It is impractical,l yes. If it was successful it would take away all services provided by the government. No insurance, banks,... Police would disappear, hospitals would disappear, because the employees are on the paycheck of the government.
I, for one would love to be an anarchist, for a short while, it would be a great way to protest. Belgium hasn't got a government right now, the Flemish and the French Belgians can't agree with each other and that's the reason Belgium hasn't got a government, and that's been dragging on for more than a year. (I think at least over 2 now) So, Anarchy as a way to protest may get those politicians to come together and and start agreeing. The Anarchy on the streets will force them to agree.
Simple ideas about people usually fail because people are complicated and unpredictable. Anarchism means many different things, but if you mean it as a way for a society to work through mutual co-operation without centralised authority, I think that is pretty unlikely to work because of human nature. Other forms of anarchy to the best of my knowledge would be even worse for people in general, so I am against anarchism.
Scrazza wrote:So, what are your views on Anarchism?
Goes something along the lines of "Stay away from me"
While I might complain about some specifics, I like my government protection thank you very much. Having absolutely none would not be a life I would WANT to live in comparison to the one I have right now.
Scrazza: What you describe (Disatisfaction with government and the desire to engage in violent activity to "get them to listen to you") comes across to me as "I'm politically immature and want to throw my toys out of the pram and set fire to other people's stuff rather than negotiate!"
Da Boss wrote:Scrazza: What you describe (Disatisfaction with government and the desire to engage in violent activity to "get them to listen to you") comes across to me as "I'm politically immature and want to throw my toys out of the pram and set fire to other people's stuff rather than negotiate!"
No. I have no intention to be violent about it. If people would just renounce authority for a short time, The politicians would eventually HAVE to agree, and coordinate something to get back some authority on the people. So, basically, I meant to go on a 'peacefull anarchist way'. I have no intention to get people to act like animals and go like "Hey, there, cops, lets kill 'em!". I just want it to be a 'wake-up call' to the politicians to start working on a government.
Not as immature, but how would you protest? Refuse to pay taxes? Ignore road signs?
Geniune interest, I can't see how a peaceful protest against political inaction is particularly anarchist- sounds pretty democratic to me, really!
(I feel your pain though- I was really shocked to read about the situation!)
Anarchy as in a system (or lack there of) by which to "run" a peaceful utopian society...I don't see it happening.
Anarchy as a by product of Nihilism...perhaps,but then it simply leads to a system in which the strongest rule.
Not as immature, but how would you protest? Refuse to pay taxes? Ignore road signs? Geniune interest, I can't see how a peaceful protest against political inaction is particularly anarchist- sounds pretty democratic to me, really! (I feel your pain though- I was really shocked to read about the situation!)
Well, refuse to pay taxes would be one way. and just don't do what authority tells you. True, it would form dissorder, but it will reinforce my ideas that the politicians of the two communities will have to work together to get rid of the anarchy. The politicians do not want this, and will speed up their negotiations. A temporary gorvernment will be formed, that could be the base of the new and, maybe, succesfull Belgian government.
also true, one cannot controll the masses of anarchists, so it would be likely that there will be violence. But I do not want to achieve violence with my idea.
Scrazza wrote: The Anarchy on the streets will force them to agree.
Or shoot you, if you are of insufficient number, and lacking in popular sentiment
now, see, violence CAN NOT be crossed out with Anarchy. But, as I said above, one cannot control it. If some radicals are willing to lay down there lives for it, so be it, their stupid idea. The anarchy on the streets will also lead to violence from other cultures, who have no intrest in Anarchism. More violence. The cops will shoot, yes. If you follow the news here in Belgium, you will learn that when a police officer shoots a civilian it will be looked down upon. That cop will lose his job, and will be hated by a lot of people. In Belgium, authority in the form of police can't really do anything against killings, they just clean up. Yes, the killer will be punished, and put into jail. If he's lucky, he will be out of prison in three to ten years. Completely different than in America I understand. The fact that police and justice hasn't got any real power in Belgium is a reason why I want a solid government.
A short, anarchy filled period, in a contained community would help a lot to 'force them to form a government.
And how can it be deomcratic? People will not listen to anyone with an amount of authority. People will just do what it needs to get their goals. My goal is the forming of a government.
What you really want Scrazza is passive resistance & civil disobedience, which while they might technically be anarchy, are still not full blown anarchy.
No, that's the point. Everyone else has answered from the POV of "If this is what you mean, then blah, but if you mean THIS, then blah blah."
You've then elaborated and clarrified your definition of anarchy to lead to a more useful discussion of what interests you.
Progress! It's not all about deforestation and genetically engineered super frogs you know.
Da Boss wrote:No, that's the point. Everyone else has answered from the POV of "If this is what you mean, then blah, but if you mean THIS, then blah blah."
You've then elaborated and clarrified your definition of anarchy to lead to a more useful discussion of what interests you.
Progress! It's not all about deforestation and genetically engineered super frogs you know.
ah.
and to show you guys what one my problems is with the Belgium 'government in the making, I provided a video of the much debated druk minister, speeching. A drunk minister.
this dates from jaunuary 2010, but the problems he 'describes', and how he wants to solve them still linger on. Please watch till the end, and laugh at Belgiums rediculous state. (subtitles are in there)
Scrazza wrote: If people would just renounce authority for a short time, The politicians would eventually HAVE to agree, and coordinate something to get back some authority on the people. So, basically, I meant to go on a 'peacefull anarchist way'.
Have fun accomplishing that without instituting some form of authority.
Scrazza wrote:
Does that still sound immature to you?
Ah, Anarchy: The anthem of the angsty fourteen year old. Hobbes referred to the state of being without government as the 'state of nature'. He proclaimed it to be nasty, brutish and short. Though I despise my government in it's present form, absolute absence of rule is just outright stupid and childish to desire. Where are the roads? Who's going to look at you if you got sick? What protects you from animals, or other people? How about while you're asleep? More importantly, what protects your precious anarchy? All I have to do is persuade one other person to help me, then all of a sudden I'm twice as powerful as you. Anarchy just went out the window, because I have a following and am building power. No, the only way we could ever maintain anarchy is if we had some sort of powerful force keeping it in that state. That would be fascism though.
No, I think I'll leave Anarchy to the guys in the Dead Kennedy's shirts with the electric blue mohawks, thank you very much.
Can't a 16 year old like me, start to be politically engaged without his ideas told to be immature?
And, like I said, it's just supposed to last a month if not shorter, so that the politicians will come to their senses. It's not meant as an outright revolt. Don't you guys read what's in here? I do not wish for copmlete absence of rule, I want it to be a message. and Daedalus, I have no fascist ideas running round in my head and am not as radical as the 'Dead Kennedy's ' you describe.
If it would last long, than there would just be gangs everywhere, claiming control. I do not advocate this, nor I want it, but is that fascist to you?
Self-organizing networks are more efficient. The fall of the Vanguardist USSR and the failure of all command economies shows the limitations of archist organization. There was a reason that both the fascists and communists cracked down on the anarchists in Spain, Germany, and Russia.
The fact is that we live in a hybrid archist/anarchist world is often over-looked. You want to see how anarchy looks? Look out the window, unless such an action is impossible without the express orders of your superior.
1 month of anarchy would be impossible to execute/organize. And when it's over, how are you going to get everybody to settle back down? What will you do with all the crimes committed, all the murders and thefts? And what effect will that have? Would it just make people like the government even more?
P.S. Spain has the coolest monarch. Sorry brits, but the Queen just doesn't hold a candle to Juan Carlos.
Scrazza wrote:Can't a 16 year old like me, start to be politically engaged without his ideas told to be immature?
That people called you out on it without you announcing your age is a sign that it might have been an immature idea. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone has immature ideas. The mature thing is to be able to recognize them afterwards.
And, like I said, it's just supposed to last a month if not shorter, so that the politicians will come to their senses. It's not meant as an outright revolt. Don't you guys read what's in here? I do not wish for copmlete absence of rule, I want it to be a message. and Daedalus, I have no fascist ideas running round in my head and am not as radical as the 'Dead Kennedy's ' you describe.
If it would last long, than there would just be gangs everywhere, claiming control. I do not advocate this, nor I want it, but is that fascist to you?
Okay, so then it's not complete absence of rule. As I understand, anarchy typically does not involve any order, absolute or limited. So lets flesh out your idea some more. In what ways do you wish for rule to be sustained? How do you expect people to comply? As the internet shows you, there are innumerable amounts of people out there who will get away with causing harm and grief simply because they can get away with it. If we just shout "anything goes for a month", they will be out in droves, rioting. People have done so for less reason.
Oh, and I wasn't necessarily insinuating that you were being fascist. I was simply observing that any attempts to maintain anarchy would degrade into such a state. Also, gang rule would actually not be anarchy, nor would it necessarily be fascism.
Also, for a solid illustration of what goes on when there is temporary anarchy until rule can be re-established, check out the French Revolution.
Amaya wrote:Anarchy would work if everyone was nice. Everyone is not nice. Humans, in large populations, can not function without some form of government.
Scrazza wrote:Can't a 16 year old like me, start to be politically engaged without his ideas told to be immature?
And, like I said, it's just supposed to last a month if not shorter, so that the politicians will come to their senses. It's not meant as an outright revolt. Don't you guys read what's in here? I do not wish for copmlete absence of rule, I want it to be a message. and Daedalus, I have no fascist ideas running round in my head and am not as radical as the 'Dead Kennedy's ' you describe.
If it would last long, than there would just be gangs everywhere, claiming control. I do not advocate this, nor I want it, but is that fascist to you?
If law and order breask down can I have your stuff. No really I want your stuff and I have a gun. Give it to me.
Do you like anarchy now?
Scrazza wrote:Can't a 16 year old like me, start to be politically engaged without his ideas told to be immature?
And, like I said, it's just supposed to last a month if not shorter, so that the politicians will come to their senses. It's not meant as an outright revolt. Don't you guys read what's in here? I do not wish for copmlete absence of rule, I want it to be a message. and Daedalus, I have no fascist ideas running round in my head and am not as radical as the 'Dead Kennedy's ' you describe.
If it would last long, than there would just be gangs everywhere, claiming control. I do not advocate this, nor I want it, but is that fascist to you?
If law and order breask down can I have your stuff. No really I want your stuff and I have a gun. Give it to me.
Do you like anarchy now?
Nice one Frazz.
As one of the many individuals who was in the area directly hit by Hurricane Katrina,I can assure you a complete lack of order is no day at the beach.
Nurglitch wrote:Laws work too, when people bother to obey them.
Laws do work very well most of the time and I am a supporter of democracy but my point was that both total anarchism and archism can both work fine given the right circumstances (survival being the only factor in thought and fascism respectively).
Nurglitch wrote:Laws work too, when people bother to obey them.
Laws do work very well most of the time and I am a supporter of democracy but my point was that both total anarchism and archism can both work fine given the right circumstances (survival being the only factor in thought and fascism respectively).
But isn't fascism the antithesis of anarchy? Its dictatorship.
Anarchy is disorganized grabbing of power by the strong. Fascism is organized grabbing of power by the strong. But at least Fascists keep the lights on.
Nurglitch wrote:Laws work too, when people bother to obey them.
Laws do work very well most of the time and I am a supporter of democracy but my point was that both total anarchism and archism can both work fine given the right circumstances (survival being the only factor in thought and fascism respectively).
But isn't fascism the antithesis of anarchy? Its dictatorship.
Anarchy is disorganized grabbing of power by the strong. Fascism is organized grabbing of power by the strong. But at least Fascists keep the lights on.
I don't see where total anarchy works for humans. Desacribing the movement of water in an unchanneled enviroment sure, but how on earth is anarchy ever good?
Nurglitch wrote:Monarchy is the grabbing of power by the strong.
Anarchy is the grabbing of power by everyone.
Incorrect. Only the strong will grab power in an anarchic (sp?) environment. The weak will die. The strong will get smelly, realize they've lost the ability to do that thing called farming and die too. Cochroaches take over the world.
Lets skip the middle man baby. I for one welcome our new multilegged overlords and vow to help them hunt down those evil Raid users and pronto!
Nurglitch wrote:Monarchy is the grabbing of power by the strong.
Anarchy is the grabbing of power by everyone.
Incorrect. Only the strong will grab power in an anarchic (sp?) environment. The weak will die. The strong will get smelly, realize they've lost the ability to do that thing called farming and die too. Cochroaches take over the world.
Lets skip the middle man baby. I for one welcome our new multilegged overlords and vow to help them hunt down those evil Raid users and pronto!
Strong doesn't have to mean physically powerful otherwise natural selection would straight up not work.
You could survive by having better night vision, being smarter or by simply the virtue of having better hunting grounds.
Scrazz, to comment on your thoughts, instead of the general topic of anarchy, don't you think that this period of time would be too detrimental to society? Think about all the infrastructure, all the government works. I'll admit that I don't know too much about Belgian politics (the compulsory voting thing was intriguing), but tell me what happens when I (hypothetically) set your house on fire, because I'm a pyro, holding a grudge? Can we trust that the firemen and the dispatchers are still at their posts, out of virtue? And the doctors? Imagine how many people in the hospitals would die if they didn't get medical attention when they needed it. While doctors are, generally, fairly moral and dutiful people, what if they couldn't get to work, or their supplies ran low, or power/water/whatever necessary system went out? Sure, they'll have a backup, but how long will that hold out? I see such a disruption of the system to be too devastating for the common citizens.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wow, after reading up on your current political scene, just, wow. That's just horrible. Lameduck government? Deadlock? Trying to give power to the King? Makes me glad that all we have to deal with is Palin, Beck, Olberman, and all the radical inflamists (from both sides )
Anarchy can't work because there would be no system in place to prevent people from grouping up and taking over, recreating the world we live in now. Anarchy will only be feasible once we are a post scarcity society, with AI's to run gak for us while we squander our petty lives.
A side thought, I assume we have Star Trek fans in here. Did anyone else have the thought that underneath all the Utopian idealist clean and awesome (but strangely not overcrowded) cities, there were vast banks of holodecks where 90% of the people of earth lived, never going outside or doing any of that space exploration nonsense?
@Frazzled: Being forced to hand over your stuff doesn't only happen with Anarchy. In our present society, there will always be people with violence on their minds, even without Anarchy. But it is true, Anarchy will result in even more violence. But, when the civilians revolt and become anarchists, the politicians will organize something to gain back control. It's all about fighting fire with fire. A necesary evil is needed. Eventually the authorities will drive out all Anarchists. And without them even noticing it, the politicians just formed a government to achieve this. Plan succeeded.
@micahaphone: In the openig phases, all government cotrolled organizations will still work. Not all people are Anarchy minded, so it will take a while untill all government controlled organizations dissapear. When a government is formed eventually, there would still be some form of social structure (hospital, police, firefighters,...)
Our politicians may be dumba$$es, but I HOPE they will come to their senses and start acting like politicians. If they do, the resulted Anarchy will be solved properly, as govenment gets back some sense of social structure.
I doubt that will happen. Our politicians aren't THAT stupid. But if they are, and they can't form a good government, then we're screwed. Big time. The strong will survive, power will go to the strong, effectively ending the Anarchist revolt. There would be a new form of authority, not a government though.
Hmmm... I doubt that they will be able.... I mean ... for how long are they trying to split some border-thing-town
In case of such a crisis,they will very likely fail.
It's really annoying as I can't remember the content, but in the 3rd or 4th episode of Sons of Anarchy the main character is reading a "diary" written by his father / gang founder and it talks about the concept of Anarchy. From what I remember the concept is fundimentally different to what we think it means.
Scrazza wrote: But, when the civilians revolt and become anarchists, the politicians will organize something to gain back control.
You're absolutely right. It's called Martial Law enforced by the military.
It's a bit naive to think that they'll come together lovey-dovey to fix bipartisan(or multi-partisan)problems because people are revolting. It's more effective(time and cost) to simply become a military state. Want proof? Look at anytime a group of people riot(which would be a violent version of what you're proposing, really). It's simply the fastest, most efficient way for the government to regain control.
You have to keep in mind that it's in Belgium. They will think it over ten times wether to send in the military or not. And Belgium military are not allowed to shoot civilians, especially Belgian civilians. And it would probably be so that someone makes a mistake in procedures, so that the military can't intervene at all, and get sent back to base. Trust me, such things happen. We set murderers free again after they get caught because someone made a mistake in the procedures.
OK, so you're saying when society breaks down that the government won't call in the military? Thats not logical.
Further if the government truly breaks down then the military, or portions of it, will unilaterally begin to take over. Without the rule of law they are the ones with the guns and make the rules.
Frazzled wrote:OK, so you're saying when society breaks down that the government won't call in the military? Thats not logical.
Further if the government truly breaks down then the military, or portions of it, will unilaterally begin to take over. Without the rule of law they are the ones with the guns and make the rules.
Unless the military is deployed oversea's or are defeated by the superior numbers of everyone else OR the country has a crappy military.
Ahtman wrote:I;m all for Anarchy as long as I'm in charge of it and everyone does what I say.
Thats not acceptable. I want to be in charge and have access to full auto weiner dogs. It should be noted that male weiner dogs have certain important featues extremely low to the ground. this makes them very cranky. I don't think you're prepared to mess with that.
So you're pissed at the government for not doing their jobs, even when they have a great environment to do so. You want them to start properly doing their jobs when everyone is pissed off at them and there is no police force or laws to protect them? Either you politicans are awesome, or you didn't account for fear/fleeing the country.
Thing is, anarchism plays the same sort of game that other very silly ideology, libertarianism, plays. Both come in a wide variety of forms, and play this funny little game where you can never quite hold them to logical consequences of their systems, because that always claim that's not a part of the true version of the system. Both are able to play this game because neither has ever been ever even been close to actual real world application (well, arguably anarchism has in Spain, but there's little of Spain's anarchism in many of today's anarchists, either the left or right wing variants). Nor will either ever be put in place, because they worry about all kinds of very high minded but very pointless principals like the immorality of state coercion, instead of things that people actually need the political system to offer, like public infrastructure and legal protection.
They exist on internet message boards and nowhere else.
Scrazza wrote:Can't a 16 year old like me, start to be politically engaged without his ideas told to be immature?
Well, there's a balance. I agree that you shouldn't be shouted down or mocked just because you're younger, but you've also got to understand that, being so much younger and having read and experienced a lot less of the world, there's every chance your ideas are immature.
ANd ultimately, your idea that the problem is that politicians just aren't listening (to who? to you? to the youth? to everyone?) and that this would be solved by a short bout of civil disobedience is fairly immature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote:It's really annoying as I can't remember the content, but in the 3rd or 4th episode of Sons of Anarchy the main character is reading a "diary" written by his father / gang founder and it talks about the concept of Anarchy. From what I remember the concept is fundimentally different to what we think it means.
It's fringe politics. No words means what you think it means, and if you listen to these people long enough and get your head around what they actually mean, then point out a problem, they'll change the meaning again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:OK, so you're saying when society breaks down that the government won't call in the military? Thats not logical.
Further if the government truly breaks down then the military, or portions of it, will unilaterally begin to take over. Without the rule of law they are the ones with the guns and make the rules.
The world doesn't work that way. Ever. There's this idea that absence of laws people will suddenly start acting for their immediate material gain and it's nonsense. Ideas like duty and service and the nation actually to matter to people.
The world doesn't work that way. Ever. There's this idea that absence of laws people will suddenly start acting for their immediate material gain and it's nonsense. Ideas like duty and service and the nation actually to matter to people.
You're right. Other than Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia this has never occurred.
Anarchism one of the few political "systems" that's actually more ridiculous than communism.
sebster wrote:The world doesn't work that way. Ever. There's this idea that absence of laws people will suddenly start acting for their immediate material gain and it's nonsense. Ideas like duty and service and the nation actually to matter to people.
People already act for their immediate material gain all the time. How is it ridiculous to assume that trend would continue? I don't think the US would go Mogadishu over night without laws in place but the people with power will start to exert it. The moment the nation ceases to offer its protections to its citizens I think all the ideas of duty and service in the name of the nation goes away. People will still think of duty and service but to local groups, their family and friends.
Anarchism relies on the idea that people are fundamentally good. Seeing as how we're all colossal jerks to each other even with laws around, how would we act when there's no one to run to? No police to tattle, no judge to listen to your tort, no fireman to save your house?
"Anarchism" is just communism by another name that takes a 1984 newspeak approach to the language and calls an all controlling government "anarchy" instead.
That being said I'm not a rabid anticommunist, I just don't think it works out very well. Historicaly it hasn't worked out well at all with the exception of modern China because they embraced key capitalistic principles in their economy. The problem with communism/anarchism is people tend to be self centered and will chose to do what they want to do rather than bust their ass off for "the common good" which is why Anarchy/Communism only really works under 3 circumstances.
#1 People can be kicked out of the community, and life in the community is voluntarily. This applies to functional communist communities that survive within capitalistic societies, and the armed services of the USA as life in the military is much like life in a communist state. Those that don't perform up to standards for the common good are kicked out of the community. Obviously that option would not be there for a world government, or a national one unless the state banishes people and there is another state willing to take it's refugees.
#2 A Common goal or enemy is holding the people together. Russia is a good example here, during WW2 the people busted their ass off to help out the state without complaining much because they were afraid of the Germans during WW2, but after the war people cared a lot less about busting their ass for the common good.
#3 The state forces them to work. Those that don't perform are demoted to crap, dirty, and or dangerous jobs. Those that still fail to perform to standards are further punished by being sent out to Siberia, a prison, or forced to work in a coal mine. The end result here is the people become slaves to a draconian and all powerful state.
Frazzled wrote:You're right. Other than Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia this has never occurred.
That doesn't describe any situation in Latin American, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, or Asia that has ever occurred.
Things can get really ugly,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyyr wrote:People already act for their immediate material gain all the time. How is it ridiculous to assume that trend would continue? I don't think the US would go Mogadishu over night without laws in place but the people with power will start to exert it. The moment the nation ceases to offer its protections to its citizens I think all the ideas of duty and service in the name of the nation goes away. People will still think of duty and service but to local groups, their family and friends.
Noting that people act for material gain does not in any way mean people will act entirely for personal material gain. Your recognition that people would still show loyalty to family and friends is enough by itself to show the silliness of Fraz's claim.
The idea that belief in a nation disappears when the nation collapses isn't true. Look at long running seperatist campaigns, in which people fight for the restoration of a country long since occupied by another.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote:"Anarchism" is just communism by another name that takes a 1984 newspeak approach to the language and calls an all controlling government "anarchy" instead.
Anarchism is more diverse than that, with many forms taking up an position that's on the far right wing. Every form of anarchism is stupid, but only some have anything to do with communism.
Well the far ring wing version of anarchism is nothing more than extreme laissez faire capitalism, and bears absolutely no resemblance to real anarchy.
The only thing that bears a real resemblance to anarchy is anarchy. Real anarchy is situations like 25 men shipwrecked and swimming in shark infested waters with nothing but a 10 man lifeboat. Anarchists don't support anarchy.
schadenfreude wrote:Well the far ring wing version of anarchism is nothing more than extreme laissez faire capitalism, and bears absolutely no resemblance to real anarchy.
The only thing that bears a real resemblance to anarchy is anarchy. Real anarchy is situations like 25 men shipwrecked and swimming in shark infested waters with nothing but a 10 man lifeboat. Anarchists don't support anarchy.
Most anarchists value their own lives too much to support true anarchy.
Anarchism is more diverse than that, with many forms taking up an position that's on the far right wing. Every form of anarchism is stupid, but only some have anything to do with communism.
Anarchism and communism are mutually exclusive to one another. None have ever had anything to do with the other.
Anarchism is more diverse than that, with many forms taking up an position that's on the far right wing. Every form of anarchism is stupid, but only some have anything to do with communism.
Anarchism and communism are mutually exclusive to one another. None have ever had anything to do with the other.
I dunno, I tend to agree with Shuma here, Communism is a set of rules for how to operate a society. As soon as you have rules, you don't really have Anarchism anymore.
Anarchism is "the absence of government."
Communism is "a crappy and/or naive form of government."[1]
1. This is meant to be ignored as a semi-humorous potshot at Communism.
Phryxis wrote:I dunno, I tend to agree with Shuma here, Communism is a set of rules for how to operate a society. As soon as you have rules, you don't really have Anarchism anymore.
Anarchism is "the absence of government."
Communism is "a crappy and/or naive form of government."[1]
1. This is meant to be ignored as a semi-humorous potshot at Communism.
Communism is a proposed state of existence in which people do their jobs for the good of the community, it is definitely possible for individuals doing whatever they want to work for the good of a community (which may or may not ultimately be for their own gain).
Anarcho-communism isn't really anarchism at all. Anarchism is the absence of the state and, while anarcho-communism claims to seek its abolition, the institution of direct, democratic governance and hierarchical trade and labor unions is tacit to the creation of a state.
It is one more example of the anarchist creed: "I want to get rid of the state, but not government."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:
Communism is a proposed state of existence in which people do their jobs for the good of the community, it is definitely possible for individuals doing whatever they want to work for the good of a community (which may or may not ultimately be for their own gain).
Sure, but the institutions that ultimately arise to protect the social norms that cause such behavior tend, generally, to take the form of state hierarchy.
Its possible for that to happen another way (maybe), but only in the same sense that its possible for an asteroid to hit the Earth. Both can happen, but both are also very unlikely.
I'm not saying its a viable means of existance, just trying to point out that communism is not goddamn stalinism and that anarchism and communism CAN coexist.
Phryxis wrote:I dunno, I tend to agree with Shuma here, Communism is a set of rules for how to operate a society. As soon as you have rules, you don't really have Anarchism anymore.
Anarchism is "the absence of government."
Communism is "a crappy and/or naive form of government."[1]
1. This is meant to be ignored as a semi-humorous potshot at Communism.
Communism is a proposed state of existence in which people do their jobs for the good of the community, it is definitely possible for individuals doing whatever they want to work for the good of a community (which may or may not ultimately be for their own gain).
Communism can work under 3 circumstances. The problem with communism/anarchism is people tend to be self centered and will chose to do what they want to do rather than bust their ass off for "the common good" which is why Anarchy/Communism only really works under 3 circumstances.
#1 People can be kicked out of the community, and life in the community is voluntarily. This applies to functional communist communities that survive within capitalistic societies, and the armed services of the USA as life in the military is much like life in a communist state. Those that don't perform up to standards for the common good are kicked out of the community.
#2 A Common goal or enemy is holding the people together. WW2 Russia is a good example here, during WW2 the people busted their ass off to help out the state without complaining much because they were afraid of the Germans during WW2, but after the war people cared a lot less about busting their ass for the common good. Note #2 also applies to the US military as service members chose to give up freedom and economic to live in a communist micro-community for idealistic reasons, and #2 applies to most communist communities that function within a capitalistic state as the members are very driven to prove communism can work.
#3 The state forces them to work. When #1 and #2 fail the state has to either fail as a state, give up communism, or fall back on Stalinism. Those that don't perform are demoted to crap, dirty, and or dangerous jobs. Those that still fail to perform to standards are further punished by being sent out to Siberia, a prison, or forced to work in a coal mine. The end result here is the people become slaves to a draconian and all powerful state.
When #1 and #2 work together the net result is highly functional communist communities like the US military.
When #2 and #3 work together communism can win wars like WW2 on the eastern front and Vietnam, but it's not a pretty sight.
What doesn't work is purely communist states during extended times of world peace and prosperity, like the Soviet Union between 1975-1991.
schadenfreude wrote:Well the far ring wing version of anarchism is nothing more than extreme laissez faire capitalism, and bears absolutely no resemblance to real anarchy.
Oh look, an anarchist declaring his preferred type is the ony true form of anarchy. That never, ever happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Anarchism and communism are mutually exclusive to one another. None have ever had anything to do with the other.
Leftist anarchists will often ally with communists to fight against right wing factions. Sometimes it can last weeks, or months even before they start killing each other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote:Communism can work under 3 circumstances.
Not really. Anything that can be sensibly called communist can only exist in a post-scarcity, post-aspirational society. That is to say, a society that has developed a technological and infrastructure base capable of providing for everyone's basic needs, and a social system where people don't desire any more than they need, because status is no longer defined by one's material possessions.
This is, of course, a long way off, as we're basically talking about Star Trek.
sebster wrote:
This is, of course, a long way off, as we're basically talking about Star Trek.
And even that society maintained certain divisions of class and hierarchy.; a sort of Starship Troopers federal state/military with a brighter, happier exterior.
dogma wrote:And even that society maintained certain divisions of class and hierarchy.; a sort of Starship Troopers federal state/military with a brighter, happier exterior.
There is still hierarchy, but it is not one based on material wealth.
That is to say, Dave is better than Barry because Dave is smarter/better at that game where they shoot floating balls, not because Dave is driving a nicer car.
schadenfreude wrote:Well the far ring wing version of anarchism is nothing more than extreme laissez faire capitalism, and bears absolutely no resemblance to real anarchy.
Oh look, an anarchist declaring his preferred type is the ony true form of anarchy. That never, ever happens.
Actually I said all forms of "anarchy" are not really forms of anarchy because they are some form of government, and I am not any form of anarchist. I've been saying all anarchists can be called out on their bs because their ideas are indeed a form of government, not anarchy.
sebster wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:Communism can work under 3 circumstances.
Not really. Anything that can be sensibly called communist can only exist in a post-scarcity, post-aspirational society. That is to say, a society that has developed a technological and infrastructure base capable of providing for everyone's basic needs, and a social system where people don't desire any more than they need, because status is no longer defined by one's material possessions.
This is, of course, a long way off, as we're basically talking about Star Trek.
We already live in a post-scarcity society.
Exibit A
A post aspirational society is pure science fiction.
Back on the topic of the 3 circumstances it can, does, and has worked: Yes really. I laid out the 3 circumstances that it can work, does currently work in the modern world, and has worked before. Of course those 3 circumstances are very circumstantial, and some combinations of those circumstances are ugly as sin.
schadenfreude wrote:Actually I said all forms of "anarchy" are not really forms of anarchy because they are some form of government, and I am not any form of anarchist. I've been saying all anarchists can be called out on their bs because their ideas are indeed a form of government, not anarchy.
You don't really get anarchism then, because it doesn't argue for an absence of government, but for an absence of leaders. Which is still ridiculous, of course, but for very different reasons to the ones you've mentioned.
And second up, if you're not even an anarchist then you've got even less right to claim what anarchists actually believe. In which case, just accept that there are many different types of anarchist, and they can have very different economic beliefs, and while the majority have extreme left wing economic views, a significant portion have extreme right wing views.
We already live in a post-scarcity society.
Henry the 8th was also fat, but Tudor England wasn't post-scarcity. As long as society dedicates a significant portion of it's workforce to the provision of basic needs, we cannot be in a post-scarcity state. Agriculture and housing still demand considerable labour, so it's clear we really, really aren't.
A post aspirational society is pure science fiction.
Only if you assume the aspirational society of the 20th C is a permanent state, which would be a stupid thing to assume.
Back on the topic of the 3 circumstances it can, does, and has worked: Yes really. I laid out the 3 circumstances that it can work, does currently work in the modern world, and has worked before. Of course those 3 circumstances are very circumstantial, and some combinations of those circumstances are ugly as sin.
You provided a way it can work in a subset of the economy, such as a single farm collective, which is entirely missing the point of what communism is. It isn't actually about getting together with some other people and agreeing to share, it is about society outgrowing capitalism and replacing it with the next system, as part of the evolution in man's economic systems.
Anarchism is more diverse than that, with many forms taking up an position that's on the far right wing. Every form of anarchism is stupid, but only some have anything to do with communism.
Anarchism and communism are mutually exclusive to one another. None have ever had anything to do with the other.
Anarcho-communism disagree's.
People seem to think that communism=stalinism :(
Anarcho-communism is akin to dehydrated water. It's an oxymoron. That said, I'm sure there are people who follow it as an ideal. These people are idiots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:
Phryxis wrote:I dunno, I tend to agree with Shuma here, Communism is a set of rules for how to operate a society. As soon as you have rules, you don't really have Anarchism anymore.
Anarchism is "the absence of government."
Communism is "a crappy and/or naive form of government."[1]
1. This is meant to be ignored as a semi-humorous potshot at Communism.
Communism is a proposed state of existence in which people do their jobs for the good of the community, it is definitely possible for individuals doing whatever they want to work for the good of a community (which may or may not ultimately be for their own gain).
Communal work is not communism. You should probably research what communism actually is. It's not "everyone do their part", it's largely a treatise on economics and effort/reward distribution. It is in no way compatible with anarchism as it requires a centralized authority to organize labor and make decisions.
schadenfreude wrote:We already live in a post-scarcity society.
Henry the 8th was also fat, but Tudor England wasn't post-scarcity. As long as society dedicates a significant portion of it's workforce to the provision of basic needs, we cannot be in a post-scarcity state. Agriculture and housing still demand considerable labour, so it's clear we really, really aren't.
You just proved my point that we do live in a post scarcity society. Henry the 8th was the bloody king of England, and Tudor England had starving peasants with a fat ass king. Modern America has so much damn food that the poorest of our poor are as morbidly obese as King Henry the 8th. Our poor eat better than the most famous renaissance era King of England whom was infamous for his gluttony. Furthermore agricultural jobs make up less than 1% of US jobs (about 0.57%). We grow enough food for everybody to eat like the King of England with just a little bit over half a % of our workforce working in agriculture. If that's not a post scarcity society then what is?
PS housing is irrelevant because we already built more houses than we need. The standard of living for most of human history is a good dozen people per house with an extended family living together. The very idea of the nuclear family is one based off consumerism where people build more houses than they need. The net result of the nuclear family is parents with an empty nest syndrome after their children grow up, and an excessively large number of them eventually being put into nursing homes. Adults being able to move into their own homes is a luxury, not a necessity of life. Once again we do live in a post scarcity society where all we really have to fret about is the square footage of our home and our new years resolution to loose weight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:
A post aspirational society is pure science fiction.
Only if you assume the aspirational society of the 20th C is a permanent state, which would be a stupid thing to assume.
I think the aspirational society of the 20th century and the 50 centuries before the 20th century is a pretty damn permanent state that humanity will remain in, and I have the last 5,000 years of human history to back up my point of view.
schadenfreude wrote:We already live in a post-scarcity society.
Henry the 8th was also fat, but Tudor England wasn't post-scarcity. As long as society dedicates a significant portion of it's workforce to the provision of basic needs, we cannot be in a post-scarcity state. Agriculture and housing still demand considerable labour, so it's clear we really, really aren't.
You just proved my point that we do live in a post scarcity society. Henry the 8th was the bloody king of England, and Tudor England had starving peasants with a fat ass king. Modern America has so much damn food that the poorest of our poor are as morbidly obese as King Henry the 8th. Our poor eat better than the most famous renaissance era King of England whom was infamous for his gluttony. Furthermore agricultural jobs make up less than 1% of US jobs (about 0.57%). We grow enough food for everybody to eat like the King of England with just a little bit over half a % of our workforce working in agriculture. If that's not a post scarcity society then what is?
PS housing is irrelevant because we already built more houses than we need. The standard of living for most of human history is a good dozen people per house with an extended family living together. The very idea of the nuclear family is one based off consumerism where people build more houses than they need. The net result of the nuclear family is parents with an empty nest syndrome after their children grow up, and an excessively large number of them eventually being put into nursing homes. Adults being able to move into their own homes is a luxury, not a necessity of life. Once again we do live in a post scarcity society where all we really have to fret about is the square footage of our home and our new years resolution to loose weight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:
A post aspirational society is pure science fiction.
Only if you assume the aspirational society of the 20th C is a permanent state, which would be a stupid thing to assume.
I think the aspirational society of the 20th century and the 50 centuries before the 20th century is a pretty damn permanent state that humanity will remain in, and I have the last 5,000 years of human history to back up my point of view.
Tell Africa, central asia, the mideast, and south america that we live in a post scarcity society. Hell, tell the significant number of Americans living under the poverty line, where resources such as food or housing space is scarce. Or even the homeless, really.
Part of the issue with discussing a post-scarcity society is that it necessarily enters into the parallel conversations regarding the nature of need, and basic needs.
Is a need something that is contingent upon desire? If so, can it be said that a guitar could be considered needed if one desires to express his creative impulses? Is that desire something that can give rise to a basic need, or at least one sufficiently powerful to motivate conflict?
Its easy to say that we could feed, clothe, and shelter everyone in the world, but that would almost certainly mean giving up things like computers, air conditioning, and a number of other items. I don't know about anyone else, but those material commodities definitely go a long way towards facilitating my own personal improvement. and, while they probably aren't basic needs, they are sufficiently important that our inability to provide them to 6.7 billion people keeps us away from a post-scarcity society. Given that, the real question is not "Can we provide for everyone." but "Can we provide everything significant (where significance is highly personal) for everyone."
schadenfreude wrote:
You just proved my point that we do live in a post scarcity society.
Nah, we still have scarcity. Scarcity isn't just about necessity, its about desire. Remember, we don't need to eat if we don't want to live.
schadenfreude wrote:
Once again we do live in a post scarcity society where all we really have to fret about is the square footage of our home and our new years resolution to loose weight.
schadenfreude wrote:You just proved my point that we do live in a post scarcity society. Henry the 8th was the bloody king of England, and Tudor England had starving peasants with a fat ass king. Modern America has so much damn food that the poorest of our poor are as morbidly obese as King Henry the 8th. Our poor eat better than the most famous renaissance era King of England whom was infamous for his gluttony. Furthermore agricultural jobs make up less than 1% of US jobs (about 0.57%). We grow enough food for everybody to eat like the King of England with just a little bit over half a % of our workforce working in agriculture. If that's not a post scarcity society then what is?
A post scarcity economy is one where industry and technology have combined to produce an economy with little to no need for manual labour.
I think the aspirational society of the 20th century and the 50 centuries before the 20th century is a pretty damn permanent state that humanity will remain in, and I have the last 5,000 years of human history to back up my point of view.
I'm guessing you've never studied economic history, yeah? Look, rather than get combative just accept there's some things you don't know. One of them is that the current mindset, to rise in status through the ownership of more and more material things, is a product of mercantilist and then capitalist society. Before then you had almost complete social stagnation. What status there was wasn't really tied to material things, and if it was it was to land holding, not manufactured goods.
If we move to a true post-scarcity economy, there'd be no status to be gained from owning a shining thing - because anyone could do it. At that point you're looking at a very different kind of economy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:That's not because we lack resources, its because resources are being denied to those people.
Simply having enough to provide for everyone doesn't make an economy post-scarcity. To be truly post scarcity you'd need to be able to provide for everyone, with little or no labour input.
As long as we need labour, we need to pay people for it, and then we need to pay them all differently depending on how good a job they do. At which point you get uneven incomes. At which point you get back to the aspirational society, which makes it impossible to provide for everyone.
sebster wrote:At that point you're looking at a very different kind of economy.
As an aside, one of the things that I felt Star Trek copped out on, despite otherwise being a fairly interesting look at a post-scarcity society, was its odd moral revulsion for genetic engineering. In my mind, in an economy where the improvement human characteristics is seen as that which is most desirable, one would think that it would be more accepted, or at least far more contentious.
Of course, may that simply be a natural consequence of Roddenberry's Khan story line, where genetic engineering was seen as a substitute for eugenics.
dogma wrote:As an aside, one of the things that I felt Star Trek copped out on, despite otherwise being a fairly interesting look at a post-scarcity society, was its odd moral revulsion for genetic engineering. In my mind, in an economy where the improvement human characteristics is seen as that which is most desirable, one would think that it would be more accepted, or at least far more contentious.
Of course, may that simply be a natural consequence of Roddenberry's Khan story line, where genetic engineering was seen as a substitute for eugenics.
Yeah, that became a really odd element when they revealed Bashir was re-engineered. Here was the example of a guy who went from being a nobody to one of the most recognised and respected doctors in the Federation, so obviously the tech was there to do a better job than they did with Khan. And it wasn't as though the Trek universe didn't have plenty of folk willing to screw around with all kinds of technology, hell the Enterprise bounced in and out of dimensions and through time so often....
dogma wrote:As an aside, one of the things that I felt Star Trek copped out on, despite otherwise being a fairly interesting look at a post-scarcity society, was its odd moral revulsion for genetic engineering. In my mind, in an economy where the improvement human characteristics is seen as that which is most desirable, one would think that it would be more accepted, or at least far more contentious.
Of course, may that simply be a natural consequence of Roddenberry's Khan story line, where genetic engineering was seen as a substitute for eugenics.
Yeah, that became a really odd element when they revealed Bashir was re-engineered. Here was the example of a guy who went from being a nobody to one of the most recognised and respected doctors in the Federation, so obviously the tech was there to do a better job than they did with Khan. And it wasn't as though the Trek universe didn't have plenty of folk willing to screw around with all kinds of technology, hell the Enterprise bounced in and out of dimensions and through time so often....
It doesn't help that they had the technology to produce cybernetic prosthetics with the ability to vastly outstrip human capability and you saw virtually nothing outside of Jordies glasses. Why everyone wasn't wearing those I'll never know.
schadenfreude wrote:You just proved my point that we do live in a post scarcity society. Henry the 8th was the bloody king of England, and Tudor England had starving peasants with a fat ass king. Modern America has so much damn food that the poorest of our poor are as morbidly obese as King Henry the 8th. Our poor eat better than the most famous renaissance era King of England whom was infamous for his gluttony. Furthermore agricultural jobs make up less than 1% of US jobs (about 0.57%). We grow enough food for everybody to eat like the King of England with just a little bit over half a % of our workforce working in agriculture. If that's not a post scarcity society then what is?
A post scarcity economy is one where industry and technology have combined to produce an economy with little to no need for manual labour.
Little or no need for manual labor you say, give me a number for little need because I'm going to give you a number. 0.57% of the workforce is needed to provide enough food for our entire nation to eat like Henry VIII, convert food into fuel, and export food to the rest of the world. If everybody took turns working the farms that's the equivalent of every citizen spending 4 months and 9 days of their life working in agriculture once every 60 years. 0.57% of the workforce is my hard concrete number for calling it as little to no need for manual labor in agriculture, and that's producing over twice as much food as we need. Give me a number as to how much more efficient agriculture must become in order to call it little need for manual labor.
sebster wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:I think the aspirational society of the 20th century and the 50 centuries before the 20th century is a pretty damn permanent state that humanity will remain in, and I have the last 5,000 years of human history to back up my point of view.
I'm guessing you've never studied economic history, yeah? Look, rather than get combative just accept there's some things you don't know. One of them is that the current mindset, to rise in status through the ownership of more and more material things, is a product of mercantilist and then capitalist society. Before then you had almost complete social stagnation. What status there was wasn't really tied to material things, and if it was it was to land holding, not manufactured goods.
If we move to a true post-scarcity economy, there'd be no status to be gained from owning a shining thing - because anyone could do it. At that point you're looking at a very different kind of economy.
When all else fails attack the messenger, be sure to belittle their education as much as possible, and avoid the point they were attempting to make.
There was a lot of status tied to material things before the mercantile society. The giant belly of Henry VII was a mark of status gained through material possessions (excess food), and while the start of the mercantile society started in 16th century when Henry VIII was alive his giant belly as a status symbol started long before the mercantile society. Through most of human history the 2 most visible status symbols were the clothes someone wore and excess body fat which was fashionable through most of human history as a status symbol of the wealthy. Big muscles were often looked down upon because they were the only seen on people who actually worked for a living, and being skinny was always looked down upon because it meant a person was too poor to eat. Pale skin was a status symbol during the middle ages and renaissance because it meant nobles didn't have to work the fields, but after the industrial revolution is was scorned as a sign that somebody had to work in factories or coal mines where they did not see the sun, so the wealthy began to tan their skin to show they had a life of leisure. Thousands of years of human history has shown that humanity will always invent a new way to show status through material possessions.
Thinking society will change because of technology not only goes against thousands of years of human history as previously illustrated, it goes against millions of years of human evolution. In just about every species of mammal and bird mating rituals center around the male displaying his suitability as a mate. With human beings our animal instincts are for men to show they are powerful and thus suitable in some way, and the instinct of women to look for a man that can take care of a her while she is 9 months pregnant or caring for a small infant. As man left the cave and formed societies male power shifted from physical ability to ability to provide, which in the modern world is wealth. It's in our very DNA to overeat and embrace greed because for most of human evolution we as a species were in a perpetual state of risk from starvation.
Both history and biology are against a post aspirational society ever forming, even while we live in a post scarcity society were only 0.57% of our workforce actually grows food.
ShumaGorath wrote:It doesn't help that they had the technology to produce cybernetic prosthetics with the ability to vastly outstrip human capability and you saw virtually nothing outside of Jordies glasses. Why everyone wasn't wearing those I'll never know.
There was always some sort of hippy sanctity of the human body stuff going on in the background. Really, Trek just played it all very safe, and while it was happy to tell story after story about how technology might be used to create new forms of life, it stayed well clear of stories about how technology might change human life.
schadenfreude wrote:
Little or no need for manual labor you say, give me a number for little need because I'm going to give you a number. 0.57% of the workforce is needed to provide enough food for our entire nation to eat like Henry VIII, convert food into fuel, and export food to the rest of the world. If everybody took turns working the farms that's the equivalent of every citizen spending 4 months and 9 days of their life working in agriculture once every 60 years. 0.57% of the workforce is my hard concrete number for calling it as little to no need for manual labor in agriculture, and that's producing over twice as much food as we need. Give me a number as to how much more efficient agriculture must become in order to call it little need for manual labor.
The trouble is that food isn't enough.
schadenfreude wrote:
Both history and biology are against a post aspirational society ever forming, even while we live in a post scarcity society were only 0.57% of our workforce actually grows food.
You can't live in a post-scarcity society that is post-aspirational. The desire to survive is aspiration.
Basically, you're both wrong. Though you're wrong in a more common way than Sebster is. We don't live in a post-scarcity society, but Sebster was wrong to separate that from post-aspiration
schadenfreude wrote:
Thousands of years of human history has shown that humanity will always invent a new way to show status through material possessions.
No, you used the incorrect tense. Thousands of years of human history have shown that humanity has not invented ways to show status that are not "immaterial"*.
*Quotes for the lack of an English word that differentiates between aesthetic objects and non-aesthetic objects.
schadenfreude wrote:Little or no need for manual labor you say, give me a number for little need because I'm going to give you a number. 0.57% of the workforce is needed to provide enough food for our entire nation to eat like Henry VIII, convert food into fuel, and export food to the rest of the world. If everybody took turns working the farms that's the equivalent of every citizen spending 4 months and 9 days of their life working in agriculture once every 60 years. 0.57% of the workforce is my hard concrete number for calling it as little to no need for manual labor in agriculture, and that's producing over twice as much food as we need. Give me a number as to how much more efficient agriculture must become in order to call it little need for manual labor.
And food is the only element of need, and the US is the only country on the planet...
Look, dude, you're obviously learning about post-scarcity as you go, and that's okay. Not everyone has to know about everything. You questioned something you didn't really get, and now you're trying to talk your way out of it. It's okay, let it go, we'll think better of you than if you keep trying to dig up.
When all else fails attack the messenger, be sure to belittle their education as much as possible, and avoid the point they were attempting to make.
There was a lot of status tied to material things before the mercantile society. The giant belly of Henry VII was a mark of status gained through material possessions (excess food), and while the start of the mercantile society started in 16th century when Henry VIII was alive his giant belly as a status symbol started long before the mercantile society.
Yes, those at the top showed their wealth and status through their opulent lifestyles. And yet, the large castles were almost entirely empty, wealth and status was shown mostly through retaining a large staff. And that's the top end of society, for the rest there were little material possessions, and largely communal villages.
There was no aspiration to move up through the social classes because it wasn't even thought of as possible, and there were no consumer goods by which to demonstrate that movement.
Thousands of years of human history has shown that humanity will always invent a new way to show status through material possessions.
The simple fact is that that is nonsense, and if you'd ever bother to read something studying the issue you'd find that out quickly. It is okay to be unaware of a fact, it is not okay to continue to deny it just to protect your ego.
Thinking society will change because of technology not only goes against thousands of years of human history as previously illustrated, it goes against millions of years of human evolution. In just about every species of mammal and bird mating rituals center around the male displaying his suitability as a mate.
Well, fething obviously duh. There has always been, and will always be status. The point is that consumer goods have not always been the way of signifying status, and that such a change is a very new thing, first reaching the majority of society during the mercantilist era, then becoming the dominant element of the latter capitalist era.
Both history and biology are against a post aspirational society ever forming, even while we live in a post scarcity society were only 0.57% of our workforce actually grows food.
Wow. I mean just fething wow. Here was a thing you hadn't even considered or read about before today, and now you're here with your absolute statement going against one of the most basic elements of economic history. The internet should be proud. Truly anti-intellectualism has reached its perfection.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:You can't live in a post-scarcity society that is post-aspirational. The desire to survive is aspiration.
Only if you take aspiration by a very literal sense, and not how it's used in studies. There aspiration means the apiration to move through the social classes, and to have the wealth of goods that comes with that.
We don't live in a post-scarcity society, but Sebster was wrong to separate that from post-aspiration
We don't live in a post scarcity economy. If we ever do, that might have an impact on how we presently see material wealth as an indicator of status, which may lead to a post-aspirational society.
Nothing I've said in there is wrong, or even questionable.
Let's talk needs versus wants. It's time to bust out the Maslow's
If anything on the bottom of the pyramid is missing then things towards to top of the pyramid are unobtainable, or irrelevant. People being mean on DakkaDakka just doesn't matter if someone is treading water in shark infested waters. The risk of a shark attack just doesn't matter if the person doesn't know how to swim and is drowning.
Actual human needs that can be met with resources from the state only cover physiological needs and safety. Any needs further up the pyramid in the categories of love/belonging, esteem, and self actualization can not be met by any government, any number material items, or even lack of material items. One can be dirt poor by the standards of the USA and still have every need met.
A post scarcity society can only go as far as meeting all of the needs in the categories of physiological and safety. In our society all physiological and safety needs are met with an absolute minimal amount of manual labor required. All of our needs are met with a minimal amount of labor, thus if the amount of labor needed to achieve this standard of living can be quantified as low enough it can be said that we live in a post scarcity society.
There are 2 misconceptions advocates of a post scarcity society solving the worlds problems have about a post scarcity society.
The first misconception people have with a post scarcity society is the we will magically evolve into a society that wants less, then the exact opposite seems to have happened. Human need is very finite and easy to satisfy, but human want is absolutely endless. Once upon a time science fiction writers could only dream of televisions in every house, and portable communicators that can act like phones but are completely wireless and can work everywhere. Now we all have giant color TVs and smart phones that can play TV on the phone, and we are no more happy. Many would say the more we have the more our want grows.
The 2nd misconception advocates of the post scarcity society have is the complete freedom from work will change society for the better. I completely disagree, and firmly believe people can not meet the esteem level of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs without working. Without work people will not accomplish anything with their lives.
I'll finish my point about post scarcity societies a picture of what a completely labor free post scarcity society would really look like.
Every human need is met by machines with no labor required by any human. No material wealth as an indicator of status. The humans in WALL E show what a true nightmare dystopia a post scarcity post aspiration society would be.
sebster wrote:
Only if you take aspiration by a very literal sense, and not how it's used in studies. There aspiration means the apiration to move through the social classes, and to have the wealth of goods that comes with that.
Yeah, I've read those, and they're nonsense. Aspiration is that which follows from any possible qualitative distinction between significant groups of people. They might become "classes" or not, but the point is that if such discrepancy exists, there must be scarcity; because scarcity is more than just a material concern (eg. compassion can be a commodity).
sebster wrote:
We don't live in a post scarcity economy. If we ever do, that might have an impact on how we presently see material wealth as an indicator of status, which may lead to a post-aspirational society.
Nothing I've said in there is wrong, or even questionable.
If all you're saying is that technology precedes morality, then I agree.
schadenfreude wrote:Let's talk needs versus wants. It's time to bust out the Maslow's
Yeah, what X says is need and what X says is want is clearly correct.
schadenfreude wrote:
The risk of a shark attack just doesn't matter if the person doesn't know how to swim and is drowning.
Unless they happen to prefer drowning to shark touching.
schadenfreude wrote:
Actual human needs that can be met with resources from the state only cover physiological needs and safety.
What do I psychologically need, as not defined by you?
schadenfreude wrote:Let's talk needs versus wants. It's time to bust out the Maslow's
Highschool economics... seriously?
There are 2 misconceptions advocates of a post scarcity society solving the worlds problems have about a post scarcity society.
No-one is advocating anything. Read more carefully.
The first misconception people have with a post scarcity society is the we will magically evolve into a society that wants less, then the exact opposite seems to have happened. Human need is very finite and easy to satisfy, but human want is absolutely endless.
Yes, the capitalist economy is based on the idea that human wants are endless (thankyou to highschool economics once again). The idea that this phenonenom exists independant of all other human structures, and has existed as such throughout time, though, is not true.
If we utterly and radically change the economic structure, we change how humanity will behave. We have already observed this, as human economic activity and therefore human society changed radically from primitive collectivism, to the slave society, to feudalism, to mercantilism, to capitalism. To give a very broad example, I might look to earn enough money to buy a better car so that I can drive down the freeway in my better car and feel better about my place in society, but Grog the caveman was not looking to hunt a little better so he can buy a better horse. Instead status came from acts of bravery, and from achieving a position of seniority within the tribe, while almost all material goods were collective.
Once upon a time science fiction writers could only dream of televisions in every house, and portable communicators that can act like phones but are completely wireless and can work everywhere. Now we all have giant color TVs and smart phones that can play TV on the phone, and we are no more happy. Many would say the more we have the more our want grows.
Yes, they would. In highschool economics. But things are not as simple as that, the interaction between economics and human behaviour can't be treated as constant, because we have observed it changing over time.
I'll finish my point about post scarcity societies a picture of what a completely labor free post scarcity society would really look like.
You're getting confused and assuming anyone here is arguing for such as a good thing. No-one is.
Every human need is met by machines with no labor required by any human. No material wealth as an indicator of status. The humans in WALL E show what a true nightmare dystopia a post scarcity post aspiration society would be.
They also show one set of economic conditions in with a post-scarcity economy might exist. That we do or don't consider is desirable is besides the point, what matters is that it is possible, and is the most likely conditions in which communism would make sense (which was the only point I made, if you'll care to think back that far).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Yeah, I've read those, and they're nonsense. Aspiration is that which follows from any possible qualitative distinction between significant groups of people. They might become "classes" or not, but the point is that if such discrepancy exists, there must be scarcity; because scarcity is more than just a material concern (eg. compassion can be a commodity).
But again, you're looking at the general definition of aspiration rather than the specific, technical term it's given in these studies. Call hoobastank if you want, but it's the specific idea of people desiring to advance in class and status, and looking to prove their new status through the acquisition of material wealth.
If all you're saying is that technology precedes morality, then I agree.
I'm saying that the economic structures of the time play a major role in defining society, just as the society plays a major role in defining the economic structures. As one changes the other adapts. If we were to reach a point where the economy was so utterly different that labour was barely needed, society would certainly change in incredible ways. One possible change would be towards a non-aspirational society, where the ownership of material goods proves you're ability to type a number into a replicator and no more, they can't be used to signify status over others. That may not be the result, but it is an entirely plausible one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:No one likes Maslow. Just another westerner with no imagination. In short I could beat him up.
What we need is Swanson's Pyramid of Greatness.
Who is this Swanson and why did make him so awesome?
Funny, I hardly ever check the off-topic forum, but everytime I do, it touches either the themes of liberty, or anarchism itself.
I find it funny that some of you guys say that anarchism is just an other name for communism, while the others say that anarchism leads to fascism. The basic idea of anarchism is that it should emancipate the individual of all oppression, therefore fascism is seen as the prime enemy, while the communism is seen - from the anarchist point of view - as a simple state capitalist/fascist system.
Anarchism does want to abolish the state and capitalism, because it is a prime source of oppression in modern times. This does not mean, however, that a land without state government is anarchistic; it is an anarchy in the original meaning of the world, but has nothing to do with the anarchist ideology.
Note that there two major concepts of anarchism, and there is a huge difference between them. Individualist anarchism (incl. egoism, subcultural anarchism or even the newly established and widely hated anarchocapitalism) believes in personal freedom above all, usually does not believe in revolution (it instead prefers sort of an "individual revolution"), does not believe in collectivism and sees cooperation between individuals as needed ONLY if the results benefit everyone.
The other path is the social anarchism (incl. anarchosyndicalism, mutualism, anarchocommunism), which believes in collective action and revolution and economic emancipation. Anarchosyndicalism (the strongest anarchist movement ever) believes in abolition of the state through a massive general strike action organized by anarchist worker unions. Indeed federalism and localism is very important concept in social anarchism. An anarchistic society should be organized with the bottom-up approach to the max in mind. Communes and unions would decide for themselves, and state would not be needed.
Back to the reality. While individual anarchism only worked in few communes as far as I know, social anarchism was a popular political movement and it has sort of a rebirth nowadays. In the Spanish Civil War, Barcelona was under anarchist control and many anarchist ideas were implemented, however the revolution was betrayed and aborted by right-wing communists (may I suggest reading G. Orwell: Homage to Catalonia for more information). One of the reason why anarchists tend to hate communists.
Squats and kibbutzes-like communities are another examples of anarchism in action. Note that it is much easier to achieve anarchism by parasiting on the capitalist society.
Ofcourse the problem of nowadays anarchism is the extreme radicalization of subculture anarchists on one part, and the total lack of wider knowledge on the other.
I hope this brings you some insight into anarchism. I do not consider myself an orthodox anarchist, although I do engage in our local social-anarchist activites.
Anarcho-communism isn't really anarchism at all. Anarchism is the absence of the state and, while anarcho-communism claims to seek its abolition, the institution of direct, democratic governance and hierarchical trade and labor unions is tacit to the creation of a state.
It is one more example of the anarchist creed: "I want to get rid of the state, but not government."
Local communal government was agenda of social anarchism since the 19th century. It is a common misconception that anarchism = extreme individualism. Individualist anarchism had a good following in the USA, yay, but social anarchism always was the strongest anarchist movement in the Europe. Kropotkin's anarchocommunism was a popular movement in it's times, and still has its following nowadays between few radicals, although the larger anarchist community usually sees it as too etatist. I wouldn't say that it isn't "anarchism" though. Organization (therefore a government of sorts) is a main principle for any social anarchist movement, it just seeks to organize individuals in more just and liberal ways than the state does.
Ahtman wrote:Ron Swanson is the head of the Pawnee, Indiana Parks and Recreation Department.
Ah, we haven't got that over here yet. I might look into other means of acquiring it, I've heard it's very funny.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ergotoxin wrote:Note that there two major concepts of anarchism...
Yeah, I've been trying to tell them, they haven't been listening
While individual anarchism only worked in few communes as far as I know, social anarchism was a popular political movement and it has sort of a rebirth nowadays. In the Spanish Civil War, Barcelona was under anarchist control and many anarchist ideas were implemented, however the revolution was betrayed and aborted by right-wing communists (may I suggest reading G. Orwell: Homage to Catalonia for more information). One of the reason why anarchists tend to hate communists.
Though I will point out that is very much the anarchist POV on the matter, the communists would argue quite differently, and meanwhile the fascists mocked them both and took over the country.
While individual anarchism only worked in few communes as far as I know, social anarchism was a popular political movement and it has sort of a rebirth nowadays. In the Spanish Civil War, Barcelona was under anarchist control and many anarchist ideas were implemented, however the revolution was betrayed and aborted by right-wing communists (may I suggest reading G. Orwell: Homage to Catalonia for more information). One of the reason why anarchists tend to hate communists.
Though I will point out that is very much the anarchist POV on the matter, the communists would argue quite differently, and meanwhile the fascists mocked them both and took over the country.
While I agree that my point of view is biased, I can't really defend stalinists, especially not in this case. Much has been written on the subject by people who were there, including Orwell who was actually critical of anarchism many times. Left-wing communists (POUM, trotskists and others) were persecuted by stalinists as well.
ergotoxin wrote:While I agree that my point of view is biased
Well now I can't believe anything you say.
Everyone's point of view is biased, since everyone constructs his own reality differently. I try to be as objective as I can but ofcourse that is just a positivist ideal.
ergotoxin wrote:While I agree that my point of view is biased, I can't really defend stalinists, especially not in this case. Much has been written on the subject by people who were there, including Orwell who was actually critical of anarchism many times. Left-wing communists (POUM, trotskists and others) were persecuted by stalinists as well.
I don't mean to defend the Stalinists, they don't deserve anything of the sort. My only intent was to argue that the various left factions were all factional, all equally incapable of considering the bigger picture.
sebster wrote:
But again, you're looking at the general definition of aspiration rather than the specific, technical term it's given in these studies. Call hoobastank if you want, but it's the specific idea of people desiring to advance in class and status, and looking to prove their new status through the acquisition of material wealth.
You're right, that is what I'm doing. I'm doing that because I'm a materialist who doesn't make a hard distinction between material things like cars, and material things like the brain state that leads to compassionate behavior.
sebster wrote:
I'm saying that the economic structures of the time play a major role in defining society, just as the society plays a major role in defining the economic structures. As one changes the other adapts. If we were to reach a point where the economy was so utterly different that labour was barely needed, society would certainly change in incredible ways. One possible change would be towards a non-aspirational society, where the ownership of material goods proves you're ability to type a number into a replicator and no more, they can't be used to signify status over others. That may not be the result, but it is an entirely plausible one.
Sure, I agree with that. I would even say that such a society is likely what would come about. I'm merely adding that the impetus of economics would shift to things that we probably don't think of as commodities right now, things like compassion impulses.
Nobody likes Maslow except the American Nurses Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and every other association of American medical professionals. Can we have an intelligent conversation without dismissing a body of work that hundreds of thousands of PHDs have endorsed as "High School" because someone can apply it in a way that you might not agree with.
I've noticed a common debate tactic that is being way over used here. When confronted by something that people have no way to refute they either attack the messenger as uneducated, or attack concepts as 101 or high school concepts without refuting them. Step back for a minute and think about how wrong that defense tactic is. That debate tactic is akin to going to the tactics forum and attacking someone's mathhammer for using grade school math without offering any intelligent debate to refute it's validity as applied.
SM Bolter V Ork Boy without any cover save 2/3 hit 1/2 wound=1/3 shots kill an ork boy
I'm guessing you've never studied higher math, yeah?
SM Bolter V Ork Boy without any cover save 2/3 hit 1/2 wound=1/3 shots kill an ork boy
No one likes fractions. Just another westerner with no imagination. In short I can beat him up
SM Bolter V Ork Boy without any cover save 2/3 hit 1/2 wound=1/3 shots kill an ork boy
I'm too think skinned to upset. All I'm doing is pointing out childish debate tactics that only work on the simple minded. I work in a pediatric psych unit, so childish taunts are the last thing that upset me. I'm just starting to wonder if anybody in the off topic forum can do any better than childish taunts.
schadenfreude wrote:I'm too think skinned to upset. All I'm doing is pointing out childish debate tactics that only work on the simple minded. I work in a pediatric psych unit, so childish taunts are the last thing that upset me. I'm just starting to wonder if anybody in the off topic forum can do any better than childish taunts.
Why would we try? The OT is the internet equivalent of a bunch of slackers taking a smoke break outside the back of their store. Anyone who takes this seriously and tries to apply debate rules, logic etc. seriously needs to re-examine their personal life choices.
And now, a weiner dog.:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4x-yY7lOBls" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
The reality is that you are getting butthurt over a response that had a chart from a TV show in it. You are getting goofy responses at this point becuase you are a wildly overreacting and calling people ignorant. You are thin skinned apparently becuase your actions are that of one who is. Just saying aren't doesn't mean you aren't when you act the part. Just look at your last response, you spend half of it talking about how you aren't bothered by taunts while constantly referring to them, and the other insulting the OT board. Lighten up and go with the flow and you'll find this so much easier and much more fun.
schadenfreude wrote:I'm too think skinned to upset. All I'm doing is pointing out childish debate tactics that only work on the simple minded. I work in a pediatric psych unit, so childish taunts are the last thing that upset me. I'm just starting to wonder if anybody in the off topic forum can do any better than childish taunts.
Plenty of people here can do better than childish taunts. The problem is that they generally aren't motivated to do better than childish taunts. However, I've found that approaching certain moderators (Manchu, for example) beforehand and politely requesting pro-active moderation of a thread can work. Throwing it out there where any idiot can post is just asking to be drowned out by idiots.
There is no need for mod. I think the real problem is I asked to much from the off topic forum when there seems to be a good chance that at any point in time the thread will degenerate into random internet babble because it is after all the off topic forum...
schadenfreude wrote:There is no need for mod. I think the real problem is I asked to much from the off topic forum when there seems to be a good chance that at any point in time the thread will degenerate into random internet babble because it is after all the off topic forum...
There you go again with the insults. It's hard to take your feigning at being on the high road, or pretense at intellectual superiority, when your argument is that no one here is really smart enough to respond. If you read other threads you will see that is obliviously not true. I wonder why others get more honest responses, but not you?
micahaphone wrote:I'm very sorry, but I thought that I, along with many others, brought up valid points.
No no, you are much to stupid to have a coherent argument and he is much to smart to notice anything other than the obliviously silly posts and only respond to them.
ergotoxin wrote:
Local communal government was agenda of social anarchism since the 19th century. It is a common misconception that anarchism = extreme individualism. Individualist anarchism had a good following in the USA, yay, but social anarchism always was the strongest anarchist movement in the Europe. Kropotkin's anarchocommunism was a popular movement in it's times, and still has its following nowadays between few radicals, although the larger anarchist community usually sees it as too etatist. I wouldn't say that it isn't "anarchism" though. Organization (therefore a government of sorts) is a main principle for any social anarchist movement, it just seeks to organize individuals in more just and liberal ways than the state does.
Individualist anarchism is, to my mind, at least as poorly defined as social anarchism.
Sure, they want to get rid of the state, but even the "good" theories of it tend to talk about the preservation of familial or friendship ties. Ties that naturally lead to governance.
What's that friend of mine? You want more food? Well, we can force some people to give it to you!
It might seem strange, but this is pretty well illustrated by Mongolian* history.
schadenfreude wrote:Nobody likes Maslow except the American Nurses Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and every other association of American medical professionals. Can we have an intelligent conversation without dismissing a body of work that hundreds of thousands of PHDs have endorsed as "High School" because someone can apply it in a way that you might not agree with.
No, that's not the issue, I'm not dismissing the model in all it's possible applications. I'm not even dismissing it in terms of it's relevance to economics. Maslow is used in foundational economics to good effect, where we are talking about the existing economic structures. But once we consider technological and social changes we need to consider how they might change our economic activity. At which point posting Maslow becomes very useless.
I've noticed a common debate tactic that is being way over used here. When confronted by something that people have no way to refute they either attack the messenger as uneducated, or attack concepts as 101 or high school concepts without refuting them. Step back for a minute and think about how wrong that defense tactic is. That debate tactic is akin to going to the tactics forum and attacking someone's mathhammer for using grade school math without offering any intelligent debate to refute it's validity as applied.
Nah, the only thing that's been confronting here has been your willingness to ignore or disregard an entire field of study that I'm pretty sure you hadn't heard of before this thread started. And really, once someone is willing to do that, armed with little more than a chart from highschool economics and a whole lot of moxie, how should we treat them?
In other news I kind of remember that thread, and vaguely remember the poster, who I'm guessing was you, making some kind of mistake. Could you give a link to the thread, and I'll read through it to maybe give you a little more detail on what you did wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Sure, I agree with that. I would even say that such a society is likely what would come about. I'm merely adding that the impetus of economics would shift to things that we probably don't think of as commodities right now, things like compassion impulses.
Yeah, that's fair enough. Though it'd depend on the technology available how these things might be traded, which would likely produce economic structures that are totally alien to the one's we know now.
Maslow's work are part of the field of psychology and thus will never become useless. You can argue they can become irrelevant, which is difficult. What you have not done is offer any counter argument on the points of what determines human need, and what needs can be met by an economic or political system. Zero input, only snide remarks.
What entire field of study have I ignored?
Economics, no
Political Science, no
Psychology, no
Politics, no
Biology, no
There is no entire field of study for the study of anarchy as it's a subfield of economics and/or political science.
As far as me using a simple chart goes all I have to say is it works to prove a point. I'm still waiting for any type of counterargument as to what constitutes human need, and what needs can or can not be met by an economic or political system. If nobody can answer those simple questions than a simple chart has worked in proving a point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS this isn't my 1st rodeo. I've entered online debates with very sharp anarchists before, which is why I was so disappointed with the quality of the posts on this forum.
schadenfreude wrote:Maslow's work are part of the field of psychology and thus will never become useless. You can argue they can become irrelevant, which is difficult.
No, not really. In fact, I'll do it right now.
Valuation is a matter of qualia, not objective judgment.
Maslow is now irrelevant.
schadenfreude wrote:
What entire field of study have I ignored?
Economics, no
Political Science, no
Psychology, no
Politics, no
Biology, no
There is no entire field of study for the study of anarchy as it's a subfield of economics and/or political science.
You don't have to ignore something to get all things related to it wrong.
If it helps, lots of people have been wrong in the same way that you have been.
schadenfreude wrote:
I'm still waiting for any type of counterargument as to what constitutes human need, and what needs can or can not be met by an economic or political system.
This thread is closed so I don't have to suspend people.
The posters here should remember Rule #1 applies in the OT as well, and that is starting to be enforced in line with the discussion in other portions of this board.
This stuff just doesn't happen anywhere else.
and that anarchism and communism CAN coexist.
