Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. Los Santos Summer Special
      2. The Diamond Casino Heist
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Otter

Anarchy, Socialism, Communism, and community gardens

Recommended Posts

Clem Fandango

But if you had a fully working union system then those jobs won't be sorted by a "corporate elite". The idea that every business is somehow shaped by some elite corporate evildoers is just naive. Unions do provide that democratic decision making when they work correctly... it's called union elections, voting in leaders in the union that will fight to make sure the guy that packs out the frozen food section of the supermarket isn't also cleaning the bathroom

juglgkug I'm not talking about having a right not to have to clean the bathrooms. Have you been reading my responses? I'm saying managerial control and private ownership should be abolished, and that workplaces should be run democratically. What you're describing isn't economic democracy; having to rely on a union to fight managers so that butchers aren't forced to swap out the urinal cakes sounds pretty autocratic to me. I'm not satisfied that I can "elect someone to fight for me", I'd rather not live in a society where economic institutions are private controlled and my experience contributing to society is shaped by a certain class of people, with interests separate to my own.

 

 

 

What does this mean in reality? Not trying to be a dick, seriously, I don't get how the kid working the register in a supermarket is going to be able to realistically "Determine how the firm functions in aesthetic, ethical, and economic terms".

I've pretty much drawn you a picture. Workplaces should be democracies, it's pretty straightforward and banal and I've said it like a million times. Issues that affect workers shouldn't be dealt with in a quite office behind a locked door, workers should gather regularly to discuss and vote on policy.

 

 

 

I just don't get what you're proposing in reality. How should a company be ran? Anything, supermarket, electronics store, department store, whatever?

Depends. On option is, every car factory and mechanic's shop, for instance, is run by an 'auto worker's council' that meets regularly to decide policy, and is composed of every auto worker in the district. Or, each firm is controlled by a worker's council, composed of every worker at the shop. A 'firm' in this instance would be like, a building, and would probably be viewed the way a government office is now: as an arm of society's collective enterprise, rather than having any interests of its own.

Edited by Melchior
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Apart from the fact that working for a wage without having any ownership of or say in the company makes you a tool to those who do own and/or run the company, there's a political aspect to corporate democracy that is equally (maybe more) relevant. Big corporations are concentrations of vast amounts of wealth and power. Because corporations are top down tyrannies, the limited group of elites running and owning them have access to vast amounts of wealth and power to further their own interests.

So corporate democracy isn't just about self determination within the means of production and stopping exploitation and wage slavery, it is a key aspect to functioning democracy in general. As long as corporations remain elite led tyrannies and concentrations of wealth and power, it'll keep on sharply influencing politics, and turn it into 'the shadow of business cast over society', as John Dewey puts it. In the EU this influence is noticeable in the austerity programs in the recent years. In the US it is noticeable, in pretty much everything..

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

14 years ago today, Italian anarchist Carlo Giuliani was shot dead by police at the G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Carlo_Giuliani

 

We don't forgive, we don't forget. Carlo Vive! La lotta continua!

 

 

 

This notice served on the insane
Sections, condemns, reclaims.
This message commits those silent
To rise up, this time with violence
Make sure the more they kill, the stronger our will
To finally right your wrongs, one love, this song.
Yeah what's done is done, but you expect the same.
C.A.R.L.O. you will remember that name.

Edited by make total destroy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

Violently attacked 2 police officers and got what he deserved tbh.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

I am not against consumption--as much as I hate the 'human nature' argument, it certainly applies there--but against exploitation. That is, I'm opposed to wage labor and, subsequently, commodity production. Nearly all labor within the existing is premised on exploitation. That is, a worker sells their labor power in exchange for a wage lower than the value they produce. This difference is called 'surplus value'. So, for example a worker in Haiti makes $0.50/hour producing Levis jeans that sell for $60. At the end of an hour, the worker has produced 3 pairs of jeans for an overall value of $180, but only walks away with a tiny fraction of that. Of course, this is a more extreme, simplistic example, but it can be applied to any socially necessary labor.

 

Or, if you'd prefer an explanation in comic form...

it's not a difficult concept to follow.

and one I've acknowledged and accepted long ago.

 

but I'm still trying to figure out how anarchy would actually overcome this aspect of exploitation.

should traditional industries submit to collective ownership from the bottom up? would employees work for contracts instead of hourly pay? or should hourly pay simply be adjusted to actually reflect individual input versus profit? should executive positions be eliminated and chairman boards dissolved in favor of company-wide policy voting?

 

I don't need more cartoons or convincing about how the current system is broken.

but anarchy is ultimately a way of life, not just an economic or political model, and I don't even think that the world could handle it at this point. there are so many people who still need the structured comfort that our modern society provides in spite of its obvious flaws. from Boot Camp to Sunday School, I'm afraid that our collective consciousness is not yet mature enough for anarchy. you know what I mean? my real concern is that the next great revolution would only end up leaving us trapped under an even more dystopian and oppressive Artificial Aristocracy. I mean, we're basically already headed in that direction, wherein The Rich are a species unto themselves who enjoy a separate set of rules and laws in a secret world unavailable to the rest of us.

 

I have a hard time seeing how anarchy doesn't simply fall into the same trap after X number of generations.

as you say... it's still a part of our human nature.

 

i6rFw0u.jpg

 

capitalism had the best of intentions and it looked pretty spiffy until about the 1960's.

it's not like capitalism has been all-bad but it's become extremely unfair in its applications around the globe. after World War 2 we definitely began to take the successes of capitalism for granted, allowing the positive aspects of the system to be utterly corrupted by our human greed and personal egos, to the point at which the negatives became overwhelming and self-sustaining. somehow our political machine turned the notions of sharing and sacrifice into dirty words. who ruined who, exactly? did capitalism ruin democracy or did democracy ruin capitalism? wouldn't both still be tolerable if our will power and ethical fortitude were stronger? as people - as a society. but they're not. we're still awfully petty and immature.

 

I'm just not sure how we can hope to protect a system of anarchy from succumbing to the same fate.

I want to know what our options are, aside from zombie apocalypse...

Edited by El Diablo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

capitalism had the best of intentions and it looked pretty spiffy until about the 1960's.

Is this sarcasm? If not your view on Capitalism is worthless. Nobody defends pre-war Capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

Nobody defends pre-war Capitalism.

 

actually they do.

but within context.

 

I'm simply talking about the US and it's attempt at the New Deal during the post-war era.

while it was still injected with a mighty shot of socialism, we had much more equitable economy during that period. not perfect. not without room for improvement. but nothing like the rampant and unchecked deregulatory practices we see today. this was a comparison between today and yesteryear. I'm not defending pre-war Capitalism. if you would have read the entire post (you know, in context) you'll find that there's not a defense of what's broken but rather several acknowledgements of what doesn't work followed by several cases in which I asked for a counterexample of how Anarchy might hope to rectify the situation.

Edited by El Diablo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niobium

Tomorrow, I'm gonna post a 4 minute video that I've made on capitalism and how it contributes to inequality. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

Tomorrow, I'm gonna post a 4 minute video that I've made on capitalism and how it contributes to inequality. :)

Looking forward to it, Niobium!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niobium

its gonna be the dankest video ever

 

EDIT1: looks like my video will be at least 5 minutes :S

 

EDIT2: i'm done :D

 

http://youtu.be/r3FxNXq_RXM

 

Edited by Niobium
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

Nobody defends pre-war Capitalism.

 

actually they do.

but within context.

 

I'm simply talking about the US and it's attempt at the New Deal during the post-war era.

while it was still injected with a mighty shot of socialism, we had much more equitable economy during that period. not perfect. not without room for improvement. but nothing like the rampant and unchecked deregulatory practices we see today. this was a comparison between today and yesteryear. I'm not defending pre-war Capitalism. if you would have read the entire post (you know, in context) you'll find that there's not a defense of what's broken but rather several acknowledgements of what doesn't work followed by several cases in which I asked for a counterexample of how Anarchy might hope to rectify the situation.

 

Anyone up for responding to this? I am also very interested in how Anarchy might hope to rectify the situation.

 

Niobium, would you care to make a counter video to your Capitalism and Inequality about how Anarchy will create equality and happiness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niobium

 

 

Nobody defends pre-war Capitalism.

 

actually they do.

but within context.

 

I'm simply talking about the US and it's attempt at the New Deal during the post-war era.

while it was still injected with a mighty shot of socialism, we had much more equitable economy during that period. not perfect. not without room for improvement. but nothing like the rampant and unchecked deregulatory practices we see today. this was a comparison between today and yesteryear. I'm not defending pre-war Capitalism. if you would have read the entire post (you know, in context) you'll find that there's not a defense of what's broken but rather several acknowledgements of what doesn't work followed by several cases in which I asked for a counterexample of how Anarchy might hope to rectify the situation.

 

Anyone up for responding to this? I am also very interested in how Anarchy might hope to rectify the situation.

 

Niobium, would you care to make a counter video to your Capitalism and Inequality about how Anarchy will create equality and happiness?

 

 

Actually, there is a great video that examines what an anarchist society might be like. The maker of the video is far better at making videos than I am anyway :S

 

 

 

(When he talks about libertarian socialism, just know that it is synonymous with anarchism.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

Anyone up for responding to this? I am also very interested in how Anarchy might hope to rectify the situation.

 

 

Niobium, would you care to make a counter video to your Capitalism and Inequality about how Anarchy will create equality and happiness?

 

Well, to be totally clear, the actual model practiced would be socialism, maybe communism one day. Anarchists and communists have pretty much the same goal (full communism), but different ideas as to how to achieve this goal. Since, really, what we're dealing with here is socialism, regardless of which school of thought each one of us personally subscribes to, I'll just discuss the actual model and leave the technicalities aside.

 

Socialism deals principally with collectivization, common ownership of the means of production, wealth redistribution and the emancipation of the working class, so as to allot workers the proper value of their labour and whatnot. You can't really guarantee "happiness" per se, insofar as it isn't really a constant state of mind, nor can it be solely secured on a political level, since it's an individual experience on many levels. But if you're talking about general well-being or prosperity, there are a couple of ways to do this. It's worth noting that many criminal actions can, in fact, be traced back to cultural and environmental factors. Wealth disparity, institutionalized racism, sexism and class antagonisms will always generate "criminal" action. Most people do not turn to crime because they find enjoyment in it, but because they are born into poverty and are marginalized and given a drawback from the start, more so if they are ethnic minorities. Crime would drastically decrease in an anarchist, or indeed any kind of socialist, society because most of its causes would be eradicated or mitigated. Again, this stuff has been quite thoroughly theorized for the past 150 years or so, even if most far-left analysts were more interested in offering a comprehensive critique of capitalism than idealizing communist societies (no biggie, though, because we do have real life examples; more on that in a bit). The fact that we may not have a fully prepared model is hardly relevant to a critique of capitalism as a whole. If we wish to evolve from capitalism, acknowledgement of its flaws is necessary, along with class consciousness and self-awareness.

 

Capitalism has only existed for a couple of centuries and it doesn't have, nor has it ever had, "the best intentions". Capitalism is premised on the exploitation of man by man, the dehumanization of the worker, and what is essentially wage slavery (purportedly voluntary) with a single goal: profit. Money, money, money. But hey, it sure helped produce a ton of useless shiny gadgets! Of course I'm being facetious here and overly simplistic, but this part has already been discussed in previous posts, so it would be redundant to go over it again.

 

As for the "MUH HUMAN NATURE—GOOD ON PAPER" crowd (and this is not aimed at you, Tchuck—your posts show genuine interest), there's a lot to be learned from abandoning sh*tty slogans and actually looking for facts:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arden,_Delaware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Aragon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Korea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Community_Farm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Zapatista_Autonomous_Municipalities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Oaks_Community,_Virginia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumbullplex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeland,_Washington

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Community_of_Modern_Times

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Colony

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home,_Washington

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stapleton_Colony

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia,_Ohio#Second_settlement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Chwa-chin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinaleda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

 

The fact is that anarchy, socialism and free association have existed in human behaviour since the beginning, so the "human nature" argument is both fallacious and untrue.

Edited by Black_MiD
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

For everyone's sanity let's please avoid rhetoric such as 'muh human nature', thanks.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

The fact is that anarchy, socialism and free association have existed in human behaviour since the beginning, so the "human nature" argument is both fallacious and untrue.

k...

 

well the fact also is that anarchy and/or socialism have yet to coalesce their concepts into a more tangible and lasting structure. they have yet to create a real foundation in the world. anarchy has faced (and will face) the same challenges that any preexisting or newly formed system is subject to. just because anarchy has been around "since the beginning" that doesn't make it impervious to the immense faults of human nature... you can't magically discount this aspect of the argument. you might be able to trace anarchy back pretty far, but nature has been working her magic long before there were economic theories or social models.

 

as we begin to converge on what functional anarchy might look like, I don't know why it's unfair to raise the question.

how does anarchy hope to avoid or simply alleviate the human follies which seem to undermine almost every effort we make at constructing a better society? over time, how would it be any different? the same old issues of equity and power sharing come into play as they have in every culture to date. we're still so immature as a species, I'm not sure why it's unfair to ask if we're 'ready' for anarchy just yet.

Edited by El Diablo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

how does anarchy hope to avoid or simply alleviate the human follies which seem to undermine almost every effort we make at constructing a better society?

Coercive institutions aren't natural 'human follies' they're specifically constructed for the benefit of those that control them. The failure of the Spanish Revolution is a reflection on the authoritarian systems that surrounded Spain, not on humanity generally.

 

Anarchism doesn't have to resist human nature, it is human nature. That's why vertically organised society's built on free association are the norm; it's the system humans from Greenland to Australia utilised for tens of thousands of years, and it's the kind that isolated humans tend towards.

 

 

 

you might be able to trace anarchy back pretty far, but nature has been working her magic long before there were economic theories or social models.

You didn't read the link. 'Primitive Communism' doesn't refer to an approximation of Communism occasionally found in tribal societies. The idea is that tribes are Communist, and that human beings naturally organise themselves along Socialist lines before/unless class societies develop.

 

 

 

well the fact also is that anarchy and/or socialism have yet to coalesce their concepts into a more tangible and lasting structure. they have yet to create a real foundation in the world.

This isn't true. How many explicitly anarchist societies need to be created before people will drop 'talk is cheap' argument?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

how does anarchy hope to avoid or simply alleviate the human follies which seem to undermine almost every effort we make at constructing a better society? over time, how would it be any different? the same old issues of equity and power sharing come into play as they have in every culture to date. we're still so immature as a species, I'm not sure why it's unfair to ask if we're 'ready' for anarchy just yet.

 

You have a choice. You can support negative views of human nature and support the current society based on fear, authoritarianism, class and exploitation etc.. Which will most likely lead to the destruction of the species through environmental disaster or nuclear catastrophe. Or you can make an effort based on an ideal of a positive sense of human nature, which is not guaranteed to succeed, but it is the only hope we have as a species.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

k...

 

well the fact also is that anarchy and/or socialism have yet to coalesce their concepts into a more tangible and lasting structure. they have yet to create a real foundation in the world.

Hmm, not really:

 

 

The downfall of most of those, like Melchior pointed out, had hardly anything to do with human nature. In the case of Revolutionary Catalonia it was actively crushed by fascist forces, along with the USSR (which was supposed to be supporting it). The others, especially the American anarchist communities, were mostly annexed and incorporated into the larger urban spaces, but some are still active to this day. The Shinmin autonomous region is thought to have sheltered an estimated 2 million people. These are absolutely tangible structures and real foundations. There's just no denying history. As soon as we can abandon the popular but erroneous notion that socialism, anarchy and self-management are some unreal, utopian systems dreamed up by ideologues and idealists, then we can start looking at how to actually implement socialism and go on from there. And it's worth mentioning again that this argument is a fallacy (appeal to nature), so it can be dismissed right away anyhow. We address it because it's a popular counter and it's worth shedding light on it. The fact that it's also wrong is beside the point.

 

just because anarchy has been around "since the beginning" that doesn't make it impervious to the immense faults of human nature... you can't magically discount this aspect of the argument. you might be able to trace anarchy back pretty far, but nature has been working her magic long before there were economic theories or social models.

Anarchy is a political expression of human nature. The modern political theory of anarchism was only developed in the 19th Century or thereabouts, but the actual form of cooperation and socialism it encompasses has a very long history. Much longer than capitalism or authoritarianism, for instance. We know it's not impossible; the real question is how to get there (full communism) from what we have right now, and there a couple of different thoughts as to how this could be done (anarchism, Marxist communism, syndicalism etc.), but they're all fundamentally socialist. If you give the article on primitive communism a closer read, you'll see that the notion is that tribal subsistence relies on a communal lifestyle, as it has been since their inception. I struggle to see how actual human nature, as much as I hate that type of argument, can be used as anything other than a point in support of socialism.

 

To wrap this post up—I tend to write verbose posts, sorry—, we have a fairly good plan on how this could work, but of course nothing can be 100% guaranteed. Hell, even the greatest far-left theorists didn't have a fully sketched out blueprint of an ideal socialist society. And of course, even among us leftists (MTD, Tyler, Mel, Eutyphro, Niobium, Lochie, me etc.) you'll find different ideas, since we're not intellectual doppelgangers, but essentially we all stand for socialism. It's not unfair or inappropriate at all to ask how it would work; in fact, I think it's a wonderful question and that it deserves attention. There's been 150+ years of theory on these systems, so we do have guidelines or a compass, as it were. It's all worth checking out, and I'm afraid I couldn't do it justice by presenting a rough summary, but the actual principles of socialism are well understood, some even practiced, and ultimately, that's what we should focus on.

 

"We don't have to choose between socialist regimes that have been perverted or capitalist regimes that were born perverted, but between the humane system that socialism can be and the inhumane system that capitalism has always been"

—José Saramago

 

 

once again, sorry if this post was confusing, unclear or just long-winded, and feel free to point out anything that I may have overlooked (I'm sure there were aspects I missed) :)

 

Edited by Black_MiD
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBH

Spanish anarchists were being propped up financially by the republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niobium

The only reason previous anarchist societies have fallen is because they were crushed by external forces, ie the state. They did not collapse from within.

 

TBH I do not believe in "human nature". Humans only behave a certain way because of their surroundings, environment, upbringing, and many other factors that shape their beliefs. If authoritarianism is "human nature", then so is anarchy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

Spanish anarchists were being propped up financially by the republic.

So were the Trotskyists and the Stalinists.

 

What's your point?

 

I mean, I don't think Stalinists shooting leftists dead in the street really helped the progression of the social revolution in Spain.

Edited by make total destroy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBH

Don't you see the contradiction in "statelessness" that requires a state?

 

The earth is a perpetual motion machine! Please ignore the star providing it energy.

Edited by CBH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

Don't you see the contradiction in "statelessness" that requires a state?

 

That's f*cking rich coming from a Stalinist.

It's almost as if you aren't interested in building actual motherf*cking communism. Oh, wait.

 

I see no contradiction in the anarchists accepting weapons and aid from the Republicans--although, much of their war effort would eventually be self-sustained--when said weapons were often turned on Republican forces--and more importantly, Stalinists--anyway. Besides, sacrifices had to be made to defeat fascism and defend the revolution in Spain.

 

Your logic is nearly identical to the people who argue that anti-capitalists are hyporcrites for not living in a hunter-gatherer/nudist colony in some wooded area or w/e.

Edited by make total destroy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBH

So you're saying that the spanish anarchists compromised their defining principle by doing something contrary to setting up immediate communism, but it's okay, because they needed to.

 

But the Soviet Union doing something contrary to setting up immediate communism is bad, even though they also needed to.

 

Makes sense.

 

 

 

Also, what's "rich" about me saying this as a "stalinist"? The Marxist-Leninist path puts state socialism as an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. Everybody knows this, so it's not in any way hypocritical to mock anarchists for proclaiming they want an immediate transition to statelessness but in reality only "succeeding" by being looked after by a state. Your "successful anarchists" survived by abandoning the key principle that separates anarchism from actually working socialism, because it was utterly unfeasible, and that's hilarious.

 

 

Really the Spanish anarchists are the death knell for your branch of leftism. If you have to abandon your ideology's defining point when under threat, because it makes you incapable of surviving, then it's a non-viable ideology.

Edited by CBH
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jatiger13

The only reason previous anarchist societies have fallen is because they were crushed by external forces, ie the state. They did not collapse from within.

 

 

Honest question.

How would you prevent that from happening again? Aren't governments just going to crush any uprising to begin with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

Coercive institutions aren't natural 'human follies' they're specifically constructed for the benefit of those that control them.

 

Anarchism doesn't have to resist human nature, it is human nature. That's why vertically organised society's built on free association are the norm; it's the system humans from Greenland to Australia utilised for tens of thousands of years, and it's the kind that isolated humans tend towards.

you're missing the point of my query.

I'm not talking about institutions. I'm talking about human nature; greed, power, petty ego, etc. these are the things that corrupt almost every well-intentioned system we have come up with to date.

 

over time, I don't really understand how anarchy hopes to avoid that pitfall.

people will rise to the top of any system and begin attempting to consolidate their influence. this is our nature. this isn't Capitalism. it's Humanism. and so aside from discussing the economic applications of anarchy, I'd like to know how anarchy could possibly hope to shield itself from these pitfalls. it's by no means immune.

 

How many explicitly anarchist societies need to be created before people will drop 'talk is cheap' argument?

and how many of these 'anarchist societies' are flourishing in 2015?

and how many of these 'anarchist societies' support more than a few thousands of people at the most?

 

examples we have of anarchy to date are small and short-lived.

it doesn't mean it was anarchy's fault, none the less that's the reality.

 

Or you can make an effort based on an ideal of a positive sense of human nature, which is not guaranteed to succeed, but it is the only hope we have as a species.

but it's not up to me.

human nature is human nature whether you and I agree with it or not.

 

petty. egotistical. jealous. greedy. power hungry.

we haven't exactly eliminated these aspects of our personality from the human race and so any system of government or economics or rule of law or cultural mores will have to deal with this nature.... whether it likes it or not.

 

I'd love to take the positive view that we can make anything happen if only we would just shoot for the Moon! but you know what it actually took for us to get to the Moon? yeah, a nuclear arms race. I'd love to believe in the best aspects of humanity but humanity makes it difficult to keep too much faith.

 

Hmm, not really:

 

 

yes.

really.

 

I'm not saying there haven't been great attempts.

I'm saying look at what's happened during each attempt. they don't seem to make it any further than a flash in the pan. I understand that they didn't fail on their own merits but were stomped out by competing forces. that being said, it doesn't change the fact that they were stomped out and haven't managed to thrive.

 

aren't you going to have to deal with that at some point??

 

 

And it's worth mentioning again that this argument is a fallacy (appeal to nature), so it can be dismissed right away anyhow. We address it because it's a popular counter and it's worth shedding light on it. The fact that it's also wrong is beside the point.

it's not a fallacy just because you say "it is a fallacy."

that's a logical fallacy. that's how The Bible works but it doesn't make for great debate.

 

I'm sorry to break it to you, but you and Melchior and crowd have not disproven the human nature argument which is very real and very much a challenge to almost any system you'd like to argue. humans are naturally curious hyper social animals still more closely related to our Chimpanzee behavior than that of transcendent intellectual beings.

 

we are petty and jealous and greedy (in general) no matter how much you'd hate to admit it. this what we are. this is what we have to deal with in reality. you can't ignore it just because you can't think of a good counterpoint...

 

even among us leftists (MTD, Tyler, Mel, Eutyphro, Niobium, Lochie, me etc.)

I don't understand this either.

is everyone else a 'Rightist' just because they don't yet see eye-to-eye with anarchy?

 

I couldn't be less conservative if I was a fat old white man riding an elephant.

the Left side of the spectrum is pretty textured, last time I checked. it doesn't just bend into anarchy and disappear.

 

Humans only behave a certain way because of their surroundings, environment, upbringing, and many other factors that shape their beliefs. If authoritarianism is "human nature", then so is anarchy.

this is such nonsense.

 

humans are not a liquid.

they don't automatically conform perfectly to whatever glass you pour them in. this is not about systems, this is about people. people will be corrupt and petty wherever you place them. not everyone, and not all of the time, but most people are just shallow. this is life in the 21st century. we're still young as species are concerned.

 

human nature exists whether you believe in it or not.

I almost can't believe I'm having to remind anyone of this in D&D of all places.

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz
but it's not up to me.

 

human nature is human nature whether you and I agree with it or not.

 

petty. egotistical. jealous. greedy. power hungry.

we haven't exactly eliminated these aspects of our personality from the human race and so any system of government or economics or rule of law or cultural mores will have to deal with this nature.... whether it likes it or not.

I see... and where is the anthropological proof that these qualities are inherent, then? Quite obviously, these stem from the sociocultural factors in which an individual is raised. Hundreds of years ago, despotic monarchic regimes were thought of as natural. Why? Because individuals were born into a culture that perpetuated that notion and even went as far as to theorize it and appeal to nature (see the coincidence here?) or divinity in order to support it.

 

really.

 

I'm not saying there haven't been great attempts.

I'm saying look at what's happened during each attempt. they don't seem to make it any further than a flash in the pan. I understand that they didn't fail on their own merits but were stomped out by competing forces. that being said, it doesn't change the fact that they were stomped out and haven't managed to thrive.

 

aren't you going to have to deal with that at some point??

Actually, you did say they had yet to create "tangible structures", so you're wrong in that respect. If they didn't fail on their merits, then the point is irrelevant as a critique of the system they followed. And not all of those communities have fallen. Christiania is going quite well and the Zapatistas are still active (there are more examples, but those are two most famous ones).

 

it's not a fallacy just because you say "it is a fallacy."

that's a logical fallacy. that's how The Bible works but it doesn't make for great debate.

You're right: it isn't a fallacy because I say so; it's a fallacy because it's recognized as such by in debate and because an application of it to other behaviors will quickly reveal that appeals to nature are counterproductive and fallacious.

 

I'm sorry to break it to you, but you and Melchior and crowd have not disproven the human nature argument which is very real and very much a challenge to almost any system you'd like to argue

It's not up to us to disprove it. It's up to you to prove that humans are inherently greedy, regardless of the system and culture they're raised in (honestly, you'd have to contradict the work of every single anthropologist and sociologist out there to prove that). And you'd also have to deny history, because as I have pointed out before, we have actual examples of how isolated humans gravitate towards socialism, primitive communism, tribes that live in communal lifestyles etc.

 

is everyone else a 'Rightist' just because they don't yet see eye-to-eye with anarchy?

 

I couldn't be less conservative if I was a fat old white man riding an elephant.

since when is the Left the sole domain of anarchy??

That's obviously not what I meant. No, the left is not the sole domain of anarchism (I'm not even an anarchist myself, funnily enough), I meant far-leftists, of course. Sorry for not clarifying, though; you're right to point it out.

 

this is such nonsense.

 

 

humans are not a liquid.

they don't automatically conform perfectly to whatever glass you pour them in. this is not about systems, this is about people. people will be corrupt and petty wherever you place them. not everyone, and not all of the time, but most people are just shallow. this is life in the 21st century. we're still young as species are concerned.

Once again, the impact of sociocultural environment and its factors on an individual is well understood and it's amazing to me that anyone would try to deny it. The mere facts that our cultural paradigms have shifted throughout history and that there are different ideas in different cultures as to what constitutes morally sound behavior, for example, are indicative of this. I'm still waiting for proof of the inherent greed of mankind as well as the complete refutation of everything that has been achieved in the fields of anthropology and sociology so far...

 

But you know what, let's grant that proposition and consider the possibility that humans really are inherently greedy, corrupt etc. Well, it's not of much use as an argument when you consider that we have devised various measures of mitigating behaviors like murder, theft, rape, violence, which, according to you, are natural as well. So, if we're naturally and admittedly "bad" for whatever reason, why would we conform to a system that accommodates that kind of thing when we have explicitly developed countermeasures to combat other recognizably bad (but just as natural) behaviors? If anything, that would still be a reason to pursue a fairer system and try to correct that side of our nature, just as we have with many other behaviors.

 

human nature exists whether you believe in it or not.

Of course it does. It simply refers to the instinctive behaviors or basic emotions shared by most humans. There's no indication of greed or a tendency towards murder or theft in it. It's painfully obvious that most criminal behavior can be traced back to cultural factors—nobody would steal things they have a right to anyway... what would be the point? Sure, small theft will probably always exist, but the idea that people who just happen to be marginalized or born into poverty and given a drawback from the start turn to crime because of any innate factors is just poor observation.

Edited by Black_MiD
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

Or you can make an effort based on an ideal of a positive sense of human nature, which is not guaranteed to succeed, but it is the only hope we have as a species.

 

but it's not up to me.

human nature is human nature whether you and I agree with it or not.

 

petty. egotistical. jealous. greedy. power hungry.

we haven't exactly eliminated these aspects of our personality from the human race and so any system of government or economics or rule of law or cultural mores will have to deal with this nature.... whether it likes it or not.

 

I'd love to take the positive view that we can make anything happen if only we would just shoot for the Moon! but you know what it actually took for us to get to the Moon? yeah, a nuclear arms race. I'd love to believe in the best aspects of humanity but humanity makes it difficult to keep too much faith.

If you have proof that people are predetermined by their nature to be "petty, egotistical, jealous, greedy and power hungry" within any given context, please show me the science, or how it is even consistent with the occurrences of people being caring, showing solidarity etc.. like people have done over and over throughout history, often in conflict with their self interest.

 

People display behaviours depending on a certain social and cultural context. Our negative nature comes out in a social context based on "fear, authoritarianism, class and exploitation" which I mentioned.. because these negative parts of our nature are survival mechanisms when we are threatened, unfree, oppressed, exploited and frightened. But in general, selfishness and hedonism are values nurtured by capitalism. People would be able to show a nature consisting of care, solidarity, freedom and democracy within a non authoritarian, non exploitative social and cultural context.

 

I agree that human nature exists. Human beings have specific cognitive abilities distinct from those of other animals, which is why a cat doesn't learn english with the same stimuli as a human baby does, but that is besides the point. What I mean by human nature within the discussion we are having, is the range of behaviours human beings can display depending on different social and cultural context.

 

It is obvious that human beings are able to be opportunists and egoists just like all other creatures are. But if we keep on basing our society on those values, we will destroy our species due to nuclear catastrophe and/or environmental disaster.. We can make an effort to pursue the values which are essential to our survival and pursue the positive aspects within our nature. It is unclear whether this can be achieved on a scale big enough and whether it can be sustained. It is unclear whether it is possible to save the species by forming new societies based on the possibility that human beings can bring in effect the positive side of their nature, but it is the only hope for the species.

Edited by Eutyphro
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Sorry to drag this into hypothetical pedantries, but I'm currently riding the NyQuil Unicorn and feeling thinky.

 

What about familial hierarchies? How does the anarchist reconcile a parent telling their child to, say, take piano lessons, or work harder (or stay!) in school? Surely the line is murky here, and surely these learned hierarchies will leave lasting impressions into adulthood.

 

And furthermore, there is the issue of numbers; surely a group of 100 will exert authority over a group of 10, if, say, the group of ten wish to do something the 100 are not comfortable with. How then do we eliminate the oppression of the minority (be it race, gender, or simple difference of opinion)? And I realize that, in an anarchic state, there will be few rules dictating who can do what, but there will always be common resources to amicably manage or projects that require direction.

 

Am I taking the anti-hierarchy too much at face value here?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

I need to dump something here on Otter's backend (nohomo).

Black_MiD and myself were having a word behind the scenes about this topic and I feel the need to share a portion of it here in public. not because there was anything unpleasant, but my reply to him might explain where I'm coming from up in this bitch...

 

 

 

the reason I keep going back to concepts that I believe would challenge anarchy is not because I'm opposed to anarchy at all; much to the contrary. but it's the way I was taught to debate, like in high school, one of my best friends and I joined the debate team together after our first government/ethics class. ugh this was years ago.

 

you're basically taught two major options.

- come down forcefully with superior opposing logic and reasoning, crushing the integrity of the other side

- challenge the very foundation of the other side thereby attempting to expose cracks in their integrity

 

well, I already agree that capitalism sucks a dick and has gone totally awry.

I'd rather not defend it. I can't find superior opposing logic within it. anarchy wins on paper.

 

so I'm left with challenging anarchy instead. off the paper.

at this point, the most potent tools at my disposal are human history and human nature. and I call them 'tools' not 'weapons,' because my aim isn't to defeat you or MTD or Melch, but to learn more about the subject itself through listening you guys try and defend it.

 

this really helps me to explore a topic that I know less about than I'd like to.

trust me, if there was an Anarchy 101 in college, I would've taken it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.