WinCo: worker-owned grocery chain pays benefits, pensions, living wages, lower prices than Walmart

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by NavyDoc
You contradict yourself. You say anyone could have anything they wanted, but now you say that society must determine if you can have a gun or a car.

That's not a contradiction at all. In any society there are limits to what can be done by an individual. However, the individual is most free in an anarchy. To be able to drive a car, for example, you must have access to a car and must be able to drive it. Hence, education is still needed before you drive a car.

The difference between current society and the anarchy is that you are not required to pay the instructor - he will take great pride in educating you as that is what he likes to do (for now). He in turn will have had an education too. The same goes for doctors: before you are respected as a doctor, you'll need to pass the proper exams etc. Anarchy is not chaos. There are still laws and rules, I believe I have stressed that plenty.

That is the problem with your utopia...the more you think about it, the more you see the practicality of the matter and the more things like rules, and laws, and being told what you can or cannot do come in and you lose the entire underlying concept.

I am aware of the practical problems of anarchy and I also know that people need to be trained and educated to be able to live in a (more) anarchistic society. However, humanity can be trained to achieve that enlightened state. The best proof thereof is the capitalist system itself! If you'd ask a native of a hunter/gatherer society if he would trade his fur coat for a piece of paper with some writing on it, he'd think you a fool. You can't eat paper and it won't keep you warm either. And he'd know for a FACT that his neighbour would never accept that piece of paper and trade it for something useful either. He would tell you "That is the problem with your utopia.. the more you think of it, the more you see he practicality of the matter.." etc.

Of course, you would describe the system that you advocate, with fierce pride. He would laugh. He would observe: "so, in your "capitalist" utopia, the mere act of printing numbers on worthless scraps of paper creates instant value? Do you really think that people are that stupid? I mean: nothing has been done for it, but the ones that produce the money still can change it for whatever they want? No sir, nobody in his right mind would fall for that trick, as it would create inequality and a caste of lazy asses that simply print money to make the rest of the population give them what they see fit to have!"

That is why your system will destroy freedom. If the rights of the individual are not protected by the law and only subject to the whim of the collective, you have tyranny of the majority...mob rule.

Again: there are rules and laws in an anarchy. But there need not be money, nor need there be "a state" or "state officials". People would still congregate, quarrel, fight occasionally. Some people might still be born insane - but instead of becoming our political leaders, they would be guarded by members of the mental health cooperation...

And the cooperation would fail because men are not insects. What you will have is the more charismatic influencing other people to go his way and the collective becomes rule by who has the most power.

Your entire premise depends on everyone acting in selfless altruism for the good of the collective but then admit that there will have to be some rules and some crime which contradicts the premise of the universal altruism.

What if someone does not want to be taught how to drive a car? What if he thinks he already knows best and want to take one for a spin without the instructor's approval? After all, if they are all the same and nothing matters, why does he need an instructor's approval and what will happen if he does not get one?

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Take your earlier example of bringing a truck of bread to a town to try to convince them of a project. Why does he need to convince them of the project with bread? If everyone owns everything, then the people of the town can just take and eat the bread and not even consider his project. They'll give him accolades for his bringing the bread, but his project falls by the wayside.

I apologize for the ambiguity. The bread would not be used to convince people they should participate in the experiment. The bread was part of the experiment itself, say that somebody thought out some process to make a drink from bread, but to do so requires a truckload of bread. However, as bread is produced as needed in an anarchy, it would not be social to simply take away the bread without first congregating with the others. If you did, the others would be angry and would come to your place and take back what they need to survive. The best thing to do if you require a truckload of bread is to discuss this with the people and if they feel that your experiment should be done the bakers will simply agree to bake you an extra truckload of bread, if that is possible.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
And the cooperation would fail because men are not insects. What you will have is the more charismatic influencing other people to go his way and the collective becomes rule by who has the most power.

You are confusing matters: if man are not insects, they can think for themselves. They will choose to follow - if anybody - the ones they admire. In an anarchy that typically would be the ones that have contributed most to society, not, like in a capitalistic system, the ones that took away the most from society.

Er.. and I fail to see the charisma of bankers and brokers, the charisma of liars and hoaxers. The ones that live off our workforce without doing much else in return than to tell us we should work harder, longer and loan more, so they can get even more power to enrich themselves, leaving us the scraps that fall of their tables.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by NavyDoc
And the cooperation would fail because men are not insects. What you will have is the more charismatic influencing other people to go his way and the collective becomes rule by who has the most power.

You are confusing matters: if man are not insects, they can think for themselves. They will choose to follow - if anybody - the ones they admire. In an anarchy that typically would be the ones that have contributed most to society, not, like in a capitalistic system, the ones that took away the most from society.

Er.. and I fail to see the charisma of bankers and brokers, the charisma of liars and hoaxers. The ones that live off our workforce without doing much else in return than to tell us we should work harder, longer and loan more, so they can get even more power to enrich themselves, leaving us the scraps that fall of their tables.

Hence the source of your utopian dream...the non-contributors are the ones who most dream about a world where they do not have to work to live and that the work of others be taken to support them.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Hence the source of your utopian dream...the non-contributors are the ones who most dream about a world where they do not have to work to live and that the work of others be taken to support them.

Now, I'm a bit worried here, as you seem to suggest that I am not contributing to society. I must admit I often feel I don't contribute enough, but others keep on telling me it's allright, so I believe them ..

Seriously: let's test your case. Say you were warped into the future anarchistic society. They would be amazed to see somebody from the past, of course. But they would take care of you, feed you, tell you to consider yourself a guest and if you'd like to, do nothing at all, simply take what you needed. Now, let me ask you: would you, or would you not offer them to do work for them? And would you, or would you not take more than you really needed?

reply to post by ForteanOrg


Look man, you are obviously quite naïve about human nature. How many different people have you actually met in life? This utopian anarchy you speak of never even existed before there was a such thing as governance. People walked around with sticks and stones. Eventually they "wanted more" , a concept you imply is "weird" even though it is that impulse that allowed you to eventually own a computer/tablet/phone to discuss your idealistic and unreal dreams to the world. For instance, at some point man got tired of sleeping on hard floor. So he created a tool to kill a large animal, and another tool to cut his fur from his body. Now a nice new furry warm bed.

Wasn't enough, eventually he wanted pillows too. Then maybe a fireplace to cook and keep warm. They could heat the water to take a warm bath, because we got tired of cold baths and eventually we WANTED to take a warm bath.

That is humanity's cardinal sin (if you believe in biblical stuff), our desire to want more, more than is necessary. Put me into a society of your supposed anarchy, and I will find something to want. If you don't like it I'll just take it. Tough #, I will impose my personal freedom upon you, with violence if you resist. if your tribe outnumbers me, I will leave and return with a posse of my own to take on your tribe. Since you did not believe your people needed weapons, enjoy the slaughter.

And that in a nutshell is human nature. You could have tried in vain to negotiate some kind of trade, but I would not have cared. because I will do what I want and no one would tell me otherwise. That is the unfortunate truth of anarchy, and how human society first lived before rule of law and an established system of governance. If you believe that is a type of system for you, there is a place called Somalia that has been in a perpetual state of Anarchy for two decades. Go enjoy it for a few months, you would beg to leave after day 1.

Originally posted by DYepes
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

Look man, you are obviously quite naïve about human nature.

I know a lot about human nature, that's exactly why I am such a fierce defender of the principles behind anarchy.

reply to post by DYepes

Look man, you are obviously quite naïve about human nature. How many different people have you actually met in life?

Don't know about you, but I've been to co-op type co-existent communes that have been around for decades and are THRIVING!!!!! After sticks and stones, groups stated forming based on geography, territory, race, religion, etc. It is human nature....... still my point is there are successful communes all over the world!!!!

That is humanity's cardinal sin (if you believe in biblical stuff), our desire to want more, more than is necessary.

This desire you speak of, is low on the totem pole of psychological development. There are people who have grown to highest potentials that learn to be content. Interestingly, to quite a number of people, having children does this to them. To others, it is spiritual experiences and lessons learned.

Put me into a society of your supposed anarchy, and I will find something to want. If you don't like it I'll just take it. Tough #, I will impose my personal freedom upon you, with violence if you resist. if your tribe outnumbers me, I will leave and return with a posse of my own to take on your tribe. Since you did not believe your people needed weapons, enjoy the slaughter.

Luckily, there is the Universal law of karma. Everything eventually comes back to you. True, you may take by force and numbers, whatever it is that you want. Eventually Father time catches up and your physical shell begins to rot, the numbers leave you behind, the force you once had gone, and what you did once to others, is now easily done to a useless weak old man who should just be killed to be taken out of his misery and everything taken from him.

Your mentality is not viable in an Anarchist Utopia. THe Mentality that is viable, it that of a Philosopher King. One who understands human nature, ego, animal instincts, understands democracy, spirituality, equality, balance, how to lead a group of people based on their strengths and weaknesses.

And that in a nutshell is human nature. You could have tried in vain to negotiate some kind of trade, but I would not have cared. because I will do what I want and no one would tell me otherwise. That is the unfortunate truth of anarchy, and how human society first lived before rule of law and an established system of governance. If you believe that is a type of system for you, there is a place called Somalia that has been in a perpetual state of Anarchy for two decades. Go enjoy it for a few months, you would beg to leave after day 1.

Somalia lacks high levels of Intelligence, Philosophers, Understanding, and Empathy. Hence you see total chaos based on your kind of mentality.

Now go to world health organization websites, or other statistics based sights, and do research on the countries which have the Highest IQ's, particularly in the top 10, you'll find Netherlands, Iceland, Switzerland ...along with SK, JP, Honk Kong.

Particularly in those Norse countries, you find extremely low levels of crime, strong economy, understanding, empathy, and intelligence which allows those countries to thrive. On a micro scale, an Anarchist commune composed of individuals based on high IQ's, morals, ethics, etc, would thrive.....whereas your chaos theory method of alpha-male animalism perpetuates endless failure, karma, and extremely low levels/percentage of successful sustainability.

IF I had a choice whether to roll with your wild bunch, atacking and taking from whoever I can vs. an iltellectual based commune (which would obviously also have brute force and weapons to use for protection) I would much rather be in the commune

Originally posted by NavyDoc
[

And your system would destroy innovation and artistic expression. There would be no incentive to strive harder and learn great skills. There would be no "impressive facilities" or highly trained specialists. There would be no imagination and ideas would be quelled by groupthink if the group does not like them.

What you have here is a recipe for a race to the bottom.

An argument that has never proven to be true anywhere in the world. Name one country.

And obviously, you haven't been paying attention to what's happened to North America over the past 30 years. We are in a "race to the bottom" and we're almost there. That's capitalism today: concentrate profits in the hands of a few, who hoard their money while constantly striving to pay their workers less and cut their benefits.

A lot different than this business model.

Some people play individual sports, some people play team sports.

Winco is somewhat like team sport applied to capitalism.

We here at ATS should always define our terms. Anarchy as a political term means no government. Anarchy as a rhetorical term means crime rules the day.

The way the term anarchy gets used is an indication of the mental construction of the user.

Since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker (which should be sold at Winco, if profitable), anarchy, a society without the need of governmental protection, has been conceivable.

Desirable anarchy would have to come about one generation at a time, as each generation learned greater responsibility, and the ever increasing body of knowledge and technology.

Using anarchy and utopia in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Once a commune has set rules and limits and consequences, it has ceased to become Anarchy. The only true Anarchy one can witness today, is the animal kingdom. Somalia is as close as it gets in the human world.

Netherlands and these other countries mentioned are nowhere near to what anarchy is, please stop using them as examples. This Anarchy utopia everyone glorifies is a re-defined new age thought of anarchy, that simply is a contradiction to the term. Anarchy is freedom of chaos. Sure it is possible for a few to live outside of major population zones from the brutality of it, but one day it may accidentally spill your way. Better be armed when it comes. there is always brutality no matter the system you are in. Remove the government, and Anarchy becomes brutality unleashed in full force.

People and their egos, I swear. ironic that it was the existence of governments that has brought humanity to the level of technological and creativity we have today, and now the individual is just too good for it. Nobody that posts here can even understand what it is to live in a land free from centralized power. They just keep citing socialist European and Asian countries as a standard, but fail to acknowledge their is a centralized governing power keeping it stable.

Humanity needs a form of government to maintain the level of sophistication you were born into today. When the government goes, so does civility and sophistication.

only takes one person to disrupt the peace after they realize a big mob of armed uniformed men wont come to take them away in cuffs, No matter how much is provided and given.

We have veered so far off topic it is not even funny. I will close by saying "good for winco" and "bad for anarchy" just to attempt to go back on topic.

Originally posted by DYepes
Using anarchy and utopia in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Once a commune has set rules and limits and consequences, it has ceased to become Anarchy. The only true Anarchy one can witness today, is the animal kingdom. Somalia is as close as it gets in the human world.

You insist on confusing chaos with anarchy. That is a common mistake. Again: anarchy has rules and laws. There is no government, that's all. And there is no 'upper class' that owns all means of production, These means and all goods produced with them are owned by all and all contribute as best as they can. People just take what they need, no more. If there are tasks that require hard labour, the people would try to build machines to do these dull chores instead of having to do them themselves. The focus in society would not be on "make more stuff to sell" but on "make good stuff to use"; recycling and longevity of materials and products would be key.

Competition would still be there, but in a much more friendly way. Say, for example a brewery succeeds in brewing the best beer you ever tasted. That beer will henceforth bear the name that the cooperation that brewed the beer the first time gave it, or maybe the name of the inventor, if it was just one man. Others will be allowed to have the recipe of the beer if they want and if they so desire will be taught by the workers of the brewery that invented the beer how to brew that very special beer. There are no 'trade secrets' and 'intellectual property' in an anarchy.

Though anarchists will try to do anything to reduce dull chores here would still be the need to do dull and/or dangerous chores on occasion. Putting out fires, for example. Anarchists understand this and know that they should contribute to society, so they will volunteer to do dull and dangerous chores. Instead of being ridiculed for it, as nowadays is the custom in many capitalistic countries, those who choose to do dull chores as a service to the people would gain great respect. The attitude toward them would probably be comparable to that of Americans' attitude toward the FDNY after 9/11.

If there is plenty, people will choose to diminish the hours they have to do dull chores, and in the end there would be no dull chores anymore. By and large, daily life would be as it is now: people still would do work, there would be nurses, doctors, teachers, craftsmen, bakers and brewers, technicians and scientists. But the nature of "work" would change and most people would do what they like and are good at, all within their physical and mental abilities.

Netherlands and these other countries mentioned are nowhere near to what anarchy is, please stop using them as examples.

Indeed, there are governments in all these countries so they are not anarchies. I don't recall anybody saying that either. It was pointed out that the countries that have the most intelligent population strive toward equality. It has been proven that people are more happy there. And equality, human dignity and solidarity are indeed treats of socialism, communism, as of anarchism, one difference being that in socialism and communism you still have a state.

This Anarchy utopia everyone glorifies is a re-defined new age thought of anarchy, that simply is a contradiction to the term. Anarchy is freedom of chaos.

You clearly haven't read much about anarchy and its history. Anarchism has never been defined as chaos - not until the ones that fear it tried to depict it as such. E.g. according to Wikipedia:

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, some argue that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

Nothing about chaos there.

Humanity needs a form of government to maintain the level of sophistication you were born into today. When the government goes, so does civility and sophistication.

There is no dispute here: we both believe that there should be rules and laws in society. It is merely that I am of the opinion that we do not need a Government to govern us, we could do that ourselves. And I don't believe that one men should live in poverty even when he has two jobs while the other legally steals from all without doing much in return. We can't blame him for it: we told him it was proper behaviour, as we currently tell our young that they should "make money" instead of telling them they should try to contribute to the general good.

You may want to read for example the work of Tony Judt to grasp why I believe that we need to change society and strive towards anarchy.

reply to post by DYepes

Using anarchy and utopia in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Once a commune has set rules and limits and consequences, it has ceased to become Anarchy. The only true Anarchy one can witness today, is the animal kingdom. Somalia is as close as it gets in the human world.

we're not animals number one, and number 2, even in Somalia, those who are now at the top and reign, have set up structures, systems, organizations, etc. I understand what you're saying, but my point is that Anarchy in its truest form doesnt last long with people. Eventually systems of some kind fall into place.

Netherlands and these other countries mentioned are nowhere near to what anarchy is, please stop using them as examples. This Anarchy utopia everyone glorifies is a re-defined new age thought of anarchy, that simply is a contradiction to the term. Anarchy is freedom of chaos.

With humans, there is no long lasting anarchy.

Sure it is possible for a few to live outside of major population zones from the brutality of it, but one day it may accidentally spill your way. Better be armed when it comes. there is always brutality no matter the system you are in. Remove the government, and Anarchy becomes brutality unleashed in full force.

That's understood. Still, one would fair better in a group filled with intellectuals, philosophers, and muscle power/weapons, instead of just pure chaotic animalism.

People and their egos, I swear. ironic that it was the existence of governments that has brought humanity to the level of technological and creativity we have today, and now the individual is just too good for it. Nobody that posts here can even understand what it is to live in a land free from centralized power. They just keep citing socialist European and Asian countries as a standard, but fail to acknowledge their is a centralized governing power keeping it stable.

EVeryone has ego, including you. VEry few Enlightened masters conquer this illusion.

My point, however, was that anarchy never lasts long. Eventually a system of governance is put in place. Whether it's a fascism, communism, oligarchy, totalitarianism, etc regardless its human nature to put into effect a system of some kind of governance

Humanity needs a form of government to maintain the level of sophistication you were born into today. When the government goes, so does civility and sophistication.

When the government goes, it will be the groups who continue some form of organization, intellect, sharing, and equality that will thrive in the hellish realities to come.

only takes one person to disrupt the peace after they realize a big mob of armed uniformed men wont come to take them away in cuffs, No matter how much is provided and given.

And such a person is quickly neutralized by the organized groups that remain!!!

We have veered so far off topic it is not even funny. I will close by saying "good for winco" and "bad for anarchy" just to attempt to go back on topic.

Agreed!!! Winco is a perfect example of a group of people getting together for one cause and making something work. The same goes for anarchy. The groups that get together and thrive for a single cause, will be the ones that outlast the groups who kill/rape/pillage by brute force.

By the way, if you look at the history of Anarchism, you'll find quite a lot of advocates discussing utopian societies in the same vein, Zeno's republic for example is just one of those.