Anarchism: Pretty Fantasy or Alternate Reality?

[Righteousnesous]

Righto then!

Allow me to be the Devil's Advocate...

Anarchism, while it is very pretty, will never actually work because people;

A) Require leadership, thus the masses will never be able to sustain in the long term either the desire or responsibilty for directing/sharing societal functions.

B) Are inherently competitive/ambitious/selfish and thus will never willingly accept absolute equality.

C) Any of the other arguments that I've forgotten but that you fellahs are no doubt aware of.

So then, let the deluge of relentless and implacable prose begin!!!!

[allers]

A) Require leadership, thus the masses will never be able to sustain in the long term either the desire or responsibilty for directing/sharing societal functions.

A)you are arrogant and self respect as well a education is THE solution,not propaganda

B) Are inherently competitive/ambitious/selfish and thus will never willingly accept absolute equality

B)that you will never know untill you try it yourself

C) Any of the other arguments that I've forgotten but that you fellahs are no doubt aware of

C) you smoke too much and thinking you know what i think make your statement worthless like your conclusion"So then, let the deluge of relentless and implacable prose begin!!!!"

go and live

[Anarchic Tribes]

Allers

[Liberaregno]

well discussed allers

[allers]

no, ;D

[Righteousnesous]

Thanks for the reply allers (and to the others for their interest).

Just one thing though, I only smoke cigars, and even them, only once every 6 months or so. My only drugs are caffeine and alcohol. Thanks for your comraderly concern for my well being though.

[Liberaregno]

sorry righteousness. i was closely looking at this topic and i thought it was a really good idea. i would have answered your questions immediately but i just waited for other people, like WC to answer you because i'm not really in the position to answer beacuse i have just had discussions about those things in the forums and i see anarchy more as a pretty fantasy.

[allers]

you are a hyena "Liberaregno "so let be constructive
or i will be the lion

[Liberaregno]

i want to be an elephant


like an elephant - soul plane

[Righteousnesous]

:)Good answers!! And sorry about the delay replying, but its been chaos here at the moment, assignment after assignment.

Allers, I agree, education and self-respect is crucial, but I don't agree that thus would result in the same world-view or even ideals for all. Even if anarchism is rational, and makes sense, humans are not. See below for the reasons why:

Basically, I think that individuals are far to "selfish" to think about the masses, even if in the long term, they're prabably better off if they work for others. I think it has been proven time and again that even otherwise educated and self-respecting humans are willingly to sacrifice the common good to get ahead. Take Cuba for example. Yerty after all, was there. Cuba has probably the nearest thing we now have to equality within a society. Cubans are also very well educated, as the National Geographic statistics show. Yet, at every corner, Cubans cheat eachother in order to make more money for themselves. Now, this isn't a matter of survival. Cubans aren't starving, and yet they cheat eachother in order to get ahead, to beat the jonses, to increase their status.

A harvard study is also a case in point. Harvard students were asked to choose between two hypothetical worlds. In world A, the average wage was 250 000, but they would earn 100 000. In world B, the average wage was 25 000, but they would earn 50 000. Most students chose option B. (There were no issues of inflation or anything, it was all very simple). They would rather earn less money but have more in a relative sense. This is patently absurd, irrational and counter-productive, but it underscores the imprortance that humans attach to status. Its hardwired into our brains through evoulution. It used to be about survival, and attracting mates, now, its jus a left over. Similar tests were conducted on chimpanzees, but I won't go into them here.

So, that's my point. We're not a wholly rational animal. Just look at the US refusing to sign up to Kyoto. Unfortunately, Kant was wrong.

And Miccelaccio, yes, I'm not saying that Capitalism "works" in the sense that it is fair, just or necessarily efficient. But, it does at least suit humanity. It reflects us. And like all urges in humanity, they must be regulated. If we're honest with ourselves, we should see this. Just as we need ethics/morals for our personal lives, so we need regulations for the capitalist model. And going to a complete overhaul, aka anarchism, and to a lesser extent - communism, makes as much sense as trying to apply the life of a celibate, poor monk to everyone. Its a beautiful ideal, but impractical.

[Righteousnesous]

And no, I'm not a proponent of neo-liberalism. Far from it.
But, I am trying to be honest with myself and others. This (and I can admit it to you strangers without feeling like a wanker) is one of my life philosophies I try to uphold.

My own idea I cling to like a man overboard to a leaky cask. A globalised, market economy, strongly regulated by globalised regulations, created by a form of globalised democratic government (the UN will do). Of course, there's many issues getting there, just as there was to get to the point we were at (in most of the westernj world) during the generous times of the late 70s. Developing a communal memory of the unsustaibable and unjust inequalities of a laiseiz faire economy (such as that of the 19th Centruty) is also part of it. And, also, Allers is right, an educated, self respecting populace able (read, forced) to at least vote in democracy is also part of it. What do you think?

[righteousnesous]

Nice one micco ;D ;D. You're right, my argument about the irrational selfishness of humanity DOES go to a fundamental issue of social interactions and does NOT merely reflect on anarchism and communism. Also, I'm sure we all agree that when you put an individual in a position of power over others, eventually, they'll be corrupted, and that power could well be used to opress people.

However, I argue that regulations, separations of power, and the obiqitious "checks and balances" of democracy are enough to curtail this oppression. Of course, achieving and maintaining the right balance between competing interests (civil rights vs security, freedom vs compulsion, etc) is another issue.

???And why, you may well ask, would I defend such an imperfect system?? Because its honest and suits our nature. If we try to impose a simple and utopian system on humans, it will end in DELUSION and ultimately COLLAPSE. The critiques about anarchism that were raised by Liberagno in another forum are a case in point. Eventually, the strongest will rise up to dominate the weakest, this is humanity, we've seen it all throughout history. Micco, you yourself, an educated and self-respecting man, said that when you debated in Kansas, the main thing you got out of it was a feeling of superiority, of beating others, or something like that. This is only natural, and if educated anarachists that respect themselves are subject to these compelsions, what hope is there for society? The point I raised about Cuba (I admit, its partly based on anectodotal evidence from a friend who spent 3 years there doing her
Phd) is also another case in point.

As for the point you raised about the egos of Harvard students, you're right again, they're probably complete toffs. :PHowever, they are (allegedly) human. Its my own belief that if you put that question to others, the majority of answers would be the same.

A regulated market democracy is the key. The market reflects humanities nature, the regulations civilise it and the democracy create the regualtions, and remain accountable. (And as for "Who regulated the regulators?" - the answer is there are checks and balances, executive and judiciary, the media, elections, etc. And while its far from perfect, it is the most honest and viable system that we have at the moment).

You also raise an important point about how a democracy based on self interested voters will serve the common good. I reply the following:

In democracy, there is a tension between the self-interest of the voter and the appeal to the common good. In many cases, if the individual is educated, he/she will realise that they will be better off in the long run if they support the common good (ie, higher taxes, reductions in co2 emmissions, etc). However, the appeal to short term gain is often difficult to overlook, and this is indeed one of the key fallings of democracy. I freely admit it. However, if forced to choose between a realistic democracy and a utopian anarchism, I think I have to choose democracy. Partly because I think that democracy is NOT hopeless and will save us all before the shit hits the fan. However, worst case scenario, today's capitalism will eat itself (ie collapse) because people haven't learnt enough from the past and have not supported the imposition of economic, financial and other regulations. Eventually, (just as we saw the rise of internationalism after the chaos of the the 2nd world war), we would see (after the incredible suffering of whatever crisis that may occur) a re-evaluation of the correct balance between the market and regualtion that capitalism must maintain in order to be viable.

As for compulsion. I see that you all hate the idea. I most vehemently disagree. I think governments can and does work (for the better of humanity), but only where people are compelled to fulfill their parts of the social bargain. Ie, pay taxes and vote. These are not major impositions on people, they are only fair, and I think that the vast majority of people are more than happy to do such things as the price of a just and fair society. (In Australia, we have a form of compulsory voting, if you don't show up at the voting booth and get your name ticked off - though you still don't have to vote - you get a $100 fine, thus turn out for elections is around 95% every election). I don't support compelling people to do military service or anything like that, and I think that it wouldn't be brought in by a democratic government of today (given the increased education of the people) unless it was necessary (ie to defend from immenent invasion) or if the people had had their senses dulled by, for example, religion -which can often be (as Marx said) the opiate of the masses. Ie, the US.

So there it is. This doesn't make be pessimistic, I'm not. I have many friends and a girlfriend (in case some were wondering). None of this means that I don't believe in love or even a (non-interventionist) God. I'm just realistic. And this doesn't mean that I don't think anarchism is a beautiful idea, I do. (In fact, as an idea, it loves humanity more than any idea of I've ever come across.)

[workerscommunes]

righteousnesous said:

???And why, you may well ask, would I defend such an imperfect system?? Because its honest and suits our nature.

righteousnesous said:

A regulated market democracy is the key. The market reflects humanities nature

Hooray for the naturalistic fallacy.

[workerscommunes]

righteousnesous said:

As for the point you raised about the egos of Harvard students, you're right again, they're probably complete toffs. :PHowever, they are (allegedly) human. Its my own belief that if you put that question to others, the majority of answers would be the same.

Ah, well that settles it then.

[workerscommunes]

righteousnesous said:

As for compulsion. I see that you all hate the idea. I most vehemently disagree. I think governments can and does work (for the better of humanity), but only where people are compelled to fulfill their parts of the social bargain. Ie, pay taxes and vote. These are not major impositions on people, they are only fair, and I think that the vast majority of people are more than happy to do such things as the price of a just and fair society. (In Australia, we have a form of compulsory voting, if you don't show up at the voting booth and get your name ticked off - though you still don't have to vote - you get a $100 fine, thus turn out for elections is around 95% every election). I don't support compelling people to do military service or anything like that, and I think that it wouldn't be brought in by a democratic government of today (given the increased education of the people) unless it was necessary (ie to defend from immenent invasion) or if the people had had their senses dulled by, for example, religion -which can often be (as Marx said) the opiate of the masses. Ie, the US.

Yes I do hate the idea of compulsion. This vague notion you seem to have of some kind of 'social contract' between the people and the government is, frankly, bullshit. Hundreds of years ago, the people did not sit down with the government and calmly discuss what their obligations were to be to one another before signing a contract. Governments are the result of the domination of a small group over a large one (through military, economic or political means) and not an agreement. We owe them nothing. You say the vast majority of people would be happy with compulsary voting, why haven't we voted for it then? And what if the people in a country with compulsary voting voted to make it non-compulsary? But of course I'm ignoring how well the system functions in Australia and how that benevolent, enlightened and compasionate leader John Howard has been PM for the last fifty thousand years as a result .

The right to vote is just that: a right, not an obligation. In the last election I voted but neither of my parents did as there were no candidates in their area standing who even came close to representing their views and I completely support their right not to vote for someone whose they disagree with.