Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Anarchy, Socialism, Communism, and community gardens

572 replies to this topic
dtsmucker
  • dtsmucker

    CTID

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#31

Posted 22 June 2015 - 03:43 AM

Capitalism makes me violently ill. Every time I hear the expression "invisible hand of the free market" my blood gets a little more red. Its continued survival through adaption is comparable to that of a particularly effective strain of bacteria. I would love to see it crushed in my life time, but based on how quickly people want to defend the structures they are trapped in, I am not hopeful.

This made me laugh. "violently ill". Another "Every time I hear". Grow up and shut up. There's one single device that we all have and it's self censorship. Quit blaming everyone else.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#32

Posted 22 June 2015 - 03:47 AM

the title doesn't imply that the only thing we can discuss is violent destruction...

  • Irviding and GTA_stu like this

make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    living in the world no different from a cell

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#33

Posted 22 June 2015 - 03:49 AM Edited by make total destroy, 22 June 2015 - 03:51 AM.

The title implies we're discussing anarchism, socialism, and communism, not how to reform capitalism.

 


This made me laugh. "violently ill". Another "Every time I hear". Grow up and shut up. There's one single device that we all have and it's self censorship. Quit blaming everyone else.

 

If you have nothing to add to this discussion, utilize self-censorship, and stop mucking up this thread.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#34

Posted 22 June 2015 - 03:52 AM

I'm not saying we have to keep it.

I'm offering inroads.

 

all you offer are disagreements.

...and yes, your links. but here's an idea; formulate an original idea and present it instead of putting other ideas down and 'referring' people to other websites. that's not really how a forum works let alone how D&D should work. there are instances where sources are appropriate but not the way you're using them.


make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    living in the world no different from a cell

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#35

Posted 22 June 2015 - 04:01 AM Edited by make total destroy, 22 June 2015 - 04:03 AM.

all you offer are disagreements.

...and yes, your links. but here's an idea; formulate an original idea and present it instead of putting other ideas down and 'referring' people to other websites. that's not really how a forum works let alone how D&D should work. there are instances where sources are appropriate but not the way you're using them.

fetmeby.png

The idea is to offer introductions to anarchism, because many people are not familiar with it. They're not intended to be viewed as 'sources' (lol).


Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#36

Posted 22 June 2015 - 05:12 AM

Most of these reforms are as unrealistic as revolution. They are doing all they can to utterly smash the welfare state, they aren't going to turn around and give everyone a 'citizens salary' or give every homeless person a home. They might if we kick the door in, but at that point we may as well chop their heads off and be done with it. 


right, and no one is asking them to forfeit any wealth.

citizen salary would make the rich richer than they are now and begin to dissolve a lot of the social issues we see at the lowest rungs of the ladder.

Those social issues stem from inequality: relative deprivation, rather than abject deprivation. It's pretty well understood in academia that inequality itself is what leads to social ills, eg there are poor areas of Africa that have considerable less social ills than poor areas of the US. People don't go out and commit crime because they need to buy shoes, everyone has shoes anyway. They commit crime due to class antagonism and the strain of inequity aversion. 

  • make total destroy likes this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#37

Posted 22 June 2015 - 05:57 AM

For the purposes of this discussion, if you haven't at least read the first article in the original post (introduction to anarchism) do not participate in the conversation. Thank you.

ElD - please confirm this and I'll unhide your response.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#38

Posted 22 June 2015 - 06:17 AM

 The idea is to offer introductions to anarchism, because many people are not familiar with it. They're not intended to be viewed as 'sources' (lol).

ok, sure.

but then don't say that "maybe you should consult some of the links" in place of formulating a response.

 

you have yet to form a response or really add anything.

disagreements abound. you're great at disagreeing, we know that. do you have anything original to offer yet?

 

Most of these reforms are as unrealistic as revolution. They are doing all they can to utterly smash the welfare state, they aren't going to turn around and give everyone a 'citizens salary' or give every homeless person a home.

aside from the fact that this attitude gets us nowhere, you're also wrong.

not counting places like Sweden or Canada (as if they didn't 'count'...), there are places in the US like California and New Mexico where we have experimented with homes for the homeless and the results are virtually all positive. small scale but successful. it's gotta' start somewhere and simply getting people off the street with some dignity and job placement works wonders.

 

"they" are prone to change and incremental shifts can produce more sweeping movements.

"they" are not some obscure or conceptually abstract aliens; they're still people. our society is constantly evolving and for as sh*tty as our financial situation may be, we have clearly come a long way on numerous other social frontiers. the status quo might be the status quo but that too is constantly shifting albeit at a slower pace. I wouldn't stand in front of their gates in defense, but I also don't think it's quite time yet for rolling out the guillotines either.

 

Those social issues stem from inequality: relative deprivation, rather than abject deprivation. It's pretty well understood in academia that inequality itself is what leads to social ills, eg there are poor areas of Africa that have considerable less social ills than poor areas of the US. People don't go out and commit crime because they need to buy shoes, everyone has shoes anyway. They commit crime due to class antagonism and the strain of inequity aversion.

we're in agreement here.

to that end, what would you propose if you don't agree with the idea of basic citizen subsidies?

  • Tchuck likes this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#39

Posted 22 June 2015 - 06:35 AM

I will say this, Black_MiD, I admire your belief in humanity.  But your society is based on assumption that has no scientific proof.

 

You say we are all naturally equal.  This suggestion is easily refuted.  Some people are born stronger than others, some people are born crippled.  I am strongly near-sighted, other people are not.  It's quite clear that humans are not naturally equal, and some are definitely stronger than others.

 

You say many of these desires by humans are a cause of our culture.  First of all, that's an assumption, a nice one, but an assumption nonetheless.  We know that humans didn't too well without a state, because more than 70,000 years ago, humanity was close to going extinct.  The agricultural revolution was a major stepping stone for insurance the preservation of our species.  But for societies to function on such a large scale that agricultural demanded, proto-states began to form.

 

You propose that humans are not greedy by nature, but that our current culture enforces it.  Isn't it equally easy to suggest that our current culture enforces it, because it is human nature to be greedy?

 

But even if we assume that humans are naturally equal and these human conditions are created by our culture, most of the people in your new society will have been adults in our current society and their desires, beliefs and whatnot aren't going to go away, even with the education you speak of.  A lot of people, particularly older people, are far more grounded in their beliefs and stubborn against change.

 

I admire your vision, but I just don't believe it will work with humans.  Humans are too different.  And as history has taught again and again, any society we create will always have someone to oppose it.  Who is to say that someone won't come in and create a totalitarian regime somehow?  Sure, the same thing could happen to our current systems.  But it just seems easier when everything is voluntary.  Anarchism and communism assumes the same thing; that every human is willing to go along with it.  I don't believe they are.  Regardless of the amount of education you give.

  • Tchuck and GTA_stu like this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#40

Posted 22 June 2015 - 06:40 AM Edited by Irviding, 22 June 2015 - 06:44 AM.

Laws against drugs: Needlessly criminalizes people, adversely effects society by creating black markets while not actually stemming the flow of drugs, and creates a larger public health problem than it aims to cure through these side effects

 

Saw this today and thought of you and your ideas on drug enforcement, takes what you want to do but does it in a partially responsible way. 

 

 

edit - Otter if you're going to hide everyone's posts then at least move them to the relevant thread or split it off and don't make people's time spent writing a post go to waste, I'm sure el d and whoever else you hid feels the same way. If this thread is just going to be about some fantasy world with no governments then change the title away from socialism/communities. 


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#41

Posted 22 June 2015 - 06:45 AM

This is not gen chat. I am not bogarting a conversation. If you can't participate without dragging this into a sh*t slinging contest or a meta argument about what's at discussion here, then I will remove your posts.
  • El Diablo likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#42

Posted 22 June 2015 - 06:47 AM

aside from the fact that this attitude gets us nowhere

Pretending that we're citizens of a functioning democracy when we're not gets us nowhere. Recognising that the system is built to serve the privileged few is the first step towards change. 

 

 

 

not counting places like Sweden or Canada (as if they didn't 'count'...)

Okay if you want to turn the US into Canada then go ahead. You'd be living under the same system. I live in Australia which is probably more socially democratic than Canada and Sweden, and there's still homeless people everywhere, crime through the roof, ghettos all over the shop. There's really no a lot of difference between Australia and the US, apart from the latter being less humane.

 

At any rate turning the US into Norway would require massive political force, due to the undemocratic nature of the US compared to other liberal democracies (gerrymandering, electoral college, strong executive figures like the President which are unheard of elsewhere). You may as well burn the system down and build a new one in its place. 

 

 

 

I wouldn't stand in front of their gates in defense, but I also don't think it's quite time yet for rolling out the guillotines either.

Really? Because people have been engaging in violent revolutionary activity in the West all the way up to the 1960s and things have gotten exponentially worse since then. 

 

Thatcher-and-Reagan-007.jpg

 

Wages haven't gone up relative to inflation (a polite way for labour parties to say they've been slashed) services like welfare have been bashed to bits, and all of the manufacturing has been moved to China so people are forced to smile like morons with no dignity in the service sector. They've found a way around the eight hour day: just make people get two jobs at different companies run by the same people! They're making our entire f*cking planet uninhabitable for f*cks sake. And all the while the rich have gotten considerably richer, even during the financial crisis profits were at an all time high and still are. Inequality is on par with France before the revolution. If it isn't time to wheel out the guillotines, when will it be? They are literally trying to destroy us, and our only home in the universe to boot. Get a grip.

 

 

we're in agreement here.

to that end, what would you propose if you don't agree with the idea of basic citizen subsidies?

Kill the rich and run our own communities as collectives.

  • make total destroy likes this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#43

Posted 22 June 2015 - 06:49 AM

Canada is a conservative nightmare, currently. We just passed our own cyber-spying bill. Fantastic.

Finding the concept of anarchism rather eye-opening, to be honest. Barely made it past the intro; thanks for the links MTD.

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#44

Posted 22 June 2015 - 06:54 AM

Canada is a conservative nightmare, currently. We just passed our own cyber-spying bill. Fantastic.

 

Gee, what Western country isn't passing such a bill?  I know our former centre-left government even proposed such a bill, although it never actually got to parliament owing to the debate.  The parties most people vote for, don't give a sh*t a privacy.  Then again, I meet a lot of people who care more about their protection than their privacy.  Like the say, 'what's the point of privacy if I'm dead?'.

  • Otter likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#45

Posted 22 June 2015 - 06:55 AM Edited by Melchior, 22 June 2015 - 06:56 AM.

You say many of these desires by humans are a cause of our culture.  First of all, that's an assumption, a nice one, but an assumption nonetheless.  We know that humans didn't too well without a state, because more than 70,000 years ago, humanity was close to going extinct

...

 

The indigenous peoples of Australia lived in tribes for 40,000 years until the British came smashing through and destroyed their society. 70,000 years ago we were essentially apes with pointy sticks, it means nothing. 

  • make total destroy likes this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#46

Posted 22 June 2015 - 07:01 AM

 

You say many of these desires by humans are a cause of our culture.  First of all, that's an assumption, a nice one, but an assumption nonetheless.  We know that humans didn't too well without a state, because more than 70,000 years ago, humanity was close to going extinct

...

 

The indigenous peoples of Australia lived in tribes for 40,000 years until the British came smashing through and destroyed their society. 70,000 years ago we were essentially apes with pointy sticks, it means nothing. 

 

 

That has no relation to the argument I'm making.  I am talking about ancient humans creating societies for themselves, not a more advanced human society forcing their society upon an indigenous people.  Terrible as it may be, it is irrelevant to my argument.  But you are right about one thing, we could all live in small tribes without any of our modern conveniences and it would work.  But apparently, it didn't work everywhere, hence why states were created.

 

Also, 200,000 years ago we were basically apes.  We were far more sophisticated 70,000 years ago.  Even if it would take another 55,000 years before we began writing.

  • Irviding likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#47

Posted 22 June 2015 - 07:13 AM

 fantasy world with no governments

 

Yeah... 'fantasy world.' Let's stop with this silly notion that anarchism is some academic bullsh*t that uni students came up with that isn't applicable to the real world. The reason I'm an anarchist is because unlike other alternatives to Capitalism (Marxism-Leninism, fascism) anarchism does and always has existed in the real world. When your great-great grandparents were pushed off their farms and forced to work in a textile mill they knew exactly what was happening to them, and formulated opposition to it as if it were the natural thing to do, without ever having heard of Marx and Engles. And now we call that anarchism. People all around the world- in Catalonia, in Ukraine, even right now in Mexico- have destroyed their oppressors and taken over their communities, whether they had read Kropotkin or not. The fact that when we evolved to sentience we went about building tribes- collectives built around a common good in which nobody has status over another- should speak volumes. If class society is natural then humans that have been isolated for thousands of years would be living in primitive kingdoms, not tribes. 

 

The difference between anarchism and those other alternatives to Capitalism is that they are artificial ideologies designed to rationalise the power of one group or another, where as anarchism is a real trend in human development. 

  • make total destroy likes this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#48

Posted 22 June 2015 - 07:25 AM

Except that for your plan to work, people need to either live in a place where there is no government (a far unlikely case currently in the West) or where they are being oppressed.  A vast majority of people in the West would not consider themselves oppressed.

 

The problem isn't that anarchism cannot work, it's the people who are going to make it work, they have no incentive to do so (if we are talking about a world with no government, and not your small scale examples).

  • Irviding likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#49

Posted 22 June 2015 - 07:31 AM Edited by Melchior, 22 June 2015 - 07:31 AM.

 

 

You say many of these desires by humans are a cause of our culture.  First of all, that's an assumption, a nice one, but an assumption nonetheless.  We know that humans didn't too well without a state, because more than 70,000 years ago, humanity was close to going extinct

...

 

The indigenous peoples of Australia lived in tribes for 40,000 years until the British came smashing through and destroyed their society. 70,000 years ago we were essentially apes with pointy sticks, it means nothing. 

 

 

That has no relation to the argument I'm making.  I am talking about ancient humans creating societies for themselves, not a more advanced human society forcing their society upon an indigenous people.  Terrible as it may be, it is irrelevant to my argument.  But you are right about one thing, we could all live in small tribes without any of our modern conveniences and it would work.  But apparently, it didn't work everywhere, hence why states were created.

Your point was that states function better than collectives because primitive humans were nearly wiped out? The fact that people can live in tribes for thousands upon thousands of years is of course relevant.

 

 

 

Also, 200,000 years ago we were basically apes.  We were far more sophisticated 70,000 years ago.  Even if it would take another 55,000 years before we began writing.

Yeah, but progress occurred when we lived in tribes. 70,000 years ago we were hanging on by a thread, 20-30,000 years later we were wiping out every other species of human, and almost all the megafauna (god damn giant monsters) in the areas we inhabited. Our technology and societal organisation advanced considerably in that time. 

 

We also used agriculture. Manipulating the environment to control where buffalo can go is agriculture, and blocking off part of a river into a pond for fishing is agriculture. The native Americans had cities and lived under a continent spanning federation. Why Eurasian society adopted stringent class relationships the more our agriculture developed is beyond me, but you can't really hold it up as proof that progress requires hierarchy. Especially since socialism continues to exist on a small scale within our economic system, and such enterprise even outperforms the wider market by a not-insignificant margin. 


Except that for your plan to work, people need to either live in a place where there is no government (a far unlikely case currently in the West) or where they are being oppressed.  A vast majority of people in the West would not consider themselves oppressed.

 

The problem isn't that anarchism cannot work, it's the people who are going to make it work, they have no incentive to do so (if we are talking about a world with no government, and not your small scale examples).

We don't really have much of a choice. We can either build a more equitable world... or be reduced to peasants in a world with a devastated environment and biosphere at best, or watch our global civilisation disintegrated by nuclear explosions at worst.

 

"People are too brainwashed to get on board" is not an argument against anarchism. It's an argument against the status quo. Also your point was that human beings require states for advanced organisation and technology, don't shift the goal post. 

  • make total destroy and Fonz like this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#50

Posted 22 June 2015 - 07:32 AM

But these tribes had leaders.  I realise of course, that anarchism is not against small scale cooperatives, but the leaders of these native American tribes met in their federation to discuss how they'd work together and possibly war.

 

I cannot say for certain that progress require hierarchy, I'll confess that, but I can observe that every time we progress, hierarchy is created to apparently accommodate this.  In such a way, that it has become natural to most humans that there is a hierarchy.  Even in small communities.  In Ukraine and Mexico, these small communities most likely have appointed a leader or a group of leaders.  Someone to make the decisions and someone to take the blame.

  • Irviding likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#51

Posted 22 June 2015 - 07:46 AM

In Ukraine and Mexico, these small communities most likely have appointed a leader or a group of leaders.  Someone to make the decisions and someone to take the blame.

The Zapatistas (Mexican anarchists), who have thousands of people inside their territory, do have leaders. They appoint random guys (I think they literally take their names out of a hat) that are gone within two weeks. There is no political class which has its own interests separate to the rest of society. 

 

 

 

But these tribes had leaders.

Eh, sort of. Tribal elders and the like. They didn't control resources ("THESE ARE MY SPEARS"), they couldn't imprison or kill you, and their interests weren't separate from the rest of the group. Giving extra weight to the opinions of old people (that's essentially what these 'leaders' were, people whose opinion carried more weight) is not comparable at all to a society in which a hereditary class of people makes all the decisions and live lives of luxury at the expense of everyone else. 

  • make total destroy and Fonz like this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#52

Posted 22 June 2015 - 08:07 AM

I am not trying to pretend that our society is the perfect society.  I am just saying that most people living in our society wouldn't be keen on living in an anarchist utopia, because of the uncertainties.  Humans mistrust humans, and they certainly don't believe other humans would uphold their end of the bargain in this society, creating a disincentive for them to uphold their own.  Even if merely a hunch.

 

Even though I am pretty well off; a good paying job and I owe two cars (albeit old ones), I believe that our society should care for the needy.  I don't personally believe anarchism is the way to achieve this (because I too mistrust humans), but I do believe the sentiment of anarchism and socialism are ideas we should incorporate into our current culture and society.

 

I won't say I don't mistrust the state, because I do mistrust it.  But I am also the wrong person to talk about this; I live in Scandinavia, where people have a high belief in authority, because our countries have given them good reason to trust in them.  The Nordic countries always rank lowest on the international corruption lists and the average living standard is higher than most of the world around us.

 

Trust me, people around here certainly don't want any fundamental change.

  • SagaciousKJB, Moth and GTA_stu like this

Moth
  • Moth

    Sheamus McF*ckyourself

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2006
  • Canada

#53

Posted 22 June 2015 - 08:09 AM Edited by Moth, 22 June 2015 - 08:26 AM.

m8, read the title.

 

*Reads title* Oh so we can talk about my vegetable garden at the local park? The cucumbers and zucchinis are turning out great. And oh my god, my roses are just gorgeous. Oh just be aware of my ghost chilies, they got quite a bite. Got them to ward off raccoons and other small furry creatures.

 

 

 

Can you tell me why his ideas are bad in your opinion? I can understand you're an anarchist but if somebody said to you, hey make total destroy, we're going to put into place diablo's reforms, you would be agains that?

Because I don't want to spend the rest of my life making useless commodities, or performing monotonous tasks to line the pockets of capitalists.

 

May I ask what exactly you want to do with your life? Do you want to write and play music? Do you want to invent something that can change the world? Or do you just want to be an armchair philosopher?

 

 

edit: Figure I would bring this over here, instead of the riots topic.

 

 

 

The middle class and the rich commit crime as well, and those are not crimes as a result of inequality, those (at least the white collar crimes) are crimes of opportunity and greed.

 

These are malum prohibitum, regulatory violations. It's not the same. 

 

So what about murder? You saying murder would go away? Or how bout rape? Hell theft would still be a thing, it would just be "borrowing without asking" Or even the extremely minor thing of littering.

 

I've never understood how proponents of the "destroy all symbols of wealth" line of reasoning. How do we define what's frivolity and what's socially acceptable? Is there some kind of committee who decide whether owning a boat with an outboard motor for enjoyment is a social faux pas?

Hell, get past the boat, what about other forms of enjoyment? Like videogames, movies, sex toys and beds that are queen sized and larger.

  • Irviding likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#54

Posted 22 June 2015 - 08:25 AM

So, as I posted in the other thread, one question which I've never seen properly resolved is the question of how a society decides what constitutes unnecessary frivolity or wastefulness. The aim of course is for a communal society to produce and grant its citizens whatever they need, but even the concept of need is a fairly subjective one once you get to outside of the basics.

Is the very principle of having more than you require an affront to a society that's based on communal equality? As far as I can tell there's no cohesive or regimented policy towards actual frivolity as long as it isn't the result of unequal accumulation of wealth, property or capital, but on the other hand you commonly see people decrying the principle in extremis but seldom ever actually offer an explanation to at what point the possession of unnecessary things (and I use necessity in its more narrow definition there) becomes socially unacceptable.

An example, if you will. Say you have a young family with a child, living in a two bedroom house provided by the community. The woman is expecting a second child and they'd really like to move into a larger house. They don't actually need one, but its difficult to argue that it won't benefit them- however would this constitute a social faux pas? Or would that be dependent on the state if wider society, the availability of housing elsewhere, et cetera.
  • Moth and Irviding like this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#55

Posted 22 June 2015 - 08:29 AM Edited by Irviding, 22 June 2015 - 08:34 AM.

Read through some of the links, srs. I have questions -

1. Why can't people work harder for more stuff? These systems remove any incentive for people to work extra hard, go to school more, in fact it seems like the end goal is living like they did in the beginning of interstellar sans the food shortage. Everyone's a farmer.

2. What do you do when basic human nature gets involved, i.e. corruption... I said in the other thread, everyone loses their yacht but the people on the 'committee' and their friends

3. What do you do about external actors? If South America entirely decides to do your system and 5 years later they are cooperative communes what stops the rest of the world from rolling in and taking over and enslaving everybody?

4.What about crime? Murder, theft, will never go away. You can't legislate away that like you can drug crime.

5. What stuff gets taken vs what gets kept? Can I keep my iPhone or do I need to get a 2008 era RAZR? Does the guy on the committee and the girls he's banging get to keep theirs?
I see all 5 of those as irreconcilable.. Especially 1.
  • Moth and GTA_stu like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#56

Posted 22 June 2015 - 08:34 AM

I am not trying to pretend that our society is the perfect society.  I am just saying that most people living in our society wouldn't be keen on living in an anarchist utopia, because of the uncertainties.  Humans mistrust humans, and they certainly don't believe other humans would uphold their end of the bargain in this society, creating a disincentive for them to uphold their own.  Even if merely a hunch.

Ignore the readings in the OP, reading about the nuances of anarchist law and order won't convince you. I'd suggest you read George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, it's a first hand account of his going to Spain to fight for the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War. He talks about the sense of community and brotherhood everybody had. Military officers and managers becoming extremely angry at being called 'señor' and launching into a rant about how such terms are meaningless in the new world that was being forged. I don't know where this apparently inherent mistrust of each other was when they were calling each other comrade, kicking the rich out of their mansions to turn them into schools, painting every visible surface red and black, plastering the streets with revolutionary slogans and signing up to die together in trenches to preserve the revolution. 

 

 

 

Trust me, people around here certainly don't want any fundamental change.

The Nordic countries are nice places to live, but they aren't ideal and get more right-wing each year. The Nordic countries with the exception of Norway will be indistinguishable from the US in ten years.  There are neo-nazis running around. 


Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#57

Posted 22 June 2015 - 08:37 AM Edited by Irviding, 22 June 2015 - 08:41 AM.

e talks about the sense of community and brotherhood everybody had. Military officers and managers becoming extremely angry at being called 'señor' and launching into a rant about how such terms are meaningless in the new world that was being forged. I don't know where this apparently inherent mistrust of each other was when they were calling each other comrade, kicking the rich out of their mansions to turn them into schools, painting every visible surface red and black, plastering the streets with revolutionary slogans and signing up to die together in trenches to preserve the revolution


And that turned out so well for the anarchists didn't it? That may sound snide but seriously, where is an example of a vast society saying eh f*ck it lets be anarchist and it, well, working?

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#58

Posted 22 June 2015 - 08:47 AM Edited by Svip, 22 June 2015 - 08:52 AM.


Trust me, people around here certainly don't want any fundamental change.

The Nordic countries are nice places to live, but they aren't ideal and get more right-wing each year. The Nordic countries with the exception of Norway will be indistinguishable from the US in ten years.  There are neo-nazis running around. 

 

 

I'm sorry, Norway?  The one with the anti-immigration right-wing Fremskrittspartiet in the government?  They are comparable to Perussuomalaiset in Finland, Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden, Dansk Folkeparti in Denmark, but also Partij voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands, Front National in France and United Kingdom Independence Party in the United Kingdom.

 

Your analysis of the Nordic countries is also missing an important factor.  I will here focus on Denmark, as we just had an election, for my argument.  While Dansk Folkeparti became the second largest party, the far-left party Enhedslisten became the fourth largest party in parliament.  The two old large parties, Socialdemokraterne and Venstre became the largest and the third largest, respectively.  The fact that the far-left is moving forward should also be a counter-argument against the countries becoming more far-right.

 

In addition, Dansk Folkeparti may be most famous abroad for its anti-immigration stance, but they also believe in a strong welfare state like most of the left-wing parties, and therefore cooperate a lot with the left-wing parties on numerous issues, because it's basically immigration where they disagree.  This also proofs that the left-right political scale is problematic to associate parties with.  The same is the case for parties that Dansk Folkeparti is comparable with in other Nordic countries (I don't know enough about those outside the Nordic countries to make this comparison).

 

Also, while there are definitely Neo-Nazis in Sverigedemokraterna and Perussuomalaiset, they are not a majority of either party, and they are virtually non-existing in Dansk Folkeparti (because they throw out Neo-Nazis, so the party Danskernes Parti had to be founded for the Neo-Nazis; a party without any influence).  Moreover, Sweden is far more resilient to this and Sverigedemokraterna and Perussuomalaiset are both trying hard to clean up their act.

 

(I should also point out that Dansk Folkeparti frown upon the comparisons I make, because they don't consider themselves to be based in Neo-Nazism (which a lot of these parties are, but Dansk Folkeparti is not), so much that they don't want to form an international coalition with a lot of these parties.)


Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#59

Posted 22 June 2015 - 09:02 AM

1. Why can't people work harder for more stuff? These systems remove any incentive for people to work extra hard, go to school more, in fact it seems like the end goal is living like they did in the beginning of interstellar sans the food shortage. Everyone's a farmer.

People enjoy their work. If your only reason for leaving the house is to get something in return, you may as well stay in bed. Should there be a limit on how much you consume? Probably, yeah. If I get a shiny new jacket I shouldn't be picking up a flatscreen TV that same week. So if you want a little more stuff than I guess you can do a little bit more work. Seems fair. 

 

The idea is that everyone should have their skill, ie you're doctor or a mechanic or something, and both jobs are viewed as equally valuable. The highest and lowest tier positions should be abolished and divided up equally amongst the population. ie, everyone sits in parliament at one point for a few weeks, everyone spends a few days out of the year driving street sweepers and digging ditches. The military and the police should operate the same way- everyone's a member, and there's a minimum and maximum amount of time you can serve. 

 

 

 

 What do you do when basic human nature gets involved, i.e. corruption... I said in the other thread, everyone loses their yacht but the people on the 'committee' and their friends [...]What stuff gets taken vs what gets kept? Can I keep my iPhone or do I need to get a 2008 era RAZR? Does the guy on the committee and the girls he's banging get to keep theirs?

What is this 'committee' you keep referring to? The idea is that sh*t that fits in your apartment is up for grabs. Nobody should own a yacht. I think all the boats at the marina should be collective property and you should have to schedule a turn. What's the point in me owning a boat that I don't use 340 days out of the year? 

 

 

 

What do you do about external actors? If South America entirely decides to do your system and 5 years later they are cooperative communes what stops the rest of the world from rolling in and taking over and enslaving everybody? 

What's stopping them from doing it now? Regardless, anarchism is internationalist. You don't stop the revolution at an arbitrary national border.

 

 

 

.What about crime? Murder, theft, will never go away. You can't legislate away that like you can drug crime. 

Why would someone steal if everything is free anyway? Who are you going to sell it to? I imagine theft would exist on a small scale where unique goods are concerned and probably always will, but it's not a huge consideration. If someone steals once write it down and let them go. If someone steals ten times, rehabilitate them. Murder of course will always exist, but just as with theft, these would be isolated acts rather than a societally enforced patterns of behaviour. If someone murders rehabilitate them. Keep some manner of courts, and a rehabilitation centre which is something like a prison. 

  • Tyler likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#60

Posted 22 June 2015 - 09:12 AM

 

e talks about the sense of community and brotherhood everybody had. Military officers and managers becoming extremely angry at being called 'señor' and launching into a rant about how such terms are meaningless in the new world that was being forged. I don't know where this apparently inherent mistrust of each other was when they were calling each other comrade, kicking the rich out of their mansions to turn them into schools, painting every visible surface red and black, plastering the streets with revolutionary slogans and signing up to die together in trenches to preserve the revolution


And that turned out so well for the anarchists didn't it? That may sound snide but seriously, where is an example of a vast society saying eh f*ck it lets be anarchist and it, well, working?

 

Catalonia worked fine as a society. The fact is that the Nazis, the Soviets and the British all put aside their differences in order to crush it. Your argument is essentially "the empire is all powerful and eternal, just accept it." 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users