Wouldn't anarchy just re-create capitalism, totally meritocratic capitalism?

[cappiej]

Okay, a hypothetical situation for the anarchists among us to mull over.

In this anarchist society a farmer falls ill, he begs a Doctor to treat him, sensing an opportunity the Doctor says, "Yeah, of course, but its going to cost you your farm, your entire farm's produce and your farmhouse". This farmer can either die or agree to the Doctor's terms, the Doctor becomes rich doing this over and over again.

He and the other Doctors agree not to teach anyone other than their own sons and daughters the medical profession, to ensure you end up with a system of ultra-wealthy Doctors, who in addition to inheriting all that their parents have earned 'exploiting' sick people are able to do the same. This goes on for five or six generations and you end up with the Rockefellers and Oppenheimers of your new society.

How do you stop this system arising?

Surely its an even more extreme form of capitalism than anywhere else?

And the story will be true of anyone with scarce, in-demand skills, they will form cartels and become ultra wealthy.

You'll end up with a load of unskilled peasants who will be totally at the mercy of anyone with a skill necessary for their survival.

And out of interest, without a government to intervene won't people with guns and bombs and grenades and the rest of it just march in and take over other people's property. If you think buying property fair and square is theft, which you clearly have indicated that you do, wouldn't this be 10 times worse?

[Havet]

How do you stop this system arising?

if the doctors did that, they'd make it far more profitable for a doctor to not do that, which means they would lose their monopoly to better competition. And before you start, its impossible to maintain such monopoly on healthcare unless through government force, but we're talking anarchy aren't we?

[cappiej]

if the doctors did that, they'd make it far more profitable for a doctor to not do that, which means they would lose their monopoly to better competition. And before you start, its impossible to maintain such monopoly on healthcare unless through government force, but we're talking anarchy aren't we?

Is it? But couldn't they all agree to charge extortionate prices for their services? Whose going to stop them?

[Havet]

Is it? But couldn't they all agree to charge extortionate prices for their services? Whose going to stop them?

No one.

Who is going to stop other doctors from deviating away from the monopoly?

[F9]

Moved
Thats why OI learning exists, to make your questions...
On the question per se now, those are false and out of logic "cases", and those get out from your wrong understanding of Anarchism, and not knowing what you are talking about.
Its better to read about Anarchism first and then start criticizing.
What you wrote as an argument-question sounds more to me like a joke, taken from a cartoon..

Fuserg9:star:

[cappiej]

No one.

Who is going to stop other doctors from deviating away from the monopoly?

No-one, but why would they want to?

[RebelDog]

Well the social vision of anarchy would not include markets and economic gain through bargaining power so the doctors would have no hold over those who worked the land and vice-versa. Each would offer their services and goods as part of their contribution to society. If we dismantle the economic conditions which allow the powerful to gain reward, with little or no correlation to contribution, like markets, and replace them with social institutions that ensure the best outcomes for all actors then me can have an economy that promotes and protects positive, altruistic contribution. Do doctors in the NHS turn away poor people? No, the NHS is not an institution that uses its power to gain in the market. Look and we can see that there are other ways outside markets and corporations for running an economy. Different ways give different outcomes.

[cappiej]

Well the social vision of anarchy would not include markets and economic gain through bargaining power so the doctors would have no hold over those who worked the land and vice-versa. Each would offer their services and goods as part of their contribution to society. If we dismantle the economic conditions which allow the powerful to gain reward, with little or no correlation to contribution, like markets, and replace them with social institutions that ensure the best outcomes for all actors then me can have an economy that promotes and protects positive, altruistic contribution. Do doctors in the NHS turn away poor people? No, the NHS is not an institution that uses its power to gain in the market. Look and we can see that there are other ways outside markets and corporations for running an economy. Different ways give different outcomes.

The NHS, or an instutition akin to it in an anarchist society, must be funded, often by unwilling people. One of the plus points of anarchy would be there would be no socialised medicine.

[Havet]

No-one, but why would they want to?

because people are much more likely to pay less and get a better service than to pay more and get a worse service (which i what a monopoly does)

bad services create a demand for better services, and if a business can provide that, even if at a cheaper price, they will get so many customers they will make tons of more profit than the monopolies could ever hope.

[Jack]

The NHS, or an instutition akin to it in an anarchist society, must be funded, often by unwilling people. One of the plus points of anarchy would be there would be no socialised medicine.

Yes there would. Your "points" have as much substance as "anarkeyz wunt work cuz teh pplz will riot n bomb n rape alot n stuff", they aren't valid because they're assumed, wrongly.

I'll tell you what, read this, then come back and attack anarchism, otherwise you make yourself look like a fool: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html

[RebelDog]

The NHS, or an instutition akin to it in an anarchist society, must be funded, often by unwilling people. One of the plus points of anarchy would be there would be no socialised medicine.

What makes you think an anarchist development of the conteporary NHS would not be funded or be socialised? You have mixed up views of what social anarchism is. Apart from the moral reasons to prevent, treat and cure illness and give comfort are the obvious reasons that a healthy society is a happier productive society. In an anarchist vision of economy, socialised healthcare would be paramount to the proper functioning of all the socialised, democratic economy. Such is the case in any economy but powerful interests are stopping socialised healthcare in the US right now. Privatised healthcare has enormous cost to society but the rights of private healthcare corporations, pharmaceutical corporations and insurance corporations are put above the population. The nightmare scenario you describe in the OP is happening right now in the land of the free.

[cappiej]

What makes you think an anarchist development of the conteporary NHS would not be funded or be socialised? You have mixed up views of what social anarchism is. Apart from the moral reasons to prevent, treat and cure illness and give comfort are the obvious reasons that a healthy society is a happier productive society. In an anarchist vision of economy, socialised healthcare would be paramount to the proper functioning of all the socialised, democratic economy. Such is the case in any economy but powerful interests are stopping socialised healthcare in the US right now. Privatised healthcare has enormous cost to society but the rights of private healthcare corporations, pharmaceutical corporations and insurance corporations are put above the population. The nightmare scenario you describe in the OP is happening right now in the land of the free.


I know it is and I'm a supporter of it, I heard Ron Paul speaking prior to the 2008 election and he convinced me socialised medicine is immoral and wrong and that its a violation of the rights of all of those who must fund it.

I'm dead set against socialised healthcare, its dangerous, it limits choice, there's no accountability.

Not all anarchists agree, I've communicated with some of what you would probably call right-wing anarchists and the central reason for them rejecting the government is that they don't want welfare and they don't want socialised medicine.

I can see both sides of the argument, but ultimately socialised healthcare requires coercion and its utterly unfair, why should the healthy pay for the unhealthy?

[Pogue]

I can see both sides of the argument, but ultimately socialised healthcare requires coercion and its utterly unfair, why should the healthy pay for the unhealthy?

Because at some point everyone is unhealthy and humanity works better when it operates collectively.

Next question.

[cappiej]

Because at some point everyone is unhealthy and humanity works better when it operates collectively.

Next question.

When one gets unhealthy one will have to pay for care, but what about if they never become unhealthy and what about the perpetually unhealthy?

[RebelDog]

I know it is and I'm a supporter of it, I heard Ron Paul speaking prior to the 2008 election and he convinced me socialised medicine is immoral and wrong and that its a violation of the rights of all of those who must fund it.

I'm dead set against socialised healthcare, its dangerous, it limits choice, there's no accountability.

Not all anarchists agree, I've communicated with some of what you would probably call right-wing anarchists and the central reason for them rejecting the government is that they don't want welfare and they don't want socialised medicine.

I can see both sides of the argument, but ultimately socialised healthcare requires coercion and its utterly unfair, why should the healthy pay for the unhealthy?

it can only be true in a twisted universe that using the collective resources of society for the welfare of its people is a "violation of rights." The whole idea of socialism is contributing to society and in turn that society looks after the well-being of its people. I make the food the doctors eat and without it they are useless. Doctors repair me when I am ill and in turn ensure I can continue to pruduce the food they need to survive. Each gives what they are capable off and each takes what they need. What you are taling about is groups, proffessions or corporations taking what their economic bargaining power permits. You are supporting the right of the powerful to claim greater economic reward simply by using their position without any correlation to contribution. Doctors are only economically different from workers in capitalism because they have greater bargaining power. My fellow workers and I could starve them with ours.

Your talk of choice is bullshit. The choice of what? To choose to have healthcare if you have the money? The political opposition to socialised healthcare in the US exists only among an elite minority and even elements of the business class in the US now seek reform for albeit selfish reasons. You are spouting Reaganite empty rubbish about choice whilst the US has the most inefficient, inequal, fragmented healthcare system in the world. What you support is the rights of corporations to make a fortune from rigged markets and public subsidy. Rights are OK if the right people benefit.

All social anarchists agree on socialised healthcare. The majority of the population in the US wants socialised healthcare, but they don't count.

[cappiej]

it can only be true in a twisted universe that using the collective resources of society for the welfare of its people is a "violation of rights." The whole idea of socialism is contributing to society and in turn that society looks after the well-being of its people. I make the food the doctors eat and without it they are useless. Doctors repair me when I am ill and in turn ensure I can continue to pruduce the food they need to survive. Each gives what they are capable off and each takes what they need. What you are taling about is groups, proffessions or corporations taking what their economic bargaining power permits. You are supporting the right of the powerful to claim greater economic reward simply by using their position without any correlation to contribution. Doctors are only economically different from workers in capitalism because they have greater bargaining power. My fellow workers and I could starve them with ours.

Your talk of choice is bullshit. The choice of what? To choose to have healthcare if you have the money? The political opposition to socialised healthcare in the US exists only among an elite minority and even elements of the business class in the US now seek reform for albeit selfish reasons. You are spouting Reaganite empty rubbish about choice whilst the US has the most inefficient, inequal, fragmented healthcare system in the world. What you support is the rights of corporations to make a fortune from rigged markets and public subsidy. Rights are OK if the right people benefit.

All social anarchists agree on socialised healthcare. The majority of the population in the US wants socialised healthcare, but they don't count.

I think its a fundamental component of freedom to be allowed to keep the fruits of your labour. You don't and that's fine, without a plurality of opinions we'll never reach the right conclusion.

You can buy your healthcare from any one of a number of providers, get a tailor made plan etc

Now there is the problem of the 40 million people in America who don't have health insurance, but while I'd love to see them helped I cannot get past the belief that the right to keep the fruits of one's labour is more important.

[RebelDog]

I think its a fundamental component of freedom to be allowed to keep the fruits of your labour. You don't and that's fine, without a plurality of opinions we'll never reach the right conclusion.

You can buy your healthcare from any one of a number of providers, get a tailor made plan etc

Now there is the problem of the 40 million people in America who don't have health insurance, but while I'd love to see them helped I cannot get past the belief that the right to keep the fruits of one's labour is more important.

You support the right of someone who has a mere deed in their pocket stating they own a healthcare insurance company or a pharmaceutical company to rob the labour of their workers and deny the right to life for the economically weak. Zero contribution for massive gain. If people had control over their labour we would not be having this conversation.

[cappiej]

You support the right of someone who has a mere deed in their pocket stating they own a healthcare insurance company or a pharmaceutical company to rob the labour of their workers and deny the right to life for the economically weak. Zero contribution for massive gain. If people had control over their labour we would not be having this conversation.

No, I support their right to operate their company within the confines of the law.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Is it? But couldn't they all agree to charge extortionate prices for their services? Whose going to stop them?

The fact that there's no economy to profit from.

[cappiej]

The fact that there's no economy to profit from.

Good point, why would anyone bother becoming a Doctor anyway? Why not just get an easy job instead?

[RebelDog]

No, I support their right to operate their company within the confines of the law.

Then your claim that people have the right to the fruits of their own labour is hypocritical. The laws exist to protect the right of the capitalist to steal the fruits of the workers labour. But they, like the wider population that support socialised healthcare, do not count. Law is like any other area in class society, power is brought to bear and used by an elite to dominate and exploit by means of their economic hegomony. You are simply a pro-capitalist with a fantasy idea that what you support is based on some kind of twisted idea of rights or fairness in a world dominated by unequal economic power and ridiculous means of remuneration. Its an old boring story.

[Jack]

Good point, why would anyone bother becoming a Doctor anyway? Why not just get an easy job instead?

Because they feel like it, honestly. I'm going to be a history teacher because it's a job I'll enjoy and something I've wanted to give back to the world and do something involving things I'm interested in.

[cappiej]

Because they feel like it, honestly. I'm going to be a history teacher because it's a job I'll enjoy and something I've wanted to give back to the world and do something involving things I'm interested in.

Well, I was speaking from a purely economic view. If being a Doctor pays the same as being a street sweeper why bother with spending 6 years obtaining a medical degree?

[Jack]

Well, I was speaking from a purely economic view. If being a Doctor pays the same as being a street sweeper why bother with spending 6 years obtaining a medical degree?

Well, assuming you are fed, housed, and clothed and are able to obtain that degree for free, I see no reason not to. Why work at an entry level job for 6 years instead of getting a free education?

[cappiej]

Well, assuming you are fed, housed, and clothed and are able to obtain that degree for free, I see no reason not to. Why work at an entry level job for 6 years instead of getting a free education?

How is that going to happen in an anarchist world? Whose going to provide it, the non-existant state?

[Robert]

How is that going to happen in an anarchist world? Whose going to provide it, the non-existant state?

This oughta be good ....:laugh:

[Havet]

How is that going to happen in an anarchist world? Whose going to provide it, the non-existant state?

Communists would argue a community or collective could be in charge of providing this. No one would be forced to enter this community, and people would only get the benefits of this association (healthcare, education, food) if they contributed to it (work collectively to achieve a goal, agree on democratic voting on tasks, etc)

I suspect that in a true anarchy there would be different forms of organization for all tastes. As long as there is mutual respect for other institutions, and there are alternatives for those unhappy of where they are, there would be little conflicts.

[cappiej]

Communists would argue a community or collective could be in charge of providing this. No one would be forced to enter this community, and people would only get the benefits of this association (healthcare, education, food) if they contributed to it (work collectively to achieve a goal, agree on democratic voting on tasks, etc)

I suspect that in a true anarchy there would be different forms of organization for all tastes. As long as there is mutual respect for other institutions, and there are alternatives for those unhappy of where they are, there would be little conflicts.

So disabled people would not get the benefits of it since they never contributed to it?

[Havet]

So disabled people would not get the benefits of it since they never contributed to it?

I dont know for sure. Im not particularly advocating this. If it were up to me, it would all boil down to agreements. Would the community agree on sharing the burden of a disabled person? maybe. Would the community turn to the family of the disabled and say: we think you should work a bit harder in compensation for the community sharing its resources towards that disabled person. That could happen as well.

Likely the rationed resources of the community could support a couple hundred disabled people (depending on the size of the community).

[Blake's Baby]

I think its a fundamental component of freedom to be allowed to keep the fruits of your labour. You don't...

Well, let's look at that for a moment. Let's assume that it is a fundemental component of freedom to keep the fruits of your labour.

So, there you are. And there we all are. Let's call you 'you' and us 'society'.

So, you say you want to keep the fruits of your labour. We say fair enough, does that mean that we (society) get to keep the fruits of our labour? Presumably, you'd say yes. Otherwise, you're in favour of expropriating us, in other words, you advocate thieving from the rest of us for the sake of your own selfishness. If that's what you want... well, you don't want freedom, just gangsterism.

But let's assume that you agree that society gets to control what society produces (we don't want to "keep" it, as you do, we want to use it, but we both are concerned with controlling what we produce).

What are 'your' products as opposed to social products? Well, maybe they're the things you make with the your own labour power. OK; but... where do you get the tools to make things from? Where do you get the raw materials? Are these not themselves social products?

Haven't the tools and machines been produced by the rest of us? Haven't we drilled for the oil to make the plastics, and mined the coal to make the electricity? Didn't we forge the iron to make the machines you're using?

So; these things are social products, it was our labour not yours that created them, and we get to decide what happens to them. Is there any reason we should let you appropriate our social products if you are not part of society?

But, you might reason, you could scavenge wood from trees to make tools, and win your own coal (maybe). Chances are, those trees were planted by someone, or at the very least were the result of previous social actions of land-clearance or forest management, and therefore using your logic would 'belong' to us... but let's let that go. Maybe you could go out into the wilderness and found a one-man civilisation and scavenge everything for yourself (not in England though, and wherever you were, I doubt you'd last long).

But, hang on. Society hasn't finished with you yet. We've invested 20 or more years in you. Your very body is made up of atoms derived from the food we grew, harvested, processed, transported and prepared. Done much of that lot yourself? probably not. So your body is made up social products - our products, the fruits of our labour, not yours.

But you're more than a body, surely? What about your mind? Well, we're having this conversation in English, another product of society, not an individual creation of yourself. Your education, your opinions, you found in books and evolved through discussion with other people - they are social products. And they belong to society as a whole.

Even your genetic coding was given to by your parents, who are part of society. Mentally and physically, even down to a genetic level, you are a social product. How could, in that instance, "you" claim anything as being "your product"? "You" only exist as part of society.

Now we, as society, could say, "well this bit of social product (that is, you) wants to expropriate some other social product" but that would make as much sense as my screwdriver claiming that the shelves I put up belonged to it.

Unless of course you can demonstrate that there is something of "you" that is no way derived from your mental or physical being, your genetic data, your concepts, ideas or education, training, language or any other aspect of your development that has relied on other people.

In other words, if you are a self-created entity living completely seperately from, and in ignorance of, the rest of the human race (ie 'society'), I think most of us on this forum would believe that you had some sort of claim on "your" products. Otherwise, as I think I've just shown, the idea is a nonsense.

[Havet]

So; these things are social products, it was our labour not yours that created them, and we get to decide what happens to them. Is there any reason we should let you appropriate our social products if you are not part of society?

Yes: Trade.


But, you might reason, you could scavenge wood from trees to make tools, and win your own coal (maybe). Chances are, those trees were planted by someone, or at the very least were the result of previous social actions of land-clearance or forest management, and therefore using your logic would 'belong' to us... but let's let that go. Maybe you could go out into the wilderness and found a one-man civilisation and scavenge everything for yourself (not in England though, and wherever you were, I doubt you'd last long). It's not steal or be stolen. You're leaving out trade. I made something you want, you made something i want, let's trade it and we will be both better off.


But, hang on. Society hasn't finished with you yet. We've invested 20 or more years in you. Your very body is made up of atoms derived from the food we grew, harvested, processed, transported and prepared. Done much of that lot yourself? probably not. So your body is made up social products - our products, the fruits of our labour, not yours.

And to feed my child i had to work, to produce something in exchange for that food you made. When we traded it, we exchange ownership. Therefore, you DO NOT OWN my child.


But you're more than a body, surely? What about your mind? Well, we're having this conversation in English, another product of society, not an individual creation of yourself. Your education, your opinions, you found in books and evolved through discussion with other people - they are social products. And they belong to society as a whole.

English appeared naturally by people wishing to communicate with one another. But lets assume your premise is correct. English was intentionally created by someone. Where are they? They're dead. Who owns the english language now? It can't be society, because the parts of society that invented english have died, and i don't think they left any testament saying: "we shall give ownership of the english language to the society". So cappiej having any claim on the english language is as valid as you claiming current society has any claim on it.


Even your genetic coding was given to by your parents, who are part of society. Mentally and physically, even down to a genetic level, you are a social product. How could, in that instance, "you" claim anything as being "your product"? "You" only exist as part of society.

Thinking in terms of society is very confusing, misleading, and doesn' really explain actions. How about speaking of individuals?

Your speech strongly resembles what I call "a mystic of muscle".

The good, you claim, is Society-a thing which you define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself.

Man’s mind, you say, must be subordinated to the will of Society.

Man’s standard of value, you say, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute.

The purpose of man’s life, you say, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question.

His reward, you say, will be given on earth-to his great-grandchildren.

Selfishness, you cry, is man's evil. Sacrifice, you cry, is the essence of morality, the highest moral ideal man can reach.

'Sacrifice' does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. ‘Sacrifice’ does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. ‘Sacrifice’ is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.


If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and gave it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.

If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.


If you renounce all personal desire and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate-that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.


A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward-if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.

But of course, moral perfection, by this standard, is impossible. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.

Well tough luck, because I do not recognize your right to seize the products of my mind, or to enslave me in any manner whatsoever for whatever "society" deems as good. If you want it, come and get it, because i certainly didn't stole it.

[Blake's Baby]

...
English appeared naturally by people wishing to communicate with one another. But lets assume your premise is correct. English was intentionally created by someone. ...

Not aware that anyone mentioned "intention" up to now... can you show me where it was, I must have missed it.


... Thinking in terms of society is very confusing, misleading, and doesn' really explain actions. How about speaking of individuals? ...

Why? Individuals only have meaning as components of a society. You may as well say 'speaking of people is confusing, why not speak of cells?'

We are social beings. It is our interactions with other people that give us meaning as human beings. Deducing the worth or rationality of human action from the point of view of the individual is ultimately pretty meaningless, because 1 - a single human being is not a viable unit of survival, and therefore any particular individual matters less than a society, and 2 - people's subjective opinions are necessarily so fragmented that any attempt to extrapolate from the specific to the general is doomed to failure.

You cannot deduce the course of World war Two by reading Spike Milligan's Diaries, and by the same token, any particular attempt you might make to determine what is meaningful in human existence starting from the specific individual is pointless.


...
Your speech strongly resembles what I call "a mystic of muscle"...

I'm very glad for you.


... The good, you claim, is Society-a thing which you define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself...

1 - wrong; I never mentioned 'good' at all. I'm merely trying to establish whether or not Cappiej thinks he doesn't need the rest of us for anything.
2 - wrong; the physical form of society is the people who make it up. It'd be a pretty mystical society that could produce all the things it has while simultaneously not having any members. Unless you've invented Star trek replicators and not told us.
3 - wrong, probably, depending on your definition of 'being'; society is a set of relationships.
4 - correct; only mad dictators think that one person can embody a society.
5 - wrong; 'everyone in general' is actually, 'specifically, everyone'.
6 - wrong; I am part of society, it is Cappiej who seems to think he is not.


...
Man’s mind, you say, must be subordinated to the will of Society...

No I don't. What goes on in your mind is your business. As far as I'm concerned, you can think what you like. It's when you act on that thought and impact on the rest of us that I think we get to voice our opinions.


... Man’s standard of value, you say, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute.

The purpose of man’s life, you say, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question.

His reward, you say, will be given on earth-to his great-grandchildren.

Selfishness, you cry, is man's evil. Sacrifice, you cry, is the essence of morality, the highest moral ideal man can reach...

Hey, you're really good at making stuff up mate. Perhaps you could write things for the telly.

I say nothing about sacrifice. I say that recognition of the truth that we are all the result of history, all shaped by the world around us, is fundamental to understanding what it means to be human.


...
'Sacrifice' does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. ‘Sacrifice’ does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. ‘Sacrifice’ is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t...

Don't care about your religion. I've cut lots of waffle.


... I do not recognize your right to seize the products of my mind, or to enslave me in any manner whatsoever for whatever "society" deems as good. If you want it, come and get it, because i certainly didn't stole it.

You have no 'right' to assert your own worth above anyone else's; any more than you have the 'right' to assert that gravity will not hold you. In other words, you can assert it all you like, but it doesn't matter. You are a social being who gains meaning and validation through your interaction with other people. In other words, you are a product of society. And it's up to society how society's products are used.

[cappiej]

Well, let's look at that for a moment. Let's assume that it is a fundemental component of freedom to keep the fruits of your labour.

So, there you are. And there we all are. Let's call you 'you' and us 'society'.

So, you say you want to keep the fruits of your labour. We say fair enough, does that mean that we (society) get to keep the fruits of our labour? Presumably, you'd say yes. Otherwise, you're in favour of expropriating us, in other words, you advocate thieving from the rest of us for the sake of your own selfishness. If that's what you want... well, you don't want freedom, just gangsterism.

But let's assume that you agree that society gets to control what society produces (we don't want to "keep" it, as you do, we want to use it, but we both are concerned with controlling what we produce).

What are 'your' products as opposed to social products? Well, maybe they're the things you make with the your own labour power. OK; but... where do you get the tools to make things from? Where do you get the raw materials? Are these not themselves social products?

Haven't the tools and machines been produced by the rest of us? Haven't we drilled for the oil to make the plastics, and mined the coal to make the electricity? Didn't we forge the iron to make the machines you're using?

So; these things are social products, it was our labour not yours that created them, and we get to decide what happens to them. Is there any reason we should let you appropriate our social products if you are not part of society?

But, you might reason, you could scavenge wood from trees to make tools, and win your own coal (maybe). Chances are, those trees were planted by someone, or at the very least were the result of previous social actions of land-clearance or forest management, and therefore using your logic would 'belong' to us... but let's let that go. Maybe you could go out into the wilderness and found a one-man civilisation and scavenge everything for yourself (not in England though, and wherever you were, I doubt you'd last long).

But, hang on. Society hasn't finished with you yet. We've invested 20 or more years in you. Your very body is made up of atoms derived from the food we grew, harvested, processed, transported and prepared. Done much of that lot yourself? probably not. So your body is made up social products - our products, the fruits of our labour, not yours.

But you're more than a body, surely? What about your mind? Well, we're having this conversation in English, another product of society, not an individual creation of yourself. Your education, your opinions, you found in books and evolved through discussion with other people - they are social products. And they belong to society as a whole.

Even your genetic coding was given to by your parents, who are part of society. Mentally and physically, even down to a genetic level, you are a social product. How could, in that instance, "you" claim anything as being "your product"? "You" only exist as part of society.

Now we, as society, could say, "well this bit of social product (that is, you) wants to expropriate some other social product" but that would make as much sense as my screwdriver claiming that the shelves I put up belonged to it.

Unless of course you can demonstrate that there is something of "you" that is no way derived from your mental or physical being, your genetic data, your concepts, ideas or education, training, language or any other aspect of your development that has relied on other people.

In other words, if you are a self-created entity living completely seperately from, and in ignorance of, the rest of the human race (ie 'society'), I think most of us on this forum would believe that you had some sort of claim on "your" products. Otherwise, as I think I've just shown, the idea is a nonsense.

One problem in your reasoning, its not me and society.

Its me and every other person as individual entities.

You could withold your products from me but it would be foolish as I have money to buy them with and you would be denying yourself that money that you can in turn buy things with. You have that freedom now, you make something you decide what happens to it, unless of course you agreed to make it for someone (e.g. an employer) for a fee, or wage.

I'm not talking about not relying on one another for mutual gain I'm talking about not relying on the state.

My problem is with paying for benefits grabbers and other people's medicine when I've never even been asked about it.

[cappiej]

I dont know for sure. Im not particularly advocating this. If it were up to me, it would all boil down to agreements. Would the community agree on sharing the burden of a disabled person? maybe. Would the community turn to the family of the disabled and say: we think you should work a bit harder in compensation for the community sharing its resources towards that disabled person. That could happen as well.

Likely the rationed resources of the community could support a couple hundred disabled people (depending on the size of the community).

Indeed it could, there's enough to go around of most things, but should it?

Now I feel a little sleazy when I think I'm advocating leaving paraplegics without wheelchairs or mentally handicapped people to fend for themselves but I guess its part of the individualist package.

That society COULD support a few hundred disabled people, but if they were not being supported since they don't contribute to it (well some may in a limited way but let's assume they can't as there shall inevitaby be those who can make no contribution) it would diminish the size of the contributors' rations would it not?

We COULD feed Africa but we'd have to cut down our own portion sizes, something we're not prepared to do.

[Blake's Baby]

One problem in your reasoning, its not me and society.

Its me and every other person as individual entities.

You could withold your products from me but it would be foolish as I have money to buy them with and you would be denying yourself that money that you can in turn buy things with...

No, really it isn't. I'm sure that there'd be other individualists after the revolution, you wouldn't be entirely on your own... of course, that would be a problem for you, you'd have a start a "society of individualists" and you wouyld either have to learn to get along, or end up as cannibals or *****es to the big man within a month or so; or maybe you could all sit on a hillside taking pot-shots at each other shouting "I killed this rabbit with my bare hands y'barstards!" while you slowly freeze, but hey, if that's what you like, it's not my place to stop you.

Part of the point is that you are already a social product, you are a product of this society. You idea that we have the right to our own products mean that the rest of us have say in what you do with our expended social labour.

Part of the rest of the point is that, as a socialist, I understand money is a crock of shit and we would abolish it after the revolution. So you'd have a hard time selling anything. If you're in society, you can use the goods society produces. If you don't want to be part of society, that's your choice - but why should society support you if you won't contribute? Your money is worthless. We haven't allowed you to remove our social products from our society. We repudiate the notion of trade.

[cappiej]

No, really it isn't. I'm sure that there'd be other individualists after the revolution, you wouldn't be entirely on your own... of course, that would be a problem for you, you'd have a start a "society of individualists" and you wouyld either have to learn to get along, or end up as cannibals or *****es to the big man within a month or so; or maybe you could all sit on a hillside taking pot-shots at each other shouting "I killed this rabbit with my bare hands y'barstards!" while you slowly freeze, but hey, if that's what you like, it's not my place to stop you.

Part of the point is that you are already a social product, you are a product of this society. You idea that we have the right to our own products mean that the rest of us have say in what you do with our expended social labour.

Part of the rest of the point is that, as a socialist, I understand money is a crock of shit and we would abolish it after the revolution. So you'd have a hard time selling anything. If you're in society, you can use the goods society produces. If you don't want to be part of society, that's your choice - but why should society support you if you won't contribute? Your money is worthless. We haven't allowed you to remove our social products from our society. We repudiate the notion of trade.

Society shouldn't support me full stop! Or anyone else.

[Blake's Baby]

what's the problem then? You can starve yourself after the revolution because you don't want anything to do with the rest of us, and we build socialism. In that case, the answer is, "no we don't reproduce meritocratic capitalism".

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Society shouldn't support me full stop! Or anyone else.

You live in a world populated by other people, live with it or go live in a cave.

[cappiej]

You live in a world populated by other people, live with it or go live in a cave.

Yes I do, so what? I don't have to pay for their healthcare do I, or they for mine? Just because I don't want to operate as a bloody charity doesn't mean I'm anti-social.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, it does. If you are on principle opposed to "society" then you are "anti-social".

People need to live and work together to function as human beings. You need to recognise that. No man is an island. Really.

[Jack]

How is that going to happen in an anarchist world? Whose going to provide it, the non-existant state?

Society, 'nuff said.

[Havet]

Why? Individuals only have meaning as components of a society. You may as well say 'speaking of people is confusing, why not speak of cells?'

Using the tern individual just happened to be more easy to understand and explain phenomena than using the blank word "society".


We are social beings. It is our interactions with other people that give us meaning as human beings. Deducing the worth or rationality of human action from the point of view of the individual is ultimately pretty meaningless, because 1 - a single human being is not a viable unit of survival, and therefore any particular individual matters less than a society, and 2 - people's subjective opinions are necessarily so fragmented that any attempt to extrapolate from the specific to the general is doomed to failure.

You cannot deduce the course of World war Two by reading Spike Milligan's Diaries, and by the same token, any particular attempt you might make to determine what is meaningful in human existence starting from the specific individual is pointless.

No I don't. What goes on in your mind is your business. As far as I'm concerned, you can think what you like. It's when you act on that thought and impact on the rest of us that I think we get to voice our opinions.


I say nothing about sacrifice. I say that recognition of the truth that we are all the result of history, all shaped by the world around us, is fundamental to understanding what it means to be human.

You have no 'right' to assert your own worth above anyone else's; any more than you have the 'right' to assert that gravity will not hold you. In other words, you can assert it all you like, but it doesn't matter. You are a social being who gains meaning and validation through your interaction with other people. In other words, you are a product of society. And it's up to society how society's products are used.

Interactions with other people might be what give you meaning as a human, but it doesnt give me meaning.

Every human can be a single unit of survival. If that were not the case, humans would have never lasted so long until now. How am i a single unit of survival? I have a brain, that thinks, that can make logical conclusions, and i can hunt or discover how to farm and use the knowledge to my survival.

Man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. If the products of my work were from society (who may or may not have done anything about them), then I am a slave, because a slave by definition:

Slavery is a form of forced labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor) in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remuneration) (such as wages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages)).

Sure there is no whip, but i don't get to keep the product of my work, because it belongs to "society". This is EXPLOITATION.

Yet you keep saying that everything about me is a product of society. Well, actually no. Everything you now see around you (well mostly anything) was a product of individuals being free to receive the products of their labor and trading it. When you trade something, you exchange ownership. This is why a carpenter that exchanges a chair he made for a bread the baker baked no longer OWNS the chair but now OWNS the bread.

Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality-to think, to work and to keep the results-which means: the right of property.

Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort.

You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent, and this is how most of the genius structures and machines you see today were created and traded.

[Blake's Baby]

Except, pretty much everything that has been produced for the last 5,000 years has been produced by class societies, therefore, under unfree conditions, and this is why socialists reject the notion of private ownership. You cannot 'own' the products 'you' produce, as that implies that we, who produced you, and everything that you used to produce 'your' products (food, raw materials, techniques, language and all the rest), own both you and those products.

Honestly, if you were a self-created being with no connection to the rest of us (perhaps a psychic alien from another planet), then you'd have a point. But you're not, so you don't.

Let's consider.

It's the morning after the revolution. we are all happy, you are sad, because you have give up being exploited and become a fully rounded human being who is forced to live in a society where you have to take responsibility for other human beings. NO! you say. I will not do it!

So, while we are all getting on with stuff and making each other breakfast, you decide that you will strike out on your own. You walk - somewhere - where there is no one else. You find some wild grass. You plant it. It's now lunch time, and you've missed breakfast. Never mind, you think, in 4 months or so I'll have something I can make into bread. And at least none of those lazy bastards is going to get any of my labour power.

Within 2 months, you have died, in a field. You never do get any breakfast.

This is why, in a nutshell, 1 human being is not a unit of survival, and talk of the 'individual' as the basis of society is a nonsense.

[Havet]

Except, pretty much everything that has been produced for the last 5,000 years has been produced by class societies, therefore, under unfree conditions, and this is why socialists reject the notion of private ownership. You cannot 'own' the products 'you' produce, as that implies that we, who produced you, and everything that you used to produce 'your' products (food, raw materials, techniques, language and all the rest), own both you and those products.

Honestly, if you were a self-created being with no connection to the rest of us (perhaps a psychic alien from another planet), then you'd have a point. But you're not, so you don't.

Ok let me make my point even clearer so i can be sure you really understand what I am saying:

You say i am productof society, and that it's society, not me, who gets to decide on the products of my labor/action.

But since i am a part of society (that which you havent defined yet), then i have an equal say on everybody's products of labor as they have in mine.

There must be some way for society to decide what to do, so lets assume democratic vote.

There will obviously be some clashes of interests, so lets assume "society" takes care of this by defining that whatever the majority votes, goes.

Again there will be clashes of interests, by a minority. But since "society" defined the will of the majority is that goes, the minority is powerless.

This if the majority votes to take away the minorities products because they argue:
1)they belong to the rest of society and
2)the minority would not manage them like the majority wants

then effectively the minority becomes the sacrificial animals who are to be enslaved and exploited by everyone else. And a society based on plunder and brutality and human sacrifices is wrong.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Also you never define ownership. What is your definition of ownership so that I have an equal say in my neighbour's TV as he has in his own tv?

The fact that I exist allows me to claim ownership of other people's property? Why?

I have not "mixed my labor" with it, which is a common communist definition to justify workers being able to own what they create when employed.

So why could I ever claim I own, or society owns, a new motor that was just invented? Was the idea taken from society by force? No, it was invented. Were the materials necessary to build the motor taken by force? Most inventors, including new motor inventions as the example, get the materials by trade and by recognizing the ability for individuals to possess or own property.

[Blake's Baby]

No, I say you are a product of society. You say that the producer has the right to it's product. Therefore, by your logic, we own you.

I think we own everything in common. And that means you, as long as you are a member of society, get to make as many decisions and have the same input as the rest of us.

Consider the lillies...

No, consider going to the pub. You and your mates are talking about going out. 3 of you fancy the Dog and Flatcap, but 2 fancy Bar Pretensioso. Do you enslave the two mates who disagree, and get them to buy you drinks all night, for being a minority? Of course not, because you're not arseholes. So what's the problem? Of course people will disagree. But the maximum imput into decision making is better than "the rich man decides" which is what we have now.

[Havet]

No, I say you are a product of society. You say that the producer has the right to it's product. Therefore, by your logic, we own you.


my parents are the only ones who produced me. Everything else i consumed until now was voluntarily traded through everyone else's consent (or mostly at least)

[trivas7]

No, I say you are a product of society.
What do you mean by this?

[Blake's Baby]

my parents are the only ones who produced me. Everything else i consumed until now was voluntarily traded through everyone else's consent (or mostly at least)

No it wasn't, because capitalism is an exploitative social system in which consent is forced and property is theft. Engels said "the state is gangs of armed men organised for the defence of private property". Everything 'voluntarily traded' was expropriated from someone, which is why socialists don't accept capitalist property.

Everything that you have consumed up until now, food, electricity, plastic, ideas, language, has been a product of society (the interaction between human beings). Therefore you are a product of society. And, if the producer has the 'right' to its product, society has the 'right' to you.

And I hope that answers Trivas 7's question too.

[Havet]

Everything that you have consumed up until now, food, electricity, plastic, ideas, language, has been a product of society (the interaction between human beings). Therefore you are a product of society. And, if the producer has the 'right' to its product, society has the 'right' to you.

And I hope that answers Trivas 7's question too.

Let's see...

I produce an apple. I trade the apple for a chair. The guy who made the chair eats the apple. Have i now produced the guy who made the chair? No. Yet that is the assumption you have been basing on to claim everyone is a product of society.

Hey i don't like capitalists as well, and the state even more, but many of the things you are criticizing would have happened with or without any state and with or without any capitalists as a result of people following different self-interests.

[Blake's Baby]

How do you produce an apple, not being an apple tree?

Is your need to sit down the same as the chair-maker's need not to starve? If not, there is an element of coercion involved in the excghange. You could sit on the floor, he could starve.

Your example is meaningless. As I don't believe that "individual producers" have the right to "their own" product, that isn't a problem for me, but it is for you.

Yes, I agree, the chair-producing apple-eating man is a product of society. The social interaction (that you don't think exists, from what I can gather) is you giving the apple to him. Does that mean he belongs to "you"? Of course not. He is a member of society, just as you are. You persist in thinking of all of this as confering some sort of "ownership" when I've repeatedly said it doesn't.

So my version of what you say is:




Obviously this is not really what was said
Let's see...

I put some social labour into tending apple trees. I give an apple to a man who puts his social labour into making chairs. The guy who makes the chairs eats the apple. Society has continued its investment in the guy who made the chair.

I want to sit down. I find a chair. It was made by the guy who ate the apple. What a harmonious social balance we have acheived.

Hey i don't like capitalists as well, and the state even more, but many of the things you are criticizing would have happened with or without any state and with or without any capitalists as a result of people following different self-interests.

As for the last bit, I don't remember claiming otherwise. All class societies are based on differential access to the means of production. But it's also as much "self interest" to live in a free access society. I think my interests would definately be served by a society where all of my material needs could be met, allowing me to freedom to persue more 'spiritual' endevours.

[Havet]

Is your need to sit down the same as the chair-maker's need not to starve? If not, there is an element of coercion involved in the excghange. You could sit on the floor, he could starve.

If not, there is no coercing here. For someone to be coerced, someone has to be coercing him. Who is? I'm not certainly coercing him, because i did nothing at all. I didn't use threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force, which is why i didn't engage in leverage, to get the "victim" to act in a certain way.

Unless for you nature itself is coercion, because you are the victim of the universe, because you have to supply for yourself, follow a specific path, to get food to survive.


Your example is meaningless. As I don't believe that "individual producers" have the right to "their own" product, that isn't a problem for me, but it is for you. It is for me because you keep using the term society which is not useful to describe and understand human action.


Yes, I agree, the chair-producing apple-eating man is a product of society. The social interaction (that you don't think exists, from what I can gather) is you giving the apple to him. Does that mean he belongs to "you"? Of course not. He is a member of society, just as you are. You persist in thinking of all of this as confering some sort of "ownership" when I've repeatedly said it doesn't.

There is a social interaction, but its done between individuals, not "society".


I put some social labour into tending apple trees. I give an apple to a man who puts his social labour into making chairs. The guy who makes the chairs eats the apple. Society has continued its investment in the guy who made the chair.

I want to sit down. I find a chair. It was made by the guy who ate the apple. What a harmonious social balance we have acheived.



Society has not made any investment, because all the other people, in that particular instance, didn't engage in any activity. It was an activity done exclusively by 2 human beings, alone. Yes, in order for both of them to exist, they had to consume, but it was not "society" (which is actually a weasel word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) in this case) that allowed them to live. It was different people supplying different products and services to meet demand (with a varying degree of coercion by capitalists and the state depending in a specific case) that allowed them to live.

[Blake's Baby]

And your point is?

Nature for me is not co-ercion. The urge to eat is not coercive, but the act of withholding food from someone who needs it is co-ercion; this is not nature, because private property is not 'natural'.

If you have an apple, and a starving man has a chair, and you will only give him the apple if he gives you the chair, you have coerced him. You have used the implicit threat of starvation to get a chair out of him at what can only be considered a bargain price. Under normal (not-starving) circumstances, he would say, "f*** you pal, you'd have to give me 200 apples for the chair, but what would I do with 200 apples? Give me $80 instead."

Of course "society has made an investment", this man with the chair (whether hungry or not) is not a spontaneously self-created alien being that popped into existence (with his chair) a second before you decided you needed to get rid of your apple; he is a human being, who belongs to a human society, has grown up in it, been fed clothed and educated in it, and even learned how to make chairs in it - whether that happened in a society of free access (ie socialism), or a society of oppression and exploitation (eg capitalism, or any other class society) is irrelevent.

It would only be an interaction "exclusively betweem 2 people alone" if neither of the actors involved had been shaped in any way by the anything done ever by other human beings.

But as that idea is frankly madness, then the whole set-up you posit is flawed to the point of being meaningless.

The entire set-up of the intereaction with chair-man is in fact conditioned by a series of other interactions going back to... well, further than any of us can untangle. As Marx said, we make history, but we don't chose the circumstances in which we make it. The circumstances are always constraining or influencing factors on what we do. Among these factors are social factors. All of the things that happened before you were born contribute to who you were at birth (you didn't chose any of that, nor did you buy it off anyone who did), the schools your parents sent you too, the lives of the people who chose to work in them, all of this rich tapestry of existence has combined to produce the "you" that you are.

Of course, you think you just "freely chose" to be as you are. But if that's the case, it would be really spooky that you happen to have chosen to speak the same language as your neighbours, you chose to exist inside capitalism spookily like all the other people that you live around (weird co-incidence, huh?)... if it was all free choice, then the man has chosen to only conduct business in Catalan; he has also chosen not to be constrained by your concept of law; he also has chosen to work on a 27 hour clock, and when you approach him with the apple he is asleep; he has chosen to poke all apple-offerers with sticks.

Is any of this likely? No, because there are socially derived rules. Really there are, whether you can see them or not, and no matter how many people you think are weasels.

[Havet]

And your point is?

Points being debated:

-The word "society" as a concept is not very useful
-Using the word "society" to describe complex individual interactions in order to argument against private property is flawed.


Nature for me is not co-ercion. The urge to eat is not coercive, but the act of withholding food from someone who needs it is co-ercion; this is not nature, because private property is not 'natural'.So in nature, you wouldn't have to work to get your food? you wouldn't have to produce? or to act? it would fly just to your mouth? Interesting

The man who made the apple had to bear a cost: his time, his effort, his knowledge. You (chair maker) bared a cost as well. Why can't you accept that he can do whatever he wants with the apple like you can do whatever you can do with the chair? Because its an essential product? Then you go get it yourself. The man who made the apple did not exploy any workers and it certainly doesn't have the monopoly on resources, knowledge, time. If he had the monopoly, then you would be right in complaining.



If you have an apple, and a starving man has a chair, and you will only give him the apple if he gives you the chair, you have coerced him. You have used the implicit threat of starvation to get a chair out of him at what can only be considered a bargain price. Under normal (not-starving) circumstances, he would say, "f*** you pal, you'd have to give me 200 apples for the chair, but what would I do with 200 apples? Give me $80 instead."If thats your definition of coercion, and you find coercion bad, then I DEMAND you give me any food you have in exchange for a pen that i have. Otherwise you are coercing me because i can starve.


Of course "society has made an investment", this man with the chair (whether hungry or not) is not a spontaneously self-created alien being that popped into existence (with his chair) a second before you decided you needed to get rid of your apple; he is a human being, who belongs to a human society, has grown up in it, been fed clothed and educated in it, and even learned how to make chairs in it - whether that happened in a society of free access (ie socialism), or a society of oppression and exploitation (eg capitalism, or any other class society) is irrelevent.ok. he has grown thanks to several people who contributed to this. He owes them nothing, because his parents already traded something for the growth of their children initially.


It would only be an interaction "exclusively betweem 2 people alone" if neither of the actors involved had been shaped in any way by the anything done ever by other human beings. there you go, you're starting to adopt a less weasel word: human beings. SOME humans SHAPED their lives. Not "society", because society englobes everyone. Now inside that category of "some humans", we have individual x which started a school, and individual y who made the design of the chair he learned at school, and so on.


All of the things that happened before you were born contribute to who you were at birth (you didn't chose any of that, nor did you buy it off anyone who did), the schools your parents sent you too, the lives of the people who chose to work in them, all of this rich tapestry of existence has combined to produce the "you" that you are.Yes, before i was born i didn't choose anything. Nor could I a few years after my birth. But after that I CAN CHOOSE. I can choose to get a new hair, to change my body, to believe in other ideas, to do new things, etc


Of course, you think you just "freely chose" to be as you are. But if that's the case, it would be really spooky that you happen to have chosen to speak the same language as your neighbours, you chose to exist inside capitalism spookily like all the other people that you live around (weird co-incidence, huh?)... if it was all free choice, then the man has chosen to only conduct business in Catalan; he has also chosen not to be constrained by your concept of law; he also has chosen to work on a 27 hour clock, and when you approach him with the apple he is asleep; he has chosen to poke all apple-offerers with sticks. I havent chosen to speak that language, i was "forced" (kinda strong word) by my parents and the school. But i can NOW choose to speak other languages. I can NOW choose to go to other non-capitalist (or less capitalist) societies.


Is any of this likely? No, because there are socially derived rules. Really there are, whether you can see them or not, and no matter how many people you think are weasels.Yes i agree, there are socially derived rules. This is called emergent order, but it doesnt serve to justify any of the "points we were debating" i mentioned above.

[Blake's Baby]

So to you 'withholding food' is the same as 'having to work'? Wow. What a strange world you live in. Can't even begin to tease that apart, because you are like Humpty Dumpty. Whatever word you use, you use exactly as you wish with no conception of how other people use it.

You can't demand I give you food for a pen. Unless you live in a different world from the one I live in (which is possible, given the oddness of many of your statemants) we both live in a capitalist system. In capitalism, unless I have a very good reason to give you something, I won't.

We don't accept the valididty of the 'trades' you speak of. Everything under capitalism is the result of unequal power relations. These are not 'chosen'. They are historically determined. If you live in America, then you inherited the conception of property in your society from England; England inherited it from the Catholic Church, the Church found it lying around down the back of the Roman Empire somewhere.

The reason the Church established property relations on individuals rather was that communities - in this case families and others with customary rights to proerties - kept getting pissed off when individuals left them to the Church (to pay for priests to prey for those individuals' souls). Individual property was not a concept recognised by the 'barbarians' who replaced Roman society, so it was necessary for the Church to introduce the concept.

At what stage did you as an autonomous individual "chose" to live in a society with property relations established in the 6th century and modified subsequently by feudalism and capitalism? Did it just occur to you, or did you have a meeting? A vote maybe? Or did you just, you know, make it up?

What does "englobe" mean? Bedeck with spheres? Turn into a planet?

You seem quite bright, so I'm surprised that you have so much problem with the concept of society. You know what a family is, yes? You understand the concept of a group of friends? How about fellow-passengers on a bus? People in your neighbourhood? You can get your head round the idea that people can form groups, yes?

Well, every single human being that has ever existed is the result of interactions between other groups of human beings - in other words "societies". Everything produced by people is the result of these interactions also (and obviously, the result of these inteactions on the natural world). These are therefore all "social products" - the result of "social interactions".

So, the collection of all human beings throughout history - in other words, society - has produced the world we have today. Everything that people have produced has been the result of thoughts and actions that are themselves social processes. Fot the last 5,000 years or so these social interactions have taken place on the basis of class society, that is unequal power relations viv a vis the means of production; as a result of this, for socialists, all the laws and customs relating to property are just justifications for these unequal relations. We repudiate them.

[Havet]

So to you 'withholding food' is the same as 'having to work'? Wow. What a strange world you live in. Can't even begin to tease that apart, because you are like Humpty Dumpty. Whatever word you use, you use exactly as you wish with no conception of how other people use it.

You can't demand I give you food for a pen. Unless you live in a different world from the one I live in (which is possible, given the oddness of many of your statemants) we both live in a capitalist system. In capitalism, unless I have a very good reason to give you something, I won't.

We don't accept the valididty of the 'trades' you speak of. Everything under capitalism is the result of unequal power relations. These are not 'chosen'. They are historically determined. If you live in America, then you inherited the conception of property in your society from England; England inherited it from the Catholic Church, the Church found it lying around down the back of the Roman Empire somewhere.

The reason the Church established property relations on individuals rather was that communities - in this case families and others with customary rights to proerties - kept getting pissed off when individuals left them to the Church (to pay for priests to prey for those individuals' souls). Individual property was not a concept recognised by the 'barbarians' who replaced Roman society, so it was necessary for the Church to introduce the concept.

At what stage did you as an autonomous individual "chose" to live in a society with property relations established in the 6th century and modified subsequently by feudalism and capitalism? Did it just occur to you, or did you have a meeting? A vote maybe? Or did you just, you know, make it up?

What does "englobe" mean? Bedeck with spheres? Turn into a planet?

You seem quite bright, so I'm surprised that you have so much problem with the concept of society. You know what a family is, yes? You understand the concept of a group of friends? How about fellow-passengers on a bus? People in your neighbourhood? You can get your head round the idea that people can form groups, yes?

Please read my arguments carefully

Withholding food from someone is not coercion. Sure it's terrible (for the hungry fellow), but its not coercion. The apple owner does not owe him a debt for his knowledge on growing apples. Nobody owes anybody else anything - except freedom, but that isn't in one hands to give, it's man's natural state (although throughout most history this has not been the case).

Coercion (pronounced /kɵˈɜrʒən/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English) or /kɵˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation), trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. These are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility) of a threat

The man who made the apple had to bear a cost: his time, his effort, his knowledge. You (chair maker) bared a cost as well. Why can't you accept that he can do whatever he wants with the apple like you can do whatever you can do with the chair? Because its an essential product? Then you go get it yourself. The man who made the apple did not exploy any workers and it certainly doesn't have the monopoly on resources, knowledge, time. If he had the monopoly, then you would be right in complaining.

So if you can only give me food if i offer something valuable to you in return, why do you project the same scenario but with different conclusions to the apple/chair example? Because of the system? Let's imagine there is no "system", just you and me (which in this particular case, even in capitalism, is what actually happens). Nobody is forcing you to decide, so you make the call.

Most things under capitalism are, in effect, the results of unequal power relation. In a free society, relations are done in a more equal stance, both for workers and employers, or for self-sustaining people, or for communities, communes and collectives.

The problem with the word society is the following: society is the sum of all groups of people, like you said. If certain group of people engage in an action, but some other groups don't (which is mostly the case), then "society" as a whole can't be held accountable, when there are clearly cases where some members did not engage in such activity and oppose it. Example: jewish genocide by nazi germany. Jewish people were a group of the german society. So were other germans that didn't engage in the massacre. Should all germans be held accountable for the massacre? No, only the ones who actually engaged in it directly or indirectly.

This also applies for groups. A group is the sum of a certain number of individuals. One cannot claim a "group" did this or that unless all the members engaged in the action and/or accepted it. I have nothing against the use the word, but in the matters we are discussing it is simply a confusing word.


Well, every single human being that has ever existed is the result of interactions between other groups of human beings - in other words "societies". Everything produced by people is the result of these interactions also (and obviously, the result of these inteactions on the natural world). These are therefore all "social products" - the result of "social interactions".

So, the collection of all human beings throughout history - in other words, society - has produced the world we have today. Everything that people have produced has been the result of thoughts and actions that are themselves social processes. Fot the last 5,000 years or so these social interactions have taken place on the basis of class society, that is unequal power relations viv a vis the means of production; as a result of this, for socialists, all the laws and customs relating to property are just justifications for these unequal relations. We repudiate them.

There you go, you are again using the word society that further complicates discussion:

The collection of ALL human beings throughout history has NOT produced the world we have today.

What has been produced exactly?

Technological development, infrastructures, buildings, science, medicine, etc.

Who has done it?

Architects, engineers, workers, doctors, scientists.

By further breaking down, we can clearly see that not ALL architects, engineers, workers, doctors and scientists contributed to the current world. Some things were created without these people: a person decided to build his own house without any knowledge of architecture, someone accidentally discovered a new way to produce something, etc.

Of course MOST times new advances ARE INDEED the work of these highly skilled and/or unskilled people, but that doesn't mean its the case everytime, and as such its very dangerous to go on and start engaging in hasty generalizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)because these can be used to justify a lot of ethnic and racial conflicts (not that i think you are doing it btw).

[Misanthrope]

If the state magically disappeared presently, then yes capitalism would most likely emerge. That is why any sensible revolutionary pushes reform.

[Jack]

If the state magically disappeared presently, then yes capitalism would most likely emerge. That is why any sensible revolutionary pushes reform.

That's why we push revolution, reform is counterproductive.

[Misanthrope]

That's why we push revolution, reform is counterproductive.

So if you overthrow the state tomorrow how will you organize society, do you expect workers to organize in collectives? I think they would just recreate the state without prior organization and autogestion. Just overthrowing the state and killing capitalists is counter productive.

[StalinFanboy]

So if you overthrow the state tomorrow how will you organize society, do you expect workers to organize in collectives? I think they would just recreate the state without prior organization and autogestion. Just overthrowing the state and killing capitalists is counter productive.
No. The road to revolution involves communizing our neighborhoods and increasing conflict with state and capital. NOT reform.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Withholding food from someone is not coercion...

Coercion ... is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation), trickery, or some other form of pressure or force...

Yup, and withholding food from a hungry person to get a chair cheap is manipulating someone through action or inaction. Please read your arguments carefully.


...
... Should all germans be held accountable for the massacre? No, only the ones who actually engaged in it directly or indirectly...

What does 'indirectly' mean? The ones who knew but did nothing, like the British and American governments who refused to bomb the railway lines? Are they responsible? What about the train drivers? Are they responsible? What about the railway engineers? Are they responsible? What about the people who make the sandwiches that the train drivers had for lunch? What about the cobbler who mended the shoes of the man who went to work at the bakery that made the bread that the bus driver who took the railway engineer to work, who fixed the points so that the next day a train taking 1,000 people to Auschwitz could go through? Who exactly is responsible?


...
This also applies for groups. A group is the sum of a certain number of individuals. One cannot claim a "group" did this or that unless all the members engaged in the action and/or accepted it. I have nothing against the use the word, but in the matters we are discussing it is simply a confusing word...

Not everyone in Americca speaks English. So, "Americans don't speak English" is a reasonable statement in your book is it?

Seems to me that you're the only person who finds the term "society" confusing.


...
The collection of ALL human beings throughout history has NOT produced the world we have today.

What has been produced exactly?

Technological development, infrastructures, buildings, science, medicine, etc.

Who has done it?

Architects, engineers, workers, doctors, scientists...

Yeah, everyone has in some ways contributed to everything.

A bloke called Tony dropped a fag packet on the street. He made the world a slightly different place. A woman called Maureen led her children across the road at a particular time, meaning that the bus slowed down instead of running the lights and knocking over a chap called Sean, on his way to a conference about how to make internet connections work better. Trevor, the old man down the road, has been personally responsible for turning at least 8 young children turning from a potential life of crime. In the future, more than 2,000 people in his neighbourhood will be spared petty crime because of it...


...

Of course MOST times new advances ARE INDEED the work of these highly skilled and/or unskilled people, but that doesn't mean its the case everytime, and as such its very dangerous to go on and start engaging in hasty generalizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)because these can be used to justify a lot of ethnic and racial conflicts (not that i think you are doing it btw).

Yes; and Dr Asid, who has just pioneered a new form of cancer treatment, did it through the support work of 35 people in the labs, who themselves were trained by 600 other people over the years, in statistics and bio-chemistry and a whole host of other disciplines; they were transported over the three years of the project by more than 3,000 transport workers, their workplaces were cleaned by 70 ancilliary staff, the supplies (made in 35 different factories employing 27,000 staff) were brought by 800 delivery workers whose vehicles were built and serviced by more than 3,000 staff, the results were announced over time in 60 magazines (combined staff 18,000 people) and on more than 600 websites (12,000 regular contributors), the computers at the lab were serviced by the IT department of 40 people, built by 700 more, the software they used was written by 40 different companies employing more than 160,000; and after all this, if his life was just work, and transport to and from work, DR Asid would be dead because he hasn't eaten anything. And neither has anyone else involved.

The 1.2 million food production (farming, processing, cooking, catering staff, food retailers, and the transport and support staff for all these, etc) workers and family support (his wife making the dinner etc) have all contributed to this process. So; while Dr Asid may be the name on the front of Scientific American, without the work of all these 1.5 million other people, he wouldn't have been able to do his job.

"For the want of a nail, a shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe, a horse was lost; for the want of a horse, a rider was lost; for the want of a rider, a message was lost; for the want of a message, the battle was lost; and all for the want of a nail" (I quote from memory).

And yet, you insist that in wars, nails are not important - at times you even seem to claim there are no nails, or at least no processes leading from nails, merely riders, who are independent of anything else. You are, how can I put this, "wrong" I think is the word I'm looking for.

[Havet]

Yup, and withholding food from a hungry person to get a chair cheap is manipulating someone through action or inaction. Please read your arguments carefully. It would be in monopoly, if the person had all the food., therefore there would be coercion. But there isn't any monopoly, so the chair maker can find a better deal somewhere else.


What does 'indirectly' mean? The ones who knew but did nothing, like the British and American governments who refused to bomb the railway lines? Are they responsible? What about the train drivers? Are they responsible? What about the railway engineers? Are they responsible? What about the people who make the sandwiches that the train drivers had for lunch? What about the cobbler who mended the shoes of the man who went to work at the bakery that made the bread that the bus driver who took the railway engineer to work, who fixed the points so that the next day a train taking 1,000 people to Auschwitz could go through? Who exactly is responsible?

The ones who should be held responsible are the ones that ACTIVELY (aka directly) killed and enslaved those people. Those that acted indirectly are, for example, the people who led to the arrest of some jews and that denounced them, or that offered their own resources to help track the jews (money, food). Some people even pretended to befriend with jews so as to trap them more easily. Clearly this is wrong.

Now people who did nothing had no moral obligation towards others. The british and american governments are not responsible for the death of the jews, even though they could have prevented them. They are not the ones who wished them to be killed, and acted to make it happen. Their INACTION doesn't count as ACTION, and therefore fails to prove how they were directly or indirectly responsible for their murder.

The train drivers (im assumign the ones who took the jews into concentration camps) are indirectly responsble. They allowed their death to happen. They contributed to it. And the railways engineers who specifically made the lines and the trains to transport the jews, knowing they will be killed, are also accountable. But not the others who didn't know. If people know, or have the resources to know they are doing harm, then they are indirectly suporting the actions.


Not everyone in Americca speaks English. So, "Americans don't speak English" is a reasonable statement in your book is it?

No, but it would be a reasonable statement in your book. It is you who like to use flawed concepts that do not describe human action in an optimum way. Since not everyone in america speak english, then the sentence "AMERICAN'S DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH" is as flawed as the sentence "AMERICANS SPEAK ENGLISH". Therefore we must abandon that word to better describe what is happening: X% americans speak english and Y% of americans speak spanish and Z% of americans speak portuguese and so on.


Yeah, everyone has in some ways contributed to everything.

A bloke called Tony dropped a fag packet on the street. He made the world a slightly different place. A woman called Maureen led her children across the road at a particular time, meaning that the bus slowed down instead of running the lights and knocking over a chap called Sean, on his way to a conference about how to make internet connections work better. Trevor, the old man down the road, has been personally responsible for turning at least 8 young children turning from a potential life of crime. In the future, more than 2,000 people in his neighbourhood will be spared petty crime because of it...

Not EVERYONE contributed to it. You can't judge actions by all the little things that happened to support it, but for the actually intended effort done at making it. This is why a person who makes the food an engineer will eat is NOT responsible for the contruction of the building that follows.



Yes; and Dr Asid, who has just pioneered a new form of cancer treatment, did it through the support work of 35 people in the labs, who themselves were trained by 600 other people over the years, in statistics and bio-chemistry and a whole host of other disciplines; they were transported over the three years of the project by more than 3,000 transport workers, their workplaces were cleaned by 70 ancilliary staff, the supplies (made in 35 different factories employing 27,000 staff) were brought by 800 delivery workers whose vehicles were built and serviced by more than 3,000 staff, the results were announced over time in 60 magazines (combined staff 18,000 people) and on more than 600 websites (12,000 regular contributors), the computers at the lab were serviced by the IT department of 40 people, built by 700 more, the software they used was written by 40 different companies employing more than 160,000; and after all this, if his life was just work, and transport to and from work, DR Asid would be dead because he hasn't eaten anything. And neither has anyone else involved.

The 1.2 million food production (farming, processing, cooking, catering staff, food retailers, and the transport and support staff for all these, etc) workers and family support (his wife making the dinner etc) have all contributed to this process. So; while Dr Asid may be the name on the front of Scientific American, without the work of all these 1.5 million other people, he wouldn't have been able to do his job.

"For the want of a nail, a shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe, a horse was lost; for the want of a horse, a rider was lost; for the want of a rider, a message was lost; for the want of a message, the battle was lost; and all for the want of a nail" (I quote from memory).

And yet, you insist that in wars, nails are not important - at times you even seem to claim there are no nails, or at least no processes leading from nails, merely riders, who are independent of anything else. You are, how can I put this, "wrong" I think is the word I'm looking for.

You can't judge actions by all the little things that happened to support it, but for the actually intended effort done at making it. This is why a person who makes the food an engineer will eat is NOT responsible for the contruction of the building that follows.

[Outinleftfield]

Okay, a hypothetical situation for the anarchists among us to mull over.

In this anarchist society a farmer falls ill, he begs a Doctor to treat him, sensing an opportunity the Doctor says, "Yeah, of course, but its going to cost you your farm, your entire farm's produce and your farmhouse". This farmer can either die or agree to the Doctor's terms, the Doctor becomes rich doing this over and over again.

He and the other Doctors agree not to teach anyone other than their own sons and daughters the medical profession, to ensure you end up with a system of ultra-wealthy Doctors, who in addition to inheriting all that their parents have earned 'exploiting' sick people are able to do the same. This goes on for five or six generations and you end up with the Rockefellers and Oppenheimers of your new society.

How do you stop this system arising?

Even if the doctors did try to do this who would enforce their property rights? I assume that if we have an anarchist society most people agree with the basic principles of anarchism, so most people would see the doctors exploitation of the farmer as illegitimate and the farmer would be free not to give the doctor any of his property and if the doctor tried to enforce his 'property rights' other anarchists would help the farmer defend himself and his labor from the doctor.

Furthermore how are the doctors going to make sure all the doctors in the country are on the same page? What if some doctors think this idea is wrong (which admit it would inevitably happen)?


And out of interest, without a government to intervene won't people with guns and bombs and grenades and the rest of it just march in and take over other people's property. If you think buying property fair and square is theft, which you clearly have indicated that you do, wouldn't this be 10 times worse?

Do you think people who don't commit crimes because of harm that could come to them from the government care whether it's the government that's doing it? As long as society responds to violent crime in some way it will be dealt with. I doubt in an anarchist people are just going to sit back and let people run around taking other people's labor like they do in capitalism. People will organize and defend themselves.

[Havet]

Even if the doctors did try to do this who would enforce their property rights? I assume that if we have an anarchist society most people agree with the basic principles of anarchism, so most people would see the doctors exploitation of the farmer as illegitimate and the farmer would be free not to give the doctor any of his property and if the doctor tried to enforce his 'property rights' other anarchists would help the farmer defend himself and his labor from the doctor.

Furthermore how are the doctors going to make sure all the doctors in the country are on the same page? What if some doctors think this idea is wrong (which admit it would inevitably happen)?



Do you think people who don't commit crimes because of harm that could come to them from the government care whether it's the government that's doing it? As long as society responds to violent crime in some way it will be dealt with. I doubt in an anarchist people are just going to sit back and let people run around taking other people's labor like they do in capitalism. People will organize and defend themselves.

good post, although i wouldnt bother, he's banned already...