Poll: More Democrats Now Favor Socialism Than Capitalism
250 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48986460]We can start with traits which are common to /every/ humans:
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_universal#List_of_cultural_universals[/URL]
[URL]http://humanuniversals.com/human-universals/[/URL]
I'd now like to see evidence for the contrary position.[/QUOTE]
All of human society shares a common root, and thus all of human culture will share certain qualities
Furthermore a lot of those are things that are intrinsic to the creation of a society
Things such as
[quote]Shelter
Control of Fire
Weapons
cooking[/quote]
are things that must exist for a society to even form. That has no bearing on the malleability of the individual mind or even society (at least as it pertains to this argument)
Hell your own citation provides an alternative explanation in that a lot of these may simply be the result of convergent evolution rather then intrinsic human nature.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48986575]Well the same could be said for any ideology. Capitalism is based on rational self interest (and some other incorrect assumptions such as Barter preceding money and debt) everyday humans are shown to not act in our own self interest and/or act irrationally. If communism or socialism are destined to fail because they are based on incorrect assumptions about human nature then capitalism is destined to fail likewise.[/quote]
The difference is that the market economy has arisen multiple times in varied different cultures and time periods. It was strong enough to not only develop and rise in a vacuum, but to survive and persist or reappear many different times.
The ancient Greeks had a market economy, as did the Romans. The Chinese of the Song Dynasty likewise, in addition to Tokugawa Japan followed by Western Europe.
The Socialist and Communist models have consistently failed or delivered poor results on most metrices from economic growth to life satisfaction or healthcare to education.
[quote]Socialist/communist/egalitarian systems have been around for 1000s years, the Mesopotamians operated in a similar manner, people paid taxes in grain to a central hub, the government (temple) then distributed the supplies. In remote villages you have similar systems, people don't demand money for the food they bring in, they hand out the food on the understanding that if they come on hard times the village will look after their interests (there are very few/no real life examples of adam smiths "barter land" ancient communities operated through debt).[/QUOTE]
The problem is that these societies broke down as time went on. It worked for simple systems in which low populations living in a primarily agrarian society managed to work because of the relative simplicity of it.
Once the population rises, urban settlements grow and spread, there are naturally increasing stresses placed upon the system that results in it breaking down and being replaced. It is for this reason that when the economies of nations such as the Soviet Union broke down (or modern day North Korea or Venezuela), the institutions which sprout up to replace them are virtually indistinguishable from those employed in market economies.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48986606]Hell your own citation provides an alternative explanation in that a lot of these may simply be the result of convergent evolution rather then intrinsic human nature.[/QUOTE]
Then that's implying the best solution to the problem isn't the one that various ideologies propose, but instead the one that multiple peoples converged on after trying other methods.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48986606]All of human society shares a common root, and thus all of human culture will share certain qualities
Furthermore a lot of those are things that are intrinsic to the creation of a society
Things such as
are things that must exist for a society to even form. That has no bearing on the malleability of the individual mind or even society (at least as it pertains to this argument)
Hell your own citation provides an alternative explanation in that a lot of these may simply be the result of convergent evolution rather then intrinsic human nature.[/QUOTE]
Interesting thing about this.
Lots of people (in the 19-20th century especially) assumed war was human nature. The Indus valley peoples had no weapons to speak of and were super advanced (sewer systems to rival the romans) and successful (far reaching trade from india to middle east and also assumedly to china) for their time.
I think we hold a certain set of values and project them onto others, sometimes this can cause them to or have to adopt those values.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48986575]Capitalism has given and continues to give so many people suffering and/or war, we don't blame the system we blame the people/empires involved; why is it different for socialism?[/QUOTE]
to be honest, modern capitalism has contributed to the longest global peacetime in history. if the goal is peace, fast paced global trade is a pretty good way of achieving that.
You can't really point to someone born and raised in a society where they are bombarded with media emphasising and glorifying wealth, put through an education system built to sort people into modern life, and raised by parents who had the same throughout their life and say "that's how people will always be, forever!" when the act in line with the society that raised them. People use similar arguments to justify treating racial minorities like shit ("durr if we treat [racial group] like shit and deprive them of any way to get an advantage in life they always end up poor! It must be them being [I]racially inferior[/I]") and it comes off as equally dumb
Unless you are willing to see what children are like after being raised purely in a controlled, laboratory environment with no access or knowledge of the outside world (a morally questionable experiment that nobody would approve of, and what few [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child]feral children existed[/url] don't really offer substantial evidence) you can't really say what is and isn't human nature
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48986460]We can start with traits which are common to /every/ humans:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_universal#List_of_cultural_universals[/url]
[url]http://humanuniversals.com/human-universals/[/url]
I'd now like to see evidence for the contrary position.[/QUOTE]
There are a few on here (Magical thinking, use of magic, to a lesser extent gender roles, blah blah) that are considered out-of-date thinking and are already derided by some societies. Who is to say what else we might evolve beyond? I'm sure at one point if you didn't believe in the divine right of kings you were disregarded as a nutter
Hell even the bottom of this wiki article offers (what seems like, I am not an anthropologist) a reasonable response
Too often is the term "Capitalism" used to attack functioning Market Economies by conflating the existence of private enterprise and markets with oppression and exploitation by assuming that the existence of a market somehow means that people will be exploited.
[QUOTE=Shibbey;48986665]There are a few on here (Magical thinking, use of magic, to a lesser extent gender roles, blah blah) that are considered out-of-date thinking and are already derided by some societies. Who is to say what else we might evolve beyond? I'm sure at one point if you didn't believe in the divine right of kings you were disregarded as a nutter[/QUOTE]
You only have to check the horoscopes in the Metro, or the fact that churches are everywhere in addition to alternate medicine shops. Or the fact that people still think wrestling is real.
Not to mention that conspiracy theorists are as lively as ever. I doubt these are things which can be eliminated through proper education, because the authorities have tried for centuries with virtually no luck.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48986633]
Then that's implying the best solution to the problem isn't the one that various ideologies propose, but instead the one that multiple peoples converged on after trying other methods.[/QUOTE]
That is of course disregarding external factors such as cultural influence or the fact that a lot of the things on the list only have on answer.
[editline]26th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48986682]
You only have to check the horoscopes in the Metro, or the fact that churches are everywhere in addition to alternate medicine shops. Or the fact that people still think wrestling is real.
.[/QUOTE]
The very fact that even one person doesn't do any of those things means they aren't intrinsic to the individual. I most certainly do not believe in divination. I also most certainly don't conform to modern ideas of gender roles. The very fact that I, as a person, do no believe or follow those things means that they aren't intrinsic. Furthermore even on a societal level we have societies with nonstandard definitions of gender roles, and a good portion of modern society doesn't believe in divination.
To quote Einstein
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
[QUOTE=Shibbey;48986665]You can't really point to someone born and raised in a society where they are bombarded with media emphasising and glorifying wealth, put through an education system built to sort people into modern life, and raised by parents who had the same throughout their life and say "that's how people will always be, forever!"[/QUOTE]
Then how did it come about in the first place?
If it is due to the media somehow brainwashing the masses, then how did the fundamentals of private enterprise, the market, etc all develop? And not just once, but multiple times in often isolated areas.
It seems very curious that confronted with the same socioeconomic problems, that virtually everyone adopts the same solutions to the problem (and it certainly isn't socialism, a western ideology in itself).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48986329]This line of thinking, which assumes that society and people are somehow infinitely malleable, doesn't really work either. Taken to its logical conclusion, it means repeating the fallacies of behavioral psychologists and the social planners who claim that "human nature" doesn't exist and that given enough time and resources one can mold humans into virtually anything. [/QUOTE]
This is nothing but a strawman. Anarchists generally don't believe that humans are infinitely malleable or lack human nature. Rather, we believe quite the opposite - freedom, equality, and mutual aid are part of the natural state of mankind, and that a society can be created that reflects these parts of the human condition.
Here's a relevant bit from a 1976 essay by Noam Chomsky:
[QUOTE]The question "What is human nature?" has more than scientific interest. As we have noted, it lies at the core of social thought as well. What is a good society? Presumably, one that leads to the satisfaction of intrinsic human needs, insofar as material conditions allow. To command attention and respect, a social theory should be grounded on some concept of human needs and human rights, and in turn, on the human nature that must be presupposed in any serious account of the origin and character of these needs and rights. Correspondingly, the social structures and relations that a reformer or revolutionary seeks to bring into existence will be based on a concept of human nature, however vague and inarticulate.
Suppose that at the core of human nature lies the propensity to truck and barter, as Adam Smith alleged. Then we will work to achieve an early capitalist society of small traders, unhindered by monopoly, state intervention, or socially controlled production. Suppose, in contrast, that we take seriously the concepts of another classical liberal thinker, Wilhelm von Humboldt, who contends that "to inquire and to create -- these are the centers around which all human pursuits more or less directly revolve," and who further maintains that true creation can take place only under conditions of free choice that goes beyond "instruction and guidance," in a society in which social fetters have been replaced by freely created social bonds. Or suppose that we assume further with Marx that "only in a state of community with others has each individual the means to develop his predispositions in all directions; only in a state of community will personal freedom thus become possible" -- where personal freedom presupposes abolition of the alienation of labor that Humboldt condemned as well, the condition of labor that "casts some of the workers back into barbarous kind of work and turns others into machines."21 On such assumptions about human needs we derive a very different conception of a social order that we should work to create.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=daschnek;48988306]This is nothing but a strawman. Anarchists generally don't believe that humans are infinitely malleable or lack human nature. Rather, we believe quite the opposite - freedom, equality, and mutual aid are part of the natural state of mankind, and that a society can be created that reflects these parts of the human condition.
Here's a relevant bit from a 1976 essay by Noam Chomsky:[/QUOTE]
So if "freedom, equality, and mutual aid are part of the natural state of mankind", where's all the prosperous anarchist societies?
[QUOTE=Mingebox;48989145] where's all the prosperous anarchist societies?[/QUOTE]
They've already been brought up in the thread. There's the wide variety of historical anarchist societies (or at least attempts at making them, usually crushed in extremely brutal mass atrocities) such as revolutionary Catalonia, the Ukrainian Free Territory, the Communes in Paris, etc. The Zapatistas and libertarian socialist currents among the Kurds represent anarchist principles in action today, but it even goes much further than this. Anyone anywhere who takes a stand against illegitimate forms of authority can put anarchist principles into practice.
[QUOTE=daschnek;48989247]They've already been brought up in the thread. There's the wide variety of historical anarchist societies (or at least attempts at making them, usually crushed in extremely brutal mass atrocities) such as revolutionary Catalonia, the Ukrainian Free Territory, the Communes in Paris, etc. The Zapatistas and libertarian socialist currents among the Kurds represent anarchist principles in action today, but it even goes much further than this. Anyone anywhere who takes a stand against illegitimate forms of authority can put anarchist principles into practice.[/QUOTE]
You're listing examples of failed societies that only appeared during bloody civil wars and revolutions and barely lasted much more than a few months, or otherwise hold virtually no power or influence.
There's also the fact that there are at least six separate instances of states developing in isolation, so it seems like an oddity that a wide range of peoples (from the native Peruvians to the ancient Mesopotamians to the Chinese) all discovered the same solution to their problems was state formation.
[QUOTE=Kentz;48985181]its parasitic because it can only exist via theft, unlike a business which exists when providing a service people are happy with[/QUOTE]
No it's not, you would know that if you knew anything about social contracts, or contracts in general.
In contract law there are three phases in a contract.
A) The contemplation phase where the terms and conditions are hashed out
B) The Agreement phase where each party agrees to the terms and conditions laid out.
C) Performance and Enforcement phase
Anarcho capitalists such as yourself keep referring to part C as a way to try to invalidate the anterior steps.
The fact that a social contract has an enforcement provision in it does not mean that you're being coerced into accepting the terms of the social contract, which you give implicit agreement to by constantly taking advantage of the services that the state provides. Indeed, you're allowed to leave at any time. Either by moving to another country that is more in line with your principles, or by living off the grid as millions of people already do today. You don't want to do that. You want the easy cushy lifestyle that you've grown accustomed to living. And I don't see why the rest of the world is morally obligated to get rid of the only proven methods of providing a stable functioning society because it's not perfectly in line with your personal preferences.
So what you should do is make positive arguments in favor the system that you have in mind, and do some work into actually proving why your society is better than the one we have now. You know, instead of whining and complaining about how it violates the NAP (which is universal for some reason that's never explained) even though it doesn't.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48986682]Too often is the term "Capitalism" used to attack functioning Market Economies by conflating the existence of private enterprise and markets with oppression and exploitation by assuming that the existence of a market somehow means that people will be exploited.
[/QUOTE]
You know why? Because the exploitation is a really really shitty side effect of Capitalism.
Capitalism is where singular proprietors exist to make a profit off of production. As a result, they try to increase the output of the goods they get while decreasing the amount of money and goods they have to input. Have you ever heard of the 3 factors of production, Land, Labor, and Capital (there are technically more but really it's just easy if you squish them all into these three)? This is where exploitation comes into play since labor is required to produce goods. As a result, proprietors try to decrease the amount of money they have to spend on labor such as wages and safety while encouraging their labor to be more productive. Exploitation is treating the labor in the most shitty way possible while trying to make them the most productive.
The only reason successful markets without treating humans like shit have been established is because the governments stepped in to stop them. Not to mention, you know, there are more example of Capitalism going wrong without government intervention than there are going right. I mean China, Indonesia, India, America pre-1890s, there's just too fucking many to count.
Socialism is where instead of individual proprietors owning the factors of production, the labor controls all three. Sounds good right? The problem comes in is how do you do this? Communism tried to solve this by hand the factors of production over to the government, and having the people be the ones to control the government, but that failed because when you give so much power to an individual thing and it will try to remove any power from other sources (AKA the people).
(please note: this next paragraph isn't me giving my support for what's being discussed but rather just discussing how it could actually happen)
This is also how Anarcho-Communism (it should really be called Anarcho-Socialism) could actually be a thing since instead of there being a state that controls the factors of production, the laborers actually do. As a result, you could theoretically eliminate the state completely as the new employee lead conglomerates would try to establish their own rules. It'd be sort of like if the US Government were to be completely dissolved and all corporations in America were now employee owned. Of course personally I don't think an Anarcho-Communist system would work but who knows? It's never really been tried at this point.
I'm not sure where exactly this is going but I just want to jot down that a complete 100% Capitalist or Communist system would never work in the favor of the people. In a 100% Capitalist society the people (AKA the laborers and consumers) would get completely fucked out of their money by the Proprietors, and in a Communist society the power that results from such thing would be too much to bear and cause a collapse of democracy. It's why Europe has possibly the best kind of economic system, Social Democracy. It allows for the continuation of companies but controls their greed with the actual will of the people.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48989513]This is where exploitation comes into play since labor is required to produce goods. As a result, proprietors try to decrease the amount of money they have to spend on labor such as wages and safety while encouraging their labor to be more productive.[/quote]
you're assuming businessmen are dipshits (they're not)
labour is something you can invest into like land or machinery or marketing. if you treat your workers well with high wages and holidays they work better (this is undisputed)
[quote]The only reason successful markets without treating humans like shit have been established is because the governments stepped in to stop them. Not to mention, you know, there are more example of Capitalism going wrong without government intervention than there are going right. I mean China, Indonesia, India, America pre-1890s, there's just too fucking many to count.[/quote]
except markets do well in a well-regulated atmosphere with transparent governance and good regulations. markets heavily rely on trust - without it the market economy cannot function.
examples of success include post-medieval europe, the early roman empire, post-song china, and virtually the entire modern world
[quote]Socialism is where instead of individual proprietors owning the factors of production, the labor controls all three. Sounds good right?[/quote]
no
[quote]It's why Europe has possibly the best kind of economic system, Social Democracy.[/QUOTE]
we have a "capitalist" economy through and through - we've had an economy driven by private actors acting within a market system since the 14th century
social democracy is just a political ideology that centre-left parties subscribe to, which seek to introduce social and economic policies that reduce inequality, provide the minimum needs for people, etc. they all work within the framework of a "capitalist" economy and virtually none of them have come close to (or even wanted to) abolish the market economy
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48989456]You're listing examples of failed societies that only appeared during bloody civil wars and revolutions and barely lasted much more than a few months, or otherwise hold virtually no power or influence.[/QUOTE]
Yes, they are failed societies, but they didn't fail due to some feature intrinsic to leftist thought - they failed after being violently subdued. The fact that they appeared during revolutions and civil wars is a matter of opportunity - the anarchists in Spain didn't have to go through the trouble of getting rid of the state when the state was in no position to counter the revolutionaries.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48989456]There's also the fact that there are at least six separate instances of states developing in isolation, so it seems like an oddity that a wide range of peoples (from the native Peruvians to the ancient Mesopotamians to the Chinese) all discovered the same solution to their problems was state formation.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for stating the obvious (pun not intended). People made states when they felt social conditions necessitated them. Other ancient societies didn't. There's no immutable fact of life that humans must have states in order to have mass societies together. Ancient peoples in California and the Mississippi delta didn't, and other indigenous groups still lack a state today (even if the territories they live in are claimed by states).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48989649]you're assuming businessmen are dipshits (they're not)
labour is something you can invest into like land or machinery or marketing. if you treat your workers well with high wages and holidays they work better (this is undisputed)
[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me? Most businessmen are dipshits who will do anything to make a dollar, especially major stock traders. I mean for fucks sakes, why do you think businesses move manufacturing jobs overseas to places like China and Indonesia? It's certainly not because they want to treat their US workers better.
Besides, the whole "if you treat your workers good, they will be more productive" thing isn't entirely true. Today workers are 80% more productive then they were in the 80s, despite the fact that wages are (adjusted for inflation of course) at an all time low, pensions were abolished, and other such things happening.
[quote]except markets do well in a well-regulated atmosphere with transparent governance and good regulations. markets heavily rely on trust - without it the market economy cannot function. [/quote]
So we're in agreement here?
[quote]examples of success include post-medieval europe, the early roman empire, post-song china, and virtually the entire modern world[/quote]
I hope you do realize, successful doesn't mean good, right? I'd hardly call Post-Medieval Europe, The Early Roman Empire, and Post-Song China nations that treated their people well. At least two of those were built at least partially off of slavery and the other one the peasants were treated like complete shit.
[quote]we have a "capitalist" economy through and through - we've had an economy driven by private actors acting within a market system since the 14th century[/quote]
Okay? Like I've said before, successful doesn't mean it's good. Up until the 1890s (At least in America), the working class was treated like complete shit with, in some cases, a total disdain for them. I'd hardly call that good for the general people.
[QUOTE]social democracy is just a political ideology that centre-left parties subscribe to, which seek to introduce social and economic policies that reduce inequality, provide the minimum needs for people, etc. they all work within the framework of a "capitalist" economy and virtually none of them have come close to (or even wanted to) abolish the market economy[/QUOTE]
Well that's the term I used to denote it. What else could be used? It's not like Socialism which is a different thing could be used. Perhaps I could have used State Capitalism but whatever.
[QUOTE=daschnek;48989758]Yes, they are failed societies, but they didn't fail due to some feature intrinsic to leftist thought - they failed after being violently subdued. The fact that they appeared during revolutions and civil wars is a matter of opportunity - the anarchists in Spain didn't have to go through the trouble of getting rid of the state when the state was in no position to counter the revolutionaries.[/quote]
being violently subdued is an intrinsic failure
if your society can only be formed in a revolution (and it's notoriously weak and collapses if somebody so much as sneezes on it) then it speaks badly of that society.
the french revolution began in isolation surrounded by enemies but the armies of the republic defeated literally everybody in europe and went on to conquer half the continent, so anarchists/communists don't get an excuse
[quote]People made states when they felt social conditions necessitated them. Other ancient societies didn't. There's no immutable fact of life that humans must have states in order to have mass societies together. Ancient peoples in California and the Mississippi delta didn't, and other indigenous groups still lack a state today (even if the territories they live in are claimed by states).[/QUOTE]
there's a commonality to all ancient states that were formed. they all appeared in agrarian societies with densely packed populations that utilized hierarchies and mobilized labour on a large scale to do projects (from irrigation to armies) that served a common goal. the fact that other societies didn't form a state isn't because they found an alternate system, it's because they lived in small populations spread out over massive areas
the ancient peoples of the mississippi would have formed states given enough time and population growth, because large numbers of people aren't able to function without states. indigenous groups such as the Cherokee would have almost certainly formed a (real) state if they hadn't been conquered
[QUOTE=daschnek;48989758]Yes, they are failed societies, but they didn't fail due to some feature intrinsic to leftist thought - they failed after being violently subdued. The fact that they appeared during revolutions and civil wars is a matter of opportunity - the anarchists in Spain didn't have to go through the trouble of getting rid of the state when the state was in no position to counter the revolutionaries.
[/QUOTE]Maybe they would have done better if they could attract enough followers to throw their own revolution or defend themselves.
[QUOTE=daschnek;48989758]
Thank you for stating the obvious (pun not intended). People made states when they felt social conditions necessitated them. Other ancient societies didn't. There's no immutable fact of life that humans must have states in order to have mass societies together. Ancient peoples in California and the Mississippi delta didn't, and other indigenous groups still lack a state today (even if the territories they live in are claimed by states).[/QUOTE]
Notice how the people who made states aren't in the exact same place they were thousands of years ago?
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48989789]I mean for fucks sakes, why do you think businesses move manufacturing jobs overseas to places like China and Indonesia?[/quote]
it's cheaper and the workers are skilled to be trusted with certain jobs. americans are shifting to better-paying jobs requiring more skills and knowledge, and its push as much as pull thats causing the outsourcing
when immigrants come into the country to do the shitty jobs that nobody want to do it's basically the same process - middle class americans don't want to do those sorts of jobs so they're happy to let brown people do it instead.
the result has been the wealth of the average chinese person multiplying thirtyfold and the greatest reduction of poverty in the whole of human history. the chinese themselves are starting to outsource to africa (now the continent with the highest rate of economic growth)
[quote]Besides, the whole "if you treat your workers good, they will be more productive" thing isn't entirely true.[/quote]
despite the fact it's happened in virtually every country in the western hemisphere (and then in the asia and now in africa).
also talking about slow wage growth in america is disingenuous when it has domestic conditions (such as a weak labour market, the recent long recession, the demographic shift, etc). during times of economic crisis, its much easier for bosses to fire people than to cut wages. after the economy recovers, they tend to just keep wages frozen and hire more people until the pool of relatively cheap talent dries up and they have to offer higher wages to attract it
[quote]I hope you do realize, successful doesn't mean good, right? I'd hardly call Post-Medieval Europe, The Early Roman Empire, and Post-Song China nations that treated their people well. At least two of those were built at least partially off of slavery and the other one the peasants were treated like complete shit.[/quote]
you're applying a modern yardstick to ancient societies - of course they're going to fail (1950s america would be classed as a developing country if it existed today).
considering the gains made in the context of their time they were impressive.
[quote]Okay? Like I've said before, successful doesn't mean it's good. Up until the 1890s (At least in America), the working class was treated like complete shit with, in some cases, a total disdain for them. I'd hardly call that good for the general people.[/quote]
you're being disingenuous by ignoring improvement and claiming that some things were still bad it means the whole thing is broken. if a system delivers reliable and constant improvement, then its likely it will continue and spread (like it has to the entire world in the past 25 years).
people starve to death in democracies today, does that mean democracy is broken?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48989827]being violently subdued is an intrinsic failure
if your society can only be formed in a revolution (and it's notoriously weak and collapses if somebody so much as sneezes on it) then it speaks badly of that society. [/QUOTE]
What? Being violently subdued is simply being violently subdued. If someone cracks me over the head with a tire iron as I'm going about my business, then I've been violently subdued - where exactly would be the failure on my part? Revolutionary Catalonia was subdued with the help of every faction under the sun, from the Francoists themselves to liberal democrats to Stalinists.
Being subdued simply means the neighboring society could be violent a bit better than you could. It's not a deep flaw that renders an ideology completely useless.
[QUOTE]the french revolution began in isolation surrounded by enemies but the armies of the republic defeated literally everybody in europe and went on to conquer half the continent, so anarchists/communists don't get an excuse [/QUOTE]
...and that conquest ended in defeat. The Bourbons came back. Using this simplistic "the best ideology is the one that can use the most force" logic, monarchism is clearly the superior system. Of course, though defeated, the ideals of the French Revolution never died. Similarly, while anarchists have been defeated, it's no excuse for those ideals to die.
[QUOTE]there's a commonality to all ancient states that were formed. they all appeared in agrarian societies with densely packed populations that utilized hierarchies and mobilized labour on a large scale to do projects (from irrigation to armies) that served a common goal. the fact that other societies didn't form a state isn't because they found an alternate system, it's because they lived in small populations spread out over massive areas
the ancient peoples of the mississippi would have formed states given enough time and population growth, because large numbers of people aren't able to function without states. indigenous groups such as the Cherokee would have almost certainly formed a (real) state if they hadn't been conquered[/QUOTE]
The commonality of ancient states indicates common conditions, but it doesn't indicate that states are a part of human nature, which is what you at least seem to be hinting towards. "large numbers of people aren't able to function without states" is simply the rhetoric of someone who never considered non-state methods of organizing society.
[QUOTE=daschnek;48990100]Being subdued simply means the neighboring society could be violent a bit better than you could. It's not a deep flaw that renders an ideology completely useless.[/quote]
The fact that it can't develop unless virtually every other institution and armed forces essentially collapse or cease to exist is a failure of the ideology. Assuming they all collapsed, then the anarchist society which would rise would have to struggle to keep the lid on nascent state formation.
[quote]Similarly, while anarchists have been defeated, it's no excuse for those ideals to die.[/quote]
Well it's a good thing they don't enjoy support, I wouldn't want to live in an anarchist society where i'd be probably murdered for some trivial reason.
[quote]"large numbers of people aren't able to function without states" is simply the rhetoric of someone who never considered non-state methods of organizing society.[/QUOTE]
i have considered them (you sometimes get them working where there's less than 2 people per sq kilometre on average)
they don't work. there is no evidence to support it. like, if there are multiple instances of states forming in isolation from one another with wildly different cultures that implies that organizing people without a state on that scale is not feasible
remember these are densely packed populations with loads of different social groups. states are exactly designed to manage dense and large populations of people from loads of separate races and religions in (relative) harmony
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48990277]The fact that it can't develop unless virtually every other institution and armed forces essentially collapse or cease to exist is a failure of the ideology. Assuming they all collapsed, then the anarchist society which would rise would have to struggle to keep the lid on nascent state formation.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure where you got the idea that anarchism requires everything to collapse. The idea is simply to replace institutions, including but not limited to the state, with institutions that can be controlled through collective decision making.
[QUOTE]Well it's a good thing they don't enjoy support, I wouldn't want to live in an anarchist society where i'd be probably murdered for some trivial reason.[/QUOTE]
Except that they do still enjoy support, though often limited and far outside of mainstream attention. Anarchists still organize labor unions, democratic housing, and free stores. Anarchists also engage in activism for a wide variety of causes, and some of them fight ISIS on the side. I would argue that most people support the basics of anarchist beliefs, but they just don't apply them to their logical extent.
[QUOTE]i have considered them (you sometimes get them working where there's less than 2 people per sq kilometre on average)[/QUOTE]
I haven't cited any examples from extremely low population density societies.
[QUOTE]they don't work. there is no evidence to support it. like, if there are multiple instances of states forming in isolation from one another with wildly different cultures that implies that organizing people without a state on that scale is not feasible[/QUOTE]
They do tend to work, but at the same time, I do understand that dismissing alternatives out of hand is far easier than putting alternatives into practice - some people would rather do that, and that's okay.
[QUOTE=daschnek;48990518]I'm not sure where you got the idea that anarchism requires everything to collapse. The idea is simply to replace institutions, including but not limited to the state, with institutions that can be controlled through collective decision making.[/quote]
Because these institutions which already exist perform a much better job than the ones you propose.
[quote]I would argue that most people support the basics of anarchist beliefs, but they just don't apply them to their logical extent.[/quote]
Probably because taken to its logical conclusion its insane.
[quote]I haven't cited any examples from extremely low population density societies.[/quote]
They're in only instance in which you might feasibly see them (because small and low density populations don't require these things).
[quote]They do tend to work[/quote]
such as
[quote]but at the same time, I do understand that dismissing alternatives out of hand is far easier than putting alternatives into practice - some people would rather do that, and that's okay.[/QUOTE]
The alternatives put into practice are unfeasible at best, and lead to genocide and war at worst.
I don't think you understand that the institutions which underpin civilization, ranging from the state to the law to markets to the division of labour, aren't arbitrary entities we choose to run things with, but are equivalent to material technology. They are social technology, and much like complex machinery and infrastructure we rely on it for civilization to continue functioning.
The big problem that ideologies such as anarchism or communism propose is to get rid of one or more fundamental pieces of social technology in the assumption its either unnecessary or even harmful. They do not realize these these social technologies aren't used to underpin some system of exploitation for the benefit of some class, but without which its impossible to clothe, feed, keep safe, and housed the seven billion people who inhabit the world.
Without these technologies, the tools we are left with leave us little better equipped to tackle social and economic problems than our neolithic ancestors.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48990878]The big problem that ideologies such as anarchism or communism propose is to get rid of one or more fundamental pieces of social technology in the assumption its either unnecessary or even harmful. They do not realize these these social technologies aren't used to underpin some system of exploitation for the benefit of some class, but without which its impossible to clothe, feed, keep safe, and housed the seven billion people who inhabit the world.
Without these technologies, the tools we are left with leave us little better equipped to tackle social and economic problems than our neolithic ancestors.[/QUOTE]
i really don't understand this hate-on you have for egalitarian societies
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48990878]The big problem that ideologies such as anarchism or communism propose is to get rid of one or more fundamental pieces of social technology in the assumption its either unnecessary or even harmful. They do not realize these these social technologies aren't used to underpin some system of exploitation for the benefit of some class, but without which its impossible to clothe, feed, keep safe, and housed the seven billion people who inhabit the world.[/QUOTE]
I really would like to hear a more compelling argument for why the state in a capitalist society is not an institution set up to ensure the rule of the capitalist class than "It isn't". Perhaps in addition to that how the state is exactly necessary and not harmful.
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48990910]i really don't understand this hate-on you have for egalitarian societies[/QUOTE]
i really don't understand what you're saying here
like what do you mean by an egalitarian society?
if you mean gender equality as in feminism, equality for LGBT people, racial equality, religious equality, universal healthcare, etc in terms of an egalitarian society then good news i support those things very strongly and i always have
you know exactly what the fuck i mean sobotnik
[QUOTE=Octavius;48990915]I really would like to hear a more compelling argument for why the state in a capitalist society is not an institution set up to ensure the rule of the capitalist class than "It isn't". Perhaps in addition to that how the state is exactly necessary and not harmful.[/QUOTE]
The state existed before the market economy, and has risen in multiple locations throughout the ancient world. I'm not too sure how exactly the state is set up to ensure the rule of this nonexistant "capitalist class" when states predate the development of markets, money, private enterprise, etc by thousands of years.
There's also the questionable issue that if these so called "capitalists" created states so as to set up inequalities in their favour, then how the hell did they get any support or the power to exert their will? And not just once, but a minimum of six times (in Africa, North America, South America, Europe, and Asia where there are states which developed in isolation from one another).
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48990933]you know exactly what the fuck i mean sobotnik[/QUOTE]
I support minimum wages, universal healthcare and education, trade unions, state control of natural monopolies, welfare for the unemployed/sick/homeless/vulnerable/etc in addition to the things I talked about earlier.
How are those not indicative as supportive of egalitarianism?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48990948]
I support minimum wages, universal healthcare and education, trade unions, state control of natural monopolies, welfare for the unemployed/sick/homeless/vulnerable/etc in addition to the things I talked about earlier.
How are those not indicative as supportive of egalitarianism?[/QUOTE]
that's all well and good, but why exactly do you support the income inequality being as, well, inequal as it is? why do you support the top echelon individuals of society earning wages equal to that of a small country, while the bottom echelon lives in abject poverty? why do you think it's just fine that people like donald trump consider 6.7 million dollars "measly"? you don't support an egalitarian society, you support a capitalist society with minimal concessions just as long as it quiets down the working class
[editline]26th October 2015[/editline]
i'm sorry, that's actually [I]6.8[/I] million dollars that trump considers "small"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.