Communism & Anarchy

This is such a joke. You think if someone is "spiritually evolved" they will take a highly dangerous job because it is in demand, while others will take less dangerous jobs? NO. That is utterly ignoring the human condition. How is it fair that a person doing a cosh job gets paid the same as someone risking their life every day? That makes no sense what so ever. In fact I wouldn't say they were spiritually evolved but instead, stupid.

Anarchy only lasts until the candy runs out. You will NEVER get people to play nicely because you are assuming that there is plentiful goods and labor available for everyone to get their share. It doesn't happen. You'll ultimately get people who slack and others who do not yet everyone gets the same spoonful, will lead to everyone cutting back. So once again you are completely ignoring the human condition.

Every job or career deals with employees who are either slackers or hard workers. Most businesses just accept that the hard worker will pick up the slack of the slacker. But as soon as you start talking about equal pay no matter what quality of work you do then you will turn everyone into slackers. Who's going to work hard if the slacker gets paid the same as the hard worker? There is no incentive for anyone to work hard. So you are trying to assume that "spiritually evolved" people don't care about how hard anyone works or how dangerous their job is. Just become a mindless zombie robot and do your job.

Yes, both are likely viable depending on the particular implementation.

Each holds potential for promise or disaster. For this, and most questions involving the value or workability of any political/economic system, almost every answer - to me - comes down to: Depends on how its done, who's involved, what the motivations and propensities of those involved are as well as how the cultural elements of tradition, perceived roles and values mix in either side of the experiment, how we judge or assess a success or failure and many, many other factors.

... my first-blush thoughts.

Thanks

To krumple I would say that we as of yet are not able to handle anarchy or communism due to human nature. But If we were to evolve in whatever fashion enough to enjoy our work for works sake and enough to follow laws without enforcement then communism and anarchy would be viable societal options.

To Khethil I agree with you

Thanks

Vajrasattva

Lack is characteristic of political motives.

Politics arises when the question of distribution arises, which in turn is an offshoot of the Neolithic revolution.

It's too late to go back.

Therefore, civilization is the setting of the Anarchist sun.

We will forever go in cycles of centralization-decentralization, so long as civilizations continue to rise and fall. Centralization always benefits only those whose interests are channeling the centralization itself.

Information can never be egalitarian, and therefore society cannot either.

Why do you say information can never be egalitarian? I'm guessing this is a regular theme with you I'm not familiar with. I take it you mean people cannot have equal access to information when you make that assertion. If so, would you say the internet has at least made information more egalitarian?

I tend to see the internet as a decentralizing influence. Thanks to social networks, organizing among individuals is much easier. I like to think open source content is part of a move toward a more voluntary society. Any thoughts?

Stephen, can you give us an outline of your political views as far as anarchy/communism. I realize that might be a rather broad question to answer. I know I can get an outside perspective on the topic but since you are here and it is one of your interests, why not elaborate on your views? An open invitation, feel free to decline.

Absolutely. I'll start by saying I am biased in favor of anarchy and against communism. I understand many people see the two as complimentary, and I know others who use the two interchangeably, but my reasons for identifying with anarchism are not because I seek an egalitarian end, though I am not necessarily opposed to that outcome. I actually identified as a communist when I first left home for college six years ago. You could say I "tried it on," just as I have tried on many political ideas. Though I am open to many alternatives, I have consistently identified as various strains of libertarian and anarchist since early 2004.

I agree with you that we should have division of labor, including differences in wages. Are you familiar with market anarchy or anarcho-capitalism? If I'm cornered I tend to identify as a market anarchist, opposed to the state, but in favor of free trade and open to voluntary hierarchy. You're absolutely correct that the laws of economics do not fail to exist when you change the human condition or abolish the security monopoly of government. The problem of "playing nice" is the fundamental problem that anarchists must deal with, and the example of a non-state alternative that immediately comes to mind is the system of "dispute resolution organizations" or DROs envisioned by anarcho-capitalist Stephan Molyneux. It's basically a framework for a private, competitive court system. Here's a link to a short essay on the topic: The Stateless Society by Stefan Molyneux

I hope that gives you something to go on. Feel free to disparage my beliefs to the degree you find necessary. :smartass:

Orthodox communists have one simple answer to everything and believe (like fascists) that they can forcibly simplify what they do not understand.

Anarchism essentially heralds a new feudalism, where those best at exploiting the situation will become the lords (in all but name) of those that can't, don't or won't. It fails to acknowledge that the elite get to be the elite because the humble are willing (in the main) to be the humble.

I propose a Danish style socialism but with limited Trade Union Power and better pubs as the sort of system I'd like to be involved in.

Then again, I'm less interested in wealth than most - who would be happy to live in a pig sty if it meant they were able to get rich.

Stephen how do you handle the protection of labor in an anarchy? See I can never get past the human condition to see how that system could even possibly work.

When I'm not in the mood to listen to music I will turn on a live feed of police and emergency dispatch radio on the net for my city. I know, a little nerdy but I like sorta seeing how active the day is for them. But that is not the reason I mention it. I realized that so many things happen even with our system that is just plain NUTS. People do weird and totally strange stuff even with how strict our laws are now. I can't imagine these same people all playing nicely together and not causing a whole lot of trouble for the people who just want to make things work. I just can not balance the equation for anarchy.

So as a request to understand. Could you outline how it is people will manage themselves, how the protection of labor is maintained and just how the whole system stays balanced before someone else says, "So, should we vote yet?"

That's an interesting point. A common real-world example of temporary anarchy could be considered the overthrow of a sitting government, a brief struggle for dominance without a single ruling class (the anarchic period), and then a change of regimes to one that may be no more or less autocratic than the first. I agree that lords are lords, regardless of whether you call them president, king, proletariat, dictator, judge, prime minister, etc.

I don't believe you would abolish the elite just because you've abolished the state, so I agree with you on that point too. Even if you managed to murder all the "elites," another group of individuals would replace them. The question anarchy poses is this, "Do elites deserve a monopoly on the use of force?" I would argue that no, they don't, but I don't believe phasing out the current guard would radically alter the system of oppression. I believe a bottom-up rejection of authority would be the only way to arrive at something resembling "anarchy," but it would require a level of self-sufficiency and independence on the part of the masses that I acknowledge is in short supply right now. It is possible that people prefer to have lords and, thanks to the material comforts of state capitalism/socialism, people may not wish to go back to a time when they were required to construct their own reality without the ease of accepting a compulsory paradigm.

---------- Post added 09-06-2009 at 10:32 PM ----------



I think you're going to need to be more specific on what you mean by the "protection of labor." Who is labor? By that do you mean employees? If so, do you mean any types of employees in particular? Who do they need protection from?

Also, how are you defining the human condition? What about it negates the possibility of living in a free society?

Could you be more specific about these nutty people? What are they doing that couldn't be handled by private security firms rather than state-sponsored ones?

People will manage themselves basically the way they do now. Life would be mostly fulfilling and peaceful, interrupted by conflicts between individuals and groups. They would be resolved by one mean or another, hopefully in a way that is just. I really don't know what you're getting at with this "protection of labor" business so I'm going to have to skip that one. People can vote all they want in anarchy. They just can't compel people the way they would in a democracy.

Your asking us to be somthing were not. We are humans and our natur reflects such. we will be this way from here on. its idiotic to assume we will work just to work. what change will occure to human kind that will make us want that. we would become drones. Communisum is a horable idea becuse it discredits hard work for equal pay. so no communisum will never work becuse you have to be un-human. and your qustion was could it work. so no, not with humans.

I don't think there is enjoying work for work's sake. That's not very wise. That's like encouraging double thinking is it not?

I would find it 'transcendental' if we could all find what is formally called 'work' but we had such a passion for that particular career (or whatever you would call it) that it wasn't considered work at all.

This seems to me a much better goal, and what are goals but a beginner/ low level form of spirituality?

To have spirit I suppose would be to look for that passion, not to ignore that potential and love for the 'work'. Nobody wants that. And there is more spirit in finding pleasurable things to do while doing that dreadful work.

I don't think any of these things could be dismissed as too easy that they become lowly of spirituality either.

Any system that can reward the individual sacrifice, oppose greed by negating the intricacies of individuals who believe they have more to offer and hence minimise waste, in both production and excesses, would be considered viable. I like to remember one thing. How can I expect to play, if I don't work first.

As others have said, anarchism is a damn-near impossible idea.
Even if a society managed to remain anarchist and not have someone take power, humanity just would not allow it to work out pleasantly and ideally in its current state.
Yes, perhaps if our minds evolved it could, but certainly not now.

It sometimes seems like a lovely idea to me, just not possible.

When you are hired for a job, there is basically a contract between employer and employee that labor will be compensated for wage. But how does an anarchy system maintain such a contract?



Human condition is just what you see. Some people want to play nicely and want to play by the rules while others want to try to bend the rules as much as they can get away with and others care nothing for rules, they make their own. You can't change this no matter how hard you try to implement or suggest it to go away. It is a natural byproduct of "breaking" the "animal" from the human. In other words instilling a civilized mentality comes with varying degrees of success.

A person wanting to dominate will find it rather easy to do so in an anarchy system. Then we will no longer have an anarchy but something else. Which is why I say, "Anarchy only lasts until the candy runs out."

you are wrong in assuming there would be jobs in an anarchist society, krumple. You are so conditioned by the society you live in that when imagining a anarchist free society you can't help but apply current societal standards to it.

Nothing more can be said, you just failed to hit the mark.