Could Anarchy ever work?

[perdido]

I am in no way an Anarchist for the simple belief that it would never work. So I am wondering if there are any diehard anarchists on this board. And can someone explain to me how it would ever work? People will always have needs, and there will always be someone to provide those needs.

[bcbm]

I don't understand how anarchism is incompatible with providing people with anything...

[perdido]

I am basically saying that someone will always gain power and have a controlling force over someone else. Understand that I ams till learning and may have my views of Anarchy completely wrong.

[MKS]

So I am wondering if there are any diehard anarchists on this board. And can someone explain to me how it would ever work?

Well I’m no diehard Anarchist but let me take a stab at your question. Anarchy will work the same way communism would work. That is to establish a non-hierarchical administration, communes, or collectives that would serve the masses. The workers/people would provide for themselves, not for wages but for need or want or product or fulfillment. That is a very basic understanding of Anarchism/Communism principle. The long answer is very boring and delves into economic theory, as well as other issues. The key about Anarchy though is the complete abolition of any state, that is to say any centralized power structure that rules over the people. Communists believe in the transitional state and some (Leninists) believe that this state is necessary for any revolution to be successful. This in my humble opinion is BS.

Anarchism could work; you should read some literature and familiarize yourself with it. To me it is the most liberating of the "Leftist" ideologies.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:50 PM
I am basically saying that someone will always gain power and have a controlling force over someone else. Understand that I ams till learning and may have my views of Anarchy completely wrong.
How could one gain power over others if people refuse to accept that power?

[Patchy]

So I am wondering if there are any diehard anarchists on this board.

Yeah, theres a lot, and they'll be here soon enough to answer your questions very thoroughly.

I'm not really an anachist myself, but I believe in many of their ideas, and I agree with them being the most Liberating.

It's not all about carnage and vandalism, just incase you figured it was.

[Clarksist]

I am basically saying that someone will always gain power and have a controlling force over someone else. Understand that I ams till learning and may have my views of Anarchy completely wrong.


Your ideas are wrong about Anarchism, but almost everybody's idea is before they really ask or read extensively on the subject. Nothing to be ashamed about.

Anarchism isn't even the degeneration of police, or laws (although it can be).

All Anarchism is, is direct rule of the people, and a non-capitalist based economy. If the people are in power, and there is not hiearchy in the economy either, you've got Anarchim in a most basic sense.

Hope that cleared up some things. For more reading goto:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

[Black Dagger]

I am in no way an Anarchist for the simple belief that it would never work. So I am wondering if there are any diehard anarchists on this board. And can someone explain to me how it would ever work? People will always have needs, and there will always be someone to provide those needs.

Can communism ever work? If yes, so can anarchism, because they are the same thing, ever heard of anarcho-communism? Anarchism is a stateless, classless society, the same as communism.



Can it be reached by the methods they prescribe? No

Where did you read that!?

*yawn* -_-

[OleMarxco]

Some people may be more naturally powerful than other's in some way - stronger, faster, smarter - but in Anarchism, they will in no way be empowered. It's a "bottom-up" kind of system, where the bottom rules the top, not only trough 'democratic institution's...but in ANY way, any aspect, any situation. The weak is put on the same scale as the Rich...and Anarchism is maybe not Leftist-theory per.se, but it doesn't "fit in" anywhere else, so it's comfly placed on the left-side...definately the most extreme of all left, then. It's not dogmatic to Marx's writin's, however, but, that's not a necessity, is it? Personally, I am for a coalition of Commies and, uh, "Annies", as we agree ;)

However: Unlike most Anarchist's, I disagree with "jumping over" the stage of Socialism. It's impossible; Since the next stage - Communism requires no border's, and no state's - AT ALL - which is kind of hard when, like, 'everyone' has to agree, sort of. Or atleast most of the world - or a continent - is positive to it. Then, and only then, when people is ready, open for it and/or maybe even indifferen to it, we can truly let insignificant beurocratises, truly slide.

[Donnie]

"Anarchy leads to communism, and communism to anarchy"- P. Kropotkin The Conquest of Bread.

Anarchism is a theory on how to achieve communism; well social anarchism anyway.

There is no reason to divulge into the functions of anarchy as anarchy is communism and you can read up on the functions of communism on the net. I suggest you look at some of the pinned topics in learning.


Personally, I am for a coalition of Commies and, uh, "Annies", as we agree
I can’t see how we can form an alliance when our means on how to achieve communism are different. How about you Marxists come and join is on our side? They’ll be pie




Some people may be more naturally powerful than other's in some way - stronger, faster, smarter - but in Anarchism, they will in no way be empowered. It's a "bottom-up" kind of system, where the bottom rules the top, not only trough 'democratic institution's...but in ANY way, any aspect, any situation. The weak is put on the same scale as the Rich...and Anarchism is maybe not Leftist-theory per.se, but it doesn't "fit in" anywhere else, so it's comfly placed on the left-side...definately the most extreme of all left, then. It's not dogmatic to Marx's writin's, however, but, that's not a necessity, is it? Personally, I am for a coalition of Commies and, uh, "Annies", as we agree wink.gif


However: Unlike most Anarchist's, I disagree with "jumping over" the stage of Socialism. It's impossible; Since the next stage - Communism requires no border's, and no state's - AT ALL - which is kind of hard when, like, 'everyone' has to agree, sort of. Or atleast most of the world - or a continent - is positive to it. Then, and only then, when people is ready, open for it and/or maybe even indifferen to it, we can truly let insignificant beurocratises, truly slide.
If you do not alienate the people there is no need for a transition stage to communism. The people have to liberate themselves not you liberate the people.

[Clarksist]

If yes, so can anarchism, because they are the same thing, ever heard of anarcho-communism? Anarchism is a stateless, classless society, the same as communism.


Anarcho-Communism is different than Anarchism & Communism.

The difference between the two is than Communism comes after Socialism. Anarchism comes right after revolution. That's a pretty big difference.

[barret]

I too have questions about anarchisim, how would an Anarchist state progress? If every one just produces for themselves, whoes going to be out there discovering new medicines, technologies etc? How would education be dealt with? In communistic states, as with the majority of the world, eductation is supposed to be guarenteed ( even though of course its not always) but if there isn't someone to run such a system, how would it exist? How would an anarchist society produce doctors, paramedics, fire fighters, and other required people in a society? I think if i could get a plausible response that answers these questions, I'd definately become an anarchist.

[Clarksist]

There's no such thing as an "anarchist state." Anarchists are against the state as much (or moreso) than they are against capitalism.


Unless you mean "state of Anarchism".

I.E. This place is in an Anarchist state.

[Faceless]

If you do not alienate the people there is no need for a transition stage to communism. The people have to liberate themselves not you liberate the people.

hehe, was gonna echo CDL on this. The "people". The proletariat will have to use coercion and a system of class rule to supress the elements of reaction and counter-revolution which will exist in the transitional period. This is all that is meant by dictatorship of the proletariat. Not all elements of the proeletariat will take part in this revolution either. Some will play a more pronounced role in revolution, the better fighters, the better tacticians; although it will be the mass strength of the proletariat which will be the engine for the revolution. This in itself constitutes a "state" which is after all just an armed body of men. The bourgeoisie I doubt are wise enough to just stand down.

This itself is a best case scenario. What if a revolution springs up in an underdeveloped country. There is no question of real democratic power sharing with the peasantry. The ideological impulse will be entirely foreign to the peasant. The urge to collectivise will be counter to the small property interests of the peasants. The method of collectie democratic union is itself a specific feature of the proletariat which no other producing class has proven capable of. The proletariat will in this case be forced to take the vanguard ahead of the peasants and elements of the underclass or else allow the the revolution to slip through their fingers. Take the actions of the peasant based SR's who eventually sided with the whites and the petty bourgeois elements of the Mensheviks

[STABD]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 09:06 PM
I too have questions about anarchisim, how would an Anarchist state progress? If every one just produces for themselves, whoes going to be out there discovering new medicines, technologies etc? How would education be dealt with? In communistic states, as with the majority of the world, eductation is supposed to be guarenteed ( even though of course its not always) but if there isn't someone to run such a system, how would it exist? How would an anarchist society produce doctors, paramedics, fire fighters, and other required people in a society? I think if i could get a plausible response that answers these questions, I'd definately become an anarchist.
We all ready have a functioning global comunity. The teacher will still teach, the doctor will still treat, but with out fear of starving. The farmer will still make his food and feel good knowing that society loves him, the scientist will cary about his work with out distraction because peopel will feed him, he can aford to study AIDS instead of having to work at a factory to provide for himself. Society wont shut down, the workers will just take back there meens of production. Also dont say anrchist state, its state of anarchy.

[barret]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 12:21 AM

We all ready have a functioning global comunity. The teacher will still teach, the doctor will still treat, but with out fear of starving. The farmer will still make his food and feel good knowing that society loves him, the scientist will cary about his work with out distraction because peopel will feed him, he can aford to study AIDS instead of having to work at a factory to provide for himself. Society wont shut down, the workers will just take back there meens of production. Also dont say anrchist state, its state of anarchy.
Hmmm maybe I'm just stupid or something but I still don't understand quite a bit. Even though a scientist maybe " loved" enough to be fed ( but what if the guy is a total prick and no one liked him?) what would make people want to be a scientist, I mean hell I'd go for the easiest life possible if I live in a State of Anarchy. Also, how would complex products be manufactered if they required many people who posses certain skills to produce it, such as cars or cell phones and such?

[STABD]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:25 PM

Hmmm maybe I'm just stupid or something but I still don't understand quite a bit. Even though a scientist maybe " loved" enough to be fed ( but what if the guy is a total prick and no one liked him?) what would make people want to be a scientist, I mean hell I'd go for the easiest life possible if I live in a State of Anarchy. Also, how would complex products be manufactered if they required many people who posses certain skills to produce it, such as cars or cell phones and such?
They will feed a scientist because they want him to discover the cure for cancer, the gain to society out weighs the coast so the comunity would suport him with what he needs, even if he is a prick. Alot of peopel become scientists and doctors and then go work in the jungle, under capitalism laziness is more rampant because you feel like you gained somthing, like you cheated the system. Siting home playing video games gets boring and it wont get you much pussy, but can you imagine how much you would get if you were like a doctor or somthen that takes work. Also complex products would be produced just like they are now, the only difrence you will see in production is that the workers will own the factory not stock holders. Its human nature to want to work, to provide. With capitalism we dont feel bad if we dont work because it coast money, we pay for are laziness so we dont feel bad about it. For example there was this day care that had a problem with the parents picking up there kids late. So they started fining them for being late, well as soon as they did that everyone came late because it was as if it was acepted(for a little bit of money).

[bombeverything]

Ok, sorry I took so long to reply to this. I have decided to try to answer all of the questions presented in the best way that I can. I hope this helps.


I am in no way an Anarchist for the simple belief that it would never work.

What this implies is that people need rulers. Why do you believe this? Are human beings so innately wicked or stupid that they do not have the capacity to make their own decisions about their own lives? That is, why would you view bottom-up decision making as an impossible task? You seem to be basing this assumption on a belief in the innate bad nature of human beings, which cannot, and never has been proven.

Try thinking about your everyday life. Does the government tell you how to get dressed in the morning? How to catch the bus? How to eat? How to go out with your friends? In practice most only notice the law when it interferes in our lives by limiting our freedom. We have more of a capacity for self-government than those in power want us to believe. Instead, this argument is most often used by capitalists and authoritarians to justify inequality and oppression by referring to the "natural inequality of people". Don't fall for this.

And by the way, anarchism has worked in the past, e.g. in Spain. That is, anarchist principles have been applied in practice and they have worked. Look it up and you will find lots of examples. There is lots of information on anarchism on the internet that you should really read.


So I am wondering if there are any diehard anarchists on this board. And can someone explain to me how it would ever work? People will always have needs, and there will always be someone to provide those needs.

An anarchist society would we one where the people themselves would produce all the necessities of our daily lives. Anarchism in practice would be a network of free associations and communities co-operating as equals based on a system of mandated delegates, instant recall, free agreement and free federation from the bottom up. That is, the people will provide for their own needs thus relying on no-one but themselves. This is necessary.


I too have questions about anarchism, how would an Anarchist state progress? If every one just produces for themselves, whoes going to be out there discovering new medicines, technologies etc? How would education be dealt with? In communistic states, as with the majority of the world, eductation is supposed to be guarenteed ( even though of course its not always) but if there isn't someone to run such a system, how would it exist? How would an anarchist society produce doctors, paramedics, fire fighters, and other required people in a society? I think if i could get a plausible response that answers these questions, I'd definately become an anarchist.

As has already been mentioned, there is no such thing as an anarchist state. We wish to destroy the state. All of these things would be dealt with in the same way they are now - except by free and equal associations of individuals. There will be someone to run the system: the people themselves.


Hmmm maybe I'm just stupid or something but I still don't understand quite a bit. Even though a scientist maybe " loved" enough to be fed ( but what if the guy is a total prick and no one liked him?) what would make people want to be a scientist, I mean hell I'd go for the easiest life possible if I live in a State of Anarchy. Also, how would complex products be manufactered if they required many people who posses certain skills to produce it, such as cars or cell phones and such?

People who are interested in science would study it, although science itself would be decentralised under anarchy. Before I answer the part about working I was wondering what you would consider to be an easy life. And also, why does it matter if we can produce up to date mobile technology or not? Technology is only useful in as much as it contributes to the wellbeing of society in general. If only a limited number of people have access to this technology, it can only be of benefit to the ruling class.

You are also assuming that the system of authority that we live under now is orderly. In reality, the state will never be able to completely suppress dissent. The existence of “law” and “order” has only one purpose: to maintain the dominance of the ruling class over the rest of society [mainly through the protection of private property which is the basis of most “crime”].

If anyone else has any questions I will try to answer them for you.

[Black Dagger]

Anarcho-Communism is different than Anarchism & Communism.The difference between the two is than Communism comes after Socialism. Anarchism comes right after revolution. That's a pretty big difference.

No, there is no difference. When i said that they are the same thing, they are, an anarchist society is a communist society and vice versa. You are confusing 'communism' and marxism. Anarchism is not marxism, but both marxists and anarchists strive for a communist society. That is, communists can be anarchists or marxists, because 'communism' is their common goal.

Communism = stateless classless society, the point at which the society is created is irrelevant to the nature of the society. The nature of the society is what defines it, and in this regard anarchy and communism are homologous.



Material reality.

Thanks Karlbotnik :lol:



Anarchists are against the state as much (or moreso) than they are against capitalism.

OMG! :o

Sectarian lies, from CompaneroDeLibertad!!!!? :o

My whole world is crashing down around me, must be 'material reality' closing in on itself :lol:

[Donnie]

No thanks, we actually want to see to the working class take power, and hold on to it.
But unfortunately every proletariat revolution that has held ideas of a transitional stage of socialism has reverted back to capitalism.


"The people" is amorphous. What people? Capitalists and fascists are people.
You knew what I meant <_< .


A workers state is needed to suppress the capitalists and abolish class divisions -- not to mention to organize distribution and defend against imperialists.
Workers militia’s are the basis of communism in action they promote the idea of equality and the workers working together to fight and suppress the capitalists. If we were to use a popular army with all the hierarchy and decision making from the top down how do you think the workers will feel when there still getting bossed around? The workers were bossed around by the upper class when society had capitalism but now in revolution there still being bossed around; this will create bitterness and resentment and can turn them into reactionaries, the workers thought they were fighting for the emancipation of his class but he’s still being used as a tool in the revolution and having to carry out orders.

No, we are the workers and it is important for us to organise ourselves along the basis of federalism in the libertarian communist organisation. We the workers can seize the production ourselves and discuss collectively on how to produce during the revolution. These decisions can be discussed in the local libertarian communist organisation but once these decisions are made we can federate the organisation into a regional and then on a national and then on an international level; so that we are still a unified libertarian force.

From a tactical point of view on the workers militia’s its better for us to be in militias because the workers militias would be split up and would be dotted all over the country. The problem with the army is that it only has one base of headquarters or only a few and these headquarters direct the army; now it would only take a reactionary force to find these headquarters and destroy them and then the army would be screwed. Where as with workers militia’s the Local towns workers could organise themselves into militia’s and federate all the towns militia’s into regional and then county/state and then international. From a tactical point of view this is beneficial because not only are there hundreds of militia’s in the country but also each town has it’s own libertarian communist organisation directing that local militia on what to attack and suppress etc but also the libertarian communist organisation directing the militia’s are also federated so we are still a unifying force.


Anarcho-Communism is different than Anarchism & Communism.The difference between the two is than Communism comes after Socialism. Anarchism comes right after revolution. That&#39;s a pretty big difference.
As Black Dagger said; Anarchists and Marxists both want to achieve Communism the only difference is our means.

[bombeverything]

There&#39;s no such thing as an "anarchist state." Anarchists are against the state as much (or moreso) than they are against capitalism.

Maybe as much, but certainly not "moreso" as you seem to want to believe.

[barret]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 12:41 AM

People who are interested in science would study it, although science itself would be decentralised under anarchy. Before I answer the part about working I was wondering what you would consider to be an easy life. And also, why does it matter if we can produce up to date mobile technology or not? Technology is only useful in as much as it contributes to the wellbeing of society in general. If only a limited number of people have access to this technology, it can only be of benefit to the ruling class.

You are also assuming that the system of authority that we live under now is orderly. In reality, the state will never be able to completely suppress dissent. The existence of “law” and “order” has only one purpose: to maintain the dominance of the ruling class over the rest of society [mainly through the protection of private property which is the basis of most “crime”].

If anyone else has any questions I will try to answer them for you.
I personally just don&#39;t see the attractiveness to becomming a doctor or scientist myself. Of course there will always be people interested, but a large majority of them do it for the money. Just walk into any pre-med class and ask any of the students, why would you want to become a doctor. Besides the " I want to help people" speach, most will say the money. I mean come on now, do you really think there would be enough people willing to take 8 years of education to not be payed at all? Now I&#39;m saying this to sound negative, but I really don&#39;t think a lot of people are accepting of this, there would have to be something that they would get in return that would make them want to become professionals.

Also, I am not assuming that the "system of authority that we live in is now orderly", but there has to be something that safe guards the people. How would people be protected from violent crimes, such as rape or murder? How would we deal with those criminally insane, serial killers, etc?

As for up to date mobile technology, I was not exclusively speaking of mobile technology, it was an example. I guess for technology I should have used better examples, such as equipment for doctors, ways of producing energies, agricultural equipment. I feel that they should be up to date, technology&#39;s sould purpose is to make our lives easier, why should we try to make our lives difficult? Also, technology shouldn&#39;t be be only accessible to a limited number of people. Everyone should be able to get the same technologies ( except doctors and scientist because the normal person would have no use for the technologies), thus they would need to be produced some how.

[Donnie]

Also, I am not assuming that the "system of authority that we live in is now orderly", but there has to be something that safe guards the people. How would people be protected from violent crimes, such as rape or murder? How would we deal with those criminally insane, serial killers, etc?
Rape is a power related crime; rapists tend to live a powerless life, by that I mean some part or all parts of there life they are treated as an inferior and so by raping someone they think they are regaining some of their power back or think that they have got some control over them and other people. This is all to do with the inequality power within our society.
In a free and equal society there will hardly be any such power related crimes; however if there is a crime the criminal will be subjected to the justice of the commune. Oh and criminally insane would be placed with in a controlled and watchful environment, we wouldn’t let the criminally insane wander the streets of society; no, because they would be harm to others and to themselves.


Everyone should be able to get the same technologies ( except doctors and scientist because the normal person would have no use for the technologies), thus they would need to be produced some how.
And the technologies shall be produced for all society comrade. You do not need a state to over see the production of commodities. In fact the state is useless at organizing production because as technology and production gets more complicated more difficulties arise out of production and only a anarchistic way of maintaining this is possible because with so many difficulties the government can not oversee every problem that’s why if we were to have a more libertarian approach to organizing production it would be a lot easier because the people themselves in each industry would be able to solve the problems collectively. Therefore as economic production becomes more complicated a more anarchistic organisation on things would be better.

[STABD]

Why not take 8 years of coledge, if not your going to be out working as a janitor or a garbage man. They get somthing in return, respect, they feel good about them selfs and peopel will respect them. Alot of peopel cant be content with being normal, they want to make some kind of a difrence, and if your smart scientist would be an easier job then trench diger.

As for crime, it will be done away with. Most crimes are because of capitalism if you follow it back far enough. Of course every now and then somthing might happen like some one gets mad and burns down your house, well, he will be one man against 100 pissed of peopel. After he is captured a judge will be elected a trial and probly he will be rehabilitated.

Products will be produced the same as they are now. The only difrence is that the workers will have controll of the factorys. Every one will get new products, the workers will probly get it first then there freinds then peopel closest to the factory then then who ever asks for it next...but in the end we will all get it. As for products for doctors and scientists, produced the same way, and they will feel good that they are helping the scientist and the doctor treat cancer.

[bombeverything]

I personally just don&#39;t see the attractiveness to becomming a doctor or scientist myself. Of course there will always be people interested, but a large majority of them do it for the money. Just walk into any pre-med class and ask any of the students, why would you want to become a doctor. Besides the " I want to help people" speach, most will say the money. I mean come on now, do you really think there would be enough people willing to take 8 years of education to not be payed at all? Now I&#39;m saying this to sound negative, but I really don&#39;t think a lot of people are accepting of this, there would have to be something that they would get in return that would make them want to become professionals.

:D

This was not what I meant at all. Although I apologise if I confused you. Undoubtedly people have this attitude under capitalism –- it is a profit driven society in which we live. However in an anarchist society, doctors and scientists will not exist [in large numbers anyway] in the way that they do today. That is, with a monopoly on specialised knowledge, and dominance over medicine [in relation to their simplistic understanding of certain anti-social behaviour, as well as physical differences between people as pure biological faults within certain individuals]. This is because the social control nature of such work would be eliminated with the destruction of the state.

This does not mean, however, that we will not live in a healthy society. Anyone can learn how to perform simple medical procedures. In anarchism people would contribute their own knowledge to the improvement of their communities, and would in turn learn from others in the group. This is different to knowledge that is imposed from above which can only stifle natural human growth. When people are told what to do it is then that they are lacking. In a free society, the people would be self-sufficient as they could carry out necessary tasks together, and this knowledge would be free to grow and develop in it&#39;s own, natural [unhindered] way.


Also, I am not assuming that the "system of authority that we live in is now orderly", but there has to be something that safe guards the people.

Yes you are. You just contradicted yourself.


How would people be protected from violent crimes, such as rape or murder? How would we deal with those criminally insane, serial killers, etc

Anarchists generally perceive the need for social systems of mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes such as these in a voluntary manner, replacing the judicial functions of courts. This is a practical and viable alternative to the creation of a new state. For instance, there are many examples where autonomous and anarchist societies in which the self-management of society has led to a reduction in crime.


As for up to date mobile technology, I was not exclusively speaking of mobile technology, it was an example. I guess for technology I should have used better examples, such as equipment for doctors, ways of producing energies, agricultural equipment. I feel that they should be up to date, technology&#39;s sould purpose is to make our lives easier, why should we try to make our lives difficult? Also, technology shouldn&#39;t be be only accessible to a limited number of people. Everyone should be able to get the same technologies ( except doctors and scientist because the normal person would have no use for the technologies), thus they would need to be produced some how.

Up to date for whom? By saying up to date you are assuming that there is better equipment somewhere else, and the only reason this could be is the existence of capitalism somewhere in the world. You need money to produce equipment.

[barret]

Ok, I&#39;m still pretty confused :(. Anyways, I will just post your replies that I have a question with, once again.
Here we go:


Rape is a power related crime; rapists tend to live a powerless life, by that I mean some part or all parts of there life they are treated as an inferior and so by raping someone they think they are regaining some of their power back or think that they have got some control over them and other people. This is all to do with the inequality power within our society.
.

First off, I would have to disagree with your idea of rape. Not all rapist believe that they are inferior, I mean look at Ted Bundy. No matter how we think these people think/ act, that doesn&#39;t mean abolsihing capitialism is going to make people magically nicer to each other because they&#39;re all equal. Of course for the most part this will be settled since no one is better than others, but theres always going to be people out there willing to take advantage of the system, and I think that there has to be a concrete method to deal with these people.


In a free and equal society there will hardly be any such power related crimes; however if there is a crime the criminal will be subjected to the justice of the commune. Oh and criminally insane would be placed with in a controlled and watchful environment, we wouldn’t let the criminally insane wander the streets of society; no, because they would be harm to others and to themselves

Of the commune? I thought this was an anarchy? And if we were to put the criminally insane in a controled environment, how would we determine who was criminally ill?


You do not need a state to over see the production of commodities

Now heres something I&#39;ve never understood, even in Communism. If commodities are not actualy needed by people, but the people only produce what they need, then how and why are they produced? Also please note, I did sort of change that, first I was talking about cell phones which are a commoditiy, but I moved up to technology in general, I don&#39;t find CAT scans to be a commodity because doctors need them to save lives, find tumors, brain injuries, etc.


Why not take 8 years of coledge, if not your going to be out working as a janitor or a garbage man. They get somthing in return, respect, they feel good about them selfs and peopel will respect them. Alot of peopel cant be content with being normal, they want to make some kind of a difrence, and if your smart scientist would be an easier job then trench diger.

I understand that it is part of the human intellect to have the desire to achieve more, but I just don&#39;t believe that there are simply enough people who have the desire to become doctors to satisfy a large group of people. How would these levels be maintained?


As for crime, it will be done away with. Most crimes are because of capitalism if you follow it back far enough. Of course every now and then somthing might happen like some one gets mad and burns down your house, well, he will be one man against 100 pissed of peopel. After he is captured a judge will be elected a trial and probly he will be rehabilitated.

I simply cannot rely on probabilites of crimes not happening, so for anyone else who is going to say that crimes will increase, I really don&#39;t care. Anyways, if someone were to commit a crime, how would this &#39;judge&#39; be elected? Who would defend this person if they themselves did not do it but had a surmounting amount of fingers pointing at them? By the system you descibe something similar to the Salem Witch Trials could occur, of course with punishment being replaced by rehabilitation.


Anyone can learn how to perform simple medical procedures. In anarchism people would contribute their own knowledge to the improvement of their communities, and would in turn learn from others in the group.

Yes but procedures can only go so far. I don&#39;t think everyone is going to be willing to learn how to perform brain surgery or operate much of the complex equipment involved with being a certified doctor, surgeon, dentist, vet, etc.


QUOTE
Also, I am not assuming that the "system of authority that we live in is now orderly", but there has to be something that safe guards the people.


Yes you are. You just contradicted yourself.

I am speaking from the point of being a communist or socialist, there would be a government that could atleast provide these basic things.


Anarchists generally perceive the need for social systems of mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes such as these in a voluntary manner, replacing the judicial functions of courts. This is a practical and viable alternative to the creation of a new state. For instance, there are many examples where autonomous and anarchist societies in which the self-management of society has led to a reduction in crime.

Once again, which begs the question, how are they maintained? Especially since this is supposed to be a governmentless society, what if they can&#39;t get enough support to convict a person? Or what if no one really likes the person and accuse this person of doing something they didn&#39;t do? Who would be there to make sure that both sides of the story are herd, unbiased


Up to date for whom? By saying up to date you are assuming that there is better equipment somewhere else, and the only reason this could be is the existence of capitalism somewhere in the world. You need money to produce equipment.

Up to date as by the world. How would a stateof anarchy keep its self updated in the subjects of medicine, health care, transportation, education, communication, etc if everything that exists in this society is out-dated and can&#39;t yeild to modern standards.
Also, how would we be up to date on the new diseases that come out every year because they find a way to resist our current day medicines?

Thanks for your time everyone one :)

[bombeverything]

Ok, here goes.


Yes but procedures can only go so far. I don&#39;t think everyone is going to be willing to learn how to perform brain surgery or operate much of the complex equipment involved with being a certified doctor, surgeon, dentist, vet, etc.

It wouldn&#39;t be necessary to have everyone performing brain surgery, etc. My general point is that under capitalism we are driven to work for profit. We wish to abolish capitalism, and thus simultaneously transform the aim of work away from profit and towards the fulfilment of the human desire for meaningful work.

Just a question, would you consider yourself a communist? Because if so, you would have to understand that what we are calling for is a complete retransformation of society, socially, politically and economically. You seem to be suggesting that either we cannot do without capitalism or that people need to be forced to work.


I am speaking from the point of being a communist or socialist, there would be a government that could atleast provide these basic things.

So you believe the people are incapable of providing for themselves? This is almost as if your suggesting that people should be forced to be communist, which is impossible.


what if they can&#39;t get enough support to convict a person? Or what if no one really likes the person and accuse this person of doing something they didn&#39;t do? Who would be there to make sure that both sides of the story are herd, unbiased

Then nothing would happen to the person. Are you suggesting that the law is unbiased? The law always acts to protect property, owned by a privileged elite. Under communism, with the abolition of private property, the only interests guiding justice within these communities would be that of the workers as a collective.


Up to date as by the world. How would a stateof anarchy keep its self updated in the subjects of medicine, health care, transportation, education, communication, etc if everything that exists in this society is out-dated and can&#39;t yeild to modern standards. Also, how would we be up to date on the new diseases that come out every year because they find a way to resist our current day medicines?

But this is the point. Anarchists wish to abolish capitalism. This is necessary if we want to ensure that we have the material goods necessary to produce these things at a reasonable level. You are talking as if capitalism will still exist alongside anarchism.

[barret]

Just a question, would you consider yourself a communist? Because if so, you would have to understand that what we are calling for is a complete retransformation of society, socially, politically and economically. You seem to be suggesting that either we cannot do without capitalism or that people need to be forced to work.

I am by no means saying that capitialism is required to have doctors, scientist, etc. What I am trying to say is that with out a government of some sort, resources ( as I will call them) such as doctors, scientist,etc will be very unregulated. The demand for them will grow because there isn&#39;t a very clear benefit to becomming one ( and being liked by others doesn&#39;t count), and that they will not be properly dispursed or regulated throughout the society. My argument isn&#39;t that we need the high wages for doctors, but rather, some sort of way to insure that people will become them, because they are a need, not a want. I guess you could say forced occupation, but with a state of anarchy, who would force people to be doctors? Atleast in a communistic state, the government has some control of the professions.


So you believe the people are incapable of providing for themselves? This is almost as if your suggesting that people should be forced to be communist, which is impossible.

By no means. people can make as much as what ever they want, but how are they going to be properly dispursed amongst the people? Atleast in a communistic state, people are theoritcally guarenteed health care, clothes, etc, but in a state of anarchy, whoes going to guarentee anything?


Then nothing would happen to the person. Are you suggesting that the law is unbiased? The law always acts to protect property, owned by a privileged elite. Under communism, with the abolition of private property, the only interests guiding justice within these communities would be that of the workers as a collective.

It had nothing to do with private property, not unless you consider your own life private property. I was talking about the idea of murdering, raping, harassing someone. Those are actual crimes that should be punished, and would be in a communist country, but I don&#39;t see how a state of anarchy would accomplish that.


But this is the point. Anarchists wish to abolish capitalism. This is necessary if we want to ensure that we have the material goods necessary to produce these things at a reasonable level. You are talking as if capitalism will still exist alongside anarchism.

Even if the world all at once some how became one big realm of anarchy, its not going to stop new diseases from forming, more needs of communication, or the slowing of the growth of the population. If everyone on the earth ( the 6 + billion) had to produce their own food it would equate to a lot of land being used. You guys reject this by saying some one will farm while they do other things. But sooner or later the amount of farming production will have to increase to compesate for the population, and the main way of doing this would be to progress with new methods and technologies, since land is not always redily availible to farm on. And to say that in order for us to maintain a resonable level of something by producing it at a resonable level can&#39;t be a correct statement. First off, with no government, how would they know how much to produce? How safe would these products be? How would the be distributed?

Thanks for your time :).

[bombeverything]

I am by no means saying that capitialism is required to have doctors, scientist, etc.

Ok.


What I am trying to say is that with out a government of some sort, resources ( as I will call them) such as doctors, scientist,etc will be very unregulated. The demand for them will grow because there isn&#39;t a very clear benefit to becomming one ( and being liked by others doesn&#39;t count), and that they will not be properly dispursed or regulated throughout the society.

But there is a difference between organisation and authority. We are not opposed to organisation. If the community needed a doctor, they would work out together what they could do to fix the problem. Are you suggesting that collective decision making is impossible? You seem to believe that people are incapable of making their own decisions. If you disagree with this, then what exactly is the point of government?

Instead, without government people would discover alternative ways of organisation -- from the bottom up. And yes, it would be "unregulated", this is the point&#33;


My argument isn&#39;t that we need the high wages for doctors, but rather, some sort of way to insure that people will become them, because they are a need, not a want. I guess you could say forced occupation, but with a state of anarchy, who would force people to be doctors? Atleast in a communistic state, the government has some control of the professions.

Through forced labour? We are opposed to the government controlling the people, which is the opposite of communism. By the way I am opposed to professionalism, but this is another issue.


It had nothing to do with private property, not unless you consider your own life private property. I was talking about the idea of murdering, raping, harassing someone. Those are actual crimes that should be punished, and would be in a communist country, but I don&#39;t see how a state of anarchy would accomplish that.

Don&#39;t you believe the people as a collective would be able to carry out this task? And our aim wouldn&#39;t be punishment, but rehabilitation. Punishment is illogical as people are products of their environment.

Also, you keep going on about guarantees. Anarchism is about people doing things for themselves.

[barret]

Well then Anarchy isn&#39;t for me. I never said that people were not able to organize, quite obviously they can, and then internet is probably my best example.


You seem to believe that people are incapable of making their own decisions

I don&#39;t see how you could have ever came to this conclusion, if I truely believed that, I would have joined the Catholic Church a long time ago...


If you disagree with this, then what exactly is the point of government?

A Government should atleast be able to provide for its citizens. Whats the point of having hundreds of doctors if they&#39;re unable to get the equipment they need? A government should be able to position help for its citizens, what if in your state of anarchy all of the doctors lived with in 100 miles of each other, but left out a large area of 50+ miles of people who were inable to travel to a doctor?


Instead, without government people would discover alternative ways of organisation -- from the bottom up. And yes, it would be "unregulated", this is the point&#33;

But do we really have time to reinvent the wheel? Organization already exists, why do we need to find different ways of accomplishing the same thing? I am also totaly against the &#39;unregulated&#39; idea, so lets not bother with that.


Through forced labour? We are opposed to the government controlling the people, which is the opposite of communism.

I only used forced labour as an example because I lack the intelligence to figure out another way of explaining what I was trying to convey.


Don&#39;t you believe the people as a collective would be able to carry out this task? And our aim wouldn&#39;t be punishment, but rehabilitation. Punishment is illogical as people are products of their environment.

I do believe people as a collective can carry out the task, but in a state of anarchy, if everyone is doing things for themselves, whos going to carry out this task?

As for punishment, I might be wrong about apply punishment to a crime, but there has to be some compesation. Also what people consider punishment is also a subject that varies from person to person. I&#39;m not talking about burning at the stake, or torture, but rather, isolating certain individuals from society. Anyways, wouldn&#39;t that make sense in a state of anarchy since everyone is supposed to provide for themselves?

[bombeverything]

Sorry if this sounds harsh but I don&#39;t understand what you are trying to say here at all. The above post was full of contradictions. By unregulated I was referring to a lack of external compulsion. You still seem to incorrectly equate "anarchy" with "chaos".

My advice is that you first do some background reading on both anarchism and communism (e.g. marxism).

When I posted yesterday I was in a hurry so I apologise if this was obvious. I forgot that it was a learning forum. As a result I will be back tomorrow to reply properly.

:)

[enigma2517]

The economic question bothered me for quite a bit.

Its certainetly a tough one that deserves more attention.

Somebody on the board posted this earlier. It REALLY clears up a lot and sets up a hypothetical new system.

Thumbs up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecon

[bombeverything]

Yeah, I just bought a great book about participatory economics which I believe would be helpful in this case. Although most of the things in it are explained in the website enigma2517 just mentioned.

[bombeverything]

A Government should atleast be able to provide for its citizens.

We would generally argue that this is impossible as the state by it&#39;s very nature can only "provide for" a minority of its citizens -- the ruling elite.


But do we really have time to reinvent the wheel? Organization already exists, why do we need to find different ways of accomplishing the same thing?

We wish to accomplish anarchy, which is order without government or authority. Although we can organise, our freedom is still limited by the capitalist system we live within. Real human organisation is impossible within a class ridden, hierarchical society.


I only used forced labour as an example because I lack the intelligence to figure out another way of explaining what I was trying to convey.

:lol:


I do believe people as a collective can carry out the task, but in a state of anarchy, if everyone is doing things for themselves, whos going to carry out this task?

I thought I had been through this a number of times. The people will carry out the tasks in a cooperative. We do not see such a division between the individual and society. Real freedom is impossible without equality and vice versa. When I said people would be doing things for themselves I meant as a collective. An individual’s freedom would obviously end when it interfered with the freedom of another. As social beings, this is necessary.


As for punishment, I might be wrong about apply punishment to a crime, but there has to be some compesation.

This would have to be decided on at the time. Generally, however, a high level of crime would signify that there is a communal (or a social) problem that needed to be addressed. Most anarchists would agree that something would have to be done to the individual in the meantime. However, the decision would have to be made collectively to ensure that the process is fair and transparent.


Also what people consider punishment is also a subject that varies from person to person. I&#39;m not talking about burning at the stake, or torture, but rather, isolating certain individuals from society. Anyways, wouldn&#39;t that make sense in a state of anarchy since everyone is supposed to provide for themselves?

When I say “provide for themselves”, I am not referring to individuals as separate from their society. This is the ideology of capitalism. Sorry if I confused you.


Whats the point of having hundreds of doctors if they&#39;re unable to get the equipment they need? A government should be able to position help for its citizens, what if in your state of anarchy all of the doctors lived with in 100 miles of each other, but left out a large area of 50+ miles of people who were inable to travel to a doctor?

This is why communities need to train their own "doctors" rather relying on outside help or charity. I am not saying that I am opposed to government welfare within the current system. Hell, they should pay out&#33; But in a classless society, this would be unnecessary as the communities would be self-sufficient.

I hope this was clearer.

[barret]

Sorry about not being able to reply for a while, I was kicked out of my house,etc, etc. Anyways You did clear up Anarchy for me. But, I still just can&#39;t find the grounds to agree with it, to me it seems to vunerable and frail, and there are to many complications involved. Anyways, I will continue on, with my search for further meaning to anarchism, but until then, I probably won&#39;t totally accept it.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 07:49 PM
Sorry about not being able to reply for a while, I was kicked out of my house,etc, etc. Anyways You did clear up Anarchy for me. But, I still just can&#39;t find the grounds to agree with it, to me it seems to vunerable and frail, and there are to many complications involved. Anyways, I will continue on, with my search for further meaning to anarchism, but until then, I probably won&#39;t totally accept it.

That is alright. I hope everything is ok. There are complications with all political theories. In reply to your statement about anarchism being vulnerable to outside forces this is why we are working towards the creation of a conscious, well-organised and non-hierarchical movement that is able to oppose the state and capital. Real communism can only be achieved by the working class themselves.

Anyway I will be interested to see what your views are in a few years. Good luck. Btw I like your quote.

[anarchy]

black banner black gum, i agree with you, what DOES anarchy have 2 do with supplying ppl with their wants & needs, these things can still be provide in MOST but not all types of gov. the 2 have NO direct correlation.

[barret]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 12:51 PM
black banner black gum, i agree with you, what DOES anarchy have 2 do with supplying ppl with their wants & needs, these things can still be provide in MOST but not all types of gov. the 2 have NO direct correlation.
But can they be evenly distrubited tot he masses was my question.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:50 PM
Its human nature to want to work, to provide.
:D Don&#39;t start with "human nature", it&#39;s a whole &#39;nother can of worms