Bay Area Anarchist Communist Meeting

be sure to wear your best bed linen for the meet'in

As a Anarchist Communist of color, I don't feel that this group has adequately addressed the issues important to communities of color. There is a real need to create a Bay Area Anarchist Communists of Color group so that we will not be ignored by White Anarchist Communists who control most of the positions of power. This new group will be meeting in Oakland next month. More detailed information will be forthcoming.

That's a COINTELPRO remark if I ever saw one...

Since when are anarchists in positions of power?

As a committed gay anarchist of color, I don't feel anyone is adequately addressing OUR concerns. We must throw off the yoke of straight anarchists of color.

Prove it. Drop some names.

Can't you people recognize satire when you see it?

Just as a side note, I am the person who posted the original call for the meeting, and I am a person of color and an Anarchist Communist. So it might be a good idea to not assume devisive things from the get go. Lets organize to address all of our issues and build a true revolutionary anarchist organization.

Isn't building a "true revolutionary anarchist organization" kind of going against the whole idea of anarchism? I suppose the same could be said for Anarchist Communists.

unless you buy into the "anarchism is chaos" theory, hedley, which would explain your view that organization and anarchism, you've got to explain a bit further...

read this on anarchist organization to see what some people think: http://struggle.ws/ppapers/role.html

"Prove it. Drop some names."

you want to post a list here? how about you post your name and address?

Gay anarchists of color???
What? Is this a joke?
I thought anarchists despised any power, so they cannot seek more. To say "of color" is CLEARLY a racist remark to indicate that other skin colors are inferior, another grab for power.

Always good for a laugh!

If you know the right names to drop, you already know where to drop them.

A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. - Communism

The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists - Anarchism

The way I see it. You are your own worst enemy, and you will fail.

com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

-----

English has multiple definitions for each word and the definition of Communism you used is a post USSR one that is merely descriptive of what happened there (which was not what Marx and earlier Communists were talking about). Look at any dictionary and you will see that the definition you included is a SEPERATE one from the definition that mentions Marxism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Communism etc..)

While the Communist Manifesto may call for a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat for redistributive purposes, the end goal (and what is actually meant by Communism) is the situation after the withering away of the state. The beliefs and end goals of Communists and Anarchists have always been the same and most of the Anarchist movements of the early 1900s and late 1800s were closely tied to Communist groups. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were even friendly with Lenin and lived in the USSR until they realized that it was becomming totalitarian (following the crackdown on Kronstadt in 1921).

Anarchist Communist really just means a desire for an nontotalitarian egalitarian society, without no or restricted ideas of private property. If the name confuses people, thats probably a good thing since it makes clear that most Communists dont want a strong state.

If men were angels there would be no need for government. That is an idea out of the Federalist Papers. The fundamental flaw with 'communist anarchists' is that they totally ignore the effects of human nature. These people think that human beings will be good and fair to one another just for the sake of being benevolent. 10,000 years of human history suggests otherwise. When the "Revolutionary Council" consolidates all the power do you really think they are going to want to share? Ultimately they are just human beings who will be corrupted by absolute power.

"When the "Revolutionary Council" consolidates all the power do you really think they are going to want to share?"

Well, thats one of the ways Anarchists are different from Communists. While Marxists have always called for a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, most anarchists have always been sceptical of ends justifying the means arguments.

As for your comment on human nature thats somewhat of a misinterpretation.

In the US most "conservatives" are pretty skeptical about state power and somehow believe that human nature (even if it is seen as greedy) leads to a positive outcome; thats the entire basis for most neoliberal economic thought. Corruption is just as likely in the government as the private sector and a powerful state can be much more destrcutuve than small private interests. But the different between the libertarian left and the libertarian right comes down to views on the dangers of corporate power. Right wing libertarians tend to see business as somehow distinct from government wheras the left (from teh late 1800s on) recognized that the distinction is blurred (in the case of company towns in the 1800s the distinction was almost nonexistant). It is interesting to note that the distinction between those who challenged private and public power in the 1900s was not distinct either; Marx drew heavilly from the ideas of Adam Smith and the Paris Commune was both a challenge to the rich as well as to the harsh policies of the previous state.

Limitting power in all forms (public and private) is hardly naive. It recognizes that humans tend not to get along and be corrupt and aims to limit both the dangers of corrupt individuals in the government as well as in the private sector.

The ideals of Anarchist Communism have been part of the organized left for some time. Those who protest wars (state power) also tend to be the same people protesting companies that mistreat their workers or pollute the environment (private power).

Perhaps a few words translated from those written under the Paris Commune can best sum up the Communist/Anarchist ideals:

Arise ye workers from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We'll change henceforth the old tradition
And spurn the dust to win the prize.

Chorus:
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale
Unites the human race.

No more deluded by reaction
On tyrants only we'll make war
The soldiers too will take strike action
They'll break ranks and fight no more
And if those cannibals keep trying
To sacrifice us to their pride
They soon shall hear the bullets flying
We'll shoot the generals on our own side.

No saviour from on high delivers
No faith have we in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear
E'er the thieves will out with their booty
And give to all a happier lot.
Each at the forge must do their duty
And we'll strike while the iron is hot

"Therefore, power must be divided equally among all workers."

OK. But who does the dividing? Who decides what is "equal"? Who enforces the redistribution of property and wealth? How do they enforce it?

I imagine with guns, bullets, death, and absolute tyranny.

Just like all the other times in human history where the creation of a "workers paradise" was attempted. The only workers paradise is in the United States of America. Thats why some people in the world make such absolutely HEROIC efforts to come here and live and work.

>But who does the dividing? Who decides what is "equal"? Who enforces the redistribution of property and wealth?

We the workers.

>How do they enforce it?

by any means necessary.


>all the times


You neglect Spain. For a year, anarchists ran the economy of a third of Spain. It was an outstanding success. The rate of production wnt up. The quality of production went up. The cost of production went down. The standard of living improved. Then the Bolshies stabbed us in the back, and we lost the war. As warriors, the Spanish comrades failed miserably. But as economists, they were an outstanding success.

this is an oxymoron, in theory and in practice. any "real Anarchist would not attend "a meeting" it defies the concept of Anarchy!

Anarchy! Anarchy! Anarchy! Anarchy! Anarchy! Anarchy!

but first let's get organized - HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA

Typical discussion of anarchism with someone determined to avoid the topic, but go on nonetheless:

ignorant fool: "oh, anarchy? isn't that, like, you hate meetings?"

anarch: "no, actually -- we just want to organize ourselves, control the means of production, and for some of us, challenge power structures and systems of interpersonal control and domination."

ignorant fool: "oh hahahahahaha! That's rich! You anarchists want to have a meeting! You kill me!"

Source materials to help certain individuals pull their head out of their ass:

An Anarchist FAQ: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

Black Blok for Dummies: http://www.infoshop.org/blackbloc.html

Emma Goldman, "Living My Life," Vols. 1 and 2

Alexander Berkman, "ABCS of Anarchism"

Lorenzo Irwin, "Anarchism and The Black Revolution"

Any of the Wildcat cartoon books

"Rebel Voices", especially the Mr. Block cartoons, which may ring an uncomfortably familiar bell

Any standard size mirror, as long as you ask it the question: "Do I really feel that what I am doing is living fully? If not, what do I need to change in my life to make that so, and is that even possible given current conditions?"

As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.
the essence of anarchism is the direct conflict to any and all forms of control.

as any true Anarchist knows!

Bakunin saw revolution in terms of the overthrow of one oppressing class by another oppressed class and the destruction of political power as expressed as the state and social hierarchy. According to Bakunin, society is divided into two main classes which are fundamentally opposed to each other. The oppressed class, he variously described as commoners, the people, the masses or the workers, makes up a great majority of the population. It is in 'normal' time not conscious of itself as a class, though it has an 'instinct' for revolt and whilst unorganized, is full of vitality. The numerically much smaller oppressing class, however is conscious of its role and maintains its ascendancy by acting in a purposeful, concerted and united manner. The basic differences between the two classes, Bakunin maintained, rests upon the ownership and control of property, which is disproportionately in the hands of the minority class of capitalists. The masses, on the other hand, have little to call their own beyond their ability to work.

These "anarchist" meetings are made up of students and quasi-intellectuals. Workers are discussed and praised but seldom present. This is just as well, because if a real worker were present he would explain that the revolution has already happended. Workers in the US own their own homes, cars, TVs, DVD players, computers and often boats or trucks. They have pensions and retirement plans. If you would ask an actual worker what they want they would tell you to end immigration, limit imports, lower taxes and stop affirmative action. In other word, conservatism. And this makes sense if you think about it, because American workers are living the good life and want to protect their position of power from competition from the masses of impoverished people around the world.

<<Workers in the US own their own homes....>>

70% of american "homeowners" own less than 30% of their homes (most of which are shoddily made and massively over-priced).... millions of workers rent and quite a few are homeless.

<<and cars, TVs, DVD players, computers and often boats or trucks.>>

yes, credit is a wonderful thing!

They have pensions and retirement plans.>>

which are being systematically gutted.

the following list is relevant to "realist's" contention that all's well for workers in america today:

1. Between 1990 and 2002, average American household credit-card debt increased from $2,985 and $8,562, according to the National Foundation for Credit Counseling.
(Seattle Times, “Steeped in debt: Good times end; spending doesn’t,” 10/13/02)

2. The share of American workers with company pension plans has progressively slipped in each decade--from almost 40% at the beginning of 1980 to about 20% now.
(Fortune, “Bye-Bye Pension: Soon hundreds of corporations may slash pensions by as much as half,” 3/3/03)

3. After adjusting for inflation, the average tuition at a four-year public university increased 117% between 1981 and 2001. The rise at private universities was 123%.
(Wall Street Journal, “Economic Squeeze Has More Students Working Overtime,” 11/5/02)

4. Today, Americans work more hours than they did 20 years ago. Vacations have dwindled, and “overtime” isn’t overtime anymore. It’s the norm.
Recently the Bush Administration lobbied to update the Fair Labor Standards Act so that millions of federal workers would no longer be eligible for overtime pay. Emergency medical technicians, paralegals, nurses, reporters, chefs, and dental hygienists would be affected.
(Business Week, By Louis Braham, July 9, 2003)

5. Eighty-two percent of employers expect to raise retirees' contributions to health insurance premiums over the next three years, and 22 percent say they are likely to drop coverage for future retirees, according to a survey of large employers.
(Chicago Sun-Times, “82% to raise retirees’ costs for health care,” 12/6/02)

6. Home prices rose 45 to 52 percent between 1991-2001 in the United States.
(CNNMoney, “Homes out of reach,” 5/20/02)

7. About 27 percent of California households could afford a median-priced home in May according to the California Association of Realtors. A household would have to earn $84,980 a year to afford a median-priced home in California, which costs $369,290.
(San Diego News Service, "Survey finds fewer can afford homes," 7/10/03)

“Health care costs are rising while the economy is sputtering, and it looks like workers are going to pay the price” -- Drew Altman, Kaiser Foundation President. October, 2001

arron's point



life is expensive

>These "anarchist" meetings are made up of students and quasi-intellectuals. Workers are discussed and praised but seldom present.

At which anarchist meetings were you present, "Realist"? Be specific.

arron's point is that life is expensive for some but not everyone!

I attended two anarchist meetings. At the first at Berkeley in May, the eight attendees had a dispute over Buhkharin's philosophy. They broke up into two separate groups which spent the rest of the meeting condemning each other as reactionary. The second meeting I went to at SFSU has three attendees, the oldest of whom was 22.

What what the purpose of these meetings, to sit around and be anarchist or to actually do something? Most of the anarchist meetings I've been to, or, to be more specific, meetings of organizations which use anarchist methods, have never devolved into name calling sessions. It sounds like you attended a discusion group about anarchist philosophy rather than a meeting that was meant to be productive.

I've attended thousands.

So which of us do you think knows more about the subject?

At the overwhelming majority of the meetings I have attended, the overwhelming majority of the attendees were workers. The rest were students, ie., workers in training. A worker is a worker is a worker. I high paid worker is a worker, a low paid worker is a worker, an unemployed worker is a worker, a retired worker is a worker, a disabled worker is a worker, and a student is a . . . well, we've already covered that.

If you're not a boss, you're a worker, period. There is no third choice.

Members of the boss class never attend such meetings. Ocassionally they send spies, but spies are workers, too. They're just working for the wrong side, that's all.

How many of the persons at these two meetings did you actually ask about their jobs?

"The rest were students, ie., workers in training. "

Since when? Students are bosses in training. Most students have enough motivation and ambition that they have no interest in being entry-level their entire careers. When has that ever happened?

What is your definition of a boss? The department manager? The regional manager? The CEO? The Chairman?

<<arron's point--life is expensive>>

nice try, renn.

my point:

life for the US working class bears no resemblence to the shangra-la "realist" makes it out to be. the list i posted above is only the tip of the iceberg, but shows that the debt levels of US workers have risen 250% in the past decade while pensions and retirement benefits are being gutted and costs associated with housing, education, and health-care are rising drastically.

the link below is an interview with economist Michael Hudson which places these developments within the context of unprecedented debt throughout US capitalism and gives an idea how the current situation is being held together by massive injections of liquidity, and how shit could come apart completely when (not if) interest rates are forced upward.

time for all you lovers of capitalism to start sharpening your arguments!

http://counterpunch.org/schaefer07122003.html

nessie writes: "The owners. They don’t work. Others work for them."

Was Jack Welsh a worker or a boss? Is Bill Gates a worker or a boss? Am I (a shareholder in several companies) a boss?

The confusion lies in nessie's misuse of the word "boss".

1) An employer or a supervisor.
2) One who makes decisions or exercises authority.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Nessie is so smart, she reinvents the English language!

The word you want to use, Nessie, is "owner". An absentee owner hires a boss, who manages the rest of the employees.

No, nessie's right. Erasing real-world experience of working with some dusty definition from Webster's is just weak, sorry. If that's the best you can come up with, no wonder the economy is for shit! So much for capitalism working...besides, work for who, exactly? Most people in the world are enslaved by capitalism, not liberated by it.

Simply put, both anarchism and radical labor put forth a different definition of "boss" than the one created by the bosses. Attempting to discredit what is a large-scale definition by the exceptions to the rule (and I would argue that Bill Gates definitely is a boss -- when he works, it's because he chooses to, not because a system is forcing him to, come on already, he's a multi-billionaire) accomplishes nothing than ignoring the point being made. Once again, this argument just shows that you haven't looked at the basic literature of what we're discussing, and as such, there's really no point in discussing it. Sorry if I sound flip, but anarchism is an ideology, among other things. As an ideology, it's both simple and transparent for the most part, but unless you understand what we're discussing, what's the point of debating terms such as "boss," or for that matter, "anarchism"? It's a fool's errand. Not buying it.

But enough about that. What is your relationship with your boss like? If you think it's great, is it because you play yourself against other workers for favortism? Further, as nessie noted, is your boss even a boss? Most "bosses" in the conventional sense are the person you report to, who's really more like a foreperson or team lead. They're just about as expendable as you are. The last layoff I went through, they terminated me, my "boss," and about 1/3rd of the division to "cut costs" for bad investments that they themselves made. I would argue that the people who made those investments and lived off of them are "bosses". Not your grandparents who own a few shares of whatever because their pension was stolen from them, not even some idiot ostrich-like dot com worker gone bust (whose biggest crime against humanity is ignorance, with a fair dose fucked-up race and class dynamics as well, but welcome to Amurrica, ya know?), large scale, institutional investors and owners of capitalist enterprises. Is that more clear? Or would you rather continue arguing one definition against another, y'all?

AP, my own damn news wire, thank you

> But enough about that. What is your relationship with
> your boss like?

It's pretty good. Thank you for asking. I am my own boss (in both Nessie's and the standard definition of the word boss). The company was funded by Citibank -- Citibank credit card, that is ;-)


> If you think it's great, is it because you play yourself
> against other workers for favortism?

Before I started my own business, I worked for somebody else's company. It was perfectly amicable -- the boss (traditional definition) was a wonderful man. The boss (Nessie's definition) was a very ambitious man -- rising from literal poverty as a child to a mogul worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He was generous, as he gave 28% of his company to his employees (ESOP program). I never experiences the backstabbing you allude to. In a knowledge industry, that kind of behavior would alienate others very quickly. Putting civility aside, it would simply be bad politics and wouldn't accomplish the end you speak of.


> is your boss even a boss?

Interesting point. Even though I am the boss (Nessie's definition and traditional definition), I am also very aware of pleasing my customers -- without whom, both the employees and I would lose our jobs.


> to "cut costs" for bad investments that they themselves made.

No wonder you are so bitter. Being kind of a control freak myself, I prefered to be my own boss (Nessie's definition and traditional definition) to minimize the chance that something like that would happen to me. And the fact that somebody like me, just a few years out of college and with just $1000 in the bank, could so easily create a new enterprise that would eventually provide paychecks for several heads of family, is the reason why this system is so revered around the world.


> Or would you rather continue arguing one definition against another

No, Webster's last post seems to have settled that.

Capitalism survives because the majority believe there is no alternative. We need to convince them that there is, and that it is within their capabilities to make it happen.

Only a strong and politically aware working class can do the business. When we get to that stage, it is pretty certain that the old rulers will not give up their wealth and power without a struggle. In all of human history no ruling class has ever voluntarily stepped aside. The gains of the new society, a society based on the agreement and participation of the majority, will have to be defended. This will be done by organisations which are under democratic control.

What violence may be necessary will not be to change society, that comes from winning the majority to the anarchist goal, but rather to defend the new society from the attacks of the ex-rulers and ex-bosses.

I figured that would be too difficult to answer. But kudos at attempting to distort the intent of the question. Ari Fleisher could learn something from you.

Are you trying to say that you really think those people are all in the same catagory?

Or are you trying to say you wont rephrase the question, because you really don't want answers, you just want to heckle?

Well, Nessie (aka just wondering) --

If one reads my question, it is clear that I am lumping them all into the same category: the category of being the most challenging for society to deal with (of course I left others out: kids too smart for regular school, orphans, etc). But only a spinmeister could read into the question the intent that you pretend to gather from it. I know you are smarter than that and just wanted to have a laugh. Now that your chuckle is satisfied, if you have an answer for the question (actually, of course, it was four questions, now six with the two I just added), please share. I look forward to the reply.

Graduate

I think you are underestimating the entrepreneurial nature of this country. Consider:

Number of US Households (2000): 105,480,101
(source: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/phc-1-1-pt1.pdf)

Number of Firms in US (1997): 20,821,934
(source: http://www.census.gov/prod/ec97/e97cs-1.pdf)

On average, one in five households includes a business owner. You face a monumental marketing struggle to convince America that the "bosses" are evil. If the "boss" isn't in my household, then he/she is likely to be my neighbor.

and, so why wouldn't small worker cooperatives not be counted as enterprises? They aren't set up by a central committee that decided that it knew what the material needs of society and set up some factories and assigned a few managers to coordinate the workers. You sound like you're arguing against east bloc communism and like you don't even know who you're talking to in this newswire story. Do you think co-ops are antagonistic to enterprises? They are enterprises but they just allow even more people to be managers. Co-ops can kick out dysfunctional members.

I'm with nessie -- the whole phrasing of that, as well as your assumption that they pose "the greatest challenge to society" is pretty backward. Would you care to rephrase? I'm not sidestepping here, but I find what you are putting forth both in this comment both tasteless and offensive.

Angela Parsons

Hi,

We note with interest the convening of an anarchist communist grouping on the west coast. The Spartacist tendency has recently engaged in polemics with NEFAC, as well as with those who support and participate in direct action. The material linked below should be of interest to any revolutionary as it concerns the debate between revolutionary Marxism and anarchism over such key questions as the revolutionary position towards imperialist predatory wars like the war in Iraq. Please direct any comments to the Bay Area Spartacus Youth Club at slbayarea [at] compuserve.com.

-SYC
14 July 2003

NEFAC Statement “Anarchists Against the War”:
Pressure Politics in Militant Clothing:
http://www.icl-fi.org/ENGLISH/NEFAC.html

Open Letter to Supporters of Direct Action
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/07/1627492.php

If you want to walk away, that's fine -- what I was trying to get at though was that your framing at first glance almost seemed eugenicist; you know, "how are we going to deal with the undesirables"? I would respond to that by saying that we, the working class and oppressed, need to show solidarity with each other in our respective struggles -- not in theory, but in reality. Have each other's back. Educate ourselves about what we're going through. When we're attacked, don't just sit back and say "oh well". Like that.

To my ears though? Your statement infers a state apparatus to "deal with the problem", and that's not what is being proposed. Again, a discussion of anarchism's limitations as put into practice is very difficult to have unless you've read about anarchism in some fashion other than by detractors who are attempting to dismiss anarchism as outmoded and/or dangerous. Have you read any of the books or articles I suggested?

AP

"at first glance almost seemed eugenicist; "

You and your comrades (as shown above in these posts) have a perverse view of your fellow man, so I would expect you to pervert my question.

I am enjoying reading your Anarchist FAQ. It's cute! I fantasized about things like this when I was a college kid. It is bringing back some fun memories. Oh, to be young again!

Part of my question has been answered (crime). Most of it will simply disappear! Of course ;-)

"For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about 90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel "secondary drives" that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative child-rearing practices"

Isn't it disingenuous to vilify capitalism, then say that your fantasy is plausible because of the fruits of capitalism?

In case you haven't been paying attention, high technology products are the quintessential example of everything you despise: government subsidies for basic research, intellectual property, venture capital, etc.

That you are ignoring the entrepeneurial and industrious tendencies of people. We do a lot more now than the cavemen used to think was necessary.

I have a friend who is self-employed as a party-helper. You have a party and she is there making sure that things go smoothly, thereby freeing you up to socialize. Personal trainers, teachers, counselors, accountants, attorneys, massage therapists, and scores of others are people who cannot be replaced by machines.

1) automated hemp farms
2) automated machines to make fabric, then make clothing (underwear, pants, shirts, and sandals)
3) automated mineral mines
4) automated factory to make bicycles
5) then we all would grow our own veggies in the backyard garden of the home we don't own
6) then, finally, we'd have plenty of time to "sing, dance, screw, tell stories, make art and do research"

I can't wait!!

then what happens when the needs a root canal...........do it your self dentistry? how about when you have a heart attack?


and who repairs these automated factories?
and who repairs the bikes, and who sells the shoes

tooth decay is a creation of the capitalist consumer goods companies like procter & gamble. toothpaste causes tooth decay. plus, by eating vegetables and other healthy food, you wouldn't get cavities anyway.

so to answer your question, there wouldn't be root canals because there is no tooth decay in anarchism.

#7 - a group of shrewd people combines forces, specializes, kicks your ass and enslaves you.

The morals of the story are:
- aggressive people flourish under any econ system (at least ours has some checks on them.)

- a common defense is necessary

- anarchy has been tried before by humankind; it's inferior to tribalism which replaced it. Tribalism is inferior to feudalism, etc...

Anarchist Communist
the two terms are mutually exclusive, you can not be a committed to both concepts at the same time. this only goes to show the level of thinking in this.. what ever you call your group. (flock)-(gaggle)? or a star trek club run amuck

too funny

Anarchist Communists next week, interested in discussing ideas on organization


yes all this disorganized - anarchy is just really annoying!

The fascinating thing about this debate is that it's not about anarchism, communism, or anarcho-communism (which is not oxymoronic, sorry -- do your homework), it's about capitalism. Personally, I think capitalism is fucked, and I'm not particularly interested in debating that particular point. As such, I'm off this thread.

AP, who thinks capitalists have front groups, just like the RCP

I think capitalism is fucked, and I'm not particularly interested in debating that particular point


"As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue."

and who will rule the world?

(((robots)))

some one was a little carried away with T-3


the enormously successful Spanish experiment ?
that didn't seem to last too long now did it.

a very large portion of work under capitalism is a self-replicating, circularly justifying, anti-social waste of human energy.

those who argue for capitalism and dismiss alternative social formations (anti-state communism, libertarian socialism or whatever) usually point to capital's "efficiency", but rarely is the social and material content of this allegedly efficient system scrutinized.

I'll happily "concede" that a free socialist society would produce some of the least efficient derivatives traders this world has ever seen. junk mail wouldn't move an inch.

so much of work under capitalism could be abolished out-right: stock and bond and commodity trading, market analysis, insurance, public relations, advertising, sales of all kinds, accounting, finance....

much of work that can't be abolished out-right could be radically reconstituted, and in many cases, diminished--the production of the private auto and all of its many inputs quickly comes to mind, but it is just the tip of the iceberg.



that which can't be simply abolished can be

alternative social formations (anti-state communism, libertarian socialism or whatever)

if there are so many alternatives out there then why hasn't any of the worlds countries tried any of them
(Spain excluded; we have been discussing them already) and if any where tried how long did they last?

How closely will we emulate the Spanish Anarchists during our revolution? Will we simply murder the capitalists? Or will we also burn down the churches and kill the believers?

Capitalism is the most efficient means of allocating resources.

The anarchistic lifestyle being proposed here is atrocious. Here in the U.S., even our poorest people generally have food, clothes, TV's, cars, shelter, electricity, plumbing, and education.

Why in the hell would we give that up for groing our own food everyday? The bottom line, if you're looking for measurement, is the life expectancy in the U.S. continues to climb climb climb. That means our system is working.

Well, this is a great debate to show why the formation of explicitly anarcho-communist groups is important. We waste our time debating so much nonsense from whatever side of whatever bullshit political spectrum people cram themselves into, that it becomes impossible to get things done.

By joining together with like-minded comrades for the purposes of sharing resources and building relationships we come one step closer to developing the type of force that will be able to engage successfully in a revolutionary situation.

In many ways its time for anarchists of all stripes to forget about scenes or milieus or any other other term for the anarchist ghetto and start building practical revolutionary organizations that make relevant sense to other working class folks.

Good luck on this initiative.

Duke
NEFAC Maryland
(Personal Capacity)

As Bolloten states [1], "Hundreds of churches and convents were burned or put to secular uses. 'Catholic dens no longer exist,' declared the Anarchosyndicalist organ, Solidaridad Obrera . 'The torches of the people have reduced them to ashes.'...'For the Revolution to be a fact,' ran an Anarchist youth manifesto, 'we must demolish the three pillars of reaction: the church, the army, and capitalism. The church has already been brought to account. The temples have been destroyed by fire and the ecclesiastical crows who were unable to escape have been taken care of by the people.'"[1] As Bolloten sums matters up: "Thousands of members of the clergy and religious orders as well as of the propertied classes were killed, but others, fearing arrest or execution, fled abroad, including many prominent liberal or moderate Republicans."

Thomas amply confirms Bolloten's description of the Anarchists' religious persecution and intolerance. "'Do you still believe in this God who never speaks and who does not defend himself even when his images and temples are burned? Admit that God does not exist and that you priests are all so many hypocrites who deceive the people': such questions were put in countless towns and villages of republican Spain. At no time in the history of Europe, or even perhaps of the world, has so passionate a hatred of religion and all its works been shown. Yet one priest who, while 1,215 monks, nuns, and priests died in the province of Barcelona, managed to escape to France through the help of President Companys, was generous enough to admit that 'the reds have destroyed our churches, but we first had destroyed the church.'"[1]

(1) Burnett Bolloten, The Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1991).

Like the Spanish comrades before us, we will not kill all the believers, only the ones who support the fascists. We will also kill the unbelievers who support the fascists. Fascists and their supporters should die, the more and the sooner the better.

If you want to believe in a bunch of primitive, superstitious delusions, that’s your business. But if you support the fascists, you’re the enemy, no matter what else you believe or don’t believe. The only good fascist is a dead fascist. Death to fascism. Death to all its supporters.

And believers murdered Anarchists.

So what's your point?

I haven't conducted a poll to confirm this opinion, but my gut instinct tells me that the world isn't quite ready for mass murder on the scale you envision. Estimates, based on the number of pure capitalists (business owners, I haven't counted shareholders or homeowners) in the US and Europe alone, you'd need to kill about 40 million people.

At least you'd go down in history as being more brutal than the Soviets and the Chinese.

So let me suggest that this meeting should include some clever marketing strategies to increase the world's appetite for mass murder.

Friends, comrades -- what the fuck are you all doing? I swear, you get a group of men in room, they'll debate the color of the floor. Siddown, lemme tell you a story.

Once upon a time, there were the people. And the people knew how to take care of themselves, feed themselves off the land, and only worked as they needed to, which wasn't much at all.

Things change though, some say from cataclysm, others from men, still others from gringo conquerors. All in all though? Things got worse, and people were enslaved.

People resisted their enslavement though, and gradually began to organize and resist. They resisted slavery. They resisted domination. They resisted work. They resisted machines that were used to displace them. And gradually, we started to win.

We did make mistakes -- many of them. But eventually, we learned from our mistakes, because that's what we do, especially when we're smart. And that's where we are now -- learning from our mistakes. The rest is just the pointless bickering of silly people, who need to sleep more and type less. In case you haven't all noticed, we have wars of our own going on, and I'm not just talking about Iraq. Get ta work, you silly fools! I love y'all, but damn, wind ya up about the Spanish Revolution, and you'll never shut up. Next thing, you'll be debating about 1905 and Kronstadt. Scary.

AP

PS: I'm not saying that discussing these topics are pointless, just that it gets discussed far more than, oh, the war on drugs, for example. Besides, you may want to listen to the elder voices that were actually there -- you may have noticed that one of them is in our midst, or did you notice their presence at all? The rest is just speculation and recounting of interpretations of history, all of which is nowhere near as important as what is in front of us right now in our neighborhoods.

PPS: Why don't y'all go act out "Land and Freedom" at Mosswood Park? At least you'd be out in the sun and able to talk with folks. Just a thought. OK, I'm out for real this time, unless we start talking about something other than capitalism and 1937.

Religion 'could offer model for delusion'

Date: July 14 2003

By Judy Skatssoon

Studying the mechanisms of religious belief could lead to a better understanding of what goes on in the minds of people with psychiatric delusions.

An international conference in Sydney this week will hear that some religious beliefs - including that a virgin gave birth to the son of God - qualify as delusions.

Macquarie University PhD student Ryan McKay, who has been studying under one of Australia's leading authorities on delusions, Max Coltheart, said the idea that religion was a delusion dated back to Sigmund Freud about 100 years ago.

In his presentation to the Cognitive Science Conference today Mr McKay will outline the latest thinking on how religious belief relates to delusion.

"The line between psychosis and intense religiosity is a bit of a difficult one to draw," he said.

Many religious beliefs were triggered by a bizarre or unexplained "religious experience", often produced by changes in brain activity.

continued at:

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/07/13/1058034874823.htm

Rob F. wrote:
The only workers paradise is in the United States of America. Thats why some people in the world make such absolutely HEROIC efforts to come here and live and work.

Yes, where workers get just 2 weeks off a year, work long hours and regularly watch their jobs being exported, and with the least social mobility in the developed world. Couple this with useless unions and very little in the way of a safety net when capitalism decides they're surplus to requirements. Workers paradise? Bollocks! Capitalists paradise, more like.

The essence of capitalism is rewarding people for their efforts. Everyone wants the resources, so we must come up with a system of allocating those resources.

The communism model fails because people will not contribute, even at the lowest levels, because they feel the reward is not enough.

The anarchy model evolves into an every man for himself thing pretty quickly and proceeds to gangs; tribes; feudalism, and so forth.

The capitalist model at least requires people to contribute to society before rewarding them.

The essence of capitalism is wage-slavery and the extraction of surplus value from social labor.

Capitalism falls into crisis when as a system it's unable to maintain a rate of profit growth.

When capitalism is in crisis--as it is now--capitalists resort to lay-offs, cut-backs, and demand more from workers for less. In other words, capital is compelled to increase the rate of exploitation.

If capitalism's essence was rewarding people for their efforts, then these "rewards" wouldn't be contingent upon capital maintaining or increasing profits.

Dave asked:
>The bottom line, if you're looking for measurement, is
> the life expectancy in the U.S. continues to climb
>climb climb. That means our system is working.

Nessie answered
>It’s working for Americans, but only at the expense of >the rest of humanity. Sooner or later, the rest of >humanity is going to get sick of it, and teach us the >lesson we so richly deserve.

---------

The facts:

Yes, it is true that in just this past century the number of human beings on the planet has just about quadrupled... Consider the trends in life expectancy, arguably the single best measure of human well-being. From about the time of the Roman Empire through about 1800 average human life expectancy was less than 30 years. In the U.S. today, life expectancy is 75. Even in poor countries, like India and China, life expectancy has risen to above 60 (Life expectancy in India in the early 20th century was 20 years!). We have doubled the number of years of life on the planet in just the past 200 years.

Where is the evidence that US life expectancy is increasing at the expense of the developing world? On the contrary, trade with the developing world (our medical technology, their new jobs and increased wealth) has dramatically improved their health.

there's no question that technological advances have raised living standards, at least as they are conventionally measured.

the paradox is that while capitalism develops the productive forces, capitalist social relations inhibit a humane deployment of these forces to stamp out poverty and misery.

according to a 1997 UN Development Report, twelve million children under the age of five die of diseases related to malnutrition EVERY YEAR.

in the face of falling/dormant profits, approximately 72% of global productive capacity is presently being deployed and tens and tens of millions are unemployed--this as massive human needs go unattended. why? because capital has no interest in "rewarding" those whose efforts won't engender profit-taking by capitalists.

the situation in Nicargua these days is illustrative of captial's brutality. as the commodity price of coffee has plummeted due to a glut on world markets, large numbers of coffee farms there have gone bankrupt and pulled out of production. what you see now in Nicargua is wide-spread malnutrition existing elbow-to-elbow with arable land that could produce *use-values*--ie: food--lies fallow. (meanwhile, a cup of coffee here in the US hasn't fallen in price a penny.)

this link further refutes eddie's sanguine "critique" of capitalist development.

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/global.htm

Aaron,

I don't read the conspiracy websites (emperors-clothes). It's a principle of mine -- call me crazy, but I don't waste time reading lies. My favorite sources are old-fashioned reporting: where both sides of an issue are provided.

Do you have any articles from more objective sources?

Eddie refuses to refute Aaron's arugment. In other words he chooses to ignore arguments (through a transparent attempt at poisoning the well) instead of tackling them, and thus has given up and has lost the debate!

I must confess that I did begin reading the article. This is how it begins:

"The late 20th Century will go down in World history as a period of global impoverishment marked by the collapse of productive systems in the developing World, the demise of national institutions and the disintegration of health and educational programs."

Like I said. I don't read lies. So I closed the browser window and made dinner.

To murder tens of millions of people will require some extraordinary efficiency. I searched the web and found an interesting technology that another group of tyrants used. We should definitely discuss this at the next meeting:

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland/Auschwitz/Auschwitz08.html

>I don't waste time reading lies.

If you don't read them, how do you know they're lies?

So is that your idea of debate eddie? You could have responded to MY post, but I guess that would be asking too much from a smug disciple of neo-liberal capitalism.

That paragraph that you believe is so egregious is the opening salvo, an introductory ASSERTION framing a well-documented text. To sneeringly dismiss it as lies without reading the text itself is just plain weak.

As to the defense of market capitalism on grounds that living standards and life expectancy have risen (in some places) over time, I'll say that Stalinists could make the same argument on behalf of many state capitalist ("communist") regimes. Of course, in the process they--like you--would have to expunge from the official record all the millions that had to die in order to build their favored system, as well as the environmental destruction inextricably linked to its development. I could go on.

From global climatic change to species extinction to forest clear-cuts to the pollution of our air and water, global market capitalism is brewing massive ecological chaos and destruction. What's the human life expectancy going to be when the planet's uninhabitable, eddie?

http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/

The western world began to be out competed in the late 20th century by asian economies like japan and china etc.
The western countries that were complacent and felt they could afford to sacrifice growth for social equilizing policies got squeezed until they started to give it up.

If you want to go back there you will have to tie the hands of those contries with which we compete.

Socialist policies and government intervention also tend (but dont have to) increace the likelyhood of bad management.

Aaron, I'd venture to guess that if people are starving, it is do to some kind of distribution problem - probably from civil war, corrupt government, or inept government. I say this because we definitely have the production capacity to feed the world - a testament to capitalism's ability to continually improve efficiency (c.f. allocating resources above). For proof of this - see how much American food is destroyed each year - more than enough to feed millions.

Your last post alludes to future calamity from global ecological destruction caused by capitalism. It is capitalism itself which has afforded us the leisure time to concern ourselves with these things and it is capitalism which will develope the technologies to measure the problems and find their solutions. If you look at the history of the communist and dictatorial systems with regard to the environment, you will find them to be disaserous. The Soviets were attrocious, and we're finding that Saddam was turning the rivers of the fertile crescent into toilets for his toxic waste.

If we had turned off the capitalist machine in 1920, in exchange for socialism, we'd be driving either horses (now, that's pollution), or extremely primative automobiles. Capitalism will get us their Aaron, it's our only hope.

Hello everyone.

Warning to Angela Parsons, what follows may disturb you...

First of all, my understanding of communism is a post-capitalist system of social relations where private property and the state are abolished through social revolution and a system of distribution guided by the following watchwords is established: "From each according to ability, to each according to need." In this respect, Anarchism and Marxism agree on the goal of class struggle. However, where they differ radically is in the nitty-gritty of "means" and the establishment of the post-capitalist world.

I was shooting guns with a leftist populist friend of mine (yes they do exist) and I asked him what he would do after "the revolution" to those capitalist rat bastards who are screwing us daily. His reply was "line 'em up and give 'em a lead breakfast!" We both laughed and fired off a few more rounds. But I explained to him the difference between himself and me was that I am all down for self-defense and being armed but not for the armed struggle of a minority against the majority.

I also let him know that my understanding of capitalism was as a social relation. People are capitalists due to their relation to the productive process. In the anarchist future society, when the means of production are run by the workers themselves, capitalists will cease to exist as a social category. There will still be these people running around who were capitalists in the previous capitalist society but they will no longer be capitalists if the source of their profits i.e. exploitation i.e. surplus value extraction through wage slavery is no longer extant as a social and economic relation.

For anarchists, means can not justify ends as testified by Bakunin's "Letter to Nechaev" in response to Nechaev's Catechism of the Revolutionary. Using whatever means to achieve your ends is a Blaquist revolutionary strategy that guarantees the rise of a new oppressive minority viz. the French Revolution. Authoritarian socialists disagree. They advocate a seizure of state power by a "class conscious" minority exemplified by the Communist Party.

Authoritarian-socialists of various tendencies advocate one form of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" thesis or another. This dictatorship will be midwives to the communist society and allow for a gradual "withering away" of the state. Anarchists of whatever stripe fight for an immediate smashing of the state. No withering allowed!

Some of the critiques of anarcho-communism brought up are good ones even if they come from people you disagree with. Dave's in particular come to mind. My significant other and get into these debates all the time. For example, it is not at all clear *how* anarcho-communists will deal with free-riders if goods and services are distributed from each according to ability and to each according to need. Proudhon had a big problem with this formulation and advocated from each according to ability, to each according to deed. But that creates a whole mess of problems as well...

OK if you disagree with the above statements. I am simply trying to display my understanding of the differences within the communist camp for the people who think communism = state socialism.

I wonder why you feel the need for an explicitly anarcho-communist (A-C) gathering. The anarchist movement is already fractured as it is. Are you gathering to debate the finer points of A-C theory or encourage greater participation by the working class in the anarchist project of human liberation? If you are gathering to work out theoretical concerns I think this is a great idea. But, if you are concerned with organization and direct action--or in Duke from NEFAC words, "practical revolutionary organizations that make relevant sense to other working class folks"--I think that the A-Cs and the anarcho-syndicalists (A-S) should work together on common issues and feel free to diverge where they disagree. This conference would be an ideal place to map out that common ground.

For the record, I am not an A-C nor A-S and I think you can tell from my point about Proudhon that I think some aspects of mutualism are relevant to the contemporary situation. The writings of a Spaniard named Fernando Tarrida del Marmol are particularly illuminating. Tarrida del Marmol viewed anarchism as an all-encompassing philosophy as opposed to a strict political doctrine. Rather than become embroiled in the debates of the day between anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-communists, he advocated subscribing to the general principles of anarchism. This school of thought was known as "Anarquismo sin adjectivos" and attracted a small audience in Spain. Later, Ricardo Mella interpreted anarchism without adjectives not as a synthesis of collectivism and communism but instead promoted tolerance between different anarchist factions.

I agree with Duke when he wrote, "By joining together with like-minded comrades for the purposes of sharing resources and building relationships we come one step closer to developing the type of force that will be able to engage successfully in a revolutionary situation."

But are your "comrades" restricted to A-Cs?

You seem to be contradicting yourself when you state, "Well, this is a great debate to show why the formation of explicitly anarcho-communist groups is important" and follow that up with "In many ways its time for anarchists of all stripes to forget about scenes or milieus or any other term for the anarchist ghetto and start building practical revolutionary organizations that make relevant sense to other working class folks." How can you expect to be "relevant" in the United States if you form "explicitly anarcho-communist groups"?

I used to be an anarcho-syndicalist but today am a strong advocate for an all-embracing anarchism that respects or at least puts up with different tendencies and opinions. I mean, can't we all get along?

I know I have a bit in common with the "green-anarchists" (not the primitivists though). I do not agree with the prescriptions of the A-Cs but think their critiques of capitalism are spot on. The only ones I have not found common ground with in the anarchist camp are the "anarcho-capitalists".

I enjoy the writings of the "classic" anarchist-individualists (now those were some real libertarians) but can not stand anarcho-capitalists. The reason being is they claim to be in the individualist tradition but Tucker and the others who wrote in the paper "Liberty" were socialists and quite critical of capitalism.

I've been researching the history of anarchist ideology and am particularly interested in Spanish anarchism. I have read a lot, though not nearly all, of the material available on the topic in English in addition to some Spanish materials. I visited Barcelona numerous times and have conducted research in various archives. A very good companero of mine from Barcelona who is not an anarchist but whose uncle was in the FAI during the 1930s can vouch for some of the atrocities committed by anarchists in relation to churches, cemeteries, etc. It is not simply fascist propaganda as Nessie seems to believe:

"Very few churches were burned.Those that were, were burned in protest, not against religion, but against the Church's cruel and brutal, feudal land lordship, and it’s open support of the fascists."

Absolutely false. There is a long history of anticlericalism in Spain going back to the "Semana Tragica" if not before. Now, that does not mean that instances were blown out of proportion. They absolutely were, no doubt about it. Even during the Tragic Week, Joan Connelly Ullman points out that it was Lerroux's Radical Party that attempted to divert the insurrectionary character of the general strike by "directing rebellious elements into anticlerical activities such as burning and pillaging church buildings, with the result that forty religious schools and churches, convents, and welfare centers were put to the torch together with twelve parish churches." (1) Three parish priests were murdered.

Similar things occurred during the Spanish Revolution and subsequent civil war but Michael Seidman clearly implicates the anarchists in these cases. "Solidaridad Obrera proclaimed, Down with the Church, and the CNT daily reported attacks on churches in working-class neighborhoods. Nearly every church in Barcelona was set afire; in the so-called red terror almost half the victims were ecclesiastics. According to clerical sources, 277 priests and 425 monks were assassinated" (Seidman. "Workers Against Work: Labor in Paris and Barcelona During the Popular Fronts" Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. p. 82).

The Spanish working class had a variety of reasons to be upset with the Church. The Church was seen as a bulwark for the most conservative--and oppressive--elements of society; the government, the military, and the capitalists. Furthermore, Marxists and anarcho-syndicalists alike promoted a productivist ideology that viewed non-workers as "parasites." Anarcho-communists also adopted a productivist ideology and "like the anarcho-syndicalists, these anarchists asserted that in the revolution the 'identity card of the producer,' issued by the union, would be necessary to obtain any rights at all" (Seidman, 47). Under libertarian communism the producer would replace the citizen.

Anticlericalism was blown out of proportion by the fascists in Spain and in the capitalist press in the U.S. But there is a difference between fabrication and embellishment. Which brings me to my next point.

The economic statistics provided by anarchist sources need to be examined critically. That does not mean they are all false (fabrication), merely that we need to use the same critical eye that we use when we analyze other data. We should not buy the "party line" of anarchist authors hook line and sinker. Nessie exemplifies this uncritical attitude when he writes:

"[A]narchist economic theory is correct. For a year, the workers themselves controlled the economy at every level in a third of Spain. They ran everything from grocery stores and gas stations to farms, shipping companies, locomotive factories and the telephone exchange. After a brief period of adjustment, in virtually every case, the cost of production went down, the rate of production went up, the quality of production went up and and the standard of living rose."

I think a critical assessment of the situation reveals some gains and some mistakes.

Trade unionist Benjamin Martin's work is particularly insightful. Quoting at length:

"As the body of research has expanded modestly in recent years, a more comprehensive picture of the urban workers' collectivization movement has emerged. But our grasp of what actually transpired in the countryside remains illusive and ill-defined. Local and regional studies are on the increase, yet our knowledge of the extant and efficacy of rural collectivization remains at best fragmentary.(2) Roughly 54 percent of expropriated lands were collectivized with the remainder either distributed to individuals or turned over to cooperatives. (3) Most of the land that was seized had been abandoned by its owners or they had been killed....

Why collectivization was chosen over other forms of land resettlement varied from one area to another. Where there were large concentrations of landless peasants in latifundist areas such as Andalusia, Extremadura, parts of Castile and La Mancha, where unrest had been running high on the eve of the insurgency, where labor organization was strong collectivization was favored...

The formation of communes was the libertarian ideal, but circumstances and peasants' desires forced anarchists to accept not only collectivization but the coexistence of small holdings as well. It was decided upon in other instances not so much as an ideological solution but as the most practical way to resume production as quickly as possible and avert costly harvest losses...

Much has been made of the coercion employed by militiamen in forcing peasants to join the collectives, an allegation that was employed as the pretext in the summer of 1937 for their forcible dissolution. Intimidation was undoubtedly employed, yet numerous peasants did voluntarily join the collectives and a substantial number of them remained loyal to the anarchist collectives, especially after the dissolution of the Council of Aragon. An important inducement was the favoritism displayed by the Council of Aragon toward collective members in the distribution of supplies and other items. The degree to which collectivization was imposed by armed terror remains unclear and undocumented. Though it is impossible to generalize about rural land takeovers, there is little doubt that the quality of life for most peasants who participated in cooperatives and collectives noticeably improved" (Martin, "The Agony of Industrialization: Labor and Industrialization in Spain" Cornell: ILR Press, 1990. p. 391-394).

I agree with Martin's general assessment. The quality of life for most peasants did improve. But it needs to be stressed that they were living an extremely rough life. It had been even worse for the landless workers (braceros). Murray Bookchin laments that "[t]heir misery beggars description" (Bookchin. The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936. New York: Free Life Editions, 1977. p. 93).

The situation was bad in the cities as well. Angel Marvaud quotes an annual mortality rate for nonindustrial Madrid of 27 per thousand in 1910, comparing it with 17 per thousand for Paris and 16 for Brussels. Joaquin Romero Maura tells us that "a population of sickly, undernourished appearance was responsible for the fact that the mortality rate of Barcelona (24.1 per thousand) was higher than that of London, Paris, New York, and Tokyo, even higher than that of Rio de Janeiro." Martin notes, "Even under normal conditions the inordinately high cost of living obliged many workers to include large amounts of bread in their daily diet, and the resulting nutritional deficiencies made them more vulnerable to infection" (Martin, p.51).

For both of these groups, collectivization was an improvement. Some authors would make similar arguments in regards to the collectivization efforts conducted by the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.

On that critical note, Seidman asserts that the anarchists advocation of concentration of the many small factories and workshops that dotted the Barcelonan industrial landscape was not radically from the Soviet case:

"In Spain, as in the Soviet Union, the effort to rationalize the productive forces was accompanied by technocratic thought and methods propagated by Fabregas, Santillan, and other CNT and anarcho-syndicalist thinkers. Like Soviet planners, the Spanish revolutionaries desired, at least in theory, to build enterprises on a large scale. They often employed the same methods such as Taylorism, highly preferential treatment for managers and technicians, and strict control of rank-and-file workers. Certain CNT unions even copied the Stakhanovism of the Bolsheviks in order to promote production" (Seidman, 97).

The CNT implemented piecework and used forced work camps for "delinquents." "Spanish militants sometimes equated excessive drinking and laziness with sabotage and even fascism" (Seidman, 103). In a meeting of officials of the Metallurgical Union (CNT) on May 27, 1937, it's president Rubio, declared that in a war and Revolution workers must work until exaustion.

Furthermore:

"In May 1938 Barcelona railroad workers were notified of the nearly total reestablishment of piecework:

The orders of the management must be obeyed.

The workers will receive a reasonable rate per piece. They must not forget the basic rule of collaboration and must try not to deceive the management" (Seidman, 136).

Excpet for changes in the industrial decision-making process that the theory of self-management introduced (with the union at the center of that process), neither the CNT nor the UGT provided an alternative model to develop the productive forces of society. As Seidman writes, "When the unions were faced with industrial problems such as poor productivity and workers' indifference, they were forced to tie pay to output, just as the capitalists had done."

Nessie do you truly believe that "Our theory was proven correct. Our mistake was not economic, it was military."? If you are referring to the productivism of anarcho-communist theory or anarcho-syndicalist theory I need to disagree. Collectivization in Spain resulted in some gains for workers and some losses. Of course this must be contextualized and historicized but I am not ready to share in your anarcho-triumphialism. I also think you are making a serious mistake in advocating a version of spontaneous insurrection a la Malatesta but I'll save that for another post.

Collectivization was an improvement for peasants, landless workers, and the working class but what is important to keep in mind is an improvement over what? Spain in the 1930s was an economically stagnant nation compared to the rest of Western Europe. Spain had no institutionalized system of industrial-labor relations. Employers hired thugs to kill union militants and union militants formed hit-squads to strike against their exploiters. It was an industrializing pre-capitalist nation without any functioning institutions associated with the democratic liberal state. And here lies the rub, I am not sure that collectivization holds the same appeal to US workers living in the 21st century as it did to Spanish workers and peasants in the middle of the 20th. That does not mean that I think that anarchism as an ideology is rooted in some sort of pre-industrial utopianism but I do think we need to revisit and rethink our strategies and tactics.

I think anarchism is very relevant to people in the US given the nature of anarchism's critique of power relations and hierarchies. As you say, we are only 6% of the population but if things changed radically here it will have an impact on the rest of the world.

In closing, I may be a critic, but I am truly your ally in the struggle against capitalism and the state. Enjoy the conference.

For a world without bosses!

anarquismo sin adjectivos

1. Ullman's contention that the church burnings resulted from the instigations of the Radical Party is controversial. David Ruiz claims that the churches became the principal target of popular fury because industrial enterprises and public buildings were heavily guarded but the churches were left defenseless. See his "Espana 1902-1923: Vida politica, social y cultural," in Revolucion burguesa, oligarquia y constitucionalismo (1834-1923).

2. see Anarquismo y revolucion en la sociedad rural Aragonesa 1936-1938 (Madrid: Siglio XXI, 1985); Walter L. Bernecker, Colectivadades y revolucion social; el anarquismo en la civil espanola (Barecelona: Critica, 1982); Aurora Bosch, Ugetistas y libertarios, guerra civil y revolucion en el pais Valenciano, 1936-1939 (Valencia: Institucion Alfonso Magnamino,1983); Jose Luis Guitierrez Molina, Colectivadades libertarias en Castilla (Madrid: Campo Abierto, 1977); Luis Garrido Gonzalez, Colectividades agrarias en Andalusia: Jaen, 1931-1939 (Madrid: Siglio XXI, 1976).

3. Edward Malefakis estimates that roughly 55 percent of the arable land in the central region was expropriated and that "less than half of this 55 percent did not experience radical changes because all that took place was that it passed into the hands of its former tennants and sharecroppers who worked it, individually continuing to its cultivation." Approximately 30 percent of all land taken was collectivized, amounting to 8 to 10 percent in the levant, 30 percent in Castile and La Mancha, possibly 45 percent in Andalusia and Extremadura, and reaching its highest point in Aragon. See Malefakis, "La economia espanola y guerra civil," in La economia espanola en el siglio XX, una perspectiva historica, ed. Jordi Nadal, Albert Carrera, and Carlos Sudria (Barcelona: Ariel, 1987), p. 158.

>Warning to Angela Parsons, what follows may disturb you...

To the contrary, I found it refreshing. At least you're not saying the same thing I've been hearing for years, basically "The Spanish Revolution proved that anarchism worked" with little or no contextualization or analysis of the times. Further, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement "That does not mean that I think that anarchism as an ideology is rooted in some sort of pre-industrial utopianism but I do think we need to revisit and rethink our strategies and tactics...I think anarchism is very relevant to people in the US given the nature of anarchism's critique of power relations and hierarchies. As you say, we are only 6% of the population but if things changed radically here it will have an impact on the rest of the world."

A need to revisit and rethink is exactly why I was so critical/dismissive -- saying the same thing over and over again to capitalists is not going to get us anywhere. The reason that I find anarchism relevant is not so much because I'm starving (I'm not), but because heirarchal relations have created prison-like conditions for millions of people in this country, and hundreds of millions of people world-wide; and capitalism, white supremacy and patriarchy are all part of that. A contemporary anarchism in my view should address these issues head on; anything else is just armchair posturing.

In any case, thanks for your post. It was most enlightening.

even if you remove capitalism from your state or your country or even your continent you will still face it globaly speaking and you will loose (as far as i understand your anarchism).
Besides that anarchism is unlikely to solve ecological problems (if you think it will please explain the mechanism that will keep it on track).

Dave said:
<<Aaron, I'd venture to guess that if people are starving, it is do to some kind of distribution problem - probably from civil war, corrupt government, or inept government. I say this because we definitely have the production capacity to feed the world - a testament to capitalism's ability to continually improve efficiency (c.f. allocating resources above). For proof of this - see how much American food is destroyed each year - more than enough to feed millions.>>

What you call an allocation problem is inherent to capitalist social relations, Dave. Capitalists will destroy goods and allow productive forces to stand idle if these goods and productive forces can not realize (sufficient) profit through exchange.To call this an allocation problem incorrectly suggests that deprivation under capitalism is only due to forces extrinsic to it.

First, I'd like to say this: Corrupt government and civil war are not infections on the capitalist "body" as you suggest--they are inherent to capitalist civilization. All capitalist states are driven by the interests of those with money; all capitalist societies are riven by class conflict, in other words, (at the very least) the threat of civil war.

But even if we were to assume some mythical capitalism unafflicted by conditions inherent to its very existence, the prerogatives of capital--not some banal allocation problem--are the reason that buildings and perfectly habitable domiciles stand vacant while the homeless sleep in the streets; why arable land is pulled out of production while humans nearby go malnourished; why food is destroyed while people DIE of hunger; why empty city lots are caged-off and affixed with no trespassing signs while a marked need for vegetation and parks go unsatisified; why public space is eviscerated; why huge numbers get poor health care or none at all; why......

i'm too exhausted to continue now, but would be happy to pick-up on your contention that capitalism is what's going to save this planet's ecological habitat (do you *really* believe that ayn rand crud?--you seem smarter than that.....)

Angela, thanks for your comment.

I sincerely apologize for my snippiness. When I read your post I assumed that you were one of those anti-theory/anti-history types who thinks that the only people who are intellectuals are middle-class (or upper class) white males.

You write that "saying the same thing over and over again to capitalists is not going to get us anywhere"

Yes! Nor will saying the same things over and over to ourselves! This is just one of our many problems as evidenced by Nessie's comments. He seems convinced that 1930s Spain is a model that is applicable to 21st century post-industrial capitalist nations. As stated above, I do not share his optimism.

That does not mean that I do not think self-management is a good idea. I think it is a great idea! But self-mangement as practiced in the Spanish collectives had its share of problems and we should always learn from our mistakes or we will repeat them.

"A contemporary anarchism in my view should address these issues head on [capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy]; anything else is just armchair posturing."

Indeed Angela, indeed. More power to you SISTER...

For a World Without Bosses!

anarquismo sin adjectivos

Oh, you're most welcome! I'm definitely not an anti-theory/history type, anymore than on the whole anti-civilization thing. Whose civilization, ya know? I enjoyed "Elements of Refusal" (for all of it's flaws), and nearly coughed up a lung reading his analysis of the klan, which was nothing more than an apologia, in my opinion. In any case...I digress...

What you're touching on is one of the largest missing elements in contemporary anarchism -- while I think reading Bakunin or about the Spanish revolution is useful (necessary, even), anarchism has little to say about power dynamics around race and gender, and the discussion of class in this technocratic, rich vs. poor, bicoastal-dominated society is scant. It's not that the theories are wrong, they're just kinda...dusty. A theory's proponents being isolated, vilified, driven out of the country and assassinated will do that to an ideology, methinks...

thanks for the props, mucho mas y mucho gusto!

AP, my own damn news wire, thank you very much

I wouldn't put much stock into anything that Kurzweil say's, it's hoaky and silly. Let's suppose though that we could get these "Robots" to work for us, and do all the dumb boring things that we hate so much. It would only be a matter of time before these "Robots" became intelligent in an AI fashion, so they too would get bored, and they could possibly unite against us, since now we, yes even us good wholesome anarchists, are the opressers of a new underclass. Even in the best of your possible outcomes, we see that it is nothing more than the continuation of an inevitable cycle that pits one against another.

Hey maybe we could get the AI Robots to drive us around on motorcycles. That would be cool and less dangerous.

So...what are you really scared of, robots or freedom? In case you hadn't noticed, we're already surrounded by robots -- increased production of robotic labor isn't going to increase the chances of them "going sentient" (a pretty spurious assumption, given that most of what the robots would do is manual labor, not, say, learning how to play an instrument, nuture an infant or make love). If anything, we're much more in danger of being enslaved by a technocratic society than robots. Giving robots power they don't have anywhere other than a science fiction novel is a really good way to robotize yourself, but it's nowhere as near as good at making robots feel and think. Besides, software is just as likely to go sentient as a robot, if you wanna go there. It is an aside from discussing anarchism *ahem*, but in any case...

AP, who wonders why she's here on a Friday night instead of getting laid

>most of what the robots would do is . . . not . . . make love

Don't believe it. They've already started.

Click here: http://www.fukingmachines.com/

Um, I don't think that's what some of us had in mind when we've talked about reduction of work-based labor by machines, but I could be wrong. Personally, I'd much rather envision a world where we have enough time to relate to each other as human beings than one where machines replace sex workers with some asshole making a huge profit off of it, but that's just me. I mean, would you want to be fucked by a robot? Kinda creepy.

Why does this conversation keep making me think of the Terminator movies?

AP

Well, there was the robot played by Winona Ryder in Alien III . . .

I'm not saying I'd prefer her to, oh say, you, for example. But I sure wouldn't kick her out for eating crackers in bed.

Or whatever it is that robots eat.

But now that you mention it, robot porn will someday become a genre. Imagine the Winona's robot character getting it on with the dancing gigolo from the movie "AI". Think HBO could sell tickets to that?

"would you want to be fucked by a robot?"

Finally a utopia where even guys like Nessie can get laid!

because:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?U23514355

nessie:
>what happens when the needs a root canal...........do it your self dentistry? how about when you have a heart attack?
...

But in the very near future, all that will change. Our children's children will go to robots.

----------------

But Nessie doesn't address that these robot-surgeons are likely to "rip you to shreads".

"Instantly, the insidious, once latent, but now fast moving, now fully orchestrated, armies of nanotransmittor robots inside your body crank up and go straight to work. They tear into their targets, chomping, gouging, drilling, and de-molishing your human tissue. Steadily, they destroy life-giving arteries to the heart; they eat away at the brain and liver cells, and tear off bits of plaque and cholesterol which dislodge, travel to the brain, heart, and kidneys, and induce strokes and hemorrhaging."

http://conspiracyworld.com/web/Articles/world_cup_conspiracy.htm


Nessie and other robots already on the planet are preparing the trusting earthlings for the eventual takeover. But that will only create the demise of our species.

because:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W55624355

The alpha females (beautiful and intelligent) fuck alpha males (capitalists, rockstars, athletes). The only way the mediocre males can ever have a chance with the desirable females is if these mediocre males become alpha males. Impossible. Can never happen since these particular guys are too lazy to make anything of themselves. The next best alternative? Get rid of the alpha males ("anarchism").

Like everything else, it all comes down to getting laid. It's quite perverse that these guys' fantasies about getting laid involve mass murder and tyranny. Different strokes for different folks...

to one of our orgies.

this meeting stuff is a bunch of B.S. no real anarchist
would be cought dead with this bunch of loosers

this meeting stuff is stupid. you have to be pretty desperate to go for some thing like this

"You've obviously never been to one of our orgies."

Sure I have. I even took photos.

Nessie, you chose to avoid all of the critcisms raised regarding the collectivization process in Spain and instead suggest that people read Gaston Laval. You remind me of the people who suggest reading Lenin or Mao for an accurate account of the collectivization process in the USSR or PRC.

I've read Laval and as I mentioned above his comments need to be taken with a big grain of salt. Anyone who considers themselves a critical thinker needs to question his assumptions and how he presents the data. Numerous historians, economists, and political scientists in Spain refute Laval for his lack of nuance and complexity. In short, he presents a complex historical situation in a simplistic manner.

You do as well when you write:

"But yeah, worker self-owned, worker self-managed workplaces do in fact improve the material wellbeing of the workers. Spanish history proves this. So does the history of NoBAWC."

Once again, to historicize and contextualize the Spanish experience...Spanish collectivization improved the material well-being of workers who were in poverty and suffering from malnutrition. How relevant collectivization is to post-industrial workers is debatable to say the least.

Also, if you think NoBAWC "improves the material being of workers" you are even more isolated from the working class than I suspected. I don't doubt that individual collectives and coopertives provide a wage to people but the wages and benefits in cooperatives and collectives are generally lower than in organized workplaces. And what does NoBAWC do beyond providing a 10% discount for other NoBAWC members?

As has been previously pointed out, NoBAWC has member-businesses that are not "self-managed" except in the most perverse use of the term. I know a few people who worked at Bookpeople and they can vouch that that business had a standard system of capitalist management, hired temp workers, and so on. Worker Bee and Wobbly Girl in particular made some great points on that thread. Talking to someone who still has some contact with the situation at Bookpeople, he says it is even worse today...

Even AK Press is a "self-managed" press in name only. "R" for all intents and purposes is the boss. In the past five years I know numerous people who have left due to his authoritarianism. Also, I doubt any of them would say that working at AK "improved their material being." It was, by contrast, a labor of love.

All of them are in jobs with better pay and better benefits today. If standard capitalist enterprises appealed to these anarchist workers, what hope do you see for collectiivzation among the majority of the working class who are not anarchist? What appeal does collectivization hold for the "average worker" in the US?

Leaving the improvement of "material well-being" aside, self-management also means more committment i.e. more time spent on the job. How many workers do you know who want to spend time in meetings after work? In my experience few do.

This has been the experience of the highly successful Mondragon Coopertive Corporation as well. Rank-and-file wage workers routinely express dissent at being required to attend meetings when they want to be home with their families, lovers, or just zoning out watching the tube. Management on salary does not mind attending the meetings as much. They see it as part of their job description.

For the record, I realize Mondragon is a cooperative system not a collective system. Mondragon is organized, first and foremost, as a capitalist enterprise not an ideological challenge to capitalism. I think Mondragon's material success has come from its abilty to find and exploit a niche within capitalism. First in the autarchic market under Franco and later in an open/liberal market.

For a World Without Bosses!

anarquismo sin adjectivos

Tell us more about the robots. What will be their names? Will they have positronic brains or be powered by steam engines?

Also, someone here said these robots will give us plenty of free time to grow our own food. I live in a cramped apartment. Where the hell am I going to grow my own food?

Will there also be robots capable of slapping you for making such ridiculous statements?

http://www.fred.net/turtle/asskicker/asskicker.html

something that no ass kissing boot licker slave can ever hope for.
you shouldn’t hang out with willing slaves??


A LITTLE FULL OF OUR SELVES AREN'T WE?

Nessie, my comments on Laval stand. I too used to eat up Laval, Bookchin, Dolgoff, etc. etc.etc. with an uncritical eye but I am no longer an adolescent. I've spent time researching collectivization in Barcelona, I've talked to ex-FAI members, and I know the picture you present is not accurate. Comforting perhaps, but not accurrate.

Regarding my responses being "too materialistic," I was responding to your comments regarding collectives being a material improvement for workers. They were for workers in poverty and facing starvation but in most cases in the US, they are not.

Also, I never stated that Bookpeople and AK were "ideal" workplaces but to pretend that (esp. Bookpeople) is an example of "workers self-management" shows that you have very little understanding of what auto-gestion actually means. Your comments are actually quite similar to the replies of the Bookpeople bosses if you look at the thread. They also say there is nothing contradictory in having bosses that are unaccountable to the rank and file. So much for workers self-mangement. Sounds like you are an advocate for self-management as mandated by unaccountable managers!

Also, you may feel that working for AK or Bookpeople is better than "licking the bosses’ boots" but you have never worked at either of these places have you? If you did, you would know that the anarchists and others who left did find better employment opportunities, with the same or greater autonomy and control over their day to day lives and all of them with better wages and benefits. Not to mention the fact that the "boot licking" you so despise takes place at both AK and Bookpeople.

You also exhibit a very uncritical understanding of what is going down in Mondragon. I suggest reading "The Myth of Mondragon: Cooperatives, Politics, and Working-Class Life in a Basque Town" by Sharyyn Kasmir. I wrote my MA thesis on the MCC and Kasmir provided me with some great comments. Check it out, it might open your mind. It will certainly refute your statements that:

"In almost all cases, it’s workers have better pay than they would outside Mondragon." and "Mondragon’s superior management skills are the direct result of rank and file participation in the decision making process."

If you actually knew about the managers in the MCC you would know that they have been eduacted and trained as managers. They go to graduate school and get MBAs. They are groomed for the position and do not arise organically from the shop floor as advocated by anarchists and libertarian Marxists. The rank and file has much less participation than you have been led to believe.

Also see:

http://www.thirdway.org/files/world/mondragon.html

Criticisms of the Mondragon Project include the voice of Noam Chomsky, who enjoys a near-magisterial position for most thinkers of the left. Acknowledging the co-operatives' successful survival in competition with more capitalist systems, he opines that the corporation's democratic system is just as noncommittal to sustainable growth as one of a top-down hierarchy.

More critical is Sharon Kasmir's iconoclastic The Myth of Mondragon, which claims that the corporation packages and markets co-operativism as a convenient advertising campaign perpetuated by so many worthless academic hacks].

Though cynical at first glance, some of her points are not off base; recent trends reveal a form of "social engineering" within Mondragon's educational system that turns the project's ideals into "being a good worker," rather than enforcing the status of the socios as owners. The sovereignty of labor and the instrumental nature of capital appear to be losing in the war of ideas, though recently some co-operatives have seceded in an effort to regain their institutional integrity and to preserve the traditional emphases on locality and Basqueness.

Also see the review of "Making Mondragon" in Contemporary Sociology: Vol. 26, No.3, p.336-337 by Hank Johnston:

The myth that Kasmir sets out to dispel is that the worker-owned cooperatives, located in the Basque town of Mondragon, Guipuzcoa Province, are islands of workers' democracy in a sea of alienated and exploited labor. Her research suggests that, in contrast to the myth, cooperative workers are apathetic about participation, do not identify with the co-op organization, exhibit a paradoxical competitiveness among themselves, and do not exhibit a highly developed class consciousness...

Kasmir observes that much of what visitors see is a Potemkin village presented by managers who assume the job of presenting the cooperatives to the curious...Her goal is to present a "bottom up" ethnographic study of the cooperatives based in interpretations of the workers themselves, and enriched by living herself in the town and joining workers and their friends in after-work pub rounds called chiquiteros. She asserts that her study was done from a "working-class perspective," meaning that she portays the cooperatives as the workers see them.

The book points out that most academic treatments of the MCC are utopian in that they cut the organizations from their cultural and political context and fail to see the several ways that ideology is used in their portrayal. The Mondragon myth was built upon another ideological construction, that Basque society was traditionally egalitarian. This was seized and expanded upon by the Basque petty bourgeoisie earlier in the 20th century to construct an idealized version of Basque nationalism.

Kasmir argues that Basque egalitarianism was used by different classes in different ways at different times, and is most immediately drawn upon by co-op managers to justify--mostly in their own minds--an idealized vision of cooperative organization. Co-op management report that they are quite content with their participation, even though they are paid less than they would in private firms.

Kasmir also argues that the ideology of Basque egalitariansism mitiagtes solidarity with strikers in the private sector who are seen as less Basuq because they elevate class consciousness above Basque national consciousness. A thread that runs through the book is that cooperatives are not sufficietly confrontational; "They were founded as an entrepeneurial alternative to working-class activism and socialism" (p. 195).

This is all the worse because the cooperatives do not, contrary to their mythic image, significantly improve upon working-class life. Cooperative workers do not make use of the participatory channels available to them. Co-op workers envision themselves as middle class in relation to noncooperative workers, but not in relation to the managers. Workplace democracy does not ameliorate the strains of shift work, routinization, and pressure for increased productivity. Cooperatives are exploitative in their use of temporary workers. Kasmir's bottom line seems to be that cooperatives' workers would benefit from union representation, which they are not allowed to have and may not know that they need.

Kasmir also argues that the ideology of Basque egalitariansism mitiagtes solidarity with strikers in the private sector who are seen as less Basuq because they elevate class consciousness above Basque national consciousness.

SHOULD READ:

Kasmir also argues that the ideology of Basque egalitariansism mitiagtes solidarity with strikers in the private sector who are seen as less BASQUE because they elevate class consciousness above Basque national consciousness.

For a World Without Bosses

anarquismo sin adjectivos

Thank you, anarquismo sin adjectivos, for your erudite commentary. I think we have all learned a lot (at least those of us with an open mind).

And Nessie,
"Like I always say, if you want to know how many widgets to order for next month, ask the widgeteer."

Then what you always say is complete nonsense. How does the widgeteer know how many widgets to order?? To put it in a familiar context: if you are a drywall installer (widgeteer installing the widget), how do you know how much drywall to order for next month? You don't. Who does? The contractor who knows how many buildings he will build and the dimensions of each wall that requires drywall.

yes by all means lets let the manual labor try to do math. (like they care)

that is like letting the first mate drive the Exxon Valdese

or letting the candy stripper in the hospital do your heart by-pass.

this line of thinking might be just a little flawed?

"It just so happens that I installed drywall for a living for many years."

Well that certainly qualifies you to design a socio-economic system run by robots.

"You're a class bigot."

I'm not a class bigot becase a) I do not believe in the concept of class distinctions (unlike you), and b) If I did I would not insult a class by saying you are representative of it. You're full of it if you think an insult to you is an insult to all working people.

"I decided very young to work with my hands because I have to work at something, just to eat, but I flat out refuse to put my brain at the disposal of my enemies to use to promote their sick and evil agenda."

You refuse to use your brain, period. Any rationalization of that decision is beside the point.

"What's more, you blatant disrespect for the inherent dignity of labor is vile and offensive."

Compare these two statements: 1) Hanging drywall does not qualify you to decide which economic systems work and which dont. 2) A degree in economics does not qualify you to hang drywall.

Both are true, neither makes any qualification of dignity. This goes back to the point about you not using your brain.

"I only hope you mouth off like that to my face someday, or to the face of someone like me. Your dentist will be very happy."

Perhaps someday I will, and you will find out that you are not the only one with fists built from hard labor. Anarchy gives us the freedom to beat the crap out of each other.

Click here:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/09/150982_comment.php#1637602

"... but I flat out refuse to put my brain at the disposal of my enemies to use to promote their sick and evil agenda."

You mean for things like:
* being a teacher and instilling a love of learning and reading into young children.
* being an engineer and helping to create a clean and abundant energy technology.
* being a molecular biologist and working to create a treatment for a debilitating disease.

Or maybe you could have helped to create any of the technologies that you you plan to loot from the "capitalists" in order to enable your utopia.

"why then do you take time out of your otherwise rich, fulfilling and presumably lucrative schedule"

Consider it a public service.

Interesting link. My sister's boyfriend was a troll on Adequacy. He works at microsoft answering people's problems with windows. He would write up whole fake articles, like saying that the government was about to censor something important to teens, and then watch how people reacted and got mad about the story.

Former entrepreneur (publishing and software). Sold company -- decided I wanted to get into a more "meaningful" career. Currently a grad student studying molecular biology (and the oldest student in my class).

Robot Economics


By James D. Miller 08/19/2003


E-Mail Bookmark Print Save

Will robots steal all our jobs? Although today's robots may lack the intelligence God gave ants, robots of the future might perform many "human" tasks. Economics shows, however, that humans needn't fret over robot-induced redundancies.

 

Click here:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60153,00.html

he said something nice about that evil, lying, warmongering gangster, George Bush.