Question for Anarchists...

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I know you're opposed to the state and want a revolution to take it down, but the likelihood of a revolution happening soon doesn't seem possible. Say with healthcare, it looks like we're stuck in a capitalist insurance companies versus universal state-run healthcare kind of thing. So which would you rather support? Or would you not support either? Just curious.

[danyboy27]

I know you're opposed to the state and want a revolution to take it down, but the likelihood of a revolution happening soon doesn't seem possible. Say with healthcare, it looks like we're stuck in a capitalist insurance companies versus universal state-run healthcare kind of thing. So which would you rather support? Or would you not support either? Just curious.

being against the state dosnt mean being against organisation or former state institutions.

[IllicitPopsicle]

You'll learn soon enough that anarchy does not, in fact, equate to chaos.

As far as healthcare goes, the only anarchists who are going to have a hard time are primitivists.

[Norseman]

I'm against the government because of the taxing, corruption, violence, and injustice it creates, and the inequality it maintains through the threat of violence. I'm not going to complain about a public health care system if it works fairly well.

I criticize Rockefeller for exploiting people, but I don't criticize him for his philanthropy. True, his philanthropy was only made possible because of his exploitation, but the philanthropy was not the reason why he was a bad person.

I don't criticize slave masters for giving their slaves food, or meager wages. I criticize them for having slaves in the first place.

I still support the abolition of slavery, and I still support the abolition of capitalism, and of violent and coercive hierarchies like the government, and I still prefer opt-in non-coercive systems of organization and mutual-aid as a superior alternative to both insurance companies and state-run universal health care.

As to which is least bad, state-run universal health care, or insurance companies, I can't say without having information about how patients are treated, and how patients pay. It's possible for either one to be worse.

[Nachie]

I'm an anti-state communist, not an anarchist, but try to think of it this way:

It's less about being "against the state" than being for autonomy. This principle means that all decisions should be taken by whoever is affected by them, without outside overhead enforcement from any other entity. Both corporate healthcare and state healthcare are thus disqualified.

Instead, we see communities (in sizes determined by location, local culture, and subjective circumstances, resources, opportunities, physical obstacles to integration such as capitalist violence) coming together to self-organize for their own specific needs in this and all other areas. It is impossible to say what this might look like in all cases but suffice to say that it would be free both from money and from bureaucracy.

It is also worth noting that Western allopathic medicine has been developed as a patriarchal science specifically towards the objective of centralizing a dependence on institutionalized healthcare and stealing from each family and neighborhood and circle of friends the knowledge and traditions necessary to keep themselves healthy. The entire logic of capitalist healthcare is to treat the symptom rather than the disease, and focus on being sick instead of staying healthy. We can only hope to resist this trend as much as possible in our own revolutionary organization.

[BAM]

class struggle anarchists will fight against cuts in healthcare provision, welfare and so on, not because they support the state providing these services, but because they form a part of the social wage. Thus cuts in services are an attack on the living standards of workers. I can easily see why, for example, American anarchists would support state-provided healthcare over the private insurance alternative - because the former more clearly raises the living standards of working class people.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

You'll learn soon enough that anarchy does not, in fact, equate to chaos.

As far as healthcare goes, the only anarchists who are going to have a hard time are primitivists.
I never said it would lead to chaos.

being against the state dosnt mean being against organisation or former state institutions.Thank you for clarifying.

I'm not going to complain about a public health care system if it works fairly well.Agreed.

I can easily see why, for example, American anarchists would support state-provided healthcare over the private insurance alternative - because the former more clearly raises the living standards of working class people.Agreed.

It's less about being "against the state" than being for autonomy. This principle means that all decisions should be taken by whoever is affected by them, without outside overhead enforcement from any other entity. Both corporate healthcare and state healthcare are thus disqualified.

Instead, we see communities (in sizes determined by location, local culture, and subjective circumstances, resources, opportunities, physical obstacles to integration such as capitalist violence) coming together to self-organize for their own specific needs in this and all other areas. It is impossible to say what this might look like in all cases but suffice to say that it would be free both from money and from bureaucracy.I agree that healthcare should be free from money and based on what the communities want and not entities(against capitalist healthcare). I kind of see this as an evolution. From capitalist-to state/social-to community health care right now seems most likely. If we could cut out the state step that would be great but it seems like an important stepping stone in the right direction to me. The transition would seem too difficult without it unless there was a mass revolution that seems too unlikely any time soon(in america at least). I would deffinitley support that revolution.

[Slavoj Zizzle]

Why do you say a revolution isn't likely? First, when has a revolution ever been successfully predicted? All we can do is look at the material conditions and say that they are favorable for revolution, and in my evaluation the conditions for revolution are better than they have been for decades. In fact there are multiple revolutions going on right now around the world which you can read about on this great forum :)

[meow]

in short time anarchists would support good reform. but know that reform is not enough. and that reform cant lead to revolution. so which health system? best system is one which provides best health to people. these tend to be public systems. but in my opinion it is better if they are local as well. that is my anarchist streak. decentralize. localize.

[Nachie]

I agree that healthcare should be free from money and based on what the communities want and not entities(against capitalist healthcare). I kind of see this as an evolution. From capitalist-to state/social-to community health care right now seems most likely. If we could cut out the state step that would be great but it seems like an important stepping stone in the right direction to me. The transition would seem too difficult without it unless there was a mass revolution that seems too unlikely any time soon(in america at least). I would deffinitley support that revolution.

The trick with this is that this slow evolution you're talking about more often than not has tended to increase people's reliance on centralized bureaucracy and logistical organization that springs from outside of their immediate community and is dependent on capitalist division of labor and hierarchy, which therefore cannot be maintained in the long run.

Capitalism is increasingly unable to support life on this planet. We are already beginning to see the cracks in infrastructure open up and one of the most affected areas is going to be health care. So as was the situation with the Common Ground collective in post-Katrina NOLA, community-based healthcare may just start popping up out of raw necessity, not exactly because there is a revolution going on. Though in situations where there are revolutionary upheavals, the spontaneous organs of self-defense created by the working class invariably solidify into the underlying structures for the support of the revolutionary situation after "military" victory. For this reason it is of paramount importance to be aware of authoritarianism in all aspects of revolutionary organization.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

in short time anarchists would support good reform. but know that reform is not enough. and that reform cant lead to revolution. so which health system? best system is one which provides best health to people. these tend to be public systems. but in my opinion it is better if they are local as well. that is my anarchist streak. decentralize. localize.
I agree that reform isn't enough and that local is better.

Why do you say a revolution isn't likely? First, when has a revolution ever been successfully predicted? All we can do is look at the material conditions and say that they are favorable for revolution, and in my evaluation the conditions for revolution are better than they have been for decades. In fact there are multiple revolutions going on right now around the world which you can read about on this great forum :)I'm not denying there are no revolutions, I'm talking about america. I agree that the conditions are there, it's just a matter of getting more people to wake up and gather together for the revolution. It is nice getting to read about current revolutions.

The trick with this is that this slow evolution you're talking about more often than not has tended to increase people's reliance on centralized bureaucracy and logistical organization that springs from outside of their immediate community and is dependent on capitalist division of labor and hierarchy, which therefore cannot be maintained in the long run.

Capitalism is increasingly unable to support life on this planet. We are already beginning to see the cracks in infrastructure open up and one of the most affected areas is going to be health care. So as was the situation with the Common Ground collective in post-Katrina NOLA, community-based healthcare may just start popping up out of raw necessity, not exactly because there is a revolution going on. Though in situations where there are revolutionary upheavals, the spontaneous organs of self-defense created by the working class invariably solidify into the underlying structures for the support of the revolutionary situation after "military" victory. For this reason it is of paramount importance to be aware of authoritarianism in all aspects of revolutionary organization.So basically your saying state-run healthcare will turn too hierarchal and capitalistic? That doesn't sound good. And that communities will spontaneously organize to help each others health when needed, if so, that sounds good.

[syndicat]

making demands on the state are in principle no different than demands on corporations. the state itself must try to attain some semblance of legitimacy. it must be able to govern, and sometimes when there is great discontent and struggle, it needs to make concessions to the working class. thus Social Security and minimum wage laws were both passed in 1938 in the wake of the mass workplace occupation movement and rapidly growing unionism of that era.

part of the benefit workers receive is not just from private employers but also through the state -- the socalled social wage. and a functioning public health care system that enables people to attain medical care without forcing them into bankruuptcy would be part of it.

anarchism is a form of socialism and the long run aim is social provision of free health care services through an organization managed by health care workers. so attaining a public commitment to social provision for all and affordability of health care would be victories.

[Thirsty Crow]

Why do you say a revolution isn't likely? First, when has a revolution ever been successfully predicted? All we can do is look at the material conditions and say that they are favorable for revolution, and in my evaluation the conditions for revolution are better than they have been for decades. In fact there are multiple revolutions going on right now around the world which you can read about on this great forum :)

And what about that other part, the necessary forms and intensity of consciousness which would direct the revolutionary actions?

[Nachie]

So basically your saying state-run healthcare will turn too hierarchal and capitalistic? That doesn't sound good. And that communities will spontaneously organize to help each others health when needed, if so, that sounds good.
Bingo.

Just a note on the word "spontaneously": I use it to describe forms of organization that may not have had a historical precedent or immediate cultural basis in the area where they arise, but are nevertheless adopted along the course of revolutionary struggle. I am not implying that communist forms of organization at the societal level will simply appear without at least some conscious effort.

[Misanthrope]

I know you're opposed to the state and want a revolution to take it down, but the likelihood of a revolution happening soon doesn't seem possible. Say with healthcare, it looks like we're stuck in a capitalist insurance companies versus universal state-run healthcare kind of thing. So which would you rather support? Or would you not support either? Just curious.

What are you even asking? Yes anarchists want a revolution to eliminate statism and capitalism. A revolution doesn't seem possible? Although it may not be an anarchist revolution it sure is a communist revolution, look at present day Nepal. I don't support nor care about bourgeois politics i.e. "The American Health Care debate."

[NGNM85]

Anarchism is based on a fundamental moral outrage, a belief that people deserve better. If you don't care you're not an Anarchist. There's no contradiction between recognizing the state as, in the big picture, an illigitimate institution, but supporting a state policy that will help people in need. For anybody who cares, they should overwhelmingly support a nationalized healthcare plan, because it will provide more medical care for a lower cost, especially for poor and working-class people. Moreover, moving it into the state sector leaves it open to public control, as opposed to untouchable private mini-dictatorships.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Anarchism is based on a fundamental moral outrage, a belief that people deserve better. If you don't care you're not an Anarchist. There's no contradiction between recognizing the state as, in the big picture, an illigitimate institution, but supporting a state policy that will help people in need. For anybody who cares, they should overwhelmingly support a nationalized healthcare plan, because it will provide more medical care for a lower cost, especially for poor and working-class people. Moreover, moving it into the state sector leaves it open to public control, as opposed to untouchable private mini-dictatorships..

That brings up a question: are anarchists reformist in the short term? Before someone tries to out me for trolling, I'm being serious.

[NGNM85]

.

That brings up a question: are anarchists reformist in the short term? Before someone tries to out me for trolling, I'm being serious.

"Reformist" is really just a preferred slander. Any consistent Anarchist cares about working class people and will act accordingly. 'Nuff said.

[The Feral Underclass]

I know you're opposed to the state and want a revolution to take it down, but the likelihood of a revolution happening soon doesn't seem possible. Say with healthcare, it looks like we're stuck in a capitalist insurance companies versus universal state-run healthcare kind of thing. So which would you rather support? Or would you not support either? Just curious.

Neither, since we don't support state intervention.

But obviously free, universal healthcare is preferable to healthcare you have to pay for.

[Raúl Duke]

Most anarchists in the U.S. would love to have public universal health care...
...but you won't exactly see them "fighting for it" in the U.S; much less voting for it!

In the UK, anarchists defend the NHS because an attack on the NHS is seen as an attack on prior working class-gained reforms (i.e. an attack on the "social wage" or whatever syndicat mentioned).

Now you must be thinking, well if the reforms can be kept than why have revolution? The issue is fighting for better conditions for the working class creates a strain on the system and when given the chance the system will attempt to roll-back or destroy any working class gains. Sometimes the gains will be destroyed via capitalism's nature, such as the capital (job flight) to cheaper labor markets. Reforms in many cases are ephemeral things. During these opportunities, if the elites miscalculate, the working class might act in its self-interest (sometimes quite spontaneously) and defend their gains, sometimes in ways that could create a revolutionary situation. For example, during Argentina's IMF crisis workers took over about-to-close factories so to preserve their employment. Imagine if it was more widespread?

Also, miserable living conditions do not always equal revolution imminent or a militant working class. I remember reading that the most militant workers came from relatively well-paid industries