[Aeon135]

Socialism:

Quote

Co-Worker came to an epiphany today. She is an apolitical person as far I know and has never mentioned anything that would make me believe she has ever even heard of Marx.

Anyways, our manager is out on injury, so the minions are minding the store. We've done everything from close it down to open it up, counted drawers to stock the books, order and send back books to the publisher and keep inventory for the past week and a half.

She comes up to me and tells me, "you know what do we need the boss for" ? She went on to say that we never see or hear of the owner of this major corporation except when a security guard comes in to collect the money. She said we could run the store and share the profits!

I laughed. She has no idea that I am a Marxist.

I asked her (trying to inject some subtle ideas into her), "did you ever notice that one week of profits at this store pays for our month's salary"?

She looked at me bright eyed and said yes, of course she knew that, she filled in the rest by saying that we're working for free!

[Mark]

Aeon135, on 28 July 2010 - 09:14 PM, said:

Socialism:

Quote

Co-Worker came to an epiphany today. She is an apolitical person as far I know and has never mentioned anything that would make me believe she has ever even heard of Marx.

Anyways, our manager is out on injury, so the minions are minding the store. We've done everything from close it down to open it up, counted drawers to stock the books, order and send back books to the publisher and keep inventory for the past week and a half.

She comes up to me and tells me, "you know what do we need the boss for" ? She went on to say that we never see or hear of the owner of this major corporation except when a security guard comes in to collect the money. She said we could run the store and share the profits!

I laughed. She has no idea that I am a Marxist.

I asked her (trying to inject some subtle ideas into her), "did you ever notice that one week of profits at this store pays for our month's salary"?

She looked at me bright eyed and said yes, of course she knew that, she filled in the rest by saying that we're working for free!

Has there ever been a society in history that did not have leaders? Who would keep those that crave to lead from rising from the top?

[Sheik Yurbooti]

Aeon135, on 28 July 2010 - 07:14 PM, said:

Socialism:

Quote

Co-Worker came to an epiphany today. She is an apolitical person as far I know and has never mentioned anything that would make me believe she has ever even heard of Marx.

Anyways, our manager is out on injury, so the minions are minding the store. We've done everything from close it down to open it up, counted drawers to stock the books, order and send back books to the publisher and keep inventory for the past week and a half.

She comes up to me and tells me, "you know what do we need the boss for" ? She went on to say that we never see or hear of the owner of this major corporation except when a security guard comes in to collect the money. She said we could run the store and share the profits!

I laughed. She has no idea that I am a Marxist.

I asked her (trying to inject some subtle ideas into her), "did you ever notice that one week of profits at this store pays for our month's salary"?

She looked at me bright eyed and said yes, of course she knew that, she filled in the rest by saying that we're working for free!

[Aeon135]

Mark, on 29 July 2010 - 02:27 AM, said:

Aeon135, on 28 July 2010 - 09:14 PM, said:

Socialism:

Quote

Co-Worker came to an epiphany today. She is an apolitical person as far I know and has never mentioned anything that would make me believe she has ever even heard of Marx.

Anyways, our manager is out on injury, so the minions are minding the store. We've done everything from close it down to open it up, counted drawers to stock the books, order and send back books to the publisher and keep inventory for the past week and a half.

She comes up to me and tells me, "you know what do we need the boss for" ? She went on to say that we never see or hear of the owner of this major corporation except when a security guard comes in to collect the money. She said we could run the store and share the profits!

I laughed. She has no idea that I am a Marxist.

I asked her (trying to inject some subtle ideas into her), "did you ever notice that one week of profits at this store pays for our month's salary"?

She looked at me bright eyed and said yes, of course she knew that, she filled in the rest by saying that we're working for free!

Who would keep those that crave to lead from rising from the top?

Other people?
Police?
Consensus to not have such things or institutions?
Creating institutions or an economy which makes this very difficult?

My point wasn't actually about anarchy either, I'm talking about socialism, ergo, no boss.

Quote

Has there ever been a society in history that did not have leaders?

the mass grave new yorkers live on was a society without leaders for a very long time. Ireland was also a society without leaders for very long.
I have looked a so many examples, I have consistently seen the answer to "whats to stop a new leader from rising up" to be either 1 or 2 choice these societies often have:
1. they will form active organizations or groups to prevent rulers explicitly, or they will have laws/customs explicitly against it
2. They will implicitly make becoming a leader impossible, due to the amount of power alrady vested in various other bodies like local councils, closing down the various avenues wanna-be rulers would take to take power.

1 typically applies more to "primitive communism", the second was used in anarchist revolutions.

You're new at the anarchy debate, please, me and the other libertarians have been over this many times and debated at lenght, I don't want to debate this right now.

Sheik Yurbooti, on 29 July 2010 - 02:32 AM, said:

You realize a socialist wrote that as a critcism of Stalinism?
Infact, George Orweel called himself an anarchist at times, and fought in the spanish civil war in a marxist and anarchist column.

[Second_AoJ]

I know, I was thinking the same thing. Orwell was a self-ascribed socialist who wrote Animal Farm and 1984 as critiques of Stalinism. Which, you know, brings me back to the point regarding ignorance.

[Sheik Yurbooti]

Aeon135, on 29 July 2010 - 12:05 AM, said:

Sheik Yurbooti, on 29 July 2010 - 02:32 AM, said:

You realize a socialist wrote that as a critcism of Stalinism?
Infact, George Orweel called himself an anarchist at times, and fought in the spanish civil war in a marxist and anarchist column.

Can you impose a truly socialist order without resorting to Stalinism?

I am skeptical of any order which offers empowerment to the people at the expense of the ruling class. Especially movements which impose their "isms" on the people at the point of a gun. Humans have a bad history with revolutionaries turning into dictators.

This post has been edited by Sheik Yurbooti: 29 July 2010 - 12:45 PM

[chronosfirex2000]

Aeon135, on 28 July 2010 - 07:14 PM, said:

Socialism:

Quote

Co-Worker came to an epiphany today. She is an apolitical person as far I know and has never mentioned anything that would make me believe she has ever even heard of Marx.

Anyways, our manager is out on injury, so the minions are minding the store. We've done everything from close it down to open it up, counted drawers to stock the books, order and send back books to the publisher and keep inventory for the past week and a half.

She comes up to me and tells me, "you know what do we need the boss for" ? She went on to say that we never see or hear of the owner of this major corporation except when a security guard comes in to collect the money. She said we could run the store and share the profits!

I laughed. She has no idea that I am a Marxist.

I asked her (trying to inject some subtle ideas into her), "did you ever notice that one week of profits at this store pays for our month's salary"?

She looked at me bright eyed and said yes, of course she knew that, she filled in the rest by saying that we're working for free!

Aeon, you confuse me.

You are a Marxist, then an anarchist. A socialist but then support certain private property rights. You don't believe in a state but you believe in ideas/programs that could only function via a central command post like socialized healthcare. You hate the state but have the warmest of feelings concerning the Nordic model.

Which is it? Also, Marx did advocate a state, as you know to "transition" to a stateless socialist utopia. That and all the propaganda around Marx is why so many anarchist at the times hated it and insisted it was just another political ploy to increase the power of the bourgeoisie.

What gives man?

[Second_AoJ]

chronosfirex2000, on 29 July 2010 - 10:46 AM, said:

Aeon135, on 28 July 2010 - 07:14 PM, said:

Socialism:

Quote

Co-Worker came to an epiphany today. She is an apolitical person as far I know and has never mentioned anything that would make me believe she has ever even heard of Marx.

Anyways, our manager is out on injury, so the minions are minding the store. We've done everything from close it down to open it up, counted drawers to stock the books, order and send back books to the publisher and keep inventory for the past week and a half.

She comes up to me and tells me, "you know what do we need the boss for" ? She went on to say that we never see or hear of the owner of this major corporation except when a security guard comes in to collect the money. She said we could run the store and share the profits!

I laughed. She has no idea that I am a Marxist.

I asked her (trying to inject some subtle ideas into her), "did you ever notice that one week of profits at this store pays for our month's salary"?

She looked at me bright eyed and said yes, of course she knew that, she filled in the rest by saying that we're working for free!

Aeon, you confuse me.

You are a Marxist, then an anarchist. A socialist but then support certain private property rights. You don't believe in a state but you believe in ideas/programs that could only function via a central command post like socialized healthcare. You hate the state but have the warmest of feelings concerning the Nordic model.

Which is it? Also, Marx did advocate a state, as you know to "transition" to a stateless socialist utopia. That and all the propaganda around Marx is why so many anarchist at the times hated it and insisted it was just another political ploy to increase the power of the bourgeoisie.

What gives man?

He's being facetious...about being a Marxist.

I can't really explain his position either, which is why I am not a social/revolutionary anarchist. Gomi is too "free market" for me.

[Gomi]

Sheik Yurbooti, on 29 July 2010 - 12:42 PM, said:

Humans have a bad history with revolutionaries turning into dictators.

Hear! Hear!

[Aeon135]

CHrono

Quote

Aeon, you confuse me.

You are a Marxist, then an anarchist.

the OP quote is not my own, otherwise I wouldn't have made it a quotation. I'm not a marxist
Chrono

Quote

A socialist but then support certain private property rights.

oh Chrono you must be so confused, but really, you have been deceived greatly about socialism, abandon all preconceptions.
Whats property? We say it's capital, its the means of production. So what is your house or car? We call it a possession, which is a kind of non productive property.
Theres no contradictions here, only you having been propaganaised.

Quote

You don't believe in a state but you believe in ideas/programs that could only function via a central command post like socialized healthcare.

a central command post has nothing to do with "the state" not in any definitions.
I think socializd healthcare should be regional. In anarchist spain it made regional and collectivized, and free.

Chrono

Quote

You hate the state but have the warmest of feelings concerning the Nordic model.

sorry, utter bullshit, I use nordics as an example that regulated capitalism is better then unregulated capitalism
you dontl isten to me at all sometimes bud

Chrono

Quote

Marx did advocate a state, as you know to "transition" to a stateless socialist utopia.

Marx didn't advocate a state for the transition, thats Lenin.
I've read his stuff, i think I'm correct, but his views changed over time, he got more authoritarian as he got older.
Chrono

Quote

That and all the propaganda around Marx is why so many anarchist at the times hated it and insisted it was just another political ploy to increase the power of the bourgeoisie.

again false, the distinction between anarchist and marxist didn't exist back in Marx's day, they all called themselves socialists, they didn't consider it a ploy, they just thought it was a stupid idea. This conflict all happened was Marx was older and more of a prick.

Sheik

Quote

Can you impose a truly socialist order without resorting to Stalinism?

Yes, a voluntary one, if it's not voluntary then I'm not involved.

Sheik

Quote

I am skeptical of any order which offers empowerment to the people at the expense of the ruling class.

In our advanced age we cannot afford to have so few people with so much power, taking away the means by which people dominate the material conditions of another is absolutely necessary to live free.
Alan Moore once said "99.99999 problems on the planet are caused by one group of people, it's not the homosexuals, it's not the jews, or the scientologists, it's rulers"

Don't give me any human nature bullshit, people lived without rulers for a lot longer then they lived with them.

Sheik

Quote

Humans have a bad history with revolutionaries turning into dictators.

There is so much more to it then that, I really wish I had the time or the bother to go into the failure of vanguard partyism or why Leninism invariably leads to tyranny, but it seems pointless, the above doesn't apply to me, and none of this thread applies to the OP's situation

You have all immidiatly taken this thread as an anarchist one, and we are slowly entering the anarchy debate, that not the idea, I'm talking about autogestion.

AoJ

Quote

I can't really explain his position either

See my "about me" page on my profile

This post has been edited by Aeon135: 29 July 2010 - 10:39 PM

[Mark]

Aeon135, on 29 July 2010 - 02:05 AM, said:

Mark, on 29 July 2010 - 02:27 AM, said:

Aeon135, on 28 July 2010 - 09:14 PM, said:

Socialism:

Quote

Co-Worker came to an epiphany today. She is an apolitical person as far I know and has never mentioned anything that would make me believe she has ever even heard of Marx.

Anyways, our manager is out on injury, so the minions are minding the store. We've done everything from close it down to open it up, counted drawers to stock the books, order and send back books to the publisher and keep inventory for the past week and a half.

She comes up to me and tells me, "you know what do we need the boss for" ? She went on to say that we never see or hear of the owner of this major corporation except when a security guard comes in to collect the money. She said we could run the store and share the profits!

I laughed. She has no idea that I am a Marxist.

I asked her (trying to inject some subtle ideas into her), "did you ever notice that one week of profits at this store pays for our month's salary"?

She looked at me bright eyed and said yes, of course she knew that, she filled in the rest by saying that we're working for free!

Who would keep those that crave to lead from rising from the top?

Other people?
Police?
Consensus to not have such things or institutions?
Creating institutions or an economy which makes this very difficult?

My point wasn't actually about anarchy either, I'm talking about socialism, ergo, no boss.

Quote

Has there ever been a society in history that did not have leaders?

the mass grave new yorkers live on was a society without leaders for a very long time. Ireland was also a society without leaders for very long.
I have looked a so many examples, I have consistently seen the answer to "whats to stop a new leader from rising up" to be either 1 or 2 choice these societies often have:
1. they will form active organizations or groups to prevent rulers explicitly, or they will have laws/customs explicitly against it
2. They will implicitly make becoming a leader impossible, due to the amount of power alrady vested in various other bodies like local councils, closing down the various avenues wanna-be rulers would take to take power.

1 typically applies more to "primitive communism", the second was used in anarchist revolutions.

You're new at the anarchy debate, please, me and the other libertarians have been over this many times and debated at lenght, I don't want to debate this right now.

Sheik Yurbooti, on 29 July 2010 - 02:32 AM, said:

You realize a socialist wrote that as a critcism of Stalinism?
Infact, George Orweel called himself an anarchist at times, and fought in the spanish civil war in a marxist and anarchist column.

Aeon, I have no need to debate you on the subject. It is my feeling that what you are describing is contrary to human nature. And to me, even if a society such as you describe could be established, it wouldn't last long.

Just my .02

[Aeon135]

this isn't an anarchy thread

we're not discussing anarchy here folks! You guys just assume that's the case but I'm talking about autogestion, or workplace co-op/worker control, ergo, socialism

This post has been edited by Aeon135: 29 July 2010 - 10:49 PM

[Gomi]

Aeon135, on 29 July 2010 - 10:44 PM, said:

this isn't an anarchy thread

we're not discussing anarchy here folks! You guys just assume that's the case but I'm talking about autogestion, or workplace co-op/worker control, ergo, socialism

I know you're not talking about anarchism, but the socialism you're talking about, autogestion, is an "anarchistic" economic form. It's a system without hierarchy and flat. No bosses, self-rule, all that. Same way I talk about a truly free market.

To an "outsider" perspective, it's no different from anarchism, in that, in both political anarchy and economic socialism, there's the perception that someone has to run things, be it an elected leader or a promoted boss.

[Aeon135]

Gomi, on 30 July 2010 - 03:57 AM, said:

Aeon135, on 29 July 2010 - 10:44 PM, said:

this isn't an anarchy thread

we're not discussing anarchy here folks! You guys just assume that's the case but I'm talking about autogestion, or workplace co-op/worker control, ergo, socialism

I know you're not talking about anarchism, but the socialism you're talking about, autogestion, is an "anarchistic" economic form. It's a system without hierarchy and flat. No bosses, self-rule, all that. Same way I talk about a truly free market.

autogestion is also expunde by democratic socialists however, and minarchist socialists, and Titoists.

Quote

To an "outsider" perspective, it's no different from anarchism, in that, in both political anarchy and economic socialism, there's the perception that someone has to run things, be it an elected leader or a promoted boss.

Outsiders are stupid huh?
I give up it's to tiresome

[Sheik Yurbooti]

Aeon135, on 29 July 2010 - 08:31 PM, said:

Don't give me any human nature bullshit, people lived without rulers for a lot longer then they lived with them.

Sheik

Quote

Humans have a bad history with revolutionaries turning into dictators.

There is so much more to it then that, I really wish I had the time or the bother to go into the failure of vanguard partyism or why Leninism invariably leads to tyranny, but it seems pointless, the above doesn't apply to me, and none of this thread applies to the OP's situation

I was thinking about pirate ships of the Spanish Main during the 18th Century. All due respect to the classic pirate movies, but they got it wrong. Most pirate ships were democratic micro-societies. The crew voted on where to go, what ships to attack, and they took shares of the booty. And yet, they still needed to elect a captain to focus their labors, and the captain got a larger share than the average crew member. If your workplace's boss never returned, and left control of the company to the workers, how long would it have been before somebody realized that they needed to elect a CEO? A head pig for the animal farm.