Is State and Law Neccessary?

[PoliticalNightmare]

I am still a little confused as to whether I am more leaning towards Marxism (authoratarianism, with state) or Anarchism (libertarianism, without state). Please correct me if i have erred.

At the moment I consider myself more of a libertarian socialist, but not quite an anarchist, as I (currently) believe, with my limited knowledge, that a government with limited powers, i.e. perhaps one who makes decisions only on the basis that they have been voted democratically by the general public with no high positions such as president, etc., and a community with very few, basic laws would be best.

However, I know that this forum is fairly split between authoritarianism and libertarianism and I would like to know what the views are from both sides.

Thanks.

[Nolan]

Depends what you mean by necessary.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Depends what you mean by necessary.

For society to operate and to implement socialism.

[Bud Struggle]

Without getting too far into the theoretics of this (others can do so better than I) it seems to me that Anarchims is a better way of life--but it may be very difficult to achieve and even more difficult to maintain, at least on any scale in real life.

You may need a smattering of some government structure to create some sort of stability.

[Nolan]

For society to operate and to implement socialism.

1. No

2. I'd say yes.

[PoliticalNightmare]

1. No

2. I'd say yes.

Are there any other circumstances for which you or anyone else think state and/or law are or aren't necessary?

One thing I'm trying to get my head around is the 'no laws' argument from anarchist, except for maybe 'do as you please but without hurting anyone else'. They say that complicated laws are only present to dominate society but what if, for instance, someone was to accidentally crash their car into someone else's? This wouldn't be an infringement on anyone else's liberty (at least not deliberately) but surely complex laws regarding road rules, insurance, etc. would be needed to provide a just decision. Or would a tribune of ordinary people decide on the outcome? If so, how can we guarantee that ignorance would not affect the fairness of the decisions made?

I'd like to hear off of both anarchists and marxists in this thread.

[RGacky3]

Without getting too far into the theoretics of this (others can do so better than I) it seems to me that Anarchims is a better way of life--but it may be very difficult to achieve and even more difficult to maintain, at least on any scale in real life.

You may need a smattering of some government structure to create some sort of stability.

Anarchism is'nt exactly a system of governemnt, its a philosophy, whether or not there is some government structure is not the issue, its what the precident is, and what the rationality behind it is, government is a very loose word, it depends what is ment by government, if by government you mean desicion making body then yeah, but if you mean institutionalized power, then no.

[#FF0000]

Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is a hugely loaded word and literally no one except for a few idiots actually use it to define themselves. The dichotomy between "authoritarianism" and "Libertarianism" is sort of a false one and it's nowhere near so black and white.

[Nolan]

Authoritarianism is a hugely loaded word and literally no one except for a few idiots actually use it to define themselves. The dichotomy between "authoritarianism" and "Libertarianism" is sort of a false one and it's nowhere near so black and white.

This. Only libertarian is used as a self-descriptor by any group. And the most "libertarian" of revolutions will still be born by violent revolution against the capitalist state: which is a very "authoritarian" act. If you realize socialist revolution is a process then yes, "libertarianism vs. authoritarianism" is a false dichotomy.

[Conquer or Die]

The state, in its ideal form, would be to equally apply responsibility to everybody. Stable political structures are those which are able to at least concede this basic premise. The failures of Leninist Republican rule and the failure of enforced segregation are both indicators that any attempt to subvert this will naturally engage revolution and resistance to the overall detriment of a stable political system.

[mikelepore]

Are there any other circumstances for which you or anyone else think state and/or law are or aren't necessary?

Laws are necessary any time there are two or more human beings on earth. The ways to establish laws and enforce laws vary, but they are always present. If there were two people in the world, but no laws, and then one of the two people picked up a big stick, now there would be laws. Better methods than that have been invented, but that's only an issue of better methods, and one way or another the existence of laws is universal.

[synthesis]

I've been juggling this idea around in my head for awhile, but it's not fully fleshed out yet, so excuse me if it seems underdeveloped.

Anarchy, broadly, means "rule of none" - no rulers. I believe a better ideal - and that's how I see it, an ideal, one that may never be truly reached, but from the pursuit of which, positive gains can be achieved - would be "anocracy," meaning "power of none," a term that is used as a replacement for "anarchy" in relation to places like Somalia and so on. I posit that anocracy is a term equally deserving of reclamation from bourgeois media.

I see "rulership" and "power" as concepts that are by no means mutually exclusive, but also potentially separable if approached correctly. The focus, I believe, should be on abolishing power, not rulership. For example, if "rulers" were elected or selected by qualified sortition, but there were also truly effective mechanisms for preventing the consolidation of power, we could kill two ancient birds with one stone.

[Skooma Addict]

Without a state, what is going to stop the legal system from reverting back to the lex talionis? If you claim to be an anarchist, then I expect you should be able to explain to me what society would look like in the absence of a state.

Also, Marxism has practically become a faith as Copleston mentioned in his seventh volume on the history of philosophy. Also, how could you be a state socialist given its track record?

[AK]

The state is only necessary if there is a ruling class in a society. Law is necessary, however.

[Nolan]

Wow, a cheap shot at Marxism. Oh dear it looks like the cappie brought nothing new to the table.


Also, Marxism has practically become a faith as Copleston mentioned in his seventh volume on the history of philosophy.Let us here note the difference between "mention" and "demonstrate."

Actually I could call any political ideology a "faith" which is really a meaningless term in this context so forget it.


Also, how could you be a state socialist given its track record?How could you be a capitalist given its track record of imperialism, war, neglect of basic human rights, all out genocide, etc? Simple. You come up with organizations like the Heritage Foundation or the Mises Institute to pat you on the back. Not that they're really needed because any government does that well enough anyway.

You know what they say. Cato is the brain and NATO is the brawn.

[AK]

Without a state, what is going to stop the legal system from reverting back to the lex talionis? If you claim to be an anarchist, then I expect you should be able to explain to me what society would look like in the absence of a state.
Cuz anarky = chaos, amirite?

Would it surprise you to know that anarchists wish to maintain social order and peace through militias (which would essentially act as police, but without the whole upper class control bit of it. Laws would be passed in a democratic manner - not by a few members of a ruling class claiming to represent the people as a whole. It would be one of the manifestations of genuine self-government) and a network of non-hierarchical co-operating autonomous workers' councils/communes/assemblies?

It's not so simple to claim that we anarchists only want to get rid of the state. The state exists for a reason. It exists to enforce the will of the ruling class. If we take out the state and the state alone, then a new state forms in it's place (although it may not necessarily advertise itself as one) after the ensuing chaos of - what would essentially be - an anarcho-capitalist "revolution". If we remove classes altogether, then there is no need for a state at all.

[#FF0000]

Also, Marxism has practically become a faith as Copleston mentioned in his seventh volume on the history of philosophy. Also, how could you be a state socialist given its track record?

1) based on what loaded definition of "Faith" or "religion"?
2) What was democracy's track record prior to 1776?
3) Also, when it comes to modernizing industry and providing a relatively decent standard of material wealth, I'd say it's done pretty okay, all things considered.

[Glenn Beck]

Authoritarianism is a hugely loaded word and literally no one except for a few idiots actually use it to define themselves. The dichotomy between "authoritarianism" and "Libertarianism" is sort of a false one and it's nowhere near so black and white.

"Authoritarian" is a word liberals and libertarians use to describe others.

It's basically like"Godless" for Christians: an unflattering description of ones opponents premised on your own ideas which doesn't make any sense outside of your own outlook.


Also, Marxism has practically become a faith as Copleston mentioned in his seventh volume on the history of philosophy.

Who the fuck is Coplestone and why should I care? He wasn't the only person to say that: it's been a lame liberal talking point to say "Marxism is like a religion" since at least the 1920s. Olaf Stapledon even dropped that cliche in Star Maker. I think Bertrand Russell might have been the first to make the comparison, but it's likely I'm wrong.

In any case, the point stands. A lame trope doesn't become any less lame if you cite it. Maybe try an actual argument next time.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I am still a little confused as to whether I am more leaning towards Marxism (authoratarianism, with state) or Anarchism (libertarianism, without state). Please correct me if i have erred.

At the moment I consider myself more of a libertarian socialist, but not quite an anarchist, as I (currently) believe, with my limited knowledge, that a government with limited powers, i.e. perhaps one who makes decisions only on the basis that they have been voted democratically by the general public with no high positions such as president, etc., and a community with very few, basic laws would be best.

However, I know that this forum is fairly split between authoritarianism and libertarianism and I would like to know what the views are from both sides.

Thanks.

You're an idiot. This isn't learning so I don't have to be nice.

Marxism is not authoritarianism. In fact, it strives toward statelessness. Much like Anarchists.

You make me want to hit myself.

[Skooma Addict]

Let us here note the difference between "mention" and "demonstrate."

Actually I could call any political ideology a "faith" which is really a meaningless term in this context so forget it.

Well I don't have the book at my house right now, but I did a search and Caplan actually mentions the same thing. He also quotes a relevant portion of Copleston (from what is widely regarded as the best series on the history of philosophy ever written).

"[Marxism] is accepted, doubtless with varying degrees of conviction, by a great many people today. At the same time it is arguable that its continued life as a more or less unified system is primarily due to its association with an extra-philosophical factor, a powerful socio-political movement, the contemporary importance of which nobody would deny... [I]t is the Communist Party which has saved Marxism from undergoing the fate of other nineteenth-century philosophies by turning it into a faith."

I will add more once I can get my hands on the book again. Copleston's writing on Marxism is great though.



How could you be a capitalist given its track record of imperialism, war, neglect of basic human rights, all out genocide, etc? Simple. You come up with organizations like the Heritage Foundation or the Mises Institute to pat you on the back. Not that they're really needed because any government does that well enough anyway.

You know what they say. Cato is the brain and NATO is the brawn.

States of all varieties have engaged in wars and have become imperial powers. Your revolution would most likely lead to something similar to Mao's China, military rule, or a dreadful life for common people who must bear with an oppressive government (something similar to the U.S.S.R. in the 30's) at best.



Would it surprise you to know that anarchists wish to maintain social order and peace through militias (which would essentially act as police, but without the whole upper class control bit of it. Laws would be passed in a democratic manner - not by a few members of a ruling class claiming to represent the people as a whole. It would be one of the manifestations of genuine self-government) and a network of non-hierarchical co-operating autonomous workers' councils/communes/assemblies?

It would surprise me if you could explain how you know that this is what a stateless society would look like.

This is just a pipe dream. All of the most decentralized and natural forms of law give us no reason to assume that what you want would be the end result if you abolish the state. Primitive versions of state laws were simply codified forms of the rules the members of given societies used to maintain order (most commonly, the lex talionis).

By the way, maybe you can finally be the one to explain to me how rights would be determined in this scenario, as having them determined democratically leads to absurd consequences, and you also cannot rely on customary law which is not democratic in nature.


It's not so simple to claim that we anarchists only want to get rid of the state. The state exists for a reason. It exists to enforce the will of the ruling class. If we take out the state and the state alone, then a new state forms in it's place (although it may not necessarily advertise itself as one) after the ensuing chaos of - what would essentially be - an anarcho-capitalist "revolution". If we remove classes altogether, then there is no need for a state at all.

I don't see how this solves anything. Assume everyone is of the same class. How does that solve any of the problems I mentioned?

[Skooma Addict]

2) What was democracy's track record prior to 1776?

It was alright I suppose.


3) Also, when it comes to modernizing industry and providing a relatively decent standard of material wealth, I'd say it's done pretty okay, all things considered.

Decent standard of living for the politically well connected I guess. For example, I would have much rather lived in Cuba prior to the revolution than after it.


Who the fuck is Coplestone and why should I care? He wasn't the only person to say that: it's been a lame liberal talking point to say "Marxism is like a religion" since at least the 1920s. Olaf Stapledon even dropped that cliche in Star Maker. I think Bertrand Russell might have been the first to make the comparison, but it's likely I'm wrong.

In any case, the point stands. A lame trope doesn't become any less lame if you cite it. Maybe try an actual argument next time.

Copleston was a Jesuit Priest who knew a thing or two about faith, Marxism, and the social and philosophical underpinnings of Marxism.

[syndicat]

No state doesn't mean there is no governance structure. It means the governance structure isn't a state. So, what is a state? As Engels said, a state is a professional governing apparatus that is separate from direct control by the mass of the people. That is, it is a hierarchical structure in which decision-making authority is concentrated at the top, as in a corporation. This type of structure became necessary once there was a dominating, exploiting class. If the mass of the people were in direct power, they could simply expropriate the dominant class.

The state has a monopoly over violence in a territory but that isn't sufficient to be a state, since a libertarian socialist polity or governance system also has such a monopoly.

Libertarian socialism or social anarchism arose in the context of the radical workers movement of the late 19th century and early 20th century. It believed that mass worker movements would take over not only running of industries, expropriating capitalists and management, but also dismantle the state, and replace this with a new structure of popular power.

This would be rooted in assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods. These would send delegates to city-wide and then regional congresses or councils of delegates. These would be accountable to the assemblies at the base through various means, such as recall, mandates, or right of base assemblies to force a vote at the level of the assemblies.

There would be a people's militia which would be accountable directly to these democratic bodies.

The structure of assemblies and congresses would elaborate basic rules for the society -- laws, in other words, and would have the means to enforce them. so, for example, it would be illegal to try to set yourself up as a boss, employing wage slaves. There would be popular tribunals with juries and so on for adjudicating disputes or accusations of criminal conduct.

so there would be a form of more directly democratic self-governance, which would be made more viable through the elimination of the class system.

[AK]

It would surprise me if you could explain how you know that this is what a stateless society would look like.
Some reading, idea exchange with other anarchists and observation. In almost every large labour conflict, workers have been quick to establish councils and/or communes in order to resist the authority of the ruling government and democratically manage their workplaces.


This is just a pipe dream. All of the most decentralized and natural forms of law give us no reason to assume that what you want would be the end result if you abolish the state. Primitive versions of state laws were simply codified forms of the rules the members of given societies used to maintain order (most commonly, the lex talionis).

This would be the end result if we exposed the workers to the right messages pre-revolution. If we tell them repeatedly to govern themselves in a democratic manner, do you really think they will just ignore all that and chop someone's genitals off if they raped someone? They need to be told that rehabilitation is better than punishment as a way of dealing with offenders - and it should be the primary manner in dealing with criminals.

You know what else is a pipe dream? Universal benefit under capitalism. Or better yet, the idea that those with more power than others would always make genuinely fair laws for those whom they rule over.


By the way, maybe you can finally be the one to explain to me how rights would be determined in this scenario, as having them determined democratically leads to absurd consequences, and you also cannot rely on customary law which is not democratic in nature.
The abuse of today's rights is a result of social conditions occurring today. Children are sent to factories in China where they work for less than minimum wage - this is a result of a thirst for profits and capital by capitalists. Stop capitalism, stop that exploitation and rights abuse. Females are getting their genitals mutilated - this is a result of rampant sexism which is a result of messages given to societies and the social conditions forced on them. Remove those messages and conditions, remove the sexism and the women's rights abuses. Rights today act as a benchmark for how badly you can treat someone before it is deemed illegal, etc. Rights only exist because abuses have been so bad that some people decided an intervention was required - but these abuses keep going today because the roots of the problems lie ignored. Rights would be almost useless in a society where rights are not necessary - because there would be no need or desire to abuse someone so badly. Rights' abuses exist for a reason - it is the reasons that we must destroy, we must not merely cover them up and deem it illegal.


I don't see how this solves anything. Assume everyone is of the same class. How does that solve any of the problems I mentioned?
See my above reply to the second quote of yours. People must be exposed to right messages and be educated before a revolution starts - and ethics must play a major role in what we tell them.

[#FF0000]

Decent standard of living for the politically well connected I guess.

Just like how any country in the world has a decent standard of living for the financially well-to-do, I guess.

Anyway, I said relatively decent. Life in Cuba or Russia isn't nearly as comfortable as living in America would be for some people, but I think it's dishonest, or flat out ignorant, to suggest that the working class of Russia would have been so much better off without the Bolshevik revolution.


For example, I would have much rather lived in Cuba prior to the revolution than after it.

That's funny because Cuba after the revolution is literally better in every conceivable way. Unless you were wealthy pre-revolution, I suppose.


Copleston was a Jesuit Priest who knew a thing or two about faith, Marxism, and the social and philosophical underpinnings of Marxism.

So what? "This guy thinks this" isn't an argument.

[Skooma Addict]

No state doesn't mean there is no governance structure. It means the governance structure isn't a state. So, what is a state? As Engels said, a state is a professional governing apparatus that is separate from direct control by the mass of the people. That is, it is a hierarchical structure in which decision-making authority is concentrated at the top, as in a corporation. This type of structure became necessary once there was a dominating, exploiting class. If the mass of the people were in direct power, they could simply expropriate the dominant class.

The state has a monopoly over violence in a territory but that isn't sufficient to be a state, since a libertarian socialist polity or governance system also has such a monopoly.

Libertarian socialism or social anarchism arose in the context of the radical workers movement of the late 19th century and early 20th century. It believed that mass worker movements would take over not only running of industries, expropriating capitalists and management, but also dismantle the state, and replace this with a new structure of popular power.

This would be rooted in assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods. These would send delegates to city-wide and then regional congresses or councils of delegates. These would be accountable to the assemblies at the base through various means, such as recall, mandates, or right of base assemblies to force a vote at the level of the assemblies.

There would be a people's militia which would be accountable directly to these democratic bodies.

The structure of assemblies and congresses would elaborate basic rules for the society -- laws, in other words, and would have the means to enforce them. so, for example, it would be illegal to try to set yourself up as a boss, employing wage slaves. There would be popular tribunals with juries and so on for adjudicating disputes or accusations of criminal conduct.

so there would be a form of more directly democratic self-governance, which would be made more viable through the elimination of the class system.So you have a monopoly on force which is run by delegates who are elected in various districts. I do not adhere to your class dichotomy, and so the fact that there is no "ruling class" in the way you use it makes no difference to me here. In my opinion, there is a state in your scenario, and I would have to believe that even if you somehow came to the point where this system were a reality, it would only be a matter of time before the state began to grow in power to the point where even you would consider it a state.

Also, how is the governance structure funded in your scenario?

But the most likely scenario is that the revolutionaries after overthrowing the state will just take power for themselves, and the more radical and idealist of the bunch will actually attempt to fulfill their goals, while the rest impose their will on the population in the name of revolution. A situation somewhat similar what peasants in the U.S.S.R. frequently complained about on the part of officials and kolkoz chairman. Most practical officials levied absurd fines for the sole reason of getting themselves more money, while idealists such as Dorokhov beat people with his fists as a means of punishment.


Some reading, idea exchange with other anarchists and observation. In almost every large labour conflict, workers have been quick to establish councils and/or communes in order to resist the authority of the ruling government and democratically manage their workplaces.You cannot rationally know what society would look like without a government on anything besides a very very small scale.


This would be the end result if we exposed the workers to the right messages pre-revolution. If we tell them repeatedly to govern themselves in a democratic manner, do you really think they will just ignore all that and chop someone's genitals off if they raped someone? They need to be told that rehabilitation is better than punishment as a way of dealing with offenders - and it should be the primary manner in dealing with criminals.

You know what else is a pipe dream? Universal benefit under capitalism. Or better yet, the idea that those with more power than others would always make genuinely fair laws for those whom they rule over.Well if you somehow convince the entire population of the merits of your ideas, then things become a lot easier. However, that is never how things work. You get a group of followers who violently impose their will on the population in the name of a new and better society, even though that is never the result. Almost anything could function well if everyone in the society becomes an ideologue. By that does not work when we are discussing a country with millions and millions of people. Even still, most of the people who join such movements know very little about what beliefs it is they claim to subscribe to.

As a member of the working class, capitalism has benefited me greatly.


The abuse of today's rights is a result of social conditions occurring today. Children are sent to factories in China where they work for less than minimum wage - this is a result of a thirst for profits and capital by capitalists. Stop capitalism, stop that exploitation and rights abuse. Females are getting their genitals mutilated - this is a result of rampant sexism which is a result of messages given to societies and the social conditions forced on them. Remove those messages and conditions, remove the sexism and the women's rights abuses. Rights today act as a benchmark for how badly you can treat someone before it is deemed illegal, etc. Rights only exist because abuses have been so bad that some people decided an intervention was required - but these abuses keep going today because the roots of the problems lie ignored. Rights would be almost useless in a society where rights are not necessary - because there would be no need or desire to abuse someone so badly. Rights' abuses exist for a reason - it is the reasons that we must destroy, we must not merely cover them up and deem it illegal.In countries with low standards of living like China, the minimum wage is nothing short of evil. Children who cannot find work are led to prostitution or drug smuggling, and many of the children could never afford to go to school were they not to be employed at a young age. They can also earn much more working for an American corporation than they could anywhere else.

But my initial question was how are you going to determine rights in your scenario? Are rights determined democratically?


Just like how any country in the world has a decent standard of living for the financially well-to-do, I guess.

Anyway, I said relatively decent. Life in Cuba or Russia isn't nearly as comfortable as living in America would be for some people, but I think it's dishonest, or flat out ignorant, to suggest that the working class of Russia would have been so much better off without the Bolshevik revolution.Depends on what time after the revolution and what time before it you are talking about, and where you lived. In 1933, the average married worker in Moscow consumed less than half the amount of bread and flour than his counterpart in Petersburg had consumed at the beginning of the 20th century and under two thirds the amount of sugar.


That's funny because Cuba after the revolution is literally better in every conceivable way. Unless you were wealthy pre-revolution, I suppose.Cuba had the third highest capita per income in Latin America. After the revoltion, about 1/5 of the population died, and the country lost abou 2/3s of its wealth.

Before the revolution 1/3 of the population was classified as middle class, and 23% of the working class was classified as skilled.

Cuba is no longer one of the richest countries in Latin America. Now it is one of the poorest.

"Today the Cuban worker's average monthly salary is 203 Cuban pesos-around $9.25. That means an average hourly wage of five cents. A Cuban worker has to toil twenty-six hours for a can of evaporated milk ($1.30); seven hours for an ounce of coffee ($0.33); forty-four hours for a tube of toothpaste ($2.20); two hundred hours for a ten-dollar pair of trousers; one hundred sixty hours for an eight-dollar shirt; sixty hours for a three-dollar pair of panties and fifty hours for a $2.50 bra."

The above statistics are from the Cuban Institute of Independent Union Studies (Instituto Cubano de Estudios Sindicales Independientes, or ICESI).

[syndicat]

So you have a monopoly on force which is run by delegates who are elected in various districts. I do not adhere to your class dichotomy, and so the fact that there is no "ruling class" in the way you use it makes no difference to me here. In my opinion, there is a state in your scenario, and I would have to believe that even if you somehow came to the point where this system were a reality, it would only be a matter of time before the state began to grow in power to the point where even you would consider it a state.

I don't give a shit what your "opinion" is. I only care if you have cogent arguments to offer...which you don't.



Also, how is the governance structure funded in your scenario?

What are you referring to? Let's consider, say, the educational system. The educational system would be a self-managing industrial organization. that is, the workers in that industry would run it.

Now, since this would be provided as a free service, all of its costs are carried at social expense. The population, through their assemblies and congresses develop the plans and the budget...as in participatory budgeting...and this means they decide on the size of the budget for the educational sector. These resources are allocated to this industry through the overall social planning process, which is based on interaction between consumers, resident assemblies and worker organizations making their various plans and then adjusting them in reaction to each other, as indicative prices are shaped by the participatory interaction of the participatory planning process.

Personal items of consumption come out of the individual's consumption entitlement. For able-bodied adults, this is earned through work effort. The total personal consumption budgets of everyone consumes the portion of the social product not allocated for re-investment in productive capacity or free social services such as education.

now, you may be referring specifically to governmental functions. okay, so let's suppose the regional congress elects a coordinating council, and members of this council are paid half-time to do work for the region, and continue half-time on their regular job. so if a barber is elected to this committee, then she's paid the same rate for her work there as when she is working as a barber. the regional congress may also have some worker-managed research and development association attached to it, to help with working up proposals for infrastructure and social service planning. the governance system is a "public good" just like education so its operations would be expensed in the same way.



But the most likely scenario is that the revolutionaries after overthrowing the state will just take power for themselves,

with a mass revolutionary workers movement, it is the mass of working people who "take power" in the running of the industries, and set up the democratic governance system. you are falsely assuming that "revolutionaries" has to refer to some minority group such as leaders of a political party. it doesn't have to be that way.

[#FF0000]

hurf durf

Uh huh. Meanwhile Cubans today are among the top five Latin American countries in calorie and protein intake, literacy is 100%, literally zero malnutrition, has the best education in Latin America, and is literally overflowing with scientists and doctors.

[Dean]

Cuba had the third highest capita per income in Latin America. After the revoltion, about 1/5 of the population died, and the country lost abou 2/3s of its wealth.

Before the revolution 1/3 of the population was classified as middle class, and 23% of the working class was classified as skilled.

Cuba is no longer one of the richest countries in Latin America. Now it is one of the poorest.

"Today the Cuban worker's average monthly salary is 203 Cuban pesos-around $9.25. That means an average hourly wage of five cents. A Cuban worker has to toil twenty-six hours for a can of evaporated milk ($1.30); seven hours for an ounce of coffee ($0.33); forty-four hours for a tube of toothpaste ($2.20); two hundred hours for a ten-dollar pair of trousers; one hundred sixty hours for an eight-dollar shirt; sixty hours for a three-dollar pair of panties and fifty hours for a $2.50 bra."

The above statistics are from the Cuban Institute of Independent Union Studies (Instituto Cubano de Estudios Sindicales Independientes, or ICESI).

Oh yeah, a totally impartial organization. Oh, wait:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g5pJj6Z0ll0J:www.directorio.org/articles/note.php%3Fnote_id%3D30+Instituto+Cubano+de+Estudi os+Sindicales&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

With the Directorio as one of its sponsors, on February 20, 1998, the “Agreement for Democracy” was ratified in Miami by organizations in exile and in Cuba to establish that despite geographical separation, Cubans are united for the country’s future democracy. At the time, twenty-seven organizations in Cuba and 47 in exile signed the document. More groups have since joined in signing the agreement.
Agreement for Democracy

Cuba shall resurrect from its own ashes, but it is the sacred obligation of all Cubans -- both within the oppressed island and in the diaspora -- to place our hands on the plough without looking backwards but rather into the deepest part of our hearts, to convert those ashes into fertile seeds of love and creation. Now, as 100 years ago, our national aspiration remains the construction of a Republic based on the formula of triumphant love:

With All and for the Good of All
Signatory organizations of the Agreement
in Exile:
...Instituto Cubano de Estudios Sindicales.

Yep, great choice of sources.

[Skooma Addict]

I don't give a shit what your "opinion" is. I only care if you have cogent arguments to offer...which you don't.

And you give no reason why a monopoly on force which is controlled by some delegates who in theory are supposed to be held accountable by the people would not grow in power. The mere fact that it is a monopoly with nothing to prevent it from growing in power other than a recall should lead any reasonable person to expect the governing structure to grow in power. All it takes is one piece of legislation, and there s not much the common man can do when he is up against what you admit to be a monopoly on force.


What are you referring to? Let's consider, say, the educational system. The educational system would be a self-managing industrial organization. that is, the workers in that industry would run it.

Now, since this would be provided as a free service, all of its costs are carried at social expense. The population, through their assemblies and congresses develop the plans and the budget...as in participatory budgeting...and this means they decide on the size of the budget for the educational sector. These resources are allocated to this industry through the overall social planning process, which is based on interaction between consumers, resident assemblies and worker organizations making their various plans and then adjusting them in reaction to each other, as indicative prices are shaped by the participatory interaction of the participatory planning process.

Personal items of consumption come out of the individual's consumption entitlement. For able-bodied adults, this is earned through work effort. The total personal consumption budgets of everyone consumes the portion of the social product not allocated for re-investment in productive capacity or free social services such as education.

This is in no way decentralized, and I have absolutely no idea how you could claim that there is not a state in this scenario. You run into the classic calculation and knowledge problems when you attempt to have a congress determine the budget for the educational sector while simultaneously offer the service for free.

Having consumption entitlement earned through work effort makes absolutely no sense, as a person giving more "effort" than most people does not mean he is more productive.

But this would never even work or become a reality on a large scale in the first place. There would be militias walking the streets with guns and warfare between different factions.


with a mass revolutionary workers movement, it is the mass of working people who "take power" in the running of the industries, and set up the democratic governance system. you are falsely assuming that "revolutionaries" has to refer to some minority group such as leaders of a political party. it doesn't have to be that way.

That is never how it works. That is not how it worked in Spain, Cuba, Russia, or Venezuela. There is always some revolutionary militia, that militia is always brutal and oppressive. In fact those who most seriously believe in the cause are usually the worst since they are brainwashed utopians.

Workers don't just simultaneously "take power" and then Bam, suddenly the society is achieved.

[Nolan]

Well I don't have the book at my house right now, but I did a search and Caplan actually mentions the same thing. He also quotes a relevant portion of Copleston (from what is widely regarded as the best series on the history of philosophy ever written).

"[Marxism] is accepted, doubtless with varying degrees of conviction, by a great many people today. At the same time it is arguable that its continued life as a more or less unified system is primarily due to its association with an extra-philosophical factor, a powerful socio-political movement, the contemporary importance of which nobody would deny... [I]t is the Communist Party which has saved Marxism from undergoing the fate of other nineteenth-century philosophies by turning it into a faith."

I will add more once I can get my hands on the book again. Copleston's writing on Marxism is great though.

Everything you quoted is meaningless and could be applied to any political ideology, including yours.

But I suppose you're going to tell me that the assumptions of the Austrian school (and libertarianism in general as far as social philosophy is concerned) are different.


States of all varieties have engaged in wars and have become imperial powers. Your revolution would most likely lead to something similar to Mao's China, military rule, or a dreadful life for common people who must bear with an oppressive government (something similar to the U.S.S.R. in the 30's) at best.

Socialist states only became imperialist powers after political counterrevolutions within the party, the same counterrevolution which would restore capitalism. And yes, every revolution today will have to deal with the extreme backwardness of China and most of Russia at the time of their revolutions, in addition to constant war or the threat of war. :rolleyes:

You can stop with the fake concern. "A dreadful life for common people" can be seen anywhere in South America, Africa, or Asia. For instance, the Venezuelan government has never enforced tax laws on the poor (it would probably cost more than revenue earned anyway) yet our neighbors who aren't that bad off by third world standards have holes in the roof. According to the libertarian faith, this should improve everyone's life, yet it does not. Only Chavez's recent reforms have reduced poverty in Venezuela.

[Skooma Addict]

Oh yeah, a totally impartial organization. Oh, wait:

I read your quote 5 times and I still don't understand what it is saying. Although I can attempt to search for the same numbers from other sources, as I highly doubt the numbers I presented were completely fabricated.


Everything you quoted is meaningless and could be applied to any political ideology, including yours.

But I suppose you're going to tell me that the assumptions of the Austrian school (and libertarianism in general as far as social philosophy is concerned) are different.

What Copleston is referring to is more evident in Marxism than any other ideology.


You can stop with the fake concern. "A dreadful life for common people" can be seen anywhere in South America, Africa, or Asia. For instance, the Venezuelan government has never enforced tax laws on the poor (it would probably cost more than revenue earned anyway) yet our neighbors who aren't that bad off by third world standards have holes in the roof. According to the libertarian faith, this should improve everyone's life, yet it does not. Only Chavez's recent reforms have reduced poverty in Venezuela.

Oh yea I forgot, only Socialists can be concerned about the common people because they and they alone are the voices of the common people. They speak for all working class people. I don't see what Chavez has to do with libertarianism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

"Authoritarian" is a word liberals and libertarians use to describe others.

It's basically like"Godless" for Christians: an unflattering description of ones opponents premised on your own ideas which doesn't make any sense outside of your own outlook.



Who the fuck is Coplestone and why should I care? He wasn't the only person to say that: it's been a lame liberal talking point to say "Marxism is like a religion" since at least the 1920s. Olaf Stapledon even dropped that cliche in Star Maker. I think Bertrand Russell might have been the first to make the comparison, but it's likely I'm wrong.

In any case, the point stands. A lame trope doesn't become any less lame if you cite it. Maybe try an actual argument next time.

Authoritarian isn't just a word used by those people. It means something. It means a type of social organization characterized by submission to authority. And to describe Marxism as authoritarian, is, fucking dumb. However, to describe Leninism, Stalinism and in some instances Trotskyism as authoritarian is just the truth.

If your gonna call me out, call me out in the comments, not by giving neg rep and saying "actually you're an idiot. And propagandhi is a really shitty band". Tell me what makes me an idiot. I don't care what you think of Propagandhi. It's music. Why do you care?

[#FF0000]

The thing about authoritarianism is that it can be used to describe literally anything.

[Dean]

I read your quote 5 times and I still don't understand what it is saying. Although I can attempt to search for the same numbers from other sources, as I highly doubt the numbers I presented were completely fabricated.

It's a Cuban exile organization. They have a vested interest in making Cuba appear bad, especially post-revolution. You should have followed the link if you didn't understand the quote.

"Completely fabricated" is different from "trustworthy" in the context of a debate on Cuba's economics.

[Skooma Addict]

It's a Cuban exile organization. They have a vested interest in making Cuba appear bad, especially post-revolution. You should have followed the link if you didn't understand the quote.

"Completely fabricated" is different from "trustworthy" in the context of a debate on Cuba's economics.

The Cuban government has a vested interest in making Cuba look good.

[Dean]

The Cuban government has a vested interest in making Cuba look good.
How fucking stupid can you be? That doesn't have any bearing on the issue of the above organization's trustworthiness.

You throw around some of the most pathetic arguments I've ever seen here.

[Skooma Addict]

How fucking stupid can you be? That doesn't have any bearing on the issue of the above organization's trustworthiness.

You throw around some of the most pathetic arguments I've ever seen here.

So then by your logic we cannot trust any statistics provided by the Cuban government due to vested interests, correct?

But anyways, the fact that my source is a Cuban exile organization is not sufficient for it to be considered untrustworthy.

[mcg]

A state is necessary to suppress counter revolution. Moreover a state is necessary to coordinate large scale projects like relief efforts and industrial production. It's easy for people in developed countries with industries and resources, to argue that we should each take care of ourselves, but what about underdeveloped, overpopulated areas? A state is also important for managing communal resources, like the environment. We can all live easier and better lives if we work together not just on local levels but on global levels. To do this though we need a democratic state. Eventually as many problems are overcome, I can imagine the state whithering away or assuming a limited role. I guess I disagree with the anarchists. Which is not to say I don't admire the anarchists for the bravery of their struggle, or the depth of their thought.

[#FF0000]

But anyways, the fact that my source is a Cuban exile organization is not sufficient for it to be considered untrustworthy.

Uh yeah it is.

[Dean]

So then by your logic we cannot trust any statistics provided by the Cuban government due to vested interests, correct?
Obviously.


But anyways, the fact that my source is a Cuban exile organization is not sufficient for it to be considered untrustworthy.
Yes it is, for two reasons:
-there is no evidence that they have sufficient or legitimate presence in Cuba to provide accurate statistics
-there is evidence that they are a partisan, minor publication (not even listed in Wikipedia!), so we have evidence that, on this charged issue, they are unreliable.

It's actually quite a simple issue.

[AK]

You cannot rationally know what society would look like without a government on anything besides a very very small scale.
I never wanted to get rid of the concept of government; I want to get rid of government which usually claims to be democratic yet is out of the control of the population it rules over. Well, unless you think that choosing a new set of puppets every few years to rule in what is essentially an authoritarian (elections may be democratic, but the rule certainly isn't. We play almost no part in the governance of our society) nature is democratic.


Well if you somehow convince the entire population of the merits of your ideas, then things become a lot easier. However, that is never how things work. You get a group of followers who violently impose their will on the population in the name of a new and better society, even though that is never the result. Almost anything could function well if everyone in the society becomes an ideologue. By that does not work when we are discussing a country with millions and millions of people. Even still, most of the people who join such movements know very little about what beliefs it is they claim to subscribe to.
This is the stupidest thing I ever heard. We're not here to violently force our ideology on the working class. That would be pretty detrimental to a working-class revolution. We will instead rival the tactics that the ruling class uses to advance it's ideas. We'll have newspapers and publications, posters everywhere, hell, a group of strikers could hijack a TV station or radio station.


As a member of the working class, capitalism has benefited me greatly.
Benefited you, yes. Does it work to your advantage? Most certainly not. But at least you're not one of the idiots who think they're middle class or whatever bullshit someone else comes up with.


In countries with low standards of living like China, the minimum wage is nothing short of evil. Children who cannot find work are led to prostitution or drug smuggling, and many of the children could never afford to go to school were they not to be employed at a young age. They can also earn much more working for an American corporation than they could anywhere else.
These Chinese are also members of the working class. All you've done is illustrate how an American corporation attempts to lure new sources of labour into its factories.


But my initial question was how are you going to determine rights in your scenario? Are rights determined democratically?
Rights would probably be something that is decided on beforehand and ratified in the establishment of communes, etc. Although no-one would have much of a reason to abuse them.

[syndicat]

This is in no way decentralized, and I have absolutely no idea how you could claim that there is not a state in this scenario. You run into the classic calculation and knowledge problems when you attempt to have a congress determine the budget for the educational sector while simultaneously offer the service for free.

you're not paying attention. worker organizations make proposals about what they will produce. residents, as households and communities, and through congresses over larger areas, make requests for what they want produced.

there is a worker organization that collects all the proposals, tallies up projected supply and demand and publishes the results. given certain rules the society has set up in the planing process, projected prices fall out. such as: If projected demand relative to projected supply would go up 10 percent, raise the projected price.

Worker organizations, households and communities all have to stay within their budgets. so they'd have to adjust their plans according to adjusted projected prices.

the social interaction over proposed supply and requested product generates the relevant information and evaluations. there is no "information problem" here.



Having consumption entitlement earned through work effort makes absolutely no sense, as a person giving more "effort" than most people does not mean he is more productive.

What, you really believe income under capiitalism has anything to do with real productivity? How naive! It has to do with power.

Whether the product should continue to be produced by this production group does depend on their attaining at least socially average cost/benefit ratio. If they fall too far below, they need to make a case as to why they shouldn't be disbanded, i.e. they are bankrupt.



But this would never even work or become a reality on a large scale in the first place. There would be militias walking the streets with guns and warfare between different factions.


you can assert anything you like. you can claim lizards walk on the moon. making a cogent argument is something else again. and it's something you don't know how to do.

[Skooma Addict]

Yes it is, for two reasons:
-there is no evidence that they have sufficient or legitimate presence in Cuba to provide accurate statistics
-there is evidence that they are a partisan, minor publication (not even listed in Wikipedia!), so we have evidence that, on this charged issue, they are unreliable.

It's actually quite a simple issue. You have provided absolutely no evidence that the organization is untrustworthy. By your logic the statistics of every government, and virtually every statistic provided by a think tank is unreliable. Statistical data from economists such as Friedman is unreliable since he is "partisan."

The fact that the organization is not listed on Wikipedia means absolutely nothing.

Being a Cuban exile organization is not sufficient grounds for being unreliable. You just don't want to confront the data. I also expect you should be able to find data which specifically contradicts what I said.


I never wanted to get rid of the concept of government; I want to get rid of government which usually claims to be democratic yet is out of the control of the population it rules over. Well, unless you think that choosing a new set of puppets every few years to rule in what is essentially an authoritarian (elections may be democratic, but the rule certainly isn't. We play almost no part in the governance of our society) nature is democratic.A government which is fully and completely accountable to the people is a pipe dream.


This is the stupidest thing I ever heard. We're not here to violently force our ideology on the working class. That would be pretty detrimental to a working-class revolution. We will instead rival the tactics that the ruling class uses to advance it's ideas. We'll have newspapers and publications, posters everywhere, hell, a group of strikers could hijack a TV station or radio station.Haha, alright let me know when that works out for you.


Benefited you, yes. Does it work to your advantage? Most certainly not. But at least you're not one of the idiots who think they're middle class or whatever bullshit someone else comes up with.It benefits me and works to my advantage. I don't want to be part of a democratic worker run firm anyways.


These Chinese are also members of the working class. All you've done is illustrate how an American corporation attempts to lure new sources of labour into its factories.My point was that minimum wages in places like China are terrible. But anyways, nothing wrong with attempting to lure new sources of labor into factories.


Rights would probably be something that is decided on beforehand and ratified in the establishment of communes, etc. Although no-one would have much of a reason to abuse them.Determined by who?

[Skooma Addict]

you're not paying attention. worker organizations make proposals about what they will produce. residents, as households and communities, and through congresses over larger areas, make requests for what they want produced.

there is a worker organization that collects all the proposals, tallies up projected supply and demand and publishes the results. given certain rules the society has set up in the planing process, projected prices fall out. such as: If projected demand relative to projected supply would go up 10 percent, raise the projected price.

Worker organizations, households and communities all have to stay within their budgets. so they'd have to adjust their plans according to adjusted projected prices.

the social interaction over proposed supply and requested product generates the relevant information and evaluations. there is no "information problem" here.How soon after the requests are given would the tallies be made and the projections completed? There is an information problem by the mere fact that a central board is determining prices. I am not going to restate the knowledge or the calculation problem, but what you are describing is literally the most common example of a society which encounters these problems.


What, you really believe income under capiitalism has anything to do with real productivity? How naive! It has to do with power.

Whether the product should continue to be produced by this production group does depend on their attaining at least socially average cost/benefit ratio. If they fall too far below, they need to make a case as to why they shouldn't be disbanded, i.e. they are bankrupt.I really did think that socialists these days gave up on the idea of basing compensation on work effort, but I guess not. Surely it must be obvious to you why that makes no sense. Greater effort does not equal greater economic productivity. Basing compensation on effort would be a complete disaster.

Capitalism does have to do with real productivity since compensation is tied to the ability to satisfy consumer demand.


you can assert anything you like. you can claim lizards walk on the moon. making a cogent argument is something else again. and it's something you don't know how to do.My claim is based on the historical evidence. You should be aware of this. I am not going to spoon feed you.

[AK]

A government which is fully and completely accountable to the people is a pipe dream.
"It's all but a pipe dream!"


Haha, alright let me know when that works out for you.
Rightio.


It benefits me and works to my advantage. I don't want to be part of a democratic worker run firm anyways.
It always works primarily to the capitalists' advantage. Enjoy your wage slavery. I'll just sit back, wait for the next economic crisis and wait to see you on the streets, or sleeping in your car, whilst some senior executive gets a $9 million bonus. Capitalism is wonderful, isn't it?


My point was that minimum wages in places like China are terrible. But anyways, nothing wrong with attempting to lure new sources of labor into factories.
Nothing wrong except for why they are doing it. The factory owners are not doing it to bring joy and happiness into the lives of Chinese workers or to let them have a decent standard of living, they are doing it to increase profits in the short-term - and the workers standard of living sometimes even drops.


Determined by who?
Such things as human rights should be part of the basic principles of a revolutionary organisation - just like the anarchist principles of Liberty, Equality and Solidarity, the recognition of human rights should be included.

[syndicat]

How soon after the requests are given would the tallies be made and the projections completed? There is an information problem by the mere fact that a central board is determining prices.

you're not paying attention. no "central board" is "determining prices."

the society agrees to a pricing rule, say, If projected demand exceeds projected demand by N percent, the projected price goes up by N percent.

The movement of prices will depend on the movement of demand (requests) and projected supply (worker production group proposals).

Evaluations reflect relative supply and demand. no "information problem."


Capitalism does have to do with real productivity since compensation is tied to the ability to satisfy consumer demand.

no it's not. productivity in the USA has gone up by 75 percent since the late '60s and real wages have fallen.

but of course you'll repeat your usual bullshit.

[Dean]

You have provided absolutely no evidence that the organization is untrustworthy.
Besides their character as
-a marginally influential organization not present in Cuba
-an organization which has a vested interest in presenting data which chows cuba in a bad light
-and is part of a decades-long contradictory propaganda campaign


By your logic the statistics of every government, and virtually every statistic provided by a think tank is unreliable. Statistical data from economists such as Friedman is unreliable since he is "partisan."
That is, unless they accurately relay their methods for procuring the data in the same publications.



The fact that the organization is not listed on Wikipedia means absolutely nothing.
Actually, its a compelling point, since very few "reputable" organizations have absolutely no English manifestation or citation, despite existing in the US.


Being a Cuban exile organization is not sufficient grounds for being unreliable. You just don't want to confront the data. I also expect you should be able to find data which specifically contradicts what I said.
Actually, it is, and if you're such a fucking child that you can't process that, I can't help you. Sorry. You're a goddamn fool. You can't accept the most basic shit, that a fringe group with no citation and documented bias is untrustworthy on the exact topic for which it is biased. You're nothing more than a pedantic child.

[Skooma Addict]

you're not paying attention. no "central board" is "determining prices."

the society agrees to a pricing rule, say, If projected demand exceeds projected demand by N percent, the projected price goes up by N percent.

The movement of prices will depend on the movement of demand (requests) and projected supply (worker production group proposals).

Evaluations reflect relative supply and demand. no "information problem."

When you say...

"the society agrees to a pricing rule, say, If projected demand exceeds projected demand by N percent, the projected price goes up by N percent."

...then you run into both the calculation and the knowledge problem.

And what on earth do you mean when you say "society" agrees to a pricing rule?

[syndicat]

When you say...

"the society agrees to a pricing rule, say, If projected demand exceeds projected demand by N percent, the projected price goes up by N percent."

...then you run into both the calculation and the knowledge problem.


nope. but, hey, you can assert whatever you like. you can claim there are 2 million howling lizards in the basement of the White House or whatever. now, providing a cogent argument is something else again.



And what on earth do you mean when you say "society" agrees to a pricing rule?

it's called democracy. under libertarian socialism this is based on the direct democracy of assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods. this is part of the structure of industrial and social self-management. delegates are elected to congresses covering larger regions. in my view people at the base should have the right to have a decision of a congress sent back to base assemblies by submiting a petitiion with not too many signatures required.

so, in other words, there is a democratic structure of decision-making. decsions at, say, the national level would not be numerous because there aren't that many that affect equally everyone. but the overall workings of the system, such as the pricing rule, would be one such decision.

[Hiratsuka]

I think anarchism is better defined as a tendency than an actual module of governance. I too am not particularly fond of the distinction between "states" and "governments" when the two words have become synonymous. Anarchism should not be just the eradication of artificial class distinction but also the promotion of individual sovereignty in all realms of life. That said, to believe we can arrive at complete independence seems a bit naive as even a home owner asserting his or her right to property is technically acting as a 'government.'

[Button]

Nationalism is a reified concept only a few centuries old. So, no, nations and states are not necessary. Law, on the other hand, is, whether by code or convention.

[Nolan]

Nationalism is a reified concept only a few centuries old. So, no, nations and states are not necessary. Law, on the other hand, is, whether by code or convention.

Nations states were around before nationalism proper.

[Zanthorus]

[I]t is the Communist Party which has saved Marxism from undergoing the fate of other nineteenth-century philosophies by turning it into a faith."

This just shows how little you actually know what you're talking about. Even most "anti-revisionists" would agree that the Communist Parties of today are nowhere close to Marxism.

But what's even funnier is that you're trying to discredit Marxism as a philosophy.

Marxism is not a philosophy. Marxism is the critique of political economy. "Philosophical" critiques of Marxism are useless... it has no real philosophical underpinnings.

[mikelepore]

2) What was democracy's track record prior to 1776?

People said of it: "That idea has been tried before, and it failed. It can't work. It can only collapse. It's against human nature because someone would always want to be the king. The radicals who call for democracy are just envious that they aren't the king."

[RGacky3]

People said of it: "That idea has been tried before, and it failed. It can't work. It can only collapse. It's against human nature because someone would always want to be the king. The radicals who call for democracy are just envious that they aren't the king."

Where else have I heard that argument? Hmmmmm.