Unfortunately the bloke you are slagging off seems mostly right.
Regulated capitalism - and in the socialist/social democratic model - had produced countless improvements for ordinary people - free healthcare, education and benefits as a right.
In contrast anarchism's big roll of the dice was collectivising large parts of Spanish agriculture and parts of its industry for a short period of time and with mixed results. Any genuine progressive must conclude that anarchism is a spent force as a mass movement and now only exists to maintain a libertarian spirit on the left.
Why is anti-capitalism such an important thing for anarchists? if you believe in a free, equal society does it matter by which economic system it is delivered? surely focusing on the economic method of delivery of equality, rather than pragmatically using whatever means necessary to achieve it is missing the point and possibley even hindering it?

"Participatory economics (or parecon for short) is the name of a type of economy proposed as a desirable alternative to contemporary capitalism. The "authors" of this vision are Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. The underlying values that parecon seeks to implement are: equity, solidarity, diversity, and participatory self management. The main institutional vehicles to attain these ends are council democracy, balanced job complexes, remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and participatory planning."

If anyone is interested in a viable well developed alternative to capitalism visit:
www.parecon.org.

In parecon workers manage their own work. Worker councils and self management replace rigid capitalist hierarchies and managers in workplaces.

In parecon communities manage their own affairs, from the smallest communities to the global level via a social iterative planning process where individuals, family units, communes, wards, regions, etc., all participate equally alongside producers in formulating and revising a plan. There are no alienating markets in parecon.

In parecon worker self management, balanced job complexes, renumeration according to effort and sacrifice, a completely decentralized participatory planning process, collectivised ownership of productive assets, and no goverment intervention in the functioning of the economy, consign capitalist concentrations of economic, social and political power, wage slavery and alienation to the dustbin of history together with markets and capitalists.

Tom writes:

>Unfortunately the bloke you are slagging off seems mostly right.

I'm sorry if you mistake a critique to a "slagging off." And as for
"mostly right" I'm afraid just asserting that hardly convinces...

>Regulated capitalism - and in the socialist/social democratic model - had produced
>countless improvements for ordinary people - free healthcare, education and
>benefits as a right.

Yes, we had that. Where is it now? Oh, yes, its been dismanlted. And under
social democracy, did working class people stop fighting? Nope, class
struggle increased (Paris, 68 anyone?). Funny, people did not think making
the prison nicer made it any less of a prison. Its funny how many people
look back at the 1960s/70s and ignore the extensive struggles that took
place across the world.

> In contrast anarchism's big roll of the dice was collectivising large parts of Spanish
> agriculture and parts of its industry for a short period of time and with mixed results.

given that a civil war was occuring, the "mixed results" is quite an understatement.

> Any genuine progressive must conclude that anarchism is a spent force as a mass
> movement and now only exists to maintain a libertarian spirit on the left.

or, then again, any genuine progressive will see that anarchism is on the rise
again, offering a real alternative to capitalism.

>Why is anti-capitalism such an important thing for anarchists? if you believe in a
>free, equal society does it matter by which economic system it is delivered?

because you cannot be free or equal under capitalism. I assume that you
did not read the article, as that is argued there!

> surely
> focusing on the economic method of delivery of equality, rather than pragmatically
> using whatever means necessary to achieve it is missing the point and possibley
> even hindering it?

So by focusing on the necessary social and economic conditions for equality and
freedom, we "miss the point" and hinder the "delivery of equality"? What kind of
logic is that? Can it really be argued that by ignoring the causes of inequality,
we fight it? Of course not -- only by identifying the causes of inequality will we
get rid of it -- just as you only fight a disease by combating the cause, not only
the symptons.

Social democracy has been tried, it failed. As my article pointed out.

time we started to build a real alternative -- a mass anarchist movement.

Actually true Capitalism has never been tried. Most people who claim to believe in a market/capitalist society really just believe in wealth. Consider the following points:
1. A true capitalist society would make employers pay the full social and environmental cost of manufacturing, labour, and transportation.
2. Any true capitalist would also agree with 100% death taxes (something that I have never seen in a capitalist before), as wealth should not be handed down.
3. Everyone in a true capitalist society would receive an equal education, an equal chance in life, when they started.
4. A true Capitalist society would ban political advertising and political donations, as they favor large companies over small. They allow the puyrchase of influence, which is, by definition, anti-capitalist.
5. A true Capitalist society would have adequate safety nets for the poor and the sick, as the cost of labour would rise sharply if there was more than 95% employment. The unemployed are important in any economy.

A true market economy has never been tried. Provided that the conditions above are met, it need not be exploitative. It could also be used as a mechanism to protect the environment and alleviate poverty.

It could work.

OK. Shoot me down! (nicely though)