Anarchism - is it even feasible on paper?? Watch

President_Ben
Badges: 13
#41
Report 13 years ago
#41
The dictionary is not and should never be your first port of call when trying to understand political theory.

Local groups/individuals/large state can do whatever they like so long as they don't infringe on the right of the individual or they aren't anarchist. Markets immediately break this and so lose their claim to being 'anarchist'.
0
reply
Caribou
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#42
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#42
(Original post by President_Ben)
You don't get an emergent upper class. Because anyone who 'betrays the revolution' is collectively considered a 'bad idea' and their system of trying to gain power over others is dismantled. That is the balance between the freedom of all individuals to be free from that power, that class system, versus the right of that one individual to 'rule'.
so tall poppy syndrome??
0
reply
President_Ben
Badges: 13
#43
Report 13 years ago
#43
(Original post by HagerVor)
so tall poppy syndrome??
Tall poppy syndrome plea.

If you're a believer in the class war, you feel that the upper classes are bleeding the work class. Labour Theory of Value and all that.
0
reply
astralcars
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 13 years ago
#44
(Original post by President_Ben)
The dictionary is not and should never be your first port of call when trying to understand political theory.
I’m not seeking to judge relative merits or refinements of the model; just to know the core distinction between an anarchist system and a non-anarchist system. If the oxford dictionary is wrong or grossly inaccurate, where does one turn? A group voluntarily choosing to exchange goods, forming a localised market instead of joining the cooperative down the road isn’t antithetical to societal cooperation and individual rights.
0
reply
President_Ben
Badges: 13
#45
Report 13 years ago
#45
A market is more than an exchange of goods (which is a transaction). If you're starving and I give you food for the communal good, that is not a market.

The nature of exchange being driven around a price (implied or by medium) gives rise to markets.
0
reply
Caribou
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#46
stupid question..

but my mind really can't get round this..

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

can someone simply explain it to me?

and the implications..

cheers
0
reply
astralcars
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 13 years ago
#47
Sorry, double post.
0
reply
astralcars
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 13 years ago
#48
(Original post by President_Ben)
A market is more than an exchange of goods (which is a transaction). If you're starving and I give you food for the communal good, that is not a market. The nature of exchange being driven around a price (implied or by medium) gives rise to markets.
Yup, agreed. Groups choosing not to work within a cooperative would exchange goods at terms determined by the relative scarcity of the resouces available. Key is, they're choosing to participate.
0
reply
cuth
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#49
Report 13 years ago
#49
President_Ben - I didn't know that anarchism implied taking away the right to affect the lives of others...

and also, you continue to talk of a collective that somehow "slaps down" people who behave in an individualistic way. How is this slappage done, sureley if there is no government then there is no organisation that could slap down dissenters, it would be easy for a group to ignore the will of the collective, unless of course, that collective is united in some organisation with a leader ie: a government.

Cooperation vis a vis the equal distribution of goods and services without market forces is impossible - Unless we have an authoritarian state telling everyone exactly what to do. I don't understand why or how a nation would organise itself into a structured system without such authority.
0
reply
President_Ben
Badges: 13
#50
Report 13 years ago
#50
You don't lose the right to affect the lives of others. You lose the right to affect their lives without their consent.

I can't punch the **** out of someone in anarchism without their consent. But if I do it, it implies you lose the right to your own freedom - because you crossed the boundary of what is acceptable by society. And all those who are affected by what you have done, get to decide what happens to you.

You do not need leaders, or government, or centralised organisation. You can call it mob justice if you like, but if it doesn't affect you - so what? And if it does, you get a say.

Markets do not exist, say, in a family. But together, they are able to provide for each other. In fact, families used to be massive. They used to be the roaming packs on Earth.
0
reply
President_Ben
Badges: 13
#51
Report 13 years ago
#51
(Original post by HagerVor)
stupid question..

but my mind really can't get round this..

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

can someone simply explain it to me?

and the implications..

cheers
It's a very very deep topic, I wouldn't say I was faintly close to able to explain it myself or understand it yet. It has profound implications to the way the economy is run. I don't even fully understand the way the existing economy works But I study Economics for a reason
0
reply
Element54
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#52
Report 13 years ago
#52
(Original post by HagerVor)
Anarchism..

but more as "a harmonious anti-authoritarian society that is based on individual self-determination and personal involvement." no government...

In the meantime.. can someone shed some light??
I doubt there would be any anytime soon.

For instance you would need a radical cultural overhaul, or a radical oppressive government...

I also believe in the Elitist theory, that even if the masses do eliminate class and authority, there will inevitably be an individual to rise up and lead.
0
reply
simeon125
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#53
Report 13 years ago
#53
I remember doing a paper on this question. In short I came to a conclusion that on paper form 'it is feasible' but in reality extremely difficult process to implement and still be legit.
0
reply
OakBeans
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report 13 years ago
#54
The major thorn in the side of anarchism has traditionally been......adulthood.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How many universities have you heard back from?

0 (91)
13.13%
1 (89)
12.84%
2 (89)
12.84%
19.05%
22.37%
19.77%

Watched Threads

View All