Should we have a freewill?(Anarchy)

[Skhandelwal]

I tried looking up anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-primitivism and both of them seem stupid enough to me to wonder how come they even gained attention. What is causing the weight in these theories guys?

Also, wouldn't anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism develop into the kind of system we have today? Hasn't our humanity lived through all the theories and ended up being as we are today? Or did theories like anarcho-cummunism worked out perfectly had weak defence due to individuality and were crushed?

Here is how I see it, the more comfort and privileges we have, the more we have to sacrifice our freedom. What do you guys think?

 

[PhY]

I tried looking up anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-primitivism and both of them seem stupid enough to me to wonder how come they even gained attention. What is causing the weight in these theories guys?

Also, wouldn't anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism develop into the kind of system we have today? Hasn't our humanity lived through all the theories and ended up being as we are today? Or did theories like anarcho-cummunism worked out perfectly had weak defence due to individuality and were crushed?

Here is how I see it, the more comfort and privileges we have, the more we have to sacrifice our freedom. What do you guys think?

Anarchy ? Yeah I'd love that if I was a Gang Leader.

You know going around peoples homes, robbing, stealing with nobody to stop me, oh yeah and if there's a pretty girl walking down the street whos going to stop me from you know?

Hypothetically speaking, I've just pointed out everything that's wrong with anarchism.

Anarchy's only guarantee depends on Humans Free will and altruism.

Ofcourse, Wars, School bullying and gangs such as the Mafia ...doesn't give any anarchist a clue of what Free will means.

You can always ask Vladimir the Impaler ..>He Had Free Will haha.

 

[Economist]

Here is how I see it, the more comfort and privileges we have, the more we have to sacrifice our freedom. What do you guys think?

Can you explain what you mean here because I'm kinda confused about exactly what you mean. Are you saying it's causal, like when we give up some freedom we gain comfort and privileges? Or maybe your saying it runs in the other direction, like the richer we get the more we sacrifice our freedom? Or maybe it's neither?

 

[PhY]

Can you explain what you mean here because I'm kinda confused about exactly what you mean. Are you saying it's causal, like when we give up some freedom we gain comfort and privileges? Or maybe your saying it runs in the other direction, like the richer we get the more we sacrifice our freedom? Or maybe it's neither?

I do not agree what he/she is talking about.
Communism is based on giving up freedom for the state, where was the comfort and privileges? Driving a Treban or Yugo..ect?
Working a job, but not buying what you want to buy with it, but rather the necessities.

If we give up freedom, its the other way round.
If Bush imposed Martial law, I'd like to see you going down to the bar for a quiet drink with some mates after a long day of work ..Oh the Comfort and Privileges you will get in Jail.

 

[russ_watters]

I tried looking up anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-primitivism and both of them seem stupid enough to me to wonder how come they even gained attention. What is causing the weight in these theories guys?

My guess? And I mean this sincerely: drugs. You get enough dumb pot-smoking kids together and eventually these kinds of anti-society ideas come out. It all sounds great when you're high.

Hasn't our humanity lived through all the theories and ended up being as we are today?

My view is yes, we've evolved and passed through most off that to get where we are today. But there are some (anarcho-communism is one) that are outside the natural evolution and never really had any traction.

Here is how I see it, the more comfort and privileges we have, the more we have to sacrifice our freedom. What do you guys think?

I'm not sure I see what you are getting at there. In my view, safety is a freedom, so really we're just talking about exchanging one kind of freedom for another. I may not have freedom from having to work and pay bills, but I do have the freedom to not get polio and smallpox and have an ambulance pick me up if I get in a car accident.

 

[russ_watters]

Communism is based on giving up freedom for the state, where was the comfort and privileges?

Soviet communism was, but the OP was talking about anarcho-communism, which is basically where everyone chooses to live in such a state. It would require complete benevolence and altruism from the members to work and thus would only work in very small groups of like-minded people (and people have done it).

 

[russ_watters]

Anarchy ? Yeah I'd love that if I was a Gang Leader.

You know going around peoples homes, robbing, stealing with nobody to stop me, oh yeah and if there's a pretty girl walking down the street whos going to stop me from you know?

Hypothetically speaking, I've just pointed out everything that's wrong with anarchism.

An anarchist would tell you that that isn't anarchy, that's a dictatorship. but ironically, that's the most basic flaw in anarchism - it never stays anarchy for long. It is an unstable condition. Unless:

Anarchy's only guarantee depends on Humans Free will and altruism.

Yep. So unless everyone wants it and works hard for it (yet without competing), it isn't possible. That's why it only works in small groups.

 

[PhY]

An anarchist would tell you that that isn't anarchy, that's a dictatorship. but ironically, that's the most basic flaw in anarchism - it never stays anarchy for long. It is an unstable condition. Unless: Yep. So unless everyone wants it and works hard for it (yet without competing), it isn't possible. That's why it only works in small groups.

It isn't possible, it might be possible for a small number of people for a single generation, there is no telling what the 2nd generation would be like.
I think the most basic flaw of Anarchy is Humans nature to compete against each other, if we look at Religious History & Atheist history, we find that they all have had in some way or form a type of Eugenics Program to wipe out who does not comply.
So basically, what anarchy offers is, to kill those who do not comply, else the whole system would fail, from a single smart person who might rip off the gullible altruistic person, who in turn might get pissed off, and going back to human nature, with no man in blue to be scared of, he would somehow murder/lynch him easily.
And that murder would start a chain reaction of other murders, till so many people start distrusting and isolating themselves, that the system would fail.
Holding that the Distrust and isolation would not occur before.

Also, by the time that would happen, the Alpha male of some particular group would be naturally inclined to take over the system and replace it with his own. In Africa you've got countries who's system is weak (not weaker than anarchy, nothing is as likely to fail), and the Power Struggle is immense, there are a few countries that are governed by War Lords down there. That is why Communism, has a huge risk of failure and that is why most of the times Communism can't work, as the leader cannot be Equal, or the system will Fail!

So Kids, Remember if you want anarchy, there's always some alpha male waiting to seize power...the power struggle is endless.

Capitalism is in General Humans True Nature, ugliness, a never ending competition the result of a never ending Motivation, to Work/study and be ahead of others.
No Wonder the suicide rate is lower in Capitalistic countries, we're too busy working to buy things that we Want, to stay ahead of others.

 

[russ_watters]

It isn't possible, it might be possible for a small number of people for a single generation, there is no telling what the 2nd generation would be like.

Well yes - when I say small, I mean really small - like a hippie commune.

 

[EnumaElish]

It isn't possible, it might be possible for a small number of people for a single generation, there is no telling what the 2nd generation would be like.
I think the most basic flaw of Anarchy is Humans nature to compete against each other, if we look at Religious History & Atheist history, we find that they all have had in some way or form a type of Eugenics Program to wipe out who does not comply.
So basically, what anarchy offers is, to kill those who do not comply, else the whole system would fail, from a single smart person who might rip off the gullible altruistic person, who in turn might get pissed off, and going back to human nature, with no man in blue to be scared of, he would somehow murder/lynch him easily.
And that murder would start a chain reaction of other murders, till so many people start distrusting and isolating themselves, that the system would fail.
Holding that the Distrust and isolation would not occur before.

Also, by the time that would happen, the Alpha male of some particular group would be naturally inclined to take over the system and replace it with his own. In Africa you've got countries who's system is weak (not weaker than anarchy, nothing is as likely to fail), and the Power Struggle is immense, there are a few countries that are governed by War Lords down there. That is why Communism, has a huge risk of failure and that is why most of the times Communism can't work, as the leader cannot be Equal, or the system will Fail!

So Kids, Remember if you want anarchy, there's always some alpha male waiting to seize power...the power struggle is endless.

Capitalism is in General Humans True Nature, ugliness, a never ending competition the result of a never ending Motivation, to Work/study and be ahead of others.
No Wonder the suicide rate is lower in Capitalistic countries, we're too busy working to buy things that we Want, to stay ahead of others.

You are asserting so many "facts" about human nature without providing any testable proof to warrant moving this thread from Social Sciences.

How is "human nature" part of social sciences?

How do I know the competitive "human nature" is not a result of the capitalistic societies to which the humans you are referring to were born, and not the other way around?

 

[russ_watters]

How is "human nature" part of social sciences?

"Social science" is simply the scientific study of human social interaction. "Human nature" is what people call the pre-wired social behavior of humans. So it could basically be said that social science is the study of human nature.

How do I know the competitive "human nature" is not a result of the capitalistic societies to which the humans you are referring to were born, and not the other way around?

The easiest evidence comes from studying the behavior of other animals and seeing how it is similar and/or different from the behavior of humans.

The theory of evolution itself is about competition (whether overt or not) between animals for survival.

 

[PhY]

You are asserting so many "facts" about human nature without providing any testable proof to warrant moving this thread from Social Sciences.

How is "human nature" part of social sciences?

How do I know the competitive "human nature" is not a result of the capitalistic societies to which the humans you are referring to were born, and not the other way around?

Ever heard of Darwins Law of Survival?
Ever read a History Book?
Ever watched National Geographic ...those Africa Specials?

Infact I reject my point, its not human nature, but nature itself.
It is not a result of capitalistic societies, we can see the competitiveness between tribes, individuals nations ...hell USSR Communistic ..and it was Capitalistic Americas greatest Competitor...
Also sorry if i sound a bit arrogant in this post, but I do not like the way you reason, infact I'm expecting a Reply on the grounds of "what if our capitalistic societies influenced how the Animals around us work".

 

[EnumaElish]

Ever heard of Darwins Law of Survival?
Ever read a History Book?
Ever watched National Geographic ...those Africa Specials?

PhY, that's my point. Darwin was a biologist. National Geographic isn't serious social science, at best it's watered-down pop anthropology.

As for History... History classes do not start with "human nature."

Social science is about social norms and social institutions. In Soc. Sci., humans do not make societies, it's the other way around.

sorry if i sound a bit arrogant in this post

You don't apologize for your posts, and I won't for mine.

but I do not like the way you reason

Could it be because it makes you feel scientifically challenged?

 

[EnumaElish]

The theory of evolution itself is about competition (whether overt or not) between animals for survival.

Okay. But that's biology; not social science.

Social scientific models are at least as much about cooperation as competition, if not more so.

 

[russ_watters]

Okay. But that's biology; not social science.

The two are intimately related. I'm sure you must have heard the term "social Darwinism" before. They are, for all practical purposes, the same thing.

Social scientific models are at least as much about cooperation as competition, if not more so.

What's your point?

 

[EnumaElish]

The two are intimately related. I'm sure you must have heard the term "social Darwinism" before. They are, for all practical purposes, the same thing.

As a social scientist I differ.

What's your point?

The result of appointing Darwin to the role of the Social Scientist is a double transference (or imputation) (1) of Darwinian biology to the Human Nature (as such, an ill-defined object from a social science point of view) and (2) of this scientifically ill-conceived Human Nature to the status of the primary object of social science. Each of these labored transferences is possible only thanks to an inexact set of unexamined assumptions (about, for example, Competitiveness and Survival) which are selectively carried along from one to the next.

 

[russ_watters]

As a social scientist I differ.

The result of appointing Darwin to the role of the Social Scientist is a double transference (or imputation) (1) of Darwinian biology to the Human Nature (as such, an ill-defined object from a social science point of view) and (2) of this scientifically ill-conceived Human Nature to the status of the primary object of social science. Each of these labored transferences is possible only thanks to an inexact set of unexamined assumptions (about, for example, Competitiveness and Survival) which are selectively carried along from one to the next.

I'm still not seeing a point here, much less an argument. First off, are you making the claim that there are no behaviors, types of behaviors, or attitudes pre-wired into the human brain? Are you making the claim that other animals do not have social interaction? Or are you making the claim that social interaction is Darwinian in animals but not Darwinian in humans? And are you claiming that societies don't evolve? Also:

Social science is about social norms and social institutions. In Soc. Sci., humans do not make societies, it's the other way around.

You are saying that humans are made by society, but society is not made by humans. That's illogical, self-contradictory, and straightforwardly wrong. The definition of "society" is an organized group of people - it can't exist before the people and can only be created by those people who are in it. You seem to be claiming that "society" is something that exists independent of the people in it!

Now it is true that societies shape their members through their interactions, but it is also true that the members shape their society. People have control over their own future and societies change based on the dynamics of the group.

And finding out that you are a social scientist is very scary to me. Ie (back to a previous post):

How is "human nature" part of social sciences?

How do I know the competitive "human nature" is not a result of the capitalistic societies to which the humans you are referring to were born, and not the other way around?

How can you study human behavior and interaction without knowing or attempting to figure out what behaviors come from animal instinct and what behaviors don't? You didn't answer my question in reponse to this one: What do you make of the evidence that shows humans behave a lot like other animals? Does this not imply that those behaviors are a product of evolution? The idea that social scientists would not consider the biological influences on human behavior is very disturbing to me.

[edit] I left out perhaps the biggest question: are you advocating communism based on the premise that people are not capable of providing for themselves?

 

[EnumaElish]

I left out perhaps the biggest question: are you advocating communism based on the premise that people are not capable of providing for themselves?

I will respond to your substantial questions in a longer post -- but this is an absurd conclusion and it is difficult for me to see how you are coming up with it.

Social Science doesn't need to assert/agree to a Darwinian Human Nature in order to postulate what "works" in what type of societies and what doesn't, any more than Darwinism/biology (even physics) imply an absence of free will.

From a "30K feet" altitude, encroachment of biology into social sciences is not all that different from the encroachment of religion into biology, and (I think) about as useful.

 

[KvnBushi]

I am certainly not going to waste my time defending theories and practices that have endured a century's worth of logical debate and thought, but before you spout off that Anarcho-Syndicalism was the result of "young pot heads", which is HIGHLY offensive to historical evidence, please research some of the actual founders of anarchist theory:

Kroptokin (a well regarded scientist who continued Darwin's work)
Malatesta (a certified hard ass)
Bakunin ( spoke a lot about Syndicalism)

And before you compare anarchist society with something that "maybe could work in a very very small hippy commune" , research a moment in Spanish history when anarchist organization was more efficient than the Republican government or the invading Fascist army (supported by Hitler and Mussolini):

Spanish Civil War, 1936.

russ_waters, I would think that you would know better than to speak about a subject you are completely ignorant of.

 

[Dale]

IMO, most people who think they are anarchists are actually either libertarians or thugs/dictators. Both want to be able to "do their own thing" with the difference being that libertarians don't want to harm or force others and thugs/dictators do.

 

[KvnBushi]

Kroptokin (a well regarded scientist who continued Darwin's work)
Malatesta (a certified hard ass)
Bakunin ( spoke a lot about Syndicalism)

It is actually spelled: Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin
Errico Malatesta
Mikhail Bakunin

I would provide links through WIkipedia except for my slow connection.
Here is a good online anarchist library: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/index.html

 

[plutoisacomet]

To Skhandelwal: I think comfort and privilege are related but not directly. The use of "Labor" or workers and their periodic unemployment is directly related to one's level of privilege. The Idea of "comfort" in modern society is based on one's observations of others and their perceived level of "comfort" V.S. the questioning individuals own view.

Apathy, Ignorance and "state" mandated political correctness are the true thieves of one's individual freedom.
Anarchy is stateless rule with no "rule of law" Freedom is the unbounded pursuit of one's destiny based on the "rule of law" A state of Anarchy is a state with no freedom but a state based on one's imposition of his/her will over others.

 

[Violator]

I often find it interesting that people will assert that anarchy can not work because of human nature, but then claim government will solve this. If human nature is the problem, and humans all tend towards competitiveness and thuggery, how does concentrating power in the hands of a few and then giving them a monopoly on effective weaponry solve the problem? Doesn't it simply empower humans, replete with their "nature"? And wouldn't positions in which one can exploit that accumulation of power appeal directly to those most possessed of this "nature"?

 

[Economist]

I often find it interesting that people will assert that anarchy can not work because of human nature, but then claim government will solve this. If human nature is the problem, and humans all tend towards competitiveness and thuggery, how does concentrating power in the hands of a few and then giving them a monopoly on effective weaponry solve the problem? Doesn't it simply empower humans, replete with their "nature"? And wouldn't positions in which one can exploit that accumulation of power appeal directly to those most possessed of this "nature"?

Good points!

I guess I'm not completely sure. Maybe it could work, or maybe it couldn't?

 

[Violator]

My personal view, as an "anarchist", is that it is already working. There is no such thing as government, merely an illusory construct of names and conventions. All those who hold titles and such are still merely individuals carrying out there own personal goals.

 

[Economist]

My personal view, as an "anarchist", is that it is already working. There is no such thing as government, merely an illusory construct of names and conventions. All those who hold titles and such are still merely individuals carrying out there own personal goals.

I find this an interesting perspective.

However, it still seems that those titles, positions, etc, allow their holders some additional "powers." In the news lately I've heard a few stories where public "servants" have used their positions and influence to try to harm some individual businessperson. Likewise, I've also heard some stories where these people have tried to use their positions to help and give special privaleges to individual businesspersons.

While me and you couldn't use various tax payer funds to help our friends or harm or enemies. Likewise, you and I are not generally allowed to use tax payer funds for fancy dinners, drivers, plane trips, etc.

 

[Violator]

Economist, you make a very good point, however it is important to distinguish between actual powers and perceived powers. For example, one could arguably call George W. Bush the most powerful man in the world, givent hat he commands the US Army. In reality, he has no power beyond the military's perceptin of him. Stripped of the perception of command I would wager any member of our armed forces would prove more powerful than Mr. Bush. The point being, the only reason certain people can missappropriate money and abuse others is because we allow them to. For whatever reason, and they are many and varied, we perceive that person to have the "power" to do what they have done.

 

[vanesch]

I often find it interesting that people will assert that anarchy can not work because of human nature, but then claim government will solve this.

No, I think anarchy cannot work because of human nature: sooner or later there will be a "convergence of interests" into a power structure (call it a gang, an army, whatever) which has an advantage over free individuals. For the gang leader, the advantage is pretty obvious, but for the gang members, submitted to the gang leader, too, as they can "live off" the abuse of the unorganized. The way to defend oneself against such gangs is, well, to become a gang oneself. So I think that pure anarchy is simply unstable, and will sooner or later anyhow evolve into power structures.
And then, the game becomes different: then the battle is *within* the structures, to get to higher positions, not "for the best of everybody", but rather for one's own good. So yes, of course there is no doubt that "people in position" are not there to "serve their position" but to serve themselves. So any "social engineering" must try to take that into account, in order to get at least partial agreement between the official function of the position and the natural drive to serve oneself.

Actually, it is funny, because recently my boss asked me how I thought that he, as a boss, should be evaluated, and I told him exactly that: a good boss is someone who can manage people in such a way that their own agenda and self service coincides as much as possible with the goals of the enterprise. He looked surprised

 

[Violator]

I don't find anything contradictory in the formation of gangs with an anarchist society. TO me anarchy is merely the absence of a government structure. It is not he absence of leaders. I agree with the idea that leadership is an inherent trait in humanity. I think there will always be people who lead and always those who follow. I think where you change from anarchy to government is when the majority of people start investing in their leaders some quality which is more than just inherent in the person. I see no problem with following someone because they know how to get where you want to be. I see a huge problem with following them becuas they have a title in front of their name.

 

[Economist]

No, I think anarchy cannot work because of human nature: sooner or later there will be a "convergence of interests" into a power structure (call it a gang, an army, whatever) which has an advantage over free individuals.

I'm not trying to assert whether or not anarchy can work (because in all honesty, I have no idea).

However, the one issue I would take with your statement above is that this seems to happen even in our current system. In other words, the problem you mentioned does not seem to be unique to anarchy. I think you could of even went as far as to say "sooner or later there will be a "convergence of interests" into a power structure (call it a gang, an army, [senators, police officers, government] whatever) which has an advantage over free individuals."

 

[mheslep]

I don't find anything contradictory in the formation of gangs with an anarchist society. TO me anarchy is merely the absence of a government structure. It is not he absence of leaders. I agree with the idea that leadership is an inherent trait in humanity. I think there will always be people who lead and always those who follow. I think where you change from anarchy to government is when the majority of people start investing in their leaders some quality which is more than just inherent in the person. I see no problem with following someone because they know how to get where you want to be. I see a huge problem with following them because they have a title in front of their name.

As soon as the leader 'exercises authority', per Webster, he/she has 'governed' and there in the same instant lies the government. Certainly examining the issue at various scales (gang/tribe/superpower) will show different outcomes but that doesn't change the definition of the thing; governing is what it is. The above is redefining or mangling the term which adds confusion.

 

[russ_watters]

Agreed. "Government" isn't a bunch of buildings in Washington, it is coherent leadership of any kind.

"Freakonomics" has a chapter on the organizational structure of crack dealership gangs in Chicago. It's an interesting read because the structure is very much like a major corporation like a McDonalds or a WalMart. The 'store manager' was even a college grad!

 

[Dale]

I guess it depends a little on where you want to draw the line of what constitutes government. Is a pack of wolves a government (they have coherent leadership)? How about a hive of bees (they have structure and defined roles, but is it "leadership")? How about a tribe? If not, why not?

 

[Violator]

Indeed, as soon as someone "exercises authority" yoiu have government. And so, at least in my particular brand of anarchism, the real concern is with authority. Leadership and authority are not mutually dependent. If the members of this forum wanted to go to San Antonio together, and one of us knew how to get there, we could all follow him. He would be leading and we would be following. Government arises the moment are chosen "leader" attempts to use his position as "knowing how to get to San Antonio" to make us do things. Free association towards a common goal is not government.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess it depends a little on where you want to draw the line of what constitutes government. Is a pack of wolves a government (they have coherent leadership)? How about a hive of bees (they have structure and defined roles, but is it "leadership")? How about a tribe? If not, why not?

I think you applied the definition just fine there.

True anarchy would have to be the utter lack of ruling authority. Anyone can do whatever they want, with the only constraint being whether you own the biggest gun. A wolf pack would indeed qualify as a primitive form of government (ever watch "Merkat Manor?). An insect hive would not - defined roles do not automatically imply leadership and a hive functions as a single entity, with the members carrying out their roles based largely on instinct. A tribe - you mean like a tribe of primitive humans? Absolutely a government structure.

This thread is 5 months old, but this part of the discussion already happened on page 1...