|
|
Post by allers on May 13, 2005 17:38:11 GMT -5
Oxymoron
|
|
|
|
Post by Anarchic Tribes on May 13, 2005 18:34:57 GMT -5
Righto, Would it be good if it did? What do you mean by 'educated/education'? All seeing eyes eh. I most vehemently disagree. I've already said before that one thing that might encourage me to vote would be compulsory voting. 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). (Although we're not married, so obviously don't have sex. So don't mind me, if I take it out on you guys  ) None of this means I believe in a God, because I'm realistic. And this doesn't mean that I don't think anarchism is a beautiful idea, I do. (In fact, as an idea, it it is humanity more than any idea of I've ever come across.) |
|
|
|
Post by righteousnesous on May 14, 2005 1:12:44 GMT -5
I've only time to reply to the last posting by Anarchic Tribes at the moment.
I laughed out loud when I read your corruption of my post. Just for your knowledge, though I am a Cathoic and have very vague ideas about some form of non-interventionist God, I'm not a disciple of ratzinger, or the mug before him. You see, in Catholicism, contrary to popular myth, the conscience is paramount. So, I do support female ordination, contraception and even pre-marital sex. And no, I'm not married. Your last quip, though funny, thus doesn't apply. I'm couldn't say that I'm frustrated.
As for education - I refer to it in both a literal and metaphorical sense. Ie, in the case of the former, someone who can read and write and has been exposed to history and the general debates of our times.
In the case of the latter, I mean education in the sense that an individual has been exposed to some form of ethics or morality and also to the general state of the World. Ie, a graduate of some fundamentalist university in the USA, which has never been objectively exposed to another world view or even reality (like suffering, poverty or thinks that "God" looks after the faithful in this life), is not really educated, in my view. I think this is a fair enough line to take. Would any of you think that a child born in a Falanguist family in Spain after the civil war, and schooled in falanguist institutions is really educated? Of course not.
|
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on May 14, 2005 3:44:10 GMT -5
Also Righteousnesous, are your views on 'human nature' ultimately rooted in your Catholicism?
|
|
|
|
Post by Anarchic Tribes on May 15, 2005 8:35:47 GMT -5
WC, What's the poing of having a voting system if people don't vote? We each have a ballot paper with names on it. If you don't like the names, that bit of paper is a good place to say so eh. Righto, Well I'm happy for you, but speak for yourself eh. Maybe you read me wrong Contraception is a wide issue that I shan't go into here, but female ordination and pre-marital sex sound very dodgy. I suppose that's what you need the contraception for. |
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on May 15, 2005 14:10:46 GMT -5
I wasn't defending our voting system, I was defending the right to choose whether or not to vote in present society.
What's the issue over contraception? Also what's dodgy about pre-marital sex?
|
|
|
|
Post by free allers on May 15, 2005 14:37:50 GMT -5
i urge everyone to look ,or read "the quest for fire"
|
|
|
|
Post by Anarchic Tribes on May 15, 2005 16:33:54 GMT -5
I know.
and female ordination? ;D
Oh all sorts of things. Contraception: Drugs that are sold to women. Abortion as a means of. Condoms aren't free. I could go on but it's pointless.
Pre-marital sex: Depends on your definition of marriage. God wouldn't like it. I'm not getting any. I could go on but it's pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on May 15, 2005 17:28:50 GMT -5
Suppose, though I don't care as much about that if I'm honest. It's like asking 'should women be allowed to run businesses',  Wrong question... Gotcha. I thought you meant there was some sort of moral dilema over using condoms. Of course they should be free. Whatever definition you use, I don't see how sex before it is 'dodgy'. Well if you believe in God the guy wouldn't like a lot of things if we're going to go down that route, like homosexuality, transvestisim, gender equality etc. etc. Monarchies, war and slavery are fine though.  Sorry to hear that. Fair nuff. Back to the main topic then... [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by righteousnesous on May 16, 2005 0:02:50 GMT -5
Firstly, Workers Communes, on the social contract: Obviously, I don't refer to a fromal contract that has been signed sealed and delivered at some distant point in the past. Rather, I mean that through evolution, settled societies everywhere have recognised the need for some form of leadership. I consider that the vast majority of people (including the educated and self-respecting), are more than willing to pay taxes and vote, in return for receiving security, order and protection from the body to which they pay taxes and help choose (which we call the government). I consider it natural (as some form of leadership has been present in every society, be they elders, shamans or otherwise) and I consider it desirable, assuming that "we" (the people) have a meaningful choice in choosing them. And, indeed, were the majority of people against the idea of democratic government, where are all the anarchist upsrisings and revolutions? (Of course, you would maintain the absence is due to the fact that the masses are not educated and don't respect themselves. I disagree, and you can refer to my previous points on Cuba to see why .) Now, you refer to Oz's PM John Howard (as an example of how -compulsory- voting fails), you've also referred to how there's no choice in the UK and US between any of the major parties as proof of the same thing. There are two main points here: A) I agree, there are systematic constraints on a free and effective democracy, such as a right-wing bias in the media, and also the "opiatic" effect that organised religion can have on un-educated followers (especially in the US). These restraints certainly helped John Howard, George Bush II and even Tony Blair get re-elected. However, while we discerning souls of the developed world may despair of the lack of difference between major political parties, the fault for this policy convergence is a symptom of the parties themselves, rather than of the democratic model itself. In final instance, if more radical parties are unable to make headway, then maybe we have to admit that the majority are for the most part, satisfied with the status quo. After all, they (in the developed world at least) have food and the hope of improvement in the future. Indeed, if the daily life of the majority were to become critical (which I always refer to as the point in which a sizeable proportion don't have enough food to feed themselves and have little hope for improvement to their precarious situation in the future), you'll quickly see the status quo be swept away (as ocurred in Russia 1917, Venezuela in 98, and even Germany during the Great Depression). The systematic constraints of democratic society, though they may favour the establishment in times of plenty, are far from absolute (people can still choose). Moreover, in times of crisis, the systematic constraints of society are no match for the harsh realities of life. B) In the case of Australia (and probably in Britain also), the re-election of the incumbent was on the basis of the economy. In Australia, the economy (thanks to the previous labor government's reforms and also China and India's insatiable demand for resources) is quite good at the moment (in the sense of low inflation, low unemployment and low interest rates) and so, people have gone into serious debt, as they seek to "improve" their living standards by buying more expensive houses and products than they usually would. (I will agree with your inevitable critiques that this is another example of capitalism's over consumption. However I argue that its merely the irrational nature of humanity to want more and more, in order to attain higher status.) Hence, many are very sensitive to the slightest increase in interest rates, their debt is that large. Thus, we see, once again, that short-term self-interest gave way to long-term interest such as the environment, skills for their children, equitable distribution of resources, stability, etc. And absolutely destroyed mnore overtly moral arguments such as the racist treatment of refugees, and the issue of our treatment of the Aboriginies, which didn't even get a look in during the election. (despite the fact that the opposition labor party had serious policies to address the problems). Thus, the fault line of democracy is revealed, between short and long term self-interest and also moral issues. However, in an anarchist society, would this tension between courses of actions be removed?? I would suggest not. People will always want to increase their status, and the urge to resist the short term gratification of perceived desire for long-term benefit is often difficult to ignore. This would not change in an anarchist society.  |
|
|
|
Post by righteousnesous on May 16, 2005 3:09:51 GMT -5
Micco, you've made some stella points and I've been looking forward to respond. Here goes:
POINT 1) The concept of a market economy is only a recent, Western development and thus, you can't say that the market is a response to human nature.
You're quite right in saying that the type of market we see today, based on international trade and (in many cases) obscene consimption is a recent development. Indeed, many indigenous civilisations, from Australian Aboriginies, to Amazonian Indians, etc, based their societies on barter and group co-operation. However, I don't agree that the market was a purely Western concept. China afterall, was the first place in the world to introduce a form of paper currency (showing signs of the market), and the Incan and Aztec nations had large trade routes, as did the Arabs. The key concept here is that these civilisations all had large, settled cities, that are necessary in order to allow a market. (Of course, the reason why these civilisations developed cities is merely an issue of geography, but that's another issue).
As for focussing on the over-consumption and advertsising ("a coke and a smile"): Advertising aims to make us want things we don't need, and does so by appealing to our innate desire for increased status in society (ie, become more attractive, cooler, better dresssed, etc, etc, etc). Thus, advertsing merely appeals to something inherent in human nature, rather than being responsible for it. I'm prepared to admit that a free market may exacerbate some of the baser instincts of humanity, however, it only does so because the capitalist system is FREE to do so.
POINT 2) You can't extrapolate personal competitive drives to the social level.
You brought this point up, but failed to explain why, I await further development on this point from you. And to this end, I also you: upon what else is society based on, if not on our personal human nature? If I am prepared to compete with other individuals to advance my own interests, wouldn't I feel the urge to do so on a societal basis also??? Ie, if all individuals are motivated bu personal competition, isn't society itself going to be motivated by personal competiton?
POINT 3) Isn't my call for regulation of the market an admission that there is something inherently dehumanizing and destructive about human nature/the market?
Absolutely. I don't try to deny it. We all know that there are urges within humanity that are destructive, we all know just how human the urge to hurt is, as with hate, vindictiveness, the urge for revenge, etc. Yet, we all recognise the need for ethics/morality in order to "civilise" these baser urges within us. Just as we must regulate our personal lives, so too within society. The market, if left free, would undoubtedly result in suffering and opression. NO doubt there. Look at the 18th century. However, this is why must regulate it.
And while you may point to traditional (generally indigenous) civilisations as an example of how they lived without governments and markets, (apparently idylically) you can't deny that they did have SOME form of leadership, be it tribal elders or otherwise. Furthermore, they lived on a knife-edge. IN times of crisis (disease, famine, war, etc), there was no fall back option. They were at the mercy of the elements. Moreover, they worked HARD. Don't overlook that. Living times of hunger before they got a kill. In Asia, it was necessary to work from sun-up to sun-down in the rice paddies, 7 days a week, back-breaking work below the fierce sun. These were not the idylic lives we may be tempted to say they were. Utopia, sadly, has never existed in this world, and probably, never will. If utopia does exist in this world, it is only within our skulls.
|
|
|
|
Post by righteousnesous on May 16, 2005 23:38:09 GMT -5
Ok, so what do we think?
|
|
lasol
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by lasol on May 17, 2005 12:45:30 GMT -5
In final instance, if more radical parties are unable to make headway, then maybe we have to admit that the majority are for the most part, satisfied with the status quo. After all, they (in the developed world at least) have food and the hope of improvement in the future. There are many places, in the US, where there is no such thing as a write-in ballot, and laws restricting certain parties from being put on the ballots, even in national elections. So many times people are not even aware that they have a choice other than the two main parties, and if they were aware of this fact, they wouldn't be able to legally vote for an alternative anyway. This is an explanation for why many people tend not to vote in our country, and also why alternative parties are not as accessible(sic) as they should be. I won't even get into how campaign finance is totally tipped towards the wealthy in the US. Many political parties in our country simply cannot afford to be heard by the masses. And many times that's what it comes down to, how much an ad on a nationally broadcast network would cost. In the first election that Dubya stole I wanted to vote for Nader, but since the green party wasn't recognized in my county, I was barred from voting for him. Later, in a local election I voted for a Libertarian candidate who not only lost, but was told that since his party did not secure enough of the vote they would not be able to register in the next election. This is all in Oklahoma by the way, not the most advanced state in the union, but still. I think that Democracy is a pretty fantasy. As long a people hold onto the mentality they they must follow another, they will always be subjugated. Never have real control over their own lives. It turns into a nature vs. nuture debate for me. |
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on May 20, 2005 12:56:46 GMT -5
Hello Righteousnesous, Obviously, I don't refer to a fromal contract that has been signed sealed and delivered at some distant point in the past. Rather, I mean that through evolution, settled societies everywhere have recognised the need for some form of leadership. So you agree your social contract is hypothetical? Do I have an obligation to commit to a hypothetical contract?Does anyone have an obligation to a contact made by people who are dead anyway, hypothetical or otherwise? Your 'analysis' of the evolution of modern states paints a very rosy but historically innacurate picture. States arise not through consensus and free agreement (your thinking anarchy there ) but from the domination of one group over another, usually in competition for resources. You seem to suggest that the establishment of states is a long, evolutionary process when in fact it is almost always swift and bloody (I won't patronize you by bothering to provide historical examples) and has nothing to do with the people unanimously agreeing at some arbitrary point that they now inexplicably require a state, having managed perfectly well without one for thousands of years . By claiming that the state is a natural part of evolution are you claiming that nomadic or primitive peoples are somehow unevolved? I'm sorry but this progressive view of history all sounds very nineteenth century to me and I find it hard to take seriously. So you assume what you consider the vast majority of people to be sufficient evidence do you? You're making a sweeping generalisation there which I don't think you can justify. Also even if this rather dubious assumption is true what does it matter what 'the majority' think? The majority of American and, I think, British citizens initially supported the Iraq war. If there were ten white supremacists and one black person on an island majority rule would clearly be unnacceptable so I don't think you can ever claim something to be 'right' just because the majority of people are behind it (and don't try and argue that government's are there to protect minority interests as if the government was democratic they'd just elect someone who shared their views. If they weren't democratic, well...) Here you are again falling prey to naturalistic ethics (I criticised your earlier post for this but you chose not to rspond to it). If something happens in nature, why does that neccessarily make it 'right'? Simply, there is no reason. 'Naturalness' is not a virtue, or at least not something we can make a value judgement about, only observe. Therefore we can't say how we should organise ourselves by observing nature. HOWEVER, if we were to do this we would obviously end up a lot closer to anarchism than we would statism, that is pretty incontestable. Beside the point, but worth bearing in mind if naturalistic ethics is your bag (I was never talking about leadership by the way, only states. Many tribes have a kind of 'head-man', often a wise elder, but this is very different to a state, Righteousnesous, they are leaders not rulers). Again, you are assuming that what the majority thinks is what matters here. To suggest that the people are in favour of the state simply because there has been no revolution to overthrow it is simply absurd (especially combined with the fact that there have been numerous anarchist uprisings throughout history). Does that mean most black South Africans had no problem with the apartheid government? (And no I'm not comparing apples with oranges here, if there were to be a rebellion here it would be met with state violence, just as it would in China. I sincerly doubt the Government would step aside and give the people what they want without putting up a fight). I partially agree that perhaps the majority of people don't realise how much the system fucks them over but I think the main reasons people 'accept' it is because a) it is easier, and b) it is less dangerous. Hardly a glowing endorsement. Your Cuba example was a bizzare and unenlightening one, it tells us how a small group of people on an island run by a despotic turd behaved one afternoon. Nothing more. I used the example to show how compulsary voting is not better than voluntary voting so I'm not sure why you're defending it (seeming as it is both pointless and a violation of human rights, and not just pointless like voluntary models). Not sure what you're refering to about the US/UK parties - I said compulsary voting could and does lead to people voting for candidates whose views they disagree with. Yes. Although have you ever stopped to wonder whether you yourself might have fallen prey to the opiatic qualities of religion before you go patronising Americans as Bible-bashing cousin-bumping rednecks? That Karl Marx quote you love so much was not about organised religion and churches and preachers (which are all explicitly conservative) but the social function of religion in general (at least mainstream ones like Catholicism), and how it encourages a tolerance of the status quo. It lessens the effects of 'alienation' but discouages resistance or questioning. Certainly seems to have worked on you.  Not this bloody majority again! *sigh* So policy conversion is the fault of the individual parties is it? Do you not think it might be because they won't get enough funding/advertising/media coverage if they're not pally with the corporations and institutions which control them? Sounds like a problem with the system to me. NNNOOOOO!!! Yup.  Ah yes...I'd forgotten your fine Cuba example. , Living proof of our selfish nature if ever there was any (by the way, in reference to your earlier post, Kant never said humans were wholly rational animals and neither do I for that matter, only God was worthy of that honour in his opinion.) Doesn't this sort of illustrate the short-comings of 'representative' democratic states? Why should the aborigines have to wait for the white majority to stop worrying about their taxes before they can rid them selves of such persecution. How on earth do aborigines benefit from the state anyway? Why should they have to obey it? They don't need it, they didn't ask for it, it was imposed on their ancestors by the English (whose ancestors had a state imposed on them by the French etc. ) You could argue that western or 'civilised' peoples require a government for many (mostly unconvincing) reasons but can you honestly say that about the aborigines? They managed for 40'000 years without one. Not wanting to romanticise their old way of life but we could learn a thing or two from it. There will always be disagreements between humans, no matter how they're organised. However only in anarchism do the tyranical majority or minority lack the neccessary means to impose their view on those who disagree with them. Your claim that human nature determines that anarchism is an impossibility: does environment or will play no role at all in your world? It may be in my nature to be greedy and selfish but I choose not to be, and so can everyone else (I believe most do). Later! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by righteousnesous on Aug 1, 2005 23:55:41 GMT -5
Ok!!!! Firstly, thanks for bearing with me. I've been VERY lazy lately, as is occasionally my want. I prefece my argument by saying that I have just read a very enlightening book called "Growth Fetish", by Clive Hamilton, an economist that heads the left wing think tank- "Australia Institute" (the opposite to the Sydney Institute). Ok. I'll start by replying to Iasol. IS DEMOCRACY A FARCE? Certainly, Left wing parties, throughout the developed world, have been steadily moving to the Right in recent decades, gradually conceding that economic growth is the altar before which all other issues must be prostrated, or be castrated. However, does this go the the root of democracy itself, or is it merely a by-product of the times in which we live??? Granted, we constantly here the same refrain from all sides of politics, that the major policy goal is greater economic growth, higher GDP, etc. Both parties will say that with more economic growth, we will abolish unemployment, and cure the manifold social ills that beset us (ie, more funding for health, education, etc). The major parties of the developed world are agreed that with a bigger economy, people will have more money with which to consume, and thus be happier. The implication here is that, through ever greater concumption, people become ever more happy. This preocupation with economic growth has been at the forefront of developed politics for decades, and for decades, we have been promised that more growth will cure society's ills. It hasn't. We still see persistent unemployment and a residue of persistent poverty. Furthermore, we aren't working less hours as was predicted, but many, many more. However, this preocupation, which Clive Hamilton calls the "Growth Fetish", is not a mania that is held merely by politicians, rather, it is held by many in society iteself. Following the advent of Left wing policies up to the 70s that allowed greater economic mobility, the economic status an individual had, suddenly said something about that individual. Ie, if you were rich, that was because you earnt it, and so too was the opposite true. Thus, compassion for the poor was lessened, as for the first time, people began to see that it was a poor persons "own fault" that they were poor. Thus status preocupation was increased. This was compounded by the advent of feminism. For as women began to support themselves (although a positive in many ways), it meant that the moral arguments for minimal wages and conditions were lessened. No longer was it justifiable for a worker to require money to support himself, his wife and his family. Thus, as Hamilton says, Margaret Thatcher has Germaine Greer to thank for her free market changes during the 80s. Furthermore, following the tides of feminism, the decrease of religious faith, and the greater economic mobility of individuals, community and social bonds were weakened. Thus, although many of these changes were positive, they carried unexpected side-effects. It is thus that we are witness to the rise of the "bourgeois bohemians". The professionals with long hair and ear piercings, that want lower taxes so they can buy their hobby harley davidsons. But I digress. The point here is that, for want of any other obvious alternative (which was only made more pronounced following the collapse of the Soviet Union), the major Left parties of the developed world have converged with those of the Right (and indeed, the entire political spectrum has shifted to the Right). Indeed, this has been hastened by the persistent preocupation with the Left with the politics of depredation. Which focusses on the deprevation on society. But nowadays, in the developed world, we have solved the economic problem, there is now enough to go around. But by continuing to focus on the politics of depredation, the Left may be acquiesing to the need for greater growth. Thus, ALL HAIL THE 3rd WAY!! And this has been perfectly in line with the change within society itself. What in Australia are called "aspirational voters", or what may translate as the "ambitious status conscious", a phenomenon that is common to all parts of the developed World, I'm sure. Who among us doesn't know hordes of people that are dead set intent on buying a bigger house, in a "better" suburb, a faster car with a "better" logo, send their kids to a more prestigious school, etc, etc, etc. People everywhere are seeking fulfilment, and to quote Hamilton, they settle for abundance. Obviously, they are no happier. And when they achieve their goals and realise that they are no happier, rather than re-evaluating their lives, they just increase the amount of money they think they need to be "happy". And of course, this is only exacerbated by marketing. For in the absence of any alternative path to fulfillment, people swallow the apparent and socially condoned de facto cult of the day, consumerism. Thus, in the developed world, we see the huge rise in depression, where 1/4 of French adults, right now are on anti-depressents and anti-psychotics of some sort, and a similar number in the US and Australia. Clearly, the present model is not working. Not even to mention the environment. Where the US and Aus refuse to sign Kyoto becuase it will hurt, (what else??!) but the modern day False Idol of economic growth. Apparently, America's GDP will grow by 40% by 2020, on current forecasts. If the US were to sign and follow Kyoto, growth would be 39% by 2020. So, for the sake of 1% economic growth, the US (and its 51st state - Australia) are choosing to do nothing on climate change. Breathtaking. So, what then is the answer??? Are we to throw in the towel, say that democracy is a joke and go to bali and live in the temple?? No, we must formulate the alternative. Moreover Iasol, beyond my dissection above, the weaknesses of the US democracy you outlined are also the result of the particular model employed by the US. As in the UK, there is no proportional voting. Thus, if one votes for a minor party, then it is more likely than not that his or her vote will be wasted, and this could mean that the party which is even worse gets in. As famously happened in Florida in 2000. Not only is that type of result more likely, it means that people are less likely to support minor parties and major parties are able to get away with more dodginess. Also, I believe that democratic systems ahve to be tightened, so that corporations have (low) ceilings, above which they cannot donate, and that these be made public immediately. And further, I, and I'm quite alone in this, within this forum, support compulsory voting. But the point I'm making is, don't despair, democracy can work, its just that we've still to formulate an alternative model to the "growth fetish" as yet. |
|
)
Wrong question...
