I'm relatively new to Zig Forums (read: normie), and I was wondering if you might welcome anyone who hasn't fully embraced the Anarcho-Communist ideology yet. I've read the Communist Manifesto previously, and while I can't say I fully support the ideas of Marx, I do think he has an interesting and agreeable critique of capitalism. As a 'Murican, I don't think it works in its current form and needs to be changed, though I don't fully support completely abolishing it.
I'm open to discussion. Have a Merry Christmas or whatever tf you celebrate.
This is an Anarcho-Pacifist board, so I kindly and respectfully suggest you fuck off. Polite sage.
Colton Campbell
if you want to better understand Marx or socialism you should ask questions in the QTDDTOT thread. generally, as long as you avoid making critical comments about certain countries or advocate US foreign intervention you won't be banned.
Brayden Hughes
Frankly a good deal of the ancoms fled to >>>Zig Forums
Asher Gray
What kind of economic system do you think ideal? Do you believe workers should be in control of their own workplace?
The split into Zig Forums and Zig Forums was a mistake. We need to maintain unity.
Jason Adams
Actually this is an Anarcho-Primitivist board, the true communism
Adrian Reyes
I believe in having a social-democratic model, where we still have a meritocratic system that rewards people for their work, but basic needs (health, education, etc.) are taken care of. I'm not for full government control of everything, except for those basic needs, so that people can take care of other needs, (rent, buying food, etc.) because I understand the importance of responsibility.
And I support worker-owned institutions as long as they can be managed responsibly.
Why do you accept that the state is better at running the most important services but you allow the failure of capitalism to persist in other areas of the economy?
In addition, what is your endgame for the situation we're in now where the global hyper rich are soaring away from the global poor, while the environment is being destroyed for profit? Let's say you get national healthcare in the US, great, but will that solve the real issues of the world?
Come on, give the lad a chance.
Angel Morales
And I also think that regulation is required for big banks and businesses so that they don't run amok with how they use their money. I'm all for them being able to buy their own shit, but if they hire people, they need to pay them instead of laying them off so they can keep all the money for themselves.
Luke Allen
Come on, man, social democracy =/= fascism.
Liam Nelson
read Cockshott. it has everything you want and more
Nathaniel Torres
Going back to my point about responsibility, we need to ensure that CEOs, managers, etc. be responsible with how they treat their workers. Of course, we all know how they like to prop themselves up as the responsible ones because "lol i PuLlED MySelF up By THe b00tSTraPs", yet their treatment of workers has yet to reflect this. As I see it, regulation and laws may be the only way to get said people to actually be responsible with their money and the people they hire.
So far, most of my idea centers around regulation that will eventually break up monopolies and end businesses' irresponsibility toward their workers. I still have yet to develop my full-fledged ideology, though.
Matthew Hughes
We tend to be skeptical of meritocracy. What is "merit" exactly? What work deserves to be rewarded? Who decides this? To be entirely clear: Communism doesn't mean "equality of outcome" or spooky shit like that. People should be rewarded more in proportion to the labor they do. If you sit on your ass all day, you can't expect to be provided the same luxuries as someone who works hard five days a week. Communism is when laborers themselves decide what ends their labor is put to. They will choose to direct their labor to the well-being of other laborers, so that these others will do the same in return. This principle is called mutual aid. If you refuse to do anything your livelihood is entirely dependent on the good-will of those who materially maintain society.
Except that this regulation will be circumvented, sabotaged and abolished by capitalists any chance they get. They'll subvert your workers movement as well in the mean time. How about this idea: We ensure that the owners of enterprises care for their workers by making these workers the owners of the enterprises. Why? Monopolies are incredibly efficient. You'll only worsen economic outcomes.
Alexander Richardson
Okay, I am starting to see a point here… How do they manage the business, and how does payment work? Whaaaaat? Maybe I'm a bit confused here, but I thought that monoplolies were the result of unregulated capitalism allowing the greedy to abuse the broken system?
Andrew Moore
They would manage the business democratically. Vote in managers to represent their interests. Decide on policy through direct democracy (or liquid democracy, so that people don't need to be involved if they don't want to). Payment could work with a money currency and a market, but as others have said, you should check out the work of Paul Cockshott. He describes how computer technology enables us to build a modern commend economy. Then consumption could be done with labor vouchers while the rest of the economy is directly planned. They're also likely to be an indicator of real economy-of-scale effects. Breaking up big corporations will often worsen economic efficiency.
Levi Turner
Monopolies are the end result of capitalism, you cannot have one and not the other there is no such thing as a corrupted capitalistic system since it's inherently a corrupted system to begin with. Crony capitalism as libertarians and ancaps like to cry about is the end result of capitalism. Capitalism = Crony capitalism since Capitalism and the State are inherently intertwined as capitalism rules the state and so capitalists will use it to benefit themselves, also capitalism without a state is impossible. Amazon and other large companies also engage is large central planning and are more efficient for it since Amazon has the resources and processing plants all over the place they can be incredibly efficient rather then a hundred different other mailing centers owned by hundreds of different companies all with different regulations and work hours. Pic related
Complaining about bad capitalism is like being a medieval feudralist and not one of the immoral crony feudralist systems but then later getting mad when the King becomes a tyrant because the feudal system is inherently build and enables for the king to increase his power.
They are more efficient and that is the problem, under capitalism an extremely efficient megalith is able to crush all the competition or in reality several large companies will control most the the global market, the ceos of these enterprises then wield enormous power, lobbying power, market power etc etc, if the workers or a (true) workers state wielded this power it would not be a problem, but in the hands of a few porkies it is extremely destructive. Porky does not live in the society where the consequences of his actions take effect, so he has no incentive to be socially responsible with the power, on top of that the large profits allow him to consolidate and grow his position
Jacob Mitchell
Run-on paragraphs bug the shit out of me. But I like what you brought up here.
Large corporations like Amazon already have the infrastructure and network that we will want under socialism, they just need to be nationalized. The fetishization of small businesses is pointless; they are a dead end.
