"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[iolo]

Anarchism doesn't want, surely, to gain power but to abolish it? Wherever real social change has been voted for, so my reading tells me, it has quickly been over thrown by the local military or foreign intervention. After Brexit and Trump I find it difficult, myself, to suppose that democracy or democratic thinking are showing much sign of increase.

You can't abolish power. Things need to be done.

Anarchism wants to spread power as far as possible. As many checks on power as possible.

Democratic control as far as possible.

I suppose my thinking is summed up in what I learned when I was about twelve: no man is good enough to be another man's master (and, in a more aware age, that would obviously apply to women). That is what I mean by power - general decisions are another thing - but those who object should have a way to get out, that's all.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You can't abolish power. Things need to be done.

Anarchism wants to spread power as far as possible. As many checks on power as possible.

Democratic control as far as possible.

Back when I was an anarchist reading anarchist theory the definition we used was power is forcing somebody to do something they, if free, wouldn't do.

With that definition power is always bad and always coercive.

 

[untermensche]

You can't abolish power. Things need to be done.

Anarchism wants to spread power as far as possible. As many checks on power as possible.

Democratic control as far as possible.

Back when I was an anarchist reading anarchist theory the definition we used was power is forcing somebody to do something they, if free, wouldn't do.

With that definition power is always bad and always coercive.

So stopping somebody from raping somebody is coercion?

 

[untermensche]

When people ARE dominated. When their spirits are crushed by a system of dictators they become sick.

Anarchism is the cure.

So sound awfully sure of yourself. How could you possibly know this?

All it takes is an understanding that humans are products of their environment.

Most will not question the arrangements found at birth. They will somehow see them as natural.

Even if they are oppressive dictatorships, the root cause of many wars and driving the entire planet over a cliff.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Even by your doctor when you are sick? Do you like the concept of traffic laws and that they're enforced forcefully by the police?

Like it or not, we've all, in modern society, in many ways submitted to another's power because it makes life easier. The border between social contract type power and exploitative power is not always that clear. An example could be when you've entered into a contract which at the time of signing was fair, but there has since popped up competitors and you'd be better off if you could switch. Grey area.

I've thought about this a lot, and people often zero in on one little thing which is within their control, and then boldly proclaim they're the master of their fate. While in reality they have almost no control over their lives.

I don't think I'm controlled by doctors - I can get up and go unless I'm drugged, and the traffic regulations are something we all agree on. I was once in the RAF: I spent most of my time making escape plans, and I shall never, never, never put myself in such a position again. I was warned, but thought I was the master of my fate. I learned my lesson: all power stinks, everywhere and always.

But that has been the argument we've made for any job. So if you don't like the conditions working at McDonalds you get up and go.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So sound awfully sure of yourself. How could you possibly know this?

All it takes is an understanding that humans are products of their environment.

Most will not question the arrangements found at birth. They will somehow see them as natural.

Even if they are oppressive dictatorships, the root cause of many wars and driving the entire planet over a cliff.

War is definitely a strange thing among humans. It's been around since the beginning and all societies engaged in it. Humans have a weird love hate relationship with war.

 

[untermensche]

All it takes is an understanding that humans are products of their environment.

Most will not question the arrangements found at birth. They will somehow see them as natural.

Even if they are oppressive dictatorships, the root cause of many wars and driving the entire planet over a cliff.

War is definitely a strange thing among humans. It's been around since the beginning and all societies engaged in it. Humans have a weird love hate relationship with war.

Which is why we should make starting one deliberately as difficult as possible.

Actually all we have to do is follow the Constitution and require a Congressional Declaration.

Every despot says we are in extraordinarily dangerous times and I need special powers.

 

[coloradoatheist]

War is definitely a strange thing among humans. It's been around since the beginning and all societies engaged in it. Humans have a weird love hate relationship with war.

Which is why we should make starting one deliberately as difficult as possible.

Actually all we have to do is follow the Constitution and require a Congressional Declaration.

Every despot says we are in extraordinarily dangerous times and I need special powers.

I agree with you there. But it's also been eliminating war this century with the combination of how bad the wars were plus capitalism and trade.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Back when I was an anarchist reading anarchist theory the definition we used was power is forcing somebody to do something they, if free, wouldn't do.

With that definition power is always bad and always coercive.

So stopping somebody from raping somebody is coercion?

In anarchist utopia why would anybody rape?

 

[untermensche]

So stopping somebody from raping somebody is coercion?

In anarchist utopia why would anybody rape?

You've just removed yourself from serious discussion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In anarchist utopia why would anybody rape?

You've just removed yourself from serious discussion.

Well, that's the problem with anarchist theory. It's fundamentally utopian. Based on Rousseau's ideas of the noble savage. The theory really is that if everybody is free then nobody would oppress anyone and stuff like rape wouldn't happen. Rape is a symptom of a sick society. But in a healthy society then that kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Anarcho-syndicalism is only slightly better. Which is what George Orwell was. That on the other hand is just as idealistic. If only this and that happens then everything will be great and perfect. Fundamentally also utopian. only a bit less so.

 

[untermensche]

You've just removed yourself from serious discussion.

Well, that's the problem with anarchist theory. It's fundamentally utopian. Based on Rousseau's ideas of the noble savage. The theory really is that if everybody is free then nobody would oppress anyone and stuff like rape wouldn't happen. Rape is a symptom of a sick society. But in a healthy society then that kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Anarcho-syndicalism is only slightly better. Which is what George Orwell was. That on the other hand is just as idealistic. If only this and that happens then everything will be great and perfect. Fundamentally also utopian. only a bit less so.

It is not more idealistic than any other system. Saying that humans have the potential for cooperation is hardly idealistic.

It recognizes that humans have the potential for evil.

Like wanting to rape somebody.

Or dictate over somebody so you can use them as a tool.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's the issue of how to deal with people who don't believe in your utopia. Capitalism doesn't care, but these utopian version have. And it's these people who are either shot or sent to re-education camps.

First you point out the ignorance in calling methods to increase human morality some utopian dream.

It is as ignorant as some supporter of monarchy calling a supporter of democracy a utopian dreamer.

IGNORANT!

But your system isn't morally superior, but is actually profoundly immoral. Your system cannot tell the difference between removing a positive incentive and applying a negative incentive.

 

[untermensche]

First you point out the ignorance in calling methods to increase human morality some utopian dream.

It is as ignorant as some supporter of monarchy calling a supporter of democracy a utopian dreamer.

IGNORANT!

But your system isn't morally superior, but is actually profoundly immoral. Your system cannot tell the difference between removing a positive incentive and applying a negative incentive.

Eliminating immoral structures is only called immoral by charlatans.

 

[Elixir]

But your system isn't morally superior, but is actually profoundly immoral. Your system cannot tell the difference between removing a positive incentive and applying a negative incentive.

Eliminating immoral structures is only called immoral by charlatans.

Eliminating structures that keep your ass alive is called STUPID.

 

[untermensche]

Eliminating immoral structures is only called immoral by charlatans.

Eliminating structures that keep your ass alive is called STUPID.

No dictator is keeping anybody alive.

Many of their human tools are keeping them alive though.

To claim the removal of dictators is the same as removing something keeping people alive is laughable. It is the removal of something bringing us all closer to death. Bringing the entire human race closer to death.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Great Leap Forward was far more than a failed effort at small scale steel production.

There was a wide attempt to level society on the basis that position is due to power, not to merit, akin to what our Superman-wannabe is after. It was disastrous, megadeaths due to mismanagement.

I'm in no way defending Mao or the Chinese communists. But when there's new management it's good if it gets to stay the same a while until the new management gets comfortable. Successful change is usually gradual and over time. Because China was surrounded by enemies they had to get wise fast. Russia was early allies, but Mao realised pretty fast that getting help from Russia meant becoming a Russian puppet. And Mao had gotten to power by promising land reform. He couldn't really wait on that one.

Yes, the Great Leap was a disaster and would probably had failed no matter what. But it really didn't help things that they didn't have time to plan for it or get organised, and that the rest of the world was conspiring to see them fail.

Land reform? You mean taking the land from the people and giving it to the state?

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with this approach is that leadership ability doesn't translate into ability to lead to the right place. Your world follow Trumps.

Trump is currently the US president.

That is not my world. That is the world of everybody.

In my world there is no single executive with the power Trump has.

His power would be spread thin in a democratic body.

The US president is a remnant of the King. A monstrosity.

It should be abolished and replaced with a democratic body.

Maybe 50 people. One from each State.

Then you spend forever trying to come to an agreement on what to do. Nothing complex gets done.

- - - Updated - - -

Anarchism doesn't want, surely, to gain power but to abolish it? Wherever real social change has been voted for, so my reading tells me, it has quickly been over thrown by the local military or foreign intervention. After Brexit and Trump I find it difficult, myself, to suppose that democracy or democratic thinking are showing much sign of increase.

You can't abolish power. Things need to be done.

Anarchism wants to spread power as far as possible. As many checks on power as possible.

Democratic control as far as possible.

Spreading it far and wide dilutes it to the point it's meaningless. Nothing big gets done. You die.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So stopping somebody from raping somebody is coercion?

In anarchist utopia why would anybody rape?

Why would an anarchist society have any less rape?

Sexually repressive societies can increase rape but there's no way a lack of power can eliminate it.

 

[untermensche]

In anarchist utopia why would anybody rape?

Why would an anarchist society have any less rape?

Sexually repressive societies can increase rape but there's no way a lack of power can eliminate it.

No Anarchist society is going to allow rape.

In terms of economic arrangements nobody allows slavery anymore.

A day will come, or humans will not continue, where dictatorship is not allowed either.

 

[Elixir]

Why would an anarchist society have any less rape?

Sexually repressive societies can increase rape but there's no way a lack of power can eliminate it.

No Anarchist society is going to allow rape.

What is the non-existent entity you call "Anarchist society" going to do about it?

And.... isn't "Anarchist society" an oxymoron?