Turn on thread page Beta

D&D PTP&P's "Ask An Anarchist" Thread watch

Announcements
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I know. I used to also find graphs generally rather poor & ineffective, but something about that graph appeals to me.
    Sorry, you find a bar graph that puts FDR left of Stalin, classical liberals somewhere between Blair and Kropotkin appealing, and says Hitler and Stalin had identical economic policies appealing?

    As far as I see it, at the moment, there are only two visions on politics - namely, the use of force or freedom.
    And this is why Libertarians are silly. Just "Force" and "Freedom" with no qualifications are such vague terms that they're basically meaningless.

    Somehow, it doesn’t seem to matter, to me, what Hitler & Stalin did.
    Yeah, Holocaust and the Gulags, totally unimportant...

    The fact that these two supreme authoritarians believed in the use of force against man in order to achieve a vision, is all that is necessary to define them. For me, the distinction over what kind of force (and to what extent) they used seems frivolous, and, I am inclined to think, missing the point!
    I think most of academia/anyone who's read a book about either Hitler or Stalin would probably have a fit if they read this. The British economy had more state intervention than its Nazi counterpart, so you may want to put Churchill right in the same box as you've put Hitler and Stalin if you really don't think any factor other than the use of coercive force is important.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    P.S. You mean I should remove Proudhon from the anarcho-capitalist section and only keep him in the revolutionary tactics for social anarchism section? Directed at AnarchistNutter and anyone else who has an opinion on this.

    Proudhon was an individualist anarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist...
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Sorry, you find a bar graph that puts FDR left of Stalin, classical liberals somewhere between Blair and Kropotkin appealing, and says Hitler and Stalin had identical economic policies appealing?

    And this is why Libertarians are silly. Just "Force" and "Freedom" with no qualifications are such vague terms that they're basically meaningless.

    Yeah, Holocaust and the Gulags, totally unimportant...

    I think most of academia/anyone who's read a book about either Hitler or Stalin would probably have a fit if they read this. The British economy had more state intervention than its Nazi counterpart, so you may want to put Churchill right in the same box as you've put Hitler and Stalin if you really don't think any factor other than the use of coercive force is important.
    They are only two ultimate means of arranging society. You either force everyone to comply with your vision, or you let them be free. Can you name another way? Why do you think it is “silly?” Or is that just an attempt at a cheap insult? There really is nothing vague about those words, but even if it was vague, it certainly doesn’t render those two words meaningless (as you would have us believe). Of all words, surely, those don’t require definitions. Or do you happen to think that the use of force is sometimes acceptable? Perhaps that is why you think it requires qualification?

    Did I say “Holocaust and the Gulags, totally unimportant”? Did I even imply it? I was obviously talking in the context of force and freedom as a means of arranging society. Yet suddenly, you’d have us believe that I think those historical events are unimportant. It’s a shame that we can’t have an intellectual discussion. I knew when I posted that, you’d respond with a “oh, you think the Holocaust is unimportant?” kind of quip. And sure enough, you don’t let me down! Obviously, henceforth, I am going to have to qualify everything damn thing I say – as if I am talking to a child.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Proudhon was an individualist anarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist...
    Actually, he was a mutualist which is a strand of social anarchism which advocates a community owned banking system (money still stands, still socialism though) whereas individualist anarchism advocates a system of individual worker's co-operatives (not bound by communes) without coercive private property laws (money still stands but it is still, technically speaking "socialism" - market socialism). There is more detail in the FAQ as posted in the OP.

    (Original post by ANARCHY)
    ...
    (Original post by Lord Histeria)
    ...
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    ...
    Quoted for attention.

    Did you see the graphs I posted in regards to worker's roles? (Possible OP, ANARCHY). I only watched a small section of the Zeitgeist video (I just thought it might be good to chuck into the general mix), admittedly but I notice there are replies posted by the Zeitgeist in response to Stef's video response if you look down the related video section. The Zeitgeist is part of the Venus Project movement. I don't agree with the movement, though, due to its level of centralisation but I was just posting the video as a critique of capitalism (doesn't matter who's making the critique, lol, as long as its a critique of capitalism).

    p.s. keep the bell curve whatever (not bothered) - but I think the political compass is a superior system (though by no means the be all and end all) and should stay whatever. With the bell curve, its not the fact it oversimplifies, just the fact that it is wrong - whereas the political compass does oversimplify but it at least has the right general idea on how to approach the political spectrum. Keep 'em both, I don't care.

    ANARCHY - as for Proudhon, I meant that his work describes a post-revolutionary society as well as what the revolution was about. Coincidentally, in his later years, he came to reject the idea of revolution in favour of evolution.

    I think it should go:

    Social Anarchism

    - Mutualism

    Proudhon - The General Idea of the Revolution

    - Anarcho-Collectivism

    Bakunin, et al.
    - Anarcho-Syndicalism (anarcho-syndicalism, *technically* speaking, is a sub-genre of anarcho-collectivism)

    Rocker, Malatesta, etc.

    - Anarcho-Communism

    Kropotkin, et al.

    Revolutionary Tactics

    Mao's peasant report.

    (Original post by Lord Histeria)
    ...
    Lord Histeria: I'd like to elaborate on the system of work roles from that other post I made with diagrams, etc. Labourers may choose from a popular and unpopular pool of labour for the week.

    Week 1, 3 out of 4 days (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) you do unpopular labour and 4 out of 3 days (Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday) you do popular labour.

    Week 2, you do unpopular labour 4/3 days and popular labour 3/4 days.

    Let us say the "pool" of all the "bad" work (as voted on by the commune) in the neighbourhood includes *collecting bin bags, *cleaning the street, *making truck deliveries, *bus driving, *delivering furniture, *delivering coal (of course there would be much more options than that)

    (I personally quite like all those jobs but some people are just fussy... )

    Ok, week 1 you get to choose 3 out of that pool of 6 jobs (3 days, 3 different jobs). Now I can't drive big vehicles, so I can't do bus driving or make truck deliveries and lets say, I don't know, I'm allergic to coal for whatever reason. So, instead, I choose to do bin bag, street cleaning and furniture delivery duties. so, you get to choose a wide variety of labour . Everyone in the commune is doing their fair share of work so the amount of "sucky" labour is reduced to 3-4 hours a day. If you want, of course, you can just do the same 1 job over Monday, Wednesday and Friday but in reality people would want to pursue a wider variety of labour because its more fun and interesting.

    On top of all the "bad" labour, you also get to choose from a pool of "good" labour for the remaining 4 days of the week, I don't know... *environmental surveillance, *commune organisation, *lecture at the local university, *cook food for the commune, etc. Of course, there would be way more choices than this. There would also be people to go around doing surveys of what additional work could be added to the pool of labour.

    Naturally, you would require qualifications to become, say for instance, a heart surgeon and if you felt a certain job was out of your skill range then you will have plenty of other alternatives. You don't *have* to do a different job for each *good labour* days, just like you don't *have* to do a different job for each *bad labour* day, the option is just there. The idea is simply to encourage people to get out there and do a wide variety of different, exciting jobs rather than go and sweep up the same old factory day afte day.

    Obviously subjectivity is involved when voting on good vs. bad labour, that's why you get a choice over which job. Labour vouchers are allocated by commune for labour and you may go and buy goods or services with your labour voucher.

    Naturally, with this diversity of labour, I believe people will become more skilled, more educated, more politically active. The general condition of man will be improved.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    They are only two ultimate means of arranging society. You either force everyone to comply with your vision, or you let them be free.
    Oh, come on stop it, seriously. You know there is way more to it than that. Now you are just doing this on purpose.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    I don't differentiate between the different Communist 'isms' because the aim is the same. Lenin was a Marxist, but he was a Marxist who realised that Marxism was impossible without a little... 'persuasion'; Hence the adoption of a more authoritarian stance. 'Dictatorship of the proletariat' is just another euphemism for violent proletarian revolution leading to some kind of egalitarian heaven; which never materialises because of, well, reality. The thing I never understand about staunch Marxists is, they say that 'Communism' is inevitable and this 'Capitalist' phase of humanity is a necessary but temporary phase, yet at the same time they want to smash it; leaves me incredulous.

    I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (although I am partial to the ideas[they haven't been tried so it's pretty difficult to argue against them]), but I think that your assertion that it is 'authoritarian' is somewhat strange. Yes, there will be hierarchies, but hierarchy will always exist in biological societies, of which human society is one.

    There is a bit of inconsistency (or so I think anyway) in this view that opposes 'hierarchy'. As I said earlier, hierarchy is an inherent part of most biological systems - things are not 'born equal'. There are many variations in the concentration of certain gene-types leading to a variation in characteristics; an easy example is the dichotomy between men and women: men have high levels of strength and aggression, and sometimes intelligence (this is just a statistical fact, the reasons for it are not important for this discussion) and women have other equally useful characteristics, such as their brains being more in touch with their emotions more than men's, making them better nurturers and the obvious womb etc etc.

    So clearly, on a biological level, there is no 'equality', there is 'hierarchy'; do you oppose this too? If yes, how does your ideology propose to destroy it? And if no, why is your opposition to 'hierarchy' limited only to economics, and not everything else?
    Lenin was a tool. It was made quite clear with the examples of Kronstadt and Petrogad, the Ukrainian Free Territories adn Catalonia and Aragon a "more authoritarian stance" and "a little persuasion" is not only unnecessary but completely disastrous for communism. In all the former exapmles, the workers simply made the moves themselves. So screw state socialism, I say. I say capitalism is impossible without a "little persuasion", whether it be in the form of the State, the Church or "private protection agencies".

    As far as the idea that "radical changes are inevitable" is a contradiction, by your books, if you look into the concepts of dialectical materialism, the idea is that we have made radical changes (law of quantity into quality - if you lower the temperature of water [quantity - number of degrees celsius], it does not become pulpy then turn into ice, rather it reaches a certain temperature, then it all becomes hard all at once [quality - ice]) in which opposites cancel each other out (acids vs. bases, protons vs. electrons, capital vs. labour, etc., etc.) and create a new situation through the law of negation. This explains the radical change of the French Revolution in which the bourgeois class of business men rose up, overthrew the aristocracy and made the government accountable to the people. In a similar way, Marx believed that it was inevitable that the proletariat would rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie.

    Darwin couldn't explain long gaps between fossil records, apparently.

    There are other views, anti-dialectics, etc. but I won't elaborate on them.

    The ideas of anarcho-capitalism haven't been tried yet - this is precisely why the idea can't work; it ignores history, whereas with communism I can draw on the fact we were living in communes for millions of years before the uprising of capitalism. There has been no system of perfect competition in the history of humans with a multitude of small firms not striving to set the price, only to sell goods and services cheaper and not one of them having sufficient power to influence the market. This is what is required for laissez-faire capitalism to work in reality and this has never been the case and never will be the case. Furthermore, the system of private property and wage labour was enforced by the state.

    Its like a man walking into a room with a gun, robbing everyone of their possessions and then saying, ok guys, let's just start from square one; there will no longer be any coercion and we can "voluntarily" trade goods from now on (but I of course will keep all my possessions). That's why laissez-faire capitalism is irrelevant; the gains of capitalists now are thanks to state coercion in the past. The only way to level out the playing field is through a workers' revolution. Perhaps then we can start up a system of laissez-faire capitalism but in reality the "natural" progression for society from there would be communism.

    I don't think hierarchies are a part of "human nature" (by god am I sick of that argument). Personal differences such as IQ have nothing to do with hierarchy. You mistake social equality for equality of endowment (I don't oppose biological equality, this is absurd) and then use it as an excuse to defend the hierarchical (and therefore authoritarian) infrastructures of capitalism. We oppose the state because it is a hierarchy as is the system of capitalism.

    p.s. the aim is not always the same with communism. The main difference lies in the tactical strategies, yeah but sometimes the goal is different as well.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Oh, come on stop it, seriously. You know there is way more to it than that. Now you are just doing this on purpose.
    As far as I see it, there are only two ways of arranging how people live in society. You either think you should force your vision, or let people be free. Most of humanity would rather live with the use of force – and there is nothing “wrong” with that. Go ahead and explain it to me, if you think there is more to it than that. I don’t know why you think I am trolling or something?

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    We oppose the state because it is a hierarchy as is the system of capitalism.
    Arh! Is this the basis of your anarchism contra the state?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Arh! Is this the basis of your anarchism contra the state?
    Yes! Hierarchy leads to force and coercion, all the principles you are opposed to. Force and coercion is required to protect civil liberties but beyond that people are free to live their lives as they wish. You can't have a hierarchical society without force and coercion, this idea is preposterous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Yes! Hierarchy leads to force and coercion, all the principles you are opposed to. Force and coercion is required to protect civil liberties but beyond that people are free to live their lifes as they wish. You can't have a hierarchical society without force and coercion, this idea is preposterous.
    Theocracy? :awesome:

    P.S. To all, I'm going to remove the Zeitgeist video because a lot of people have expressed that it's not a good analysis. I'll remove the bell curve too and keep the political compass. AnarchistNutter, which was this link you gave? Have I put it up? If not, could you give me the URL to the post please. Oh, and I'll move Proudhon out of the individualist section altogether. It's better to just leave it in the tactics section I guess.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    The ideas of anarcho-capitalism haven't been tried yet - this is precisely why the idea can't work; it ignores history, whereas with communism I can draw on the fact we were living in communes for millions of years before the uprising of capitalism. There has been no system of perfect competition in the history of humans with a multitude of small firms not striving to set the price, only to sell goods and services cheaper and not one of them having sufficient power to influence the market. This is what is required for laissez-faire capitalism to work in reality and this has never been the case and never will be the case. Furthermore, the system of private property and wage labour was enforced by the state.

    Its like a man walking into a room with a gun, robbing everyone of their possessions and then saying, ok guys, let's just start from square one; there will no longer be any coercion and we can "voluntarily" trade goods from now on (but I of course will keep all my possessions). That's why laissez-faire capitalism is irrelevant; the gains of capitalists now are thanks to state coercion in the past. The only way to level out the playing field is through a workers' revolution. Perhaps then we can start up a system of laissez-faire capitalism but in reality the "natural" progression for society from there would be communism.

    I don't think hierarchies are a part of "human nature" (by god am I sick of that argument). Personal differences such as IQ have nothing to do with hierarchy. You mistake social equality for equality of endowment (I don't oppose biological equality, this is absurd) and then use it as an excuse to defend the hierarchical (and therefore authoritarian) infrastructures of capitalism. We oppose the state because it is a hierarchy as is the system of capitalism.

    This is an interesting post.

    I don’t think anarcho-capitalism is dependent on historicism. But even so, anarcho-capitalism is based on the non-existence of coercive monopolies. Living in a commune (whatever that really means) can still mean that it is anarcho-capitalistic … moreover, I think humans have been living for 200,000 years and not quite millions! Lol.

    What do you mean by “perfect competition”? The only people I know to have such a concept are neoclassical economists, and I can easily refute their definition. But let’s suppose capitalism didn’t have “perfect competition”. Does that mean anarcho-capitalism is impossible? No, not at all. I am sure humans also said “we haven’t been to the moon, thus it is impossible”.

    Moving onto specifics, I have noticed you saying that “private property and wage labour was enforced by the state”. I think this is nonsense. Private property has nothing to do with the state. Private property exists in nature, as a phenomenon, that we share with all other animals. It is a means of overcoming the problems of scarcity, increasing efficiency and providing an optimal supply off economic goods. But ultimately, the greatest achievement of private property is to allow division of labour. None of this requires the state. I don’t see why you think a state would be necessary? Wage slavery is more of an emotional “argument” than anything. Wages should really be affected by supply & demand. Labour is a means of production and is also a scarce good. Since, the economic laws of supply and demand are the most effective means of allocating resources; labour should not be exempt from it. Wage slavery is really saying “I demand to be paid more than my valued economic output”. As I said, it is more of an emotional argument than an economic one.

    I would also argue that anarcho-capitalism is based, not on historicism, but human action and man’s praxeological structure. I’m happy to go into some detail on this.

    You’re quite right that the state has enjoyed a coercive monopoly in terms of the distribution of land. It’s has caused a great deal off theft from original owners. This is a fact. You may very well present me with the moral argument against anarcho-capitalism, which I have heard endlessly, which essentially argues that “how could you possibly argue a distribution that was historically grounded in theft?” It appears to be a good argument, but my response is even better. Laissez-faire tends to resources that are used efficiently. So, with a free-market the land would tend to go those who use it most efficiently - Coase theorem. So what we have a system that is trying to rectify that initial act of theft.

    Lastly, I don’t really understand how someone could be opposed to the inequality of capital inherited and yet have no problem with social inequality (such as IQ). I think in order to be consistent you must oppose both. It is true that inherited wealth does give you a competitive advantage (and there is nothing wrong with that), just as inheriting intelligence gives you an advantage too. There is a hierarchy of intelligence. Schools have different sets for those with different abilities in different subjects. Humans, ultimately, arrange hierarchies based on our differences. Why should intelligence be any different from inheritance of wealth? I think there is an inconsistency there.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Theocracy? :awesome:
    I don't get your point here...

    P.S. To all, I'm going to remove the Zeitgeist video because a lot of people have expressed that it's not a good analysis. I'll remove the bell curve too and keep the political compass. AnarchistNutter, which was this link you gave? Have I put it up? If not, could you give me the URL to the post please. Oh, and I'll move Proudhon out of the individualist section altogether. It's better to just leave it in the tactics section I guess.
    What I'm saying is that Proudhon should go under mutualism and mutualism should be a subgenre under social anarchism. He is not in the individualist anarchist section anyway but you should definitely leave this section in tact.

    Like so:

    - INDIVIDUALIST ANARCHISM

    *insert Tucker, here*

    - "Anarcho"-capitalism

    - SOCIAL ANARCHISM

    - Mutualism


    *insert Proudhon, here*

    - Revolutionary Tactics

    *insert Mao, here*

    I provided diagrams, here. I also expanded upon the idea of work rotation here. Scroll down a bit for the latter post. Edit - the diagrams require you to log onto another site called RevLeft, otherwise you can't see them. Ah well...

    (Original post by Me)
    Lord Histeria: I'd like to elaborate on the system of work roles from that other post I made with diagrams, etc. Labourers may choose from a popular and unpopular pool of labour for the week.

    ...

    Naturally, with this diversity of labour, I believe people will become more skilled, more educated, more politically active. The general condition of man will be improved.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Yes! Hierarchy leads to force and coercion, all the principles you are opposed to.
    Does it really? I demand an explanation :cool:

    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    blah blah blah, I am an anarchist .... innit
    I was watching Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon ... one of my fav movies of all time.

    Have a good x-mas too. Those pagans knew how to celebrate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    This is an interesting post.

    I don’t think anarcho-capitalism is dependent on historicism. But even so, anarcho-capitalism is based on the non-existence of coercive monopolies. Living in a commune (whatever that really means) can still mean that it is anarcho-capitalistic … moreover, I think humans have been living for 200,000 years and not quite millions! Lol.

    What do you mean by “perfect competition”? The only people I know to have such a concept are neoclassical economists, and I can easily refute their definition. But let’s suppose capitalism didn’t have “perfect competition”. Does that mean anarcho-capitalism is impossible? No, not at all. I am sure humans also said “we haven’t been to the moon, thus it is impossible”.
    Yeah, I've been reading up on critiques of neoclassical economics, lol. But I think that in reality, this argument translates over to the anarcho-capitalist realm as well (if not more so). It seems that your system depends on no one firm having significant market influence for it to work. I am saying that any economic system that is based on a reality that never existed is impossible. As ever with free markets, we assume that the way wage labour and private property first occured because once upon a mystical time a group of superhuman genious managed to figure out a way to save themselves labour by building the means of production and everyone just flocked over to become wage labourers! In reality, we were living in communes, for instance in Great Britain before the Romans came over and colonised us. This isn't such a bad thing of course; just look at the wealth of technology we now have because of it! But the point I am trying to make is that we once lived like that and we can live like that again, only, this time, with modern technology, communication, a modern, more fluent and sophisticated language, better understanding of logic as a society, etc. As far as anarcho-capitalism goes, it was modelled upon theoretical constructions of *how* a society can look. Do you get what I'm saying?

    I may have exaggerated the length of human existence but I am sure it is way more than that, no?

    Moving onto specifics, I have noticed you saying that “private property and wage labour was enforced by the state”. I think this is nonsense. Private property has nothing to do with the state. Private property exists in nature, as a phenomenon, that we share with all other animals.
    Part of the confusion here is that we are probably defining private property differently. I make a distinction between transportable personal goods and the standard household and what is privately owned land enforced by legal contracts. Private property would include the means of production, vast acres of uninhabited land (that would most certainly be inhabited if it were not for coercive legal contracts), privately owned transport (roads, railways - not personal vehicles, mind, but certainly ) and, yes, state owned property is private as well as far as I'm concerned. I think you define private property as just simply anything landed and I think you include transportable, personally owned goods in your definition as well.

    Basically, if we remove private property rights, say there is no collective body of armed forces to back them up, then any workers at any said factory have right at any time to seize the factory and we have a sort of equilibrium where workers can't be "exploited" by their bosses anymore. We wouldn't need a state to enforce this, in fact, it works much better if you get rid of the state because that way, the workers act naturally on their own accord. Workers may also legally own firearms. Basically, if you get rid of state-owned or privately owned military forces then legal contracts which empower the capitalist are no longer effective since his workers may seize "his" factory at any point.

    It is a means of overcoming the problems of scarcity, increasing efficiency and providing an optimal supply off economic goods. But ultimately, the greatest achievement of private property is to allow division of labour. None of this requires the state. I don’t see why you think a state would be necessary? Wage slavery is more of an emotional “argument” than anything. Wages should really be affected by supply & demand. Labour is a means of production and is also a scarce good. Since, the economic laws of supply and demand are the most effective means of allocating resources; labour should not be exempt from it. Wage slavery is really saying “I demand to be paid more than my valued economic output”. As I said, it is more of an emotional argument than an economic one.
    Division of labour and wage labour are all result of privately owned property which, as I explain above are enforced by legal contracts (i.e., the state). As far as economics go, communes would probably distribute their goods according to supply and demand - it's reality, as you say. I may not be an economics expert but primitive communes were able to "calculate" for however long it was before the uprising of capitalism. In the modern day of industry we would have mathematicians, scientists and economicsts on the case. Without the capitalist market demand for these professions, they would become more rigorously scientific and objective in their approach (particularly in the economics field) I feel.

    I would also argue that anarcho-capitalism is based, not on historicism, but human action and man’s praxeological structure. I’m happy to go into some detail on this.
    Yes, I would be very interested but how accurate do you think a theory that is not based on the history of evolution is going to be?

    You’re quite right that the state has enjoyed a coercive monopoly in terms of the distribution of land. It’s has caused a great deal off theft from original owners. This is a fact. You may very well present me with the moral argument against anarcho-capitalism, which I have heard endlessly, which essentially argues that “how could you possibly argue a distribution that was historically grounded in theft?” It appears to be a good argument, but my response is even better. Laissez-faire tends to resources that are used efficiently. So, with a free-market the land would tend to go those who use it most efficiently - Coase theorem. So what we have a system that is trying to rectify that initial act of theft.
    Yes but the distribution to begin with would have been based on a history of unfair inequality caused by state coercion. This would give monopolies the upper hand to begin with and they would most likely have more influence over PPAs than anyone else. You just can't escape this fact.

    Lastly, I don’t really understand how someone could be opposed to the inequality of capital inherited and yet have no problem with social inequality (such as IQ). I think in order to be consistent you must oppose both. It is true that inherited wealth does give you a competitive advantage (and there is nothing wrong with that), just as inheriting intelligence gives you an advantage too. There is a hierarchy of intelligence. Schools have different sets for those with different abilities in different subjects. Humans, ultimately, arrange hierarchies based on our differences. Why should intelligence be any different from inheritance of wealth? I think there is an inconsistency there.
    I said that IQ wasn't an example of social equality; it is an example of equality of endowment. I am in favour of social equality, not equality endowment. I have no doubt that there will be biological differences (e.g. differences in IQ) among society. I thought I was quite clear on this?

    I don't see why I must oppose both to be "consistent". I just don't want a system where personal differences lead to an imbalance of power. An imbalance of power leads to force and coercion. All I mean by social equality is (a) equal rights for all minority groups whether ethnically, sexually or gender related (but anyone who isn't a complete tosser would agree with me) and (b) access to political power for all these groups, a stake in industrial management, equal opportunities (free education, etc.). (b) is what I am more specifically referring to.

    Most important of all is equal opportunities and an equal stake in industrial/political management for everyone.

    Without this, there will always be injustice in society. Small minority groups will always be oppressed, women will always be oppressed by men in the workplace, ethnic minorities will always be oppressed by racists in the street unless everyone has a say in trade and politics. Only then do they have the power to defend themselves. This is what I mean about equality - it has nothing to do with biology, lol.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Does it really? I demand an explanation :cool:
    Monopolies on wealth and therefore power/influence over private protection agencies. Monopolies are hierarchies. The state itself is a hierarchy. Hierarchy is the prime cause of coercion.

    Crime is a hierarchy of criminal over victim, and so forth and so forth.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    x
    Well, fine, you saw 'screw' it, but notice whenever 'the workers made moves on their own' they got crushed by opposing forces rather quickly. And that goes for all those examples you mentioned. The fact of the matter is, if revolution is sporadic, it is easy to suppress; if it is organised - as with the Bolsheviks - it's very difficult to handle.

    Nothing is possible 'without a little persuasion', but it is rather important what form that persuasion takes, and the idea that you're trying to say that human history has been 'capitalist' is rather laughable at best. But anyway, I have no real problem with the existence of a 'state', so long as it only exists as a sort of 'referee' state - stays out of people's business and serves the function of protecting our rights.

    I would suggest you avoid using chemistry analogies when talking about politics - human society does not behave in predictable ways like atoms, so the idea that Marxists can predict the future is pretty silly. I have no idea what all this 'dialectics' business is, but from the way you put it across, it seems pretty woolly to me.

    Well, human beings may have lived in communes at some point, but what makes that the optimal way of life? In the 19th century, Marxism was an untried system, but that didn't stop people advocating it and eventually trying to enact it. The communal system died out because the human population was exploding and there was no way that the increased demand for food and other goods could be met by small subsistence farmers - the communal system needed to go, it's that simple. Land needed to be used more efficiently on a larger scale.

    Anarcho-capitalism is, in my opinion, as idealistic as your Communism; but the arguments are difficult to refute (much like Marxism was in the 19th century), and a lot of them make a some sense (much like Marxism was an excellent critique of 19th century society [not capitalism]).

    I don't think hierarchies are a part of "human nature" (by god am I sick of that argument). Personal differences such as IQ have nothing to do with hierarchy. You mistake social equality for equality of endowment (I don't oppose biological equality, this is absurd) and then use it as an excuse to defend the hierarchical (and therefore authoritarian) infrastructures of capitalism. We oppose the state because it is a hierarchy as is the system of capitalism
    I never said hierarchies are 'human nature', I said hierarchies are an inherent part of the entire biological system (society). And differences in IQ have everything to do with hierarchy; how do you think hierarchy in nature came about? Do you think human beings became the top organism on the planet through luck? It was intelligence that allowed them to create tools and more efficient systems of getting food etc.

    This goes down to within the society itself, some people are smarter than others, and those are the people who usually get to the top of hierarchies. Not simply by using force, but by using their intelligence to persuade other people into making them the 'top dog'. 'Social inequality' is usually what creates 'economic inequality', And social inequality is generally caused by 'biological inequality'.

    I'm not 'defending' hierarchy, I'm just saying it's inevitable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Well, fine, you saw 'screw' it, but notice whenever 'the workers made moves on their own' they got crushed by opposing forces rather quickly. And that goes for all those examples you mentioned. The fact of the matter is, if revolution is sporadic, it is easy to suppress; if it is organised - as with the Bolsheviks - it's very difficult to handle.

    Nothing is possible 'without a little persuasion', but it is rather important what form that persuasion takes, and the idea that you're trying to say that human history has been 'capitalist' is rather laughable at best. But anyway, I have no real problem with the existence of a 'state', so long as it only exists as a sort of 'referee' state - stays out of people's business and serves the function of protecting our rights.

    I would suggest you avoid using chemistry analogies when talking about politics - human society does not behave in predictable ways like atoms, so the idea that Marxists can predict the future is pretty silly. I have no idea what all this 'dialectics' business is, but from the way you put it across, it seems pretty woolly to me.

    Well, human beings may have lived in communes at some point, but what makes that the optimal way of life? In the 19th century, Marxism was an untried system, but that didn't stop people advocating it and eventually trying to enact it. The communal system died out because the human population was exploding and there was no way that the increased demand for food and other goods could be met by small subsistence farmers - the communal system needed to go, it's that simple. Land needed to be used more efficiently on a larger scale.

    Anarcho-capitalism is, in my opinion, as idealistic as your Communism; but the arguments are difficult to refute (much like Marxism was in the 19th century), and a lot of them make a some sense (much like Marxism was an excellent critique of 19th century society [not capitalism]).

    I never said hierarchies are 'human nature', I said hierarchies are an inherent part of the entire biological system (society). And differences in IQ have everything to do with hierarchy; how do you think hierarchy in nature came about? Do you think human beings became the top organism on the planet through luck? It was intelligence that allowed them to create tools and more efficient systems of getting food etc.

    This goes down to within the society itself, some people are smarter than others, and those are the people who usually get to the top of hierarchies. Not simply by using force, but by using their intelligence to persuade other people into making them the 'top dog'. 'Social inequality' is usually what creates 'economic inequality', And social inequality is generally caused by 'biological inequality'.

    I'm not 'defending' hierarchy, I'm just saying it's inevitable.
    Well, no. I'm not exactly a dialectician... Hegel was and his ideas where very surreal, mystical and idealist. There is debate over the extent to which Marx absorbed this approach into his concept of materialism - see the OP "Anti-Dialectics". I am merely trying to state the extremely changeable nature of society.

    All you have said about those anarchist societies is that the military oppressed them...well yeah but that is a question of military tactical strength again (was it not page 4 I discussed this with you?) not so much anarchy itself. We can use guerilla warfare to surpress the enemy, as was Che Guevara's tactics to surpress an enemy larger than himself. If it happens on a more international basis next time, the revolution is more likely to spread anyways.

    What are you saying about history? I said that it has undergone a capitalist transition phase from feudalism would you disagree with this? In fact it is almost inevitable that the system will change radically soon enough considering the various other stages we have undergone and the way these stages happened. People will get tired with the old regime eventually.

    As far as the communal system fading away, again (a) it as enforced from without (state violence), (b) it worked before and can work again - this in itself proves that a lot of economic debates are essentially worthless; we could "calculate" back then and we will be able to "calculate" in a future society, (c) it will work much better in the age of modern technology.

    You talk about Marxism being a good idea in the 19th Century (and the system was capitalism; it is just more developed now) but a bad idea now that it has been "refuted". Well the truth is that it hasn't been tried and neither has anarchy so for you to state that astounds me. The USSR was merely state capitalism, as I have explained in other places. Here. We do, however have a history of the various stages of society to pull from which is not something that works well for "anarcho"-capitalism.

    This goes down to within the society itself, some people are smarter than others, and those are the people who usually get to the top of hierarchies. Not simply by using force, but by using their intelligence to persuade other people into making them the 'top dog'. 'Social inequality' is usually what creates 'economic inequality', And social inequality is generally caused by 'biological inequality'.

    I'm not 'defending' hierarchy, I'm just saying it's inevitable.
    Argh! You're talking about equality of endowment again (not social equality)! You criticise my "chemistry analysis" just to dribble on about biology!

    I think you should read this (but I don't really see why it should be necessary for someone of your intelligence): http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secAcon.html

    Go down to section A.2.5 - the point is that there's a difference between equal say in labour and equal genetics. I don't know why I have to clarify this...:confused:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Argh! You're talking about equality of endowment again (not social equality)! You criticise my "chemistry analysis" just to dribble on about biology!

    I think you should read this (but I don't really see why it should be necessary for someone of your intelligence): http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secAcon.html

    Go down to section A.2.5 - the point is that there's a difference between equal say in labour and equal genetics. I don't know why I have to clarify this...:confused:
    I just wanted to address this, I've got a massive headache and I'll respond to the rest later.

    I criticised your chemistry analogy because you tried to apply a scientific concept, that is how water changes into ice, to human society and create some kind 'theorem' about how it will develop. Economists have been trying to do this for the entirety of the last century, and as of yet, none have come anywhere close to creating such a theorem (or model[don't kill me economists!]).

    I've read that website, and I have to be frank: the more I read it, the more I think this whole idea of anarchism is insane and inherently contradictory. Let me quote some particularly loony sections:

    By this he means that an anarchist society recognises the differences in ability and need of individuals but does not allow these differences to be turned into power.
    Hm, I wonder how...

    For example, without capitalist property rights there would not be means by which a minority could monopolise the means of life (machinery and land) and enrich themselves by the work of others via the wages system and usury (profits, rent and interest).
    So, inventing a machine and charging for it, is wrong?

    Let me give you an example of people who struggle for this supposed ideal called 'equality': feminists. Feminists rightly argue that women have been oppressed by men for the entirety of human history - no problems there. They campaigned for 'legal equality' and got it - we're in complete agreement so far.

    What they cannot do, is campaign for equality in the 'social relationship' that is a marriage for example. There's just no way such a thing is possible; someone, whether they be the man or the woman is guaranteed to 'dominate' the other. Not by the use of force or anything sinister, but just by the force of their personality. There is nothing coercive or wrong about that, it's just what happens.

    This is why I don't really get how anarchists plan to achieve equality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    I criticised your chemistry analogy because you tried to apply a scientific concept, that is how water changes into ice, to human society and create some kind 'theorem' about how it will develop. Economists have been trying to do this for the entirety of the last century, and as of yet, none have come anywhere close to creating such a theorem (or model[don't kill me economists!]).
    And as I explained, I don't *necessarily* subscribe to the idea; I need to read into it a bit more. However there is way more to it than what I explained. I just used the example of water into ice because it explains the difficult concept of quantity into quality quite effectively.

    I've read that website, and I have to be frank: the more I read it, the more I think this whole idea of anarchism is insane and inherently contradictory. Let me quote some particularly loony sections:

    Hm, I wonder how...

    So, inventing a machine and charging for it, is wrong?
    I don't see the contradiction here. The point is, that for the most part, capitalists don't invent the machine or means of life; someone else does it for them, they invest in the product and sell it for a profit. The ownership is enforced by legal contracts that would be rendered irrelevant if you got rid of the state. This means that the large majority of machinery is in the hands of relatively few. Imagine, for instance if there was a large scale operation of solar panel factories in a hot climate like India. Well if the workers occupied all the factories, they would have most of their electricity demands covered for the rest of their life for free and at no continuous expense of a third body (since, unlike crude oil, renewable energy does not require, for the most part, continuous labour). This is at the very core of the idea of workers occupying their factories; it is communal ownership of technology that will benefit them the most.

    Let me give you an example of people who struggle for this supposed ideal called 'equality': feminists. Feminists rightly argue that women have been oppressed by men for the entirety of human history - no problems there. They campaigned for 'legal equality' and got it - we're in complete agreement so far.

    What they cannot do, is campaign for equality in the 'social relationship' that is a marriage for example. There's just no way such a thing is possible; someone, whether they be the man or the woman is guaranteed to 'dominate' the other. Not by the use of force or anything sinister, but just by the force of their personality. There is nothing coercive or wrong about that, it's just what happens.

    This is why I don't really get how anarchists plan to achieve equality.
    On marriage, it was more about binding contracts rather than issues of domination (which is a social condition that will be gradually eased, if not abolished following the abolition of core hierarchical social institutions) which is why they propose free love instead. It would be the same as marriage but no legal contracts to enforce binding arrangements (as you say, there is likely to be levels of conflict and so forth in a marriage, we aren't trying to stop that, just empower the women if she wants to escape her husband's brutality - this is more effective than trying to control all aspects of private social life). This is similar to the sorts of legal contracts that bind workers to their factories and so forth. Again, no third body like the state to enforce them. Now that is a free market.

    Anyway, my concept of equality is more about equal say in the workplace, so I still don't really get what you have against the concept of equality or why the concepts of equality and liberty do not go hand in hand. As Bakunin states;

    "Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is brutality and slavery"

    You cannot have one without the other.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I don't get your point here...
    Theocracy could be a form of hierarchy that doesn't necessarily (hello Salem) require force and coercion because it's an accepted deference to god. If not, I wonder what your views are on this.

    What I'm saying is that Proudhon should go under mutualism and mutualism should be a subgenre under social anarchism. He is not in the individualist anarchist section anyway but you should definitely leave this section in tact.

    Like so:

    - INDIVIDUALIST ANARCHISM

    *insert Tucker, here*

    - "Anarcho"-capitalism

    - SOCIAL ANARCHISM

    - Mutualism


    *insert Proudhon, here*

    - Revolutionary Tactics

    *insert Mao, here*

    I provided diagrams, here. I also expanded upon the idea of work rotation here. Scroll down a bit for the latter post. Edit - the diagrams require you to log onto another site called RevLeft, otherwise you can't see them. Ah well...
    I'll get the layout sorted. If you could go onto RevLeft, download the pictures and then upload via ImageHost, that would be great and I could upload them to the OP.

    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I was watching Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon ... one of my fav movies of all time.

    Have a good x-mas too. Those pagans knew how to celebrate.
    Ah I see. That is a pretty good film. Have you seen Hero or any Akutagawa by any chance?

    Hope you had a good Christmas.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do you not think capitalism is a part of human nature? For example there are always people that are competitive etc.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2011
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.