[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XiSnCt9fDc[/URL]
Sums up some things.
[QUOTE=RobbL;41314292]Just a few basic question here about anarchism:
1How does justice and rehabilitation work?
2How does the economy work?
3How do relations between other countries work (diplomacy and stuff)?
4What about emergency services, healthcare, ect?
5How is fairness and equality achieved and/or sustained?
6How is infrastructure planned and created?
7Is any sort of regulation enforced in any way?[/QUOTE]
1. Justice
In social anarchism, like we're talking about here, I'll offer you a quote:
"If crimes are committed they must be seen as a disease, and punishment as treatment rather than as social vengeance." -Daniel Gueri in [I]Anarchism[/I] (a wonderful introductory book)
The idea is that rehabilitation would be justice. Anarchism works off the premise that crime occurs because people are unsatisfied, and much of that dissatisfaction would be eliminated when alienation, exploitation, and need are abolished to the maximum extent (which, of course, anarchists have the solutions to, according to them). A hungry person or person who has all they want is not a person who steals, people who like their life do not go out to murder, etc. The problem really comes with psychotics, the mentally ill, and those who are just simply assholes - that is, people who can not be dealt with from a revolutionary standpoint or [I]prevention[/I], because of factors that can't morally or easily be controlled. I'm not sure that I've ever heard an anarchist say much on this matter, so I'm not going to try and answer it on the behalf of anarchism. I would assume that this would be a "necessary evil" and that folks like this, like those who would be rehabilitated, would need to do that which they might not consent to, and as such the democratic community would act as enforcers.
2. Economy
Depends on the anarchist philosophy. The general answer would be "resources are distributed through federations of economic communities", though this is very broad. Anarchist-syndicalists would say that trade unions, making up the workers of an economic unit like a factory or farm, would federate with other trade unions and themselves into federations of federations, and each level would levy for the needs and offer the excess to meet the demands of the other federations, working at a global level. This is generally a widely accepted economic model for anarchism.
Mutualists might be less inclined to use these planned redistribution economies, and, being supporters of individuals owning their own means of production at an individual level, are generally okay with trade. Though mutualists come from Proudhon and are often seen a social anarchists, they practice "free trade". I'm actually not well informed on mutualism so I'll leave this here.
Collectivists and anarcho-communists, generally are in favor of planned economies where no one (or everyone) owns property, and the redistribution of goods is done based out of excess and need. Generally, though, communities would form out of availability- like those who want to work with wood would naturally migrate to a collective wherein wood is common. What they produce would be available for all to use, and what they need they could just take, within reason. If entire communities need things, then it's assumed that agreements could be made where trade or exchange could be worked out at a community level.
3. Country
Countries do not exist in anarchism. They are replaced by federations of collectives, economic production units, or communities. Ideally, they would all be the same federation.
4. emergency/Social services
Emergency services and social services are provided by the community/federation. Anarchism relies on the creed "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", but instead of a state applying this, it's the community or federation. i.e. there would be a volunteer ambulance service, or volunteer medical network. There might be a social program where x amount of the collective supply goes towards the elderly individuals, or x amount of production or personal property is volunteered to help the sick.
5. Equality
Fairness and equality are sustained in two ways: institutionally, and ideologically. The latter is the point where many start calling anarchism "utopian" because it relies on people being morally ok people. Anarchists are constructivists, which means that they seek to construct and form society so that these values are the commonly accepted and general rule. Like most people in a capitalist society might believe in the values that "racism is bad, m'kay?" out of their education in urpbrining, anarchism wishes to see this with most ideological values. Of course, if you don't believe in certain anarchist values, you can leave freely, but that's not to say that anarchists will accept your freedom to exploit or the like. The roundabout of it is that the societal norms and education will emphasize these values.
But if that's not enough, the institutions of rule-making and good government can make up for it. While there are no laws in anarchism, there are rules that everyone in x community must agree to abide by, and if they don't then they get their fair say in the community government. If someone doesn't wish to abide by these rules and won't accept self-governance by the agreed-upon values, they can leave or be expelled. This is only a secondary solution, though, and anarchists rely on the non-reactionary method above.
6. At a community, or federation, level. "We voted and agreed we need x built, so we will see if these communities will find volunteers to do x." Or "x needs to be maintained, so is anyone here willing to oversee the maintenance of x?" Alot of it is assumed out of common interest, some of it is out of material interest, and much of it relies on individual passion.
7. Regulation enforcement
Only at a social level. That is, you can rules and government, but generally speaking they are not enforced via violence, but rather through social pressures. Everyone would agree to abide by x, and if you don't want to you can go somewhere else. Why would you want to be here? Then again, if this community has what you want, then you would be pressured into abiding by x. If stuff like "shit I'm getting mugged" occurs then obviously there's a right to defense or violence in prevention of violence. Or "so-and-so is using a band of men to exploit or using violence" could be countered with "we voted together to see so-and-so stopped with force, so a volunteer militia has been established". One of the big things about anarchism is free association, but anarchists are not liberals- that is, they do not accepted "to each their own" or "every system has an equal right to exist", and as such will use violence or force to maintain a system that meets the greater good.
[QUOTE=The Aussie;41312404]Yes, that's why it's not Libertarian. It's left Libertarian.
Edit: I've expressed my views wrongly.
Left Libertarians believe in Individual Freedoms, like almost all Libertarians. But, we also stress social justice. Social justice stresses social equality to a degree as well. As i said before, i believe that true Libertarianism and Anarchism, is morally wrong. It forgoes all senses of social Justice in favour of, what equates to extremist capitalism. People do occasionally need social welfare (Social security) and such to get by, and occasionally need police to settle disputes and deal with matters of personal property. (I'm unconvinced this could be mediated by a corporation, i'm open to suggestions though. It is my thought that police will be corrupt, government sponsored or not.) As an Australian, i look at your healthcare (I'm talking to you, America) and fucking laugh. The amount of human suffering and unnecessary pain that is caused by your stupid fucking healthcare system is ridiculous. When i look at ours, it's not perfect i admit, but by fucking Christ it's better then yours. In my mind, i can not see a way for a state to exist peacefully with Full Anarchist or Libertarian ideals. Although i'd love to debate it, fuck i love debating.
[editline]5th July 2013[/editline]
It's been a fair time since i played the game. But even if i'm wrong, a true Anarchistic would devolve into this state anyway. A single mega-corporation lauding over most if not all sectors of the economy. Brutal and cutthroat business tactics would be accepted due to the rule of the dollar. Maybe i'm understanding Anarchism wrong, maybe i'm understanding Libertarian ideals wrong, if i am, please, correct me.
[editline]5th July 2013[/editline]
It guess it doesn't really matter though. Labels are for soup and trying to adhere or label other people it silly in it's idea.[/QUOTE]
the problem with healthcare in the united states is that hospitals can charge basically as much as they want because the insurance companies will pay for it, which just leaves the guys who don't have health insurance boned in case of emergency.
How would an Anarchist society get people to fill up demanding and important jobs, such as being a doctor, without some sort of massive incentive?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41313347']
There's already enough power to give most everyone in the world a lit house with heat. We don't need solar panels to do this or green energies, we just need to cut down on power consumption int he west and export it to developing nations.
I swear, the entire viewpoint of people who don't think this is possible comes from their worldview of "Well, I'm using a bajillion units of power per day and they aren't and there's no way they could ever get power!" Just cut down on your power usage, it's not a hard concept to grasp.[/QUOTE]
So for you, your form of equal distribution is just a lit up house for a person with heat? No fridges?, No stove?,No form of connection to the world (computer)? let alone the normal facilities that we have in a functioning society that require power. As much to your dismay a lot of people do conserve power due to rising cost of electricity. Electricity is mainly used for powering our road network, keeping up servers around the world, powering trains, powering facilities around our society. To power the world to the same degree would take a huge amount of resources.
[QUOTE=Patriarch;41318291]How would an Anarchist society get people to fill up demanding and important jobs, such as being a doctor, without some sort of massive incentive?[/QUOTE]
the will to help people
if you could help/heal your fellow man by learning how to for no price at all, would you not?
[QUOTE=Arc Nova;41318644]the will to help people
if you could help/heal your fellow man by learning how to for no price at all, would you not?[/QUOTE]
The supply of doctors would be extremely low in comparison to today then as not only does it take a select few in society that are mentally apt to study it but also the huge monetary incentive that is behind a doctor/surgeon.
why worry about money though in this scenario just exchange for other services
[QUOTE=striker453;41318598]So for you, your form of equal distribution is just a lit up house for a person with heat? No fridges?, No stove?,No form of connection to the world (computer)? let alone the normal facilities that we have in a functioning society that require power. As much to your dismay a lot of people do conserve power due to rising cost of electricity. Electricity is mainly used for powering our road network, keeping up servers around the world, powering trains, powering facilities around our society. To power the world to the same degree would take a huge amount of resources.[/QUOTE]
Well, you're right.
These are luxuries. And whether we have the ability to power them or not is second to survival and equality. If we want those things to be common, there's your incentive to further technological advantage in those areas.
It's incredibly ignorant to suggest that everyone needs or should have access to these sorts of things. Collectivism suggests that these sorts of things can cut down on costs simply by making collectively available food storage, cooking areas, and the like, instead of everyone and their mom owning their own personal refrigerator or television.
As far as the rest, cut down or advance. Luxuries. Westerners forget how good we have it. I'd gladly sacrifice my personal TV, internet, and computer in the advancement of global society.
[editline]4th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=striker453;41318825]The supply of doctors would be extremely low in comparison to today then as not only does it take a select few in society that are mentally apt to study it but also the huge monetary incentive that is behind a doctor/surgeon.[/QUOTE]
A doctor is the most frequently chosen profession of children, and it isn't because of the monetary incentive.
The only reason why that trend isn't continued it because of the rigorous training and the burden of living in a wage enslaving environment.
Given the choice, many people would rather go to school for professional educations if it didn't cost them more than their worth as a productive human being.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41321735']Well, you're right.
These are luxuries. And whether we have the ability to power them or not is second to survival and equality. If we want those things to be common, there's your incentive to further technological advantage in those areas.
It's incredibly ignorant to suggest that everyone needs or should have access to these sorts of things. Collectivism suggests that these sorts of things can cut down on costs simply by making collectively available food storage, cooking areas, and the like, instead of everyone and their mom owning their own personal refrigerator or television.[/QUOTE]
Everyone SHOULD have access to technological items isn't that what you said you wanted? These everyday items aren't called luxuries any more they are a part of a modern society daily life. Although collectivism sounds nice and all, a lot of people would rather their own space in cooking and food storage and their own appliances. If you had a mass fridge then you may run into the office fridge scenario people taking a bit of that of another person's bits and bob missing.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41321735']As far as the rest, cut down or advance. Luxuries. Westerners forget how good we have it. I'd gladly sacrifice my personal TV, internet, and computer in the advancement of global society.[/QUOTE]
If that is the case why don't you start by donating your worldly processions to a less fortunate? I can say that the majority of people wouldn't again its become 2nd nature its a part of our life, it is a technological advancement and a society shift and why would you want to reverse advancement? It isn't an advancement on society to give up technology and the internet.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41321735']
A doctor is the most frequently chosen profession of children, and it isn't because of the monetary incentive.
The only reason why that trend isn't continued it because of the rigorous training and the burden of living in a wage enslaving environment.
Given the choice, many people would rather go to school for professional educations if it didn't cost them more than their worth as a productive human being.[/QUOTE]
Children are dumb and do not know much beyond what they are told and see. Parents tell their child that they can be astronauts and doctors and lawyers and the child says yes without really thinking. AS we grow we discover new paths and new doorways then we understand what we really want to become.The people that go on to be doctors are either in it for the high wage as this is a huge incentive, parental coercion or they actually want to be one or fascinated by the research path. The higher wage incentive attracts a large pool of people from that a few become doctors that is the whole point of the wage. Being a Doctor is not wage enslaving, being a surgeon is but if went into that path you would already know that and that. Many people actually go to university just that many don't realise how hard it can be sometimes and another lot scared they may drop out and waste their money. In Australia we have a pretty cheap university fee that is subsidised by the government and I can say that from the 870 initial medical science students it dropped down to 230 because some people just aren't made for university.
People are not capable of governing themselves, anarchism will never work.
[QUOTE=Charchar;41326103]People are not capable of governing themselves, anarchism will never work.[/QUOTE]
If people aren't capable of governing themselves then why do we "choose" few guys to govern all of us?
[QUOTE=Charchar;41326103]People are not capable of governing themselves, anarchism will never work.[/QUOTE]
Everyone knows Humans are governed by the lizard people
[QUOTE=striker453;41322979]Everyone SHOULD have access to technological items isn't that what you said you wanted? These everyday items aren't called luxuries any more they are a part of a modern society daily life. Although collectivism sounds nice and all, a lot of people would rather their own space in cooking and food storage and their own appliances. If you had a mass fridge then you may run into the office fridge scenario people taking a bit of that of another person's bits and bob missing.[quote]
It'd be nice if everyone could, but you can't seem to grasp just how little of the world actually owns these things. They ARE luxuries and ought to be treated as such.
[t]http://blogs-images.forbes.com/evapereira/files/2011/01/Developed_and_developing_countries3.png[/t]
The majority of people in transitional, developing, and under-developed nations do not have access to televisions, refrigerators, stoves, and general household appliances. These items are [I]luxuries[/I] and it displays your ignorance that you think otherwise.
And only in an individualist society. Full collectivism works, but it must be constructed first. See my discussion on constructivism above somewhere.
[quote]If that is the case why don't you start by donating your worldly processions to a less fortunate? I can say that the majority of people wouldn't again its become 2nd nature its a part of our life, it is a technological advancement and a society shift and why would you want to reverse advancement? It isn't an advancement on society to give up technology and the internet.[/quote]
In the grand scheme, me giving up my possessions does nothing. I'm greedy and live in an individualist society. I like my personal property. I'm a creature of the society I live in. I accept that, and that's a big negative on me. But if tomorrow there was a program started to give our luxury goods to those in need, then I'd act on it.
Tech advancement is far from societal advancement. Any advancement that benefits few, harms more than it benefits, or does not actually help anyone at all is not advancing society. Machines that produce more but provide less work for the majority are a burden. Luxury goods that the few enjoy but take away from or at the very least do not help the majority of people are a burden. Just because it makes us in the first/western world happy, and allows the global economic elite (you, me, and Rockefeller all) to communicate, make more money, and produce more technology to further alienate others, is a [I]burden[/I]. It is not a benefit, it does not advance technology. That being said, if it's possible to use these technologies in a way that helps everyone, then let them be. I'm no primitivist, but I do agree with the luddites.
[quote]Children are dumb and do not know much beyond what they are told and see. Parents tell their child that they can be astronauts and doctors and lawyers and the child says yes without really thinking. AS we grow we discover new paths and new doorways then we understand what we really want to become.The people that go on to be doctors are either in it for the high wage as this is a huge incentive, parental coercion or they actually want to be one or fascinated by the research path. The higher wage incentive attracts a large pool of people from that a few become doctors that is the whole point of the wage. Being a Doctor is not wage enslaving, being a surgeon is but if went into that path you would already know that and that. Many people actually go to university just that many don't realise how hard it can be sometimes and another lot scared they may drop out and waste their money. In Australia we have a pretty cheap university fee that is subsidised by the government and I can say that from the 870 initial medical science students it dropped down to 230 because some people just aren't made for university.[/QUOTE]
Children do not want to be something because someone told them that they should, they do it because they want to and believe they can. Over 70% of people in the US are dissatisfied with their occupation/job. This isn't a surprise. Because of the education, economic, and financial situations of many people they are not able to do what they want with their lives, what their passion is, or what they could be- myself included. The majority of people [I]on Earth[/I] right now have no access to even the most elementary of stepping stones to achieving anything with their lives than chattel for corporate owners. University/education itself is a fucking broken system and it's no wonder that people fall out and fail. Then you have people who are brilliant at something that doesn't require university, but they need to go in order to get a degree to make a livable wage. There are education system advocated by various political strains that are far better at providing people with the occupation that they truly want and would be most productive at. Education itself at this point is a luxury, only because of this shit for-profit system.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41328245']
Tech advancement is far from societal advancement. Any advancement that benefits few, harms more than it benefits, or does not actually help anyone at all is not advancing society. Machines that produce more but provide less work for the majority are a burden. Luxury goods that the few enjoy but take away from or at the very least do not help the majority of people are a burden. Just because it makes us in the first/western world happy, and allows the global economic elite (you, me, and Rockefeller all) to communicate, make more money, and produce more technology to further alienate others, is a [I]burden[/I]. It is not a benefit, it does not advance technology. That being said, if it's possible to use these technologies in a way that helps everyone, then let them be. I'm no primitivist, but I do agree with the luddites.
[/QUOTE]
Uh practically every machine is designed to do exactly that - Make more with less. So the very concept of mechanical advantage is an enemy in this anarchist future? We could make more work if we replaced cranes with huge human pulleys, I guess, but how is that helping?
[QUOTE=kron555;41327694]If people aren't capable of governing themselves then why do we "choose" few guys to govern all of us?[/QUOTE]
Because that works out so well
[QUOTE=scout1;41329504]Uh practically every machine is designed to do exactly that - Make more with less. So the very concept of mechanical advantage is an enemy in this anarchist future? We could make more work if we replaced cranes with huge human pulleys, I guess, but how is that helping?[/QUOTE]
Unless everyone can benefit off it then it harms.
An anarchist might suggest that we completely automate labor, or that the product of mechanical labor goes to the community, and that those who are not needed to work are still provided for by the product of the more advantageous machinery.
But in a capitalist society, where mechanical advancement is done to make profit, it is unprofitable to provide for others. While advancement is fine, it must be to betterment of all and not at the expense of few.
[QUOTE=striker453;41322979]
Luxury goods that the few enjoy but take away from or at the very least do not help the majority of people are a burden. Just because it makes us in the first/western world happy, and allows the global economic elite (you, me, and Rockefeller all) to communicate, make more money, and produce more technology to further alienate others, is a [I]burden[/I]. It is not a benefit, it does not advance technology. That being said, if it's possible to use these technologies in a way that helps everyone, then let them be. I'm no primitivist, but I do agree with the luddites. [/QUOTE]
You don't believe in technological advancement that doesn't benefit everybody or in labour-saving technology? Lets look at the tractor. More food is produced with far less people which allows people to find other professions. This benefits everybody. I'm sure we could ban tractors and have more people employed but farming isn't most peoples dream job and we'd be losing out on alot of potential scientists and doctors.
As we advance technology it becomes cheaper and more available to the developing world. For example, the cellphone was only owned by incredibly wealthy people but it slowly got cheaper as technology advanced. Now Cellphones are flooding into India and China allowing easier communication increasing their quality of life. Laptops and computers are also getting cheaper incredibly quickly . The internet, access to trillions of libraries and to billions of other people is invaluable. Playing it off as a silly luxury where we post cats is just stupid.
[QUOTE]But if tomorrow there was a program started to give our luxury goods to those in need, then I'd act on it.[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of these programs.
The Luddites movement only started because technology took der jobs. As technology advances new jobs are created.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41329855']Unless everyone can benefit off it then it harms.
An anarchist might suggest that we completely automate labor, or that the product of mechanical labor goes to the community, and that those who are not needed to work are still provided for by the product of the more advantageous machinery.
But in a capitalist society, where mechanical advancement is done to make profit, it is unprofitable to provide for others. While advancement is fine, it must be to betterment of all and not at the expense of few.[/QUOTE]
Except you don't typically get new ways to provide more for less outside of a capitalistic society, because there's no incentive. Profit seeking in capitalism naturally leads to greater benefits which can be spread more widely, it's a function of the economy. In the capitalist/relatively free market there always exist inefficiencies which are filled by new inventions. In an anarchic community there is no tool to drive such things.
Labor saving techniques exist because there is an economic reason for them. If you take away the economic reasons, you take away the labor saving, and then there goes consumer goods, and no, then it's not helping anybody.
[QUOTE=Charchar;41329722]Because that works out so well[/QUOTE]
So you're saying people can neither govern themselves or others?
So you're against authority and anarchism at the same time?
[editline]5th July 2013[/editline]
Oh wait I thought you were being sarcastic, my bad
[QUOTE=RobbL;41330277]So you're saying people can neither govern themselves or others?
So you're against authority and anarchism at the same time?
[editline]5th July 2013[/editline]
Oh wait I thought you were being sarcastic, my bad[/QUOTE]
I'm obviously against both anarchism and democracy. There are a few people that have personalities well attuned to leadership though; I support a one party state.
[QUOTE=striker453;41318825]The supply of doctors would be extremely low in comparison to today then as not only does it take a select few in society that are mentally apt to study it but also the huge monetary incentive that is behind a doctor/surgeon.[/QUOTE]
doctors dont become doctors for money otherwise they wouldnt become doctors. doctors make pretty shit money compared to how much work they do and there are other professions in business that make a lot more money for less work. if we have doctors in todays society, we will have doctors in an anarchist society, possibly even more since financial incentive is NOT part of making a decision regarding your occupation.[QUOTE=scout1;41329504]Uh practically every machine is designed to do exactly that - Make more with less. So the very concept of mechanical advantage is an enemy in this anarchist future? We could make more work if we replaced cranes with huge human pulleys, I guess, but how is that helping?[/QUOTE]
it should be the choice of the worker whether a machine empowers him in her work or not.
[QUOTE=scout1;41330208]Except you don't typically get new ways to provide more for less outside of a capitalistic society, because there's no incentive. Profit seeking in capitalism naturally leads to greater benefits which can be spread more widely, it's a function of the economy. In the capitalist/relatively free market there always exist inefficiencies which are filled by new inventions. In an anarchic community there is no tool to drive such things.
Labor saving techniques exist because there is an economic reason for them. If you take away the economic reasons, you take away the labor saving, and then there goes consumer goods, and no, then it's not helping anybody.[/QUOTE]
Yep. Absolutely right. Monetary incentive drives advancement.
But passion and self interest do as well, and while I'm not prepared to say that those would be as much of a driving force, it's enough. The difference between a communist and capitalist outlook is that one sees technological advancement as a necessity for profit, but we communists see no reason to advance if there's no reason to. If we can take care of ourselves and remain happy, then why move forward unless it's going to further that?
and many consumer goods need to be abolished anyhow. Like we need 18 types of toilet paper and 4 types of flatscreens whose motherboards were mined with literal slave labor on western China.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41330767]doctors dont become doctors for money otherwise they wouldnt become doctors. doctors make pretty shit money compared to how much work they do and there are other professions in business that make a lot more money for less work. if we have doctors in todays society, we will have doctors in an anarchist society, possibly even more since financial incentive is NOT part of making a decision regarding your occupation.
[/QUOTE]
A lot of doctors become doctors for the money I studied with medicine and Medical science students and I can say that a lot of them become a doctor as the wage pays well and its a secure job. A GP in Australia earns a good 6 figure sum, 125~400 per year. Yes there are jobs that pay more but not many most engineers here get payed around the same, business personal on average does not come close to a doctors wage, financial incentive has A LOT to do with the occupation people pick. This is why so many people major in Accounting and Finance as there is many jobs out there that pay well.
[editline]6th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41330085]You don't believe in technological advancement that doesn't benefit everybody or in labour-saving technology? Lets look at the tractor. More food is produced with far less people which allows people to find other professions. This benefits everybody. I'm sure we could ban tractors and have more people employed but farming isn't most peoples dream job and we'd be losing out on alot of potential scientists and doctors.
As we advance technology it becomes cheaper and more available to the developing world. For example, the cellphone was only owned by incredibly wealthy people but it slowly got cheaper as technology advanced. Now Cellphones are flooding into India and China allowing easier communication increasing their quality of life. Laptops and computers are also getting cheaper incredibly quickly . The internet, access to trillions of libraries and to billions of other people is invaluable. Playing it off as a silly luxury where we post cats is just stupid.
There are plenty of these programs.
The Luddites movement only started because technology took der jobs. As technology advances new jobs are created.[/QUOTE]
You quoted me when seed-eater said that
[editline]6th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41328245']
University/education itself is a fucking broken system and it's no wonder that people fall out and fail. Then you have people who are brilliant at something that doesn't require university, but they need to go in order to get a degree to make a livable wage. There are education system advocated by various political strains that are far better at providing people with the occupation that they truly want and would be most productive at. Education itself at this point is a luxury, only because of this shit for-profit system.[/QUOTE]
University is not a broken system, people fail due to their own problems and fualt. I know that when I get a pass mark in university its cause I didn't study enough and I know that. University is meant to be an adult education system you don't get spoon-feed the information. There are hard subjects which will decimate a class and there will be easier class that is life. Not everything is easy but not everything will be hard in university. University has all the doors and pathways open for you, you just need to take it and study hard and get a good mark. If this is some reason too hard for you then you weren't cut out for the job to begin with. How does one know what they truly want to work as if they never had a slice of it in the first place which is first year university. Many students constantly change their degrees cause they don't know what the want and in the past they wanted to be this or that. Education is a luxury but its a luxury I'm definitely not giving up.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41331861']
But passion and self interest do as well, and while I'm not prepared to say that those would be as much of a driving force, it's enough. The difference between a communist and capitalist outlook is that one sees technological advancement as a necessity for profit, but we communists see no reason to advance if there's no reason to. If we can take care of ourselves and remain happy, then why move forward unless it's going to further that?
[/QUOTE]
Fucking this. Too many people seem to entirely forget that the reason people started discovering things is through passion and self interest. People in the Fertile Crescent had everything they needed to survive, but since they had all their needs met (food, shelter, and water), they were free to explore, develop, and discover new things to make their life even better.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41331861']
and many consumer goods need to be abolished anyhow. Like we need 18 types of toilet paper and 4 types of flatscreens whose motherboards were mined with literal slave labor on western China.[/QUOTE]
So we should eliminate choice in the free market because...? Only having 1 type of toilet paper doesn't really accomplish much, if anything having competing brands leads to lower prices and innovations in ass wiping. Some people prefer thick luxurious toilet paper while some prefer to live a rough life with a thinner cheap variety. All this competition driven by the profit incentive could also one day bring us the perfect balance of price and comfort.
Do you wish to deprive people of this choice and dream?
eliminating the free market is literally the worst thing that you could possibly do
[editline]6th July 2013[/editline]
if you attempt to eliminate the free market you are without exaggeration worse than hitler.
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;41337282]Fucking this. Too many people seem to entirely forget that the reason people started discovering things is through passion and self interest. People in the Fertile Crescent had everything they needed to survive, but since they had all their needs met (food, shelter, and water), they were free to explore, develop, and discover new things to make their life even better.[/QUOTE]
And look how slow innovation was during those times, compared to invention and innovation during the past 200 years.
hi im a mutualist and just wanted to say hello
any other mutualists in here?
[QUOTE=striker453;41333568]
University is not a broken system, people fail due to their own problems and fualt. I know that when I get a pass mark in university its cause I didn't study enough and I know that. University is meant to be an adult education system you don't get spoon-feed the information. There are hard subjects which will decimate a class and there will be easier class that is life. Not everything is easy but not everything will be hard in university. University has all the doors and pathways open for you, you just need to take it and study hard and get a good mark. If this is some reason too hard for you then you weren't cut out for the job to begin with. How does one know what they truly want to work as if they never had a slice of it in the first place which is first year university. Many students constantly change their degrees cause they don't know what the want and in the past they wanted to be this or that. Education is a luxury but its a luxury I'm definitely not giving up.[/QUOTE]
University is a broken system not because it's hard but because it's not about education. When universities were founded they were done so as institutions where people who had the money and the [I]want[/I] to be educated would go and learn first hand through experiment and observation the knowledge and the trades that they wanted to. It was a location of concentrated knowledge. Just as today some would find no value in that and others would struggle to maintain what they learn. This is not the problem. The problems are as such:
1. University is not about passionate or self-improvement, nor even education. It's about degrees, passing standardized tests, and proving that you got out of it what is expected out of you. This is not education nor is it improvement, it's memorization. It takes away all of the participation in learning and leaves only the sterile shell of aptitude.
2. University is expected in an educated world, not because the individuals are expected to go off and better themselves or learn a trade but instead because of competition that devalues both a degree and the education itself: with no degree, you are doomed to the lower echelons of wages and salaries, to menial or difficult work. And individual who is not motivated by the material, want to be educated, or the trade, is instead unmotivated at all and loses the value of the education, because they are unable to retain it.
3. University is seen as [I]better[/I] than vocational schooling, trade schooling, observational training, apprenticing, or even self-teaching, even when these methods can be more effective, more enriching, or more productive than a university education. A university education grants you a degree that grants you increased wages and perhaps also the working knowledge of a trade. Because of scarcity, these degrees were at one point highly honorable, but because of their commonality today are worth little. An individual who is well-learned of a trade or field outside of university is given little of the same opportunity as a degree-holder, and yet although someone else may have a university degree that grants them little real working expertise, the former person is left out. Those who wish to obtain a degree should be free to, those who wish to pursue education by other means should be free to, and those who wish to pursue no education should be free to, at no detriment or benefit to them in their trade/field.
[editline]6th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kentz;41338234]hi im a mutualist and just wanted to say hello
any other mutualists in here?[/QUOTE]
Can you explain how mutualism differs from collectivist anarchism, because I'm highly under-educated in that.
[editline]6th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41337428]So we should eliminate choice in the free market because...? Only having 1 type of toilet paper doesn't really accomplish much, if anything having competing brands leads to lower prices and innovations in ass wiping. Some people prefer thick luxurious toilet paper while some prefer to live a rough life with a thinner cheap variety. All this competition driven by the profit incentive could also one day bring us the perfect balance of price and comfort.
Do you wish to deprive people of this choice and dream?[/QUOTE]
Dream? If you dream is to pick out which of 18 types of tp you can wipe your ass with then your priorities are fucked.
I would deprive people of choice if it meant that everyone lived a better life. Choice alone does nothing. The choice I would begin with is: do we continue to create massive markets and competition on the exploitation of others and denial of resources through misallocation that leads to slavery and death; or do we provide people what keeps them alive and happy enough to not hate their lives? This is not a choice that should exist but is one that capitalism continuously chooses the wrong answer to in pursuit of self-interest and profits.
[editline]6th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=striker453;41333568]Education is a luxury but its a luxury I'm definitely not giving up.[/QUOTE]
In addition, I'd like to point out that the left sees education as a commodity, and like all commodities in collectivism, it should be freely accessible to all. Many leftist ideologies consider education a "right" because of this viewpoint, and not a "luxury" per se. Education is only a luxury when its availability is made artificially scarce by mass-commoditizing it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.