5 ms·

The name is basically irrelevant. There are other names used for it, like Libertarian Socialism. The fact it's a different name, hasn't increased the relevancy.

The name is basically irrelevant. There are other names used for it, like Libertarian Socialism. The fact it's a different name, hasn't increased the relevancy. Libertarian Socialism and/or Anarchism, is a structure of ideas that gets destroyed by every government if it ever gains relevance, as occurred with Spain, as the article and Homage to Catalonia are about. We don't need names to communicate the issue. It's really simple. If authority is unjustified, it should be dismantled. And what does that mean in practice? That corporations are unaccountable privately owned Dictatorships, and workers should be in control of them. That renting yourself to a dictatorship is not freedom, and control of operations and decision making should be in the hands of those who do the work.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Thank you for a very clear, concise statement. With a clear conscience, I can now say "I am against that". Why? 1. Those dictatorships aren't going to dissolve themselves. You're going to have to use force to do so (I hold out very little hope of legislation against corporations passing, or being declared constitutional if it did pass). You can create an armed revolution that can overthrow corporate interests, but what you get after that doesn't usually look like greater freedom. What it looks like is someone who was after power found a vehicle to get it, and after the dust settles, all the rules and structures that limit how they can exercise power are gone. 2. It's inconsistently in favor of freedom. "Renting yourself to a dictatorship is not freedom"? What if I want to? Should I not have the freedom to do so? (Why would I want that? In terms of my overall well-being, that may look like a net win to me. I may decide that not having to worry about controlling the direction of the business, while limiting my freedom at work, means more mental space to control things I'm more interested in.) 3. It's not very practical. There are people who, bluntly, are not fit to have much of a say in how a business is run. What are you going to do with them? If you want people to voluntarily organize into employee-owned businesses or co-ops or whatever, I'm fine with that. If you want to advocate that employees should come to such enterprises, I'm fine with that. Argue that they'll get a better (and more fulfilling) deal there? Sure. But telling the rest of us that we can't (or shouldn't) do otherwise? That sounds rather dictatorial of you, frankly. (With you not necessarily meaning AndyNemmity, but whoever advocates the idea.)
- AndyNemmity 2y ago
  1. That isn't true of what happened in Spain, which is what the article is about. 2. There is no inconsistency. This is like asking the question should I have the freedom to be a slave. 3. The people who run the factories should make decisions about them. If an individual chooses to not make decisions within that, there's nothing wrong with that. Most of your argument is the same for slavery, and that freedom is the ability to decide to be a slave if you wish.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    2. If you define renting yourself to an employer as being slavery, then yes, it's like that. If you don't define it that way, then it's not like that at all. So far, you have defined it that way, but given no reason why I should. For that matter, in your first post, you said, "workers should be in control of them [companies]", with no justification for that "should", either. And the same with your reply, the parent to this comment. You give nothing but a "should" with no justification in 3, either. You gave a very concise statement, with not a lot of argument. I get that; I even value it. But when you want to convert the not-yet-believers, you need to do better than a bunch of dogmatic "shoulds" and "that's like slavery".
    - AndyNemmity 2y ago
      I have no interest in converting anyone. I am answering questions as accurately as I can, as I always do. I don't quite follow your disagreement, but I appreciate the way you talk. I don't mean I disagree with you, I don't quite understand what you're getting at. I said that this > It's inconsistently in favor of freedom. "Renting yourself to a dictatorship is not freedom"? What if I want to? Should I not have the freedom to do so? Works as well for Slavery. And it does. What if someone wants to be a slave? Should they not have the freedom to do so? I feel like that's a reasonable argument, and don't see any reason to adjust it.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        I see. With that understanding, yes, the form of the statement is the same. The difference, to me, is that I can see how renting myself to a corporation (yes, it's a dictatorship) can result in more net freedom for me on the axes I care more about, but I cannot imagine the same being true of slavery. So, yes, the form of the statement can be the same, but the underlying reality seems to me to be quite different. (People by the millions voluntarily left the family farm to go work for a corporation, but at least in modern times, nobody voluntarily enters slavery.) So, yes, "complete freedom means that I should be free to do X" may be logically true for all values of X (or at least those that don't impinge on someone else's freedom). But as a practical argument rather than a purely logical one, people only care about acting in ways that they view as increasing their well-being. Some actually view working for a corporation as doing so; nobody views slavery that way. So some of us care about the freedom to work for a corporation. Saying that we should not have the freedom to do so feels restrictive in a way that is different from saying the same about slavery.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

Thank you for a very clear, concise statement. With a clear conscience, I can now say "I am against that". Why? 1. Those dictatorships aren't going to dissolve themselves. You're going to have to use force to do so (I hold out very little hope of legislation against corporations passing, or being declared constitutional if it did pass). You can create an armed revolution that can overthrow corporate interests, but what you get after that doesn't usually look like greater freedom. What it looks like is someone who was after power found a vehicle to get it, and after the dust settles, all the rules and structures that limit how they can exercise power are gone. 2. It's inconsistently in favor of freedom. "Renting yourself to a dictatorship is not freedom"? What if I want to? Should I not have the freedom to do so? (Why would I want that? In terms of my overall well-being, that may look like a net win to me. I may decide that not having to worry about controlling the direction of the business, while limiting my freedom at work, means more mental space to control things I'm more interested in.) 3. It's not very practical. There are people who, bluntly, are not fit to have much of a say in how a business is run. What are you going to do with them? If you want people to voluntarily organize into employee-owned businesses or co-ops or whatever, I'm fine with that. If you want to advocate that employees should come to such enterprises, I'm fine with that. Argue that they'll get a better (and more fulfilling) deal there? Sure. But telling the rest of us that we can't (or shouldn't) do otherwise? That sounds rather dictatorial of you, frankly. (With you not necessarily meaning AndyNemmity, but whoever advocates the idea.)

AndyNemmity 2y ago
1. That isn't true of what happened in Spain, which is what the article is about. 2. There is no inconsistency. This is like asking the question should I have the freedom to be a slave. 3. The people who run the factories should make decisions about them. If an individual chooses to not make decisions within that, there's nothing wrong with that. Most of your argument is the same for slavery, and that freedom is the ability to decide to be a slave if you wish.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  2. If you define renting yourself to an employer as being slavery, then yes, it's like that. If you don't define it that way, then it's not like that at all. So far, you have defined it that way, but given no reason why I should. For that matter, in your first post, you said, "workers should be in control of them [companies]", with no justification for that "should", either. And the same with your reply, the parent to this comment. You give nothing but a "should" with no justification in 3, either. You gave a very concise statement, with not a lot of argument. I get that; I even value it. But when you want to convert the not-yet-believers, you need to do better than a bunch of dogmatic "shoulds" and "that's like slavery".
  - AndyNemmity 2y ago
    I have no interest in converting anyone. I am answering questions as accurately as I can, as I always do. I don't quite follow your disagreement, but I appreciate the way you talk. I don't mean I disagree with you, I don't quite understand what you're getting at. I said that this > It's inconsistently in favor of freedom. "Renting yourself to a dictatorship is not freedom"? What if I want to? Should I not have the freedom to do so? Works as well for Slavery. And it does. What if someone wants to be a slave? Should they not have the freedom to do so? I feel like that's a reasonable argument, and don't see any reason to adjust it.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      I see. With that understanding, yes, the form of the statement is the same. The difference, to me, is that I can see how renting myself to a corporation (yes, it's a dictatorship) can result in more net freedom for me on the axes I care more about, but I cannot imagine the same being true of slavery. So, yes, the form of the statement can be the same, but the underlying reality seems to me to be quite different. (People by the millions voluntarily left the family farm to go work for a corporation, but at least in modern times, nobody voluntarily enters slavery.) So, yes, "complete freedom means that I should be free to do X" may be logically true for all values of X (or at least those that don't impinge on someone else's freedom). But as a practical argument rather than a purely logical one, people only care about acting in ways that they view as increasing their well-being. Some actually view working for a corporation as doing so; nobody views slavery that way. So some of us care about the freedom to work for a corporation. Saying that we should not have the freedom to do so feels restrictive in a way that is different from saying the same about slavery.