You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Decentralized Collectivism
Crapitalism is responsible for the grotesqueries of the state because the state uses crapitalism to finance it's self.
Aside from the atrocities brought to us in the name of government, how would an oligarchy of crapitalusts differ from what we have now?
Keep working, stop paying, and the oligarchy is powerless to stop us from equalizing things a little, and ending wars, poverty, and human trafficking.
As long as there is profit in misery the crapitalusts will bring all we can afford.
So if the state practiced communism, would you be as quick and willing to blame these problems on communism?
Capitalism is simply a system of economic organization that is born out of property ownership, which is an a priori fact, and is couched in voluntary exchange. Without the state to pick winners, to shore up the losers at the expense of everyone else, and to make it impossible to engage in commerce except for those that have politicians on their speed dial, capitalism doesn't do harm to anyone. Monopolies might form, but they would either be competed out of the market, or they'd continue because there is no demand for additional firms. Moreover, companies wouldn't be able to force people to buy their products. Without the government and its fictional authority, capitalism is no more harmful than any other system of voluntary exchange. The only reason I espouse it as opposed to communism is because communism necessarily prohibits the ownership of property, which violates a fundamental truth that everyone demonstrates any time they do anything with their bodies. Capitalism acknowledges this, and acknowledges that exchange is the primary driving force of prosperity; it can be not other way and still claim to be moral.
My article hints at the fact that both of these systems are faulty. Communism, because centralized control is inefficient and easily corruptible. Capitalism, because it inevitably leads to juggernautic growth by emphasising greed for its own sake. This leads to a different kind of corruption, legal, but immoral.
I have one option if I want electricity. I have one option if I want water waste disposal. I have one option if I want access to cable Internet. Furthermore, as corporations agglomerate our options are reduced. Unfortunately neither the customer nor the product is primary in capitalism (as it is commonly practiced). Return on investment is.
Decentralized Collectivism, as I will argue in further articles, inherently keeps organizations and power local and more evenly distributed among its members. The co-op model still rewards innovation and competition between organizations while simultaneously promoting internal cooperation. Co-ops tend to be small enough that all of its members are easily humanized. The runaway, dare I say cancerous, growth of corporations makes dehumanization all too easy. As stated in the article, member-investors are primary in a co-op. When these members are also customers—rather than workers as in a workers' co-op—that means focusing on product quality is focusing on customers is focusing on investors.
By merely co-opting the structures that are the multinational corporations we can usurp control from the money masters by simply continuing to do the work, but neglecting to account for it in dollars.
If you currently make widgets, instead of paying for the materials and adding your value so that you can have a profit, you simply continue to supply your widgets to the demand, except now you don't have to pay for materials and you don't get paid directly by those you supply.
Instead of paying to go to the opera and supper, you just go for free.
Those workers are working off their social obligations by providing this work for you to enjoy for free, just as you provide you widgets for free.
Yes, it is a paradigm shift, yes, it will take some amount of time to retrain the populace, yes in some places shortages could occur, but if you don't like what we have now, there is not shorter short circuit to what they have done than just continuing to do the work and stop accounting for it in dollars.
I hope you don't try to put my proposal in the same box as the failed proposals that have come before, yes, it looks like anarcho-communism, no, it shares nothing with state communism, no, it is not doomed by the same facts that doomed the previous anarcho-communists, ie, the centralized distribution system that is walmart, target, etal didn't exist to be coopted in the first part of the 20th century when these ideas were put to paper and orated in the cities by Emma Goldman and Alex Berkman.
Yes, it is possible to live in a world where everyone works, and everybody eats for free.
That the people that have foisted this matrix on us disagree is in proportion to their benefit from the way things are.
If your slavery is comfortable enough, why would you want change?
If you don't know that crapitalism makes the poor slaves of the rich, you have more reading to do than my sound bite can give you.
The reason you know marx's name, and not Bakunin's is because Marx was a tool of the banks used to eradicate the thinking of Bakunin from the common knowledge of the masses.
In your case, it has been successful, presuming you are supporting crapitalism.
It hasn't been totally successful, plenty of anarchists still out there, more every day because of the internet making the ideas reachable by the masses.
Keep working, stop paying, end the dog eat dog paradigm of the crapitalusts!
Capitalism doesn't actually lead to juggernautic growth without state protection. The merger boom of the late 1800s, back when there was a great deal more competition than there is today, ultimately failed as the larger, bloated firms couldn't cope with their smaller, leaner competitors. And the profitability behind these mergers (new capitalization and issuance of stock) was often the fuel for the new competition. It wasn't until government began "regulating" the trusts (ie, protecting them) that larger and larger firms could hold market share and drive out competition. EF Schumacher in his book Small is Beautiful illustrates how gigantism doesn't naturally work in an economic environment.
As for encouraging greed for its own sake - raw capitalism encourages a server's mentality. When facing competition, you can't profit without serving your customers and adding value to their lives. It's only once government protects firms from competition that a mentality of greed can take over, because the firms and the people in them are no longer forced to win over the consumer. They need to only win over their corresponding government regulatory agency.
Looks like I can't reply directly (because the thread has gotten to expansive?), @freebornangel. While I agree that the gift economy model is morally superior, do not discount how much effort it will take for this to supplant the current global economic framework. I believe the first step is to develop sustainable co-ops. Next intentional (particularly urban) communities will develop. Many of these communities will slowly switch to a time-banking economy. Some of those communities will become an outright gift economy. The key is to start local. When one feels like an integral part of a community and one has humanized one's neighbours, it becomes much easier to eschew the concept that holding onto things will make one happy.
@geke I should have been more precise with my words. I believe that capitalism inevitably leads to either failed businesses or juggernautic growth—in the long term. I'll look into Schumacher's work. I love to learn more and rework my hypotheses accordingly!
This is the theory, but evidence suggests otherwise. For example, it's more profitable, and thus much more common, for companies to make products that are disposed of and repurchased rather than repaired. This benefits investors, but not consumers. A consumer co-op that makes a similar product would by definition make something that better satisfies its customers. However, even assuming you are correct, I'm not sure how the co-op model would be worse.