Seriously, quit the kool-aid. Nowere in any post did I advocate anything close to totalitarianism in any respect.
Yes, you do. And you continue to do so below.
I've simply stated that the more you collectivize the decision-making, the more likely you are to encounter people averse to risk.
This is exactly the reason why people with grievances should have to be included in the decision making process, not a reason why they should be excluded. The stakeholders don't get to make any decisions in the company's boardroom (which is a property of capitalism, which we should overcome, not promote), but they would get to be part of the voting and dilogue of their (anarchist) communes, on local leve and national level if the problem requires it, in proportion to the extent that the decision affects them.
So for example, if a humongous pig-farm would reek all over the commune, and the commune would be in danger of becoming abandoned as a result, the people who are affected by the pig-farm (whether because they make a living from it, or because they are affected by its smell and health-hazards), would get to vote on it: they'd take part in the decision-making in proportion to how much they're affected. If the pig farm leaks pollutants down the river, and the river flows down into a larger metropolis, affecting millions, then all the people of that metropolis and of the smaller community surrounding the pig farm, get to decide what to do with the farm.
Take a smaller problem. If a kid in his working post plays the music way too loud, frustrating people around him, then the people who are affected get to decide over the problem. It would be unfair to call the whole commune to vote over the issue, unless they want to implement some general standard.
Its statistically inevitable that the more you get involved who have a direct say in where funds go, the more disagreements you'll have and the more people you'll have averse to particular risks.
Again, this is precisely why they should be included. I won’t contest this, I must underline your point. If we had done so in the past, formed democratic economic institutions, we would've avoided many disasters, and our society would look much better, I believe. For example, take the global warming and hydrocarbon dependency. The US did not become dependant on hydrocarbons because people wanted it, or chose so, but because of a deliberate, systematic state-corporate conspiracy to socially engineer the western public, to destroy or subvert public transportation systems, basically trains, and increase auto-mobile use. Some were even convicted for conspiracy, but were fined pennies. If the public transportation issue was now in the hands of the public, this elite imposed social engineering would quite possibly be reversed.
Take a more extreme case of elite imposed engineering and horror: the great leap forward and the Cultural Revolution. The communist revolution in China was not a complete disaster, the rise of stalinism was coincided by various popular movements for land-reform, healthcare reform and educational reform (which were quite successful, and facilitated the booming economy we've got today in China). But then China had the disastrous Maoist programs, like the great leap forward, Cultural Revolution, social engineering and forced "collectivization", which were implemented by unaccountable, unregulated, radical elites, which believed that they knew all the answers: and were convinced by some of the crankiest sciences. Had there been meaningful democratic institutions to regulate them and their decisions, to review and ratify their plans before they'd be implemented, (or even more radical transparency or democracy), the deluded communist plans would've never been implemented because the people would never have accepted them.
I could explain further on the institutional crimes of capitalism.
Individuals with accumulated wealth only need to convince themselves to invest it.
Well, most of the time they need to be given incentives. The community has incentives to invest.
Corporations spread the risk wealth-wise, but shareholders have no actual say in the direction of the company.
Limited liability is a completely illegitimate system in my opinion. Corporations only work because their owners have limited accountability, which is the defining characteristic of modern capitalism, but which promotes incentives for destructive tendencies. For example, if a extracting corporation mines $9 billon worth of minerals, but leaves damages to the environment and other industries (like polluted water supply which damages fishing) which exceed the amount of profits, the company may go bankrupt, but the profits are nevertheless shared between unaccountable profiteers. Consequently it’s the poor third world governments that have to pay the clean-up costs. In the rich west, the costs are systematically socialized, while conversely profits are systematically privatized. Limited liability is a seductive concept because it creates an illusion of efficiency.
Maybe you think you gave an explanation. I didn't read one. I saw a few words that amounted to nonsense, but no explanation.
Now, I get it. You don't like the explanation; therefore I don't have any explanation.
If new technology would make 20% of the labor force at a factory unnecessary, that labor owned factory will not implement it because that noone wants to risk being that 20% without a job. Why won't they be left to suffer and starve? Is the factory gonna pay them not to work? Is the other modernizing factory down the street going to have a job for them?
They have no need for that 20% labour if, say, they invent new robotics that can containerize the product rapidly and regularly. The workers have no incentive to resist this innovation because they know it will not harm them or their income, and the factory can then, collectively or through representatives, oversee the possible downsizing. The laid off workers can still live off welfare of the commune, probably thankful that they no longer need to do that mind-numbing job for extra points. The whole point of anarchism is that there's no coercion, (like violence in the Soviet Union, or threat of starvation, or threat of severely diminished income in the west) but it doesn't mean that the people cannot be given incentives to do work.
Why won't they be left to suffer and starve?
Because they're part of the commune and they have the positive right not to be left to starve as long as the communes can feed them. The same is the case with income.
Are all the factories gonna pull together and create an unemployment fund?
No, the workers always have the right to the support of the commune. There's no property regime, no wages. People would work for additional rewards, not for survival. And no wasteful plutocrat would make a profit from their work.
Will they be able to sustain it if new jobs aren't being created elsewhere?
No, the community as a whole supports its members. People as a collective own the wealth, the property and the land and its resources and have a democratically determined right to it. If, for example, 20% of those workers cannot yet find new employment, they're nevertheless supported by the community, they're provided with education or some other creative activity.
But often in well off socities, such high levels of unemployment will at some point diminish as the economy changes.
Why would the soon to be unemployed think they'll benefit from the improvement?
Because they no longer have to commit to mind-numbing physical work when they've got the robot doing the work for them: much more effectively and cheaply. They have no incentive to resist this development (beyond, perhaps, personal pride or stubborness), because they wont be left to starve or suffer grievously as a result of this change. In fact, they'll have time for themselves and their families, perhaps, while they seek new creative activity. The whole idea of employment will change, from wage slavery to something to be enjoyed. And this will quite possibly foster a new tolerance for development. People will no longer cling on to their jobs, and perhaps might even change it every other week, according to some community determined program.
You have given no explanation. You have answered nothing.
I can see that you're an ideologue.
Actually, I'm not. You can contemplate ideological conceptions without being a fanatical supporter of any of them. I'm largely social democrat.
You speak in hyperbolic exaggerations and code words and phrases that are supposed to substitute for rational argument.
No, I'm sorry if you're incapable of using dictionary, or in general reading, but I can't help that.
But if you want to be taken seriously, try not characterizing private or individual decision-making as 'totalitarian', makes you look a bit silly.
No, decision making in massive private tyrannies, like corporations, is very much a concentrated process, and much of the stakeholders are totally left out. The institution is completey top-down totalitarian, and thus it's undemocratic and a totally illegimate structure from anarchist perspective. This is, btw, a view often supported by past classical liberals who saw the corporation as a threat. A return to feudalism.
Who's a utopian here? That's just silly.
No, that is, I think, essential to anarchism. Major property, resources and means of production are controlled by the community as a whole, through democratic institutions at local and national level (perhaps even global as technology facilitates that).
Maybe you think you gave an explanation. I didn't read one. I saw a few words that amounted to nonsense, but no explanation.
If you can't read, I can't help that.
If new technology would make 20% of the labor force at a factory unnecessary, that labor owned factory will not implement it because that noone wants to risk being that 20% without a job.
They have no need for that 20% labour if, say, they invent new robotics that can containerize the product rapidly and regularly. The workers have no incentive to resist this innovation because they know it will not harm them or their income, and the factory can then, collectively or through representatives, oversee the possible downsizing. The laid off workers can still live off welfare of the commune, probably thankful that they no longer need to do that mind-numbing job for extra points. The whole point of anarchism is that there's no coercion, (like violence in the Soviet Union, or threat of starvation, or threat of severely diminished income in the west) but it doesn't mean that the people cannot be given incentives to do work.
Why won't they be left to suffer and starve?
Because they're part of the commune and they have the positive right not to be left to starve as long as the communes can feed them. The same is the case with income.
Is the factory gonna pay them not to work?
Same as above
Is the other modernizing factory down the street going to have a job for them?
They can study, involve in something else or probably seek a job elsewhere if they want, because stable and well-off societies rarely have continuous high unemployment, because often with new innovation and progress, new needs arise and new employment opportunities come along. They don't die or suffer without employment: but they'll be rewarded if they seek employment, because I think the conception of rewarding ones work is elementary and also exist in anarchist conceptions.
Are all the factories gonna pull together and create an unemployment fund?
That would be the elementary part of communal property system. The factories themselves don't organize it alone, but they're part of the system.
If one industry is dying out, who will retrain these people in something else?
Well, it's rarely the case, unless with severe mismanagement (often from deluded totalitarian masters, or because of hot speculative capitol systems) that an entire industry will abruptly die out, or that many such industries will abruptly perish. The knowladge of such a disaster, before it unfolds completely, should reach the democratic institutions if they're well organized, since everyone is involved.
As for who will retrain them. The commune can organize educational institutions, and provide material for self-education, and so forth. We do this today, but these traditions are being eroded by concentrated private power, and damaging arrengements like copyrights and patents. Market ideologues want to privatize education, and thus reverse a lot of the progress we've made.
Why would the soon to be unemployed think they'll benefit from the improvement?
Because such innovations often come with increased benefit to the overall community, which they life off as individuals and where they’re personally part of the decision making process.
You have given no explanation. You have answered nothing.
No, I answered this already in the previous post.
I can see that you're an ideologue. You speak in hyperbolic exaggerations and code words and phrases that are supposed to substitute for rational argument.
No, each of my words has a meaning. As for hyperbole: no. Private companies really are some of the most secretive and totalitarian organizations humans have ever conceived.
You offer certainty on the outcome of things that have never happened nor have them come close to happening.You go from collective ownership and direct democracy to everyone happy, productive, secure and welcoming change...yet offer no details on how exactly that'll come about.
You claim you're not a utopian when what you offer is very much a utopian fantasy. Fair enough.
No, I'm not offering utopianism. I'm not thinking in utopian terms, or anything that sort. I simply think of a society that can function as ethically as possible.
But, it doesn't mean we can't improve and change our behaviour. A medieval peasant might think that today's western world is utopia, so its not like we haven't changed, and can't change our society radically.
