reasons why people say anarchism could never work

Page 5 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

psych
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

02 Feb 2012, 6:52 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

San Francisco needs something they can only get from Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh needs something they can only get from Houston or Dallas, Houston or Dallas need something directly from Montana. Without a secure highway system, a paid for (somehow) set of interstate infrastructure, they simply do without. Highway bandits would be a problem as well with no consistency in patrol.


kropotkin, the conquest of bread wrote:
Europe has a system of railways, over 175,000 miles long and on this network you can travel from... ..without delays, without even changing carriages.. ..All this was done by free agreement, by exchange of letters and proposals, and by congresses at which delegates met to discuss well specified special points, and to come to an agreement about them, but not to make laws. After the congress was over, the delegates returned to their respective companies, not with a law, but with the draft of a contract to be accepted or rejected."

"And the most interesting thing in this organization is, that there is no European Central Government of Railways! Nothing! No minister of railways, no dictator, not even a continental parliament, not even a directing committee! Everything is done by free agreement."

"So we ask the believers in the State, who pretend that we can never do without a central Government, were it only for regulating the traffic, we ask them: But how do European railways manage without them? How do they continue to convey millions of travelers and mountains of luggage across a continent? If companies owning railways have been able to agree, why should railway workers, who would take possession of railways, not agree likewise? And if the Petersburg Warsaw Company and that of Paris Belfort can act in harmony, without giving themselves the luxury of a common commander, why, in the midst of our societies, consisting of groups of free workers, should we need a Government?"


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QM_p ... &q&f=false



fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

02 Feb 2012, 7:06 pm

Would you expect similar agreements between each community-operated police force? You need to police the trains.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

03 Feb 2012, 1:40 am

fraac wrote:
Remember that Marx and Engels were probably autistic and unaware that everyone else wasn't. Like you, apparently.


i see. does this mean that every person with an interest in marx and engels is also autistic, and for that matter every person who has theorised on anarchist philosophy or organised in anarchist movements has also been autistic?

Quote:
What would stop your anarchist paradise growing into the system we have now?


i don't see how anarchism to what we have now would be a logical progression. marx believed what we have now would evolve into essentially an anarchist system.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

03 Feb 2012, 2:02 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
peebo wrote:
all modern societies. have you an example of a true bottom up society that exists today?

Lets see....
In most small towns people who feel the need run for office if they both have the time and see the need for certain issued to be taken care of.


people who run for elected positions in local or national politics don't tend to come from the bottom, though. this may be beside the point however, as once they are in office they become part of the power structure. they are prey to vested interests, lobbyists and corruption. government progressively serves the powerful and wealthy, rather than the masses. the trajectory of government policy over the course of the 20th century, and particularly since the thatcher/reagan era until now demonstrates this.
Quote:
A dynamic takes place where people become aware that there is a problem with the current legal structure. Take the mortgage meltdown around the world where mortgages have a fixed principle value, at the time of their inception, and that the drop in value caused calamity because so many people found themselves under water. Ideas from private industry? Lets introduce the SAM - shared appreciation mortgage, where the lender and borrower share the appreciation and depreciation of property equally with a significantly lower interest rate for the borrower. Surprisingly, when a bubble hits this hard, what a bank loses in profit from SAMs it gains in prevented defaults. Solutions like that come from ground level, not from Washington.


multinational corporations are not at ground level. this is an example of top down structure. corporations have the power of wealth and protection from the state.

Quote:
In private industry, people start companies - a) because they want money but b) because they see a demand for a service. Without the later they can't get from sole proprietor to megacorp on a fabricated need. People want to buy something that does x, people have products that hit w and y but not quite x, the closest they can get to x is a sloppy substitue, and finally someone said 'wouldn't it be great if' and then put money into it. In that sense to buy a product is to give a dollar vote. Does a larger company eventually enjoy more resources to offer lower prices? Yes. However even they are often retailers and resellers while their vendor list is comprised of many companies in competion in respective fields. If a manufacturer or service provider is terrible at what it does, it gets aced out by someone who does it better. That's not top-down, its demand driven which is bottom up. If they have a crap product but have great real estate holdings, they're still better off just becoming a real estate entity and letting the manufacturing or service part of what they do get sold off so they can generate better profits.


this is all true, but not valid in the context of this discussion. mass influence over product development decisions by means of purchasing power can not be argued to empower the populace in any real sense. especially given the majority of people on earth live a subsistence existence. what purchasing power do they wield?

also, purchasing power has no direct influence on policy decisions etc. it doesn't facilitate workers receiving the true value of their labour.

Quote:
Another likely bigger thing: common law systems. A tort goes to court, a judge reviews based on previous legal cases and outcomes, the jury votes, or in the case of a surpreme court (state or federal) the decision is made by a panel of judges. Case law only goes up directly to federal if it involves an issue between states. Law has always been, when done properly, a bottom-up thing and tort/common law is alive and well in the US as well as many other countries who practice majority-capitalism blends.


legal decisions being based upon precedent doesn't imply a bottom up legal system either.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,213
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

03 Feb 2012, 8:35 am

peebo wrote:
people who run for elected positions in local or national politics don't tend to come from the bottom, though.

Ah, so they're the oppressor not the oppressee already.

peebo wrote:
this may be beside the point however, as once they are in office they become part of the power structure. they are prey to vested interests, lobbyists and corruption. government progressively serves the powerful and wealthy, rather than the masses. the trajectory of government policy over the course of the 20th century, and particularly since the thatcher/reagan era until now demonstrates this.

My analogy wasn't federal government though. To clarify I meant city, county, etc.. Probably not major city either where you have political machines, just small local stuff or, in big city counties its the suburbs.

peebo wrote:
Quote:
A dynamic takes place where people become aware that there is a problem with the current legal structure. Take the mortgage meltdown around the world where mortgages have a fixed principle value, at the time of their inception, and that the drop in value caused calamity because so many people found themselves under water. Ideas from private industry? Lets introduce the SAM - shared appreciation mortgage, where the lender and borrower share the appreciation and depreciation of property equally with a significantly lower interest rate for the borrower. Surprisingly, when a bubble hits this hard, what a bank loses in profit from SAMs it gains in prevented defaults. Solutions like that come from ground level, not from Washington.


multinational corporations are not at ground level. this is an example of top down structure. corporations have the power of wealth and protection from the state.

I'm a bit confused. I think you meant to post this to the next blurb? Anyway I think innovations for fixing problems and appropriately sharing liability - in a capitalistic system can come slowly, can take a disaster or two, but they get through quicker via the private sector than they would congress. Another thing to note - I'd like to know how M1 and M2 would be handled under an anarchist system. Say I want to start a company and need funds, would there still be fractional reserve? Would the banks be able to loan me money? Would I need to go see a venture capitalist for everything from starting a business to buying a house?

peebo wrote:
this is all true, but not valid in the context of this discussion. mass influence over product development decisions by means of purchasing power can not be argued to empower the populace in any real sense. especially given the majority of people on earth live a subsistence existence. what purchasing power do they wield?

I have to detail what you're saying to try and sort it out. You're claiming that the business to business sector trumps human demand or trumps what the media can do to a company who is in violation of the laws or even public interest - as I take it. Also, I'd love to know what 'empowering the populace' means. Aside from something that would be good for Rage Against The Machine lyrics I'm trying to understand what kind of empowerment you're talking about, what they're trying to achieve with that empowerment, and what the hoped for end result is. Clearly self or group empowerment in the traditional sense through NGOs, political and non-political organizations or urban revitilization plans at a local level don't work given that those are tools of the current system, what plan of empowerment are we talking about?

peebo wrote:
also, purchasing power has no direct influence on policy decisions etc. it doesn't facilitate workers receiving the true value of their labour.

The question back to you - how would you facilitate them receiving the true value of their labor, what would define and who would define the true value of their labor?

peebo wrote:
Quote:
Another likely bigger thing: common law systems. A tort goes to court, a judge reviews based on previous legal cases and outcomes, the jury votes, or in the case of a surpreme court (state or federal) the decision is made by a panel of judges. Case law only goes up directly to federal if it involves an issue between states. Law has always been, when done properly, a bottom-up thing and tort/common law is alive and well in the US as well as many other countries who practice majority-capitalism blends.


legal decisions being based upon precedent doesn't imply a bottom up legal system either.

No, it absolutely does. Local law comes from local law, state law draws from experience it was able to draw from both state and local law, federal law draws from experience of its own as well as state and local. I think the thing you're forgetting at least with America is that the state and federal governments aren't significantly older and have significantly less legal practice than the sum of the localities. States and federal governments, in a common law system, draw from everything relevant that they can find. Obviously a trade dispute between two states may not be something they'd be able to go back to a local level on as easily but in other senses they can. The appelate system starts the majority of cases and law suites at the local level, they only start elevating past the local level when they're that difficult to solve that they keep getting appealed upward.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

03 Feb 2012, 9:46 am

peebo wrote:
fraac wrote:
Remember that Marx and Engels were probably autistic and unaware that everyone else wasn't. Like you, apparently.


i see. does this mean that every person with an interest in marx and engels is also autistic, and for that matter every person who has theorised on anarchist philosophy or organised in anarchist movements has also been autistic?



I'd bet that most political philosophers are autistic. Most people in a society aren't.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,294
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

03 Feb 2012, 3:35 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
fraac wrote:
I labelled the formulations of anarchism that I've seen, not Noam Chomsky. I always like to be sufficiently specific.

'Communism rejects authority'... but you said 'no individual has the right to coerce another' and 'anarchism generally holds that a set of rules...' and 'capital would be held in common ownership'. Those all imply an authority to stop unwanted things happening. Also, ACTUAL HISTORY, where Communism didn't work because the regulators weren't autistic so considered themselves a privileged class. How do you argue against actual history that shows the failings of a system designed to control human nature?


See none of those examples in history are actually Communism....communism by default cannot have any sort of ruling class, that would defeat the purpose of communism.
Oh right it hasn't been tried yet. Or maybe it was tried plenty of times and left a power vacuum for the state to fill.


a way around that would have to be found, but it would take quite some time and the way society has conditioned people to behave would take quite some time to ever be overturned on a large scale.
Like what? You really need to stop being so vague. Also if everyone else has to make it work, then it won't work because it fails to address the liabilities of people working against the system.


Well it is kinda hard to be perfectly specific about something that does not even exist and has not been tried yet. But I think people have been conditioned to have this inherently evil 'human nature' people use as a reason why anarchy could not work. People believe they are inherently evil and bad and must therefore have a government to enforce rules using fear of punishment. Same with religion, you're evil because you're human so you have to repent and follow these rules or burn in hell like you deserve. So the idea would be to educate people there are other ways besides 'compete to get to the top regardless of who you hurt on the way.' and keep the government around to prevent things from getting too out of hand because if it was not for them instead of just bullying people and stuff like that we'd be flat out killing each other for that top job position. Rather then being told from an early age that competition is the most important thing maybe the idea that building a positive society for everyone in it is the best idea.

I don't know its hard not to be vague because even I was not really exposed to another way......I went through the regular education system and observed the conditioning I just was not as easy to convince that it was the correct way. But I don't exactly have a perfect alternative at this point and I cannot claim I could come up with one, but that should not stop me from being open to other ideas.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

03 Feb 2012, 3:37 pm

Anarchy is supposed to work in the short run, not in the long run.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,294
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

03 Feb 2012, 3:40 pm

fraac wrote:
Regulators aren't corrupt because society conditioned them. They're corrupt because they're nonautistic humans. They'll always be selfish, shortsighted, petty and spiteful.

Only way it would work is with a single powerful (autistic) ruler. A Hitler figure, if you will.


I disagree I do not think non-autistic human=psychopath, but maybe that's just me.......I think its pretty ignorant to generalize anyone who's not autistic as selfish, shortsighted, petty and spiteful. And it's just that sort of group division between different groups of people those running the show like to see.......because it keeps us divided.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,294
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

03 Feb 2012, 3:45 pm

Oh I like what I've read here so far:
anarcho-communism



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,213
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

03 Feb 2012, 4:10 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
See none of those examples in history are actually Communism....communism by default cannot have any sort of ruling class, that would defeat the purpose of communism.

Just a thought for reflection:

Look up 'ABN Jihad Exposed: Can Islam Be Reformed?' on Youtube. There was a four-way debate somewhere in this series between one libertarian/reform muslim (Zuhdi Jasser), one former terrorist now Christian, and two debaters who are defenders of fundamentalist Islam. BOTH of the the defenders of fundamentalist Islam say the exact same thing about sharia, caliphate, and the barbarism that we see in countries that supposedly practice it - real sharia hasn't been done yet.

The impression I'm getting is that the 'it hasn't been done yet' is something utopians of all stripes will never stop saying, likely in that it has the same genius to it as a theist saying 'prove that a God doesn't exist'. In one side you have an infalsifiable claim, on the other and in this context we have a claim that could only be falsified after we try a utopian system perhaps another hundred times and failed until everyone is sufficiently satisfied that everything they tried to blame previous failure on (capitalism, Christianity, biggotry, etc.) wasn't present and that every excuse subsequent to that had been exhausted as well.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to paint a bunch of radical ism's on you, I'm just trying to say that I might be seeing the beginning of a pattern between utopians and certain brands of rationalization.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 03 Feb 2012, 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,294
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

03 Feb 2012, 4:25 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
See none of those examples in history are actually Communism....communism by default cannot have any sort of ruling class, that would defeat the purpose of communism.

Just a thought for reflection:

Look up 'ABN Jihad Exposed: Can Islam Be Reformed?' on Youtube. There was a four-way debate somewhere in this series between one libertarian/reform muslim (Zuhdi Jasser), one former terrorist now Christian, and two debaters who are defenders of fundamentalist Islam. BOTH of the the defenders of fundamentalist Islam say the exact same thing about sharia, caliphate, and the barbarism that we see in countries that supposedly practice it - real sharia hasn't been done yet.
I do not see how that has anything to do with communism.

The impression I'm getting is that the 'it hasn't been done yet' is something utopians of all stripes will never stop saying, likely in that it has the same genius to it as a theist saying 'prove that a God doesn't exist'. In one side you have an infalsifiable claim, on the other and in this context we have a claim that could only be falsified after we try a utopian system perhaps another hundred times and failed until everyone is sufficiently satisfied that everything they tried to blame previous failure on (capitalism, Christianity, biggotry, etc.) wasn't present and that every excuse subsequent to that had been exhausted as well.


Get whatever impression you want, but all I was saying is true communism has not existed yet........so one cannot argue that it would not work because it hasn't existed so it has yet to be seen.



fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

03 Feb 2012, 4:31 pm

'True Communism' hasn't existed because it's imaginary.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,294
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

03 Feb 2012, 4:37 pm

fraac wrote:
'True Communism' hasn't existed because it's imaginary.


No it has not existed yet because a communist society has not been created on a large scale.....it has been proven to work on a small scale, but the goal would be to create a large communist society I guess as in trying to make it work on a larger scale. that does not mean calling the proposed system communism to gain the support of the people but instead turn it into another system with a ruling class and call it communism.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,213
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

03 Feb 2012, 4:42 pm

fraac wrote:
'True Communism' hasn't existed because it's imaginary.

I think what can be said about your analogy between NT thought an autistic thought; an autistic will believe that an asymptotal line can be reached and even crossed, an NT still understands that its an asymptote.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

03 Feb 2012, 4:43 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
fraac wrote:
'True Communism' hasn't existed because it's imaginary.

I think what can be said about your analogy between NT thought an autistic thought; an autistic will believe that an asymptotal line can be reached and even crossed, an NT still understands that its an asymptote.


I don't know what that means.