How Relevant is Marx Today?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

I never said they were reread his post and my reply, I was saying people do drop their way of living for a new system, as we saw when people adopted civilization, when they dropped feudal society and social relations for capitalist ones.[/quote]

You said you only base conclusions on evidence. You’ve concluded that Humans are going to wind up in an anarcho-communistic lovefest. But you have no evidence to base that on; Humans have never chosen that kind of society before.

So, quote obviously, you are basing this conclusion on something other than evidence. So, what are you basing it on?[/quote]

Do you know Darwin said that the two things that most affect which species survive, adaption to environment and their natural ability and predisposition to mutual aid.

Why is Anarchism, while not inevitable, very likely to come about some time in the future, because Human survival really does rely on it.

Capitalism is killing humans, polluting and killing the environment, putting up barriers between us and holding back the ability to produce everything we need.

Survival of the fittest is not about the strongest, best killer as many people think it means, because they know nothing about evolution, actually it is about adaption to environment and a species ability to work together and multiply aka MUTUAL AID, to support each other, this theory is expanded on, just type in evolution mutual aid, in great detail by many people.

So it makes me laugh, i never draw inevitabilites for an ideology, rather I say, it is inevitable that we will have barbarism, or Anarchism, Anarchism is by no means inevitable, only the need for it is.

You see, I as an Anarchist could argue human nature against capitalism and point out the natural human nature to join and offer mutual aid and collectivize, but I actually have a solid argument for my political persuasion, so I don’t need to employ it here.

142

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

Why do you say it’s bad in theory?[/quote]

A stateless society would be a terrible place to live.[/quote]

In theory, or reality? And why? I mean, besides the raping, plundering and murdering.[/quote]

Does rape, murder and plunder not happen now?

We have states now, how would the rape murder and pillaging increase?

This is too easy, can some of the more rational people debate, the ones who can have a real friendly debate based on facts and sane thought, cheers.

143

[quote]LoRez wrote:

In theory, or reality? And why? I mean, besides the raping, plundering and murdering.[/quote]

Doing my best to set aside the “reality” problems and simply focus on “theory” - an anarchic society would entail the lowest form of relativism…culturally, morally, ethically, etc. That would be miserable living, indeed, having to tolerate people around you that act horribly.

Which you would have to do in a “theoretical anarchy” - once you said, “hey, let’s kick the idiots out for acting horribly,” that’s a fair point, but that is where “reality” is becomes the problem moreso than the “theory”.

Before you get to that point of “reality” encroaching - which takes, oh, about 12 hours in a functioning anarchy - in “theory”, you have to sit and tolerate people of all sorts of idiotic people, which would be misery.

And, even if you thought the idiots had a right of absolute freedom to act as idiotic as they wanted (and they do, in a “theoretical anarchy”) and you respected their right to act that way, that doesn’t mean it would be pleasant to be around it.

144

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

You see, I as an Anarchist could argue human nature against capitalism and point out the natural human nature to join and offer mutual aid and collectivize, but I actually have a solid argument for my political persuasion, so I don’t need to employ it here.[/quote]

Translation: there’s no empirical reason to think Humans will adopt Anarchism and no evidence to support such a claim, but I would like for that to happen as a matter of ideology, evidence be damned, so I will base my conclusion off of a preferred ideology, rather than evidence.

So, you have now contradicted your own claim that you based your conclusions on evidence. Far from it.

And, no, you don’t have a solid argument for your political persuasion. Humans don’t want anarchy, have never wanted anarchy, and will never want anarchy, because - in the wisdom of the species - Humans know anarchy is nothing but Hell on Earth until you replace it with something viable.

145

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

In theory, or reality? And why? I mean, besides the raping, plundering and murdering.[/quote]

Doing my best to set aside the “reality” problems and simply focus on “theory” - an anarchic society would entail the lowest form of relativism…culturally, morally, ethically, etc. That would be miserable living, indeed, having to tolerate people around you that act horribly.

Which you would have to do in a “theoretical anarchy” - once you said, “hey, let’s kick the idiots out for acting horribly,” that’s a fair point, but that is where “reality” is becomes the problem moreso than the “theory”.

Before you get to that point of “reality” encroaching - which takes, oh, about 12 hours in a functioning anarchy - in “theory”, you have to sit and tolerate people of all sorts of idiotic people, which would be misery.

And, even if you thought the idiots had a right of absolute freedom to act as idiotic as they wanted (and they do, in a “theoretical anarchy”) and you respected their right to act that way, that doesn’t mean it would be pleasant to be around it.[/quote]

You do realize Anarchism has laws, it just is not enforced by a state, but by the community, if someone murders, you can bet your ass that motherfucker has an armed community with guns shooting him into pieces, of course after a trial if they’re not caught in the deed.
This isn’t the wild west, Anarchism is a very organised society with laws, its just non statist, non hierarchical.

I think some of you guys mistake Anarchism for no rules, no order, this is not the idea haha.

If anyone actually wants to know what Anarchy is just ask me lol.

146

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

You see, I as an Anarchist could argue human nature against capitalism and point out the natural human nature to join and offer mutual aid and collectivize, but I actually have a solid argument for my political persuasion, so I don’t need to employ it here.[/quote]

Translation: there’s no empirical reason to think Humans will adopt Anarchism and no evidence to support such a claim, but I would like for that to happen as a matter of ideology, evidence be damned, so I will base my conclusion off of a preferred ideology, rather than evidence.

So, you have now contradicted your own claim that you based your conclusions on evidence. Far from it.

And, no, you don’t have a solid argument for your political persuasion. Humans don’t want anarchy, have never wanted anarchy, and will never want anarchy, because - in the wisdom of the species - Humans know anarchy is nothing but Hell on Earth until you replace it with something viable.[/quote]

So mutual aid is one of two of the biggest factors in survival of the fittest, but you argue Human nature can not allow Mutual aid via Anarchism?

I see thunderbolt trollin, I hatin

147

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

Why do you say it’s bad in theory?[/quote]

A stateless society would be a terrible place to live.[/quote]

In theory, or reality? And why? I mean, besides the raping, plundering and murdering.[/quote]

Does rape, murder and plunder not happen now?

We have states now, how would the rape murder and pillaging increase?
[/quote]

I actually never said it would increase, nor did I say it doesn’t happen now. I was wanting some qualification to the “terrible place to live” statement.

There are some people who work hard only when the boss is around. There are others who work hard whether the boss is there or not. Likewise, there are plenty of people who wouldn’t commit certain crimes even if they were legal, and others who are only halted by the legal deterrent and associated consequences.

I know you’re not referring to a lawless society.

However, without some form of collectively-enforced justice – whether it be the state, or the mob – how do you curb crime?

Likewise, in an ethnically homogeneous society, how do you curb racism?

148

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

You do realize Anarchism has laws, it just is not enforced by a state, but by the community, if someone murders, you can bet your ass that motherfucker has an armed community with guns shooting him into pieces, of course after a trial if they’re not caught in the deed.
This isn’t the wild west, Anarchism is a very organised society with laws, its just non statist, non hierarchical.[/quote]

Horseshit. You can’t have laws without a state. Laws presume a neutral that can enforce justice. The only thing Anarchism provides is hopes and dreams of cooperation or rank mob justice, and neither are any good.

How you are you going to have a trial when there is no compulsion to attend? When there is no jurisdiction? Who is going to compel witnesses to testify?

How do you know if someone has committed a murder until you investigate? Wouldn’t you want to presume a person’s innocence before an “armed community with guns” decides to mete out some justice?

“Anarchism” doesn’t have any solutions for crime and punishment, or the enforcement of civil liability or contracts. It’s idiocy.

149

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

Why do you say it’s bad in theory?[/quote]

A stateless society would be a terrible place to live.[/quote]

In theory, or reality? And why? I mean, besides the raping, plundering and murdering.[/quote]

Does rape, murder and plunder not happen now?

We have states now, how would the rape murder and pillaging increase?
[/quote]

I actually never said it would increase, nor did I say it doesn’t happen now. I was wanting some qualification to the “terrible place to live” statement.

There are some people who work hard only when the boss is around. There are others who work hard whether the boss is there or not. Likewise, there are plenty of people who wouldn’t commit certain crimes even if they were legal, and others who are only halted by the legal deterrent and associated consequences.

I know you’re not referring to a lawless society.

However, without some form of collectively-enforced justice – whether it be the state, or the mob – how do you curb crime?

Likewise, in an ethnically homogeneous society, how do you curb racism?[/quote]

If there is economic equality, if people have resources in abundance, who is going to be stealing stuff from people?

As for psychotic people commiting non economic crimes, well Anarchism would lessen the amount of people becoming sociopaths, but crime is never going to be completely done away with, no matter what system.

It is a strawman used, by the state and championed by right wing workers who have been stupid enough to fall for it, make people think they need us to keep them safe, despite states murder more than members of the public do.

Crime will be handled by the community, in a democratic transparent way.

150

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

So mutual aid is one of two of the biggest factors in survival of the fittest, but you argue Human nature can not allow Mutual aid via Anarchism?[/quote][

Well, sure - mutual aid is alive and well, even in an advanced capitalist economy. In fact, capitalism helps assist “mutual aid” - how? By providing surplus that can be shared.

You don’t need Anarchism for mutual aid - in fact, Anarchism would diminish mutual aid. Why? Without the security of the state to enforce laws and contracts, people wouldn’t reliably produce enough to share outside of their own consumption…why would they if they know somebody can come in and take what they have worked hard to produce?

Darwin’s theory doesn’t quite translate to human activity for lots of reasons, but to the extent it does, our species isn’t in danger of dying out due to a lack of mutual aid. That’s stupid.

151

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

You do realize Anarchism has laws, it just is not enforced by a state, but by the community, if someone murders, you can bet your ass that motherfucker has an armed community with guns shooting him into pieces, of course after a trial if they’re not caught in the deed.
This isn’t the wild west, Anarchism is a very organised society with laws, its just non statist, non hierarchical.[/quote]

Horseshit. You can’t have laws without a state. Laws presume a neutral that can enforce justice. The only thing Anarchism provides is hopes and dreams of cooperation or rank mob justice, and neither are any good.

How you are you going to have a trial when there is no compulsion to attend? When there is no jurisdiction? Who is going to compel witnesses to testify?

How do you know if someone has committed a murder until you investigate? Wouldn’t you want to presume a person’s innocence before an “armed community with guns” decides to mete out some justice?

“Anarchism” doesn’t have any solutions for crime and punishment, or the enforcement of civil liability or contracts. It’s idiocy.[/quote]

Why do you think people live only because they are told to, I would want to attend a trial, wouldn’t you, I would want to work, so I and my family and neighbors could eat, have our cars fixed, have teachers, have builders to build and electricians to wire the houses up.

People will work because it will be in their benefit to work, because they know if everyone else is working and they refuse, the community will get together and vote to not give that selfish cunt food, or mend his roof, or give him clothes, if he steals and robs form the people, then he would likely have the shit beaten out of him, if he continues to be a wanker, he probably would starve to death, because why would decent hardworking people let him eat the cake when he didn’t cook or wash?

How is it impossible to have rules and laws without a state, there were laws in Anarchist Catalonia, so you are proven wrong, laws did exist, there was no state, how can it be impossible, yet have happened?

152

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

So mutual aid is one of two of the biggest factors in survival of the fittest, but you argue Human nature can not allow Mutual aid via Anarchism?[/quote][

Well, sure - mutual aid is alive and well, even in an advanced capitalist economy. In fact, capitalism helps assist “mutual aid” - how? By providing surplus that can be shared.

You don’t need Anarchism for mutual aid - in fact, Anarchism would diminish mutual aid. Why? Without the security of the state to enforce laws and contracts, people wouldn’t reliably produce enough to share outside of their own consumption…why would they if they know somebody can come in and take what they have worked hard to produce?

Darwin’s theory doesn’t quite translate to human activity for lots of reasons, but to the extent it does, our species isn’t in danger of dying out due to a lack of mutual aid. That’s stupid.[/quote]

This is totally absurd, capitalism is the total opposite of mutual aid, there is no surplus to be shared, only surplus value to be stolen by the capitalist from the worker, the worker makes all the produce, the capitalist makes none, if the workers take over those factories, those stores, those restraunts, if the farmers collectivize, the lorry drivers organize a logistical federation, they could do everything they can now, but be even more productive, money is made, money does not make, a capitalist steals produce, He does not produce steel.

153

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

Why do you think people live only because they are told to, I would want to attend a trial, wouldn’t you…[/quote]

In modern society - right now - we have a mature, developed justice system that has the full power of the law (and law enforcement) to make sure people show under pain of penalty and…people still don’t show and testify or participate in lawsuits all the time.

People don’t cooperate all that well even under the risk of penalty - why in the Hell would they suddenly start cooperating without worry of any penalties?

Laws and rules have to be enforced consistently and reliably, else there is no point in the law existing at all. Without a state, no consistent or reliable enforcement, so the “law” officially becomes an arbitrary guideline that people will ignore - as in, no law at all.

154

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

Why do you say it’s bad in theory?[/quote]

A stateless society would be a terrible place to live.[/quote]

In theory, or reality? And why? I mean, besides the raping, plundering and murdering.[/quote]

Does rape, murder and plunder not happen now?

We have states now, how would the rape murder and pillaging increase?
[/quote]

I actually never said it would increase, nor did I say it doesn’t happen now. I was wanting some qualification to the “terrible place to live” statement.

There are some people who work hard only when the boss is around. There are others who work hard whether the boss is there or not. Likewise, there are plenty of people who wouldn’t commit certain crimes even if they were legal, and others who are only halted by the legal deterrent and associated consequences.

I know you’re not referring to a lawless society.

However, without some form of collectively-enforced justice – whether it be the state, or the mob – how do you curb crime?

Likewise, in an ethnically homogeneous society, how do you curb racism?[/quote]

If there is economic equality, if people have resources in abundance, who is going to be stealing stuff from people?[/quote]

I see, so we have the theoretical case of “people having resources in abundance”. How is that going to happen? Resources don’t occur in abundance currently, and no redistribution is going to change that.

I really don’t know why Anarchism would lessen the amount of people becoming sociopaths. The more extreme mental health issues simply don’t work that way.

[quote] It is a strawman used, by the state and championed by right wing workers who have been stupid enough to fall for it, make people think they need us to keep them safe, despite states murder more than members of the public do.

Crime will be handled by the community, in a democratic transparent way.[/quote]

I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about here. How does anarchism deal with a predominately white community wrongfully exaggerating the crimes of a black man and lynching him for it? This situation has happened repeatedly outside the rule of law, based on a mostly unstated rule of “protecting the community from outsiders”. The same thing happens in cases of nationality, ethnicity, race, profession, etc. It’s a fairly standard phenomena studied in the field of group psychology about the manner which groups enact self-preservation… how does anarchism address this phenomena?

155

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

This is totally absurd, capitalism is the total opposite of mutual aid, there is no surplus to be shared, only surplus value to be stolen by the capitalist from the worker, the worker makes all the produce, the capitalist makes none, if the workers take over those factories, those stores, those restraunts, if the farmers collectivize, the lorry drivers organize a logistical federation, they could do everything they can now, but be even more productive, money is made, money does not make, a capitalist steals produce, He does not produce steel. [/quote]

Nope, not absurd - why? Capitalism is just an “ism” that relates to our basic economics and allocation of resources for production and consumption. Capitalism doesn’t drive all of human behavior, even if Humans adopt it as their political economy. Capitalism doesn’t restrict Humans from sharing or otherwise engaging in mutual aid.

Don’t believe me? Bill Gates is a capitalist, but engages in mutual aid on, er, a large scale:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

Mutual aid happens, and continues to happen, and the more wealth we generate, the more wealth there is to “mutually aid” one another (if we so choose), i.e. the “surplus”

All this happens in the real world. What world do you live in?

156

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

So mutual aid is one of two of the biggest factors in survival of the fittest, but you argue Human nature can not allow Mutual aid via Anarchism?[/quote][

Well, sure - mutual aid is alive and well, even in an advanced capitalist economy. In fact, capitalism helps assist “mutual aid” - how? By providing surplus that can be shared.

You don’t need Anarchism for mutual aid - in fact, Anarchism would diminish mutual aid. Why? Without the security of the state to enforce laws and contracts, people wouldn’t reliably produce enough to share outside of their own consumption…why would they if they know somebody can come in and take what they have worked hard to produce?

Darwin’s theory doesn’t quite translate to human activity for lots of reasons, but to the extent it does, our species isn’t in danger of dying out due to a lack of mutual aid. That’s stupid.[/quote]

This is totally absurd, capitalism is the total opposite of mutual aid, there is no surplus to be shared, only surplus value to be stolen by the capitalist from the worker, the worker makes all the produce, the capitalist makes none, if the workers take over those factories, those stores, those restraunts, if the farmers collectivize, the lorry drivers organize a logistical federation, they could do everything they can now, but be even more productive, money is made, money does not make, a capitalist steals produce, He does not produce steel. [/quote]

So do you hold the idea that management, in any form, is a worthless endeavor?

You have a very extreme position here, one that doesn’t reflect the reality of most situations. What you’re describing is almost a slave society. However, there is still a fundamental exchange that goes on; the worker chooses to exchange their means of production (time, skills, energy) for something in return. Oftentimes it’s money, but not always. However it’s still predicated on choice even at the lowest levels.

157

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

So mutual aid is one of two of the biggest factors in survival of the fittest, but you argue Human nature can not allow Mutual aid via Anarchism?[/quote][

Well, sure - mutual aid is alive and well, even in an advanced capitalist economy. In fact, capitalism helps assist “mutual aid” - how? By providing surplus that can be shared.

You don’t need Anarchism for mutual aid - in fact, Anarchism would diminish mutual aid. Why? Without the security of the state to enforce laws and contracts, people wouldn’t reliably produce enough to share outside of their own consumption…why would they if they know somebody can come in and take what they have worked hard to produce?

Darwin’s theory doesn’t quite translate to human activity for lots of reasons, but to the extent it does, our species isn’t in danger of dying out due to a lack of mutual aid. That’s stupid.[/quote]

This is totally absurd, capitalism is the total opposite of mutual aid, there is no surplus to be shared, only surplus value to be stolen by the capitalist from the worker, the worker makes all the produce, the capitalist makes none, if the workers take over those factories, those stores, those restraunts, if the farmers collectivize, the lorry drivers organize a logistical federation, they could do everything they can now, but be even more productive, money is made, money does not make, a capitalist steals produce, He does not produce steel. [/quote]

So do you hold the idea that management, in any form, is a worthless endeavor?

You have a very extreme position here, one that doesn’t reflect the reality of most situations. What you’re describing is almost a slave society. However, there is still a fundamental exchange that goes on; the worker chooses to exchange their means of production (time, skills, energy) for something in return. Oftentimes it’s money, but not always. However it’s still predicated on choice even at the lowest levels.[/quote]

He is probably not saying that you dont need whitecollar workers, he is just saying that production can happen whitout a capitalist( a privat owner who takes out the surplus ).

158

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

Why do you say it’s bad in theory?[/quote]

A stateless society would be a terrible place to live.[/quote]

In theory, or reality? And why? I mean, besides the raping, plundering and murdering.[/quote]

Does rape, murder and plunder not happen now?

We have states now, how would the rape murder and pillaging increase?
[/quote]

I actually never said it would increase, nor did I say it doesn’t happen now. I was wanting some qualification to the “terrible place to live” statement.

There are some people who work hard only when the boss is around. There are others who work hard whether the boss is there or not. Likewise, there are plenty of people who wouldn’t commit certain crimes even if they were legal, and others who are only halted by the legal deterrent and associated consequences.

I know you’re not referring to a lawless society.

However, without some form of collectively-enforced justice – whether it be the state, or the mob – how do you curb crime?

Likewise, in an ethnically homogeneous society, how do you curb racism?[/quote]

If there is economic equality, if people have resources in abundance, who is going to be stealing stuff from people?[/quote]

I see, so we have the theoretical case of “people having resources in abundance”. How is that going to happen? Resources don’t occur in abundance currently, and no redistribution is going to change that.

I really don’t know why Anarchism would lessen the amount of people becoming sociopaths. The more extreme mental health issues simply don’t work that way.

[quote] It is a strawman used, by the state and championed by right wing workers who have been stupid enough to fall for it, make people think they need us to keep them safe, despite states murder more than members of the public do.

Crime will be handled by the community, in a democratic transparent way.[/quote]

I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about here. How does anarchism deal with a predominately white community wrongfully exaggerating the crimes of a black man and lynching him for it? This situation has happened repeatedly outside the rule of law, based on a mostly unstated rule of “protecting the community from outsiders”. The same thing happens in cases of nationality, ethnicity, race, profession, etc. It’s a fairly standard phenomena studied in the field of group psychology about the manner which groups enact self-preservation… how does anarchism address this phenomena?[/quote]

CAPITALISM 101: the capitalist system purposely underproduces, to keep scarcity levels, thus raising value and not flooding a market.

If the capitalist did not privately own the means of productiona nd it was publicly owned, underproduction would not be the goal, abundance would.

Tonnes and tonnes of food are dumped every month, to avoid lowering food prices, when thousands starve everyday, clothes, appliances, even medicine is dumped to avoid overproduction, only the madness of capitalism can purposely create shortage while the world suffers and people go without.

The technology and production process we have today is what makes Anarchism possible, Capitalism was an amazing and revolutionary system that abolished feudalism, it was what created the possibility for Anarchism/communism, it is now possible, once the masses take over the means of production to feed, house and provide an amazing life for all.

159

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

So mutual aid is one of two of the biggest factors in survival of the fittest, but you argue Human nature can not allow Mutual aid via Anarchism?[/quote][

Well, sure - mutual aid is alive and well, even in an advanced capitalist economy. In fact, capitalism helps assist “mutual aid” - how? By providing surplus that can be shared.

You don’t need Anarchism for mutual aid - in fact, Anarchism would diminish mutual aid. Why? Without the security of the state to enforce laws and contracts, people wouldn’t reliably produce enough to share outside of their own consumption…why would they if they know somebody can come in and take what they have worked hard to produce?

Darwin’s theory doesn’t quite translate to human activity for lots of reasons, but to the extent it does, our species isn’t in danger of dying out due to a lack of mutual aid. That’s stupid.[/quote]

This is totally absurd, capitalism is the total opposite of mutual aid, there is no surplus to be shared, only surplus value to be stolen by the capitalist from the worker, the worker makes all the produce, the capitalist makes none, if the workers take over those factories, those stores, those restraunts, if the farmers collectivize, the lorry drivers organize a logistical federation, they could do everything they can now, but be even more productive, money is made, money does not make, a capitalist steals produce, He does not produce steel. [/quote]

So do you hold the idea that management, in any form, is a worthless endeavor?

You have a very extreme position here, one that doesn’t reflect the reality of most situations. What you’re describing is almost a slave society. However, there is still a fundamental exchange that goes on; the worker chooses to exchange their means of production (time, skills, energy) for something in return. Oftentimes it’s money, but not always. However it’s still predicated on choice even at the lowest levels.[/quote]

No, workers will elect floor coordinators, who are instantly re callable, they have no hierarchical power, but chart production rates, come up with initiatives, they can be recalled on a vote anytime and the general idea is they will be a new one every couple months, there is no one blueprint for Anarchism though so after the revolution people would decide.

160

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
People will work because it will be in their benefit to work, because they know if everyone else is working and they refuse, the community will get together and vote to not give that selfish cunt food, or mend his roof, or give him clothes, if he steals and robs form the people, then he would likely have the shit beaten out of him, if he continues to be a wanker, he probably would starve to death, because why would decent hardworking people let him eat the cake when he didn’t cook or wash?[/quote]

Wow, that sounds awfully like the world today, just with slightly different mechanisms.

If I don’t work, I don’t get paid. Without getting paid, I don’t get food, or a mended roof, or clothes.

If I steal and rob from people, I go to jail, and likely get the shit beaten out of me.

The only real differenc is, I probably wouldn’t die from it.