6 ms·

Anarcho socialism hasn’t succeeded yet, but I still believe it must succeed in the future if we are ever to see real freedom for the masses and to avoid near to

Anarcho socialism hasn’t succeeded yet, but I still believe it must succeed in the future if we are ever to see real freedom for the masses and to avoid near total destruction of the Earth’s biosphere. If anyone wants to downvote me, I ask that you choose one of two alternatives. First, tell me why you want to downvote. Or, read this article by Albert Einstein talking about the necessity of socialism: https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

systematical 7y ago
Capitalism will reach its end one day, long after we are gone, but that will be because of its own technologic achievements and not because of 19th-century socialist philosophy. Capitalism will become so efficient at some point that in its quest for more and more efficiency, it will end resource scarcity. Once scarcity is eliminated, capitalism "withers" away. That's my hope anyway. In the short-term, I'd like to see free markets begin erasing more borders and reducing the number of nations. Hopefully, the recent nationalist fad is just that and we can get to more EU style setups, more globalism, and more cooperation. A disgusting amount of resources is spent on the military. Capitalism has the ability to solve our problems. Borders are in the way. Edit: Is it the socialists, anarchists, or capitalists downvoting me? Hard to say. My ideas definitely don't have many friends.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  Your main idea is Marxist. Marx said the same thing, that Capital would end itself, through the elimination of scaricity. Though I think he was wrong about that, things like UBI proves that it always finds a way to survive. But anyway, you are both saying Marxist and pro-capitalist things, so I would guess you're just being downvoted by everyone.
  - miceeatnicerice 7y ago
    Surely it was going to be the rise of class consciousness that overthrew Moloch? Though if we're all involved in the process ourselves, and only gain this consciousness through work, the end of Capitalism isn't so much a violent overthrowing from outside as much as a growing, positive realization of what was inside it anyway. Maybe that's exactly what things like UBI point to: life as an adventure rather than a slave camp. The paranoid part of me then wants to find a bigger and more evil capital to criticise in the Marxian manner.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  Capitalism doesn't wither away, it imposes artificial scarcity to allow its uneven power dynamic to continue. At some point the cruelty itself becomes the point. I would argue we're already past the point where we have to deny resources to anyone, we could feed and shelter everyone if we had the will to do it. Actually I think that right now, when we are facing the potential reality of AGI not many decades away, is when we have to collectively make the choice to become the society we truly want to become.
  - systematical 7y ago
    Humans aren't very good at managing things. Just take a look around your co-workers some time and you'll see mismanagement. We're really bad at managing! You could say, scarcity is a management issue. If systems are managed by inefficient beings, well then the system doesn't really matter be it socialism or capitalism. I'll take my chances with capitalism and hope the best managers naturally rise to the top. Maybe AI can remove the mismanagers from the problem one day. Or maybe, even with our woeful mismanagement, if two hundred governments weren't pitted against one another and we had a single world government, there would be plenty to go around even with humans mismanaging everything.
    - aalleavitch 7y ago
      We’re bad at managing because none of us want to be doing what we’re doing and all of us are thinking about how we can maximize our own benefit. But the truth is we don’t even have to do an amazing job of managing, we have to just want to route enough resources to everyone that they can survive. Technology will continue to increase with or without capitalism. In fact, the claim that capitalism is responsible for scientific or technological advancement is mostly false. It’s responsible for wide-scale mass industry, but scientists would exist and push forward the boundaries of knowledge with or without it.
- c0nducktr 7y ago
  > Capitalism will become so efficient at some point that in its quest for more and more efficiency, it will end resource scarcity. This is honestly one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. I gotta admit, I do envy your optimism.
  - lopmotr 7y ago
    It's already pretty true for many types of resources. Electronics, software, music, plastic parts. All sorts of things cost practically zero today compared to, say, 100 years ago when they required much more labor to produce or didn't even exist. I recently bought a flat-screen TV for half the price of a McDonald's meal. That's as good as free.
    - c0nducktr 7y ago
      I've never heard the term resource scarcity used to refer to something like software, music, or televisions.
      - aalleavitch 7y ago
        Hilariously, software and music are inherently non-scarce. In fact, we do a massive amount of detriment to everyone by not allowing a piece of infinitely replicable media to be instantly available to everyone. And yet despite the fact we could benefit everyone at once we can’t seem to figure out a way to allow creators to live comfortably without inventing arcane and artificial IP laws?
      - cbnotfromthere 7y ago
        Unless one can generate by the click of a button TV series with any selling power, resource scarcity is here to stay. The fact that you personally are unaware of the basics in the economics of this or that field is, well, irrelevant for the discussion.
- lopmotr 7y ago
  I used to believe free labor markets between countries was a good idea until I realized that it also comes with a free social welfare "market". Nobody wants to let people in their country starve to death in the streets, so they're going to financially support whatever immigrants come in, and if it's really free entry, that's going to be cripplingly expensive eventually because the world's unemployable will go to wherever the most generous welfare is. Another problem is cultural replacement which could replace the open country with a closed one that's perhaps worse than it started off as once enough similarly-minded immigrants live there to determine the outcome of elections. They're not the idealists who started the open boarders thing, they're just normal self-interested people so eventually they'll want to keep what they've got for themselves and stop letting people they don't like in. Bye-bye to all the progressive ideas of tolerating gays and multiculturalism too.
  - aalleavitch 7y ago
    Cultural replacement is a bullshit concept. Not everyone is as selfish as you, some people just want to eat. The lie that people are inherently self-interested in a system that doesn’t directly incentivize self-interest is exactly the sort of thing you would want to spread if you were one of the people on top in such a system.
chrisdhoover 7y ago
OP writes of anarcho syndicalism. Reply conflates it with anarcho socialism. Not sure these are the same things
- Miner49er 7y ago
  Anarcho-syndicalism is a way to achieve/a form of anarcho-socialism.
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  Anarcho-socialism is a broad term that describes a lot of different possible configurations of society, anarcho-syndicalism is an approach towards it.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  I’m aware of the differences and as another reply pointed out, one is a broader term than the other. I used the broader term.
DuskStar 7y ago
> Anarcho socialism hasn’t succeeded yet, but I still believe it must succeed in the future ... to avoid near total destruction of the Earth’s biosphere. Why do so many people seem to act like some form of socialism is required (or even useful) to avoid environmental issues? It really doesn't help fight the right's narrative of "all this global warming stuff is just the economic left seeking more control over the economy" - in fact it plays directly to it. Are people just trying to attach their particular goals to a crisis they think might propel them forward?
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  You’re presuming I’m not arguing in good faith. I actually do deeply believe that capitalism, being a system where a minority can accrue great wealth and therefore have significant motivation to do so regardless of the costs, is a system that directly promotes environmental destruction. Anarcho socialism or Anarcho communism are instead systems that have no privileged class willing to destroy for their own benefit. In these systems all the masses of people are deeply democratically organized in the society and would only destroy the environment if they all agreed it was worth it. I believe the masses of people are less willing to destroy the environment (for less benefit to themselves) than a wealthy class which could benefit greatly from that destruction. Perhaps it is easier to assume I am arguing in bad faith, but I think you ought to consider that I know what I’m talking about.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    And why would the members of such a society not choose to damage the global environment if the local benefits outweighed the losses? That's the carbon emissions problem, after all. Regarding 'good faith' - I think you might be arguing in good faith, but I don't see how you'd think that argument is the best path to take to convince people to either support the environment or to abandon our current economic systems for yours. Personally I think we need major geoengineering to preserve the current temperature range, and that our current economic system tends towards a failure mode with extremely concentrated wealth. I don't think those are connected, though. In fact, an argument can be made that concentrating much of the world's wealth in one person would also be good for the environment, since the required changes would have a smaller impact on their wealth than on their personal wellbeing. Basically, the theory goes that $10T + nice environment to live in > $100T + dead environment, so the hypothetical multitrillionaire would spend $90T to improve things based purely on self interest. This isn't to suggest that giving Jeff Bezos absolutely everything would be a good idea, or that doing such is necessary - just that there might be other routes than 'some flavor of socialism'.

systematical 7y ago

Capitalism will reach its end one day, long after we are gone, but that will be because of its own technologic achievements and not because of 19th-century socialist philosophy. Capitalism will become so efficient at some point that in its quest for more and more efficiency, it will end resource scarcity. Once scarcity is eliminated, capitalism "withers" away. That's my hope anyway. In the short-term, I'd like to see free markets begin erasing more borders and reducing the number of nations. Hopefully, the recent nationalist fad is just that and we can get to more EU style setups, more globalism, and more cooperation. A disgusting amount of resources is spent on the military. Capitalism has the ability to solve our problems. Borders are in the way. Edit: Is it the socialists, anarchists, or capitalists downvoting me? Hard to say. My ideas definitely don't have many friends.

Miner49er 7y ago
Your main idea is Marxist. Marx said the same thing, that Capital would end itself, through the elimination of scaricity. Though I think he was wrong about that, things like UBI proves that it always finds a way to survive. But anyway, you are both saying Marxist and pro-capitalist things, so I would guess you're just being downvoted by everyone.
- miceeatnicerice 7y ago
  Surely it was going to be the rise of class consciousness that overthrew Moloch? Though if we're all involved in the process ourselves, and only gain this consciousness through work, the end of Capitalism isn't so much a violent overthrowing from outside as much as a growing, positive realization of what was inside it anyway. Maybe that's exactly what things like UBI point to: life as an adventure rather than a slave camp. The paranoid part of me then wants to find a bigger and more evil capital to criticise in the Marxian manner.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
aalleavitch 7y ago
Capitalism doesn't wither away, it imposes artificial scarcity to allow its uneven power dynamic to continue. At some point the cruelty itself becomes the point. I would argue we're already past the point where we have to deny resources to anyone, we could feed and shelter everyone if we had the will to do it. Actually I think that right now, when we are facing the potential reality of AGI not many decades away, is when we have to collectively make the choice to become the society we truly want to become.
- systematical 7y ago
  Humans aren't very good at managing things. Just take a look around your co-workers some time and you'll see mismanagement. We're really bad at managing! You could say, scarcity is a management issue. If systems are managed by inefficient beings, well then the system doesn't really matter be it socialism or capitalism. I'll take my chances with capitalism and hope the best managers naturally rise to the top. Maybe AI can remove the mismanagers from the problem one day. Or maybe, even with our woeful mismanagement, if two hundred governments weren't pitted against one another and we had a single world government, there would be plenty to go around even with humans mismanaging everything.
  - aalleavitch 7y ago
    We’re bad at managing because none of us want to be doing what we’re doing and all of us are thinking about how we can maximize our own benefit. But the truth is we don’t even have to do an amazing job of managing, we have to just want to route enough resources to everyone that they can survive. Technology will continue to increase with or without capitalism. In fact, the claim that capitalism is responsible for scientific or technological advancement is mostly false. It’s responsible for wide-scale mass industry, but scientists would exist and push forward the boundaries of knowledge with or without it.
c0nducktr 7y ago
> Capitalism will become so efficient at some point that in its quest for more and more efficiency, it will end resource scarcity. This is honestly one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. I gotta admit, I do envy your optimism.
- lopmotr 7y ago
  It's already pretty true for many types of resources. Electronics, software, music, plastic parts. All sorts of things cost practically zero today compared to, say, 100 years ago when they required much more labor to produce or didn't even exist. I recently bought a flat-screen TV for half the price of a McDonald's meal. That's as good as free.
  - c0nducktr 7y ago
    I've never heard the term resource scarcity used to refer to something like software, music, or televisions.
    - aalleavitch 7y ago
      Hilariously, software and music are inherently non-scarce. In fact, we do a massive amount of detriment to everyone by not allowing a piece of infinitely replicable media to be instantly available to everyone. And yet despite the fact we could benefit everyone at once we can’t seem to figure out a way to allow creators to live comfortably without inventing arcane and artificial IP laws?
    - cbnotfromthere 7y ago
      Unless one can generate by the click of a button TV series with any selling power, resource scarcity is here to stay. The fact that you personally are unaware of the basics in the economics of this or that field is, well, irrelevant for the discussion.
lopmotr 7y ago
I used to believe free labor markets between countries was a good idea until I realized that it also comes with a free social welfare "market". Nobody wants to let people in their country starve to death in the streets, so they're going to financially support whatever immigrants come in, and if it's really free entry, that's going to be cripplingly expensive eventually because the world's unemployable will go to wherever the most generous welfare is. Another problem is cultural replacement which could replace the open country with a closed one that's perhaps worse than it started off as once enough similarly-minded immigrants live there to determine the outcome of elections. They're not the idealists who started the open boarders thing, they're just normal self-interested people so eventually they'll want to keep what they've got for themselves and stop letting people they don't like in. Bye-bye to all the progressive ideas of tolerating gays and multiculturalism too.
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  Cultural replacement is a bullshit concept. Not everyone is as selfish as you, some people just want to eat. The lie that people are inherently self-interested in a system that doesn’t directly incentivize self-interest is exactly the sort of thing you would want to spread if you were one of the people on top in such a system.

chrisdhoover 7y ago

OP writes of anarcho syndicalism. Reply conflates it with anarcho socialism. Not sure these are the same things

Miner49er 7y ago
Anarcho-syndicalism is a way to achieve/a form of anarcho-socialism.
aalleavitch 7y ago
Anarcho-socialism is a broad term that describes a lot of different possible configurations of society, anarcho-syndicalism is an approach towards it.
TaylorAlexander 7y ago
I’m aware of the differences and as another reply pointed out, one is a broader term than the other. I used the broader term.

DuskStar 7y ago

> Anarcho socialism hasn’t succeeded yet, but I still believe it must succeed in the future ... to avoid near total destruction of the Earth’s biosphere. Why do so many people seem to act like some form of socialism is required (or even useful) to avoid environmental issues? It really doesn't help fight the right's narrative of "all this global warming stuff is just the economic left seeking more control over the economy" - in fact it plays directly to it. Are people just trying to attach their particular goals to a crisis they think might propel them forward?

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
You’re presuming I’m not arguing in good faith. I actually do deeply believe that capitalism, being a system where a minority can accrue great wealth and therefore have significant motivation to do so regardless of the costs, is a system that directly promotes environmental destruction. Anarcho socialism or Anarcho communism are instead systems that have no privileged class willing to destroy for their own benefit. In these systems all the masses of people are deeply democratically organized in the society and would only destroy the environment if they all agreed it was worth it. I believe the masses of people are less willing to destroy the environment (for less benefit to themselves) than a wealthy class which could benefit greatly from that destruction. Perhaps it is easier to assume I am arguing in bad faith, but I think you ought to consider that I know what I’m talking about.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  And why would the members of such a society not choose to damage the global environment if the local benefits outweighed the losses? That's the carbon emissions problem, after all. Regarding 'good faith' - I think you might be arguing in good faith, but I don't see how you'd think that argument is the best path to take to convince people to either support the environment or to abandon our current economic systems for yours. Personally I think we need major geoengineering to preserve the current temperature range, and that our current economic system tends towards a failure mode with extremely concentrated wealth. I don't think those are connected, though. In fact, an argument can be made that concentrating much of the world's wealth in one person would also be good for the environment, since the required changes would have a smaller impact on their wealth than on their personal wellbeing. Basically, the theory goes that $10T + nice environment to live in > $100T + dead environment, so the hypothetical multitrillionaire would spend $90T to improve things based purely on self interest. This isn't to suggest that giving Jeff Bezos absolutely everything would be a good idea, or that doing such is necessary - just that there might be other routes than 'some flavor of socialism'.