know what you think it might be like, since you seem to be suggesting a somewhat post-apotalystic senario.
generalize it by being more social, more friendly to people, more cooperative, more active. increase the tension by agitating and organizing, speaking and writing, being creative about it.
i'm actually not thinking post-apocalyptic scenario, actually the total opposite... apocalypse is too religious a term for my taste, but in terms of destruction and havoc, that's capitalism for ya.
after capitalism (if we make it) we'll have to remake life in society so totally that it's hard to speculate on what it'd be like... but i think enough non-hierarchical communities have existed and continue to exist that one can imagine a generalization of that...
whenever any europeans who'd come to their 'new world' were captured by the native peoples, not a single one ever wanted to go back with their fellow europeans when liberated. there is not a single case. every one of them wanted to stay in that anarchy (this according to a book i read recently)...imagine a native american society that develops known technological devices into non-polluting, multi-purpose tools, and is in touch with nature while being able to apply all our modern scientific innovations to its cultivation in a non-destructive way, and you might be approaching what i would like to see (not that i probably will, since they're hurtling towards the abyss faster every day with their pollution, war, greed, etc. and i don't know for sure whether people can make radical social change fast enough to counter-act it, although i certainly hope it's possible and am always creating stuff/writing/talking/playing/working in support of it)... what do you think?
Oh I’m sorry, is your name really anarchyjordan? That must have been tough at school. As it happens I have very good reasons for maintaining my anonymity, it has nothing to do with the manner of my posting, and I’m not mocking you I’m criticising aspects of your behaviour which are a waste of your time and the time of others.
Having a go about ‘theory’ is one such, it’s a meaningless attack on the unknown rather than a thought through criticism of something you’ve taken the trouble to learn about. I mean revol sometimes says similar things about aspects of class theory being pretentious crap, the reason he can get away with this is because he’s actually taken the trouble to read up on it before he dismisses it and can defend his views when pressed.
This crap about “theory-drenched time wasting” doesn’t even make any sense on your own terms, you really think that your position on Iraq is not an example of theory? Are you toting an RPG launcher in Baghdad while you write? Clearly you’re quite happy to gab about stuff you’re interested in, but heaven forbid that anyone talk about stuff you don’t immediately understand or find long-winded.
Quote:
guess i shouldn't say anything on these forums without running it by the experts in what you're talking about to make sure it fits the orthodoxy then?
No, I’m saying before you start mouthing off you should learn about the subject you’re criticising. You wouldn’t try and tell an electrician about their job without having learned a bit about wiring first, because you’d make a dick of yourself - and this is no different. I’m not saying you should kowtow to anyone else’s views, I’m saying you should strive to be informed before you disseminate your own.
Quote:
if you did you wouldn't be practicing talking about it on some website
Why? No-one here has ever pretended that there’s nothing left for them to learn, and practice, as they say, makes perfect.
anarchjordan: I don't write much in the forum, I read alot instead and that is not because I am shy and feel my kung-fu is worse than others, it is just that I am really interested in other peoples positions on stuff. I am not saying it is true, but it appears as you are not that interested in what other people think. In some threads here you stressed the importance of getting out on the streets and interact with people instead of just inbreeding within the anarchist ghetto. I think it is really important reaching out of the ghetto so I agree with that. The thing is though, if you were to dismiss people and ideas as quickly and as shallow IRL as you do on here that approach wouldn't work for you. I believe that if you listen to others they are more inclined to listen to what you have to say. That might work on libcom as well, Try it.
shallow IRL? what, ireland? yeah, most of the irish people who've dissed me on here are particularly foppish
i read all their shit and permit myself a different opinion, a different approach, and a different style. they don't like it because of their stupid orthodoxy, not because 'i'm not listening.'
the way they treat people is markedly authoritarian, but they call themselves libertarian communists.
pathetic.
i pity the country that falls to the libcommie uprising if it's going to be led by these people (since they obviously fancy themselves leaders or at least experts in 'theory').
anarchyjordan wrote:
i read all their shit and permit myself a different opinion, a different approach, and a different style. they don't like it because of their stupid orthodoxy, not because 'i'm not listening.'
the way they treat people is markedly authoritarian, but they call themselves libertarian communists.
pathetic.
Arguing with some one is authoritarian now? Shit I didn't know, now you've told me that I'll just accept every thing anyone says and tell them how great they are 
Thank you anarchyjordan for you are truly wise.
Jess wrote:
I want a job with a good salary and where everybody does cocaine pls.
I second that, except shrooms rather than cocaine
Anyways, I read some Michael Albert thing ages ago and he reckons that managers are part of a new class called the co-ordinator class or something. What are peoples thoughts on this? I've forgotten where I read this so I can't paste any quotes, but I think he lumped doctors and solicitors in there too.
Non-Proprietary Libertarian Socialist wrote:
Does anyone have info on how the middle class comes into the issue of educating The People about class? It seems to me that "management" is an invention of the capitalist meant to do most of the oppressing for him.
My current manmager took the job because he just had two kids, he;s perfectly aware the company I work for is shit, he works 50 hours a week for them and hes not an idiot, but he couldn;'t see who else was going to pay him close on 40k. What exactly do you propose your going to offer the guy, and how exactly do you imagine our going to ''educate'' him? Point is you've got nothing to offer him in material terms and i'm pretty sure he's well aware capitalisms shite.
And seriously lose the moralistic nonsense and the macho stuff about utting this or that person up against the wall. Especially when at the end of the day you've stuck people who are just well paid workers, (ie doctors, solicitors and so on) in with small business owners or people who are employed specifically as managers when clearly the only common denominator is that they both earn a decent salary. Now in my book thats just asceticism (the idea that we should all live in poverty) and its not exactly a good place to start when thinking about changing society. especially if your thinking on a global scale.
Tree wrote:
Jess wrote:
I want a job with a good salary and where everybody does cocaine pls.I second that, except shrooms rather than cocaine
Anyways, I read some Michael Albert thing ages ago and he reckons that managers are part of a new class called the co-ordinator class or something. What are peoples thoughts on this? I've forgotten where I read this so I can't paste any quotes, but I think he lumped doctors and solicitors in there too.
I think that managers are part of the working class but that there jobs are opposed to working class interests, I don't think this makes them a different class.
I prefer weed
Yeah lots of people think that in an anarchist society we will all be eating turnips every day in the week, We will need to stress that we believe people will live better, not worse under anarchism.
In capitalism the ruling class is small so they need to create layers in the working class which can fight each other. Workers fighting against supervisors, managers and team leaders while they roam free. But I would call them middle-class no? 
long time reader, first time poster, so please be gentle.
as a member of the management sub-class, i find that my own position has much more in common with the average worker than the men who as a clique own and set the controls for the organization I support with my labor. My job is less to exploit the worker than to ensure that our common master's exploitation goes off as planned. I try to view my position as an opportunity to organize the labor of other employees in a way that makes it most efficient for their wage-labor and energy, I give as much slack as I can for family concerns, and try to work in a way that makes this ideology real. this is not intended as an excuse, but rather as explanation, and i understand that my guilt is obvious in the other worker's exploitation, so to counteract this i try to educate the workers about their exploitation by providing them information about the inside of the organization.
education, it seems to me, is the most difficult part of organizing for revolt. I am trying to set my life on a track that doesn't end in my continued exploitation, I tell everyone I meet that my goal is to "get off the treadmill". but i digress. the workers I work with are generally high school students, immigrants, and convicted criminals, and from these three groups we draw a very limited number of shining intellects. beyond that, they are utterly ignorant to the lines of our class society. also, the workers are so trapped in their estimations of the futility of revolt that they cannot see that if they had the courage to do so they could strip the master's whip from his hands.
so i am making plans to abandon my attempt to position myself as shield for the workers against my bosses for more liberty for myself.
Jess wrote:
I might move to LA and take pictures of Britney, I hear its quite lucrative.
yep you can get 1500 bucks a pop... nah fuck it you should just stay in brighton, at least there you have free medical care for when bodyguards of the celebrities you're snapping shots of crack your skull...
they're pretty crazy around here. i've seen papparazzi guys do some weird shit ... i think it's probably a combination of a "job" that's high payin' and a brain that's high on 'caine.
Does anyone have info on how the middle class comes into the issue of educating The People about class? It seems to me that "management" is an invention of the capitalist meant to do most of the oppressing for him. But a decent/high salary, partial ownership and health benefits often masks the fact that the the manager is still one of the People and is being oppressed by the capitalist class. The well paid employee who takes home a good share of surplus income probably wont be very receptive to egalitarian ideology. In addition to managers of corporations, there are well off, if not well to do, self imployed professionals (physicians, lawyers, architects, etc) who own companies and employ others while simultaneosly whoreing their services and expertise out to clients. Often times, these people will give a portion of their profits to charity. But how can we get them to understand that donating to charity is like putting a bandaid on cancer. In fact, charity slows society from deteriorating to the point where revolution is necessary. Although I would like to educate them before the coloquial hitting of the fan, will it come down to putting them against the wall if they dont repent?