|
|
Post by righteousnesous on Aug 2, 2005 0:35:08 GMT -5
Right then, ONWARDS!!!!!
Micco, I agree with you, that the modern market is far too exploitative, powerful and un-answerable than is desirable. However, I still think that a REGULATED market economy IS the best way to manage economics and that a planned economy lacks the dynamism needed to pay for the large government expenditure that I would advocate. Furthermore, I certainly don't think it could provide for the (correct form of) economic growth that IS INDEED needed in the developing world. The reason why the market proves dynamic is that it responds quickly to the demands of society. However, I would argue that demands of the market would be reduced. For fulfilment is not achieved through money and consumption, but rather, through time, and the fostering of close social bonds, and the simple things in life. Exactly what the sages have always told us, and what we all, instictively, know to be true. This is not airy fairy pie in the sky stuff either, but rather, quite easy to implement. By reducing the working week to 35 hours (from the 50hr average in modern Australia, and even higher elsewhere) but maintaining the same wage, as in France, we would be working towards this goal. Furthermore, in the long term, rather than bargaining for higher wages, the new "rise" would be less working time. This would also help unemployment. Some analysts maintain a 15 hour week is most desirable and should be the ultimate goal.
Also Micco, ultimately, we seem to agree with the drawbacks of the modern market. There are many examples of where market concern was allowed to over-run the point of the market - humanity. The market no longer simply satisfies demand, it creates it. However, unlike you, i still think that a regulated market IS the best way to satisfy demand. If you wish, more on this point later. For I've still got a lot to get through...
|
|
|
|
Post by righteousnesous on Aug 2, 2005 1:22:23 GMT -5
Finally, Workers Communes, How nice of you to dissect my argument so thoroughly. Ever so good of you. Allow me to reciprocate  Firstly, on the evolutionist/progress theory. No, I'm not saying that indigenous tribes were un-evolved. On the contrary, they managed to live in relative peace (at least within Australia) for millenia, without destroying the environment and with a high degree of equality, freedom and fraternity. However, they were societies that had not developed technology on the scale of the Euro-Asian continent (for geograhical reasons), and thus did not have large, settled cities and thus did not have any need for large scale leadership/ruling/whatever word you want to use. However, given that there were indeed elders and leaders of some degree should suggest to you WC that should they have developed large cities/civilisations, they would have needed powerful leaders. Can you point to a single large, settled and organised civilisation that was bereft of some form of rulership??? And sure, had they developed more advanced technology and large cities/civilsations, I'm sure they would have gone to war, just as the Europeans and Asians did. Why? Becuase they're humans. This is what humans do. Especially if there's no democracy. But on a smaller, un-settled and technology-lite scale, the potential for war and state formation is of course, much more limited. Thus, states (of some form) are very much the necessary by-product of having a large, settled society. In times of an emergency there's no time for a conference. If a kid is standing in the middle of a road, about to be hit by a car, are you going to call out to him and say "Fellah, are you sure you want to be there right now??? How would you feel like about crossing the road???" or yell "Get off the fucken road!!!!". I'm being facetious, but I think you get the point. If theres, say, a looming war from a neighbouring despot, are you going to stand around and conference?? So, I'm not saying that what is natural is right. I'm not "falling prey to naturalist assumptions". I'm saying that what is necessary is necessary. And it is necessary for organised, large, settled societies to have leadership/direction/whatever fine noun you fancy. Secondly, I never said that what the majority believes is morally "right", but rather, that most accept (read are content with) the need for an organised leadership of the particularly large and complex communities in which we live. My justification for this is that if people were aginst it, you would expect to see some large anarchist uprisings against the state. Your defence was seems to be that people don't rise up because they are afraid of state oppression. You quoted apartheid South Africa as evidence. This seems a particularly feeble argument to me. You're comparing aparthhied era South Africa, undemocratic and despotic, with a long history of killing and oppressing, with modern UK/Aus/US. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. You're telling me that citizens of the UK are cowering in their beds at night, thinking about how much they want to overthrow Queen Elizabeth II?  Of course, again I'm being faceitious. But your argument seems like a desperate attempt at explaining why more people don't support anarchism. Why? Because they're afraid of Big Brother abducting them at night, aka apartheid era South Africa. Please... Your attack at any and all organised religion is humourous, but way off the mark and also un-related to the point I was making. If you feel like going beyond platitudes and participating in actual discussion on the subject of religion, I suggest you do so at the "spirituality" link on the forum. As for your dismissal of my Cuban example. I was trying to say that even in un-capitalist, relatively equal societies, such as Cuba, self interest is prevalent. Where theft happens rountinely. Of course, this is strongly related to the low wages they get, but I think you see my point. Also, you said that in a democracy, the majority will exploit the minority. But how can you, as an anarchist, say that?? Don't you think that humans are, by nature, ever so co-operative and totally communal? If so, why would the majority invariably oppress the minority in a democracy? Personally, I have more faith in humanity. As for why the Aboriginies should have to "wait" for the whites to concentrate on their issues. Well, i agree with you. It sucks. But, why should any of us have to wait?? That's democracy though isn't it?? Messy. Unlike anarchism, or any other extremist religion, it doesn't pretend to hold out pure allusions of a perfect world. This world is messy. By nature. . And thats just an observation, no judgement at all. If we want to make it better, we sometimes have to get messy ourselves. Or, of course, we can always withdraw to our monasteries in the mountains, our secluded temples, or our libraries in the university and stay perfectly clean and pure. There's nothing wrong with that either WC. But its not going to get anything done. Is it? |
|
|
|
Post by righteousnesous on Aug 3, 2005 5:24:33 GMT -5
Yeah, George Galloway did well in inner city, latte sipping London. More power to him. Same as for Plaid Cymru - the Welsh nutters. But these examples are the exceptions that prove the rule. In first-past-the-post elections (such as those that occur in the UK and US) - minor parties rarely win support because people are afraid that their vote will be wasted. Minor parties, like Plaid Cymru and Respect, can only get up in isolated seats where their support is overwhelmingly clear, or where the threat of the "most worst party" is minimal. Thus, these minor parties support is never translated across to a national level. How else can you explain the disrepency of support for the Greens. In most parts of the world with proportional or other forms of vote counting, the Greens average between 5 and 10% support nationally. In the last British elections, they only scraped together 1%. Why? I think it reasonable to blame that on the fact that, with no distribution of preferences, people were scared into voting for a "least-worst" option, be that the lin dems or labour. This phenomenon is particularly clear in the US.
As for Ishmael, no I haven't started reading it. I'll have to track down a copy and give it a bash.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anarchic Tribes on Aug 3, 2005 8:09:37 GMT -5
Not all welsh people are nutters (maybe) so, I was trying to think of the name of the party but couldn't because he was just an independant (nothing to do with Plaid Cymru). It was Peter Law who gained a majority vote of over 19,000 in Blaenau Gwent. These welsh nutters along with the guys that voted for Respect, stood up for what they believed in and it worked (i.e. their candidate won, not that it makes much difference, politics is politics). But whilst I understand where you're coming from, it is still just a myth that can be proven as such with a little faith As for why the Greens do so badly, it's because they're crap, preach bollox and DON'T stand up for what they say they believe in (or at least don't believe what they say they stand for). Who do they represent other than a bunch of guilt ridden 'middle-class' yippies? George Galloway and Peter Law both support Old Labour, the party that supposedly supported the people. The greens support only themselves and green 'things', NOT even each other or the planet. If you can't find a hard copy of Ishmael, Mich mentioned a free online copy on the 'nominations' thread. |
|
|
|
Post by allers on Aug 9, 2005 10:29:08 GMT -5
an insightfull debate here,i will play the dummy,and go out of sight,or well trolling
To dare
anarchism
Anarchy or disorder.
It is anarchy!
It is anarchy! People of being able, the media use with profusion the anarchy term to indicate economic, political and moral chaos of our company. The use of the word anarchy would tend to make believe that this world is delivered to the hands of diabolic forces which want to reverse the beautiful building that the disciplined people, led by the States, built during centuries. However, in fact well the States divide and control planet. It is well with them that one owes the economic disorder in which we live.
To do better than the States in the fields of chaos and the horror is difficult...
Who can still believe that the capacity is synonymous with organization ? Those which live capacity, doubtless. But not anarchists. Institutionalized chaos, the capacity and slavery made their time. Today, to choose anarchism, it is to show of realism and organisational direction.
Our detractors (of the fascists to the Marxists while passing through the "democrats") regard us as late idealists of a revolution, or worse, like terrorists. There are of them others, also, which claim to defend anarchism, but which recommends a company without rule, morals, freely accepted constraint, in which each one would do only what its navel wants.
Which choice the reasonable citizen will it be able to make between the proposals of authoritative of all kinds which showed their bankruptcy, and those of the nihilists of any hair who claim that tomorrow one will shave gratis, all being solved by the pure and simple suppression of all the institutions installation until our days?
The libertarian thought includes a project of company different from all the models known until now.
Then,
is anarchy, it what?
It is the state of a company, or more exactly, of a social background, without government.
Except the anarchists, all the philosophers, all the moralists, all the sociologists, including the "democratic" theorists and doctrinary "the Socialists", affirm that in the absence of a government, a legislation and a repression which ensures the respect of the law and prevails against the infringements, it can y have only disorder and criminality.
The anarchists affirm them, that anarchy is the highest expression of the order (but without the capacity).
Anarchy and order?
Our idea of the order rests onthe agreement (principle of freedom opposed to the principle ofauthority) and helpsit (principle of co-operation opposed to the principle of competition).
On the contrary, the other proposals of organization of the company - socialism, liberalism, marxismeY - always granted a minority of privileged the right to manage the company in the place of concerned and for their own profit. This mode of management bears a name: the State.
The State is the political expression of the economic mode to which the company is subjected. It allows and justifies oppression and the exploitation of human by the human one: it confiscates with the individual his capacity - in manner hardware in dictatorship by repression, in manner software in democracy by the elections - and puts this capacity at the service of the dominant economic forces (management of social peace, financial support for the companies, legislation organizing the race with the profits, adaptation of the services public [ school, transport... ] to the needs for the competitiveness of the capital...).
The State, with force to be omnipresent, ends up being superimposed on the company, and tries to make believe that apart from him, it could not function. This illusion is all the more pathetic as the State sets up in fact a social group with whole share, cut realities of the individuals and other groups social. It is only used to maintain the order (functions legislative and repressive) with the service of the interests of the dominant classes, whether one name them employers, middle-classes, technocracy or will nomenklatura.
To justify the exploitation and the domination, the State (assisted in that by the religion) is based on a morals law-of-the-jungle degrading and humiliating to it human being. And even, if it sometimes happens to him to condemn the most brutal demonstrations of these "values" of the fight of each one against all, the State never emits basic criticism nor proposes of other models only those pertaining to the past, patriarchal, preserving, hierarchical and caritatif.
The anarchists refuse this model of company, negation of the individual and his human aspirations. They seek by all the means to show that it is possible and desirable to live in a levelling company, managed directly and freely by its various components: individuals, groupings social, economic, cultural, and this within the framework of the libertarian federalism.
The refusal of the authority
The refusal of the authority did not appear with the libertarian theories. It precedes them largely through acts, attitudes of individuals or groupings social. Certain historical events point out it to us: for example revolts of the slaves in ancient Rome, the country jacqueries of the Middle Ages, the rise of the Rebirth, the philosophers of the Lights, the French revolution... More close to us, these theories took part in the release of the Revolution of 1848, of the Commune of Paris, the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Revolution or May 68. As many places, of situations, in which the human ones sought to loosen, to even abolish the oppressive vice in which they felt taken with the trap.
By replaçant these events in the historical and social context which gave them birth, one realizes that they aim all the same goal: improvement of the conditions of existence, the levelling division of the richnesses, right to knowledge and the instruction, the search of the wellbeing, in short an aspiration with individual and collective happiness.
These movements of revolt for the majority crushed (the slaves spartakists, peasants of the jacqueries, proletarians of the Commune of Paris), or were recovered with the profit of a new dominating class or a totalitarian party (emergent middle-class under the French revolution, Bolchéviques in the Russian Revolution), or diverted of their goal (monarchs known as "enlightened" of the Century of the Lights). Because, in spite of the embryo of freedom that they contained, they sufficiently strong nor were not structured to reverse the course of the things. They were Utopias in the direction where, they dared to project on the screen of the future, of the images in advance over their time.
Heritages
This philosophical heritage was theorized, then put into practice, to the XIXE century, coinciding in that - and not without reason - with the appearance of nationalism and the state control.
One agrees today to saying that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is the "father" of anarchism, the theorist of the system mutualist and the federalism, and the inspirer of the working trade unionism. Its influence on the labour movement was real, withinthe International association of the Workers (HAS) existed current clearly a proudhonien and anti-authoritative.
The Congress of Saint-Imier, in 1872, provides the foundations of anarchism. The brought together delegates proclaim that the destruction of any political power is the first duty of the proletariat [... ] that any organization of a supposedly provisional political power and revolutionist to bring this destruction, can be only one fraud and would be as dangerous for the proletariat as all the governments existing today...
These ideas, defended by Michel Bakounine and theauthoritative ones of the First International one, remain present until our days.
They will be continued and deepened by Louise Michel (in particular at the time of the Commune of Paris and with Canaques at the time of its passage to the bagne), of the strikers of May 1, 1885 (for the eight hours day in Chicago in the United States), of Fernand Pelloutier (founder of the Labour markets), ofÉlisée Reclus (eminent geographer which was among the founders ofthe New University of Brussels in 1884), of Pierre Besnard (theorist and expert of anarcho-syndicalism), of Pierre Kropotkine (who worked out the concept of libertarian Communism), Franscisco Ferrer, of Paul Robin and Sebastien Faure (pioneers of libertarian pedagogy), of Marius Jacob (and the his Na Workers harms), ofErrico Malatesta (for its direction of the action and the organization), of Gustave Landauer (shot by the army rabble in 1919, at the sides of the Working Councils of Bavaria), ofEmma Goldman (anarcha-feminist, expelled of the United States for its action in favour of the birth control), of the sailors of Kronstadt (in favour of a third self-management revolution in Russia in 1921), of Nestor Makhno (federator of the peasants in fight against Bolchéviks in Ukraine in the Twenties), of Sacco and Vanzetti (assassinated on the electric chair for their libertarian ideas), ofÉrich Mühsam (poet and German playwright, died in a concentration camp in 1933), of Buenaventura Durruti (anarcho-trade unionist of legend during the Spanish revolution of 1936), of May Picqueray (militant pacifist untiring), of George Brassens (correct and journalist in the Libertarian World at the end of the Forties), of Louis Lecoin (in hunger strike for the recognition of the conscientious objection), of Léo Ferré (which so often put its talent at the service of the anarchistic organizations), and also, in Belgium, more close to us,Hem Day (auteur/editor prolific in the Fifties and 60) and ofErnestan (which defines the concept of socialism libertarian)... to quote only some of them.
After the second world war, they will re-appear and see the creation of the French-speaking Anarchistic Federation, ofInternational of the Anarchistic Federations in the world; they will impel the rebuilding (in France) of the National Confederation of Work, anarcho-trade unionist, they will blow in the rows of May 68, of the counter-culture, in the combat of the women, the new social and alternative movement...
Anarchy with anarchism
Thus,anarchy is what we foresee (libertarian company);anarchism is the social movement which continues the realization of this ideal.
Anarchism is a ceaseless fight, in the most varied forms, against the prejudices, the obscurantism, conservatism, the authoritative fact.
It is articulated mainly around two types of tasks: ones destructive, the other reconstructives ones. The destructive actions consist in deeply sapping the principle of authority in all its demonstrations, to uncover it, fight all the operations by which it tries to be rehabilitated and to survive itself in another form. The reconstructives actions (or alternatives), sometimes parallel with destructive, aim at putting in place a federalistic operation and of direct management.
For that, one needs an adapted tool, an organization...
Organization
The organization is a function of the degree of conscience, reached by the discussions, the debates, confrontation of ideas, and in the action. The larger this conscience will be and the higher vitality of the organization will be.
To lead to a flexible and strong organization, at the same time conforms to the libertarian spirit, it is necessary to go horizontally from the periphery towards the center, of the unit to the number, the private individual to the collective.
To the Anarchistic Federation, we agree between individuals and groups on a whole of general principles, fundamental designs and practical applications (see the guiding Principles published following pages): it is the federalism which makes it possible each one to remain itself, to withdraw itself from any crushing, to keep its autonomy, to take an active share with the life of the organization, to emit its opinion. Such an organization leaves with each one of its elements the totality of the forces which are clean for him, while by the association of these forces, it reaches itself its maximum of vitality.
To act
The action is not agitation with all goes. It must correspond to a goal (to go in the direction of a libertarian revolution), and be tallied by a strategy of construction of the movement. Sometimes, the social condition is temporarily blocked, sometimes it packs. The organization must adapt to these various phases (in particular to maintain assets in period of fall). In any event, the place of the anarchistic militants is in the social fights, including in those known as reformists (improvement of the conditions of existence, withdrawal of legislations worsening oppression, against precariousness, against the dismissals, for or the defense wage increase of services to the publicY), with our practices antiautoritaires and ofdirect action (control and revocability of the mandatésY), and our overall prospects.
It is confrontation between our ideas and our practices, of the dialogue woven with the other individuals and collectives in rupture, which can emerge or be born gradually the revolutionary conscience.
Proposals
Anarchism, finally, is a whole of proposals and practices tending to the total emancipation of human in company. If the company exists as a sociological entity, the individual exists as much, without hierarchical report/ratio at this company. It is thus the harmony between these two elements, a new synthesis, which the anarchists seek.
The emancipation is of triple natural.
Economic emancipation initially, by the reappropriation of the production equipments, their direct management by the same workers them, and the levelling distribution of the richnesses thus produced.
Political emancipation then, by the replacement of the bureaucracy of State, by a federalistic organization of the sectors of the company, maintaining cohesion, the mutual aid, and preserving autonomy.
Intellectual emancipation, finally, via the assumption of responsibility by the individual of his social role, relegating the religion and any form of tender to the museum of the horrors.
A classless society and without State, organized by and for the women and the men, here are what wants anarchism.
The anarchist is by temperament and refractory definition with all embrigadement which traces with the spirit of the limits and encircles the life. He denies the principle of authority in the social organization. There cannot thus be libertarian catechism.
The anarchistic organization of the company, direct emanation of the will of the individuals and the social groupings, will be able to be carried out only outwards and counters the supervision of all the organizations and structures authoritative established on the economic and social inequality.
The ethical and organic bases of the libertarian federalism are: freedom as bases, the economic and social equality like means, fraternity like goal. This definition marks the deep difference between the libertarian federalism and the "official federalism".
We call of all our forces a company of type the federalistic, founded on the collective or individual possession of the means of production and distribution (excluding any possibility for some of living work of the others), the mutual aid, the abolition of wage-earning and exploitation of human by the human one.
The anarchists do not grant any credit to a simple change of the people who exert the authority: the same causes generate the same effects. All the forms of authority are held. In letting remain only one, it is to support the reappearance of all.
Towards a libertarian company
To manage to found a libertarian company, it is necessary to obtain means in agreement with the finality. Thus Errico Malatesta expresses it : These means are not arbitrary, they necessarily derive from the ends which one proposes and of the circumstances in which one fights. While being mistaken on the choice in the means, one does not achieve the goal considered, but one moves away from there, worms of often opposite realities and which are the consequence natural and necessary methods that one employs.
It is possible to live in a levelling company, managed directly and freely by its various components (individuals, social, economic, cultural groupings...) within the framework of the federalism.
The rules which will make function such a company are based on contracts mutual, levelling, reciprocal, being able to be called into question at any moment. These contracts can be written or tacit.
Mandatements
Such a company cannot obviously function without voluntary mutual aid nor co-operation.
The delegation of responsibility allows to decide at the federal level. But attention, we hear on the words: for the anarchists, each delegate receives a precise mandate. The assembly which elected it exerts a permanent control on her work, and, especially, can revoke it constantly if the work which it carries out does not correspond to its mandate.
Anarchism is a total proposal of company seeking to promote a really different civilization. It opposes the principle of freedom to the principle of authority, the mutual aid with the law of the jungle, the equality with discrimination. And, as Élisée Reclus said it, as a long time as the company will be based on the authority, the anarchists will remain in perpetual state of insurrection.
|
|
|
|
Post by righteousnesous on Sept 9, 2005 0:18:13 GMT -5
You mentioned above that anarchism is based on perpetual struggle. I put it to you that most people (myself included) do not want to be struggling and fighting forever, which is to say, most person desire peace and tranquility. Yes, we must be forever vigillant of the enroachment of the state/corporation/or other into our private spheres and civil rights, but forever fighting??? People prefer peace. The best route forward is to identify a SYSTEM of leadership/organisation, with a whole series of checks and balances to ensure that it is not abused. And while I accept that the task of modifying those checks and balances may well be ceaseless, I hardly think that this reforming task can be equated with the form of perpetual struggle of which you call for. Thus, I once have to disagree with your solution, though I once again agree with your critique of the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by allers on Sept 26, 2005 13:59:00 GMT -5
You mentioned above that anarchism is based on perpetual struggle. I put it to you that most people (myself included) do not want to be struggling and fighting forever, which is to say, most person desire peace and tranquility. Yes, we must be forever vigillant of the enroachment of the state/corporation/or other into our private spheres and civil rights, but forever fighting??? People prefer peace. The best route forward is to identify a SYSTEM of leadership/organisation, with a whole series of checks and balances to ensure that it is not abused. And while I accept that the task of modifying those checks and balances may well be ceaseless, I hardly think that this reforming task can be equated with the form of perpetual struggle of which you call for. Thus, I once have to disagree with your solution, though I once again agree with your critique of the problem. ok i stand for perpetual criticism i prefere peace,but without criticism it can not be,well free if freedom have to be,it has to be via criticism(not Vanguard),so we are far away from a peaceful/respectful society when we only get a voice when the elites needs it, as about solution well,why not work TOGETHER? |
|
Of course, again I'm being faceitious. But your argument seems like a desperate attempt at explaining why more people don't support anarchism. Why? Because they're afraid of Big Brother abducting them at night, aka apartheid era South Africa. Please...