Anarcho Apies?

Post Reply New Topic

Awesomelyglorious, I'm not giving a political science class here, but to answer your questions:

1) Welfare is design to keep the poor from revolting against the capitalist system. No, the welfare state is not the opposite of a free market state (Hayek was wrong), welfare is what stabilizes capitalist societies.

2) For example, jobs that don't require socializing/networking/references, etc., jobs that are local, artisanal, predictable, etc. Industrialization means that workplaces are overstimulating for many people with AS. The shift to third sector jobs means that excellent social skills and teamwork are paramount, and so on.

3) Why is it then that people in poor countries tend to be happier (there are studies)? Western societies have long gone over the tipping point, as our economies grow further welfare declines, as the rich get richer the poor get poorer, the living standard of our parents isn't achievable anymore for a lot of people that are now 30 or 40. I'm not advocating any kind of anarchist ideal, but I say that the people here who claim that our societies are superior to an imagined anarchist society (there has never been one in reality) are wrong. We simply have been conditioned to believe in the superiority of the democratic-capitalist complex. AS has the advantage that we should be able to free ourselves from such wrong believes and social memes and social constructs and think for ourselves.

Which of the countries you list have you actually been to? I've been to Russia, but also to places like Iran and Senegal. Don't buy the propaganda of the US media. Be better than that.

I subscribe to the anarcho-syndicalist school of thought and am heavily influenced by Kropotkin's vision however the world has changed a lot since his time and I would settle for Eric Blair's [George Orwell] vision of some form of democratic socialism. I am however regularly declared a 'crypto fascist' by middle class narcissists

Humans are by nature social creatures, however we have evolved myriad manifestations of this nature, fixed ideologies are dangerous as human social systems need to reflect this diversity and evolve with time. In my experience most self labelled anarchists tend to be incapable of such adaptability or tolerance, eg; extreme hostility to meat eaters or religion which I find incongruous with peaceful free association.

peace j

Overall I would think of myself as being a anarchist without adjectives, as I do not like to argue over rival socio-economic systems, especially with regards to persons who'd otherwise be my friends, and comrades. But being that I favor selectively voting for any candidates I deem suitable enough, mostly Greens, I more specificly consider myself to be a Communalist. I know however that voting is controversial amongst purported anarchists, and that a number of anarchists will not accept me as being a fellow anarchist. I just happen to feel though that philosophical anarchism holds the keys to maximising both personal freedom, and social justice, so that all persons may reach their full potential, and enjoy the pursuit of happiness. So yes, I am a proud anarcho-autist.

My beliefs and practices could be considered anarcho. But then, anarcho negates rule, order.....conventions (Not saying anarchy is violent or crazy) so would my beliefs be considered anarcho or would they be considered my individual beliefs?

Shouldn't you take the same attitude regardless though? If you want to present your idea in a way that others should accept, then shouldn't you take the asme


Do you have evidence that welfare is actually designed to keep the poor from revolting? The reason being that "the poor will revolt if we don't give them welfare" isn't a commonly presented reason why people want welfare policies. Nor do variances in welfare seem to correlate with variances in acceptance of the current social system. So, the US has relatively low welfare but relatively high nationalism.

Even further, by "welfare" I didn't mean "welfare policies", but rather I meant "welfare" as in the well-being of people. The US provides higher well being than 3rd world nations. I apologize for the confusion, but "welfare" had multiple meanings and I wasn't clear on which one I was specifying, hoping context would clarify.

And your point about libertarians is based upon a failure to recognize the use of these conceptual terms. The welfare state is the opposite of a free market state to a libertarian given libertarian understandings of the terms by the definitions libertarians give. Marxists and other radicals don't use these terms in the same way and have a different conceptual framework. So, a libertarian saying "the free market" means something different than your usage.


The use of socializing/networking/references is simply to handle the informational needs of society. So, by socializing, networking, and providing references an information sorting process is involved. You can't just blame capitalism without talking about what will replace it in this case, as these information needs are a result of higher labor flexibility.

As for industrialization, that's a matter of industrial efficiency. Social skills and teamwork are a result of jobs needing these kinds of qualities. I mean.... it's not like capitalists inherently *want* to structure the workplace a certain way. They simply want to reliably get outputs with certain inputs. There is a certain natural authoritarianism that comes up due to the fact that they feel like they are owed certain behaviors, but I see this most in dress codes, and other behavioral policies, but I don't think that larger structural issues are as likely to be blamed on the matter. Do you disagree, and why?


All of the research and studies I've read actually tell me the exact opposite on happiness and satisfaction.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_l ... tisfaction
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_h ... piness-net
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_l ... inequality

So, if you notice not only are these metrics of happiness much higher in countries we consider 1st world, but the inequality in happiness is actually generally much lower in the 1st world. That stands against your claims.

Even just other more objective measures like life expectancy or crime rates will give the same expectation
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_l ... population
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... urders-who

So, I'm not really sure what you are trying to get at here. Are you trying to say that all of this research is both wrong AND propaganda? If so, how many people are in on this, and how come one or more haven't actually squealed yet? How come academics haven't actually lobbed much much more serious criticism of the system and how can they put out information like this and rely on it with a straight face while vehemently opposing so many other details? Because I'll be direct: I'm not relying on propaganda, but rather my concern is social scientific research, and whether or not anarchism, particularly anarchism better than the current system, is plausible. I don't think your claims stand up.

^^^

Welfare as a tool of oppression?

It is difficult to prove the intentions of policy that is current and continuous from one government to the next without being able to eavesdrop on the informal conversations of the elite or read minds, however...

The first welfare system that had specific intention of suppressing unrest was I understand Roman, I seem to recall a little sweetener referred to as 'bread and circuses' which was conceived and offered with this specific intention. I cannot be sure - I am not a scholar of ancient Rome.

However I am a citizen in one of the most unregulated market economies in the world, one which also maintains a bare bones welfare system. I have also read fairly widely with regards it's origins, intentions and outcomes and it most certainly has been used to suppress social unrest. Can I prove this? this is difficult without going through a lifetimes reading and research and then selectively quoting for maximum support of my proposition - an intellectual dishonesty that I despise - however I am happy to state that I am 100% convinced that the welfare state only continues to exist in this country to reduce social disorder/unrest to an absolute minimum - individualist crime rather than collective acts of rebellion. I am also convinced that this disorder is kept as much as possible to poor on poor crime through selective legislation and policing [one example being our cannabis laws and their enforcement], however much of my evidence would be anecdotal and does not exactly constitute 'proof'.

Currently government policy seems entirely aimed at reducing security among the working poor, undermining social cohesion and reducing wages through continued immigration of the two extremes of the worlds richer citizens and it's most desperate. In short a NZ born pro union worker of low skills has to compete with the worlds richest in the property market and with the worlds most desperate [refugees and short term seasonal migrant workers] for work, people who are non-union and not used to the ideal of security and a fair go for all. At the same time the welfare system is kept to a minimum leading people into a weird mixture of 'desperate complacency' and the weakest are cut loose at every opportunity. Our government [currently rabid 'tory'] uses the image of 'dole bludgers' to divide the working poor and lower middle classes from the middle classes and the rich while handing out the biggest welfare checks of all to multinational corporations and the sweetest tax breaks to the rich.

If the 'safety net' of welfare was removed entirely tomorrow then this country would collapse into serious unrest within a month and it would not be pretty! why would the elite do that when they have a ready made wedge to drive between the ranks of the masses and those self same masses have just enough to not want to loose it by revolting - rather than merely being revolting? It isn't really rocket science to analyse the big picture and see that regardless of it's original intent the welfare system today certainly goes a long way to preventing unrest of an undesirable kind while promoting unrest of the most desirable kind.

If you wish to look into the example of New Zealand two good books that would perhaps make a good starting point would be,

No Left Turns - Chris Trotter

The Quest for Security in New Zealand, 1840–1966 - W B Sutch

Neither of these would constitute 'proof' however they give good context and background from which to launch further research.

peace j

It's a good job you are not a homosexual. Those countries are extremely dangerous for homosexuals.

I'm an anarchist as well. I don't think anarchism is uniquely more popular among us autistics, I think that all unconventional political views are more popular among autistics, because we're less bound by social norms about what to think.

I read about this a while ago, the explanation, if I remember correctly, is this:
From having nothing to having a certain amount of wealth (don't remember how much) wealth correlates with happiness. After that point it starts to correlate more with relative wealth; inequality. 1st world countries with low inequality are generally happier than those with high inequality. As such, people in 3rd world countries might be happier than people from 1st world countries when you correct for wealth.