Anarchism

Remove all ads!

Splitting this off from the Government size/world peace thread, because we're pretty well off-topic methinks.

Chev:

Well, I did some poking around the anarchist FAQ ( http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html ) and found that yes, there is a practical solution here: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci58

I'm not sure about all of it - but I do like the policing idea (voluntary service if it's needed, with people being able to leave at will or if they're found unfit by a community vote/whatever).

Svyatoslav:

I am personally not so interested in being exploited - someone making a good deal of money (more than me, for example) from work that I've done by virtue of them having a higher rank in a hierarchy than me. Maybe you think that people with superior rank to you are deserving of it - I don't know - but I certainly don't think they are.

I'm not sure what you mean there, is that in response to something I said, or an anarchist argument from elsewhere?

What's in people's best interest: Well, what they decide is in their best interest, I suppose. If a community gets together and votes for something, then that's what's in their best interests. I don't see how a state subjectively deciding what's in their best interests is any better.

To stop the 'evil' power hungry guys - see the chev section, I suppose...

 

I take you missed my point. I consider an utmost exploitation a system which is based upon the equal sharing of production, considering some people are naturally more intelligent or physically more fit for producing than others. No, the inferiour - or more dependant if you wish - should not be given the same share to the one who contributes more, either intellectually or physically.
At least in Capitalism people always have a choice - yes they do.
If you are jealous of someone richer, or in a higher hierarchical position than you, move your ass and work hard to get there.

It concerns your very optimistical quote that said people would notice when a few would be trying to exploit the majority in an anarchy.

I am glad most people think that Capitalism is better to their interests than anarchy is.
Regardless, if you knew a bit more what liberalism is, you would not say it is "a state subjectively deciding what's in their best interests is any better". That is just gross.

Actually, I would be interested in your take on it, if you dont mind...

 

Okay, well, I disagree. The intelligent people can do their intelligent stuff, the fit people can do the stuff which requires their fitness, and those without such attributes can do the rest - but all are quite dependent of having the others do what they do, and I hardly see this as a reason for the intelligent or the strong to make profit from this. The average person is needed in the system also - and is quite probably putting in equal work - so why shouldn't they gain equal benefit? Each of the three groups you've divided people into is dependent on the others.

On the other hand - if you're refering to people who simply don't pull their weight, then I understand. If you give nothing to society, society has no obligation to give anything back. The more productive effort you put in (not talking about innate qualities like intelligence here - an average Joe builder can put in just as much effort as a brilliant mathematician), the more you will likely get out of it (depending on the economic system, which is unspecified).

Well if there was anarchism, there wouldn't be any need to go through that crap.

Maybe you're being slightly too pessimistic then? Sure, people aren't noticing now, but if they had seen something else it would be difficult not to notice the change between 'Everyone is treated as equal' and 'There is someone above me'. While people can be terribly thick, having them all be terribly thick at the same time while someone subverts a system designed specifially against them ('them' being the subverters) seems a bit unlikely.

Most people don't know what anarchism is - it's not much of a choice if you only know one side of it.
But yes, capitalism is probably better to the interests of a number of people. Those benefiting from the hierarchy system. I don't believe that the majority of people are benefiting from it.
However, even if people knew about anarchism, they still may choose capitalism *shrugs* - apathy is a powerful force.

And yeah, I get the general gist of liberalism (freedom, democracy, equality etc.) - the only liberal party I have even the vaguest knowledge of has failed woefully to live up to this sort of stuff. Regardless, the state is still deciding on what's in the people's best interests, not the people. I don't see how this is better than the people deciding what's in the people's best interest.

If someone is destroying the society, then society should be defended. How this is done would depend on the threat, or the society under threat - by however they deal with problems or decide to deal with this one. I really don't have an answer that would stand for every anarchist community - because each one could be totally different from any other. It would also depend on the actions of the power hungry people I imagine. Boycotting to armed resistance - whatever it's felt that the situation calls for.

(Guh, need sleep. I regret AoLSing now I get the lingering feeling that I didn't say what I wanted to say and that this could go back and forth for a long time)

 

If we are talking about a primitive and underdeveloped society, maybe what you say could be envisioned.
However, in our modern Nations, this simply is an uthopia.
Who do you think might contribute more to our society demands, an average Joe builder or a brilliant mathematician?
Fact is, every society elects some desirable qualities, and the ones who have them, are more likely to have the upper hand.
You might say this is an arbitrary decision? Well, our society chose to put qualities such as intelligence and creativity above a high building capacity, or being a great Warrior for example. What did this ensue? A great deal of development and wealthiness.
You will only reach this level of development and wealthiness if you allow the people with a higher intellectual capacity to be rewarded for their contributions. Not only that, amongst intellectuals, there will always be the ones who contributes more; amongst Joe builders, there will always be the ones who work harder. To give the same benefits to the ones who contribute less is just, well, exploitive.
Furthermore, the human being only creates and produces when he has a motivation. If you dont reward him, he wont create, period.
If we properly recognize his contributions though, it is for the gain of all of us really. As much as it is true there is some disparity between people's wealthiness in our day and age, not once, in all history of mankind, people lived with more comfort than nowadays. Life today is much better, in terms of material standards at least.

Yes, because we would let jealously get the best part from us.

We have a bunch of examples of communist regimes taking place. In none of them people acted so enlightened as you claim. Yes, I know what you preach is anarchy, but both have equality and non-state societies as precepts. Thus, there is a relevant resemblance.

Read my response to your first quote. I think, everyone is benefiting, indeed.
Hierarchy is not the devil as you claim it is. There is no order or progress without hierarchy. Again, read my response to your first quote.
And I dont think it is a matter of apathy anyway, more like people hold their freedom above equality.

We have freedom, democracy and equality. Anyway, keep in mind European Nations are hardly classical liberals nowadays. The US is the closest to the liberal model. If there was a true Liberalism, the state would be far less interventionist than it is in the West. Thus, you can not blame Liberalism for the big goverments of Europe.
As I said before, I dont think people deciding for themselves, as in an anarchical society, could work out.

You see, that sounds too vague to me. Furthermore, it hints to plain murder against undesirable individuals.
I would not like to live in such society.

 

Except if they are communists, right?

 

I don't see how equality is something that can only be achieved in a primitive society, and underdeveloped society, or a utopia. If you stop thinking of people as abstractions and instead think of them as people, maybe you'd be more in favour of equality rather than having them exploited in favour of the rich, for no real purpose but to make the rich more rich.

A great deal of development and wealthiness for who, exactly? Those people who are not wealthy don't seem to be getting much use of this wealthiness you speak of.

Do you really think that the reason great things were done is because of the rewards? Maybe great business people have done it that way, but I highly doubt that there are many great scientists, philosophers, writers, mathematicians, ect. who sat down and worked on their great work with the idea of 'Yay! I'm going to make a bit of cash out of this!'

So why should we stop at what you call 'much better'? I'm sure most poor people don't care that it's 'much better', because it's still ****house. Things could be 'much better' still if capitalism wasn't dragging half of society back.

What communist regimes are you talking about? The only ones I know of are 'state communism' (which sucks, I might add). Indeed, I've even heard these 'communist' regimes called 'state capitalism' - are there any examples of stateless communism working?

Also, I would like to point out again that there have been working anarchies. Here are some links to info on those:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA5.html

To the first bit - I don't see any evidence to say that there can be no order or progress without hierarchy. As to the second - my main attraction to anarchy is the freedom. Equality is just a handy by-product of not having an elite bunch making the decisions in their favour. With anarchy your freedom matters - there's freedom to change things, rather than hope a government does it. You can't even cut down a tree in your yard without a permit - stupid laws like this with no connection to reality wouldn't occur in anarchy, because the people making the decisions live in the same reality of permits-to-cut-down-trees-is-stupid as you. And of course, there are far more important issues than this where stupid laws and such hold people back from getting on with things.

The freedom we have would be a good deal freer without the government - for a US example - Patriot act anyone? Apparently Australia is introducing some really screwed anti-terrorist laws as well.

Democracy would mean a whole lot more if it mattered, and wasn't just leaning on the side of the lesser of the two evils during election time. Direct democracy - where things actually come out of it that people want rather than what the government wants - is, IMO, the way to go.

Equality ... well, bull**** we have equality. You admitted yourself to the huge rich-poor divides, and it's no sure thing that we have equality between races, gender, etc.

I can't be anything but vague here - as anarchism isn't one big united thingy. Each community could deal with this issue in totally different ways, and seeing that I don't follow any of the anarchist schools of thought as such (like anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, etc.), I can't just throw in a plug for how they would deal with it.

 

Easy one to answer, the Builder. Society demands practicable devices, including housing. It does not demand mathematic equations. As it happens, the building industy can be pretty well paid, probably higher than is found in universities which is the most likely to find the majority of mathematicians. (There not being a lot of use for them in the real world).

 

Anarchism in theory is the utopian system, but in reality it would never work because people are flawed.

 

I explained why I think so. Equality, in the way you would want it to exist, can not exist in our society.
Do you think someone would worry about developing modern technology - computers, machines, space ships - if he would find no reward in that at all, in the prettense that rewarding is "exploitive"?
Sorry if I give a simplistic example, and I am sure you have far more important things in life than gaming, but do you think in such an anarchist society, a group of people would put their asses to work to develop such a nice, inventive and complex game such as Baldurs Gate, just for the sake of "fellow humans" enjoying it and having a good time, just so we are all happy? No, it is a known fact in socialist societies people get lazy and stop worring about being creative - there is no reason for being so.
Also, the problem with your reasoning is that you are structuring it from a false marxist premise - ie people work in Capitalism with the sole purpose to enrich the already rich. I work for my own sake. I try to get higher and higher in my career for my own sake and for the ones I care about.
Not only that, but Capitalism was the first economical system to give people a chance if they were not born an aristocrat.
We work for several purposes, individual motivations, National demands, group necessities, etc. To reduce it as a simple matter of being exploited by the rich is just improper.

If we are talking about Europe, the US or Japan, I am fairly sure what I am talking about. I guess you are romancizing - sp - History a bit.
In the Middle Ages 90% people lived like cattle. Few were literate, and even fewer had "benefits" such as a warm bed to sleep, resting time, food or even the minor "luxury".
It is easy to notice that. Would you rather be a poor American/Italian man of today, or a peasant - the equivalent of a poor person in the Middle Ages - 600 years ago? You might do the same question to any given period of time, and the answer will always be the same, unless you like to suffer.
Sorry, but if you cant see how the overall material condition of people - in the developed countries - has VASTLY improved since Capitalism, then I see no reason to further discuss this point, because it is self evident. Read Lord Francis Bacon.

Why do they do it? It is not necessarily money, but a rewarding is mandatory. Again, Lord Francis Bacon is a must read in this regard as well.
In the SU, there was great scientists, but firstly, they were half forced to do their researchs and half rewarded.
In the other hand, the most basic comoditties were greatly underdeveloped. Why? Because there was no demand for them - which means no rewarding - no one could profit from studying and developing them. I talk about things like a teeth bruiser for sakes!
No motivation = no results.

What are you talking about?! Poor people in developed countries can afford cars, TVs, computers! In pre-Capitalist societies poor people could barely sleep or eat! Want you or not, Capitalist improved the material well being of people by a thousand times, and that is just a historical fact.
You did nothing so far as the least resembling to providing facts or proofs, but keep using marxist common-sense. How things could be "much better"? Could you explain to me how your society would work out, when all these socialist models have miserably failed? Do you know something they did not?

Yes, because your model can not work in a 150 million society, it is as simple as that.
Regardless, state-issued or not, fact is people tried these equality-based regimes, and none of them have been successful.

These examples are pure BS! In the twenties Ukraine went through the great famine. This alone might refute any attempt to bring this period as anything remotely successful.
Argentina has nothing to do with Anarchy! Polish Solidarnosc has nothing to do with Anarchy as well! These examples are so full of crap I will not even bother.

Yes, because if all children disregarded their parents hierarchical authority education would be the most orderly and progressive thing! This is so logical and self evident I will not address any further as well.
By the way, there is no such a thing as non-hierarchy. An horizontal relation between people is hierarchy as well.

Wait, you are for total freedom and equality? These concepts are mutually exclusive to each other. Period.
Everything you say about anarchism is pure romance and naivity. If people had total freedom, there could ensue anything, except equality or progress. You would see people killing each other like flies, people organizing to face oppositors - like you or not, the man is a being that naturally congregates with others for a common goal, which are opposed to the wishes of others.
There is no such a thing as building the "will of all", as you seem to imply. People will never realise sharing is beneficial to them, because people are not like that, people are different amongst ourselves, and indeed, sharing is not what most people consider in their best interests. It is as simple as that. You can only reach this unanimous "agreement" by force; but then it would not be anything remotely similar to agreement.
I agree with what you said about the tree. It is a stupid law, VERY stupid. But that kind of measure is exactly opposed to what I have been preaching so far, which I will not bother to repeat yet again - you know, Liberalism, small goverment, individual autonomy, etc.

There is no Nation without goverment. I already said, I oppose big goverments, but non-goverment is just silly.

Haha. Indeed, I dont think Democracy, in the fullest sense, is being put to use. However, for different reasons than you.
To demand Direct Democracy in a Nation of 250 million people in just... well. maybe we could put them all in the Square Guarden and let them discuss issues to death.

I admitted what? Sorry, I cant understand. Anyway, there can never be Race equality, because Races are different. There can never be gender equality, as it is biologically proved men and women are QUITE apart.
Equality means equal subjugation to the Law. It would be very curious to watch an anarchist society, wherein people act according to their own volition and nothing more, to attain total equality between Races, gender, classes. It would be hell on earth. But I suppose we would have some sort of police to enforce it?
Not that I would like to see such a society come to life though. I can suppress my curiosity really.

Ok then. How would we separate people into these different communities to begin with?
---------------------------------------------------

What would these builders be doing if not for mathematicians/engineers calculations? Building huts I am sure.
Regardless, anyone can be a builder - unless he has some serious health problem - but few can be a brilliant mathematician - it is not a matter of choice actually.
I, for one, am sure I could work in a building construction if needed be, but no way I could be a brilliant mathematician, even if I tried my hardest.

 

It depends upon the society. This is from the American version of society:

It may be different in other societies. And economics, despite some posturing, has nothing to do with it. Capitalism has nothing to do with the topic regarding "natural rights." Sam Adams - who was one of the most important Fouders - often commented that "the opportunity to serve his fellow citizens was reward itself." It is the fact that the governed can change their govenment whenever their current one no longer represents them properly, which is exactly what they did.

 

Anyone could be a builder, it's true. Not everyone can be a good builder. Plastering is certainly a very difficult "art". Electricians in the UK are on a lot higher wages than your normal design engineer or architect (Excepting those that own the companies who no longer do any designing).
Maybe I've misunderstood your concept of a "brilliant mathematician" because trust me, calculations for the majority of building structures are fairly basic. Unlike the Greeks, no-one has ever accused the Romans of being brilliant mathematicians (the roman numeral counting system procluding it) yet the ancient architecture in Rome could hardly be described as "huts". Sure if you want a 1km high tower it's going to be a little harder, but then I wouldn't say that Society "demands" such.

As it happens, I'm not really arguing your main point, just pointing out your example wasn't a good one.

 

Yes I do - or at least I think that there are much better ways of rewarding people than using capitalism. I just can't believe that the only reason technology is able to progress is because people are going to get their salary for doing it.

It's not that rewarding is inherently exploitive - it's just that the capitalist way of doing it is.

Remembered this part of the Anarchist FAQ - for your reading pleasure if you feel like it: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html#seci411

You are aware of the concept of freeware and open source software? That's an example of people creating games for the sake of creating/having games. If there was no pressing need to make a profit in society, and if money wasn't a restriction to how a game was developed - then I imagine that we would see a good deal more games of high quality than we do now - rather than everyone in the gaming industry catering to the lowest common denominator and consistantly churning out dumbed-down crap.

Hmm, not exactly what I was thinking - though the rich are going to be enriched by your working and moreso than you. Sure, you're working for yourself, but they're benefiting overall.

I fear you misinterpret me - but yes, life in the middle ages sucked horribly. Why? I would hazard a guess (well, among other things) that authority was one of the main problems. Feudal lords and kings exploiting the people below them in the hierarchy. Capitalism is several steps up from that, I just think we could go several steps further and eliminate that particular problem.

Hmm. I think I agree with you a bit. Motivation is necessary, though what you consider to be a good motivation and what I do are, I think, two different things. Motivation can be as simple as 'Hey, someone with benefit from this' - I am not optimistic enough to think that would be normal in an anarchist society, mind you. A different motivation might be retaining your position in the society where you benefit from what other people are also doing. After all, society has no reason to aid you if you're not aiding them, and by researching basic commodities they're doing that and being useful about it.

I'm pretty sure there are other reasons for motivation in an anarchist society, and if you're not satisfied that this one could work I'll have a look.

Edit: Note that I don't think that motivation is necessary for creativity, or for things which the person enjoys doing. Most people should be able to do things which they enjoy doing in an anarchist society anyway. One of the solutions for getting the unwanted jobs done is to offer the motivation of, say, 6 month holidays or such in order to make them attractive and give the person doing them equal reason for doing it as someone doing a job which they enjoy.

Yup, all those people unable to get out of New Orleans, they were sure well off. Again - sure, poor people under even more exploitive and rigid systems had it worse off, but that doesn't mean that today's is good. And seeing that you're dismissing the anarchist societies that I linked, I suppose I have no argument there

I know pretty much zilch about the Ukraine thing other than that the military system of the anarchists worked, so I'll just concede that one.
Argentina, as I understand it, wasn't a true anarchy (as in: no government), but had anarchist elements in the way work was run (through communal discussion and workplace equality).
And I think you're ignoring the best example there: Revolutionary Spain.

I'll admit that I haven't read all of this, but there's a huge section devoted to how children could be raised as according to anarchist principles if you're interested: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ6.html

You twisted my words. I do not mean freedom as in 'You are free to run off and kill your neighbour' kind of freedom - well, sure, that's fine - it's just that the rest of the people are totally free to stop this person. It's pretty much equal to our society as present in that regard.

I suppose that freedom and equality can be exclusive, though they don't need to be. If you're free then sure, you have the freedom to discriminate which will possibly screw the equality thing over. I'm relying a bit on the idea that 'without certain people controlling what we see and hear, there will be less discrimination, as no one is pushing 'All Muslims are terrorists!' in our face for their own agenda'. This might be wishful thinking - I'll give the subject more thought.

Why do we need a nation? Or at least, why do we need a nation as it's seen today (one great big unified centralised thingy).

Tying in with above, there is no need for direct democracy to work on a national level for everyone. I talk about within communities where people gather and decide what's best for their community and aren't answerable to any other community. Of course there would be interaction between them (delegates who only speak what their community has decided is one suggested solution) - but it would not be one great big nation so to speak.

I agree, and am annoyed that I didn't clarify. Equal treatment, even. And no, by that I'm not suggesting that people hopelessly unsuited for something should be included just to make things 't3h equal and fairzor!' - if the average female can't pass what is needed as a firefighter, it would not be a bad thing to exclude her. Some of the 'Don't exclude!' stuff that goes on now is crap.

I think I've already responded to this in other sections, so just to the last bit: police enforcing it would make it no longer anarchy. So no.

By suburb? Town, if it's small enough? What the borders are doesn't really matter, so long as everyone is able to get their say in if they want it (so having a community the size of New York would be dumb)


Though responding to all this is time consuming and probably pointless - it's doing a good job of making me think about all the problems (moreso than just by reading the FAQ). So yay

[ October 04, 2005, 13:41: Message edited by: Aikanaro ]

 

How so? Natural Rights, Liberalism and Capitalism are all entwined.
Plus, about the quote, I dont think it has much to do with what I have been discussing about reward. Sure, some people think helping the others is enough reward in itself, which is not wrong, at all. However, that does not mean these same people will not want to exercize their full individuality to earn themselves some bucks, or to have a very successful career. I mean, we can not have a society based upon such feeling - the one provided in the quote - as it is Anarchy.
-----------------------------------------------------

Well, being an eletrician can mean much actually. The eletricians with lots of physics/maths knowledge have stellar careers. But they barelly do "force work", but rather use their brains.
As for Rome, you dont think it were the builders who made the projects for all those monuments and such? Nowadays, with all our technology, we can not reproduce them, which shows the high level of complexity of them. However, there were "engineers" thinking them over.
Society needs people who can not be replaced. A builder can be replaced, a brilliant engineer/mathematician can not.

Actually, it was not my example, but rather Aikinaro's, but I thought I could use it anyway.
---------------------------------------------------

Hey, it is not like I am the biggest fan of Capitalism, but we should give credit where it is due.
The level of material improvement it gave us is undeniable.
Also, receiving a salary is somewhat simbolic. Fact is, people will not create if they will gain nothing out of it. There will always be those great spirits who will put their time to create, research, because that is what they like to do, but even them need them means and enviroment to do so.

"Home made" games can not compete with the big ones in terms of software power. Why? Because they simply dont have the means to do so. What do you think gives the means to big game developers? We, or better our money.
Take for example Linux. Why do you think it is a free software? Because the creator is kind and good? No, more like because he is smart. He could not compete with Microsoft with a payed software - hell, even being free, Linux is still decades behind windows, not in quality, but in usage. So what was his strategy? Rather allow it go for free, since he knew he would get millionaire the same way. Rewarding and recognition are keys concepts for creation and research.
It is the same with medicine companies. Sure, they might be a bunch of jerks, but they are developing more and more modern medicine and medical treatments because they are filling their pockets.

Yes, but, in my opinion, the whole society benefits as well. Let them become even more rich, there are other important issues in life anyway.

Hehe. Sounds so much like Marx's evolution theory. Dont mind, I just find it funny.
I guess my point is, I, and I guess most of humanity, is not willing to let go of our comfort in the name of a more "equal" society.
We need more than that to throw away the material gains Capitalism provided us. Meaning we need a more solid perspective on how Anarchism could maintain our high standards of living.

But what social position? Should not an Anarchy be devoided of social positions?

Ok, I will wait the time you want.

But wait, this is already discriminating. This is the first step to a non-Anarchist society.
You might give 6 months holidays to motivate people. But when this is not enough? What shall you give them? And on and on?

What about New Orleans? If you mean people taking the opportunity to steal, well, you have criminals everywhere. Some people are just like that.
As for your examples, if Ukraine in the twenties is any indication, I would rather live as a Mujique under Ivan Grozny.

It says Argentina from 2001 till now. In what way is Argentina anarchist? Which elements I mean?
Revolutionary Spain is not a very good example either. As you can see, not everyone was satisfied with the way things were going.

"Free children"? I am very skeptical about that. It also say parents should educate by giving "example". And when example is not enough? Because you sure dont believe children will never revolt against their parents - teenagers are even worse? And when their behaviour puts everyone in danger, both the parents and themselves? I think this concept is very fragile.

So, if other people dont feel like stoping the person, murder will become like any other kind of action, like eating or sleeping, no?

Yes, seems wishful thinking to me.

My concept of Nation goes deeper than an unified goverment. Something like the word Narod in Russian. It involves Folk and Culture. Sure, if you are an anarchist you would not care for these concepts, but they are primal in my life.
I would die before I see a world based upon the denying of the Nation.

How would these communities interact between themselves, like in case of inter-strife?

But here lies the problem. If you treat the unequals equally, you will never unsue equality, which is the most basic principle of anarchy, right? Well, I suppose Freedom would be the most important, but then equality would be highjacked.

Hehe, I was making a trap to you. I take it would be people enforcing it, right? But as I said before, when people decide murder is no longer un moral, or when they just dont care, how is it that we might garantee the least justice in this society?

So, do you really think we could divide 6 billion people in small communities?

Yes, discussing is always the best way to strenghten one's ideology/theories. Even more so when you have an incredibly smart and cultured opposer like me. Hey, I am joking.

[ October 06, 2005, 03:23: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

Well, when George Washington assumed command of the Continental Army, after the Second Congress, the first thing he did was to turn down the pay for his services. He did keep a running total of his expenses, but with great care. Many who served in the Revolutionary Army did so without pay for long stretches of time, suffering the greatest hardships. Also, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton also served their country while placing great finacial hardships on themselves and their families. In fact, one of the reasons why Hamilton left office was to revive his law practice because he was so broke after serving as Secretary of the Treasury under George Washingtion in the first adminstration. It was the second most powerful postion in the country at the time.

There is also the story of how Samuel Adams, upon being elected to the Continental Congress by the citizens of Boston, was so poor that he could not afford decent clothes to wear to it, having forsaken any finacial gain from his service to them for so many years. But a few days of before leaving there was a knock at his door one evening, while he and his family were having dinner. It was the town talior, and he was there to measure Sam for a new suit. After the family resumed their meal, there was another knock at the door, and it turned out to be the town's shoemaker, who fitted him for new shoes, complete with silver buckles. Before the night was out Adams had himself a new suit, new red cloak, shoes, buckles and a new hat to wear to the Congress, all courtesy of the town he had served for so long.

My point is that there are men who have served their fellow citizens without the desire for personal gain, but for a higher calling, rather than mere averice. Hard to believe, but there was a time when virtue was its own reward. We may or may not agree here. But Captialism is not the same as individual freedom - in the political sense of the meaning. In economics, yes, we agree there.

[ October 06, 2005, 07:12: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Now you're confusing Electricians with Electrical Engineers (which is myself). An electrician is someone who installs electrical equipment, not someone who designs it.
As a guide I am a senior electrical engineer on about £20 an hour (wages in the UK for design engineering are a lot worse than most other countries) in contrast, the electricians (people actually pulling cables) on the Royal Opera House, were on about £200 an hour, double time for nights and weekends. Plumbers (particularly Gas), Plasterers and Electricians command massive wages, and many countries are crying out for them. A program I watched recently said Australia in particular is looking for people with these skills. And it is a SKILL, not inteligence - something anyone could learn. I have a number of friends who got first class honours degrees in science and engineering from Imperial College (Which is the best engineering university in the UK,) and have since gone on to complete PHd's. (One at Oxford, one at Cambridge, one at Bristol, one at Warwick and 5 stayed on at IC.) All but one have stayed in their given discipline, and I'm fairly sure that only one is on a higher wage than me.

So you see, I'm talking from experience of the difference between Skill and Intelligence. Skills (which most people could learn given the inclination) are at lot more useful to society and are actually rewarded as such.

 

Hmm, you're not the biggest fan of capitalism? I think I've been under some false impressions here So how much of a fan are you, is it just a 'It's good because there's nothing better' thing?
And yep - credit where credit's due. Capitalism is good as far as it goes, and I'll continue using it as much as I always have (because I'm living life for me, not some anarchist dream). I just feel that there's a better way of doing things - getting all the material goodness of capitalism but without all the crap which comes with it.

Yup - but that only applies in a capitalist society. If you remove the issue of needing lots of money/money at all to get the resources, then the 'home made' games would all have access to the same resources and would therefor have the means to make excellent games.

I think I agree - having a high quality of living is more important, and I'd be disinterested in anarchy if it wasn't going to provide that - what's the point in being equal to everyone if it still sucks?

Obviously I don't see anarchism and high standard of living as mutually exclusive. I'm in life for myself - I see anarchism to my benefit - again, equality is just a by-product (one that I'm strongly in favour of, but still). Once a stable anarchist economy is set up (in whatever way), there should really be no problems. Even if it's the sort of economy where you're giving things away - you're getting the things you want in return. There's no reason that places which make the things we want can't operate under anarchist principles (communal workplace operating, councils between the workers).

Well, no, if there were no 'positions in society' - there would be no one in society...
But 'position in society' I just meant what you're involved in it - not as in 'my position is higher than yours' but 'I am fulfilling my niche and everyone is fulfilling theirs'.

I think I'm solidifying on the idea of the motivation being 'Because I'm doing my (useful) thing, I will be able to get what it is I want'. So, you do your thing and other people are happy for it, and you will get what you want because by being useful to society, it will be provided.

Some anarchist ideas retain money as well which would be motivational in the way you say, but I think gift economy would work better. People have a vested interest in giving you things if you're giving them things.

I don't see how this is discriminating. It just gives different reasons to do different things. And if that isn't enough, then they could a) propose something else or b) do something else. It's not like there's anything restraining them to the 'crappy' job.

Or they could just go off and do whatever they want - no guarantee of their community supporting them any more - but oh well.

By the New Orleans example I was merely pointing out the people in poverty which it exposed. AFAIK, most of the people who didn't leave only stayed for lack of ways to get out (like poverty). Also, I consider it unlikely that they would steal so much if they weren't poor and lacking the things they stole. Why steal a DVD player if you already own one and have plenty of money?

With Argentina: As far as I know, the economy crashed and workplaces were taken over by the workers. There were no bosses (or at least minimal), and the workers looked after themselves and governed the workplace through meetings. From what I read, there were (and still are, though to a lesser degree than when everything was in total shambles) lots of community meetings to decide what was going to happen. That's about as far as it was anarchy - not in that there was no government or bosses, but that people took initiative and acted as if there weren't.

Revolutionary Spain is an excellent example, as far as showing that an anarchy can work. The CNT had 1 million+ members from what I remember, and Barcelona's factories and businesses functioned excellently with them.

Just because it failed in the end due to a combination of communist betrayal and fascist (or good christian, whatever you feel like calling it ) invasion doesn't mean that it was a bad idea or that it couldn't have worked.

Well, I think it's an idea that's worth investigating. I have no idea whether it would work or be effective, outside of that guy thinks it would be and you don't think so, so meh

Yup - anarchy isn't perfect. It requires people to be at least somewhat empathic.

My definition of nation is pretty much just 'an area of land with a unified people', so yeah, our definitions are different.
Culture I find to be important, yes. Without culture, it would be rather dull. Not that I care very much for my own nation's culture - because Australia doesn't really have culture of its own.

A delegate elected by the community could be sent to others and things could be negotiated (with the community calling the decisions, not the delegate). Inter-strife would be a very interesting issue, I imagine - I'm not even going to try and predict what would happen.

Who's to decide who is unequal? Would it not be simply best to treat everyone equally, unless there's something objective you can sieze upon to show their inferiority/superiority?

Then, I suppose - society has failed. But then, at least it would have failed with the full will and consent of the people

Right now? Nope. But given the right build-up, sure, why not?
Well, it would actually be the people dividing themselves up, but yeah, having lots of small communities instead of big unwieldly ones would, IMO, be ideal.


Chandos' post interests me a lot: It shows that if someone aids others, others will aid them. All this needs is to be expanded and agreed upon and you have a gift economy. You gain because you cause other people to gain.

 

Sorry for the late reply, but I have been very busy.

Chandos,

I think you misunderstood me. First of all, I already said I am a Nationalist. Thus, I dont think there is a higher cause - or calling, as you put - than helping your fellow brethren. I think compassion for your fellow citzens to be very noble, and a sign of a healthy and homogeneous society.
The way I see, idealistically, fellow brothers should care and support each other, with true sincerity and selfishlesness. However, I dont believe in a society based upon socialist/anarchist (un)values. People are born unequal, and you cant cut the freedom of some in order to achieve equality. Plus, the fact is some people will not care for others, no matter what, and while this is a pity, it can not be forced on them. Serving your fellow citzen is desireable, but it can not be mandatory.
Furthermore, despite all that, I still would wish that people's individuality be preserved. In a society in which people's lives are so "shared", I am sure we would lose the uniqueness of ourselves, and even our own privacy.
Botton line is, your examples are really great, and I lament the fact people nowadays are so self centered and egoistical. However, these people were one of a kind, and society can not live only with these kind of men.
Just a last note. Even when people are apparently acting without the least personal gain or interest, they are still always acting to satisfy their egos. People help their fellow brethren, practice charity, etc, always to appease their own egos. Sure, it is far more noble than satisfying your ego by buying yourself a Ferrari, but it is still for selfish - or personal if you may preffer - motivations. It is, then, self rewarding.
A society in which this kind of behaviour is mandatory, in which you are obliged to share, most of the meaning of such noble acts would be lost. Mostly important, no one would feel the least self rewarding in doing so, which would inevitably lead to estagnation or plain ruination of the whole system. That is why I say rewarding is vital, even if the notion of rewarding might differ from person to person. Differing or not, rewarding can never be imposed, forced, unto people, though.
---------------------------------------------------

I see. I indeed mistook both professions. I will explain my point in the next quote.

You see, that is exactly my point. Skills can be learned, intelligence can not. If any builder would die tomorrow, he would not make any difference - dont take it the harsh way. If there was any shortage of builders in society, I could perfecty do the job. However, if some brilliant scientist responsable for developing our space program, or something like that would die, I certainly could not take up his place. Very few could. He is not as easily replaced as the average builder.
Although I see your point, I think there is a misunderstanding between us which comes down to this: You are confusing men with professions. While it might be true bulding might be more important to society than developing a space program - although immediately speaking only - any can take the job of building a house, for example, while very few can replace the head of a scientistic project. Botton line is, we can not live without building, but a brilliant scientist can build. The average builder can not take the place of someone developing a very important project for the future of a Nation. Meaning: building is more important than Science, and I use this therm broadly - immediately speaking - but a brilliant scientist fairly outweights the importance of the average builder. Thus, we must separate the individual and his function.

[ October 10, 2005, 03:11: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

Svy - There is a lot in your post that I agree with, but since we agree on some things there is no need to dwell on those issues.

I agree, there is truth in that statement.

But this is a good argument - the notion of equality and the individual. Still, I wanted to include this response from the English press in 1776, after the Declaration of Independence was made public in England:

"It is a self-evident truth that all men, tho created equal, are not intended to remain so. That without a resignation of part of our natural liberty, we should continue in a state of ignoble barbarism, unaquaineted with that pure happiness, which flows from order."

Spoken like a loyal Tory, I suppose. Yet, should liberty be limited by a natural order, which in itself results in inequality? The rational answer is that it cannot. Again, I am not arguing for, or against socialism, or capitalism, but equality in government and under the law. And it would seem that you agree here. But there is always the threat of a "natural aristocracy," that would rise to a level that it would limit the liberty of those who are not among those of a "natural elite." An aristocracy is still an aristocracy, even if it is not by birth or inheritance. That is excatly what the English press had in mind regarding the "pure happiness of order." But how can there be "pure happiness" while there are limits to liberty?

[ October 10, 2005, 04:13: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Well, there are periods of History which appeal to me much more than the Capitalist age, that much is for certain.
However, all I see are leftist solutions against Capitalism, and I will never abide to them.
It is more complicated than being a fan of Capitalism or not being.

Yes, but that is the hard part. I dont think Anarchism can provide them, which is one of the reasons I oppose it.

How so? Money generates resources. Resources are the means for the development of software and the like.
The idea of Capitalism is that it generates resources, which are used for development. It is a cicle. One is dependant of the other.

I guess that is the general idea. Most commies dont like that some are poorer than others, so in their minds all should be equally poor. That is not rational to me.

My question is, who is going to volunteer developing something which demands a greater deal of effort - or time, or thinking, researching, whatever - when he can let it for the others? I dont think such system which would rely so much on the interchange of products could work.

Ok, but do you agree this is a single position shared by everyone?
How would we deal with the fact that people occupying the same position in society - which neglets a bit the concept of "position" - would be performing different tasks - and tasks require differen ammounts of effort, as I said above?

Useful to whom? To society I assume. I like the idea of being useful to society, but I need more than that for myself.

Money? That is curious. How would that work in an anarchical society.
I dont believe in a society based upon the interexchange of goods. Not in a society which achieved such a level of disparity between commodities such as ours.

What when people start demanding privilegies which resemble the ones in Capitalist societies? You say "different reasons", but this is already a sign of privilege.

Which mean people would be shunned. How is that any better than "economical segregation" in Capitalist societies?

I dont think poverty is an excuse. By saying that you are disrespecting millions of honest poor people.

Actually, what happened is that the goverment stole a good deal of money from people's bank accounts. I dont think people got off too good in the whole mess.

I think we need more than theory, meaning a practical and solid proof that it might work. The fact not once it was sucessful for any ammount of decent time is an indication.
I say this because such an absolute change is no small thing, and we should not play luck with people's lives.

When you have your own children, you could try. I just dont advice doing so. And by the way, when they start refuting your anarchist ideas, remember they are free to do so.

Yes. This is a big problem. I dont think we can rely solely on the prospects of a supposed good and rational human nature. We need some garantees, and I dont think Anarchism has them.

But dont you think people and Culture are intertwined?

Think about millions of small communities interacting like that, with elected delegates. When a rational resolution could not be found, in case of conflict, then just imagine different communities making alliances between themselves to combat other ones. It is all so fragile.
There is also the case of inter-strife, which yourself admits you have no idea what would ensue.

Well, I think there are many objective ways to perceive someone as either inferior or superior.
That said, dont you think people are treated equally, under the Law? Although we see many groups of people getting privilegies because of their big lobbies, which I certainly oppose.

Haha. You know that is not rational. Defeatism allied with an intransigent ideological stance could prove very dangerous.

I actually share your wish for a world divided into groups, as opposed to a big united world, as is symbolized by the UN. However, I think going any further than National lines could prove very unstable and chaotic.

Chandos post mentioned people who willfully helped others, which is commendable. It did not, however, implied other necessarily followed their examples, which should be noted.