Anarchism [Archive] - JREF Forum

Mycroft

21st April 2004, 11:38 PM

I don't get anarchism. I've tried, I've read anarchist materials, and it all seems to boil down to kids blaming all of society’s problems, real and imagined, on every hierarchical structure from government to business.

The problem is that while there are many problems that can be associated with hierarchical decision-making, there are also many things that are required that can’t be accomplished without it.

Society is built on thousands of interlocking systems that create and support us, providing the countless things we need. All of these interlocking systems are essentially hierarchical in nature, and need to be.

If you stop and consider for a moment what it takes to get you something really basic, such as a glass of water and you start to understand what I mean.

First you need a source of water. A reservoir. You then need to make sure that reservoir is not put to other uses that are incompatible with its use as drinking water. You don’t want anyone dumping waste into it, or channeling it off for some other industrial purpose.

Water comes from a reservoir through a system of pipes that serve a large area. In building this system, you need a lot more than just a bunch of people who have agreed to do the work, you also need to know specifically where that water is going to go, what the needs of the communities will be, and, to avoid having to redo the work, a good idea of how the community will grow in the future so that the system you build today will still meet the needs of tomorrow.

The water needs of different areas depends largely on the uses of those areas. An office complex, a residential community and an industrial park all have very different needs, this is one reason why we have zoning codes. (pointless rules created by hierarchical oppression)

To build this system you need pipe. One of the unsung benefits of government is the standardization of pipe, so that pipe made in Nevada is compatible with pipe made in New Hampshire. This standardization could happen under an anarchist system, but easily?

Anyway, Pipe requires steel, steel requires a foundry, a foundry requires ore, electricity, water. To get the ore to the foundry, you need transportation and typically that’s by rail. To get the steel from the foundry you need another transportation system, and typically that’s a road system. That’s another six independent yet interlocking systems, all of which are governed by a hierarchy and all require a large degree of centralized planning, and none of which could reasonably be expected to operate reliably on a voluntary basis.

Just to get a glass of water when you want one.

Anarchism assumes that all authority, organization and hierarchy is inherently bad, but it can only do that by ignoring the benefits created by these same systems and it offers nothing to replace them as a way to make decisions for large groups of people. All it really offers is some vague hope that something will evolve out of voluntary mutual aid groups, but if it did, that itself would be another hierarchal structure.

RandFan

21st April 2004, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Everybody helps everbody else. :) The early Americans tried it, The Mormons tried it, the Hippies of the 60's tried it, the Israelis tried it (Kibbutz), etc.. Some have had more success than others. It is fraught with problems. It is ill equipped to deal with sociopaths, narcissists, megalomaniacs, egoists, etc..

Many Native American tribes would simply banish those with anti-social tendencies. This usually meant death. It was a very efficient behavioral modification program. The stark fact is that the tribes of Native America simply don't scale.

It sounds good on paper but it just doesn't work for modern societies.

RandFan

21st April 2004, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft
Anarchism assumes that all authority, organization and hierarchy is inherently bad, but it can only do that by ignoring the benefits created by these same systems and it offers nothing to replace them as a way to make decisions for large groups of people. All it really offers is some vague hope that something will evolve out of voluntary mutual aid groups, but if it did, that itself would be another hierarchal structure. Excellent post.

BillyTK

22nd April 2004, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft
I don't get anarchism. I've tried, I've read anarchist materials, and it all seems to boil down to kids blaming all of society’s problems, real and imagined, on every hierarchical structure from government to business.
Bakunin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin) and Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon) would've been annoyed to be referred to as "kids".

The problem is that while there are many problems that can be associated with hierarchical decision-making, there are also many things that are required that can’t be accomplished without it.

Society is built on thousands of interlocking systems that create and support us, providing the countless things we need. All of these interlocking systems are essentially hierarchical in nature, and need to be.

If you stop and consider for a moment what it takes to get you something really basic, such as a glass of water and you start to understand what I mean.

First you need a source of water. A reservoir. You then need to make sure that reservoir is not put to other uses that are incompatible with its use as drinking water. You don’t want anyone dumping waste into it, or channeling it off for some other industrial purpose.

Water comes from a reservoir through a system of pipes that serve a large area. In building this system, you need a lot more than just a bunch of people who have agreed to do the work, you also need to know specifically where that water is going to go, what the needs of the communities will be, and, to avoid having to redo the work, a good idea of how the community will grow in the future so that the system you build today will still meet the needs of tomorrow.

The water needs of different areas depends largely on the uses of those areas. An office complex, a residential community and an industrial park all have very different needs, this is one reason why we have zoning codes. (pointless rules created by hierarchical oppression)

To build this system you need pipe. One of the unsung benefits of government is the standardization of pipe, so that pipe made in Nevada is compatible with pipe made in New Hampshire. This standardization could happen under an anarchist system, but easily?

Anyway, Pipe requires steel, steel requires a foundry, a foundry requires ore, electricity, water. To get the ore to the foundry, you need transportation and typically that’s by rail. To get the steel from the foundry you need another transportation system, and typically that’s a road system. That’s another six independent yet interlocking systems, all of which are governed by a hierarchy and all require a large degree of centralized planning, and none of which could reasonably be expected to operate reliably on a voluntary basis.

Just to get a glass of water when you want one.
How does illustrating the hierarchical nature of current systems demonstrate the necessity of hierarchies?
Anarchism assumes that all authority, organization and hierarchy is inherently bad, but it can only do that by ignoring the benefits created by these same systems [...]
Not all anarchies believe that organisation in and of itself is bad, simply the ones which are authoritarian in nature. This is not exactly controversial, for surely this is why we prefer some form of accountability built into these systems, such as state democracy for instance.
and it offers nothing to replace them as a way to make decisions for large groups of people.
Other than finding some method of letting these large groups make decisions for themselves, rather than have decisions made for them?
All it really offers is some vague hope that something will evolve out of voluntary mutual aid groups, but if it did, that itself would be another hierarchal structure.
Which is not necessarily something your anarchist would object to; only if that hierarchy was authoritarian in nature.

Skeptic

22nd April 2004, 08:16 AM

Tell me, Kurita: aren't you the person who thinks the real problem with the Palestinians is that they don't have a strong military? And now you're considering anarchism favorably? Is that consistent with having a powerful military?

Why is it that your recommend Anarchism for everybody except for them, where Militarism--the exact opposite of Anarchism--is somehow necessary?

Please explain.

Kodiak

22nd April 2004, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Replace the Monetary system with a Pro-mutual aid system.

If there is a system, any system, it isn't Anarchy.

If it were true Anarchy, it would not allow a Pro-mutual aid system, or any other system, to exist.

Anarchy is base evolution at its purest.

Society by definition must have some degree of order. Anarchy is an anathema to this concept.

BillyTK

22nd April 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

If there is a system, any system, it isn't Anarchy.

If it were true Anarchy, it would not allow a Pro-mutual aid system, or any other system, to exist.

Anarchy is base evolution at its purest.
What the heck is "true" anarchy and how would it forbid anything? You wouldn't be making an equivocation fallacy for the purposes of building a strawman would you?

Society by definition must have some degree of order. Anarchy is an anathema to this concept.
Society by definition only needs a group of people with some form of association. Everything else is proceeds from that, and anarchism is less of an anathema to that than, for instance, individualism is.

Theodore Kurita

22nd April 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic

Tell me, Kurita: aren't you the person who thinks the real problem with the Palestinians is that they don't have a strong military?

Correct

And now you're considering anarchism favorably?

No, I just said that I am intrigued (interested) in the Political theory. I am not saying that it would work 100%. It is just a political theory like any other.

Is that consistent with having a powerful military?

No, most deffinentely not. Again, I emphasize the fact that it is just political theory. It hasn't been tried.

Why is it that your recommend Anarchism for everybody except for them, where Militarism--the exact opposite of Anarchism--is somehow necessary?

Strawman. I never recommended Anarchy. I just brought up this subject because of the unique nature of the politcal theory

Jon_in_london

22nd April 2004, 09:56 AM

To anyone who think anarchy is a good idea- lets say I break unto your house and rape and murder your wife and children. Dont like that idea? Why not? Not like its illegal or anything because there aint no law. What are you going to do? Call the police? What police? Get it..?

Theodore Kurita

22nd April 2004, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
To anyone who think anarchy is a good idea- lets say I break unto your house and rape and murder your wife and children. Dont like that idea? Why not? Not like its illegal or anything because there aint no law. What are you going to do? Call the police? What police? Get it..?

Then again, in an Anarchistic society, you could just take a shotgun and kill him.

RandFan

22nd April 2004, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Society by definition only needs a group of people with some form of association. Everything else is proceeds from that, and anarchism is less of an anathema to that than, for instance, individualism is. To function in a way that meets the needs of the individual, the group and protect the weak, Society needs order. Anarchy is by definition the antithisis of an ordered society.

an·ar·chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies [list=1] Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
[/list=1]

RandFan

22nd April 2004, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Then again, in an Anarchistic society, you could just take a shotgun and kill him. And then again he could break in with a large group of individuals who are wearing flak jackets and carrying assult rifles.

Skeptic

22nd April 2004, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Then again, in an Anarchistic society, you could just take a shotgun and kill him.

Oh, I see. So anarchy isn't so bad because it's only the DEFENSELESS who gets slaughtered. Herodetus said it best, 2500 years ago: "anarchy is worse than war as much as war is worse than peace". Buuuuuuuuut, what the hell did HE know?

Theodore Kurita

22nd April 2004, 10:44 AM

Here is an excellent example of an anarchistic society, that lasted until the USSR came in and Crushed it.

Taken from the Wikipedia:

Hungarian Revolution (1956)

The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 can be seen as an excellent example of a functioning anarchy, perhaps even of successful communism. From October 22 1956 Hungarian workers refused to obey their managers or their government. Claiming sovereignty for their own workers councils they organized economic, military and social production on an increasing scale. An example of the anarchic social organization was that vast sums of money were freely donated for injured revolutionary fighters; and that this money was left unattended in the street for days at a time. Peasants supplied the workers with food on a voluntary basis. Between October 22 and December 14 Hungary's economy and society was governed by the democratic opinion of workers councils and voluntary associations. These councils constantly increased in scope and depth, eventually forming a Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest (CWC-GB), with intellectual and student associations affiliated to the body. The attempts to form a national Workers Council were crushed by Soviet military violence. The workers councils fought off one invasion by the Soviet Union between October 23 and 28, and fought a second invasion to an armistice of exhaustion between November 3 and November 10. After this time the Soviet Union negotiated directly with the Workers Councils. However, arrests of the primary and reserve leaderships of the CWC-GB, and massive reprisal executions and deportations of Hungarian revolutionaries lead to voluntary dissolution of the CWC-GB as it was no longer able to uphold its aims and ideals. Sporadic resistance by Hungarian revolutionaries and workers continued until mid 1957. Only one self-proclaimed anarchist, the Marxist playwright Julius Hay (Hay Gyulia), was involved in organizing the revolution. Most revolutionary Hungarians adopted their own "anarchist" way of organizing spontaneously.

That, and the internet can be viewed as a Crypto-Anarchism:

Taken from the Wikipedia

Crypto-anarchism

Crypto-Anarchism is an online philosophy that expounds the use of strong public key cryptography to enforce privacy and therefore individual freedom. Cryptoanarchists aim to create encrypted virtual communities where everyone is absolutely anonymous or pseudonymous.

In such virtual communities the physical identities of the pseudonyms are totally untraceable. Cryptoanarchists believe that inside their communities is the only place where you can be totally free, because in all other communities there will always be someone that will listen at what you say and know who you are. Development of methods of surveillance, and in particular the spread of Internet communication opens unprecedented powers of computer surveillance. Crypto-anarchists consider the development and use of cryptography to be the main defence against this, instead of political action. Cryptoanarchists believe that privacy is to reveal one's self selectively and unless one can do that as you wish, there is no privacy. Inside the crypto-societies, it is impossible to know the physical identities of whom you are talking to unless the speakers wish to reveal themselves.

Untraceable, privately issued electronic money and anonymous internet banking are being developed for these virtual communities that can be used to trade anonymously. This is easiest to achieve for information services that can be provided over the internet (such as consulting, programming, etc.) Providing physical products is more difficult as the anonymity is more easily broken when crossing into the physical world. Untraceable money would make it possible to ignore some of the laws of the physical world, as the laws cannot be enforced without knowing people's physical identities. For instance, tax on income for online services provided pseudonymously can be avoided if no government knows the identity of the service provider. Of course, such freedom could be abused by criminals. But cryptoanarchists claim that those people are already communicating pretty much anonymously - the cryptosocieties will just bring the benefits (such as privacy) and freedom of anonymity to the ordinary people. It is even difficult to say which country's laws will be ignored, as even the location (country) of the participants is unknown. In a sense, the internet (or 'cyberspace') can be regarded as an independent territory. In spite of this, is already illegal to use strong cryptography itself in some countries, such as France. To enforce a ban on the use of cryptography, however, is probably impossible, as cryptography itself can be used to hide even the existence of encrypted messages (see steganography).

[This should not be confused with the use of the prefix 'crypto-' to indicate an ideology or system with an intentionally concealed or obfuscated "true nature". For example, some would use the term "crypto-fascist" to describe an individual or organization that holds fascist views and subscribes to fascist doctrine but tries to hide this agenda from those outside of itself.]

Mycroft

22nd April 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
December 14 Hungary's economy and society was governed by the democratic opinion of workers councils and voluntary associations. These councils constantly increased in scope and depth, eventually forming a Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest (CWC-GB), with intellectual and student associations affiliated to the body.

It sounds to me like a heirarchal structure was evolving.

Mycroft

22nd April 2004, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

How does illustrating the hierarchical nature of current systems demonstrate the necessity of hierarchies?

It's the complexity of society that forces hierarchies. If you can't demonstrate that hierarchies are bad without also ignoring what they accomplish, and you can't offer an alternative for producing these necessary accomplishments, then what does anarchism offer?

Originally posted by BillyTK
Not all anarchies believe that organisation in and of itself is bad, simply the ones which are authoritarian in nature. This is not exactly controversial, for surely this is why we prefer some form of accountability built into these systems, such as state democracy for instance.

Then help me out here, what's an example of a non-authoritarian hierarchy?

Originally posted by BillyTK
Other than finding some method of letting these large groups make decisions for themselves, rather than have decisions made for them?

It seems to me the distinction is not authoritarian vs. non-authoritarian, but only in how the authoritarian system comes to be and is maintained.

Kodiak

22nd April 2004, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by BillyTK

What the heck is "true" anarchy and how would it forbid anything?

anarchy: utter confusion; social structure without order; government based on the whims of the ruling mob at any given moment (Merriam-Webster).

Try implementing a "Pro-mutual aid system" under those conditions...

Originally posted by BillyTK
Society by definition only needs a group of people with some form of association. Everything else is proceeds from that, and anarchism is less of an anathema to that than, for instance, individualism is.

Trying comparing the degree of order between an "anarchist society" as I defined and an "individualist society" where individualism is defined as "a doctrine that the interests of the individual are primary; a doctrine holding that the individual has political and /or economic rights with which the state must not interfere" (Merriam-Webster). Do you disagree that even here anarchy displays less inherent social order?

CFLarsen

22nd April 2004, 02:12 PM

I have never met an anarchist who would accept the ideas of anarchism applied to himself.

gnome

22nd April 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft
If you stop and consider for a moment what it takes to get you something really basic, such as a glass of water and you start to understand what I mean.

...

Just to get a glass of water when you want one.

*APPLAUSE* Well stated

EvilYeti

22nd April 2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Is Anarchy really a feasible Political Theory or not?

Like many fringe political theories, anarchy (in this example, of the anarcho communist style) fails in that it relies on individuals following social dictums without enforcement. What's to prevent anarchy from evolving into something else, say socialism or communism? The whole concept is self-contradicting.

They closest I can think of a real-world example would be tribalism. But even then, anarchism would only be feasible within individual tribes and only very small tribes at that. And I can't even think of an example in history of a culture totally free of hierarchy.

Theodore Kurita

22nd April 2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Like many fringe political theories, anarchy (in this example, of the anarcho communist style) fails in that it relies on individuals following social dictums without enforcement. What's to prevent anarchy from evolving into something else, say socialism or communism? The whole concept is self-contradicting.

They closest I can think of a real-world example would be tribalism. But even then, anarchism would only be feasible within individual tribes and only very small tribes at that. And I can't even think of an example in history of a culture totally free of hierarchy.

What you are describing is pretty much what Chomsky says in his view of what Anarcho-Communism should be.

Unlike most of hist ilk, Chomsky thinks that government will always exist, even if it is on a minimal level.

In fact, if you look at the modern deffinition of Socialism, and compared it to something like Anarcho-Socialism, there really isn't much difference.

The only difference between what Anarchy is now deffined as, versus Anti Authoritarian Socialism (Democratic Socialism), is the idea of replacing Profit Motive with the Pro Mutual Aid system.

This is one of those times when I wish that cain, our resident anarchist, was here to explain modern anarchist theory better than I can.

Igopogo

22nd April 2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

anarchy: utter confusion; social structure without order; government based on the whims of the ruling mob at any given moment (Merriam-Webster).

Interesting definition that appears biased by the political system under which it's written.

It's interesting that in Machiavelli's "The Prince", he mentions anarchies as a viable and existing political option in his day, and (IIRC) offers pros and cons of it. However, he doesn't mention democracy, (as the concept is essentially foreign to one in his day).

There's probably many functioning anarchies right now in the world, like any area that the official governing body ignores or has no real power over. Also primitive cultures are most likely anarchies to some degree. Doubt you can run out and plan an anarchy, they probably just happen.

Drooper

23rd April 2004, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Replace the Monetary system with a Pro-mutual aid system.

I will address this point. This element of Anarchy is flawed.

The fact is that if the monetary system was abolished, we would just reinvent it. The reason is because the monetary system exists today in the form that it does, largely because it is immensely useful and beneficial.

Do a thought experiment. Imagine that the monetary system was abolished. You will have to make a completely unrealistic assumption that we could manage this without leading to global economic collapse and poverty. However, if we did think what would happen next.

In order to survive you need food and shelter. How do you provide this. You could grow your own food, but there is always something you won't be able to grow but somebody else does, say beef.

How do you obtain it? You could barter, but does the counterparty want anything that you have and are willing to trade? More likely you have to go and barter with somebody else, in order to get the thing that you need in order to barter for the beef. You spend you time running around swapping things with other people.

Next problem, you have to cart all these bartered items back ad forth between trades - some of them bulky, or perishable.

Next, what about saving? Nobody wants to live a subsistance existance where everything you produce is consumed immediately. Everybody would like, or needs, to put something away for future use (i.e. save). This might be for a precautionary reason, being worried about a bad season ahead, or you might be trying to accumulate enough to make a substantial purchase (e.g. purchase some land). How exactly do you store such savings? Well, you can't use anything perishable or difficult to preserve. You also don't want something bulky that takes up a lot of room, or something that needs maintenance in to for it to preserve its value. It also needs to be available in small quantities if the objective is to put away a little value at a time.

Next think about what happens to the items you put away for savings. They don't earn you any income and are just lying idle. Someone else would be willing to use them until you need to "spend" them at a future date. You will look for some way of "renting out" your savings. For example, you might lend out you saved store of grain to a baker, who promise to give you larger amount in return at some future point. However, the baker would probably offer you bread as the return payment. When you get this bread in the future, you will need to barter it back into something you can save or the item you had been saving to purchase.

These are some of the problems you would encounter. And because humans are inventive, what do you think would happen? People would start using some commodity, which is limited in supply, as a means of exchange. For example, gold. This would ease the problems of exchange and also allow me to store my wealth over time.

The next thing you know, people would notice that there is a lot of gold lying idle in peoples houses (their savings). These people would see a mutually beneficial way to allow people with this gold some income on it and allow it to be used by people who want to invest. So you get bank starting, takin in the gold and paying interest to its owners and lending out to other people (for example the baker who needed to buy a large consignment of wheat) in return for an interest payment.

What happens next? Well, everyone starts to realise that moving this gold everywhere is pretty inefficient, costly and troublesome (very heavy stuff). Why not just leave it in one place and issue bits of paper that transfer the ownership when they are passed from person to person. Oh look, we are starting to get modern money!!!

And so it goes on. Before you know it we have a bunch of Anarchist complaining that we need to abolish this new fangled monetary system. :)

[BTW, this is a gross simplification. I have left out a lot of stuff about coinage and the benefits and problems associated with that and the transition from coinage made form precious metals to coinage made from base metals. But the story is still the same; there is a force of natural evolution towards the system we have today]

BillyTK

23rd April 2004, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
To function in a way that meets the needs of the individual, the group and protect the weak, Society needs order. Anarchy is by definition the antithisis of an ordered society.

an·ar·chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies [list=1] Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
[/list=1]
We can all play at dictionary definitions, Randfan. TK introduced anarchism as a political theory as the topic for discussion, not its popularised definition. Care to address that?

Drooper

23rd April 2004, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Here is an excellent example of an anarchistic society, that lasted until the USSR came in and Crushed it.

A few months of getting by in Hungary. If the USSR hadn't invaded and this experiment had continued it could have easily evolved into a market based society (but not necessarily - it could have evoloved into a command based and dictatorial society a la USSR).

Hmmm. Do you suppose it was the possibility of the former that worried the Ruskies so much that they invaded???

BillyTK

23rd April 2004, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

It's the complexity of society that forces hierarchies.
I'm not too sure if this is true; it strikes me as a little too simplistic for what I'm sure you'd acknowledge is a complex (meta-)system. Are these heirarchies necessary, or are they a matter of heritage, and of groups which seek to preserve those structures for their benefits? For instance, the introduction of democracy in many ways was a response to the excesses of sovereignty (see for instance, John Locke's Social Contract theory) and Murray Rothbard suggests that democracy in its current form is more or less a diluted form of feudalism anway (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html). At this point I've got to say that I find a lot of Rothbard's writing to be as mad as a bag of spanners, but this particular article has some interesting ideas.
If you can't demonstrate that hierarchies are bad without also ignoring what they accomplish, and you can't offer an alternative for producing these necessary accomplishments, then what does anarchism offer?
Your argument appears to be (I'm being cautious here so I don't get accused of a strawman) that as this is the way things are, and as this way of things produces good things, then that is its own justification. This strikes me as panglossian, as I wonder if the relation is as causal as it might appear; would good things happen anyway? Might more good things happen if these heirarchies didn't exist? Using your glass of water example, the market anarchist would say that if there's a need then the market will rise to meet it regardless of the will of governments or authoritarian heirarchies (I don't necessarily agree with that one, just offering it for consideration). The anarcho-socialist might say that people would still organise and build everything that's necessary to bring you your glass of water without any need for co-ercion because they still benefit from doing so.

Then help me out here, what's an example of a non-authoritarian hierarchy?
In theoretical terms, authoritarian power is characterised as "power over", or constraining power. Its opposite is "power to" or enabling power. An example of this was the co-operative, or mutual movement of 19th century Britain, which took the form of shops and credit and savings societies. The Co-operative Wholesale Society (or Co-op) went on to become one of the largest retail chains in the country, but of course this all went feet-up with the advent of the global economy. But these kind of mutual benefit unions keep making a resurgence, albeit on a much smaller scale, which is kind of their point and reason for being.

It seems to me the distinction is not authoritarian vs. non-authoritarian, but only in how the authoritarian system comes to be and is maintained.
Exactly! This is the basis of most anarchist/socialist/libertarian thought. There's hope for you yet... ;)

BillyTK

23rd April 2004, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

anarchy: utter confusion; social structure without order; government based on the whims of the ruling mob at any given moment (Merriam-Webster).

Try implementing a "Pro-mutual aid system" under those conditions...
Your definition's wrong; it's more a result of late 19th/early 20th century concerns and fears (Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent, anyone?) than any "true" :p definition of anarchy.
Trying comparing the degree of order between an "anarchist society" as I defined and an "individualist society" where individualism is defined as "a doctrine that the interests of the individual are primary; a doctrine holding that the individual has political and /or economic rights with which the state must not interfere" (Merriam-Webster). Do you disagree that even here anarchy displays less inherent social order?
The notion of the importance of individual rights and liberties is not exactly unique to or necessarily defining of individualism, and the idea of "a doctrine that the interests of the individual are primary" shows the incoherence at the heart of this ideology, 'cos, like, we're all individuals, aren't we? There's no such thing as society, only individuals and... um, their families, to paraphrase a certain UK prime minister. Her name escapes me...

BillyTK

23rd April 2004, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I have never met an anarchist who would accept the ideas of anarchism applied to himself.
Funnily enough, when I've had conversations with people about anarchism, the point they always raise is that people need to be ruled because otherwise they'd do bad things; not themselves, obviously, but other people.

BillyTK

23rd April 2004, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
In fact, if you look at the modern deffinition of Socialism, and compared it to something like Anarcho-Socialism, there really isn't much difference.
Firstly, which kind of socialism are we talking about? Secondly, Proudhon and Marx went at it hammer and tongs over Marx's "authoritarian" socialism.

Theodore Kurita

23rd April 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Firstly, which kind of socialism are we talking about? Secondly, Proudhon and Marx went at it hammer and tongs over Marx's "authoritarian" socialism.

I am talking about Democratic Socialism, a completely Antiauthoritarian Socialistic System.

Here are a couple of articles that explain what I am talking about more:

http://www.ydsusa.org/whatisds.html

http://www.ydsusa.org/toward_ds.html

http://www.ydsusa.org/platform.html

Grammatron

23rd April 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

I am talking about Democratic Socialism, a completely Antiauthoritarian Socialistic System.

Here are a couple of articles that explain what I am talking about more:

Here is an article that goes more at length on this.

To the moderators.

Don't get all over me on posting this.

I am a member of the DSA and I have rights of distributing this material.

Don't you Socialist have a website where people can read that in proper format?

Theodore Kurita

23rd April 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Don't you Socialist have a website where people can read that in proper format?

Taken care of...

eli54

23rd April 2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Not.

Anarchy can't last as it will be replaced with some sort of dictatorship.

fer shure! Just look at NASCAR :D

†= Crap!

23rd April 2004, 05:43 PM

Just to put the straw men to bed: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/

This is considered a accurate outline of modern anarchist thinking.

RandFan

23rd April 2004, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by †= Crap!
Just to put the straw men to bed: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/

This is considered a accurate outline of modern anarchist thinking. Ahhhhh...who the hell cares enough to read all of that?

Edited to add: I take that back. I'm reading it. NOT ALL of it!

RandFan

23rd April 2004, 09:51 PM

Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of social system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually self-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's famous dictum:

"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 269] Pie in the sky, it is fataly flawed. Nature abhors a vacuum and so does the human condition. There will always be people who want to control and exploit others. As has been pointed out on this thread there have been many such experiments that have failed and all for the same reasons. Human nature.

RandFan

23rd April 2004, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Funnily enough, when I've had conversations with people about anarchism, the point they always raise is that people need to be ruled because otherwise they'd do bad things; not themselves, obviously, but other people. I don't think people need to be ruled. I think power needs to be controled and the weak need to be protected from the strong. Power corupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Creating a system where no one has control or authority only creates a system that can be exploited.

Futhermore, people need incentives to work and the "good of society" has proven to be a very poor motivation. Ego is not so simply swept aside. Capatilism doesn't create ambition, it nurtures it. No one has figured out a way to turn all humans into stepford wives (robots who care more for the group than the individual). The systems of the Soviet Union and The Peoples Republic of China demonstrated that you could make the majority of the people subservient with a strong central government but you could not instill in them the drive and creativity of western nations.

When you are simply a cog in a large machine then what is the point. It truly amazes me that the lessons of history are ignored. Oh, our system of socialism is better than the others. Right!

RandFan

23rd April 2004, 11:01 PM

What I couldn't find from the site.

What about the people who don't want to give up their property? (And please don's say too bad, how do you practically force someone from their home and take away their possessions?)

What about people who refuse to conform?

Will people be forced into re-education?

Will some people have to be eliminated?

Edited to add: I did find some information.

Instead of revolution, such anarchists support the creation of alternatives, such as co-operatives, mutual banks and so on, which will help transform capitalism into libertarian socialism. Such alternative building, combined with civil disobedience and non-payment of taxes, is seen as the best way to creating anarchy. Sounds good but,

"It is therefore certain that government and capital will not allow themselves to be quietly abolished if they can help it; nor will they miraculously 'disappear' of themselves, as some people pretend to believe. It will require a revolution to get rid of them." [Op. Cit., p. 33]

However, all anarchists are agreed that any revolution should be as non-violent as possible. Violence is the tool of oppression and, for anarchists, violence is only legitimate as a means of self-defence against authority. Therefore revolutionary anarchists do not seek "violent revolution" -- they are just aware that when people refuse to kow-tow to authority then that authority will use violence against them. This use of violence has been directed against non-violent forms of direct action and so those anarchists who reject revolution will not avoid state violence directed against. I'm not sure these people are certain themselves.

I know one thing for certain. I am one of "them", a capitalist. That is not going to change. So I, my family, and those like me must conform or be gotten "rid of".

Hey, its for the good of society, right? Reading this makes me think that I should purchase that fire arm after all.

To those who argue that there is no need for the 2nd Amendment just need to read this site.

RandFan

23rd April 2004, 11:05 PM

"the subject is not whether we accomplish Anarchism today, tomorrow or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards Anarchism today, tomorrow and always." ["Towards Anarchism,", Man!, M. Graham (Ed.), p. 75]

So, when fighting for improvements anarchists do so in an anarchist way, one that encourages self-management, direct action and the creation of libertarian solutions and alternatives to both capitalism and the state. Like the smoker works at quitting. I think that such thinking is naive.

BillyTK

26th April 2004, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

I am talking about Democratic Socialism, a completely Antiauthoritarian Socialistic System.

Here are a couple of articles that explain what I am talking about more:

http://www.ydsusa.org/whatisds.html

http://www.ydsusa.org/toward_ds.html

http://www.ydsusa.org/platform.html

You're a liberal. Go on, just admit it!

BillyTK

26th April 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't think people need to be ruled. I think power needs to be controled and the weak need to be protected from the strong.
So it's the powerful and strong who need to be ruled?
Power corupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Creating a system where no one has control or authority only creates a system that can be exploited.
This is contradictory; if no-one has control or authority, who is going to exploit this system? By the way, if you get the chance, have a look at this lecture from a psychologist called Zimbardo on the psychology of evil (http://www.sonoma.edu/users/g/goodman/zimbardo.htm). It's not anything to do with anarchism, but it does look at the reasion why ordinary people do bad things, and has some interesting conclusions about power, authority and the rest.

Futhermore, people need incentives to work and the "good of society" has proven to be a very poor motivation. Ego is not so simply swept aside. Capatilism doesn't create ambition, it nurtures it.
This is contradictory. People need incentives (external forces), but they're propelled by internal forces (ego) (btw, in the 21st century, people still believe in something as un-scientific as ego?)?
Capitalism doesn't provide external forces, but it rewards the internal forces which people may or may not have?
No one has figured out a way to turn all humans into stepford wives (robots who care more for the group than the individual).
It must be Metropolis you're thinking of; that's not what The Stepford Wives is about. But y'know, capitalism seems to be doing well in a behaviorist, stimulus/response kind of way.

No one has figured out a way to turn all humans into stepford wives (robots who care more for the group than the individual). The systems of the Soviet Union and The Peoples Republic of China demonstrated that you could make the majority of the people subservient with a strong central government but you could not instill in them the drive and creativity of western nations.

When you are simply a cog in a large machine then what is the point. It truly amazes me that the lessons of history are ignored. Oh, our system of socialism is better than the others. Right!
Gah-sorry I carnt take this tortuous nonsense anymore. I've no idea how this is supposed to relate to a discussion on anarchism and have no interest in trying to figure it out.

RandFan

26th April 2004, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
So it's the powerful and strong who need to be ruled? No. There needs to be controls and security to protect the weak and there needs to be checks and balances to keep any one person or entity from getting to much power.

(Note, in the following argument, I'm not likening any thing or any system or any person to Nazi German or Hitler.)

To achieve what he did Hitler had to consolidate power. Any system that does not have the checks and balances needed to keep any individual from getting too much power is doomed (see history of civilization).

This is contradictory; if no-one has control or authority, who is going to exploit this system? How does "this" system keep anyone from gaining power?

By the way, if you get the chance, have a look at this lecture from a psychologist called Zimbardo on the psychology of evil (http://www.sonoma.edu/users/g/goodman/zimbardo.htm). It's not anything to do with anarchism, but it does look at the reasion why ordinary people do bad things, and has some interesting conclusions about power, authority and the rest. I will but having a couple of years of psychology, a course in ancient civilization, poly sci, etc. at the University has given me a pretty good understanding. By the time the framers of the constitution sat down they had thousands of years and many experiments to draw on.

This is contradictory. No it's not.

People need incentives (external forces), but they're propelled by internal forces (ego) Agreed, how does this make my statement contradictory.

(btw, in the 21st century, people still believe in something as un-scientific as ego?)? Without getting into a discussion about Freud and interjecting terms like "id" and "super id" or arguing whether the "self" actually exists, let's just say ego is the evolutionary and internal "thing" that causes an individual to see his/her best interests and seek self preservation.

Capitalism doesn't provide external forces, but it rewards the internal forces which people may or may not have? Agreed, but I still don't see how this explains why my statement is contradictory. Perhaps this is my fault. Could you expand and clarify?

It must be Metropolis you're thinking of; that's not what The Stepford Wives is about. Great movie, no it is not Metropolis that I'm thinking of. I'm trying to create an image of an individual who cares more for the good of others than it does itself. Ego makes that impossible.

But y'know, capitalism seems to be doing well in a behaviorist, stimulus/response kind of way. I don't see how. Individuals are given choices and are rewarded based on those choices. Most individuals in a capitalist society seek to provide shelter and food for themselves and their families (see Maslow (http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html)). In addition they seek personal fulfillment and gratification. I don't see how they are all mind numb robots.

Gah-sorry I carnt take this tortuous nonsense anymore. I've no idea how this is supposed to relate to a discussion on anarchism and have no interest in trying to figure it out. It's pretty straight forward. Anarchy as described in this thread does not adequately take into account the nature of humans and makes assumptions that have been proven wrong by history. The notion that a socialist utopia has failed for various reasons is just denying the fact that such programs have failed not because of flaws inherent in the state but because it would require a strong central government to get us from point A (ownership of land and a belief in capitalism by some) to point B where no one owns anything and those who don't conform or who don't accept anarchy are not welcomes in society and must be re-educated or segregated from society or eliminated.

Furthermore, ego is not easily made subservient to the needs of society. Once a society becomes so large that the efforts of the one seem insignificant compared to the whole then it is easy to ask "what is the point" and then the grain rots in the field for want of people to actively harvest (again see world history).

BillyTK

27th April 2004, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
No. There needs to be controls and security to protect the weak and there needs to be checks and balances to keep any one person or entity from getting to much power.

(Note, in the following argument, I'm not likening any thing or any system or any person to Nazi German or Hitler.)

To achieve what he did Hitler had to consolidate power. Any system that does not have the checks and balances needed to keep any individual from getting too much power is doomed (see history of civilization).

How does "this" system keep anyone from gaining power?
Oh, I dunno. Everyone has guns or something. Or everyone's promised to behave. Or property is arranged in such away that a monopoly on anything, including force, whilst not impossible but is highly improbable. How exactly does this address the contradiction in your claim that, "Creating a system where no one has control or authority only creates a system that can be exploited."

I will but having a couple of years of psychology, a course in ancient civilization, poly sci, etc. at the University has given me a pretty good understanding. By the time the framers of the constitution sat down they had thousands of years and many experiments to draw on.
I'll come back to Zimbardo; he's kind of relevant later.

No it's not.

Agreed, how does this make my statement contradictory.
They're kind of mutually exclusive; people are either driven by internal forces or propelled by external forces, unless you're going to modify such a claim with, for instance, some idea that in some instances internal forces are primary, in other instances external forces are primary, sometimes internal forces moderate external forces and vice versa. Which you didn't.

Without getting into a discussion about Freud and interjecting terms like "id" and "super id" or arguing whether the "self" actually exists, let's just say ego is the evolutionary and internal "thing" that causes an individual to see his/her best interests and seek self preservation.
Pseudo-scientific nonsense. You have physiological needs and you have socially-approved ways of satiating those needs; we don't need any conjecture about supernatural entities to understand this.

Agreed, but I still don't see how this explains why my statement is contradictory. Perhaps this is my fault. Could you expand and clarify?
First you said that people need external forces—"incentives to work"—then there's that stuff about ego which we've hopefully dispensed with, then you conclude by saying that capitalism works not by providing an external force but by rewarding internal forces—"Capatilism doesn't create ambition, it nurtures it"—which by implication don't exist because people need external forces.

Great movie, no it is not Metropolis that I'm thinking of. I'm trying to create an image of an individual who cares more for the good of others than it does itself.
Stepford Wives was a feminist satire on contemporary consumer society; your wife won't do as she's told? She wants a life outside of the household? Get a new model which will meet your every (and we do mean every)needs! It's not exactly an advert for capitalism.

Ego makes that impossible.
I'm sure I could google up a list that starts with Ghandi (but doesn't include Mother Theresa or Princess Diana) which proves this incorrect. But I'd be wasting effort on refuting a supernatural entity, so I won't.

I don't see how. Individuals are given choices and are rewarded based on those choices. Most individuals in a capitalist society seek to provide shelter and food for themselves and their families (see Maslow (http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html)). In addition they seek personal fulfillment and gratification. I don't see how they are all mind numb robots.
Well, admittedly, considering that McDonald's profits have gone down the pan recently, it's not all doom and gloom.

It's pretty straight forward. Anarchy as described in this thread does not adequately take into account the nature of humans and makes assumptions that have been proven wrong by history. The notion that a socialist utopia has failed for various reasons is just denying the fact that such programs have failed not because of flaws inherent in the state but because it would require a strong central government to get us from point A (ownership of land and a belief in capitalism by some) to point B where no one owns anything and those who don't conform or who don't accept anarchy are not welcomes in society and must be re-educated or segregated from society or eliminated.
Nothing you describe here bears any resemblance to anarchy, which is odd really, because considering your cherry pick'n'post spree I thought you might have got some idea of what it was about, even by osmosis. Nor does it bear any resemblance to history either–for instance, the great communist experiment in Russia had ended way before Stalin turned up on the scene. Must've been something to do with those flaws in the state you know?

Oh yeah, I mentioned Zimbardo earlier, and his question about why ordinary people do bad things. His point was that communism wasn't any kind of explanation for the kind of horrendous crimes committed in the USSR anymore than fascism was any kind of explanation for the atrocities committed by Hitler and his pals, simply because none of this is actually unique historically speaking, and mainly because there were more bad things going on than could be committed by all the "true followers" toiling away 24/7; there had to be ordinary, "non-fanatics" involved. So what would make an "ordinary person" behave in such a way? Zimbardo identifies a gradual process composed of a number of different factors which can do this, and the worrying thing is that none of this is particularly exclusive to explicitly nasty-bad states; it appears to be implicit in any kind of state—hell, any form of authority—to accomplish this. "[F]laws inherent in the state"? You betcha!

Furthermore, ego is not easily made subservient to the needs of society. Once a society becomes so large that the efforts of the one seem insignificant compared to the whole then it is easy to ask "what is the point" and then the grain rots in the field for want of people to actively harvest (again see world history).
Erm... right...

RandFan

27th April 2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Oh, I dunno. Everyone has guns or something. Or everyone's promised to behave. Or property is arranged in such away that a monopoly on anything, including force, whilst not impossible but is highly improbable. After thousands of years of history this has been proven to be pie in the sky. Making a philosophical construct is quite different than the real world.

How exactly does this address the contradiction in your claim that, "Creating a system where no one has control or authority only creates a system that can be exploited." The statement is not axiomatically contradictory. Such a system by definition is open to exploitation. You are arguing in a vacuum positing philosophical ideals that don't take into account human nature.

They're kind of mutually exclusive; people are either driven by internal forces or propelled by external forces, unless you're going to modify such a claim with, for instance, some idea that in some instances internal forces are primary, in other instances external forces are primary, sometimes internal forces moderate external forces and vice versa. Which you didn't. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Pseudo-scientific nonsense. You have physiological needs and you have socially-approved ways of satiating those needs; we don't need any conjecture about supernatural entities to understand this. I never said anything about the supernatural. Please don't make straw men. I'm trying to communicate. Use what ever terminology you wish. I'm talking about that which propels us to act in the best interest of our self.

First you said that people need external forces—"incentives to work"—... I'm not certain if you are yanking my chain. Are you sincere?

in·cen·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sntv)
n.
Something, such as the fear of punishment or the expectation of reward, that induces action or motivates effort.

Do you reject the word? The concept? Ultimately all decisions and actions are internal but those actions and decisions are based on external stimuli. Is there something about this that you don't understand?

...then there's that stuff about ego which we've hopefully dispensed with... Please explain why we should dispense with ego? Is it the word you object to or the concept? Do you reject the notions that humans act in their own best interest?

...then you conclude by saying that capitalism works not by providing an external force but by rewarding internal forces—"Capatilism doesn't create ambition, it nurtures it"—which by implication don't exist because people need external forces. I have no idea how you arrived at this point. Ambition is an internal human desire.

am·bi·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-bshn)
n.

An eager or strong desire to achieve something, such as fame or power.

As far I can remember, I have not made an argument for "external forces". Only external stimuli. Do you reject the concept of external stimuli.

Stepford Wives was a feminist satire on contemporary consumer society; your wife won't do as she's told? She wants a life outside of the household? Get a new model which will meet your every (and we do mean every)needs! It's not exactly an advert for capitalism. I never said it was an advert for capitalism. Just trying to convey an image. If you are to obtuse to see the image then ignore it an let it go.

I'm sure I could google up a list that starts with Ghandi (but doesn't include Mother Theresa or Princess Diana) which proves this incorrect. But I'd be wasting effort on refuting a supernatural entity, so I won't. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about or how this relates to anything that I have said.

Well, admittedly, considering that McDonald's profits have gone down the pan recently, it's not all doom and gloom. There you go again, what?

Nothing you describe here bears any resemblance to anarchy, which is odd really, because considering your cherry pick'n'post spree I thought you might have got some idea of what it was about, even by osmosis. Having spent a great deal of my time reading the Anarchy web site that was linked earlier I think I do know something about Anarchy. And yes, it bears great resemblance. It's funny how Anarchists want to distance themselves from Communism but can't really. The problems inherent in Anarchy are the exact same as Communism. How do you get from point A to point C? How do you get everyone to agree with the philosophy of Anarchy? How do you get property and business owners to give up what they believe is theirs?

From the web site,

"It is therefore certain that government and capital will not allow themselves to be quietly abolished if they can help it; nor will they miraculously 'disappear' of themselves, as some people pretend to believe. It will require a revolution to get rid of them." [Op. Cit., p. 33]

Nor does it bear any resemblance to history either–for instance, the great communist experiment in Russia had ended way before Stalin turned up on the scene. Must've been something to do with those flaws in the state you know? The Flaws are inherent to creating a system where everyone works for the common good. Marx, Engels and Lenin recognized this flaw and knew that it would take a strong central government to move the people from one system to the next. You can try and blame it all on Stalin but the truth is that the "great communist experiment" had never taken place. Also you must look at the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, North Korea. There was not simply one failed experiment. They have ALL failed. North Korea is one large country that is black when photographed from space at night were South Korea is lit up like a christmas tree. People are starving in North Korea.

Oh yeah, I mentioned Zimbardo earlier, and his question about why ordinary people do bad things. His point was that communism wasn't any kind of explanation for the kind of horrendous crimes committed in the USSR anymore than fascism was any kind of explanation for the atrocities committed by Hitler and his pals, simply because none of this is actually unique historically speaking, and mainly because there were more bad things going on than could be committed by all the "true followers" toiling away 24/7; there had to be ordinary, "non-fanatics" involved. So what would make an "ordinary person" behave in such a way? Zimbardo identifies a gradual process composed of a number of different factors which can do this, and the worrying thing is that none of this is particularly exclusive to explicitly nasty-bad states; it appears to be implicit in any kind of state—hell, any form of authority—to accomplish this. "[F]laws inherent in the state"? You betcha! One hundred million! Mao and the gang of four, Pol Pot and the killing fields (people were re-educated and then shot), Stalin's purges, the Gulags, etc. Not just flaws of the state but flaws inherent in any regime or system that deems some ideologies as criminal and counter to the good of the people. I'm sure Zimbardo does a nice job of shifting blame from the fact that is inescapable to anyone who honestly investigates the attempt by any system to make everyone think and act for the good of all.

"It is therefore certain that government and capital will not allow themselves to be quietly abolished if they can help it; nor will they miraculously 'disappear' of themselves, as some people pretend to believe. It will require a revolution to get rid of them." [Op. Cit., p. 33] Let me be clear, I AM one of "them".

Make no mistake, anarchy holds no place for me and is intolerant of my ideas and beliefs. I am antithetical to it and if and when it rears its ugly head it will be me or Anarchy.

On the other hand. Western Democracy (including Democratic Socialism) allows for all beliefs. It respects dissent and protest. It doesn't try and re-educate or eliminate. It holds that the market place of ideas will produce the best possible outcome for the most people while being tolerant of those who would seek to end it.

Krandal2

27th April 2004, 07:40 PM

BillyTK

Oh, I dunno. Everyone has guns or something. Or everyone's promised to behave. Or property is arranged in such away that a monopoly on anything, including force, whilst not impossible but is highly improbable.

Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel have designed an economic system that exercises that last option. I haven't had a chance to look at it in depth, but from what I've read it seems very interesting, and relevent to any discussion regarding whether or not anarchism is viable.

http://www.parecon.org/

RandFan

27th April 2004, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Krandal2

Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel have designed an economic system that exercises that last option. I haven't had a chance to look at it in depth, but from what I've read it seems very interesting, and relevent to any discussion regarding whether or not anarchism is viable.

http://www.parecon.org/ Ok, I have spent an hour or so. It's mostly just theory without allot of specifics.

Creating a parecon means, among many other things, that the private holdings of economic infrastructure of the rich are taken from them...against their wills, no doubt, in most cases. It goes with out saying of course that it would require the over throw of the U.S. Government. And how do you take something against someone's will? Violence? Why not, the ends justify the means, right?

And how do you get everyone to march in step so to speak? Billy talks about a system that no one could exploit like he's talking about a perpetual energy device. It might sound good as an idea but the implimentation doesn't even work on paper.

My argument against anarchy (http://www.ravenna.com/~forbes/index.cgi/2002/11/03)

My argument against anarchy is that it fails the practical test: In the gap between what can be and what is, anarchy stumbles and falls. No one in their right mind would propose that we topple Saddam Hussein's government and replace it with anarchy, because we recognize that anarchy is a fertile breeding ground for Al Qaeda—much more so than Saddam's Iraq, in fact. [/q] A quick note. He is correct and it is looking more and more like the whole mess over there might just end up a quagmire (we stay there) or anarchy (we leave).

Yes, I do realize that many have already labled it a quagmire.

The anarchist utopia is one where men are ruled by reason, at all times, and in all causes. There are no irrational actors, or they're in such small number that they can be dispensed without trouble. There are no issues and no causes that inspire their believers to a passionate fervor which reason alone fails to justify: There is no zealotry, bigotry, superstition, or irrational exuberance, and there certainly aren't any True Believers who choose their actions in this life on the premise of a reward in the next one.

I don't think we can get to the anarchist utopia from here. I think that any proposal for how men should be governed (including "not at all") should address how that system deals with irrational actors; at best anarchy hand-waves them away, or confidently asserts that they're a diminishing force over time. I'll agree that science and reason have made great strides, but to believe that all human behavior will eventually succumb to reason is folly. It's the same belief that mathematicians had, until Gödel proved them wrong; no matter how elaborate your system of logic is, there will always be something beyond it. Having an idea about how things out to work is nice. Making them work that way is a whole different pile of beans.

Traditional right-wing thinking fails to address the problem of Al Qaeda, because it asserts that its worldview is the only rational way to view the world, that all other views are misguided or insane, and that eventually everyone else will come around to the right way of thinking. It tries to solve Al Qaeda by treating it as an aberration, as a small group of bandits and madmen that can be solved by hunting down the individuals and reforming the ideology that produced them. That these efforts may actually refresh Al Qaeda's pool of believers rather than drain it is impossible, of course, because Al Qaeda is an isolated group which sprang up fully formed from the sands of Arabia in late 2001, did not exist previously, and will cease to exist after we've drained the swamp. I had to post this critique since it is in conflicts with my own views on the war in Iraq. I think the authors points are valid and of course have been made on this forum by those who I have argued against. Take it for what you will.

As to anarchy, we are only arguing theory. I'll belive it when I see it.

BillyTK

28th April 2004, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
After thousands of years of history this has been proven to be pie in the sky. Making a philosophical construct is quite different than the real world.
That's really good; we can add it to the other pie-in-the-sky ideals like, um-democracy, black and female emancipation, women doctors, that kind of thing?

The statement is not axiomatically contradictory. Such a system by definition is open to exploitation.
You must've missed out the axiom which outlines the mechanism for exploitation then.
You are arguing in a vacuum positing philosophical ideals that don't take into account human nature.
You're using a supernatural construct to support your objection here.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Let me just check... Oh yeah, here we go; it outlines the contradictions in your explanation that "Futhermore, people need incentives to work and the "good of society" has proven to be a very poor motivation. Ego is not so simply swept aside. Capatilism doesn't create ambition, it nurtures it."

I never said anything about the supernatural. Please don't make straw men. I'm trying to communicate. I never said you did say anything about the supernatural. Please go and check what a strawman is. What it is is a legitimate description of this "ego" concept you've been bandying around. Would "reified concept" be more acceptable to you?
[quote]Use what ever terminology you wish. I'm talking about that which propels us to act in the best interest of our self.
Enlightened self-interest? The soul? Karma? I don't really know. The conept itself is problematic in its ambiguity, so I'd be hesitant in applying a label to it because then reification occurs and we're back to discussing supernatural entities like the ego.

I'm not certain if you are yanking my chain. Are you sincere?

in·cen·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sntv)
n.
Something, such as the fear of punishment or the expectation of reward, that induces action or motivates effort.

Do you reject the word? The concept? Ultimately all decisions and actions are internal but those actions and decisions are based on external stimuli. Is there something about this that you don't understand?
I'd assumed from your statement that you've had "a couple of years of psychology" you'd understand some basic terms. My sincere apologies from being so presumtious. I'll explain here to avoid any further misunderstanding and upset: external forces are those things which are external to an organism (I'm using the word "organism" here to denote the physiological boundary between "inner" self and "outer" world for the sake of clarity) and affect (i.e. elicits, constrains or directs) behaviour, and internal forces are those originating from inside the organism which produces, constrains or modifies behaviour. The use of the word "force" might be confusing here because it doesn't necessarily mean a physical force acting upon an organism—although it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be a physical force—so for instance, the Pavlovian bell which leads the dog to salivate would be an example of an external force (although in this case it would be more accurately described as a stimulus). So an incentive, being external by nature, can be legitimately described as an external force (although what constitutes an incentive is subjective, but for the sake of clarity let's avoid not go there for the moment).

Please explain why we should dispense with ego? Is it the word you object to or the concept? Do you reject the notions that humans act in their own best interest?
You'll have to explain to me your association of the word "ego" with this idea of "humans act in their own best interest", and, come to think of it, what that's supposed to mean. Anyway, in psycho-analytic terms, the ego is the conscious part of the mind which functions to negotiate between the external world and the internal demands of the super-ego (to behave correctly and orderly according to received ideals) and the id (to experience immediate gratification)—I've over-simplified here for the sake of brevity. Now it's a nice, romantic model of human behaviour, but that's all it is–a model. Freud believed that his followers would do the scientific leg-work to prove the existence of these entities, but let's put it this way; we're still waiting.

Of course, there's the use of "ego" as a philosophical term to represent the thinking subject but I gather from your arguments that you're not using it in that manner because that wouldn't make sense. Right, does that clear this ego business up now?

I have no idea how you arrived at this point. Ambition is an internal human desire.
No argument there. My objection is that your first premise here stated that humans needed external forces (hope we've cleared that one up) and your closing premise states that capitalism doesn't provide external forces, it rewards internal forces. Maybe it's not a contradiction, maybe it's simply a non-sequitur.

[b]am·bi·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-bshn)
[i]n.

An eager or strong desire to achieve something, such as fame or power.

As far I can remember, I have not made an argument for "external forces". Only external stimuli
External forces/external stimuli - although not exactly the same thing, for our purposes it is, okay?

Do you reject the concept of external stimuli.
Well, no, but let's agree to use the same terminology; because whilst I'm happy to go with the behaviorist terms, it might be problematic for you because you'll have to dump all the internal concepts like desire and stuff. Sorry.

I never said it was an advert for capitalism. Just trying to convey an image. If you are to obtuse to see the image then ignore it an let it go.
Let's just say "Stepford Wives" is totally inappropriate for the image you were trying to convey. If you're too obtuse to see that, just ignore it and let that go. ;)

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about or how this relates to anything that I have said.
You originally said: "I'm trying to create an image of an individual who cares more for the good of others than it does itself. Ego makes that impossible." As I said, I could google up a list of people who cared more for the good of others than themselves. But the purpose of that would be to refute your claim that ego makes such a thing impossible. As ego doesn't exist (unless you mean in the philosophical sense, which would make your claim bizarre), to attempt to disprove this would involve implicitly acknowledging the existence of ego (I believe we call this question begging?). Which I don't. So I didn't.

There you go again, what?
Basic stimulus/response theory; the association between McDonald's big golden arches and eating their... food. The way that signage and marketing combine to (attempt to) treat us as mind-numb robots. It was just an off-the-cuff comment which didn't really fly.

[quote]Having spent a great deal of my time reading the Anarchy web site that was linked earlier I think I do know something about Anarchy. And yes, it bears great resemblance. It's funny how Anarchists want to distance themselves from Communism but can't really. The problems inherent in Anarchy are the exact same as Communism.
It's funny how some people choose to conflate these ideas into a homogenous mass; I guess it reduces cognitive disonance. Here's some that I like to play with: George Bush is a republican; the IRA are republicans; therefore George Bush must be a terrorist. In the US, republicanism is synonymous with conservatism; China is a republic so China must be conservative. Need I go on?
How do you get from point A to point C? How do you get everyone to agree with the philosophy of Anarchy? How do you get property and business owners to give up what they believe is theirs?
Some anarchists believe use of force is justified to claim back property, but I kind of distance myself from those ideas, I guess in the same way that some Republicans would distance themselves from Conservative Christian Fundamentalists.

From the web site,
Liberal philosopher J.S. Mills laid out the conditions in which capitalism will fail way back when-basically, market homogeniety resulting in increasing costs and decreasing profits until stasis is achieved. Then things will get interesting; I somehow doubt that governments and capitalists are going to give up quietly though. Of course, governments might choose to use force to preserve the market iniquities which benefit them (and some might say they already do).

The Flaws are inherent to creating a system where everyone works for the common good. Marx, Engels and Lenin recognized this flaw and knew that it would take a strong central government to move the people from one system to the next.
This might lead me to conclude you haven't read any of them.

You can try and blame it all on Stalin but the truth is that the "great communist experiment" had never taken place.
That's a debate in itself, and depending on how cantankerous I was feeling, I might agree with you.

Also you must look at the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, North Korea. There was not simply one failed experiment. They have ALL failed. North Korea is one large country that is black when photographed from space at night were South Korea is lit up like a christmas tree. People are starving in North Korea.

One hundred million! Mao and the gang of four, Pol Pot and the killing fields (people were re-educated and then shot), Stalin's purges, the Gulags, etc. Not just flaws of the state but flaws inherent in any regime or system that deems some ideologies as criminal and counter to the good of the people. I'm sure Zimbardo does a nice job of shifting blame from the fact that is inescapable to anyone who honestly investigates the attempt by any system to make everyone think and act for the good of all.
It should be apparent to anyone who would claim the slightest relationship to critical thinking that to blame everything on "the system" is deeply unsatisfactory, and anyone who honestly investigates the situation would discover a number of alarming similarities, regardless of the "ism" involved. And that common factor is authority; the particular "ism" is simply the message, not the medium. Of course, that can lead to a great deal of cognitive dissonance, because it means acknowledging that this kind of thing can (and does, to some extent) happen in our beloved democratic societies.

Let me be clear, I AM one of "them".
Y'know, I'd've never've pegged you for a blind ideologue. :p ;)

Make no mistake, anarchy holds no place for me and is intolerant of my ideas and beliefs. I am antithetical to it and if and when it rears its ugly head it will be me or Anarchy.
If your ideas and beliefs involve the exploitation and coercion of other people for your selfish gain, then yes, that is quite correct. My belief though is that the free market itself will strip you of your property way before the anarchists turn up.

On the other hand. Western Democracy (including Democratic Socialism) allows for all beliefs. It respects dissent and protest. It doesn't try and re-educate or eliminate. It holds that the market place of ideas will produce the best possible outcome for the most people while being tolerant of those who would seek to end it.
Please define "Democratic Socialism. Anyway, no idea how you arrive at the above conclusion. Western Democracy respects dissent and protest? Barely tolerates it at the peripheraries, you mean? How many parties are there in your political system, precisely? What portion of the political spectrum do they occupy? And no, democracy (and capitalism) doesn't need to "re-educate" people (well, only the ones who make a bit of a nuisance of themselves); it gets in there first.

BillyTK

28th April 2004, 10:40 AM

RandFan

28th April 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by BillyTK
That's really good; we can add it to the other pie-in-the-sky ideals like, um-democracy, black and female emancipation, women doctors, that kind of thing? Non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because Anarchy is impractical that other difficult but important socials issues are also impractical.

You must've missed out the axiom which outlines the mechanism for exploitation then. (see history). There only needs be opportunity and human desire to control. How you could not understand that is beyond me.

You're using a supernatural construct to support your objection here. No, just very real human nature.

Let me just check... Oh yeah, here we go; it outlines the contradictions in your explanation that "Futhermore, people need incentives to work and the "good of society" has proven to be a very poor motivation. Ego is not so simply swept aside. Capatilism doesn't create ambition, it nurtures it." Let me just check.... No, neither this paragraph nor the one before offer me any insight. Could you start again or is it simply my fault that you are failing to communicate your idea to me.

Enlightened self-interest? The soul? Karma? I don't really know. The conept itself is problematic in its ambiguity, so I'd be hesitant in applying a label to it because then reification occurs and we're back to discussing supernatural entities like the ego. The concept is problamatic? You better get word to institutions around the world.

I'd assumed from your statement that you've had "a couple of years of psychology" you'd understand some basic terms. My sincere apologies from being so presumtious. I'll explain here to avoid any further misunderstanding and upset: external forces are those things which are external to an organism (I'm using the word "organism" here to denote the physiological boundary between "inner" self and "outer" world for the sake of clarity) and affect (i.e. elicits, constrains or directs) behaviour, and internal forces are those originating from inside the organism which produces, constrains or modifies behaviour. The use of the word "force" might be confusing here because it doesn't necessarily mean a physical force acting upon an organism—although it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be a physical force—so for instance, the Pavlovian bell which leads the dog to salivate would be an example of an external force (although in this case it would be more accurately described as a stimulus). So an incentive, being external by nature, can be legitimately described as an external force (although what constitutes an incentive is subjective, but for the sake of clarity let's avoid not go there for the moment). The fault is not mine. And by the way, the bell is not a force. It is a stimulus. No, an incentive is not an external force.

Your use of the word force is missaplied and I have no idea how it is relevant to our discussion.

You'll have to explain to me your association of the word "ego" with this idea of "humans act[ing] in their own best interest", and, come to think of it, what that's supposed to mean. Anyway, in psycho-analytic terms, the ego is the conscious part of the mind which functions to negotiate between the external world and the internal demands of the super-ego (to behave correctly and orderly according to received ideals) and the id (to experience immediate gratification)—I've over-simplified here for the sake of brevity. Now it's a nice, romantic model of human behaviour, but that's all it is–a model. Freud believed that his followers would do the scientific leg-work to prove the existence of these entities, but let's put it this way; we're still waiting. As I said earlier I am not really interested nor is it important to our discussion to deal with the subject in this depth. The only salient point is that we as humans act in our own self interest. We seek food, shelter and other needs then interests (see Maslow).

Of course, there's the use of "ego" as a philosophical term to represent the thinking subject but I gather from your arguments that you're not using it in that manner because that wouldn't make sense. Right, does that clear this ego business up now? I've never had a problem with the word ego. You have never acknowledged my use of it. Ego is used commonly to describe our self and our self interest (see egoist and egotism). I'm not interested in metaphysical or philosophical constructs. You are being pedantic and I think obtuse. Humans act in their own self interest. It is why "power corrupts".

No argument there. My objection is that your first premise here stated that humans needed external forces (hope we've cleared that one up) Since I never made that claim the only confusion is on your side. I hope you can clear it up though. My only claim is that humans need incentives. Incentives are not synomumus with force. They are merely reasons that humans have to act.

and your closing premise states that capitalism doesn't provide external forces, it rewards internal forces. Maybe it's not a contradiction, maybe it's simply a non-sequitur.[/b][/quote] You are constructing a straw man.

[list=1]
I never said external forces.

Humans act on external stimuli or incentives. Incentives that provide direct benefit to the individual (needs and wants of the individual) are more conducive to action than vague and or obliqe benefits that are not direct (needs of society). (please see grain harvest of the Soviet Union)

Capatilism provides more effictive stimuli than do other forms of government.[/list=1]

External forces/external stimuli - although not exactly the same thing, for our purposes it is, okay? No, I would use threat of violence to complete a task as an external force. I would use ability to purchase food and shelter as an incentive.

It is very confusing and missleading to interchange the two.

Well, no, but let's agree to use the same terminology; because whilst I'm happy to go with the behaviorist terms, it might be problematic for you because you'll have to dump all the internal concepts like desire and stuff. Sorry. From what I can recall, first you like internal and then you don't like internal. Could you make up your mind?

Internal and desire are behaviorist terms. What the hell is the matter with you?

Let's just say "Stepford Wives" is totally inappropriate for the image you were trying to convey. If you're too obtuse to see that, just ignore it and let that go. Not at all. You are hung up on the wrong things. The problem is not mine.

You originally said: "I'm trying to create an image of an individual who cares more for the good of others than it does itself. Ego makes that impossible." As I said, I could google up a list of people who cared more for the good of others than themselves. If I used the word impossible it was meant as a rule not an absolute. Yes there are people who care more for the good of others but this is the exception and not the rule.

But the purpose of that would be to refute your claim that ego makes such a thing impossible. As ego doesn't exist... Only to the pedantic. I'm talking about self interest (again see Maslow).

(unless you mean in the philosophical sense, which would make your claim bizarre), to attempt to disprove this would involve implicitly acknowledging the existence of ego (I believe we call this question begging?). Which I don't. So I didn't. No, your just being pedantic and trying to ignore the elephant in the room. Humans seek to satisfy their hunger, aleviate their pain and protect them from the elemnts. When challanged they will fight back, including verbal debates. It is the quality that we commonly call ego. (see dictionary defintion) and it is the correct usage of the word. It is you who are seeking out another use of the word to be obtuse.

It's funny how some people choose to conflate these ideas into a homogenous mass; I guess it reduces cognitive disonance. Here's some that I like to play with: George Bush is a republican; the IRA are republicans; therefore George Bush must be a terrorist. In the US, republicanism is synonymous with conservatism; China is a republic so China must be conservative. Need I go on? Poor analogy. The flaws inherent in communism are inherent in Anarchy.

Some anarchists believe use of force is justified to claim back property, but I kind of distance myself from those ideas, I guess in the same way that some Republicans would distance themselves from Conservative Christian Fundamentalists. Distance yourself all you want you can't escape the fact that Anarchy won't work untill and if people give up their property and governments give up their power. Americans are higly unlikely to allow for either.

Liberal philosopher J.S. Mills laid out the conditions in which capitalism will fail way back when-basically, market homogeniety resulting in increasing costs and decreasing profits until stasis is achieved. Then things will get interesting; I somehow doubt that governments and capitalists are going to give up quietly though. Of course, governments might choose to use force to preserve the market iniquities which benefit them (and some might say they already do). Well we will see. But there is no reason to suppose that Mills is right.

This might lead me to conclude you haven't read any of them.Which you would be lead to by ignorance.

Marx and Communism (http://www.poly.edu/assmus/MarxComlec.html)

During this time there would need to be a strong central government...

If your ideas and beliefs involve the exploitation and coercion of other people for your selfish gain, then yes, that is quite correct. My belief though is that the free market itself will strip you of your property way before the anarchists turn up. My belief is that democracy, property rights and capatilism are the best system to provide the greatest opportunity and freedom to the most people. Anarchy is antithetical to that.

Could you explain how the free market will strip me of my property?

Please define "Democratic Socialism. According to Victor Dalenchenko Socialism is the most democratic of any system. If you dispute that Socialism is ever democratic then that is fine. I don't have to hold that view in our discussion. I will note that Western Socialist countries allow for dissent. I see it all of the time.

Anyway, no idea how you arrive at the above conclusion. Western Democracy respects dissent and protest? Barely tolerates it at the peripheraries, you mean? Are you kidding? Why were protestors camped out on the mall during much of the Nixon administration? Why do I see rallys and marches throuout Europe. How can western Democracies stop these protests.

How many parties are there in your political system, precisely? What portion of the political spectrum do they occupy? And no, democracy (and capitalism) doesn't need to "re-educate" people (well, only the ones who make a bit of a nuisance of themselves); it gets in there first. That we have two (for practical purposes) parties is hardly proof that we don't allow more than two. In Anarchy how many will there be?

Theodore Kurita

28th April 2004, 02:14 PM

Well, this is another bone to throw out there that shows that Anarchism has been shown to work.

There was plenty of Anarchistic Communities during the Spanish Revolution.

Read Here:

http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/bookchin/sp001642/toc.html

RandFan

28th April 2004, 02:21 PM

Billy,

Having read your post through a couple of times it is apparent that you are simply dismissing any attempt to explain human behavior beyond operant conditioning as detailed by Skinner.

From Mind-Brain (http://mind-brain.com/personality/skinner.php)

The bad do bad because the bad is rewarded. The good do good because the good is rewarded. There is no true freedom or dignity. Right now, our reinforcers for good and bad behavior are chaotic and out of our control -- it’s a matter of having good or bad luck with your “choice” of parents, teachers, peers, and other influences. Let’s instead take control, as a society, and design our culture in such a way that good gets rewarded and bad gets extinguished! With the right behavioral technology, we can design culture.

Both freedom and dignity are examples of what Skinner calls mentalistic constructs -- unobservable and so useless for a scientific psychology. Other examples include defense mechanisms, the unconscious, archetypes, fictional finalisms, coping strategies, self-actualization, consciousness, even things like hunger and thirst. The most important example is what he refers to as the homunculus -- Latin for “the little man” -- that supposedly resides inside us and is used to explain our behavior, ideas like soul, mind, ego, will, self, and, of course, personality. Is this correct? If so, what do you think of Chomsky's The Case Against Skinner. (http://monkeyfist.com/tmp/BN/archive/essays/the_case_against_bf_skinner.html)

RandFan

28th April 2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Well, this is another bone to throw out there that shows that Anarchism has been shown to work.

There was plenty of Anarchistic Communities during the Spanish Revolution.

Read Here:

http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/bookchin/sp001642/toc.html You know, I really tire of argument by proxy. Is this really a valid form of argument? I went to this site and again found allot of reading and no simple way to veryify your claim.

Could you outline what you think the site claims and use a pull quote. Or should I just find lots of other sites that I claim rebut your site and we will have a war of links?

As it stands I'm tired of doing everyone elses work. It's your claim why not make the effort to substantiate that claim beyond telling me where to go look?

Krandal2

28th April 2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
It goes with out saying of course that it would require the over throw of the U.S. Government.

Its certainly possible that implementing Parecon in the United States would require some kind of over throw, but I fail to see why you think it would be absolutly neccessary. It seems to me just as possible that a harmonious relationship could be established through gradual major reform. Frankly I dont think there exists exists enough data from which to draw a sensible conclusion.

And how do you take something against someone's will? Violence?

Perhaps, but perhaps not. Lets pretend for the sake of argument we know the answer is yes.

Why not, the ends justify the means, right?

Did the ends justify the means in the American revolution?
Please note that I am not necessarily advocating either parecon, or any form of anarchism, but simply pointing out that the fact that most radical changes in political or economic systems usually require some kind of violent revolution in order to be instituted, and that this in and of itself does not invalidate any said radical change.

And how do you get everyone to march in step so to speak?

Your Question is a little vague for me. Please ellaborate.

RandFan

29th April 2004, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Krandal2
Its certainly possible that implementing Parecon in the United States would require some kind of over throw, but I fail to see why you think it would be absolutly neccessary. Not absolutely. Just highly unlikely that the ideals that the framers of the United States would be brushed aside. We have succeded because of those ideals. Furthermore home ownership and asset ownership is extremely high. Why would anyone give that up for a pie in the sky idea that has been shown to fail miserably in times past.

It seems to me just as possible that a harmonious relationship could be established through gradual major reform. Frankly I don't think there exists enough data from which to draw a sensible conclusion. I think there is more than enough data. Just because the concept is dressed up to look like something other than the experiments of the past is no reason to assume that it is really different. How do you get enough people to work for the common good and not selfish reasons? There would have to be a critical mass

Perhaps, but perhaps not. Lets pretend for the sake of argument we know the answer is yes.Fair enough, for arguments sake let's say that you could get everyone to give up their possessions without violence? How do you get a "critical mass" to work indefinitely for the common good. Bear in mind that there must be enough producers to overcome any deficit from non-workers. How do you stop envy, jealousy and resentment of those who will not work efficiently?

Should we assume that the answer is that we can? Perhaps we should assume that people can fly and stop needing to eat altogether.

The problem with your assumption is that it ignores the very real problems of human nature. People like to blame the state for the failure of Communism. But Communism failed because the notion of people working simply to enjoy life is counter to much of human nature. According to Maslow when (most) people achieve 1 level of fulfillment they then look to the next level. The society that is described in Parecon says to a vast majority, you can never be more than X. There is no need to dream or desire more. If what you have is not enough then tough. Sure it would be nice to have enough to eat and shelter and a car and a radio. But what if you want more? No matter how hard you work you will always be just a cog in a wheel. Let me ask you a question. Why do people play the lottery? Is it because they want enough to live comfortably? No! And how do we know, because most people hold off playing the lottery until it is in the tens of millions. Now, three million dollars can help a person live pretty comfortable. But most people are uninterested in three million. They want more because they can dream more. Why do the middle class and upper middle class play the lottery? Many are comfortable and have good jobs. It is because they dream, they want more.

An artist is driven to make art. Would you tell the artist to produce mediocre art? Or art that is average? Why must we tell everyone else that they can only be average?

Did the ends justify the means in the American revolution? Good question, I'm going to surprise you and say I honestly don't know and have good reason to say no. Even if the propaganda of those who helped start the war was true then I still wouldn't be sure.

A couple of points. The violence was targeted towards the government of Britain. Any violence directed at civilians was wrong and without justification.

Please note that I am not necessarily advocating either Parecon, or any form of anarchism, but simply pointing out that the fact that most radical changes in political or economic systems usually require some kind of violent revolution in order to be instituted, and that this in and of itself does not invalidate any said radical change. Yes, but Parecon would necessitate the removal by force of property from civilians. It is one thing to overthrow a government. It is quite another to take the civil liberties away from citizens.

Your Question is a little vague for me. Please elaborate. In every single Communist revolution the greatest threat to the new regime was ideas counter to the revolution. This created a very serious and real threat. Anyone who did not accept the ideology of Communism had to be converted or eliminated. In China, non-Communists were re-educated. This meant imprisonment. In Cambodia those who did not embrace Communism were taken to farms where they were re-educated. Oddly as soon as they embraced Communism they were taken out and in secret shot. In the Soviet Union Stalin "purged" those who were resistant to change. Purge was a euphemism for killed.

In systems like Parecon a significant majority must accept the precepts of the system. Dissidence is counter productive. That is why so many Communist countries imprison or execute Dissidents. Apologists like to pass the burden off on the "corrupt" state but in truth it is merely the result of dealing with a very real problem. There will always be people who disagree with any system, ideological, political, economic, theological, etc.

What do you do with these people?

Theodore Kurita

29th April 2004, 08:50 PM

Ok, I can say that anarcho-communism has been flogged almost to death in this thread as a pie in the sky ideology.

However, what about Anarcho-Socialism?

It is the only thing I haven't seent addressed yet in this thread.

I honestly think it would have the best potential... think about it.

First, an actual form of socialism must be established so workers actually vote on issues in the workplace or corporation they work for.

Second, the people working for these companies have to start building forces, and in a sense start creating their own little nations completely based off the corporate enviroment they work in.

Third, there has to be a popular movement to disestablish the government as companies themselves are democratic and already self governing for the most part.

Fourth, in order to establish Anarchy, there would need to be a revolt to eliminate the government.

(Now here is where the fun begins)

Under the Anarchy, there are three possible ways the society will continue to exist upon:

Anarcho-Communism (Assuming that the revolution is nonviolent, and that society has already peaked in both technology and science)

Anarcho-Socialism (Assuming that socialism was the previously established form of government and society can still progress further)

Anarcho-Capitalism (Assuming that society has lots of room to grow, and that corporate capitalism was already established instead of a form of socialism in the previous government)

It seems to be a rather simple process.

Although, it would take a while for any of these movements to build up within society.

RandFan

29th April 2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Ok, I can say that anarcho-communism has been flogged almost to death in this thread as a pie in the sky ideology.

However, what about Anarcho-Socialism?

It is the only thing I haven't seent addressed yet in this thread. Ok, I'm skeptical but I will look into it. Do you have any sources? Having discussed Socialism at length with Victor Dalenchenko I'm a bit more ameniable to it.

Krandal2

30th April 2004, 01:56 AM

Randfan,

I fear you have a misunderstanding about Parecon that need to be addressed before we continue.

Parecon is not a anarcho-communist Economy, but in fact one of the first Anarcho-socialist (or as I prefer to call it libertarian-socialist) economies ever devised, the reason being that production in a Parecon is directly under the control of producers and not, as is the case in communist economies, run in a totalitarian fashion by a technocratic elite. Workers control and manage thier workplace and communities through democratic processes, hence the term
Participatory Econnomics

With that out of the way...

Originally posted by RandFan
Not absolutely. Just highly unlikely that the ideals that the framers of the United States would be brushed aside.

Some would no doubt be brushed aside, others I think would be enhanced. Do you for instance beleive that, at least in principle, democracy in the United States and elsewhere would operate closer to its own ideals if severe class distinctions were erased and the wealthy lacked a disproportionate amount of power over the political system?

We have succeded because of those ideals.

Certainly, the question is have we succeeded because of ALL these Ideals, and do we still require all of them? Or are there a few that are obsolete and holding us back?

Furthermore home ownership and asset ownership is extremely high.

As far as I understand both could still exist under a Parecon, If the individuals in a community, or society as a whole if thats the case, decided that they should exist.

Why would anyone give that up for a pie in the sky idea that has been shown to fail miserably in times past.

I know of no parecon that has been implemented on a macro scale, so I know of no miserable failures that occured in times past. I know of some businesses that have been run in a parecon
manner, and from what I can tell they have all been rather successful.

If you are instead refering generally to the anarchist societies that have failed in the past, in all the examples I know of these fledgling societies were destroyed by an overwhelming external force, and did not collapse under thier own incoherence, so I'm hesitent to attribute thier miserable failure to the Ideas and Ideals they were based upon.

I think there is more than enough data. Just because the concept is dressed up to look like something other than the experiments of the past is no reason to assume that it is really different.

As I tried to make clear earlier Parecon IS radically different from the communist and capitalist sytems that have been implemented in the past. If you still believe that parecon shares a fundamental flaw with other failed economic systems, then Im gonna need a specific example.

How do you get enough people to work for the common good and not selfish reasons? There would have to be a critical mass

Like capitalism, In parecon a person can work for any reason they choose. The Incentive/reward system in a parecon is also similar to capitialisms, with people being paid a certain number of credits based on the number of hours they put into thier work. (A persons "wages" are negotiated between themselves and those they work with). The primary difference is that in a parecon, a worker is paid not so much on the basis of his output but on the basis of his effort. (which again is determined through negotiation). If a person so desired he could spent 16 hours a day cleaning toilets and, because the job is so undesirable and thus highly paid accrue a substantial amount of wealth. There are plenty of opertunities in a parecon to increase ones quality of life.
Parecon has nothing against a cetain amount of wealth, checks and balances simply exist to ensure that said wealth doesnt translate into power over others.

Fair enough, for arguments sake let's say that you could get everyone to give up their possessions without violence? How do you get a "critical mass" to work indefinitely for the common good.

See above. There is no need to work for "the common good".

Bear in mind that there must be enough producers to overcome any deficit from non-workers. How do you stop envy, jealousy and resentment of those who will not work efficiently?

As mentioned above parecon workplaces function democraticly. If the majority of workers notice that one of their co-worker is behaving inefficiently, they can decide to have him repremanded or fired.

Should we assume that the answer is that we can? Should we assume that the answer is that we can? Perhaps we should assume that people can fly and stop needing to eat altogether.

See above. Such problems can easily be dealt with in a parecon without resorting to fairy-tales.

The problem with your assumption is that it ignores the very real problems of human nature. People like to blame the state for the failure of Communism. But Communism failed because the notion of people working simply to enjoy life is counter to much of human nature.

I absolutely agree with you that one of the reasons the communist economy functioned so poorly was because it provided little incentive for hard work, and provided people little opertunity to control and improve there own lives. I fail to see though how parecon shares these problems.

According to Maslow when (most) people achieve 1 level of fulfillment they then look to the next level. The society that is described in Parecon says to a vast majority, you can never be more than X.

I fail to see how this is the case.

There is no need to dream or desire more. If what you have is not enough then tough. Sure it would be nice to have enough to eat and shelter and a car and a radio. But what if you want more? No matter how hard you work you will always be just a cog in a wheel.

Again I dont know where you getting this from. What your describing does not sound like parecon at all.

Let me ask you a question. Why do people play the lottery? Is it because they want enough to live comfortably? No! And how do we know, because most people hold off playing the lottery until it is in the tens of millions. Now, three million dollars can help a person live pretty comfortable. But most people are uninterested in three million. They want more because they can dream more. Why do the middle class and upper middle class play the lottery? Many are comfortable and have good jobs. It is because they dream, they want more.

I agree, and I also agree with the silent point your making, that Parecon does not provide opertunity for such extraordinary material wealth. But let me ask you a question in return. You mentioned Maslow earlier, do you really believe that, excepting physiological needs and safety and security, gaining massive amounts of material wealth really provides a way to fullfill ones psychological needs? You seem to have some background in psychology, so hopefully of studys that show low correlation between material wealth and happiness once physical needs are provided for, and I wont have to drag them out. Doesn't it seem
possible, if not probable to you that those who are entering the lottery for other reasons than the hope for finicially security, are doing so becasue they are mistaken about what the lottery can provide for them?

An artist is driven to make art. Would you tell the artist to produce mediocre art? Or art that is average? Why must we tell everyone else that they can only be average?

I fail to see how parecon does this. In fact since Parecon rewards effort rather than output, I wouldnt be surprised If it inspired artists to create less mediocore art than capitalism does.

Good question, I'm going to surprise you and say I honestly don't know and have good reason to say no. Even if the propaganda of those who helped start the war was true then I still wouldn't be sure.

A couple of points. The violence was targeted towards the government of Britain. Any violence directed at civilians was wrong and without justification.

I'm still skeptical about the need for violence against individuals in the first place, unless they themselves put up violent resistence. violence is different from force of course, and like you I find the Idea of indivuals being forced from thier property to be morally questionable, which is why I am not an outright advocate of parecon. The Question has to be asked though, does the right of the few to wealth really outwiegh the right of all to control thier own lives, which is parecons ultimate goal? I dont know the answer to this question.

Yes, but Parecon would necessitate the removal by force of property from civilians. It is one thing to overthrow a government. It is quite another to take the civil liberties away from citizens.

See my response above.

In every single Communist revolution the greatest threat to the new regime was ideas counter to the revolution. This created a very serious and real threat. Anyone who did not accept the ideology of Communism had to be converted or eliminated. In China, non-Communists were re-educated. This meant imprisonment. In Cambodia those who did not embrace Communism were taken to farms where they were re-educated. Oddly as soon as they embraced Communism they were taken out and in secret shot. In the Soviet Union Stalin "purged" those who were resistant to change. Purge was a euphemism for killed.

Ok first, please remember that parecon is not communist. It is also not specificly a political system, but since by definition it can only exist and survive within a democratic society I strongly doubt similar actions could or would occur in any society that has adopted parecon.

In systems like Parecon a significant majority must accept the precepts of the system.

True. But this is true of every economic or political system.

Dissidence is counter productive. That is why so many Communist countries imprison or execute Dissidents.

Again since parecon can only exist in a democratic society I have a hard time imagining this would happen.

Apologists like to pass the burden off on the "corrupt" state but in truth it is merely the result of dealing with a very real problem.

Im afraid going to have to side with the apologists here, non-violent dissidence tends to be a problem for totalitarian states, not democratic ones. The later tend to handle dissidence in a much more civil manner (relativly speaking of course)

There will always be people who disagree with any system, ideological, political, economic, theological, etc.

What do you do with these people?

Again these are largly political problems, but as far as they are economic, I would say parecon would handle such dissidence the same way capitalism does, that is, by ignoring it. If a person refuses or cannot work within the system without violating thier principles they can either move somewhere else, or, if the resources exist and the people of his community are willing, he can simply mooch off the system if he so desires and refuse to contribute. Seems alot less harsh than "purging" to me.

RandFan

30th April 2004, 10:09 AM

Krandal2,

First let me thank you for your response and tone. It seems that you have gone out of your way to not be patronizing. I appreciate that and respect your opinion.

Originally posted by Krandal2
I fear you have a misunderstanding about Parecon that need to be addressed before we continue.

Parecon is not a anarcho-communist Economy, but in fact one of the first Anarcho-socialist (or as I prefer to call it libertarian-socialist) economies ever devised, the reason being that production in a Parecon is directly under the control of producers and not, as is the case in communist economies, run in a totalitarian fashion by a technocratic elite. Workers control and manage thier workplace and communities through democratic processes, hence the term
Participatory Econnomics I did read allot of the data on the site that was linked. This of course does not make me an expert and there certainly could be much that I am ignorant of as to Parecon. I have responded based on first impression and intuition. That being said, I have a feeling that my opposition to Parecon is not going to change significantly. Not because I am closed minded but because I understand the nature of humans and from what I can tell this system is simply incapable of overcoming the significant problems that arise from humans interacting with other humans. That being said, I am willing to open my mind and re-examine Parecon in an objective fashion.

Let me digest your post and refer back to the site linked before I respond in depth.

Edited to add: I have come to the realization that even when I think that I am being decorous often I'm not. I used to say that I respond in kind when in truth I often piss people off with subtle and sometimes not so subtle remarks. I have a great deal of respect for those who don't respond to me viscerally. I need to find a way to remove emotive and provocative language from my posts. After two years of posting it is unlikely that I will change though. Sorry for the rant.

RandFan

Krandal2

30th April 2004, 12:26 PM

Randfan

First let me say that I have no intention of adding more to your plate, and dont expect you to respond to my comments here, which are only being made to keep the air as clear as possible between us, and ensure that this potentially interesting conversation stays productive for as long as possible.

I found nothing objectionable in any of your posts content or tone, in fact I was slightly concerned that I was the first among us to become rude when I failed to put a winking smiley beside my purging coment above.

If I dont come across as patronizing it is only because I myself have no right to be considered an authority or expert on parecon, since my knowlege is limited to the links provided on the site, and I have yet to read any of the on-line books available. In fact some of the answers I gave you are based on inference from what I've learned already and could be completly mistaken because of something about parecon I havent realized yet.

Many of your initial comments about parecon are no doubt suspicians I would hold myself, If not for the fact that I am familiar with Michael Alberts stance on some other political and economic issues (for instance his contempt for communism). On top of this you are already in an indepth discussion with 2 other people, regarding similar issues. With all that in mind its really quite understandable that you responded based on first impression and intuition.

In short there's really no reason to be apologetic.

That being said, I have a feeling that my opposition to Parecon is not going to change significantly.

I'm certainly not here to convert anyone. As I said before I have my own reservations about parecon and am not an advocate. I'm simply here to discuss it with anyone who's interested, especially since anarcho-socialism is now the main topic of the thread.

I must say though that when I read comments like:

I understand the nature of humans and from what I can tell this system is simply incapable of overcoming the significant problems that arise from humans interacting with other humans.

I raise an eyebrow, for as you no doubt know such vague notions as "Human Nature" have been used to both justify and invalidate virtually every political and economic system since the begining of history.

That being said, I am willing to open my mind and re-examine Parecon in an objective fashion.

So am I.

Edited to add: I found a link regarding dissidence within parecon which may interest you-

http://www.parecon.org/writings/qadissent.htm

Heres another, It runs closer to addressing the problems you brought up-

http://www.parecon.org/writings/qaminrts.htm