Anarchism, Markets and other issues...

[Righteousnesous]

Anyway, I read Antony Beevor's "The Spanish Civil War" the other day, great book. And for the first time, I saw some evidence of anarchism actually working, (during 1936, in Barcelona and Aragon).

Anyway, I'll lay my cards on the table. I've been coming around to believing that progress (for humanity) is best served with a global market economy, humanised by strong regulations (such as a tobin tax, progressive tax regimes and much more regulation of the stockmarket), which would all be implimented and maintained by (democratic) national and international governments. However, I'm looking at seeing the anarchist argument against this, and in favour of completely comunally owned and run societys (which I consider to be un-realistic and lacking the undeniably huge growth capacities of the market).

[Righteousneous]

This is 2 cents worth, (previously posted on region chat thing):

I've actually just perused the regional forum, came across the posting about voting. And I think the major problem I see with anarchism, is that it's far too beautiful. It's far too optimistic and gives "people" far too much credit.

Yes, people are fundamentally "good", yes, we're all shaped by our environments (far more than we are by genetics), but at the end of the day, we all know that at the moment, (at least in the global North) things are far too comfortable for the majority of people to think. If they can pis their lives away eating fast food and watching game shows and Dr Phil, they think they're happy. You can argue why that it is (and whose fault it is) until the cows come home, but it won't change anything. As long as people's stomachs are filled and they have the most basic propspect of progress for themselves and their children, the revolution will never come. The Caesar's had it sussed 2000 years ago, its bread and circuses that keep the people content, nothing more, nothing less.

So, as beautiful as it truly would be to make people realise their true potential, and to enable them to experience a fuller life, it's far too much work. And far too unlikely to come about. No matter how many street corners we stand on, delivering diatribes ad ibnitem, the simple people will simply snigger. So, in reality, I think the most that can be hoped for is to give people as close to an equal chance to rise or fall, as is possible. This means health and education, the old favourites. Unfortunately, this makes me appear (at the best) a staid old social-democrat fart who kisses labor party arse or, (at the worsst) a Stalinist prick. I'd have to opt for the former, personally.

I just think that, while everyone needs a mission and a purpose in life, I wouldn't want to waste mine on an impossible quest, trying to enable "people" to see paradise. I guess I just don't have enough respect for humanity, after all, we're only "human".

[Righteousnesous]

Well, what if I am a psuedo-psychologist? It doesn't mean that those points aren't valid. And even Walt Lippman, may God bless him (as no one else will) had arguments that somebody needed to rebut. That being said CW, thanks for actually rebutting my own...

Speaking of Latin American Revolutions, you're probably reffering to Venzuela. Interesting place, I spent a year there 2 years ago on a rotary exchange. My host father was the leader of the political opposition for the state I was in (Sucre), he was the president of FEDECAMARAS (the Venezuelan chamber of commerce and industry) for that state, and was v active in campaining against Chavez. My host-father was probably the most corrupt individual I've ever met, at the same time as he was telling the general population to go out on general strike (which lasted 4 months, during christmas, when no-one could get beer, milk products, basic food stuffs, banking services), he left all 3 of his businesses open. He was dirt corrupt and infinitly self-interested. I had friends there right across the political, social and economic divides. So I think I can talk with a degree of knowlege of (at least) the Venezuelan "revolution".

Let me say this, Venezuela is one of the most econoomically unequal societies in Latin America (the most economically unequal region in the world). And despite the fact that no-one starves to death in Venezuela, there is some incredible poverty, corruption and dire injustices occuring there.

The Venezuelan "revolution" took decades to occur (and this in a nation comparatively free of right wing dictatorships), despite the incredible corruption and poverty that has ALWAYS been there. In the end, it only occurred after a final economic collaps that occurred following neo-liberal market reform there. What's the up shot? That the "revolution" only occured because everyone, from middle class down to the lower class (about 85% of the population) was disillusioned with the old parties and policies. The old parties had failed, and failed miserably, and so they had nothing to lose by pursuing another path, and a somewhat radical one at that. So the point is that the "revolution" only occurred because the vast majority people were worse off than they could ever remember being, and were REALLY struggling.

So, I would argue that, even if only in Venezuela, the need for "revolution" was brought to "the people", rather than "the people" being brought to the revolution. (And it is also my belief that this was the same in the French Revolution, which only occurred after famine, high taxation, etc, and the same for the Russian revolution, Cuban, and also Germany's turn to the Nazis. It's bread and butter issues that force people to abandon the moderate parties, it's not that the "people" waking up as believers in the working man's paradise).

[workerscommunes]

Can't really be bothered getting into this debate again. I'll simply state that I think the flaw in your reasoning is that you are assuming because something has not been or does not tend to be done, that it therefore must be the case that it will never be done. You observe learned characteristics and take them for fundamentals of human nature. The only thing we know about human nature is that it is constantly changing. "Existence precedes essence" and so forth.

[The Catholic Worker]

Firstly, let me start with saying I have no idea what anything you have just written concerning Venezuela has to do with the topic at hand.

"John Curtin (Australian Prime Minister during the second world war) spent his weekends on street corners, preaching class war and international solidarity. He did it for about 15 years, until, in his thirties, he decided that the struggle wasn't brought any closer as a result of all his (and the Victorian Socialist Party's) agitation; he felt, I suppose, that the "people" were just too apathetic"

- So, in other words, another person who wanted to play messiah is frustrated that the ignorant masses won't listen to him, in spite of the fact that he is knowledgeable on all issues concerning the transformation of society. Excuse me if I am annoyed and have little patience for any of this line of reasoning. This seems more like self-worship than it does about changing the situation of the working class' lives.

"That's when he began to believe (somewhat resignedly) that socialism would have to be implemented gradually, by governments, rather than by the workers themselves "

- Again, where in any of this analysis are the workers actually asked what THEY would like?

"what I'm saying is that trying to convert "the people" to an absolute, radical change in how they view economics and social organisation is a little far fetched in today's circumstances"

- I don't know that anyone has advoctaed this process you've just outlined. No one has said, "drop your tools and lets all share everything!" These changes, in my view, are wholly predicated on individual cultures and societies - how fast and how easily the transition takes place depends on a lot of variables.

In one of your telegrams to me you made apparent your 'anti-Americanism' or what have you, and I'm afraid much of that has tainted my reading of what you've written.

People are not rats. They don't go looking for the lever only when they're hungry, and they don't salivate when a bell is rung. And this is what I mean when I say that your observations about human beings are fundamentally flawed. You keep talking about people as a mass; as though there isn't an incredible degree of variability amongst people in how they approach life.

The working class and the poor are not a monolithic entity. They don't need to be convinced of 'our ideas' as being good for them by reducing their explanation to basic bodily functions like hunger.

The revolution is the people, everyday in all of their actions. No one is bringing anything to anyone - that doesn't even make sense! How do you 'bring' a revolution to anyone? Are you talking about having a bunch of priviledged white kids who grew up with Che t-shirts and talking about political theory and investment in 'thirdworld infrastructure' gaining political power and effecting change top-down?

Again, I'm asking you, based on what life experience are you concluding that the'people' cannot be 'brought to the revolution' (whatever that means)?

And just to conclude - I don't like Walter Lippman. At all. I think he was an arrogant prick whose ideas are the foundation of so much of what's wrong with 'Western democracies'.

Again, and this is what I am most curious about - what life experiences do you have that inform any of what you've written? Honestly, dude, I think your analysis of humanity is completely wrong.

Making pseudo-psychological profiles is done on the basis of false observations. The points are not valid as they stem from a pressuposed false truth. Your points would be valid if human beings were on the cognitive level of mice, and even then, that would run into problems.

You actually sound like you would make a good Catholic Bishop!

As for the revolutions you mentioned... it's a matter of rich group A wanting the power that rich group B has. So they talk about revolution and people's right and blah blah blah and they ride it to power. It's like watching a change in American administration... it's like a mini-revolution, if you took their words as reflective of what was happening! Every party is populist and making sweeping changes! Washington will meet its match!

Anyway, I need to go eat.

[The Catholic Worker]

Workers said:

Can't really be bothered getting into this debate again. I'll simply state that I think the flaw in your reasoning is that you are assuming because something has not been or does not tend to be done, that it therefore must be the case that it will never be done. You observe learned characteristics and take them for fundamentals of human nature. The only thing we know about human nature is that it is constantly changing. "Existence precedes essence" and so forth.

One thing we do know about human nature and the mind is its infinite creative ability/potential.

Case in point: the acquisition of language.

[Righteousnesous]

Once again CW, I really appreciate you taking the time to reply to me.

Now then, you think I'm being authoritarian, arrogant and almost fascist by saying that the "people" (in the global North at least), will never think seriously enough about an alternative organisation of society (and much less, actually act on it), to create a different system. Fair enough. But let me ask you, what evidence have you got to prove that they would? You previously alluded to the example of some "revolutions" occuring in South America (this was part of the reason I mentioned Venezuela, but also becuase I think it a great example of how "revolutions" only occur as a result of external pressures forcing them to to change societal organisation, rather than the result of individuals simply seeing a better way of life, and switching to it. I would ask you to post a few examples of where revolutions have occurred in comfortable times, as the simple result of individuals seeing a better future.

You have the following question:

1) What sort of life experience do I have that has brought me to my conclusions.

Firstly, I don't see why this would concern you so deeply. My points (while they may be invalid) seem rational enough to me. So I don't see why I need to justify my background to you or anyone. I'd prefer to let my arguments speak for themselves, and hey, even if I was the priviledged son a rich white man, would that mean that I have no right whatsoever to make any sort of left wing assertions? You think that I have no concept of the "real" lives and struggles of the "people". But how can you attack me for being ignorant of the "true" plight of working people, if there is no such concept as a "people" and if their lives are so different? If the thoughts and desires of working class people are as varied as you say they are (and incidentally, I do agree that they are), then how can you fault someone for not having an accurate view of "their" lives? There seems to be a contradiction in what you are saying.

But, despite the fact that I think that my background is irrelevant, (and that it is merely questioned as a way to belittle my arguments), I will provide it. To begin with, my father (who himself grew up in poverty) was lucky enough to be the youngest of 6, and his oldest brothers paid his way through an electrical apprenticeship in the 60s, he's now an electronics teacher at a technical college. My mother is a secretary at a local primary school. I am the youngest of 6 children, and my parents were of Irish roots, so yes I'm (pasty) white and Catholic. I was however priviledged in the sense that, despite there being limited amounts of money to go around so many people, my parents were educated/wise enough not to fall prey to the cult of consumerism. They saved (we certainly did not live luxuriously) enough to send us to (non-elitist, local) Catholic schools and buy their own house.

I hope this answers some questions. Hope to see your response soon.