Spain's Communist Village Is Making The Rest Of The World Look Bad - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43141718]I don't see it as them giving me money for my labor so much as me selling my labor to them.[/quote] it's still incredibly demeaning in my opinion. [quote]Such as?[/QUOTE] worker's self management, unionization, consensus-voting, direct democracy, common ownership, consensual agreements, mediation, etc.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43141736]it's still incredibly demeaning in my opinion. [/QUOTE] I don't feel demeaned at all. In fact, I feel pretty damn empowered with the idea that I can sell what I can do to businesses, often with a negotiated price.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43141582]Because you are the one advocating for change, so the burden is on you. We don't have to prove to you why capitalism is better, because it is already in place. You have to be the one to convince us that your way is better to convince us to change. That's kinda the way this has worked forever.[/QUOTE] i disagree slightly. society isn't static, it's always changing. there should also be a burden on the people who want to maintain the status quo. in this case, why should we keep capitalism?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43141725]that would be unlikely since such an imposition of force upon a minority group would likely lead to a lot of resistance from both the minority and the majority. anarchism is about the resistance to authority and oppression. it cannot exist unless people are skeptical of all forms of authority.[/QUOTE] but if they can't achieve consensus and want this community move forward in this direction, then what happens? if my community has 100 people, 70 says go this way, and 30 says go this way, what happens to the community? do they forget the decision at all and not do anything? will the 70 people be held back due to the 30 people? or will the 30 people be forced to go along with the 70 to maintain the community? if the 30 people decide to break off and live somewhere else, are they allowed to take property with them? but how can they if property is shared or no one reaches consensus that property is theirs to take to survive the travel from here to there?

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43141766]but if they can't achieve consensus and want this community move forward in this direction, then what happens? if my community has 100 people, 70 says go this way, and 30 says go this way, what happens to the community? do they forget the decision at all and not do anything? will the 70 people be held back due to the 30 people? or will the 30 people be forced to go along with the 70 to maintain the community? if the 30 people decide to break off and live somewhere else, are they allowed to take property with them? but how can they if property is shared or no one reaches consensus that property is theirs to take to survive the travel from here to there?[/QUOTE] likely the 70 people will want to amend the decision to accommodate the reservations of the 30. i'v participated in consensus voting and it is incredibly frustrating when you get just shy of a consensus for a decision. in my experience, the consensus model was too rigid, it didn't properly allow for negotiation and revisiting the decision under new terms. that's definitely a valid concern, but it means that any form of consensus voting must be more fluid and dynamic, not that it is an invalid form of decision making. [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] also consensus voting is a way to slow down the decision making process. it stops a "tyranny of the majority" and helps ensure decisions are properly discussed and explored before being committed to. this is similar to the way a filibuster works in american politics without the annoying rigidity that comes from congress.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43141784]likely the 70 people will want to amend the decision to accommodate the reservations of the 30. i'v participated in consensus voting and it is incredibly frustrating when you get just shy of a consensus for a decision. in my experience, the consensus model was too rigid, it didn't properly allow for negotiation and revisiting the decision under new terms. that's definitely a valid concern, but it means that any form of consensus voting must be more fluid and dynamic, not that it is an invalid form of decision making.[/QUOTE] and what if the 70 people don't want to amend the decision to accomodate the reservation of the 30? what if they so strongly believe that moving forward in this direction would be best for the 100-man community, then they don't want to negotiate any further?

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43141766]but if they can't achieve consensus and want this community move forward in this direction, then what happens? if my community has 100 people, 70 says go this way, and 30 says go this way, what happens to the community? do they forget the decision at all and not do anything? will the 70 people be held back due to the 30 people? or will the 30 people be forced to go along with the 70 to maintain the community? if the 30 people decide to break off and live somewhere else, are they allowed to take property with them? but how can they if property is shared or no one reaches consensus that property is theirs to take to survive the travel from here to there?[/QUOTE] you do have a point, but this is a problem present in every decision making system. in the US, for example, congressmen can generally do what they want with little accountability to who they represent. if they're dragging people along unwillingly, do the people have a right to disagree, and live somewhere else? do they do nothing? there's no good answer.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43141806]and what if the 70 people don't want to amend the decision to accomodate the reservation of the 30? what if they so strongly believe that moving forward in this direction would be best for the 100-man community, then they don't want to negotiate any further?[/QUOTE] then consensus is not reached and a decision is not made.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43141813]then consensus is not reached and a decision is not made.[/QUOTE] then isnt that a minority oppressing the majority by using their numbers to stop a decision from happening? [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43141808]you do have a point, but this is a problem present in every decision making system. in the US, for example, congressmen can generally do what they want with little accountability to who they represent. if they're dragging people along unwillingly, do the people have a right to disagree, and live somewhere else? do they do nothing? there's no good answer.[/QUOTE] im not saying our system is better or worse, or it has perfect plan to solve everything, i just want to know what the anarchist's answers are

the consensus model is meant to not only prevent majority oppression, but also to encourage negotiation and consensus among participants. that's why it is a better alternative to the filibuster in american politics. [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=lolwutdude;43141831]then isnt that a minority oppressing the majority by using their numbers to stop a decision from happening? [/QUOTE] stopping a decision from being carried out is a lot less oppressive than a majority carrying out a decision against the will of 30% of the participants.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43141831]then isnt that a minority oppressing the majority by using their numbers to stop a decision from happening? im not saying our system is better or worse, or it has perfect plan to solve everything, i just want to know what the anarchist's answers are[/QUOTE] i'm glad you genuinely want to know, but if you ask this question to 10 anarchists you're probably gonna get 10 different answers. every society is unique. not every capitalist system would act the same way either.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43141840]the consensus model is meant to not only prevent majority oppression, but also to encourage negotiation and consensus among participants. that's why it is a better alternative to the filibuster in american politics. [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] stopping a decision from being carried out is a lot less oppressive than a majority carrying out a decision against the will of 30% of the participants.[/QUOTE] so you are admitting that consensus voting is still oppressive, albeit less oppressive than a majority vote?

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43141762]i disagree slightly. society isn't static, it's always changing. there should also be a burden on the people who want to maintain the status quo. in this case, why should we keep capitalism?[/QUOTE] Because most of your other options (socialism, communism, etc...) have all that is produced and distributed going through someone (or a group) of people who distribute it evenly. Now while this sounds nice and fair, you have to also understand that when other systems have troubles, it is also MUCH easier to deprive the public of what they need, in order to keep them obedient. Capitalism is designed so that nobody really has control of production/distribution other than the actual producer. That means that the distribution source, weather it be government or whatnot, can't really stop a company from providing food, power, heat, etc... from people who want it on a whim. It's not just an economic system, it also doubles as a check to help keep people free from oppression.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43141859]i'm glad you genuinely want to know, but if you ask this question to 10 anarchists you're probably gonna get 10 different answers. every society is unique. not every capitalist system would act the same way either.[/QUOTE] that's why i get annoyed with hypotheticals. anarchism isn't about finding a perfect solution to every problem out there. instead, it is more about putting the outcome of society in our hands. we are given the power to construct a society, our society isn't created by some idealist with a gun. [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=lolwutdude;43141866]so you are admitting that consensus voting is still oppressive, albeit less oppressive than a majority vote?[/QUOTE] since it is based around the idea of voluntary association it is hardly oppressive at all. there are problems with consensus voting, for sure. they aren't problems that can't be refined and re-evaluated to meet the needs of the society using the system, though. it isn't a rigid structure, more of a guideline used to facilitate voluntary agreements between individuals and collectives.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43141892]that's why i get annoyed with hypotheticals. anarchism isn't about finding a perfect solution to every problem out there. instead, it is more about putting the outcome of society in our hands. we are given the power to construct a society, our society isn't created by some idealist with a gun.[/QUOTE] but you just admitted that consensus vote is still oppressive because the minority has the authority to deprive an entire community from decisions, just like a majority has the authority to force a decision on a minority in a majority vote if there is no voting system that accommodates everyone, then isn't the point of anarchy null if someone has an authority to force a decision on someone? forcing no decision is still forcing

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43141910]but you just admitted that consensus vote is still oppressive because the minority has the authority to deprive an entire community from decisions, just like a majority has the authority to force a decision on a minority in a majority vote if there is no voting system that accommodates everyone, then isn't the point of anarchy null if someone has an authority to force a decision on someone? forcing no decision is still forcing[/QUOTE] technically, since all decisions are voluntary, no one has the ability to force anyone to do anything. people can literally choose not to follow any decision made for whatever reason they want. the idea is that people will generally follow the decisions their community makes because they see the benefit to participate in the community even when it doesn't do exactly what you want it to do. most mature people are able to take part in a club or organization and participate even when sometimes people vote against their wishes. they don't need to be forced to be part of that club. if the club's legitimacy hinges on its ability to enforce membership in the club(like a state), then maybe the club is not legitimate and should be dismantled. that's literally a tl;dr for the underlying philosophy of anarchism.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43141956]technically, since all decisions are voluntary, no one has the ability to force anyone to do anything. people can literally choose not to follow any decision made for whatever reason they want. the idea is that people will generally follow the decisions their community makes because they see the benefit to participate in the community even when it doesn't do exactly what you want it to do. most mature people are able to take part in a club or organization and participate even when sometimes people vote against their wishes. they don't need to be forced to be part of that club. if the club's legitimacy hinges on its ability to enforce membership in the club(like a state), then maybe the club is not legitimate and should be dismantled. that's literally a tl;dr for the underlying philosophy of anarchism.[/QUOTE] so within an anarchist community, anyone can disagree with any decision and not do it, only do what they want?

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43141982]so within an anarchist community, anyone can disagree with any decision and not do it, only do what they want?[/QUOTE] yea. the community is just a way to facilitate agreements between people.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43141990]yea. the community is just a way to facilitate agreements between people.[/QUOTE] so what if i do something that the community doesn't want me doing? does it have the power to banish or punish me for doing it? if i can disagree with their decisions, therefore laws, nobody should be stopping me right, otherwise that's an oppression because an authority is physically stopping me?

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43142009]so what if i do something that the community doesn't want me doing? does it have the power to banish or punish me for doing it? if i can disagree with their decisions, therefore laws, nobody should be stopping me right, otherwise that's an oppression because an authority is physically stopping me?[/QUOTE] i don't have a good answer for this, frankly. it depends on the severity and context of the action. most anarchists say banishment is an acceptable collective action to deal with dangerous individuals.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43142047]i don't have a good answer for this, frankly. it depends on the severity and context of the action. most anarchists say banishment is an acceptable collective action to deal with dangerous individuals.[/QUOTE] Is any disagreement make them "dangerous"?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43142047]i don't have a good answer for this, frankly.[/QUOTE] Doesn't it seem [i]kind of important[/i] for a societal model to be able to discourage damaging behavior? And as for banishment- suppose they don't want to leave? You need someone to enforce it, right? Sounds like you're resurrecting traditional law enforcement functions, but then trying to pretend they don't exist (because power structures are 'oppressive', right?) by making the whole community do it instead.

Not to mention that exile in some places amounts to a death sentence.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43142100]Is any disagreement make them "dangerous"?[/QUOTE] no, that's a silly idea. [QUOTE=catbarf;43142118]Doesn't it seem [i]kind of important[/i] for a societal model to be able to discourage damaging behavior?[/quote] of course, and it's obvious that our model doesn't really work to discourage damaging behavior. in fact, damaging behavior is often institutionalized. the best we can do is figure out the underlying causes of damaging behavior(they tend to be socioeconomic) and address them to hopefully prevent the majority of harmful action. [quote]And as for banishment- suppose they don't want to leave? You need someone to enforce it, right? Sounds like you're resurrecting traditional law enforcement functions, but then trying to pretend they don't exist (because power structures are 'oppressive', right?) by making the whole community do it instead.[/QUOTE] there is, for example, the idea of a volunteer militia that acts as sort of a responder in immediately dangerous situations(think someone murdering or raping). the point is to make security primarily the responsibility of the community itself, rather than the responsibility of an outside force(like police). stuff like police brutality are no longer something exercised on a population by an authoritative institution, but a very intimate and transparent problem that can be dealt with by the community itself. [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=N-12_Aden;43142119]Not to mention that exile in some places amounts to a death sentence.[/QUOTE] many anarchists are not against execution. idk how i feel about it, personally.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43142164] many anarchists are not against execution. idk how i feel about it, personally.[/QUOTE] You don't know how you feel about taking away people's right to life?

[url]http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI5.html#seci58[/url] "This does not, it must be stressed, signify some sort of contradiction within anarchism. Anarchists have never advocated the kind of "freedom" which assumes that people can do what they want. When people object to anarchy, they often raise the question as to those who would steal, murder, rape and so forth and seem to assume that such people would be free to act as they like. This is, needless to say, an utter misunderstanding of both our ideas and freedom in general. Simply put, if people impose themselves by force on others then "they will be the government" and "we will oppose them with force" for "if today we want to make a revolution against the government, it is not in order to submit ourselves supinely to new oppressors." [Malatesta, Op. Cit, p. 99] This applies equally to the need to defend a free society against organised counter-revolution and against those within it conducting anti-social ("criminal") activities. The principle is the same, it is just the scale which is different. It should be remembered that just because the state monopolises or organises a (public) service, it does not mean that the abolition of the state means the abolition of what useful things it provided. For example, many states own and run the train network but the abolition of the state does not mean that there will no longer be any trains! In a free society management of the railways would be done by the rail workers themselves, in association with the community. The same applies to anti-social behaviour and so we find Kropotkin, for example, pointing to how "voluntary associations" would "substitute themselves for the State in all its functions," including for "mutual protection" and "defence of the territory." [Anarchism, p. 284]"

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140643]stop using a dictionary, it's worthless for defining nuanced ideologies.[/QUOTE] So what is your higher organisation then? The Borg? [quote] It should be remembered that just because the state monopolises or organises a (public) service, it does not mean that the abolition of the state means the abolition of what useful things it provided. For example, many states own and run the train network but the abolition of the state does not mean that there will no longer be any trains! In a free society management of the railways would be done by the rail workers themselves, in association with the community. The same applies to anti-social behaviour and so we find Kropotkin, for example, pointing to how "voluntary associations" would "substitute themselves for the State in all its functions," including for "mutual protection" and "defence of the territory." [Anarchism, p. 284]" [/quote]So what do the railworkers get out of it? Considering rails are often already heavily subsidised. Lack of this subsidisation would kinda kill a lot of the railway. So you need some central authority that ensures that said subsidisation continues. And that stuff with has less value for a lot of people keeps having the right amount of value for everyone. Of course, considering said central authority would also have to be able to kind pressure all those who might not get the benefit from the railway, or see the benefit, to help with the subsidisation, it would according to your own creed have to be removed and attacked as someone enforcing the will on people. [quote] stuff like police brutality are no longer something exercised on a population by an authoritative institution, but a very intimate and transparent problem that can be dealt with by the community itself. [/quote] Yeah, instead you get historically much more common and to an extent much more damaging mob rule.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43142118]Doesn't it seem [i]kind of important[/i] for a societal model to be able to discourage damaging behavior? And as for banishment- suppose they don't want to leave? You need someone to enforce it, right? Sounds like you're resurrecting traditional law enforcement functions, but then trying to pretend they don't exist (because power structures are 'oppressive', right?) by making the whole community do it instead.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKERC6F7mSM[/media] [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;43142164] of course, and it's obvious that our model doesn't really work to discourage damaging behavior. in fact, damaging behavior is often institutionalized. the best we can do is figure out the underlying causes of damaging behavior(they tend to be socioeconomic) and address them to hopefully prevent the majority of harmful action.[/QUOTE] So, going back a few pages where you said rape is due to capitalism, you're now saying that your system doesn't really change that at all and your best hope is "to figure it out later", essentially?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43142164]of course, and it's obvious that our model doesn't really work to discourage damaging behavior. [/QUOTE] So your sociopolitical ideas are way, way better than capitalism, but we should pay no attention to the fact that you don't have an answer for the most basic forms of conflict between individuals, but you assure us that it'll work out because your ideas are perfect and every imaginable societal ill is really capitalism's fault. Gotcha. [QUOTE=yawmwen;43142164]there is, for example, the idea of a volunteer militia that acts as sort of a responder in immediately dangerous situations(think someone murdering or raping). the point is to make security primarily the responsibility of the community itself, rather than the responsibility of an outside force(like police). [/QUOTE] Thanks to the utter lack of division of labor in this hypothetical society we now have a chunk of the community wasting precious time and resources so they can play weekend warrior. That might work for a tribe of fifty people in agrarian subsistence farming but it's not a viable solution with anything larger. Sooner or later someone is going to call a vote to appoint a sheriff and then the progression is obvious. It's happened before.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43142229] So, going back a few pages where you said rape is due to capitalism, you're now saying that your system doesn't really change that at all and your best hope is "to figure it out later", essentially?[/QUOTE] "Crime", therefore, cannot be divorced from the society within which it occurs. Society, in Emma Goldman's words, gets the criminals it deserves. For example, anarchists do not think it unusual nor unexpected that crime exploded under the pro-free market capitalist regimes of Thatcher and Reagan. Crime, the most obvious symptom of social crisis, took 30 years to double in Britain (from 1 million incidents in 1950 to 2.2 million in 1979). However, between 1979 and 1992 the crime rate more than doubled, exceeding the 5 million mark in 1992. These 13 years were marked by a government firmly committed to the "free market" and "individual responsibility." It was entirely predictable that the social disruption, atomisation of individuals, and increased poverty caused by freeing capitalism from social controls would rip society apart and increase criminal activity. Also unsurprisingly (from an anarchist viewpoint), under these pro-market governments we also saw a reduction in civil liberties, increased state centralisation, and the destruction of local government. As Malatesta put it, the classical liberalism which these governments represented could have had no other effect, for "the government's powers of repression must perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and inequality." [Anarchy, p. 47]