Anarchy

[Jude]

Anyone care to explain what anarchists hope to accomplish? Maybe I just don't understand its core values...

[which doctor]

They hope to accomplish a stateless, classless society in which property has been abolished and everything done on a voluntary basis.

It differs a little between to different sects of anarchism.

[R_P_A_S]

i don't really know much about it either. I'm just learning more about Marxism. then I will take up some Anarchist stuff.

here's a question. So what's more feasible? Anarchism? or communism?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:55 pm
here's a question. So what's more feasible? Anarchism? or communism?
The two are not mutually exclusive.

[abbielives!]

anarchists hope to acomplish a world where human needs are provided for.
feasible in terms of what?
communists have had people been elected to office although, in terms of reaching the agreed upon final goal, this has not acomplished much. i dont think you can measure anarchist's influance that way though.

[Red Menace]

How does Anarchy seek to get things done soley through voluterism?

[CrimsonTide]

Actually, the end-results of Marxism and Anarchism are the same, they just have different ideas of what it takes to get there.

Marxists believe that after a Proletariat-run state crushes the Bourgeouis for good, it will create a classless society, and thereafter wither away.

Anarchists don't believe in the Proletariat-run state in-between though.

In my opinion though, a strong state is initially necessary to crush the Bourgeois class underfoot, and to defend the Proletariat against external capitalist imperialism. Not only that, but much education will have to be undertaken to erase the capitalist propaganda pumped into people all these centuries. A "Capitalism Detoxing", if you will.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 04, 2007 07:35 am
How does Anarchy seek to get things done soley through voluterism?
The same way communists do.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:15 am
Anyone care to explain what anarchists hope to accomplish? Maybe I just don't understand its core values...
Anarchism or "Libertarian communism" as it's sometimes equated, seeks exactly the same ends as Leninism, or "Authoritarian communism" ; the abolition of capitalism and the state, and the formation of a classless society run along the lines of "from each according their faculties, to each according their needs"

The split between the Libertarian Communists (anarchists) and the Authoritarian Communists occurred before the Russian Revolution, over the issue of the state. The Anarchists in the first international disagreed with Marx, and claimed that the state needed to be abolished along with capitalism, arguing; "If you put even the most ardent revolutionary on the throne, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be as murderous as the tsar himself"

and after the Bolsheviks betrayed the successful Anarchist revolution in Ukraine, signed their land off to the Germans and slaughtered the workers militias (The Makhnovists), that split was cemented, and remains so to the present day. Though there was a lot of collaboration between the Anarchists and the Communists in the Spanish civil war.

[Tatarin]

"If you put even the most ardent revolutionary on the throne, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be as murderous as the tsar himself"

But the people have a greater potential today to monitor their leaders. Back in the 19th and 20th century, people could truly rule behind closed doors. But haven't people learned from the mistakes of the Soviet Union?

I mean, we have the internet, mobile phones - the technology that can unite people and connect them to one big mass. If a leader starts doing something he or she shouldn't, then that thing can spread very fast to the people so that they can make the apropriate action.

[RGacky3]

Anarchists seek to take out Capitalism and the State.

When they talk about voluterism, they mean that no one will be coerced in to working, they will do it because they realize they need to for the good of the community and thus themselves.

Anarchism is Socialism but unlike other types of Socialism its against the State.

[Devrim]

Though there was a lot of collaboration between the Anarchists and the Communists in the Spanish civil war.

Yes, there was. Unfortunately, both the CNT and the PCE ended up collaborating together and with the bourgeoisie against the working class.

Devrim

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:06 pm

Though there was a lot of collaboration between the Anarchists and the Communists in the Spanish civil war.

Yes, there was. Unfortunately, both the CNT and the PCE ended up collaborating together and with the bourgeoisie against the working class.

Devrim
not completely correct, only the CNT-leadership actually collaborated with the bourgeois.

Many of the people on the ground organised into the Friends of Durruti for instance, or re-started the collectives as soon as the stalinists had left Aragón

[Devrim]

Originally posted by NKOS+February 04, 2007 11:31 pm--> (NKOS @ February 04, 2007 11:31 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 08:06 pm

Though there was a lot of collaboration between the Anarchists and the Communists in the Spanish civil war.

Yes, there was. Unfortunately, both the CNT and the PCE ended up collaborating together and with the bourgeoisie against the working class.

Devrim
not completely correct, only the CNT-leadership actually collaborated with the bourgeois.

Many of the people on the ground organised into the Friends of Durruti for instance, or re-started the collectives as soon as the stalinists had left Aragón[/b]

only the CNT-leadership actually collaborated with the bourgeois.

What does it mean to say that only the CNT leadership collaborated with the bourgeoisie? If you are referring to those four ministers, and they were the only ones collaborating why then were they not removed from their positions. One of the things that the anarchists are always stressing is 'recallable' delegates. Why then weren't they recalled?

In fact the CNT's involvement in the Government was ratified by the organisation as a whole. Also, the CNT's collaboration goes deeper than that. The central council of anti-fascist militias in which the CNT had deep participation was one of the central organs of the Republican state.


Many of the people on the ground organised into the Friends of Durruti for instance

The friends of Durruti while putting forward a class line was always a tiny group, and certainly didn't have 'many people' organised in it. They were though clear about who the 'guilty' parties were. They were, however, unable to make a political break with the CNT.

In May 1937 when the Stalinists, and their the workers were being attacked by the state on the streets of Barcelona. The CNT called on the workers to lay down their arms, take down the barricades, and stop their strike. We all know what the result of that was. The CNT played its role in disarming the working class both physically and politically before the Stalinists came in with their death squads. I don't think that it would be an exaggeration to portray their role as that of a 'Spanish Noske'.


or re-started the collectives as soon as the stalinists had left Aragón

It is quite strange that while anarchists have no problem condemning Stalin's line of socialism in one country, they seem to believe that it is possible to have established socialism in one, or two Aragonese villages. However interesting the experiments in collectivisation may have been. It completely ignores the fact that the state wasn't smashed, that the CNT was incorporated into that state, and that it went on to play it role as a counterrevolutionary force.

That doesn't mean that there were not good militant workers who were in the CNT, but the same could be said of the Bolshevik party in 1921. How would anarchists react to an argument about Kronstadt which said "Only the Bolshevik leadership actually attacked the working class. Many of the people on the ground organised into the Workers Group of the RCP(B)? The Bolsheviks ended up siding with capital against the working class as did the CNT.

Devrim

[Enragé]

What does it mean to say that only the CNT leadership collaborated with the bourgeoisie? If you are referring to those four ministers, and they were the only ones collaborating why then were they not removed from their positions. One of the things that the anarchists are always stressing is 'recallable' delegates. Why then weren't they recalled?


Because ministers cannot be recalled, thats simply not how the bourgeois state works.


In fact the CNT's involvement in the Government was ratified by the organisation as a whole

Pressured into taking that stand yes, after the idea of a shared (amongst the biggest unions) National Defense Council was undermined by the entrance of the Catalonian CNT branch into the Generalitat.

Look im not saying that the leaders one day got up and thought by themselves "oh lets collaborate", thereby dooming the entire CNT.. on the contrary it was the extreme influence of those leaders amongst the rank n file, and the use of ideas like an "anarchist dictatorship" to keep the great mass of people from smashing the state into tiny little bits. The point however is, is that the collaboration was headed by those influential members, and the great mass obediently followed, untill they realised what had happened and then it was too late... and their leaders sided with the state on every occasion from then on, even if the people themselves rose up.
Its ironic, indeed, for an anarchosyndicalist organisation so opposed to any form of bureaucracy to perish in the end through the great influence its leaders had.

So in short, yes the CNT rank n file did sanction the actions of the leadership in the beginning, but not all that happened because of that collaboration, in fact they often resisted it.


The central council of anti-fascist militias in which the CNT had deep participation was one of the central organs of the Republican state.


Not really. The anti-fascist militia bypassed the (conventional) state, more specifically the generalitat, and the generalitat was rendered powerless for a good length of time. The idea of that central council wasnt so bad; uniting the various anti-fascist, mostly at least in name revolutionary, factions to combat the fascists.
They did this because they were scared into not smashing the state by notions put forward by the reformist elements within the CNT speaking of the risk of an "anarchist dictatorship", which is actually would have happened if the CNT in and of itself had taken power, the CNT didnt want to "impose" self-rule upon the people. (the argumentation is flawed, but you can see the clash of anarchist ideas here, destroying the state would have, at least in their eyes, led to imposing their authority, and not destroying the state was fundamentally "un-anarchist". So whatever action they took they betrayed, in their eyes, their own ideas. They chose after much debate the first.)


The friends of Durruti while putting forward a class line was always a tiny group, and certainly didn't have 'many people' organised in it. They were though clear about who the 'guilty' parties were. They were, however, unable to make a political break with the CNT.


I said for instance.
Many nameless groups not even identifying themselves as groups clung on to collectivist policy untill the collectives were destroyed, and even after that people often restarted those communes.


That doesn't mean that there were not good militant workers who were in the CNT, but the same could be said of the Bolshevik party in 1921. How would anarchists react to an argument about Kronstadt which said "Only the Bolshevik leadership actually attacked the working class. Many of the people on the ground organised into the Workers Group of the RCP(B)? The Bolsheviks ended up siding with capital against the working class as did the CNT.


the CNT never attacked workers' power itself, it's leadership merely allowed others to do so. There is therefore a big difference between the bolsheviks and the CNT.
There was never a workers' uprising in CNT areas which the CNT then put down.


It is quite strange that while anarchists have no problem condemning Stalin's line of socialism in one country, they seem to believe that it is possible to have established socialism in one, or two Aragonese villages. However interesting the experiments in collectivisation may have been. It completely ignores the fact that the state wasn't smashed, that the CNT was incorporated into that state, and that it went on to play it role as a counterrevolutionary force.


In some places the state actually was smashed, it had no power at all in Aragón for instance.
Also how were they "experiments"? Almost a million people participated, perhaps more, i'd have to look it up, and it certainly werent one or two aragonese villages, not to mention in barcelona and other cities lots of industry was collectivised as well.

And it cannot be compared to socialism in one country since the liberated areas continuously tried to expand the revolution to other areas.

[YSR]

Goddammit!

Anarchism is more important than the Spanish Civil War! It's a theory, a critique, a viewpoint. It exists outside of just a single war 70 years ago.

[Enragé]

lol, word

but then again, leninism is more than the russian revolution
and i see many people not getting past that either

[Devrim]

Originally posted by NKOS+--> (NKOS)
What does it mean to say that only the CNT leadership collaborated with the bourgeoisie? If you are referring to those four ministers, and they were the only ones collaborating why then were they not removed from their positions. One of the things that the anarchists are always stressing is 'recallable' delegates. Why then weren't they recalled?


Because ministers cannot be recalled, thats simply not how the bourgeois state works.[/b]

Ok, maybe that is not how the bourgoise state works, but surely the working class works in completely different ways. No effort was made to stop them taking up their positions. The Generalitat could have been surprised. The four ministers could have been arrested, and shot as class traitors. Of course, it didn't happen. It is not how the bourgeois state works, but it is how revolutionary workers’ organisations would function.

As you wrote:


Originally posted by NKOS+--> (NKOS)They did this because they were scared into not smashing the state by notions put forward by the reformist elements within the CNT speaking of the risk of an "anarchist dictatorship", which is actually would have happened if the CNT in and of itself had taken power, the CNT didnt want to "impose" self-rule upon the people. (the argumentation is flawed, but you can see the clash of anarchist ideas here, destroying the state would have, at least in their eyes, led to imposing their authority, and not destroying the state was fundamentally "un-anarchist". So whatever action they took they betrayed, in their eyes, their own ideas. They chose after much debate the first.)[/b]

When you say that the argumentation was flawed, I would relate it to a deeper theoretical flaw that came from anarchist theory of the time. Basically from the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Mainstream anarchism refused to recognise that by refusing to take political power, the working class left the bourgeoisie in control. The FoD, however, did seem to go beyond this with their avocation of 'revolutionary Juntas', which in essence is the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Originally posted by NKOS

That doesn't mean that there were not good militant workers who were in the CNT, but the same could be said of the Bolshevik party in 1921. How would anarchists react to an argument about Kronstadt which said "Only the Bolshevik leadership actually attacked the working class. Many of the people on the ground organised into the Workers Group of the RCP(B)? The Bolsheviks ended up siding with capital against the working class as did the CNT.


the CNT never attacked workers' power itself, it's leadership merely allowed others to do so. There is therefore a big difference between the bolsheviks and the CNT.
There was never a workers' uprising in CNT areas which the CNT then put down.

I didn't claim that the CNT directly took up arms to attack the working class. What I said was:


[email protected]
In May 1937 when the Stalinists, and their the workers were being attacked by the state on the streets of Barcelona. The CNT called on the workers to lay down their arms, take down the barricades, and stop their strike. We all know what the result of that was. The CNT played its role in disarming the working class both physically and politically before the Stalinists came in with their death squads. I don't think that it would be an exaggeration to portray their role as that of a 'Spanish Noske'.

I think that it is quite clear what role I am suggesting the CNT played, one of disarming the working class. The comparison with the Bolsheviks was to show what nonsense you would suggest it was if Leninists pulled out this idea that it was all down to bad leadership alone. To be honest I think that these types of arguments should be beneath anarchists, and that they seem very similar to the arguments of the most unsophisticated Trotskyists, i.e Stalin betrayed the revolution because he was a bad man. I think that it is important to go beyond this, to analyse the balance of class forces, and to determine why it happened.

The facts remain though that the CNT through calling on workers to lay down their arms, and return to work played its role in the suppression of the 1937 uprising in Barcelona. By doing this they objectively sided with capital against the working class, and as such should be condemned for this just as we condemn the actions of the Bolsheviks at Kronstadt.


NKOS
In some places the state actually was smashed, it had no power at all in Aragón for instance.

Finally, I think that this shows a certain amount of naivety on the role of the state. The state exists through its centralised institutions. It is quite strange to talk about 'the state actually being smashed in some areas'. I think that it shows up one of the main problems of Spanish anarchist theory in the 30's. They seemed to believe that they could build up workers power through their collectives on an economic level alongside the political dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Anarchists of all people should have been aware that the bourgeois state does not simply 'wither away'. Instead it must be smashed.

Devrim

[Enragé]

Ok, maybe that is not how the bourgoise state works, but surely the working class works in completely different ways. No effort was made to stop them taking up their positions. The Generalitat could have been surprised. The four ministers could have been arrested, and shot as class traitors. Of course, it didn't happen. It is not how the bourgeois state works, but it is how revolutionary workers’ organisations would function.


And that would have most likely have erupted into large scale warfare between the UGT, who with Caballero at the helm backed the republic, and the CNT.

They would have wiped eachother out, and the fascists would have marched straight in.

Now we know that in the end it would have made no difference, but to people back then, who didnt know what the future was to bring, it did.


When you say that the argumentation was flawed, I would relate it to a deeper theoretical flaw that came from anarchist theory of the time. Basically from the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Mainstream anarchism refused to recognise that by refusing to take political power, the working class left the bourgeoisie in control. The FoD, however, did seem to go beyond this with their avocation of 'revolutionary Juntas', which in essence is the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Agreed.


I think that it is quite clear what role I am suggesting the CNT played, one of disarming the working class. The comparison with the Bolsheviks was to show what nonsense you would suggest it was if Leninists pulled out this idea that it was all down to bad leadership alone. To be honest I think that these types of arguments should be beneath anarchists, and that they seem very similar to the arguments of the most unsophisticated Trotskyists, i.e Stalin betrayed the revolution because he was a bad man. I think that it is important to go beyond this, to analyse the balance of class forces, and to determine why it happened.

True to some extent, but you cannot deny the influence of leaders, or "prominent members". They generally place themselves above the rest and influence the rest heavily, and i must say its very interesting to note that this apparently happens in (at least theoretically) unbureaucratic organisations as well.

I think the relative un-educatedness (i know thats not a word :P ) of the CNT rank n file contributed to this almost servile attitude to its new prophets. After all, they could've just said "fuck you" when the CNT leaders asked them to disarm.


The facts remain though that the CNT through calling on workers to lay down their arms, and return to work played its role in the suppression of the 1937 uprising in Barcelona. By doing this they objectively sided with capital against the working class, and as such should be condemned for this just as we condemn the actions of the Bolsheviks at Kronstadt.


The leadership, by calling on the workers to lay down their arms, sided with the counter-revolution, yes, but the rank n file who actually obeyed those commands and were the base of the CNT were the actual victims.
This is completely different from the bolsheviks at kronstadt since the bolsheviks sent out an army to crush an uprising of non-bolsheviks. Thus you can easily claim the bolsheviks crushed the kronstadt uprising (which they did), but to say that the CNT, as a whole, crushed the May Days revolt, is a fallacy; the leadership did so and the rank n file allowed them to do that. That is ofcourse, not the same.


Finally, I think that this shows a certain amount of naivety on the role of the state. The state exists through its centralised institutions. It is quite strange to talk about 'the state actually being smashed in some areas'. I think that it shows up one of the main problems of Spanish anarchist theory in the 30's. They seemed to believe that they could build up workers power through their collectives on an economic level alongside the political dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Anarchists of all people should have been aware that the bourgeois state does not simply 'wither away'. Instead it must be smashed.


I agree, but the state's influence was non-existant, thus smashed, to a great degree in a great many areas. The state, abstractly, might exist through its centralised institutions, but practicly, in material reality it exists only in sofar it can impose its laws, its rule; in large parts of Aragón it could not.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by NKOS+February 05, 2007 07:21 pm--> (NKOS @ February 05, 2007 07:21 pm)
Ok, maybe that is not how the bourgoise state works, but surely the working class works in completely different ways. No effort was made to stop them taking up their positions. The Generalitat could have been surprised. The four ministers could have been arrested, and shot as class traitors. Of course, it didn't happen. It is not how the bourgeois state works, but it is how revolutionary workers’ organisations would function.


And that would have most likely have erupted into large scale warfare between the UGT, who with Caballero at the helm backed the republic, and the CNT.

They would have wiped eachother out, and the fascists would have marched straight in.

Now we know that in the end it would have made no difference, but to people back then, who didnt know what the future was to bring, it did.



[/b]
This possibility was there. The international situation was not favourable to the working class. In some ways it is merely idle speculation to talk about what could have happened, but didn't. However, some political lessons may be drawn from it. I think that there are certainly many lessons to be drawn from the events in Spain, and judging from your last post we seem to agree on at least some of them.

I think that one of the lessons that must be drawn is related to the whole idea of 'popular fronts', and anti-fascism. When the workers join with sections of the bourgeoisie to oppose some greater 'evil', it always leads to the working class being politically disarmed, and often leads to them being dragged off to die on behalf of behalf of bourgeois states in imperialist wars.

Was a revolution, and working class power possible in Spain? We will never know. What we do know is that the CNT as an organisation went down the road of collaboration with the state.

The line that you seem to be pushing is to me the same line as those who opposed the policy of 'revolutionary defeatism' in the First World War. The Germans will come, and they are much worse. Essentially it is a line of 'national defence'. If the anarchist workers in Spain had pushed forward on the road to revolution, it may have won over masses of UGT workers, it may have led to uprisings behind the fascist lines. We will never know. What we do know, however, is that a policy of class collaboration disarms the working class.


NKOS
The leadership, by calling on the workers to lay down their arms, sided with the counter-revolution, yes, but the rank n file who actually obeyed those commands and were the base of the CNT were the actual victims.
This is completely different from the bolsheviks at kronstadt since the bolsheviks sent out an army to crush an uprising of non-bolsheviks. Thus you can easily claim the bolsheviks crushed the kronstadt uprising (which they did), but to say that the CNT, as a whole, crushed the May Days revolt, is a fallacy; the leadership did so and the rank n file allowed them to do that. That is ofcourse, not the same.


Again, my point was not a straight comparison of the CNT to the Russian Bolshevik party. I actually compared the CNT leadership to Noske. My point was that you can not merely blame the actions of an organisation on its leadership. Of course there were many anarchist workers who opposed the actions of the CNT leadership, but also there were many Bolshevik workers who opposed the actions of their parties leadership, witness the mass resignations from the party in the run up to Kronstadt. We condemn parties, or organisations that pass over to the other side based on their actions, not on whether they still have masses of militant workers inside them.

maybe you could argue that the ex-Bolshevik workers in Kronstadt showed more class consciousness than the CNT workers in Spain in that they broke with their organisation, and didn't allow themselves to be sent back to work.

On the other hand one could argue that the RCP(B) had, by taking up arms against the workers, shown much more clearly which side it was on as opposed to the CNT, which merely disarmed the workers in the face of the Stalinist terror.

Devrim

[Enragé]

The line that you seem to be pushing is to me the same line as those who opposed the policy of 'revolutionary defeatism' in the First World War. The Germans will come, and they are much worse. Essentially it is a line of 'national defence'. If the anarchist workers in Spain had pushed forward on the road to revolution, it may have won over masses of UGT workers, it may have led to uprisings behind the fascist lines. We will never know. What we do know, however, is that a policy of class collaboration disarms the working class.

I agree. Even if the republic had prevailed it might not have been that much better. A spanish anarchist philosopher in that time said more or less that whatever the outcome of the spanish civil war, the end result would be the same; whether it is oppression by the hands of the communists (=stalinists) and their bourgeois allies, or by the fascists, it makes no difference to us.

That said however, at that time, in the summer of '36, how could they have known? Look, i most likely would have rooted for the CNT to smash the state if i lived in Barcelona in '36, but its not completely deranged that people would have thought "well i prefer the republic to the fascists for the time being", especially seeing the terror inflicted in the nationalist areas, especially without the knowledge the socalled communists would later inflict.


In any case, i think we mostly see eye to eye :)

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+February 04, 2007 04:20 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ February 04, 2007 04:20 am)
Red [email protected] 04, 2007 07:35 am
How does Anarchy seek to get things done soley through voluterism?
The same way communists do. [/b]
Communists doesn't use volunteerism as their main source of production and income. I just think it is ludicrous to think and to expect things to get done soley through volunteerism.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Red Menace+February 05, 2007 03:59 pm--> (Red Menace @ February 05, 2007 03:59 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 04:20 am

Red [email protected] 04, 2007 07:35 am
How does Anarchy seek to get things done soley through voluterism?
The same way communists do.
Communists doesn't use volunteerism as their main source of production and income. I just think it is ludicrous to think and to expect things to get done soley through volunteerism. [/b]
How do they expect things to get done?

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+February 05, 2007 07:21 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ February 05, 2007 07:21 pm)
Originally posted by Red [email protected] 05, 2007 03:59 pm

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 04:20 am

Red [email protected] 04, 2007 07:35 am
How does Anarchy seek to get things done soley through voluterism?
The same way communists do.
Communists doesn't use volunteerism as their main source of production and income. I just think it is ludicrous to think and to expect things to get done soley through volunteerism.
How do they expect things to get done? [/b]
I don't want to say through force, but it is required for you to give something back to society, if society is going to give you food and a house.

[bcbm]

Why required, why not just have it be voluntary?

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 05, 2007 10:16 pm
Why required, why not just have it be voluntary?
It's nice as a way to boost the economy, but not as its main basis. It's foolhardy to think that everyone is going to volunteer. There are a few good people out there, that use their time to help others, while gaining nothing financially. Sure a few parks and a few schools are cleaned of graffitti and garbage. Sure a few people volunteer at homeless/animal shelters, that's what allow's those programs to survive is through voluntering, But assuming that everyone will give up their time to volunteer is ludicrous.

It's a romanticized idea that everyone will join hands and there will be rainbows and sunshine, and everyone will help each other out voluntarily. But at some point the romanticism turns into madness. It's a simple truth that people need to be mandated or forced into helping out, as sad as that is, it is the simple truth. I don't like it anymore than you do, but thats just how it works.

[bcbm]

It's foolhardy to think that everyone is going to volunteer.

Why? In a society where one gains when the community gains (the basis of a collective society), why would people NOT voluntarily do things?


Sure a few parks and a few schools are cleaned of graffitti and garbage. Sure a few people volunteer at homeless/animal shelters, that's what allow's those programs to survive is through voluntering, But assuming that everyone will give up their time to volunteer is ludicrous.

Why are you comparing a modern, capitalist, non-collectivist society to a stateless, classless society based on the opposite ideas? To take your example, the lower classes commonly practice mutual aid and do things for each other voluntarily... why would this not expand?

And cleaning graffitti is lame.


It's a romanticized idea that everyone will join hands and there will be rainbows and sunshine, and everyone will help each other out voluntarily.

Don't talk like I'm preaching some hippie utopian bullshit and be all condescending about it, because I'm not. What I'm suggesting has been shown time and time again throughout history.


It's a simple truth that people need to be mandated or forced into helping out, as sad as that is, it is the simple truth. I don't like it anymore than you do, but thats just how it works.

No, that is bullshit. People are self-interested creatures, of couse, but a free and egalitarian society would align self-interest with community interest. There is no need for force or mandate and if there is, then I don't want any fucking part of it.