August Spies

Clearly skeptiktank lives in capitalism/utopinaism fanatasy land where there is ONE single human nature, that luckily for us, HE HIMSELF has figured it out!!

QUEL CHANCE, NON?! And think, philosphers have been debating it since the dawn of time, yet skeptictank new all along the true way humans live.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Who do I make checks payable to?

Never mind that humans have existed in a million different ways (and mostly likely the majority of their existance was spent in communal/proto-anarchist enviorments)

Nevermind that humans are, by nature, communal animals and NOT individualists.

Look buddy, we have reached the technolgocial point where we could provide everyone in the world with a good quality of life. This is much more than teh current system does, where the majority of the world lives on less than 2 dollars a day.

I said on any practical level because we will never be able to give everyone everything, as you seem to think everyone wants. But we have moved beyond scarcity that requires SLAVERY or FUEDALISM or massive wealth inequalities in order to make things work.

I remember reading that to feed the world (remember something like 50%, under the present system, suffers from hunger or malnutrition) it would cost a mere 17 billion dollars. What the world used to spend on BOMBS and NUKES every 2 weeks (probably spends far more than that now).

Clearly we have the technology to give everyone much more than a bowl of rice and a pair of pants, but even that would be an improvement over how things work now.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: August Spies ]</p>

August Spies

LP:

I think that your confusion lies with failing to distinguish anarchism (as a model for society) and a power vacuum.

When there is a power vacuum, differnt forces will fill the gap. Power vacuum on a global scale? U.S. and U.S.S.R. step into the void. Power vacuum in afghanistan? Warlords fill the void.

Anarchism does not represnt a lack of power, it is a power in this sense of the word. For example, when anarchists create their idea of society in the Ukraine or in Catalonia they are stable, if remarkable, societies.

When those two examples failed it was when another power defeated them militarily. It was not another power assuming a void.

Likewise democracy in Athens was defeated, or the empire or Rome was defeated. This is not to say that democracy or empires degenerate into other thigns, but that other powers can take over.

-----------

If you want to seriously debate anarchism, I suggest you examine the two most famous examples of anarchism in practice (Spanish anarchists, 1936 and the Ukranian Anarchists during the Russian revolution AKA the Makhonovists)

I, at least, find it more productive to examine thought systems IN PRACTICE than in THEORY. Most thought systems are good in theory (capitalism, communism, anarchism, socialism) it is the practice that counts. While I believe there were some flaws in the above examples, they are at the same time remarkable achievemnts given the odds they were up against.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by August Spies:
You think that Afrganistan, which shows no signs of libertarian socialist thought, is a better example of Anarchism than Spain 36? Where anarchists went about making the type of society they wanted?

LP you are just being silly or dishonest or both.

I don't think libertarian socialist thought has much effect on the outcome as not *EVERYONE* follows it.

I'm saying Afghanistan and Somalia represent what happens in the long run with anarchy.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by August Spies:
LP:

I think that your confusion lies with failing to distinguish anarchism (as a model for society) and a power vacuum.

Anarchism is inherently a power vacuum! You're the one trying to redefine the word.

elwoodblues

To some extent true. We are also, by nature, killers. It is in our 'nature' to intimidate, pressure, and otherwise be really, really bad to fellow human beings when it suits us.

Isn't it nice that, some of the time, to some extent, we're starting to overcome our 'nature'?

Just because it's 'natural' doesn't mean it's good, August. Individualism is a newcomer in our psyches, yes; it's only been around for a couple thousand years. Just because it cuts against the grain a bit doesn't mean it's worse than the more 'natural' alternative (communalism).

moon

You present a false dichotomy. Individualism is not the opposite of cooperation, or "communalism" as you put it. Indeed, we are greatly aided in our pursuit of individual creativity by our interactions with others.

The difference between capitalism and socialism is not one of individualism vs. collectivism. Capitalism is just as collectivist as is socialism, but in a different way. In a capitalist system, people relate to each other in an arbitrarily enforced hierarchy, which leads to concentrations of power. It is a coercive system, by its very nature. Socialism, real socialism, is a cooperative system, where people relate to each other as equals, under conditions of liberty and free choice.

So, the real dichotomy between socialism and capitalism is that between cooperation and coercion.

elwoodblues

Alright folks, remedial math hour.

50%? That'd be, what, 3 billion people? 3 billion people, over 365 days. 3 meals a day. Call it 1,000 times 3 billion. That's 3 trillion meals.

Now, divide the original figure of 17 billion dollars by 3 trillion meals... whoops! That comes to roughly .005666 dollars per meal. Yeah, you read that right, half a cent per meal.

Oh, wait, you mean 17 billion per DAY? Oh, why didn't you say so. Well, let's make it an annual figure (because they're easier to grasp and work with). 17 billion a day for a year is... 6.2 trillion dollars per year. Yeah, this is a LOT more realistic. We're looking at about $2.00 per meal now, which is in the realm of believable, after taking into account transportation and infrastructure costs.

Six trillion dollars. Six TRILLION dollars. Per annum. Now, I agree, starvation and hunger are horrible things. But this is no solution. This is a sure-fire way to wreck the whole damned ship.

So, we've got 2 options here.

1) August realized that '6 trillion dollars' just didn't sound as good as '17 billion dollars', so he tried to snow us. I don't think that's what happened, but it might be.

2) August hadn't thought through the numbers. Also bad, but certainly excusable.

elwoodblues

I agree that it's a false dichotomy. But it was August drawing it, not me. I just figured I would go along with the gag.

Hoo-rah. Well, you already knew I was going to disagree with that. No surprise there. We can get into that elsewhere if you like.

Answerer

Come on guys, there is no good or perfect political system in reality.The determination of the various different systems that work best, varies according to different circumstances, people and periods. Even if a good political system in place, it will not last as any government or monarch would eventually be egoistic and unreasonable. However, this doesn't mean anarchism is good for future humanity.

shinobi909

I'm an Anarchist, and have been involved in the Australian Anarchist movement for some time. Would anarchy work? Well, I think in my experience people belive the obstacle to anarchism is some innate greed that exists in human nature. First of all, I think human nature is a very complex thing and I don't think much is understood of it. Secondly, many aspects of what we consider "human nature" are really the ways people act within a specific social structure, namely capitalism. But what I want to bring up as something to think about is this, the workers are very generous to the rich, we build mansions for them, we work long hours in factories and offices
making money for them, we guard them form harm, we wait on them and serve them. We build resorts for them to stay in, and we built flash cars for them to drive in. The workers are really very selfless in their actions. We spend most of our lives working, and we let the rich expropriate the fruits of our labour and give us back a tiny portion of it, which we must use to buy the things that our labour created in the first place. And If people are greedy and selfish by nature, then why are there things like sympathy strikes, non profit organisations, and disaster relief volunteers to name a few examples of non voluntryist activity that exists. I'll leave you with a piece of news that I have come across.
-------------------------------------------------

Competition and selfishness may not be human nature. A European study
suggests that people prefer to do something about other people's unfair
behaviour, even when doing so goes against their own self-interest.
A study at the Universities of St Gallen and Zurich in Switzerland, gave
volunteers the choice of behaving in a co-operative way, or a selfish one.
The experiment was set up so that everyone gains a small benefit if everyone
behaves co-operatively, but that people who behave selfishly can get a large
benefit for themselves if other people behave co-operatively.
Subjects were also allowed to punish cheats, but this would mean that they
were penalised themselves.
Everyone in the experiment was given money if they did well, or fined if
they did not.
The experiment found that most subjects would punish cheats severely, even
if they lost out by doing so.

New Scientist.

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