Communism, Democracy, and Anarchy

[drag]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Actually, the latest census figures show that AIDS and other problems are slowing down population growth. Many have also argued that the remaining overpopulation problems are largely due to women being unempowered. In other words, whether or not science and technological developements will be able to keep pace is still up in the air. They may not have to keep pace for one thing.

As far as I heard, annual world population growth
is 100 million + . According to a very crude estimate
that puts us at 10 billion before 2030.
Unless, of course, the above mentioned drastic
measures or alternativly catastrophies occur.

Live long and prosper.

 

[wuliheron]

The estimated maximum population for the Earth is fourteen billion. I know it doesn't look good, but thirty years or more in the future is a long term trend. I refuse to be either pessimistic or optimistic about such things, but instead, perfer to be reasonable. Sorry if that isn't comforting enough for you.

A great deal of the population growth in the world resembles what they call "fish pond" population trends. Boom and bust cycles. Africa's repeated famines and current AIDS epidemic are examples of what often occurs with such cycles. It ain't pretty, but that's the way it goes.

The current thoughts on the subject are that such boom and bust cycles are perpetuated by the disempowerment of women, political strife, and people living on land that simply will not support them. The next major additional cause of such boom and bust cycles is expected to be around access to water. Genetic engineering is making it possible to grow food in the desert and technology is making it possible to not only grow food in briney soil but to desalinate water, so to a significant extent it is the other two problems that are proving to be the most intractable.

As I've already indicated, the US is beginning to assert itself economically, politically, and militarilly as no longer willing to put up with terrorism and the other nasty by-products such totalitarian and repressive cultures and governments create. Exactly how it will all shake out in the end is anyone's guess, but for sure the environment will never be the same and the gravy train capitalist countries have enjoyed to date is on the downhill slide.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow, nothing like a little political theory to piss people off. Ishop, your assessment is ALMOST exactly correct, but maybe a little (very little) simplistic...

Originally posted by Ishop
Communism is for the intellegent dreamer,
Anarchy is for the ignorant dreamer,
Democracy is for the realistic.

Democracy, unlike the other two, is compatable with human nature. The problem with the other two is that it does not take into account that human nature is greed and power. Survival of the fitest.

There are many aspects of human nature. You forget selfishness Anarchy fails because it is unstable - people will not live together in peace without laws. It is human nature to want power and eventually someone siezes it.

Communism is similar in that it is also unstable, but it is actually LESS stable than anarchy because it requires absolute cooperation between all participants. Anarchy does not. At the very least anarchy recognizes that people are different frome each other.

Clarification (someone else touched on it): The "communism" I speak of is Marxism or "pure" communism. Various watered down forms of communism have been tried and a few have even remained stable for a while. NONE have really worked though. Not even Cuba.

Also, I subscribe to the political theory of self determination: In order for a government to be "legitimate," the power MUST be derived from the PEOPLE. In practice, the ONLY form of government that meets this criteria is the various forms of democracy. Marxist communism would meet this criteria, and even complete anarchy would. But neither can actually function in REALITY. They are utopian pipe dreams.

Seems we have a breakdown in definitions here. I'd like to take the time to point out that capitalism is NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT, it is an economic system.

Capitalism is the economic system that goes with deomcracy. Socialism is the economic system that goes with communism. So I often say "democracy/capitalism" and "communism/socialism" to represent the two systems. Many people use the words interchangeably. Though not technically correct, that's what they mean when they say it.

Editorial note: I find it pathetic that some people can't have a reaonsable discussion (arguement even) without being able to remain civil. Might that be a reflection of the type of government they advocate?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by wuliheron
The estimated maximum population for the Earth is fourteen billion.

Can I see that part in a report or something ?
Where's that figure coming from ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Iacchus32]

Can you have such a thing as a true democracy without a republic? Or would that be anarchy?

 

[russ_watters]

Can you have such a thing as a true democracy without a republic?

Yes. It is cumbersome though and not the best way to do it.

Or would that be anarchy?

No. Democracy means majority rule. "Pure" democracy would mean everyone votes for every law that is ever passed. There would be no president or legislature. It'd be a mess, but that's not anarcy. Anarchy is the complete absence of any government including all the functions of government such as passing laws.

 

[Iacchus32]

Then what is a republic if it doesn't contain any democratic elements? Would that be Fascism? What would you call the United States if it's both a Democracy and a Republic?

Perhaps "a marriage?" ... Where "the husband" wants to be fiscally responsible (a republican) and "the wife" (a democrat) thinks he's a tight-ass and wants to spend all the money?

I know it's a little over-simplified, but it sounds about right?

 

[wuliheron]

There are many aspects of human nature. You forget selfishness Anarchy fails because it is unstable - people will not live together in peace without laws. It is human nature to want power and eventually someone siezes it.

See what I mean about social darwinism? Next you'll be telling us human nature is responsible for all the problems in the world today and that humanity is just inherently evil like the Bible says. Anarchy thrived for millions of years before the advent of civilization.

Sociologists and anthropologists have gone over this issue with a fine tooth comb. What seems to matter most is not some innate drive people have for power, but the availability of resources. That is why groups such as the !Kung don't have a history of egomaniacs desperately seeking power. It isn't human nature, but simple survival, growth, and progress when the local resources are available that drive people to organize in repressive ways, including democratic ones.

Democracy means majority rule.

That is the definition of a mob lynching, not democracy.

Communism is similar in that it is also unstable, but it is actually LESS stable than anarchy because it requires absolute cooperation between all participants. Anarchy does not. At the very least anarchy recognizes that people are different frome each other.

Clarification (someone else touched on it): The "communism" I speak of is Marxism or "pure" communism. Various watered down forms of communism have been tried and a few have even remained stable for a while. NONE have really worked though. Not even Cuba.

I prefer to avoid such nonsensical idiological rhetoric. Marx was one philosopher who lived a century ago, who cares what he wrote other than politicians. Arguably the most communistic state in civilzed history was the ancient Greek Spartans, who were also among the fiercest of warriors (note: not intellectual idealists). Nor was their government unstable, it fit the time and place and survived for many centuries.

No government lives forever anymore than any individual lives forever. The question is whether it suits the time, place, and survival needs of the community. In this rapidly changing and violent world communism remains a viable alternative on any scale. Certainly not a pleasent one for most, more of a fall back position for larger groups when times get hard. As I have already mentioned, England during WWII is often considered the most communistic state to exist in the last century.

Also, I subscribe to the political theory of self determination: In order for a government to be "legitimate," the power MUST be derived from the PEOPLE. In practice, the ONLY form of government that meets this criteria is the various forms of democracy. Marxist communism would meet this criteria, and even complete anarchy would. But neither can actually function in REALITY. They are utopian pipe dreams.

Oh, and I suppose the Russian revolution never took place? Who do you think empowered all these communist dictators? Bozo the clown? Desperate times compell people to desperate measures, something capitalist rhetoric still seems to deny with every breath it can draw and insist that people should just "bite the bullet".

I agree that in the modern world democracy has proven the most functional of governments and that it tends to support more capitalistic economies, but that is not the same as saying it has some sort of divine mandate or reflects "human nature". What it reflects is the availability of resources, the drive for growth and progress in peoples' lives, and the practical limitations of organizing differently or living anarchistically on large scales.

It is equally important to note that most of the world enjoys a much more sociolistic government than the US where the needs of more than just the majority are taken care of. Rather than unconditionally supporting monopolies and rampant capitalism, the state owns basic services.

Editorial note: I find it pathetic that some people can't have a reaonsable discussion (arguement even) without being able to remain civil. Might that be a reflection of the type of government they advocate?

More political BS as far as I am concerned. I am talking about the realities of life, while you are obviously promoting social darwinism and political propoganda. Keep on talking, as far as I am concerned too many people in america today don't realize the difference anymore. With all the major forms of mass media and increasingly the scholarly world itself being owned by a vanishingly small percentage of the population, the internet is the only place left to find unbiased information.

Can I see that part in a report or something ?

I got that figure from Scientific American, sorry, don't remember which issue. However, you might check the UN or just do a websearch. However, I will say that is the top figure they gave with the qualification that some argued it might be lower or higher. Eight to ten billion, if I remember correctly, was what they estimated to be the max number possible without drastic changes.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Sociologists and anthropologists have gone over this issue with a fine tooth comb. What seems to matter most is not some innate drive people have for power, but the availability of resources. That is why groups such as the !Kung don't have a history of egomaniacs desperately seeking power. It isn't human nature, but simple survival, growth, and progress when the local resources are available that drive people to organize in repressive ways, including democratic ones.

There's been a thirty year war between leftist sociologists who conclude as you do and evolutionsts/psychometricians who emphasize inborn factors in human behavior. It is necessary to acknowledge this split when you cite "authority" for it's-not-in-our-genes conclusions about history.

 

[wuliheron]

There's been a thirty year war between leftist sociologists who conclude as you do and evolutionsts/psychometricians who emphasize inborn factors in human behavior. It is necessary to acknowledge this split when you cite "authority" for it's-not-in-our-genes conclusions about history.

Exactly my point, people like Malthus have been claiming since before Hitler that it is all in our genes. Blacks are innately inferior, Jews are innately greedy, and humanity is innately power hungery. F**k 'em all! These people are willing to stretch any scientific discovery to the extreme in support of their political and religious agendas. They don't care about "truth" or anything else for that matter. All they know is what they have been taught to hate and that the end justifies the means.

Until some serious evidence to contrary is discovered, I'll stick with the sociologists who at least haven't encouraged such people to sterilize, torture, and commit genocide!

PS- If capitalism is inherently superior to communism, it needs no defense. Especially in a world where communism has all but disappeared. What requires defense still is our innate humanity!

 

[securitysix]

"Kinder, gentler" are your words, not mine.

You are, of course, right. For some reason, my brain went into peacenik mode (didn't know I had a peacenik mode, learn something new every day) and decided that "good deed" and "gentle" are synonyms. They are, of course, not. A good deed is generally considered as "the right thing to do", but is not always gentle and can be perceived as unkind by some.

So, for a meritocracy to work, you would have to establish an absolute moral code, would you not? So one would have to ask how you establish a moral code. I'm sure everyone would agree that child molestation, rape, and murder are wrong, so we'd have no problem there. What about pre-marital relations? Abortion as a means of birth control?

While the idea is great, I'm not sure how one would implement it on a global scale. I'm not sure it could be done on a national scale, either, at least not with some cultures. Go tell a Wahabist that killing the infidel is wrong, see what he says. Tell a pro choice person that abortion is not an acceptable form of birth control. Tell the Grand Dragon of the KKK or a Neo-Nazi it's wrong to hate blacks and Jews. Tell the Black Panthers that shooting whitey for keeping him down is wrong.

It's possible to do the wrong thing for the right reasons, and it makes it tough to establish a moral code. You talk of population control, and so I impose this question to you: Abortion is a functional method of population control, as is abstinance, which is right? Killing people who are above a certain age (another sci-fi story, sorry, don't remember the name) or with unbeatable diseases (AIDs, some cancers, probably others I can't think of) would ease burdens on the population, should we do this?

The problem I see with meritocracy is: "Who decides what's right?"

 

[wuliheron]

So, for a meritocracy to work, you would have to establish an absolute moral code, would you not? So one would have to ask how you establish a moral code. I'm sure everyone would agree that child molestation, rape, and murder are wrong, so we'd have no problem there. What about pre-marital relations? Abortion as a means of birth control?

I don't really believe you need an absolute moral code. Quite the opposite. Every democracy in the world today, as far as I know, is a constitutional democracy that periodically updates the rights of its citizens. The UN as well has worked to promote the growth of human rights worldwide. I imagine for the indefinite future this trend of evolving human rights will continue. Not necessarilly as an expression of absolute rights, but as an explicite expression of what people at the time believe everyone deserves.

While the idea is great, I'm not sure how one would implement it on a global scale. I'm not sure it could be done on a national scale, either, at least not with some cultures. Go tell a Wahabist that killing the infidel is wrong, see what he says. Tell a pro choice person that abortion is not an acceptable form of birth control. Tell the Grand Dragon of the KKK or a Neo-Nazi it's wrong to hate blacks and Jews. Tell the Black Panthers that shooting whitey for keeping him down is wrong.

Again, this is a natural process. It's important to note that what people often have thought in the past was utterly impossible, wasn't. The wall of Berlin fell, the slaves were freed, our bitter enemies of a decade ago are now our close friends. There are many different things that fuel such transformations, just as there are many that fuel hatred.

There is an old argument about whether great men shape history or history shapes great men. Was Ghandi just the right man for the job, or was he just one of many but the one who happened to be in the right place at the right time? Such are social darwinist theories.

Obviously it happens both ways. Instead of speculating on such things, I look to nature as whole for examples of what the possibilities are. Sure, maybe meritocracy is impossible but if so I see no evidence of that. For the most part nature does not select for inflexibility, and humanity has proven very flexible indeed.

The problem I see with meritocracy is: "Who decides what's right?"

Again, the people and the situation do on an evolving basis. Democracy today is nothing like what it was in Socrates' time. For that matter, life in general isn't the same anymore. In Socrates day grown men having sex with little boys was considered normal. In the last few hundred years the human population has gone from a few million to billions. In the last twenty years starvation worldwide has been reduced from its historical level of half the population to one quarter.

Sometimes its not easy to see the forest through the trees, but it's there nonetheless. :0)

 

[Raavin]

Unfortunately the posting mechanism of PF3 doesn't show the whole thread so cutting and pasting is a pain. Just wanted to make a comment about the belief that all western democracies have a constitution. Australia doesn't. Thank god. What a disaster that has been in America. Not sure about others. Anyway...

To think that Anarchism can work in a large, condensed industrial society is naive to say the least. As has been said time and time again, people are just not like that. There are too many greedy people. I'm not talking really evil people, but people who can't be bothered doing good for others or not getting that extra piece of the pie when they can. Communism hasn't worked not just because of poor economic management but because the countries generally started out poor and had no goods nor the infrastructure to distribute goods and services. There are apparently parts of China that have no idea they are under communism to this day.

Marxism is a paranoid form of socialism. It implies a conspiracy on behalf of the rich against the poor. The reality is that your economic status or ethnicity has nothing to do with how much of a knob you are. Get 100 people from any demographic and I will guarantee that you will find the same amount of bad to good (no particular benchmark used).

I consider myself a socialist. I believe in state ownership of major industry. I also believe in democracy. Why democracy is always associated with capitalism is beyond me. We should be able to chose what it is we need and have the government supply it. At the same time, people need to realize that we all need to spend some time working in a job that we don't particularly enjoy, for the greater good. The pay off is knowing that when I'm shovelling sh*t, my bills are getting payed, I have housing and healthcare, my kids have a good education etc. In a capitalist society your pay is scaled by the stuff you are shoveling. Shovelin' sh*t, sh*t pay. I don't necesarrily believe in entirely equal pay. Some jobs I think require a different level of stress or hard manual labour. Restricting hours of work might be ok to equalise wages in this case but some jobs require continuity. It's not easy.

To answer the inital question. I would love to work on a project to develop a system which provides adequate goods and services to people, probably based on socialist concepts but with small scale capitalistic, highly taxed, enterprises to fill niche markets which are impracticle to cover with government industry and allow some creativity in employment. Capitalism works with the idea that everybody can be a millionaire. Clearly they can't, but an ideal socialist system started in a resource, infrastructure rich country could possibly feed the consumerist society so they lived like millionaires, only everyone would have to work.

Raavin

 

[wuliheron]

I would qualify your negative assessment of capitalism. Japan has a law on the books that no one in a company can make more than twenty times what the lowest paid worker makes. In the US we have people making more than 200 times what the lowest paid worker makes. Capitalism need not be so cut-throat. Unfortunately for the US the unions weren't as successful as they were in japan. :0)

 

[Raavin]

Any links to stuff about this maximum wage stuff in Japan?

Raavin [?]

 

[securitysix]

OK, wuliheron, you've convinced me that meritocracy COULD work. A couple more problems I have, though.

I don't think the UN should be in charge of creating any form of government, especially a meritocracy. We're talking about an organization that has put Syria in charge of their Human Rights commitee. Iraq is pretty high on the list of countries to head the Disarmament commitee (how's that for irony?).

As far as the slaves being freed, I would like to point out that Thomas Jefferson (a well known historical figure, I'm sure you'll agree), was a slave owner. This is well known. Thomas Jefferson abhorred slavery, yet participated because he felt it necessary. He also tried to treat his slaves very well, though there may be exceptions to this. He tried to get slavery outlawed in Virginia, but never tried too hard for fear of political death. Abraham Lincoln (the man credited with freeing the slaves) was also a slave owner and did not particularly care for the idea of freeing the slaves, but did so to save himself from political death. Had he not done so, many of the people in the North, who thought they were fighting to free the slaves, would have revolted against him at the ballot box. The reason Lincoln went to war with the Confederacy was that he didn't like the idea that a state or group of states could just up and say "F$*# this!" and drop out of the Union. He was trying to expand the power of the federal government while reducing the power of the states. Was he right to free the slaves? I'd say "yes". Did he do it for the right reason? I don't think so.

History is actually filled with people doing the right thing for the wrong reason. I would think that for a meritocracy to work correctly, the people in charge would have to be willing to do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do. Those folks do exist, but not in very large numbers compared to the world population. In fact, why do most people do the "right" thing? Most people will answer that question with regard to themselves as "to either receive reward or to avoid punishment".

If this is the only reason to be good, the reward would have to be good enough for the majority to strive for or the punishment would have to be so horrible as to get most people to avoid it. A balance would have to be struck between the two that would level it out to a point where people would excel on their merits without an alterior motive in mind. They would have to be striving to do good without seeking riches and without fearing retribution, otherwise, I can't see the system working. Without the right balance, greed will take over, or fear will rule, and either way, a tyrant will run things.

I'd love to see meritocracy work, and I think it can probably be worked into, but you can't dump it on people like you can a representative republic or a dictatorship and expect it to keep them in line. It will require subtle implementation and will encounter some resistance even then. I've stopped doubting it will work, I just can't forsee one totally coming into place on a large scale within my lifetime. Hopefully, I'll be wrong.

 

[Raavin]

About the Japan maximum wage stuff. If there is a link that would be great but I'm wondering if there was some confusion. I found this http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199394/cmhansrd/1994-10-19/Debate-1.html and I'm wondering if this is where the mix up is. It's a British parlimentary speech. Here's a snippit

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to fix the emoluments of chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers of private limited companies and public bodies so that their combined annual earnings do not exceed twenty times the average take-home pay of their non-managerial employees save if the said employees agree through a ballot of their non- managerial employees or through their union to permit salaries of their chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers to exceed a 20:1 ratio."

It uses examples of many other countries where the ratio is lower. Japan for example is between 8 and 12 to 1.

About meritocracy, one problem is that you have to assume that the right person for the job is actually interested in it. When Israel asked Einstein to be their president, he wasn't interested. What about if you wanted a fantastic medical person to head the health department. Then they couldn't do medicine. Politics isn't a 40 hour a week job. Even if you think most politicians are morons, you have to concede that they put in 80 or more hours a week into the job. It is a lifestyle. Politicians would also argue that they are elected because of who they are and the ideals they believe in.

No. Democracy means majority rule. "Pure" democracy would mean everyone votes for every law that is ever passed. There would be no president or legislature. It'd be a mess, but that's not anarcy. Anarchy is the complete absence of any government including all the functions of government such as passing laws.

Exactly. Functional Anarchy relies on people either doing the right thing or dealing with their oen problems. So if someone does something wrong, you, or your local group 'deal with it'. Pure democracy relies on referendum. With technology today this could probably happen but the majority of people don't care about, or have the time to worry about every little law.

Just for fun, here is the start of a prescription for an ideal government.

1. There is a myth that money can't buy happiness. This is only partly true. Concerns about not being able to make ends meet causes huge problem in society. It impacts on relationships, effects health, enflames jealousy, is related to poor education etc., etc. The list goes on from there. Although money might not buy happiness, removal of the stresses caused by not having it could be eleviated so that people could work on other aspects of their lives in comfort and financial security. What does money mean though. Basically money means the ability to have housing, warmth, food, clothing, communications, transport, and a reasonable amount of what are seen a necesarry houshold goods. These days that includes TV, dvd, computer, soundsystem, microwave, furniture etc. (Using the TV as an example, the government might only produce a few sizes of plasma TV and maybe a projector, then produce a variety of covers. What would you prefer, paying hundreds of dollars for a CRT or getting say a Large and medium sized plasma screen with a choice of covers) The government of the day needs to be able to provide these things in abundance by producing them themselves. The actual cost of these things is not high and is only worth the labour invested when you exclude profit and taxes. There would also need to be scope for 'cottage industries' to fill gaps in service. These might be approved on submission of a business plan identifying these gaps just like if you were getting finance in the private sector. Pay structure might start out lower then as the business started succeeding, raised to tie in with the incentive scheme.

2. Wages. There needs to be a formula for wages. Possibly based on things like physical labour, expertise required, responsibility level etc. There also needs to be some incentives. What to do if someone decides to go into another line of work. Possibly a board or commitee of a 'factory' could vote on a financial incentive to keep someone they thought was of great value to the industry. Also providing financial incentives for quality or more efficient work. You could also give the option, where appropriate, to give the option of work sharing arrangements to reduce hours as an incentive.

3. Jobs nobody wants. Ideally you would try to create an environment where people had a choice about the work they did and the opportunity to train for other work. Where work could be replaced by machines this would be done. Where there was no choice, you would provide the incentives above.

4. Doesn't money encourage innovation. Well...I'm not so sure. Applying the incentive scheme to innovation might encourage this without the huge payout. Looking at the Open Source phenomenon, one could also assume that, given the opportunity, people will innovate and create of their own accord. Fame or notoriety, leaving a legacy that people are aware of is also encouragement. Promotion and encouragement of these achievements by the state would be important. How many scientists would be happy just to spend time developing different do-dads if they didn't have to worry about how they were going to pay their bills?

This is just a start. I have more bits but not the time at the moment to add them. Please comment on problems and additions.

Raavin

 

[wuliheron]

About meritocracy, one problem is that you have to assume that the right person for the job is actually interested in it.

Just as democracy is an evolving form of government, so are meritocracies. If you visit totalitarian countries, you will often find the people have not the slightest real concept or attitude of civic duty. Politics often runs in families, and to a great extent it is these family and cultural values that can promote meritocracy.

Anarchy is the complete absence of any government including all the functions of government such as passing laws.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers", not the total absence of government. Consensual decision making, for example, is a form of anarchy. Just as no country is perfectly democratic, capitalistic, communistic, etc. none could be perfectly anarchistic, but you can incorporate anarchistic elements. Whether or not this can achieved on a large scale remains to be seen.

Doesn't money encourage innovation.

The growing phenomenon, again, is barter trade. Instead of exchanging money, you exchange goods and services. This can leave out the middle men and save time. The pop up advertisements at this website are a good example in barter trade. Whether you support the website directly by buying the cd or not, you support it by putting up with the popup ads. Likewise, the same is true of my email account, and other free online services. They represent a form of barter trade, my time and attention in trade for the service.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Anarchy simply means "no rulers", not the total absence of government. Consensual decision making, for example, is a form of anarchy. Just as no country is perfectly democratic, capitalistic, communistic, etc. none could be perfectly anarchistic, but you can incorporate anarchistic elements. Whether or not this can achieved on a large scale remains to be seen.

No. "no rulers" is the literal latin root, not the definition (though they are similar). Anarchy means "Absence of any form of political authority." ANY political authority.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy
Anarchy is an absolute, democracy is not. Certainly there are watered down versons of democracy (the US for example is a representative democracy) but you can't water down nothing. "Consentual decision making" is a weak form of government. But since it is a form of government and not the absence of government, it is not anarchy. And actaully, even if you want to use the literal latin root, "consensual decision making" means the parties that consent to the decision are the rulers. Therefore "no rulers" still applies. Its not anarchy.

I'm not suggesting that you are an anarchist, but many anarchists misuse the word which causes confusion for the rest of us. If you look into some actual "anarchist" ideas, they look a lot more like communism than anything else.

 

[wuliheron]

No. "no rulers" is the literal latin root, not the definition (though they are similar). Anarchy means "Absence of any form of political authority." ANY political authority.

Sorry, but as an Anarchist myself I can't agree. This is the biased modern western definition of the term. When discussing politics it is difficult to say the least to find unbiased histories and definitions. The winners in any conflict tend to re-write the histories, spin their opponents in the worst light possible, and all the other things that make politics so infamous as an unattractive way to make a living. You are welcome to insist these people and myself are all deluding ourselves and not really anarchists, but that is just so much political nonsense.

The definition I present here is the one many anarchists themselves use, both in socialist and capitalist countries. Anarchy was a major political movement in the US a century ago, most notably among the suffragetts, but due to bad publicity and politics as usual, became associated with anti-social, violent acts aimed at destroying any kind of order. Today in the west it's sentiments, organization, and political thought can still be most clearly seen in the Feminist movement.

Among communists, anarchists are the extreme liberal end of the spectrum. Usually they support the communistic version of Jeffersonian Demoncracy. Jefferson's idea was to shape america as a country of predominantly gentleman middle class farmers with as little interference as possible from the federal government. The communist anarchist version is communal rather than being geared towards individual family farms.

 

[Raavin]

Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
Date: 1642
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kist, -"när-
Function: noun
Date: 1678
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

From the Anarchist FAQ page http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

"While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist anarchism to communist-anarchism ... , there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them -- opposition to government and opposition to capitalism."

I am not totally against decentralised power, but where does anarchy that you are talking about end, and socialism start. Who is it that takes care of disputes? One might say that local groups deal with it, but if my brother lives in your group and is dealt with in a way that my group disagrees with you start to have problems. I can't see any way around having at least some sort of consensus on basic principles. Even if this is just some sort of constitution. Also, how do you arrange public services and manufacturing. If one group starts a factory making widgits and widgits become a popular or even necessary item, how do you stop them selling them at inflated prices and turning into capitalism. What about people who don't want to or can't work? Who supports them? What about specialisation? One of the advantages of being able to sell your labour, which it seems Anarchy disagrees with, is that you can specialise. What about health care, public transport? There are a million different reasons why this seems impossible on the large scale.

I imagine you might end up with groups deciding to make local laws anyway and virtually split the land up into separate 'countries' which might end up warring against each other over beliefs. If you want true 'freedom', you would have to allow this to happen in groups who agreed on it, there would also be no-one to stop them. Anarchism by your definition can work in small communities I suppose. But a commune of people who have all come together because of common interests and beliefs is not the same as society.

I'm not trying to be negative here. I suppose I personally just believe in centralised government which encourages free, non-violent expression and where all participants have safety and an equal go, no matter what part of society you come from. I just can't see how a libertarian/anarchy model can cater for this.

Raavin

 

[wuliheron]

1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

Being an advocate for cooperation is not the same thing as being against government or rulers for that matter. This Anarchist FAQ page you found is more biased political nonsense advocating the position that "Either you are with us or you are against us." Such people give anarchy a bad name imo, and demonstrate just how badly other political parties have trashed out the anarchist movement in the west.

People have lived anarchistically and cooperatively since prehistoric times. Usually in small tribal groups of less than fifteen, but sometimes in isolated communes of up to a thousand. These people were not against government, they simply had no need for rulers.

There is a wonderful example of this in the movie "The Emerald Forest." In the movie a white boy is kidnapped by a Yanamamo like tribe in Brazil. His father finds him ten years or so later about to marry a girl in the tribe. At one point he turns to the chief and demands that he tell his son he has to come back to civilization with him. The chief laughs his head off and asks him, "How could I be chief if I told a grown man what to do?"

Such "chiefs" are not rulers. They are given the title as a recognition of their wisdom and the need for a focual point for the group. Native American tribes, for example, would have separate honorary chiefs for war, for peace, etc. If attacked everyone looked to the chief of war for directions in how to fight back. Not because they had to according to some abstract rule, but for mutual survival and out of recognition and respect for that individual's tactical and fighting skills.

Where do you draw the line indeed. Anarchy is a flexible arrangment and can fade into and out of having rulers. Sociologists have shown that somewhere around three hundred people is when groups become prone to fascism. It is difficult for everyone to know each other well and the temptation to govern by force instead of cooperation can then arise according to the situation.

In the case of isolated agrarian communes and small tribal groups such pressures are nonexistent. Instead of hard and fast rules for everything they have traditions and often these are very flexible traditions. One generation may interpret their religious myths literally and believe ghosts are wandering through the woods while the next generation could interpret all those myths figurately and be composed of largely rational atheists. That is the advantage of Anarchy, it is incredibly flexible and adaptable to the individual. Thus it can inspire incredible loyalty.

For small tribal goups, often this means if one person in the group just doesn't seem to be temperamentally and idiologically in tune with the rest of the group they will leave and join another one. Again, not merely because they might feel they have no choice, but because that kind of profound agreement and cooperation is what they want more than anything.

I remember an interview with a woman from a Yanamamo like tribe who married an anthropologiest and moved to NY city with him. The reporters asked her what it was like going from the stone age to the modern world. She said she liked cars, tv, fast food, and whatnot but what really shocked her was the loneliness.

Her first image of a crowded NY city street defied all expectations. She had grown up with the same thirty people her entire life perhaps seeing one stranger a year. In NY she saw thousands of people crowded onto the streets, yet all looking lonely. Something she herself had seldom experienced.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, but as an Anarchist myself I can't agree. This is the biased modern western definition of the term. When discussing politics it is difficult to say the least to find unbiased histories and definitions. The winners in any conflict tend to re-write the histories, spin their opponents in the worst light possible, and all the other things that make politics so infamous as an unattractive way to make a living. You are welcome to insist these people and myself are all deluding ourselves and not really anarchists, but that is just so much political nonsense.

The definition I present here is the one many anarchists themselves use, both in socialist and capitalist countries.

Last I checked, we live in the modern western world. Though it may be convenient to ignore the commonly accepted definition of a word in favor of one that sounds better to your particular group, you are not at liberty to do that. Definitions are the groundrules in any discussion. You can't arbitrarily change them to suit your needs. And quite frankly, I see very little difference between the "no rulers" root and the currently accepted definition.

examples:
Hmm, I don't like the currently accepted definition of the word "camel" so from now on, I'm going to call all camels "dogs." Is that acceptable? Any reason to think that might cause a little confusion?

PRC. 'nuff said.

Stick with the dictionary definition and find another word to describe your cause that actually fits it.

 

[drag]

" The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get
people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

And so this is the situation we find: a succession of Galactic Presidents who so much enjoy the fun and palaver of being in power that they very rarely notice that they're not. And somewhere in the shadows behind them - who?

Who can possibly rule if no one who wants to do it can be allowed to? "
Douglas Adams

 

[wuliheron]

Last I checked, we live in the modern western world. Though it may be convenient to ignore the commonly accepted definition of a word in favor of one that sounds better to your particular group, you are not at liberty to do that. Definitions are the groundrules in any discussion.

By your reasoning all Native Americans should have settled for being called "Indians", Blacks should have settled for being called negroes and other derrogatory terms, etc. I am what I am and if you can't respect that I will continue protesting. Words have meaning because people agree to and respect those meanings, not because the few who publish the most dictionaries win by default. Nor does the majority decide the issue for everyone. Like many other disenfrachized minorities Anarchists today are once again reclaiming their heritage that was stolen from them by powerful white corporate interests.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, but as an Anarchist myself...

Who could've guessed ?!

 

[wuliheron]

Who could've guessed ?!

LOL, these fools who insist on stealing everyone's heritage couldn't have guessed. They'd insist on calling me a communist or somesuch, insist that communism is a form of government but capitalism isn't, and insist that it just makes more practical sense to use derrogatory terms to describe minorities.

My sister Nell just got bit by a rat,
And whities on the moon...
Playing golf.

 

[Raavin]

Firstly, Douglas Adams should be declared a prophet.

Secondly, Are you agreeing then that in large scale communities, Anarchy may not be a reasonable form of government?

Thirdly,

By your reasoning all Native Americans should have settled for being called "Indians", Blacks should have settled for being called negroes and other derrogatory terms, etc.

Interesting point only they weren't originally meant to be derrogatory terms. I believe that, Native Americans were called Indians because they thought they had landed in India. The term just stuck. Africans were called Negroes because that was the generic term for the African races and was later transformed into the more unpleasant version because of mispronunciation. When new, more appropriate terms were coined, Native American and African-American, they were used instead. In Australia we are still struggling and use Indigenous Australian, Aborigine and Koori although strictly speaking Kooris are from only a small part of Australia. There are so many different tribes and languages that to generalise and lump people into one group seems somehow condescending. I'm sure the same things apply to Indigenous or Native Americans.

How does this relate to the use of the word Anarchist? What is being said is that it is important that everyone is clear on a definition of the word. If Anarcho-socialist is a better discription of the way you live then that should probably be used rather than just straight Anarchist. Look at the dates on the definitions and you'll see that they have been around for quite a while. Pre suffregette, even pre Industrial. That said, it's interesting to note that in the original draft of the Websters (I think??) dictionary, that a whole lot of definitions were actually submitted by a guy who was locked up in an Asylum. There's a book about it.

I'm a huge fan of the type of Communal-Anarchistic lifestyle you are talking about. I just think it ends up being a bit exclusionist. In a larger context I think it's important to be inclusive and have a safety net for people who don't 'fit in' to the bigger picture. I work in the welfare field supporting marginalised people and it's hard enough when there are services set up. Not to have any sort of organised mechanisms for them would be a nightmare.

Raavin

 

[wuliheron]

Firstly, Douglas Adams should be declared a prophet.

No! Not that! A treasure maybe, but not a prophet! Already the Jedi from Star Wars have now been turned into an official religion! If you turn Douglas Adams into a prophet all the humor will be lost!

Secondly, Are you agreeing then that in large scale communities, Anarchy may not be a reasonable form of government?

Well yeah, not in today's world that's for sure. Maybe in some far flung future.

Interesting point only they weren't originally meant to be derrogatory terms.

Some weren't but became used as derrogatory terms anyway. Others like the word "cool person" were deliberately so. A cool person is a common grub worm in the south, considered the lowest form of life on earth.

What is being said is that it is important that everyone is clear on a definition of the word. If Anarcho-socialist is a better discription of the way you live then that should probably be used rather than just straight Anarchist.

The "anarcho-" part is just Anarchist abreviated. In addition, I live in an Anarcho-socialist commune, but I am not a socialist. I'm an Anarchist.

Look at the dates on the definitions and you'll see that they have been around for quite a while. Pre suffregette, even pre Industrial. That said, it's interesting to note that in the original draft of the Websters (I think??) dictionary, that a whole lot of definitions were actually submitted by a guy who was locked up in an Asylum. There's a book about it.

Suddenly the dictionary makes a great deal more sense (LOL).

I'm not arguing that the common use of the word Anarchy should change, I am arguing that it is also the name of a political orientation. There are Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Libertarians, Anarchists, and people of all sorts of political persuasions. Sure, some Anarchists advocate violent overthrow of the government, but then a lot of Libertarians are socialists as well. What of it? Anarchy remains a politically viable term that describes a broad spectrum of people more clearly than any other words you can come up with.

I'm a huge fan of the type of Communal-Anarchistic lifestyle you are talking about. I just think it ends up being a bit exclusionist. In a larger context I think it's important to be inclusive and have a safety net for people who don't 'fit in' to the bigger picture. I work in the welfare field supporting marginalised people and it's hard enough when there are services set up. Not to have any sort of organised mechanisms for them would be a nightmare.

Believe me, we are preforming a social service function.

Rather than being exclusionary the secular communes I know have rather open doors. One woman I know worked for a company for fifteen years only to have the vice-president run off with everyone's retirement fund (Can you say Enron, etc.) She was left out in the cold, moved to the commune, and became the most vitrolic advocate of socialism I hope to ever come across.

Sure, it ain't as well organized as a big government social program but then, the government ain't doing such things now are they. No... they're helping to raise the rent and drive people out on the streets. Encouraging white collar criminals like at Enron, and then talking tough rhetoric after they've raped tens of millions of people. Keeping the minimum wage to an all time low in forty years and then kicking everybody off welfare.

As usual, often you have to do an end run around government for the sake of survival if nothing else. The salt of the Earth have to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and remember their origins.

 

[Raavin]

I must admit that it's only going on anacdotal evidence but I can see how living in America could make any normal person take the Anarchist (by your definition) line. It would seem to be a case of Capitalism gone crazy.

In Australia, although 'economic rationalism' has dented it a bit, social services here are not bad. Rents have doubled over the last 5 or so years and social services benefits have not increased accordingly, but most people who have a social network can make ends meet. We also have a fairly good public health system and services, like the one I work in, funded by the government. I work with homeless young people with a variety of different issues and I'm not sure how those people would be serviced in an anarchist society.

The original question was

Question: Is there a better way we have not yet used? Another form of government that we have not come up with.

I'm not sure if there are any truly 'new' ones, but I think th point of the question was to try to come up with something that 'works' better on a large scale.

I don't have the solutions but maybe all of us, working together could put something together. You don't necesarrily have to believe fully in every aspect but I think the key is being willing to compromise for the greater good. I'd be very interested in trying a project like this.

Raavin