Stability of Anarchy: Let's Continue Here, Smurf

[TheStatutoryApe]

I question this statement. What evidence is there to support your claim (implied claim in the argument) that altruism is unnatural for humans?

I did not imply that altruism is unnatural. My comments are in regards to setting people's minds to regard their community above themselves. Not all people will feel this way just as not all people regard their self above their community. I think that this factor is unpredictable which is why I brought up the skinner box. You can not sculpt a person into what you want them to be. There is a natural inclination that the indivdual should be allowed to follow. I also disagree that a person who thinks of their self above their community is necessarily wrong.

Humans are affected by their enviroment. This is a repeatable, observable, demonstratable scientific fact.

I don't argue that but the same can be said for genetic predisposition. Moulding a person by environment isn't going to work the same for every person and those coming up with the programming that will not allow for certain attributes may find that in some circumstances they just can't get rid of them. Some individual's minds may even become twisted and worse then they would have been otherwise simply for the reason that they were repressing certain attributes of themelves that they haven't been able to reconcile with the world view foisted upon them by their society.

We are not advocating any form of intense, forcible indoctrination of our beliefs, merely to create a social structure (and thus, enviroment) that we believe will create more altruistic, healthy persons.

Then what happens to those that don't conform to what you would have people believe is the proper course of things? What if a group of people in an Anarchist society decide that they think your idea of governing (or lack there of) is wrong and needs to be replaced? What of the people who will, in your societies (Smurf, outsider, Alex), be your counterparts?

Babies are born with blank minds.

That I can not argue but their genetics are obviously not blank. And again you come to the idea of brain washing. I asked you how a certain type of person might be treated in your society and you state that people are born with blank minds that are influenced by their environment. It looks to me like a definite inferance that you would have your citizens built from the ground up to your liking. But what does happen when that goes wrong and they don't come out the way you want them to? Also, I almost forgot, regardless of blankness do you think that every person has the same intellectual capacity? That there is no genetic predisposition or limit to it for each person?

You've asked this once before and I'm confused. You know that by socialism, by definition, is all about destroying classes, right? Why is it that you assume, merely because we want to encourage different aspects of humanity by a different social structure, that we will create some sort of oppressive caste system?

My point is How do you get rid of the caste system? Such things are naturally ingrained in us. There are going to be people who get along better with certain types of people more so than others and value those certain types of people more so than others. How do you get a society to treat a block head janitor as equal to a genius rocket scientist? More brain washing? It's only natural. It's been ingrained in us by evolution to appreciate strength more so than weakness. Not everyone will possesses much strength and there will certainly be those who will have an excess of it that will be either admired or they will inspire jealousy.

 

[oldunion]

Then what happens to those that don't conform to what you would have people believe is the proper course of things? What if a group of people in an Anarchist society decide that they think your idea of governing (or lack there of) is wrong and needs to be replaced? What of the people who will, in your societies (Smurf, outsider, Alex), be your counterparts?

I don't believe this would be an issue in an anarchist system, but to destroy imperialism/capitalism it would be necessary to do what it takes to get there. And i would never in my life consider a true capitalist innocent.

It looks to me like a definite inferance that you would have your citizens built from the ground up to your liking. But what does happen when that goes wrong and they don't come out the way you want them to? Also, I almost forgot, regardless of blankness do you think that every person has the same intellectual capacity? That there is no genetic predisposition or limit to it for each person?

There is no system, there is no power to be leveraged against others, there is no power which could be established against others; do you honestly believe a band of hundreds maybe even thousands of armed men could stand up to a country of enlightened, freedom loving people? Hell no. Opposition would be crushed, yet you do not need a provision or law to ensure it would happen. Whether you are an intellectual or a moron, everyone can relate to the benefits of a completely free society, whether it is the pursuit of philosophy or being able to say what you want.


There is always something to be jealous of, a smile, someone's mistress, etc. But again i think this goes back to the system which we are in, which convinces you to become uncertain of yourself so that you go and buy something that would complete you (makeup, clothes, a fancy car, a big house). You actually become dissatisfied with yourself so that you desire to become glamorous, and induce greed in others, so that you ultimately arrive at pleasure- but it is vacuous. Would you drive a ferrari if no one in the world could see you, or would you be content with a toyota?

If people were taught to appreciate who they were, they could find strength in themselves. Intellect and appearance or natural things that some may envy, but it is envy now and i believe in a different system it could be appreciation, respect, etc.

 

[Smurf]

Then what happens to those that don't conform to what you would have people believe is the proper course of things? What if a group of people in an Anarchist society decide that they think your idea of governing (or lack there of) is wrong and needs to be replaced?

This risk is inherent in any society, I see no reason why Anarchism is more vulnerable than any other.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ6.html This is the anarchist FAQ article on child rearing.

 

[alexandra]

What about those that don't care much for their "brothers", haven't any desire to improve themselves, and have no interest in intellectual persuits. Again, are these to be second class citizens? The average person isn't terribly bright and has little interest in anything other than enjoying their life. If that means swilling beer and watching sports while sitting on the sofa are you going to begrudge them that? Will their persuits be looked down upon or will they be given all the strength of encouragement that any others receive? Will the quality of their life suffer because the "state" doesn't approve of their life style?

This is the strangest argument, TSA. I mean, how much approval do 'beer-swilling' lazy people who sit around watching sports get even in the *current* society? If they happen to be poor as well, they are looked down upon and blamed for their own poverty. So what's wrong with creating a society that does not encourage such behaviours? What's wrong with encouraging people to... I don't know, play chess for recreation, or read? Do you think babies are born with a natural propensity to sit around all day drinking beer and watching TV? I mean, how could that be natural - TVs aren't natural, after all. Don't you think people *learn* to live such totally stupified lives? I think that again, it comes down to socialisation: I didn't used to sit around watching TV, and neither do my children. We read and do stuff. But this was as a result of my making a conscious effort to teach my children how to live their lives in a worthwhile way. I could have taught them to just sit around doing nothing and rotting their brains in front of the TV set all day (I know plenty of people who have taught their children to do that).

 

[alexandra]

I don't argue that but the same can be said for genetic predisposition. Moulding a person by environment isn't going to work the same for every person and those coming up with the programming that will not allow for certain attributes may find that in some circumstances they just can't get rid of them. Some individual's minds may even become twisted and worse then they would have been otherwise simply for the reason that they were repressing certain attributes of themelves that they haven't been able to reconcile with the world view foisted upon them by their society.

Have you read Marx's theory of alienation? According to this theory, capitalism creates an entire society of people who live totally repressed lives where they are alienated from:
* what defines them as human beings - their ability to labour creatively;
* their fellow human beings; and
* the products of their labour.
I don't honestly see how it could get any worse than that In fact, what I see is entire societies of twisted people who are so greedy, or are in such a hopeless situation of powerlessness, that all vestiges of what it is to be human has been squeezed out of them. Ok, I'm being a bit dramatic ...but on the whole, I don't believe that human beings are, at this stage, very comfortable with themselves, or with one another, or with the world they live in. Perhaps I'm reading the situation incorrectly?

Then what happens to those that don't conform to what you would have people believe is the proper course of things? What if a group of people in an Anarchist society decide that they think your idea of governing (or lack there of) is wrong and needs to be replaced? What of the people who will, in your societies (Smurf, outsider, Alex), be your counterparts?

That's the best thing about a properly human and humane society: instead of clobbering such people on the head or sending them to the salt mines, I would hope that they would be allowed to state and debate their views (just as we are doing now). I think people misunderstand the nature of the system I (for one) am proposing: it is not totalitarianism I am after, or a system that stifles free speech and individuality. When people disagree on issues (and of course, people will disagree) then discussion must occur and reason must prevail. This is what distinguishes us from other animals, in my opinion: we have the ability to reason, to discuss things logically, to change our minds about things in the light of convincing evidence, etc.

regardless of blankness do you think that every person has the same intellectual capacity? That there is no genetic predisposition or limit to it for each person?

There is no way of testing this at the moment. The social/environmental advantages of some relative to the many are so great that even if there were genetic differences, we can't tell. It would be only once we actually have a 'level playing field' that we could properly research such questions.

 

[Smurf]

What statutory ape is trying to do, I think, is a common argument against anarchism/socialism. He's trying to show that we don't have everything figured out and that our 'Utopia' isn't necessarily perfect so he can conclude that we mine as well stay with what we have now since it's 'working'. Well we're not really trying to create a utopia (I actually have never heard an anarchist or communist use that term, just people trying to brand us as 'dreamers') we're just advocating an improvement on society. If it needs further refining from there we'll be encouraging those changes too.

 

[loseyourname]

There is no way of testing this at the moment. The social/environmental advantages of some relative to the many are so great that even if there were genetic differences, we can't tell. It would be only once we actually have a 'level playing field' that we could properly research such questions.

Haven't you ever heard of twin studies, and gene linking to personality traits? Professing that we cannot research these things (while they are being and have been fairly extensively researched) and, at the same time, claiming that we can know everything about the effects of acculturation and environment because they 'make sense to you' is at best terribly unscientific. At worst, it is willful ignorance.

Can I again ask how a thread on anarchy became a thread about socialism?

 

[Smurf]

Can I again ask how a thread on anarchy became a thread about socialism?

Alexandra said something about Anarchism, Vanesch interpreted it as about Communism and responded - the rest is history.

 

[oldunion]

Utopia hasnt been referenced by socialists as a foundation for party since the 19th century, it naturally is an unequal society where "undesirables" are sent to do dirty work for the colony.

Discussion on socialism, communism, anarchism is relevant because they all depend on one another in progression- but i suppose that's a reformist approach to the issue, and real anarchism could be achieved without first proceeding through socialism and communism, many would be killed though.

Alexandra, your post was enlightening, and i think it shows quite well why some people believe what they do and others, there own.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I already wrote quite a bit here but it was lost due to an inconsiderate co-worker but I'll try to get my main points out...

I don't believe this would be an issue in an anarchist system, but to destroy imperialism/capitalism it would be necessary to do what it takes to get there. And i would never in my life consider a true capitalist innocent.

Funny that in our current society which you consider so opressive we are free to have our beliefs but you would condemn someone for their ideology.

This is the strangest argument, TSA. I mean, how much approval do 'beer-swilling' lazy people who sit around watching sports get even in the *current* society?

The majority of people have met any where consider it one of their biggest pleasures to swill alcohol and blow their time either watching sports or hangout in bars and clubs. Just because people like you and I enjoy more intellectual persuits does not mean that the majority do or will(even if you try making them that way).

There is always something to be jealous of, a smile, someone's mistress, etc. But again i think this goes back to the system which we are in, which convinces you to become uncertain of yourself so that you go and buy something that would complete you (makeup, clothes, a fancy car, a big house). You actually become dissatisfied with yourself so that you desire to become glamorous, and induce greed in others, so that you ultimately arrive at pleasure- but it is vacuous. Would you drive a ferrari if no one in the world could see you, or would you be content with a toyota?

I'm not talking about consumerism I'm talking about evolution and social grouping. Consumerism works off of these things it is not responsable for them, they occur naturally.

I mean, how could that be natural - TVs aren't natural, after all.

I could easily argue that everything you stand for in a society is "unnatural" and that the "law of the jungle" essence that you see in capitalism and so despise is entirely "natural". To argue that someone's desire to watch television is unnatural is rather meaningless especially considering that I doubt the person was strapped down and forced to become a couch potato. It came about naturally.

Have you read Marx's theory of alienation? According to this theory, capitalism creates an entire society of people who live totally repressed lives where they are alienated from:
* what defines them as human beings - their ability to labour creatively;
* their fellow human beings; and
* the products of their labour.

I don't understand how these are true. How does capitalism alienate people from their ability to labour creatively? I think it rather promotes it doesn't it?
How does capitalism alienate people from one another? I don't see this one at all.
How does capitalism alienate people from the product of their labour? Again I was under the impression that it was the oposite of this. How is it that a society with a corner stone being private property alienate people from the product of their labour? In a capitalist society if you invent something you own it and you can decide what to do with it. The product of your labour belongs to you, not the state or your community. How does this alienate you from the product of your labour? I would think that anything else would create that anlienation.

That's the best thing about a properly human and humane society: instead of clobbering such people on the head or sending them to the salt mines, I would hope that they would be allowed to state and debate their views (just as we are doing now). I think people misunderstand the nature of the system I (for one) am proposing: it is not totalitarianism I am after, or a system that stifles free speech and individuality. When people disagree on issues (and of course, people will disagree) then discussion must occur and reason must prevail. This is what distinguishes us from other animals, in my opinion: we have the ability to reason, to discuss things logically, to change our minds about things in the light of convincing evidence, etc.

But the society has already decided that capitalism is wrong haven't they? How can you be open and reasonable about an idea that you already think is wrong? In a capitalist society you are free to be a communist and you can even set up a comune of your own if you want to. It's been done multiple times and they still exist as far as I know. Would a communist or anarchist society allow for people to set up a capitalist comunity? They can't can they? Considering that the means of production do not belong to them. They have no property. So doesn't this make them less free?

There is no way of testing this at the moment. The social/environmental advantages of some relative to the many are so great that even if there were genetic differences, we can't tell. It would be only once we actually have a 'level playing field' that we could properly research such questions.

loseyourname already touched on this but here is a website that may tell you more... http://www.personalityresearch.org/bg.html

What statutory ape is trying to do, I think, is a common argument against anarchism/socialism. He's trying to show that we don't have everything figured out and that our 'Utopia' isn't necessarily perfect so he can conclude that we mine as well stay with what we have now since it's 'working'. Well we're not really trying to create a utopia (I actually have never heard an anarchist or communist use that term, just people trying to brand us as 'dreamers') we're just advocating an improvement on society. If it needs further refining from there we'll be encouraging those changes too.

I'm trying to point out what I see as inherant problems with the ideologies. You say that they will take care of everyone and accomidate everyone and make everyone more free but I can't see how that is. It looks to me like they will more likely opress people in certain fundamental ways regarding their individuality and how they wish to live their life. To me these are far more important than the fact that someone is making more money than I do and someone is making less. These may well be problems too but I see my freedom to be who I am, have my idiology, and do what I will with what I have as being quite important to solving those problems. Also I don't see any way around the class/caste system. If you think there is then I would like to hear about it. So far you have mentioned what I think amounts to brainwashing which I don't see as being ethical OR practical.

 

[oldunion]

Funny that in our current society which you consider so opressive we are free to have our beliefs but you would condemn someone for their ideology.

Im not a murderer, nor am i judge and jury. But in revolution there will be people who wish to not be involved, people who wish to be involved, and then there are people who would do everything in their power to stop you.

There are three common schools of thought for how change comes about: reformism, workers revolution, or guerilla warfare; i suppose workers revolution would be the best option for minimization of loss of life but it also would not be very successful against a fascist government, and reformism is in my eyes useless.

People seem to forget that this country was founded on revolution, people dying for their beliefs is an idea as old as time. The establishment of anarchism is the end to war, which is very much a product of imperialism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Why is reformism useless? The US has become far better than it once was through the evolution of society within the bounds of a government rather than through revolution.
If you try a revolution there will be many against you. Things will not settle down for quite some time. Then the country will have to go once again through the growing pains every new country does all over again and catch up to where we have gotten already. The country may not survive the second time around. Another nation may very well come in while your's is weak and attempt to take it over or reform it to their own liking.
Anarchism is not the end to war. It is only another manner by which to let a society run. The whole world would have to agree to your views for there to be no more war. Then you would have to hope that no more people or generations of people come about that disagree with you.

 

[Smurf]

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ7.html#secj76
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ1.html#secj13

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ7.html#secj76
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ1.html#secj13

Most of it reads like BS. Anarchsts want to get at the root of the problem apparentlt rather than put a band-aid on it. But they point their fingers at the institution instead of the people. People are jerks, get over it. People have been jerks far longer than any hierarchal government has been around to make them that way. As a matter of fact these hierarchal governments occurred naturally based on natural human inclinations.
Unless ofcourse you believe Jerkus the mighty god of fascism came down from the sky and tricked the gentle inhabitants of Earth into becoming the slaves of his deciples the Jerks.
Evolution brought us here and it can take us past it as well. It will be a long slow process and that to me would indicate that reformism would work best. Revolution is the anarchist/socialist band-aid for lack of patience.

 

[Smurf]

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB1.html

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB1.html

Yes they quite obvioulsy seem to be believers in Jerkus.

 

[oldunion]

Why is reformism useless? The US has become far better than it once was through the evolution of society within the bounds of a government rather than through revolution.
If you try a revolution there will be many against you. Things will not settle down for quite some time. Then the country will have to go once again through the growing pains every new country does all over again and catch up to where we have gotten already. The country may not survive the second time around. Another nation may very well come in while your's is weak and attempt to take it over or reform it to their own liking.
Anarchism is not the end to war. It is only another manner by which to let a society run. The whole world would have to agree to your views for there to be no more war. Then you would have to hope that no more people or generations of people come about that disagree with you.

it concerns me that you think this country has come a long way. Racism was only just officially eliminated from law, but in practice its still very much alive. There were recently a few hangings in LA and GA. Homosexuality is not accepted and there are movements to outlaw marriage. Christian fundamentalism is threatening the first amendment to have intelligent design taught in schools. The bottom line is that it isn't even about how many progressions youve made, you are fundamentally limited by the bounds capitalism. Racism, classism, glamour, greed, hatred, discrimination... these are all very much products of capitalism, because regimentation is essential to its function.

If anarchism finally took hold in the usa, and the fighting stopped, and people accepted it here...i would not care what the rest of the world did, because it would not concern me. But you are right, I am sure other still imperialist nations would try to take advantage of a seemingly helpless nation, but seemingly is the keyword here. If that happened, and i was content with my anarchist society, i would take up arms against the agressor, that's how a nation should be. You live, you work, you make progress in society, and then when a threat comes along you collectively band together and evaluate the correct means of action.

Imperialism supports conflict between nations, and when resources become scarce it becomes essential for the nations to go to war. When you stop producing goods for capital gain, and start producing them for collective ownership, you eliminate the need for economic war. I just read that pentium chips cost 40 dollars to make, and some of them are sold for more than 645 dollars...

The only war in an anarchist society, could be the war of defense from invasion. It fundamentally does not make sense for an anarchist land to invade another country, it by definition would be illogical and pointless. Anarchism would be the end all of forms of government, there would be no wasted time in development, that would be it for the rest of mankind. Real issues could FINALLY be addressed, like proper education, science, exploration of the solar system, cures of diseases, alternate energy sources, peace

 

[loseyourname]

Racism, classism, glamour, greed, hatred, discrimination... these are all very much products of capitalism, because regimentation is essential to its function.

How can you say this when all of these things pre-existed capitalism? An economy doesn't need discrimination and hatred to thrive. An ideal market is a perfect meritocracy, and anything short of that hurts a capitalist system.

 

[vanesch]

Most of it reads like BS. Anarchsts want to get at the root of the problem apparentlt rather than put a band-aid on it. But they point their fingers at the institution instead of the people. People are jerks, get over it.

Even more, the amount of jerkiness in people is highly different from individual to individual, and the social environment who will make one person "nicer" will also make another one "jerkier" and vice versa.

People have been jerks far longer than any hierarchal government has been around to make them that way. As a matter of fact these hierarchal governments occurred naturally based on natural human inclinations.
Unless ofcourse you believe Jerkus the mighty god of fascism came down from the sky and tricked the gentle inhabitants of Earth into becoming the slaves of his deciples the Jerks.

I agree fully with this. If people were all "naturally good" then just ANY society would naturally evolve into something warm and cozy. Capitalism would, too. Rich people would be inclined to work for the greater good of all (note that SOME do this !) and use their capital in the same way a good communist state leader would. Shareholders of large companies would want to see only modest returns on their investments, and would require from the CEO of the company that he does a lot of good stuff for the common good, not expecting high individual gains (note that SOME do!). There is no *a priori* reason why capitalism should bring about exploitation of the worker, greed and useless consumption. After all, the people in power - who also have access to the best intellectual trainings and everything they want - would realize that by working for the greater good of society they would do the best thing they can ; if that is the natural behaviour for people, then those in power would be those most free to pursue this, so capitalism would almost naturally evolve in a kind of private communism. If people weren't looking for status and privileges then if there would be ONE category of people that would NOT be brainwashed, evilized by publicity, ..., that can take all the time to pursue intellectual activities, it would be the rich and powerful, and they would instore their natural, nice world view.

Guess what ? This doesn't happen very often. So it must be that most of the rich and powerful (who are, let us not forget, also often those who have been educated in the most ideal ways) do not behave so nicely after all. Then there's no reason to expect that the average person will. Some will. Others won't.

 

[Smurf]

What do you disagree with?

 

[loseyourname]

From an essay about Frank Herbert:

That is, he observed that people seem to have an inbuilt hunger for a powerful, charismatic leader to whom we can surrender our responsibility for making difficult decisions. Hebert observed that even the best leaders are humans, those humans have flaws, and elevating any man to a position of god-like power tends to magnify those human flaws to dangerous proportions. Worse, even if the original leader resists the temptation to abuse power, the bureaucracy which springs up around him will outlive him, and over time a bureaucracy becomes more and more incented to prioritize its own needs over the needs of people.

Bold emphasis is mine.

I think this is one of the reasons that the American system of limited government, chock full of checks and balances, has been as successful as it has been, and why centrally planned economies just don't work.* It is inevitable that if you vest too much power in the hands of anyone person or idealogical group that the power structure built up will attract people who have no interest in the common good and simply want power. The advantage with a democracy predicated on the separation of powers is that it contains the amount of damage such a person can do. When you have a central planning committee with absolute power over an economy, you don't get that. When you have one idealogical group in power, which is absolutely necessary to a pure socialist system, you end up with nothing to check their power.

And don't give me this nonsense about humans being completely blank slates with no innate power drive. The reason we have wars and violence is not capitalism. Someone, I forget who, once calculated the number of years in recorded history during which there is no record of any war taking place, and he came up with 23 years. Chimpanzees even practice primitive ethnic cleansing techniques! This behavior is not in any way unnatural. Violence is found everywhere in nature. We desire what our neighbor has not because capitalism has taught us to, but because it was evolutionarily advantageous for our distant ancestors to desire what their neighbor's had. We're designed to cooperate in small family units and nothing more. Heck, we even see this in the most corrupt of capitalists with cronyism. Even they are willing to share the wealth amongst those of their "in-group."

I'm telling you people, we can use this in-group/out-group mentality that is hardwired into us by acculturating children into thinking of the global community as their "in-group." It's not a panacaea solution and it won't end war and greed (nothing short of another several million years of evolution is likely to do that), but it'll work a heck of a lot better than these naive economic solutions. Social equality is not the goal of an economic system; creating wealth is.

There is legitimate discussion to be had on this topic, but we aren't going to get anywhere by predicating our arguments on the premise that humans are these innocent, perfectly moldable creatures and that capitalism is the root of all the world's evil. I won't deny that capitalism did serve to enable a good deal of evil in the form of colonialism, needed to create new markets and to attain resources. But let us not forget another pretty darn key enabler to that occurence - absolute governments with no accountability to anybody. Capitalism needs to be restrained, not by the central planning of socialist committees and the abolition of private property, but by the establishment of limited government that is accountable both to its own people and to a global community, a government that cannot become powerful enough to go around conquering and plundering to sate its need for new resources and markets.

[Note: None of this in any way applies to the arguments of an anarchist, who, as I said earlier, is, generally speaking, a staunch capitalist. (Don't you just love the English language and the way it allows you to put a sentence within a sentence within a sentence?) I've pretty much given up at this point in trying to bring this thread back to anarchy.]

*Just so I don't sound completely America-centric, I'll note that another reason the American system has worked historically as well as it has is that we've always had enough resources in our own country (granted, we had to plunder that from the original inhabitants here) and so we've never had to go through a colonial period. Being largely Native American myself, I don't want to give the impression that I'm advocating American manifest destiny over European imperialism. I'm only advocating limited government.

 

[vanesch]

I think this is one of the reasons that the American system of limited government, chock full of checks and balances, has been as successful as it has been, and why centrally planned economies just don't work.* It is inevitable that if you vest too much power in the hands of anyone person or idealogical group that the power structure built up will attract people who have no interest in the common good and simply want power. The advantage with a democracy predicated on the separation of powers is that it contains the amount of damage such a person can do.

I agree wholeheartedly with this analysis... only, it seems to me that the president of the USA is becoming a too powerful person, no ? In fact it is one of the reasons why I do have great hopes for the EU: they are an assembly of rather weak states, and no central power is in the making. I hope we keep it that way.

 

[loseyourname]

I agree wholeheartedly with this analysis... only, it seems to me that the president of the USA is becoming a too powerful person, no ? In fact it is one of the reasons why I do have great hopes for the EU: they are an assembly of rather weak states, and no central power is in the making. I hope we keep it that way.

I also don't advocate the imperial presidency that we've moved toward since Nixon. All of Schumer's talk about the need to give the federal government, and especially his Senate, more and more power, is frankly scaring me. I imagine he's a great guy with the best of intentions, but it's a dangerous path. I guess that's one of the reasons I actually like Roberts as a judicial nominee - he is staunchly advocating limited government and separation of powers. (Sorry about the digression - I have no doubt that you don't have the slightest clue who Senator Schumer is, any more than I know the names of French legislators.)

You bring up a good point, though. Even a democracy is not immune to the messiah impulse. Look at what happened here. All the way back in the early 60's, the civil rights movement and social equality programs moved people to advocate consolidation of power in the federal government, enabling the creation of the imperial presidency. This was something done with the best of intentions and resulted in legitimate progress in civil rights legislation. It also resulted in a much stronger federal government that was bound to fall into the hands of someone like Bush eventually.

 

[Smurf]

And don't give me this nonsense about humans being completely blank slates with no innate power drive. The reason we have wars and violence is not capitalism. Someone, I forget who, once calculated the number of years in recorded history during which there is no record of any war taking place, and he came up with 23 years. Chimpanzees even practice primitive ethnic cleansing techniques! This behavior is not in any way unnatural. Violence is found everywhere in nature. We desire what our neighbor has not because capitalism has taught us to, but because it was evolutionarily advantageous for our distant ancestors to desire what their neighbor's had. We're designed to cooperate in small family units and nothing more. Heck, we even see this in the most corrupt of capitalists with cronyism. Heck, we even see this in the most corrupt of capitalists with cronyism. Even they are willing to share the wealth amongst those of their "in-group."

You are right of course, Humans are very much group-oriented creatures. This is why it's so easy to influence a person by exposing them to (and imposing on them) different social groups. You can influence a person to commit suicide, become a better student or eat more hot dogs for lunch merely by creating different social ties for them, and you can predict a person's behavior by the social groups they belong to.

 

[Yonoz]

If people were all "naturally good" then just ANY society would naturally evolve into something warm and cozy. Capitalism would, too. Rich people would be inclined to work for the greater good of all (note that SOME do this !) and use their capital in the same way a good communist state leader would. Shareholders of large companies would want to see only modest returns on their investments, and would require from the CEO of the company that he does a lot of good stuff for the common good, not expecting high individual gains (note that SOME do!). There is no *a priori* reason why capitalism should bring about exploitation of the worker, greed and useless consumption. After all, the people in power - who also have access to the best intellectual trainings and everything they want - would realize that by working for the greater good of society they would do the best thing they can ; if that is the natural behaviour for people, then those in power would be those most free to pursue this, so capitalism would almost naturally evolve in a kind of private communism. If people weren't looking for status and privileges then if there would be ONE category of people that would NOT be brainwashed, evilized by publicity, ..., that can take all the time to pursue intellectual activities, it would be the rich and powerful, and they would instore their natural, nice world view.

Guess what ? This doesn't happen very often. So it must be that most of the rich and powerful (who are, let us not forget, also often those who have been educated in the most ideal ways) do not behave so nicely after all. Then there's no reason to expect that the average person will. Some will. Others won't.

I whole-heartedly agree.
Civil norms, education and cultural heritage are more powerful than any form of government will ever be with regards to the functioning of society.
IMO a moderately capitalist welfare state is the best type of government for today's world.

 

[oldunion]

I agree wholeheartedly with this analysis... only, it seems to me that the president of the USA is becoming a too powerful person, no ? In fact it is one of the reasons why I do have great hopes for the EU: they are an assembly of rather weak states, and no central power is in the making. I hope we keep it that way.

I have read that Britain is launching a campaign to make citizenry more accepting to a nationalized id.


Capitalism is flawed by definition. It assumes that there are an endless supply of resources and the market will grow to infinity, allowing everyone to amass great fortunes. When a nation runs out of resources to exploit, they must go to war to secure their place in the future.

A meritocracy is based on putting people with talent above others without, which would not be a bad thing if it was in the sense of ability to function in a society of equal compensation. However, people who cannot succeed in this system because of say...intelligence, are doomed to be oppressed. Capitalism has the rich who control the means of production, and then the workers who work and are not compensated in full for their work.

But what you see happening now is that the middle class is disappearing, giving way to more upper class and more lower class. This is a pretty dangerous situation and if you were to extrapolate the results, you would find that government would become increasingly oppressive in an effort to gain more funds, but there would be none.

Its simple, i could explain it to a 5 year old. If you had ten pieces of chocolate, you could distribute them to ten workers who put in the work needed to obtain the ten pieces. OR, you could have 2 of these 8 workers who were bosses and thereby demanded 4 pieces of chocolate from the work they managed. Therefore, the 8 workers are now getting 6 pieces. Do work for ten weeks and the capitalists would have 400 pieces, the workers 600. This is just an example though, and in reality the proportions are much more absurd.

There are indications that anarchism was the unbeknownst choice of pre-civilization societies. But the things i said may have existed pre-capitalism, but they have been amplified in the current system, and given our intellectual and reasoning capacities, they shouldn't exist.

Someone has to lose in capitalism, because exploitation is essential to its function.

I find these discussions directly pertinent to talk of anarchism. Anarchism is like the way humans would act without bounds, and government is that bound. It is completely unncecessary. All you need is industry. There isn't an absence of organization or even authority, there is an absence of exploitative authority.

Here is a challenge. Explain to me how a market, graded on how much it benefits all citizens, compares between capitalism and anarchism.

 

[Smurf]

Capitalism is flawed by definition. It assumes that there are an endless supply of resources and the market will grow to infinity, allowing everyone to amass great fortunes. When a nation runs out of resources to exploit, they must go to war to secure their place in the future.

Market economics assumes that resources are scarce and that competition is necessary to determine where, what and when to use.

 

[Smurf]

I find these discussions directly pertinent to talk of anarchism. Anarchism is like the way humans would act without bounds, and government is that bound. It is completely unncecessary. All you need is industry. There isn't an absence of organization or even authority, there is an absence of exploitative authority.

I don't really see government as of creating limits, but I suppose that's true. My general view is that the government, or more specifically, the state creates a hierarchial structure that is, by it's nature, destructive. Or, more accurately, that the state creates destructive forces, usually by way of stratification in hierarchy.

Here is a challenge. Explain to me how a market, graded on how much it benefits all citizens, compares between capitalism and anarchism.

That's a pretty vague question. Can you re-state it? A few things that I don't understand are: What does market economy have to do with anarchism? and how would one grade it?

 

[oldunion]

Market economics assumes that resources are scarce and that competition is necessary to determine where, what and when to use.

In defined market economics, there is no government, just private industry. The tendency for private industry, as you said, is to compete over resources. However, there is no provision that states the next course of action after the resources are gone, so essentially capitalism would self-destruct in a simple example of say one industry making a product that uses gold; when the gold is gone, the industry would be dead in the water (assuming in this example that there is only the gold and the industry in this universe) In anarchsim, the gold would still run out someday, but in contrast this time frame would be drawn out much much longer as the goal of this production was not profit but need.

I don't really see government as of creating limits, but I suppose that's true. My general view is that the government, or more specifically, the state creates a hierarchial structure that is, by it's nature, destructive. Or, more accurately, that the state creates destructive forces, usually by way of stratification in hierarchy.

I agree. The natural tendency is to prioritize the needs of the few in power, which becomes destructive when they don't match the needs of the populous.

 

[Smurf]

In defined market economics, there is no government, just private industry.

No, Market economic theory has a very precise role for government.

 

[Yonoz]

In defined market economics, there is no government, just private industry. The tendency for private industry, as you said, is to compete over resources. However, there is no provision that states the next course of action after the resources are gone, so essentially capitalism would self-destruct in a simple example of say one industry making a product that uses gold; when the gold is gone, the industry would be dead in the water (assuming in this example that there is only the gold and the industry in this universe) In anarchsim, the gold would still run out someday, but in contrast this time frame would be drawn out much much longer as the goal of this production was not profit but need.

 

[oldunion]

Free Market
A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sells are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.

In financial markets, free market stocks are securities that are widely traded and whose prices are not affected by availability.

Call it laissez-faire if you want to be overly technical

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Its simple, i could explain it to a 5 year old. If you had ten pieces of chocolate, you could distribute them to ten workers who put in the work needed to obtain the ten pieces. OR, you could have 2 of these 8 workers who were bosses and thereby demanded 4 pieces of chocolate from the work they managed. Therefore, the 8 workers are now getting 6 pieces. Do work for ten weeks and the capitalists would have 400 pieces, the workers 600. This is just an example though, and in reality the proportions are much more absurd.

You make your explination too simple is the problem. You leave out certain facets of the scenario.
You have five people. They get together, pool their resources, and are able to produce ten pieces of chocolate. They all contribute more or less equally in resources and labour. At the end they divide the product equally each receiving two pieces of chocolate.
New scenario...
You have five people. One person, a chocolate maker, gathers together enough of his own resources in his own kitchen to produce twenty pieces of chocolate. He has invited the four others to assist him in producing the chocolate. All five work together to produce this chocolate. When the project is complete the person who provided the resources, the work area, and the know how gives each of the four others two pieces of the chocolate for having assisted him in his endevour. Perhaps he even gives one of the four an extra piece of chocolate because he came up with a particularly ingenious method of solving a problem that was encountered. Is this unfair? The "Boss" so to speak now has given nine of twenty pieces of chocolate to his "workers" and has kept eleven for himself. Isn't this a bit closer to how work and wage goes in capitalism? The one "Boss" wasn't simply given the title for no specified reason, as in your analogy, he was the "Boss" because of what extra he contributed to the project and because it was his endevour in the first place.

What I think you have a problem with is not capitalism but corpratism. I can see that capitalism can easily lead to corporatism but that isn't necessary to capitalism. There are many people who advocate capitalism but denounce corporatism.

 

[Yonoz]

Free Market
A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sells are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.

In financial markets, free market stocks are securities that are widely traded and whose prices are not affected by availability.

Call it laissez-faire if you want to be overly technical

I know what a free market economy is. Your post simply lacked common sense.

The tendency for private industry, as you said, is to compete over resources. However, there is no provision that states the next course of action after the resources are gone, so essentially capitalism would self-destruct in a simple example of say one industry making a product that uses gold; when the gold is gone, the industry would be dead in the water (assuming in this example that there is only the gold and the industry in this universe) In anarchsim, the gold would still run out someday, but in contrast this time frame would be drawn out much much longer as the goal of this production was not profit but need.

The tendency for private industry is to compete over profit, not resources. It's the exact opposite of what you describe, as when a resource becomes scarce it begins to be financially justifiable to increase the efficiency of its use and to use alternatives. You're assuming that in other sorts of markets industry would have the same incentives to be as efficient as it is in capitalism, while IMHO the opposite case is true. The soil around steel manufacturing plants in the former USSR is so polluted with metals from the wasteful production methods they used, it actually makes financial sense to mine it.
I'm not saying capitalism is much better, I just think you're miscalculating the origins of the problems you're attempting to mend. If too few people care about the environment it doesn't matter what form of government or market society has. However, IMO under capitalism the industry has other incentives to seek more efficient production and alternative resources. These should be complemented by industry regulation legislation, which is much more attainable in a democracy than any other form of government.
Perhaps you should not give up on democracy so easily, and instead focus your efforts on using democracy's mechanisms to advance the matters you care about. I understand your preference for problem solving in the lowest common denominator but IMO that is unattainable. I too would like to wake up some day in a utopia...

 

[Yonoz]

What I think you have a problem with is not capitalism but corpratism. I can see that capitalism can easily lead to corporatism but that isn't necessary to capitalism. There are many people who advocate capitalism but denounce corporatism.

Thanks for clearing that up TSA. I was wondering about that myself.