New here, how do you guys feel about libertarian socialism?
- Thread starter That_Which_Isnt
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In addition to other contentions by other people in the thread let me throw this one in.
I know that pure capitalism will not work.
However I do believe in the right to one's property and labour.
Let's say I spend all this time mining or whatever and whatever I produce is the fruit of my labor.
Pure capitalism says "Fuck you wage slave, we'll replace you if we want, and you'll get what we tell you to get, and I'll send you out starving." So I give up the price of my labor.
Unchallenged corporatism says "Fuck you wage slave, and if you don't like it we'll sick the government's army on you because we're too important to their economy and we hold too much power." (See federal troops used in Pullman strikes).
Communism says "Fuck you, you must be equal no matter how much work you do."
However, with (un-corrupt) unions and some government regulation on corporations you can gain an access to collective bargaining, keep a healthy workforce (this is where UHC comes in for me), and still get your fair share of profit for your labor.It also helps keep society cohesive,productive, and happy.
I know that pure capitalism will not work.
However I do believe in the right to one's property and labour.
Let's say I spend all this time mining or whatever and whatever I produce is the fruit of my labor.
Pure capitalism says "Fuck you wage slave, we'll replace you if we want, and you'll get what we tell you to get, and I'll send you out starving." So I give up the price of my labor.
Unchallenged corporatism says "Fuck you wage slave, and if you don't like it we'll sick the government's army on you because we're too important to their economy and we hold too much power." (See federal troops used in Pullman strikes).
Communism says "Fuck you, you must be equal no matter how much work you do."
However, with (un-corrupt) unions and some government regulation on corporations you can gain an access to collective bargaining, keep a healthy workforce (this is where UHC comes in for me), and still get your fair share of profit for your labor.It also helps keep society cohesive,productive, and happy.
I'm not an anarchist, but I think people can fail to understand that it does, in it's way, have teeth.
Firstly, you're talking about a bunch of people who inherently don't believe in hierarchy and that no-one has a right to dictate what they do. What is an aspiring dictator going to achieve in such a society? He can dictate all he likes, people aren't going to listen to him, and a dictator with no means of enforcing his will is just a bag of hot air.
Let's say the dictator does manage to convince a few thugs to enforce his rule. What makes you think anarchists will just glumly shrug and accept the new regime? They'll unpack their guns and fight for their freedom, as any number of humans have done all throughout history. They may potentially be conquered, but if they are that's not an inherent failure of their social and political system. It just means they were smaller and/or weaker.
Who says anarchists can't punish people for wrongdoing? There's nothing that says anarchists couldn't execute, imprison, put people under guard, exile them, or any number of other things. It might not take the form of codified law, but you can be sure communities would take action to defend themselves from harm.
Next, anarchism does have a pressure for co-operation. People who don't co-operate fairly may again face problems from the community. If a widget-maker demands too much for his widgets, a community will get widgets from elsewhere. Alternatively the community gets no widgets, but the widget maker doesn't get what he needs, like for instance food. Not co-operating with a community is self-defeating: it's not like in capitalism, where you can make so much money you don't need to give a damn about anyone else any more.
A lot is made of greed. However, we live in a society where "greed is good". Capitalism says money is the be-all and end-all, consequently we are brought up in a culture that encourages us to think of financial worth as the way we value ourselves and others. However, other societies could favour other ways of measuring our worth. I'd suggest that in an anarchistic, co-operative society (where money might not even exist!), greed is less likely, because people are indoctrinated by their culture to see their value in other respects. A man who is "power-hungry" in such a society may well view power in a significantly different fashion from one in our current capitalist society, suffice to say he will exert power within the means of that society's function, not within the scope of every society ever. In the same way, your average power-hungry politician in a representative democracy would seek to be prime minister or president, not a feudal overlord.
Firstly, you're talking about a bunch of people who inherently don't believe in hierarchy and that no-one has a right to dictate what they do. What is an aspiring dictator going to achieve in such a society? He can dictate all he likes, people aren't going to listen to him, and a dictator with no means of enforcing his will is just a bag of hot air.
Let's say the dictator does manage to convince a few thugs to enforce his rule. What makes you think anarchists will just glumly shrug and accept the new regime? They'll unpack their guns and fight for their freedom, as any number of humans have done all throughout history. They may potentially be conquered, but if they are that's not an inherent failure of their social and political system. It just means they were smaller and/or weaker.
Who says anarchists can't punish people for wrongdoing? There's nothing that says anarchists couldn't execute, imprison, put people under guard, exile them, or any number of other things. It might not take the form of codified law, but you can be sure communities would take action to defend themselves from harm.
Next, anarchism does have a pressure for co-operation. People who don't co-operate fairly may again face problems from the community. If a widget-maker demands too much for his widgets, a community will get widgets from elsewhere. Alternatively the community gets no widgets, but the widget maker doesn't get what he needs, like for instance food. Not co-operating with a community is self-defeating: it's not like in capitalism, where you can make so much money you don't need to give a damn about anyone else any more.
A lot is made of greed. However, we live in a society where "greed is good". Capitalism says money is the be-all and end-all, consequently we are brought up in a culture that encourages us to think of financial worth as the way we value ourselves and others. However, other societies could favour other ways of measuring our worth. I'd suggest that in an anarchistic, co-operative society (where money might not even exist!), greed is less likely, because people are indoctrinated by their culture to see their value in other respects. A man who is "power-hungry" in such a society may well view power in a significantly different fashion from one in our current capitalist society, suffice to say he will exert power within the means of that society's function, not within the scope of every society ever. In the same way, your average power-hungry politician in a representative democracy would seek to be prime minister or president, not a feudal overlord.
Yup, communism totally doesn't work practice. It's not like it ever took what was basically for the times almost a third world country and then turned it into one of two world superpowers and kept it that way for many many years before collapsing due to over exhausting itself through needless flashy competition and a horribly corrupt government. Both of which are totally unrelated to communism.Phoenix Arrow said:
Aaaanyhow I had to say that and sorry for the off topic bit. As for Anarchy:
Yup, I pretty much agreed with the rest of what Pheonix had to say.Phoenix Arrow said:
And they wouldn't under communism? Funnily enough....most of the people who are starving are the ones living in nations that tried to be communist!Akai Shizuku said:
Some evidence....Zimbabwae! Land, taken from the landowners, and given to the people! Result: Starvation, in the breadbasket of Africa.
Zambia: Mines, farms and so on, taken from landowners and nationalised. Result: Massive fall in productivity, starvtion, poverty. Note, that when farmland was sold back to former Zimbabwaen commercial farmers, Zambia's food productivity skyrocketed, resulting in the nation now being a net exporter of food.
You guys have really disappointed me in terms of ad hominem like seriously can we grow up? I know that's not all of you, but nearly every post has had some reference to being anarchy being a retarded idea, nice preconceptions there bros. Or perhaps even a direct assault on ME, which I fail to see how I'm relevant at all in this argument. I didn't start this topic off with debate in mind, though I should have foreseen it. We'll do this properly later and I'll type up opening statements and have it up later tonight hopefully, lots of homework, have to listen to new music, need to do my reading of anarchist literature, and night class, so I dunno if I'll get to it tonight.
Anarchism/Socialism?
Sounds like a contradiction of terms.
Socialism- This is a system where the state plays an active roll in the economy, by providing public services, like health, education, and transport, paid for by high taxes. It also sets rules on competition, as well as bails out companies in financial distress and a host of other rules and regulations. The state is necessary in a socialist system. Totally removing the state means that things like health, education and transport are run by private companies. It becomes a total capitalist system.
My question is, and i sense i will get a lot of flack from the Anachist intelligentsia here, is- Isn't anarchism just pure capitalism, just without a government?
Sounds like a contradiction of terms.
Socialism- This is a system where the state plays an active roll in the economy, by providing public services, like health, education, and transport, paid for by high taxes. It also sets rules on competition, as well as bails out companies in financial distress and a host of other rules and regulations. The state is necessary in a socialist system. Totally removing the state means that things like health, education and transport are run by private companies. It becomes a total capitalist system.
My question is, and i sense i will get a lot of flack from the Anachist intelligentsia here, is- Isn't anarchism just pure capitalism, just without a government?
Anarcho-socialism generally entails "collective ownership" (not exactly) in that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't initiate violence against your fellow members, and you do your share of the work.Basically a commune.Direct democracy is used to make decisions on economic trade with others, so basically it would be a loose collection of trade unions and communes.There won't be cops to arrest you for stupid shit like doing drugs, or protesting without a permit, there will not be borders or nations, so if the commune votes for something you don't like you move to another union, and don't you interfere with the old one etc etc There won't be any private organization using force to control the workers.There won't be any government favoring private interests or rationing.Everything goes through the workers.Nickolai77 said:
Capitalism entails private property, which entails ownership, which entails control, which entails the power to abuse workers, leading to unfair trade with a low ratio of resources to labor value.
/Not that I believe it would actually go down like this, I'm just trying to help you understand.
Private Property isnt theft. Private property is a must in any Free society.
First off would you agree that Human are not entitled to each others lives? because if you are truly against private property then you believe that private property is theft that you believe that we are entitled to each others lives. (reasoning to follow)
As humans are highest value is our lives it is what allows us to interact with other people and the ecosystem around us. Since are lives are limited we can only do so much with are time here on earth. What I do with MY time is completely MY decision. So if i decided to build something then I use my limited time for it and Since i payed for the object with my limited time at has value at least to me. Also you could argue that private property. Since Are alive all have value this exact principle can be applied to every one of us. Are live have value hence the actions we do in life have value hence what the consequences of are actions have value. Since private property is a consequences of are actions it has value. so by saying that private property is theft is the same thing as saying none of us has value.
First off would you agree that Human are not entitled to each others lives? because if you are truly against private property then you believe that private property is theft that you believe that we are entitled to each others lives. (reasoning to follow)
As humans are highest value is our lives it is what allows us to interact with other people and the ecosystem around us. Since are lives are limited we can only do so much with are time here on earth. What I do with MY time is completely MY decision. So if i decided to build something then I use my limited time for it and Since i payed for the object with my limited time at has value at least to me. Also you could argue that private property. Since Are alive all have value this exact principle can be applied to every one of us. Are live have value hence the actions we do in life have value hence what the consequences of are actions have value. Since private property is a consequences of are actions it has value. so by saying that private property is theft is the same thing as saying none of us has value.
I'm pretty sure when anarchists talk about "property" in that sense they are referring to land, and assets that can be used for production and industry (such as offices and factories and the machinery in them, etc).
They don't mean personal stuff like your clothes, jewellery, family photos and so on. Those would still be owned by individuals.
They don't mean personal stuff like your clothes, jewellery, family photos and so on. Those would still be owned by individuals.
Anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control, be that control by the state or a capitalist, as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary. Anarchy is not necessarily an absence of order, but an absence of rule. Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. We oppose hierarchy because we emphasize liberty equality and solidarity, these three naturally follow (more on this later). Liberties, being socially produced, do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace. One compels respect from others when one knows how to defend one's dignity as a human being. This is not only true in private life; it has always been the same in political life as well. In fact, we owe all the political rights and privileges which we enjoy today in greater or lesser measures, not to the good will of their governments, but to their own strength. This leads us to the point that anarchists support direct action, you only have as much liberty as you are willing to take.
I'd like to point out anarchists only oppose government when it is centralized, e.g. hierarchy. Direct democracy, grass roots movements, all things anarchists support.
Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within which human dignity and diversity can flower. Under capitalism and statism, however, there is no freedom for the majority, as private property and hierarchy ensure that the inclination and judgement of most individuals will be subordinated to the will of a master, severely restricting their liberty.
To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom. Any one who tells you that Anarchists don't believe in organisation is talking nonsense. Organisation is everything, and everything is organisation. The whole of life is organisation, conscious or unconscious. But there is organisation and hierarchical organisation. Capitalist society is so badly organised that its various members suffer: just as when you have a pain in some part of you, your whole body aches and you are ill, not a single member of the organisation or union may with impunity be discriminated against, suppressed or ignored. To do so would be the same as to ignore an aching tooth: you would be sick all over.
And to clear up something before it happens anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it.
Anarchists do not believe in "equality of endowment," which is not only non-existent but would be very undesirable if it could be brought about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences not only exist but are a cause for joy, not fear or regret." Why? Because "life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share. That some people seriously suggest that anarchists means by "equality" that everyone should be identical is a sad reflection on the state of present-day intellectual culture and the corruption of words a corruption used to divert attention from an unjust and authoritarian system and side-track people into discussions of biology. The thesis that men are born equal implies that they all share the same fundamental human qualities, that they share the same basic fate of human beings, that they all have the same inalienable claim on freedom and happiness. It furthermore means that their relationship is one of solidarity, not one of domination-submission. What the concept of equality does not mean is that all men are alike. Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called "equality of outcome." We have no desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same goods, lives in the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. Part of the reason for the anarchist revolt against capitalism and statism is that they standardise so much of life. Equality of outcome" can only be introduced and maintained by force, which would not be equality anyway, as some would have more power than others! "Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by anarchists, as we recognise that every individual has different needs, abilities, desires and interests. To make all consume the same would be tyranny. Obviously, if one person needs medical treatment and another does not, they do not receive an "equal" amount of medical care. The same is true of other human needs. Equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality.
For anarchists, the "concepts" of "equality" as "equality of outcome" or "equality of endowment" are meaningless. However, in a hierarchical society, "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" are related. Under capitalism, for example, the opportunities each generation face are dependent on the outcomes of the previous ones. This means that under capitalism "equality of opportunity" without a rough "equality of outcome" (in the sense of income and resources) becomes meaningless, as there is no real equality of opportunity for the off-spring of a millionaire and that of a road sweeper. Those who argue for "equality of opportunity" while ignoring the barriers created by previous outcomes indicate that they do not know what they are talking about -- opportunity in a hierarchical society depends not only on an open road but also upon an equal start. From this obvious fact springs the misconception that anarchists desire "equality of outcome" -- but this applies to a hierarchical system, in a free society this would not the case.
Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key idea of anarchism. It is the link between the individual and society, the means by which individuals can work together to meet their common interests in an environment that supports and nurtures both liberty and equality. For anarchists, mutual aid is a fundamental feature of human life, a source of both strength and happiness and a fundamental requirement for a fully human existence (We're obviously a tribe species). Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our common interests and needs. Forms of association not based on solidarity (i.e. those based on inequality) will crush the individuality of those subjected to them. When we think about co-operation, we tend to associate the concept with fuzzy-minded idealism. This may result from confusing co-operation with altruism. Structural co-operation defies the usual egoism/altruism dichotomy. It sets things up so that by helping you I am helping myself at the same time. Even if my motive initially may have been selfish, our fates now are linked. We sink or swim together. Co-operation is a shrewd and highly successful strategy - a pragmatic choice that gets things done at work and at school even more effectively than competition does. Mutual aid is in my self-interest -- that is, I see that it is to my advantage to reach agreements with others based on mutual respect and social equality; for if I dominate someone, this means that the conditions exist which allow domination, and so in all probability I too will be dominated in turn (or you could think of this as, First they came for the Jews...). "Defend yourself and no one will touch you. If millions of people are behind you, supporting you, then you are a formidable force and you will win without difficulty." Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the means by which liberty can be created and defended against power. Solidarity is strength and a product of our nature as social beings.
Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often, "human nature" is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not the case, however. First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, it is meant "what humans do," it is obvious that human nature is contradictory -- love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and violence, and so on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products of "human nature." Of course, what is considered "human nature" can change with changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of "human nature" and "normal" for thousands of years. Homosexuality was considered perfectly normal by the ancient Greeks yet thousands of years later the Christian church denounced it as unnatural. War only become part of "human nature" once states developed. Individuals are certainly capable of evil. But individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted pathological killers free rein, they'd be running the place. The only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature manifest themselves. If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and commitments, we're going to have a society based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant. Then you'll have different aspects of human nature and personality revealing themselves. Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we think human nature is inherently good (rather, we think it is inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in and create. A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative) ways and produce a "human nature" radically different from a libertarian one. So when we hear men and women saying that Anarchists imagine men and women much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men and women less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition? Every fool, from king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed? We do not wish to enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not "innate." All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to think and learn, that much is obvious, we feel, and that humans are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to prosper. Moreover, they have the ability to recognise and oppose injustice and oppression. These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state are denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy.
A common fallacy is that revolutionary socialism is an 'idealisation' of the workers and so the mere recital of their present faults is a refutation of the class struggle, it seems morally unreasonable that a free society could exist without moral or ethical perfection. But so far as the overthrow of existing society is concerned, we may ignore the fact of people's shortcomings and prejudices, so long as they do not become institutionalised. One may view without concern the fact that the workers might achieve control of their places of work long before they had acquired the social graces of the 'intellectual' or shed all the prejudices of the present society from family discipline to xenophobia. What does it matter, so long as they can run industry without masters? Prejudices wither in freedom and only flourish while the social climate is favourable to them. What we say is that once life can continue without imposed authority from above, and imposed authority cannot survive the withdrawal of labour from its service, the prejudices of authoritarianism will disappear. There is no cure for them other than the free process of education. Therefore, anarchists do not conclude that "perfect" people are necessary anarchism to work because the anarchist is no liberator with a divine mission to free humanity, but he is a part of that humanity struggling onwards towards liberty. As such if, then, by some external means an Anarchist Revolution could be, so to speak, supplied ready-made and thrust upon the people, it is true that they would reject it and rebuild the old society. If, on the other hand, the people develop their ideas of freedom, and they themselves get rid of the last stronghold of tyranny, the government, then indeed the revolution will be permanently accomplished. This is not to suggest that an anarchist society must wait until everyone is an anarchist. Far from it. It is highly unlikely, for example, that the rich and powerful will suddenly see the errors of their ways and voluntarily renounce their privileges. Faced with a large and growing anarchist movement, the ruling elite has always used repression to defend its position in society. The use of fascism in Spain and Italy show the depths the capitalist class can sink to.
tl;dr Anarchy is right, that's my post for tonight, we'll begin debate tomorrow.
I'd like to point out anarchists only oppose government when it is centralized, e.g. hierarchy. Direct democracy, grass roots movements, all things anarchists support.
Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within which human dignity and diversity can flower. Under capitalism and statism, however, there is no freedom for the majority, as private property and hierarchy ensure that the inclination and judgement of most individuals will be subordinated to the will of a master, severely restricting their liberty.
To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom. Any one who tells you that Anarchists don't believe in organisation is talking nonsense. Organisation is everything, and everything is organisation. The whole of life is organisation, conscious or unconscious. But there is organisation and hierarchical organisation. Capitalist society is so badly organised that its various members suffer: just as when you have a pain in some part of you, your whole body aches and you are ill, not a single member of the organisation or union may with impunity be discriminated against, suppressed or ignored. To do so would be the same as to ignore an aching tooth: you would be sick all over.
And to clear up something before it happens anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it.
Anarchists do not believe in "equality of endowment," which is not only non-existent but would be very undesirable if it could be brought about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences not only exist but are a cause for joy, not fear or regret." Why? Because "life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share. That some people seriously suggest that anarchists means by "equality" that everyone should be identical is a sad reflection on the state of present-day intellectual culture and the corruption of words a corruption used to divert attention from an unjust and authoritarian system and side-track people into discussions of biology. The thesis that men are born equal implies that they all share the same fundamental human qualities, that they share the same basic fate of human beings, that they all have the same inalienable claim on freedom and happiness. It furthermore means that their relationship is one of solidarity, not one of domination-submission. What the concept of equality does not mean is that all men are alike. Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called "equality of outcome." We have no desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same goods, lives in the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. Part of the reason for the anarchist revolt against capitalism and statism is that they standardise so much of life. Equality of outcome" can only be introduced and maintained by force, which would not be equality anyway, as some would have more power than others! "Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by anarchists, as we recognise that every individual has different needs, abilities, desires and interests. To make all consume the same would be tyranny. Obviously, if one person needs medical treatment and another does not, they do not receive an "equal" amount of medical care. The same is true of other human needs. Equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality.
For anarchists, the "concepts" of "equality" as "equality of outcome" or "equality of endowment" are meaningless. However, in a hierarchical society, "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" are related. Under capitalism, for example, the opportunities each generation face are dependent on the outcomes of the previous ones. This means that under capitalism "equality of opportunity" without a rough "equality of outcome" (in the sense of income and resources) becomes meaningless, as there is no real equality of opportunity for the off-spring of a millionaire and that of a road sweeper. Those who argue for "equality of opportunity" while ignoring the barriers created by previous outcomes indicate that they do not know what they are talking about -- opportunity in a hierarchical society depends not only on an open road but also upon an equal start. From this obvious fact springs the misconception that anarchists desire "equality of outcome" -- but this applies to a hierarchical system, in a free society this would not the case.
Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key idea of anarchism. It is the link between the individual and society, the means by which individuals can work together to meet their common interests in an environment that supports and nurtures both liberty and equality. For anarchists, mutual aid is a fundamental feature of human life, a source of both strength and happiness and a fundamental requirement for a fully human existence (We're obviously a tribe species). Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our common interests and needs. Forms of association not based on solidarity (i.e. those based on inequality) will crush the individuality of those subjected to them. When we think about co-operation, we tend to associate the concept with fuzzy-minded idealism. This may result from confusing co-operation with altruism. Structural co-operation defies the usual egoism/altruism dichotomy. It sets things up so that by helping you I am helping myself at the same time. Even if my motive initially may have been selfish, our fates now are linked. We sink or swim together. Co-operation is a shrewd and highly successful strategy - a pragmatic choice that gets things done at work and at school even more effectively than competition does. Mutual aid is in my self-interest -- that is, I see that it is to my advantage to reach agreements with others based on mutual respect and social equality; for if I dominate someone, this means that the conditions exist which allow domination, and so in all probability I too will be dominated in turn (or you could think of this as, First they came for the Jews...). "Defend yourself and no one will touch you. If millions of people are behind you, supporting you, then you are a formidable force and you will win without difficulty." Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the means by which liberty can be created and defended against power. Solidarity is strength and a product of our nature as social beings.
Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often, "human nature" is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not the case, however. First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, it is meant "what humans do," it is obvious that human nature is contradictory -- love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and violence, and so on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products of "human nature." Of course, what is considered "human nature" can change with changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of "human nature" and "normal" for thousands of years. Homosexuality was considered perfectly normal by the ancient Greeks yet thousands of years later the Christian church denounced it as unnatural. War only become part of "human nature" once states developed. Individuals are certainly capable of evil. But individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted pathological killers free rein, they'd be running the place. The only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature manifest themselves. If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and commitments, we're going to have a society based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant. Then you'll have different aspects of human nature and personality revealing themselves. Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we think human nature is inherently good (rather, we think it is inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in and create. A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative) ways and produce a "human nature" radically different from a libertarian one. So when we hear men and women saying that Anarchists imagine men and women much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men and women less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition? Every fool, from king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed? We do not wish to enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not "innate." All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to think and learn, that much is obvious, we feel, and that humans are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to prosper. Moreover, they have the ability to recognise and oppose injustice and oppression. These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state are denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy.
A common fallacy is that revolutionary socialism is an 'idealisation' of the workers and so the mere recital of their present faults is a refutation of the class struggle, it seems morally unreasonable that a free society could exist without moral or ethical perfection. But so far as the overthrow of existing society is concerned, we may ignore the fact of people's shortcomings and prejudices, so long as they do not become institutionalised. One may view without concern the fact that the workers might achieve control of their places of work long before they had acquired the social graces of the 'intellectual' or shed all the prejudices of the present society from family discipline to xenophobia. What does it matter, so long as they can run industry without masters? Prejudices wither in freedom and only flourish while the social climate is favourable to them. What we say is that once life can continue without imposed authority from above, and imposed authority cannot survive the withdrawal of labour from its service, the prejudices of authoritarianism will disappear. There is no cure for them other than the free process of education. Therefore, anarchists do not conclude that "perfect" people are necessary anarchism to work because the anarchist is no liberator with a divine mission to free humanity, but he is a part of that humanity struggling onwards towards liberty. As such if, then, by some external means an Anarchist Revolution could be, so to speak, supplied ready-made and thrust upon the people, it is true that they would reject it and rebuild the old society. If, on the other hand, the people develop their ideas of freedom, and they themselves get rid of the last stronghold of tyranny, the government, then indeed the revolution will be permanently accomplished. This is not to suggest that an anarchist society must wait until everyone is an anarchist. Far from it. It is highly unlikely, for example, that the rich and powerful will suddenly see the errors of their ways and voluntarily renounce their privileges. Faced with a large and growing anarchist movement, the ruling elite has always used repression to defend its position in society. The use of fascism in Spain and Italy show the depths the capitalist class can sink to.
tl;dr Anarchy is right, that's my post for tonight, we'll begin debate tomorrow.
Libertarian socialism is just a fancy name for anarcho-communism. Socialism ceases to utilize government once it becomes communism, as communism in and of itself is a form of democratic anarchy. I say "leads to communism" because that's what it is often used for (though this has failed in the past due to government corruption and dictators).Nickolai77 said:
And how does the anarchist nation deal with the rest of the world's nation-states when they decide they'd like colonies, additional taxes, and natural resources? Would it defend itself with a military that has no hierarchical control?
I disagree with your definition...
Libertarianism can be broken into several sections of belief, much like all political parties can be. The core of which is that the individual should have the greatest amount of freedoms. EXCEPT in cases where the people themselves have given a governing body authority to regulate and enforce these aspects by law. It is this definition which prevents libertarianism from being anarchistic in nature. For while it believes in the freedom of the self it also, heavily, believes in the government structure as set out by laws.
It is why libertarians tend to be strongly in favour of constitutions, the documents that list the powers and responsibilities of governments. They recognise a society without a strong legal foundation will easily find itself in complete chaos. Chaos where the only thing matters is 'might makes right' and whoever has the biggest stick will call all the shots. Chaos which will allow outside influence to weaken, or even take by force, the ability to choose for one's self. Other words, they recognise that without laws and government then the inevitable conclusion for the nation is rule by dictator.
Now socialism... I believe it is comparable with libertarianism. Socialism simply believes that many aspects of society require a impartial, non-profit driven and selfish organisation to govern them for the benefit of all. We recognise, just as easily, that without strong governmental control many aspects of society will be abused for personal gain by those with the largest 'economical stick.' That if private driven organisations are allowed to govern these aspects it will creates a machine that will fail to supply the required services to all but those who can afford it.
For an example think US heath care, a prime example of profits being more important then a persons life... even for those who can afford to pay the costs right up till the point they need help. For those interested in history look at some of the worse city wide fires started and spread thanks to private owned fire-fighting organisations that where under manned, under equipped and under orders not to put fires unless the dues where paid. Compare then to now, and see that a government run system is far better then a profit driven private owned enterprise and all it took was giving the states the legal right to govern matters of fire safety.
Hence both are not incomparable with each other... legal social systems can easily be designed in a way that will neither interfere with the personal liberties of the individual nor will be organised outside of the realms of law. If legally applied libertarians can not forsake such programs without betraying the core of libertarianism. Without openly admitting they are not for individual rights at all, but believe themselves to be dictators who should make the choices for us.
Cause after all, we individuals have the right to legally create bodies to administer social programs should the majority of us choose to sponsor such programs.
Libertarianism can be broken into several sections of belief, much like all political parties can be. The core of which is that the individual should have the greatest amount of freedoms. EXCEPT in cases where the people themselves have given a governing body authority to regulate and enforce these aspects by law. It is this definition which prevents libertarianism from being anarchistic in nature. For while it believes in the freedom of the self it also, heavily, believes in the government structure as set out by laws.
It is why libertarians tend to be strongly in favour of constitutions, the documents that list the powers and responsibilities of governments. They recognise a society without a strong legal foundation will easily find itself in complete chaos. Chaos where the only thing matters is 'might makes right' and whoever has the biggest stick will call all the shots. Chaos which will allow outside influence to weaken, or even take by force, the ability to choose for one's self. Other words, they recognise that without laws and government then the inevitable conclusion for the nation is rule by dictator.
Now socialism... I believe it is comparable with libertarianism. Socialism simply believes that many aspects of society require a impartial, non-profit driven and selfish organisation to govern them for the benefit of all. We recognise, just as easily, that without strong governmental control many aspects of society will be abused for personal gain by those with the largest 'economical stick.' That if private driven organisations are allowed to govern these aspects it will creates a machine that will fail to supply the required services to all but those who can afford it.
For an example think US heath care, a prime example of profits being more important then a persons life... even for those who can afford to pay the costs right up till the point they need help. For those interested in history look at some of the worse city wide fires started and spread thanks to private owned fire-fighting organisations that where under manned, under equipped and under orders not to put fires unless the dues where paid. Compare then to now, and see that a government run system is far better then a profit driven private owned enterprise and all it took was giving the states the legal right to govern matters of fire safety.
Hence both are not incomparable with each other... legal social systems can easily be designed in a way that will neither interfere with the personal liberties of the individual nor will be organised outside of the realms of law. If legally applied libertarians can not forsake such programs without betraying the core of libertarianism. Without openly admitting they are not for individual rights at all, but believe themselves to be dictators who should make the choices for us.
Cause after all, we individuals have the right to legally create bodies to administer social programs should the majority of us choose to sponsor such programs.
Yes pretty much.Seanchaidh said:
I'm not going to argue semantics, but I will say anarchists have been called libertarian socialists since the 1850'sJinx_Dragon said: