|
Workers Self-Management In Argentina !!
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Friday, 27/Feb/09, 3:01 PM | Message # 31 |
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
woow dude for an anarchist you always fall for anarchist myths !! what you are saying is called the tyranny of the majority the individual will be more flourished in a democratic society where ways of propaganda are null and everybody resides on his individuality For anarchists, such arguments are strange. Society already is run by thugs and/or the off-spring of thugs. Kings were originally just successful thugs who succeeded in imposing their domination over a given territorial area. The modern state has evolved from the structure created to impose this domination. Similarly with property, with most legal titles to land being traced back to its violent seizure by thugs who then passed it on to their children who then sold it or gave it to their offspring. The origins of the current system in violence can be seen by the continued use of violence by the state and capitalists to enforce and protect their domination over society. When push comes to shove, the dominant class will happily re-discover their thug past and employ extreme violence to maintain their privileges. The descent of large parts of Europe into Fascism during the 1930s, or Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973 indicates how far they will go. While the “tyranny of the majority” objection does contain an important point, it is often raised for self-serving reasons. This is because those who raised the issue (for example, creators of the 1789 US constitution like Hamilton and Madison) saw the “minority” to be protected as the rich. In other words, the objection is not opposed to majority tyranny as such (they have no objections when the majority support their right to their riches) but rather attempts of the majority to change their society to a fairer one. However, as noted, the objection to majority rule does contain a valid point and one which anarchists have addressed — namely, what about minority freedom within a self-managed society. There is, of course, this danger in any society, be its decision making structure direct (anarchy) or indirect (by some form of government). Anarchists are at the forefront in expressing concern about it (see, for example, Emma Goldman’s classic essay “Minorities versus Majorities” in Anarchism and Other Essays). We are well aware that the mass, as long as the individuals within it do not free themselves, can be a dead-weight on others, resisting change and enforcing conformity. As Goldman argued, “even more than constituted authority, it is social uniformity and sameness that harass the individual the most.Hence Malatesta’s comment that anarchists “have the special mission of being vigilant custodians of freedom, against all aspirants to power and against the possible tyranny of the majority.”
owever, rather than draw elitist conclusions from this fact of life under capitalism and urge forms of government and organisation which restrict popular participation (and promote rule, and tyranny, by the few) — as classical liberals do — libertarians argue that only a process of self-liberation through struggle and participation can break up the mass into free, self-managing individuals. Moreover, we also argue that participation and self-management is the only way that majorities can come to see the point of minority ideas and for seeing the importance of protecting minority freedoms. This means that any attempt to restrict participation in the name of minority rights actually enforces the herd mentality, undermining minority and individual freedom rather than protecting it. As Carole Pateman argues: “the evidence supports the arguments . . . that we do learn to participate by participating and that feelings of political efficacy are more likely to be developed in a participatory environment. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that experience of a participatory authority structure might also be effective in diminishing tendencies towards non-democratic attitudes in the individual.” However, while there is cause for concern (and anarchists are at the forefront in expressing it), the “tyranny of the majority” objection fails to take note of the vast difference between direct and “representative” forms of democracy.
|
|
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Friday, 27/Feb/09, 3:27 PM | Message # 32 |
|
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
man NOBODY IS FORCED TO DO SHIT if you want to earn extra money you go into voluntary work places not like the current system were voluntarism means work for the state for no paying you go and do whatever shit you want you go to school and you get a JOB whatever job you want man who told you that in a such society you will be obligated to work against your will or against what you want ?? people would still pursue their dreams but in a such society wherever they work they will have a say too in the workplace and in the society you can be a fucking hobo nobody gives a shit nothing is obligatory NOTHING even joining a commune and assemblies or syndicates man bring some facts you either confuse this whit MARXISM or you either confuse it whit statism
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Friday, 27/Feb/09, 4:35 PM | Message # 33 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
^^^^^^
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Saturday, 28/Feb/09, 8:38 PM | Message # 34 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
aight aight, I misunderstood, I misunderstood. I apologize, haha.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Thursday, 26/Mar/09, 9:50 PM | Message # 35 |
|
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
ohh and J Breakz did you know in such society private businesses will exist as i said above before people are not obligated to either participate in commune congresses or vote delegates or join syndicates no if the society transforms of course the moral and ethical laws are universal so oppression will be null and regarding that centralization on all levels will be exterminated oppression against others it's same null let me give you a real life example an anarchist that fought in the Spanish Civil War was talking in a documentary about how the CNT-FAI was competing whit the business that remained private and this happened inside Catalonia inside the official anarchist society they didn't oppress them or people who wanted to go out or remain private or leave or do whatever they want 
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Friday, 27/Mar/09, 12:36 PM | Message # 36 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
I did not know that. And to be completely honest, even tho I might argue it the more I learn about it the more I actually believe a system like that could work. I jus tend to question everything, including capitalism.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Monday, 06/Jul/09, 5:39 PM | Message # 37 |
|
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
bump a very good debate here a classic debate
|
|
|
|
