Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-04-2017, 03:46 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
In all honesty, what does anyone expect to be the outcome of something like anarchism? Mind you, that's an idea from the 19th century, like so many social experiments that didn't pan out. Hardly anyone bothered to scientifically look at human nature at that time. Freud, who was kind of the pioneer of the human mind, just made his first baby steps, evolution wasn't as widely accepted, known or discussed, as it is today.

A society, in lack of a better word, without any laws or rules, would see the strongest bully rise to power. The one who manages to frighten others, the one being able to get the most homies to fight his corner. Him, because that one would most probably be male.

It wouldn't be an equal society being content with what they have. Everyone would fight over bread crumbs. And as far as evolution stoppping or being in full swing, that's a process requring millions of years. Homo sapiens sapiens hasn't evolved in any noteable way since we left the caves. That's a scientifically proven fact. Our minds haven't found a higher state of being which is obvious when reading and analyzing ancient texts. People were fretting over the exact same things in their lives as they do today.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like abaris's post
12-04-2017, 04:02 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(08-04-2017 06:14 AM)abaris Wrote:  Anarchism means everyone for themselves, since, by definition, there are no regulations.

That is a very naïve and incomplete definition of anarchism.
It is, however, a very commonly held view among those who haven't looked very deeply into anarchist philsosphy.

Albert Parsons summed it up neatly: "Government is for slaves; free men govern themselves."

The operative phrase there is govern themselves. Anarchy is not without government; it is without external, centralized, coercive government.

"Anarchy is any social relationship that involves neither dominance nor submission. It is the absence of social hierarchy, with no one imposing their will on another by force or threat of punishment. Anarchy means "without a ruler", or "without government". Government here is meant in the sense of "governing over" and forcing compliance through coercion. Such order is violent order. Anarchy, by contrast, is inherently cooperative- people relating to one another as equals."

Disillusions of Anarchy

A good place to begin exploring some of the possibilities, is here:

Social Anarchism

And some reasons we might want to at least start considering those possibilities:

Toward an American Revolution: Exposing the Constitution and Other Illusions

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 04:06 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(08-04-2017 07:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  The purpose of government is to protect the individual, and that entails compromise.

The first purpose of government -- always -- is self perpetuation.
The second purpose is most frequently consolidation of power, followed by expansion.

"Protection of the individual" quite often feeds into the rhetoric, but as a government goal -- if it exists at all for a particular government-- it's pretty far down the list.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 04:11 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(12-04-2017 03:08 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 02:51 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No, don't understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that you need to kill most people so that the population isn't as impacting on the environment?
Um, show me where I said anything about killing anybody?
You haven't elaborated on how you get the population reduced. Please elaborate.

(12-04-2017 03:08 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
Quote:Without coordinated government, who is going to take it as their personal responsibility to reduce global population?
Individual human beings need to take on that personal responsibility. If they fail to do so, humanity will eventually go the way of the dodo.
I'm not clear on what you are implying, can you please be specific?
Are you thinking that a contingent of "responsible" people will decide not to have children or will choose to have small numbers of children i.e. 1 in order to reduce the future population of the planet. They will personally do this for the greater good?


(12-04-2017 03:08 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
Quote:Who is going to take it as responsibility to provide roads and hospitals and schools etc. People ultimately look after their self interest,
Sometimes self-interest requires things like roads and hospitals, etc.
Sure, but who is going to pay for it? If others are paying and I can get away with not paying then I am going to choose not to pay.

(12-04-2017 03:08 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
Quote:most will try to hoard and let others pay, ultimately no-one will pay, you will not have any public schools or roads etc.
What will they be hoarding? If there are no governments, there will be no monetary system.
No money?!

So how do we collectively get roads and hospitals built? Do I give someone some potatoes I dug up from my garden? Who do I give the potatoes to? Do I have to find a road builder that wants potatoes? What if my neighbor doesn't have potatoes, what if they have tomatoes instead? Do they find a road builder that wants tomatoes? What if we give our potatoes and tomatoes to different road builders? Are we going to get two different roads to service the same neighbourhood?
Am I allowed to drive on the road that my neighbor built? If so, why would I bother getting a road built when I can use his/hers?

Can you see that I have lots of questions on this. I don't see how it can work, can you please elaborate?


(12-04-2017 03:08 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
Quote:The idea that people will just volunter to provide these things is a pipe dream.
Yes, I suppose you're right -- volunteerism is a myth. Rolleyes

"About 62.6 million people volunteered through or for an organization at least
once between September 2014 and September 2015."
Volunteering in the United States

Volunteering and Civic Life in America

That's just the US, of course:

The Countries Where You’ll Find The Most Volunteers

And we need to do a lot better. It's a start, though.
So you are going to have those few volunteers to pay for the services of everyone else? And they pay with potatoes and tomatoes and manure and whatever else they can find lying around the place?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 04:19 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(12-04-2017 04:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Sure, but who is going to pay for it? If others are paying and I can get away with not paying then I am going to choose not to pay.

Just leave it, it's nothing more than 19th century idealism. Even the most ancient societies required collaborative efforts to achieve anything of value. That meant leadership. The above mentioned self governing people instead of outside governing people is also idealistic bullshittery from a time when philosophers dreamed up all kinds of utopias.

Well, the idea of democracy is self governing, since the people governing are supposed to represent the people. It doesn't work out as intended in reality. Quite naturally since the people are still people who can't get above their nature. That's what all these lofty ideas didn't take into account. They didn't know better in the 19th century, that's their mitigating factor. We haven't the same luxury, unless we're being stupid.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 04:21 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(12-04-2017 03:12 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I'm thinking about starting a PAC or non-profit for homeless advocacy. Because they're cheap to start and I can legally pay myself a handsome salary. Big Grin

GM, I am tempted to say "don't become part of the problem" ...

But I won't. Wink

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
12-04-2017, 04:43 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(12-04-2017 04:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You haven't elaborated on how you get the population reduced. Please elaborate.
Birth control comes to mind.

Quote:I'm not clear on what you are implying, can you please be specific?
I don't believe I've "implied" anything -- what I meant to say, I said.

Quote:Are you thinking that a contingent of "responsible" people will decide not to have children or will choose to have small numbers of children i.e. 1 in order to reduce the future population of the planet. They will personally do this for the greater good?
Pretty much all people, or at least most of them, are going to have to do this.

If they do not, and if we are unable to mitigate the damage done to the planet and the species through over-population -- as seems likely -- then our species will decline, and perhaps become extinct.

Quote:Sure, but who is going to pay for it? If others are paying and I can get away with not paying then I am going to choose not to pay.
Such projects would require co-operation and social contracts. If adequate co-operation cannot be obtained, then the projects likely won't get done, and people may have to re-evaluate the needs of their enlightened self-interest.

Quote:No money?!

So how do we collectively get roads and hospitals built? Do I give someone some potatoes I dug up from my garden? Who do I give the potatoes to? Do I have to find a road builder that wants potatoes? What if my neighbor doesn't have potatoes, what if they have tomatoes instead? Do they find a road builder that wants tomatoes? What if we give our potatoes and tomatoes to different road builders? Are we going to get two different roads to service the same neighbourhood?
You would actually have to talk with your neighbors and negotiate terms -- that is, if you all decided you needed a road or a hospital. In other words, you couldn't be lazy if you wanted some larger project accomplished; you could no longer expect someone to do it without your input.


Quote:Am I allowed to drive on the road that my neighbor built? If so, why would I bother getting a road built when I can use his/hers?

That would depend on the terms you worked out with your neighbor.

Quote:Can you see that I have lots of questions on this. I don't see how it can work, can you please elaborate?
What I can see is that you are dropping a very limited concept of "anarchy" onto the society you see around you right now, which is an error.

This is not unlike King George III inquiring of the founders of the American Revolution "But how can the colonies be self-governing -- they're colonies? How can you possibly have a government without a monarch? They don't even have the means to start their own monarchy; the monarchy is here! How can they possibly conduct international trade, without familial ties between the heads of state of the European nations? Inconceivable!"

If humanity achieves successful anarchy, the society will look very different from what we now have, and your hypotheticals might never arise in the first place.


Quote:So you are going to have those few volunteers to pay for the services of everyone else? And they pay with potatoes and tomatoes and manure and whatever else they can find lying around the place?
You miss the point. You suggested that no one would volunteer for anything. I have shown that, even in our imperfect, class-centered, coercive, capitalist society, a considerable number of people DO volunteer themselves, every year. It is just barely conceivable that, were the need for volunteerism palpably greater -- and with more personal repercussions -- that the number would become even more considerable.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 04:50 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(12-04-2017 04:19 PM)abaris Wrote:  Even the most ancient societies required collaborative efforts to achieve anything of value. That meant leadership.
Well, it meant collaboration, anyway.

Again, anarchy means absence of coercive government, and not completely eschewing leadership tasks in every conceivable situation. Leaders for the duration of particular projects could, for example, be designated by collaborative social contract.

Quote:They didn't know better in the 19th century, that's their mitigating factor.
Actually -- with a few notable exceptions -- most of the better-known anarchist writers did most of their work in the 20th century.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 05:07 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(12-04-2017 04:50 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Again, anarchy means absence of coercive government, and not completely eschewing leadership tasks in every conceivable situation. Leaders for the duration of particular projects could, for example, be designated by collaborative social contract.

Are you aware how old this idea is? And how little that differs from the ideal of democracy? The ideal of communism even?

It doesn't work and can't work however. I'm flabbergasted that you can't see that in your idealistic bubble or whatever that is supposed to be. If people were just assigned to lead certain projects, there would be no advancement whatsoever. Every research takes time and testing. Without any kind of hierarchy ort temporary hierarchy there would be no research.

Again. The idea was born in the 19th century. It's laughable by todays standards. It was laughable even back then although the people following it didn't realize, and for the most part thought that doing away with the ruling class would be the road to paradise in itself.

Sorry, I can't take anyone seriously who still thinks that's even remotely possible. What's next? Utopia by Thomas Morus?

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 05:12 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
Quote:It doesn't work and can't work however

Work in what way?

Is our current society "working"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: