Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OP forgot that Internet used to be ARPAnet that was part of military. He claims it was a people's invention, it was not. It was installed by government.
I was the one who said that. I said the internet came from the public sector, and as such is not maintained by private capitalists, but a power responsible to the public wealth.
I’d suggest distributions that power, to a less central set of networks which while it would be less efficient it would offer more freedom.
Central public works are closer to what I have in mind than what free market capitalists imagine.
And without corporations, you would not see widespread availability of internet connections.
The current internet infrastructure still exists, and while there would be no central provider with a profit motive to create new markets, technological advancements will allow for more implementations.
And even in your private capitalist theory, while Internet would be wider spread, costs for access by telecom companies would increase as to collect greater profits from these new markets.
For thousands of years humans operated based on personal property and pooling together resources.
Read Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.
And for thousands of years they could not pool enough resources outside of just surviving and praying to Gods that epidemics and famines don't completely wipe them out.You said you don't want to live in those early societies and want all the benefits of modern world. Unfortunately, all the inventions of the modern world were made possible by one form of capitalist system or another. Go ask people from USSR if they could ever dream of the modern day computers and cell phones that you are using to type on this forum.
Or you think we have all the machines and gadgets that we can possibly need, so let's halt it here and start living a commune life. Good luck with that.
And a collection of anarchist essays from 1902 has all the answers you possibly need. That's called a religion and we have plenty of those as well.
I understand that you are a marx following anarchio-communist...but you do understand that most 401ks are peoples retirements
and even the poor have investments that are considered capital gains..even if that interest/dividend is less than $100
what you are suggesting is that if I earn $100 interest/dividend , that the government should take $90 of it and leave me with $10...... blatant thievery like that will cause major anarchy....do you really want to see another revolution ....
forget it, don't answer, we know you are an anarchio-communist who wants revolution to form your new world order of the political paradise of communism.... just as Alinsky said
Firstly I’m not a Marxist, I don’t agree with Marx’s philosophy of class conflict, nor his labor value theory.
Secondly I don’t care about political titles. I simply say I’m a communist now, nothing more, and nothing less.
Thirdly, I don’t believe what an ideology tells me, if a capitalist, facist, socialist, or anyone else says something that makes sense, I will agree with it regardless of ideological constraints.
Fourthly I have discussed retirees already. Yes stocks offer value for retirees, but they also make them reliant on corporate wealth, a more equal and free model would be for local institutions to exchange corporate wealth.
If money is no longer needed for freedom, property taxes are eliminated, and banks don’t hold credit for individuals to accumulate debt, it would free up networks of local health institutions and the family to support retirees.
And for thousands of years they could not pool enough resources outside of just surviving and praying to Gods that epidemics and famines don't completely wipe them out.You said you don't want to live in those early societies and want all the benefits of modern world. Unfortunately, all the inventions of the modern world were made possible by one form of capitalist system or another. Go ask people from USSR if they could ever dream of the modern day computers and cell phones that you are using to type on this forum.
Or you think we have all the machines and gadgets that we can possibly need, so let's halt it here and start living a commune life. Good luck with that.
And a collection of anarchist essays from 1902 has all the answers you possibly need. That's called a religion and we have plenty of those as well.
1. This is not true, development happened because of central powers like the state that concentrated political power and the movement of wealth. Why do you think the 5 year plan industrialized the Soviet Union.
Secondly inventions happen if people have the leasiure time to pursue such goals; investments only help if you live in a society where money is required to operate freely.
Technological innovation will still happen, it’s application won’t be as aggressively pursued. And I don’t want a commune living, people are free to organize as they want with cross country networks of supply chains and electric power, etc.
It is a question of who can control wealth, how decisions are made. And yes, the focus of society shouldn’t be focused on economic growth.
Finally Mutual Aid was not Kropotkin’s collection of essays. And I don’t religiously follow Kropotkin on anything, I agree with him on some things and disagree on others.
Mutual Aid is a scientific study with social conclusions that I think are well proven.
It is only a tax on profits (so not total sale value).
I'm not supporting it from a tax revenue stand point, I don't care about that, but it would lower economic activity in the corporate sector and dissuade people from investing (and inflating) the stock market.
The materialistic profit motive that has driven our economy has built an authoritarian state where money buys you freedom, and the more money you have, the more freedom you have as well.
To create a freer society it must be more egalitarian and not based on increasing economic activity.
Also in the long run it will lower government revenues and slow imperialistic ambitions abroad.
Furthermore people will be happier not trying to become millionaires and building a life rather than making a living.
It is like usury to levy such an unreasonable tax. Big Money wouldn't like it so it will never happen.
It’s not about physical presence, but control. If someone enters your house they don’t share ownership with you.
Similarly a factory is operated by the workers, they choose how it’s production is used and the pace it is used at. The owner backed by the state is an artificial owner. If the government changed the standards by which someone can own a factory, the entire capitalist class would be reshuffled.
So no, by yourself you could not control a factory because you could not operate all by yourself. If you find a way then congratulations, but then if you rent that space the new worker would become equal owners with you meaning you’d have no leverage to force them to pay rent.
Sure they could pay you if they wanted to, but there would be no reason to.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to respond to questions. If I rent that space, and the renter refuses to pay me rent and refuses to leave, me and the institution I formed collectively kicks him out by force and puts him in jail. How would you prevent me from doing that? How would you enforce a society built on the principles you preach? I fundamentally think you're wrong, and I think I own that factory. I built it, I paid for it, the workers who work there have no right to call themselves owners. I will kick them out, by force if need be. How will your society stop me?
But you and I know you can't answer my question, which is why you dismissed it as nonsense
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to respond to questions. If I rent that space, and the renter refuses to pay me rent and refuses to leave, me and the institution I formed collectively kicks him out by force and puts him in jail. How would you prevent me from doing that? How would you enforce a society built on the principles you preach? I fundamentally think you're wrong, and I think I own that factory. I built it, I paid for it, the workers who work there have no right to call themselves owners. I will kick them out, by force if need be. How will your society stop me?
But you and I know you can't answer my question, which is why you dismissed it as nonsense
If you invite someone to live with you they become equal owners of the house. If you use force on him to get him to leave you are the aggressor.
As such local institutions and community authority can help retrieve your home.
But if the question is about crime and setting up a criminal financial organization that forces people out of there homes, then that is like a mob.
I don’t support a prison system, but social and economic sanctions can be placed on that person, even exile from usage of public space.
And people wouldn’t do that in mass because there would be no infrastructure to collectivize wealth and therefore no profit motive in helping you kick people out of their homes. Here we have the government who helps banks foreclose people’s homes and kick them out with force.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
