Skeptictank

First off, welcome to the boards Shinobi! You might want to go over to the Introductions section for a formal "hello".
Next, that study you mentioned hardly shows anything new. It is THE classic example of an iterated prisoner's dilemma; game theory at its finest. It does not, in any way invalidate rational self-interest or capitalistic modes of thought.

Answerer

Well, I think this is enough to show that the chances for anarchism to be successful is rather small.

shinobi909

I think the chances of achieving an anarchist society might seem small, but I think we should still struggle for a better society. Anarchist praxis is a short term fight for an inprovement in the workers condition, but we recignise that there can only be a limited inprovement of the workers condition under capitalism, in order for the workers to be free from economic dependance, the wage system must be abolished. The short term struggle has a lot of importance for society, because if no-one is fighting wage-cuts, union busting, repressive laws, racism, sexism, and other aspects of the capitalism system, then we would live under a much more despotic state than we do now.

People can change their minds about things, before the Russian revolution, the people loved the Czar, there was a religious attachment to the idea of the "Little Father", but later, he had to run away to save his head. That goes for any revolution or uprising in history, before they happend, people thought they would never ocour.

The statement that an anarchist society wouldn't work is innacurate as such societies have worked on numerous occasions, they didn't "fail", they were crushed by external force. Also such examples exist on a smaller scale in the form of workers co-operatives, volunteer organisations, and various community, non-proffit groups. Do you really think people would sit around and starve if there was no government to feed them? I don't.

What are the alternatives to Anarchy, Direct Democracy, Libertarian Socialism ect? Capitalism? For a majority of the worlds population progress has gone backwards not forwards under global capitlaism. It's a slave system where workers are forced into economic dependance on a class of non-producers, the ruling class. You dont have to look hard to see the social, ecological and political damage that such a system has done. I think that from observation of the problems inherent in our society, we can conclude that capitalism in not a viable option for long term survival. What other alternatives does that leave us? Fascism? that's a variant of capitalism, and so is State Communism. They are all the same thing. under all of them, you get exploited by a ruling class. Any type of class segregation creates class conflict which is not a stable state for society to be in.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: shinobi909 ]

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: shinobi909 ]

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: shinobi909 ]</p>

ohwilleke

I think that calling co-operatives and civil society examples of "anarchism" is a bit of a stretch. And, there are good reasons why workers co=operatives have not seen success in a larger context.

Small worker's cooperatives (and employee ownership of enterprise generally) works only where workers are essentially all doing very comparable jobs where there are clear and obvious rules for allocating income between participants(plywood factories in the Northwest, taxi and bus co-operatives in New York and outside the U.S., and small professional firms of doctors, lawyers, accountants are the principal U.S. examples of worker owned co-operatives). Rare, large, heterogenous workforces in employee owned enterprises (in the U.S. through ESOPs, such as United, and abroad most notably at Mondragon, Spain), survive mostly by functionally separating ownership by workers, and management control.

Few volunteer groups would consider themselves anarchist, and many are, in fact, quite hierarchical in organization. Often, these "ownerless" organizations exist not because they are optimal ways of getting things done, but because the absence of anyone having a strong ownership interest in perverting the organization's purpose prevents it from cheating donors or others who aren't in a position to see if their charity is really used for the intended purposes.

Starvation is pretty rampant in places without government. Pre-Taliban Afganistan, Southern Sudan, Somolia, Angola during the war years, and parts of Yugoslavia during its wars, come to mind. Hobbes' statement about nasty, brutish and short lives comes to mind. For that matter, even the lack of effective government, in places like Bangladesh, can produce equally undesirable results of starvation.

Certainly, bad government, a la North Korea, Albania, and Stalinist Russia, can also produce starvation, but simple absence of government is quite sufficient.

shinobi909

I didn't bring up non-profit organisation as examples of anarchism per se, but as organisation funtioning in some way differnt to the dominant method. I agree fully that such organistions are not totally anarchist in structure, and that thier memebers are not anarchists. If you want examples of specificly anarchist/libertarian socialist organisation in the world now, I'd have to name Food Not Bombs, which is an group that has branches in amny countries. They go and get food from shops, resturants, ect. that would otherwise be wasted and thrown out, and they cook it up and use it to feed the homeless. Also, organistions like indymedia, an activist media outlet, which can be found at <a href="http://www.indymedia.org." target="_blank">www.indymedia.org.</a>
On a larger scale, The I.W.A (International Workers Association)www.iwa-ait.org which is an international confederation of anti-capitalist , anti-authoritarian unions. There are affiliated sections in Spain, Germany, France, Italy, Britan, Nigeria, Russia, Chile, Brazil,and heaps of other countries.

Was absence of government the cause of starvation? I'm not sure about that, these countries exist within the structure of global capitalism, which distributes goods on a privelege basis, not a need basis. If we had has an economy based on need rather than privelige, then they may not have had the problems they did.

Now I'd like to talk about governments. All governments, from China, to America, to Brazil, to Iran, ALL governments are based on violence. If you don't do what they say, they will hurt you in some fashion. They are organisations that hold a monopoly on violence in a givern terrotorial area. The state did not arise by free agreement of people but by conquest. They kill people, in fact when it comes to the calculated slaughter of innocent people, no-one comes close to the records set by governments. The worlds governments hold enough bombs to kill every form of life on the planet more then 20 times over, they could melt the world. They are all terrorists and the bigger they are, the more terror they use. Look at the U.S.A government, it's a monstrosity that is responsible for an immense amount of murder and terror. Every crime that you can think of has been committed over a thousand times by governments, by thier own laws, they have condemed themselves to the death penalty. They cover up thier crimes with an endless amount of lies. The notion that we need these hideous organisations to live socially is a lie that we have been brought up to belive. We went to school in the lie, we learn the lie in university, on T.V on the radio and in the papers. Whole books are written to justify the lie. Becuase without it, they can't exist. They depend on our submission for sustinance. If the people refuse to submit, to give them taxes, to proivide soldiers and police to guard them, if we refuse to build weapons for them, and all the other things they need, then they can't exist. They are social parisites. They are created and run by the rich, for the rich. Thats what governments are. The favored organisations of people like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, and every post war U.S president.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: shinobi909 ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Welcome shinobi and I agree wholeheartedly. America is and always has been an imperialist nation; a Republic not a Democracy with more covert as well as overt blood on our hands than anyone ever wants to address (which is why it continues).

1% controls the other 99% and, most importantly, does everything in their power to maintain that disparity.

I bolded that because it has far reaching implications that are as old as "civilization" and, closer to home here, religion.

Whether or not Anarchy is practical or not is irrelevant. It is an honorable construct based on the notion--as I understand it--that any and all individuals have the capacity to self-regulate if given the nurture to their nature (reiterate here the fact that 1% controls 99% not because of "natural selection" or other such nonsense, but because of deeply ingrained, historical precedent that has never been breached). It's not perfect because nothing's perfect, but (and I can't believe I'm about to quote my High School motto , but it applies) the important thing is to strive for excellence; seek out the ideal and you will improve your present.

This basic fact of human nature (tied, probably, to the survival instinct and restructured due to higher cognitive processing) is the bait all 1 percenters, to coin a phrase, manipulate and/or suppress to their advantage, but it is innate.

Everyone has a hardwired survival instinct that automatically forces at least the body to strive for "excellence" (aka, personal achievement) and this instinct, I would argue, does indeed translate into more esoteric notions such as ambition and social interaction, ultimately resulting in (if left to its own, IMO) anarchy, the concept of self-rule.

Precisely because this is innate within all humans, the 1 percenters must act to suppress and/or manipulate it to their maintenance, which is exactly what happens in all elements of society, from what you watch on TV to what fashions you wear to what you wipe your ass with.

It is, indeed, maintained (a key delineation) by a ruling elite, which in turn means it can also be changed, as history is the judge, but the fundamental problem is that the slave mentality all humans suffer from in one degree or another (even if it is the more benign, but nonetheless oppressive slave mentality of Parent/Child) is entrenched in our collective psyche. All religions instill slave mentality; all Governments instill slave mentality; all schools instill slave mentality; all Corporations instill slave mentality; all peer groups instill slave mentality (to some degree); all media instills slave mentality (partially indirectly, through content; primarily directly, through the medium itself).

In other words, literally all elements of what we consider "society" instills and/or maintains some form of slave mentality, largely initially based, IMO, on what Elwood was alluding to with scarcity, that then became the norm (status quo to be all poli-sci); a self-perpetuating 400 pound Gorilla.

The concept of Money is a perfect example. It started as barter; what I had for what you had, because I didn't need what I had, but did need what you had and vice versa. Then a standard was established to make it easier and hence commerce and finally paper money based on that standard. Then Nixon came along and true to form, took off the mask and showed those with eyes wide shut what was really behind the curtains by taking America off the gold standard.

What did that mean? It meant that money, ultimately, never had intrinsic meaning (money as opposed to barter, mind you) and that the perception of value (or perception of scarcity, if you like) was all that was required!

Think about that for a second while staring at a dollar bill. It is, quite literally, worthless without our collective agreement that it has worth.

If we can simply collectively decide that an abstraction has value, then Anarchy, in principle and application had proven itself on a very limited and admittedly esoteric scale, but the point is, the ability to achieve the realization of an abstract concept based entirely upon group consensus can and has been demonstrated. The key to it, however, is to recognize and process the fact that it came initially from the individual (barter), and then became maintained by the 1 percenters, the instillers of slave mentality.

Thus, iron shackles were replaced with credit card bills. Yes, the direct and overt brutality ceased, but the mentality never has and never will until, I would argue, we strive for anarchy and condition our children to do so as well, just as operantly as the 1 percenters do to insure your children grow only enough to maintain their power structure.

This is a very long winded way of saying, teach your children well, because Anarchy's strength (and why it is so vilified) is self rule, the conditioning of the individual to overcome its vulnerabilities that are prayed upon by the 1 percenters and through that internal growth, inherently recognize the value and respect of others around you so that a true "team" is formed.

That, I would argue, is the basis of Anarchy and the true basis of socialism/communism; the notion that the individual is so stable and so secure in who and what they are that they are more than capable to overcome their own selfishness in order to recognize the inherently superior quality of selflessness.

Yes, it's utopian thinking subject to entropy, but that doesn't make it any less preferable as a goal to set, IMO.

This has been a party political broadcast.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

shinobi909

That right Koyaanisqatsi, the U.S state is imperialist and expansionist. It maintains a network of brutal, corrupt millitary regimes in central america, asia, africa, and the middle east that it pumps billions of dollars into. They supply arms, equipment, training and reconnosance to such dictatorships. Your tax dollars at work. Why? To secure cheap recources and labour for U.S corporations.

What Koyaanisqatsi is talking about about in regards to collective ideas was a subject dealt with by Alexnder Berkman in "What Is Anarchist-Communism?". There's a chapter called "The Idea Is The Thing." and he goes on to say that whatever ideas the members of a society have, thats what institutions it will have. If they belive society needs to have a chain of domination and submission, then thats what they will get. He says the institutions are safe because the ideas they are based on are belived. Of course, he wasn't the first person to suggest this, but his example comes to mind. Why do most people think the way they do now? Becuase they are the ideas we are conditioned to belive in. And on top of that, people take for granted whatever social concepts and structures they are born into. This concept, shows some promise for an anarchist society. A generation raised within a non coercive, co-operative and society would be different to people raised to accept authority.

Koyaanisqatsi

I would also add--lest anyone goes on a rant about communism/socialism--that neither one has ever actually been tried by any Nation, just as Democracy has never actually been tried.

Just because a country calls themselves "communist" does not mean that they are, in fact (aka, in practice) a communist Nation.

Just a caveat...

shinobi909

Koyaanisqatsi: too true. The bolsheviks created state capitalism in Russia, not socialism. China is the same. The working class lived under the economic and political domination by a party bureacracy, who constuited the ruling class. There was real socialism at work in the early stages of the Russian Revolution, factories and agrarian production was under the control of elected workers and peasants councils called soviets. The Russian anarchists defended the soviet system at that time. But the bolsheviks plotted ro start up a dictatorship, and they suceeded, the revolution went backwards, back to a serfdom/Capitalist society.
Lenin was one of socialism's biggest enemies.

I mentioned in a few posts above that Fascism, State Communism (Which is really State Capitalism)
and "Free Market" Capitalism are all the same thing. Noam Chomsky says it, and I agree with him. I'll explain it more. In all systems you either work for a boss, or starve/ go on welfare and become poor. Control is strictly top down, with no meaningful bottom up input allowed. Also, they are the same in what they are opposed to, they oppose the organised labour movement, anarchism, and the left-marxists that are critical of the state. And although the ideologies that they are based on have some superficial differneces, the underlying essence is the same: People are stupid, they don't understand whats good for them, and they need to be forced/ manipulated to do things by an elite, which is smart and understand whats best for society. The elite in all theories are the people that agree with the idea. Thats why it was easy for people like Hitler, and Mussolini to switch form the authoritarian socialism movement to the fascist movement, they wanted to go where the power is. American democracy was founded on the principle that the state is for protecting the rich from the poor. (which it is) James Madison warned that if the pulic were allowed to participate in public affairs, they would try and institute agrarian reform and other hideous crimes against the sacred rights of property owners, which must prevail over all else.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: shinobi909 ]</p>

YHWH666

bump:

just to start the discusion again