Spain's Communist Village Is Making The Rest Of The World Look Bad
967 replies, posted
[QUOTE=catbarf;43175765]'I dunno, they'll work it out somehow' is not a legitimate answer to a fundamental ideological problem faced (and [I]answered[/I]) by every society in history. I'm waiting on an answer that isn't a dodge. I'm not getting my hopes up.[/QUOTE]
it's ignoring the ideology completely actually. the ideology isn't mean to describe a utopian situation, only to say that the existing forms of authority are unnecessary or harmful.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43175759]i would say that destruction of the system is just fine on its own. the system can't be destroyed overnight. parts of authoritarian society will be replaced with aspects of libertarian society. as we get close to the time when replacement structures are needed, they will become apparent.
for example, we already have pieces that can replace the legal system. the legal system is the number one antiquated thing in modern society. it serves no useful function anymore(that can't be served better by another system) and needs to be scrapped. so even when we don't know the "utopian goal", we can identify things that need to be changed in the present, and the ideas we can replace them with.[/QUOTE]
Without providing a better alternative you have no reason to assume something worse won't take over once you've destroyed the current situation.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43175606]yo i wanted to make a few things clear about anarchism and my inability to adequately talk on hypothetical situations.
anarchism is anti-utopian, as a philosophy. most anarchists don't have a very strong ideal society because any anarchist society would be very alien to the current form of society. it would take new relationships, a new culture, and new forms of organization. that emma goldman quote about human nature that i like to throw around has a very important part to it:
"Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities."
this means that we really do not know what human nature is(and you don't either). we can only actually figure it out through the destruction our of "shackles". idk that a communist society is necessarily "the best", nor can i say that a syndicalist society could not be ideal. no one know.
anarchism, instead of being a strict idealization about future society, is more of an outlook. it's a way you look at the world. sure, arguing about philosophy and utopian societies can be fun. in all honesty, though, i will probably never see an anarchist world in my lifetime. it's so distant that any talk about what an anarchist society will look like is moot. so anarchism is more of a skepticism about hierarchy and power. it's there to guide your actions and relationships in the present.
anarchists criticize the current structures because they are illegitimate, and we seek to destroy those structures. however, it isn't exactly clear what we can replace those structures with. i can identify parts that might be included(restorative justice, mediation, worker self management), but those are only pieces that would need to be arranged. but anarchists are sorta optimistic about humanity. we tend to think that we can solve the problems of replacement structures when we actually need to replace things. it isn't a "lazy" answer, it's the only acceptable one. the whole point is to create societies that are adaptable and custom-fit for the individuals that create the society. we can't do that by authoritatively stating what "utopia" is.
i personally like communism, mostly because it is a natural extension to anarchism. i also tend to think equality is damn important for our current struggles so a communist outlook is also useful. but idk if communism is the best "utopia".
maybe one day we can "smash the state" or w/e and we can actually figure out what utopia is. until then, anarchism is an ideology of constant resistance to illegitimate authority and a constant skepticism of everyone in power. even if we don't ever get to the "anarchist stage", the ideology is powerful because it has the capacity of pushing society in a direction that is more free and more equal.[/QUOTE]
So the TL;DR version of this boils down to "I can't answer these questions, so I'm going to pretend I don't have to."
That's bullshit. You've listed faults within current structures. Methods have been proposed to address those faults. Somehow that isn't good enough and we are supposed to attempt to axe everything and move towards this utopia that you still haven't adequately elaborated on. Now you are claiming that you can't even tell us what that utopia actually [i]is[/i].
Honestly. I've read far more convincing arguments from modern Luddites, and Young Earth Creationists. Their worldviews at the very least don't require most people to be polymaths as a basic prerequisite to have a snowballs chance in hell of being able to function.
[editline]13th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43175786]it's ignoring the ideology completely actually. the ideology isn't mean to describe a utopian situation, only to say that the existing forms of authority are unnecessary or harmful.[/QUOTE]
If all you want to do is point out existing problems, that's fine.
None of that will in any way make your proposed solution better than the current standard unless you can actually show how your solution is better. If you are seriously proposing anarchism, you must actually be able to address the points brought up against it. Otherwise you are not in a position to say that your proposal is better. At best it is unknown. Realistically it is probably far worse.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43175786]it's ignoring the ideology completely actually. the ideology isn't mean to describe a utopian situation, only to say that the existing forms of authority are unnecessary or harmful.[/QUOTE]
'anarchy is better than capitalism'
'okay so how do you solve this issue which capitalism addresses just fine'
'I dunno they'll work it out'
'that's not an answer'
'well doesn't matter anyways since I'm just saying the existing authority is harmful!'
Until you can actually provide a workable alternative I don't see any reason why I can't call authority a necessary evil of a functioning society.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;43175952]So the TL;DR version of this boils down to "I can't answer these questions, so I'm going to pretend I don't have to."[/QUOTE]
i can't answer these questions because any answer i give comes from the context of a cis hetereo young white man living in a post-industrial capitalist society. there are probably as many solutions as there are people coming up with the solutions. anarchism is meant to be adaptable and fluid. it's an idea of resistance to authority and a call to figure out alternatives that work for you, as they are needed. there ARE alternatives, some of which have been shown through scientific evidence or moral reasoning to be superior, but they aren't a complete "utopia".
[quote]That's bullshit. You've listed faults within current structures. Methods have been proposed to address those faults. Somehow that isn't good enough and we are supposed to attempt to axe everything and move towards this utopia that you still haven't adequately elaborated on. Now you are claiming that you can't even tell us what that utopia actually [I]is[/I].[/quote]
the methods that have been proposed to address those faults are ones that i would probably find "preferable to no action". for example, i totally see a uhc in the united states as a preferable alternative to a completely privatized healthcare system. it would seem contradictory for an anarchist to "advocate" state control of anything, but they move us in the right direction(all people having adequate healthcare access). the thing is that i am not merely content with these solutions as an end-point. it helps people now, but we need to keep pushing forward to destroy the institutions of the state and economy because they are wrong morally.
[quote]Honestly. I've read far more convincing arguments from modern Luddites, and Young Earth Creationists. Their worldviews at the very least don't require most people to be polymaths as a basic prerequisite to have a snowballs chance in hell of being able to function.[/quote]
i consider myself a "skeptical luddite" so ok.
[quote]If all you want to do is point out existing problems, that's fine.
None of that will in any way make your proposed solution better than the current standard unless you can actually show how your solution is better. If you are seriously proposing anarchism, you must actually be able to address the points brought up against it. Otherwise you are not in a position to say that your proposal is better. At best it is unknown. Realistically it is probably far worse.[/quote]
frankly my society will probably never come to fruition. i'm not interested in spending all my time thinking about an ideal world when there are oppressive institutions that can be fought against in the present. again, the legal system is a perfect example of that.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43176433]'anarchy is better than capitalism'
'okay so how do you solve this issue which capitalism addresses just fine'
'I dunno they'll work it out'
'that's not an answer'
'well doesn't matter anyways since I'm just saying the existing authority is harmful!'
Until you can actually provide a workable alternative I don't see any reason why I can't call authority a necessary evil of a functioning society.[/QUOTE]
i never said anarchy is better than capitalism, at least i don't think i did. i would say communism is a preferable option based on morality alone but the practicality of a communist society needs to be analyzed and tested. that's why i like these sorts of news stories. even if the "communist society" isn't perfect, it gives us valuable knowledge to use when the time comes to build the system. we can learn from the past mistakes, and use the successes to hopefully be better off than our predecessors.
it's sad when an economic idea fails because it generally ends with people dead or in an economical disadvantaged position, but i would say that even the ussr or china is useful to the communist movement because it provides evidence that a certain revolutionary methodology doesn't work very well to implement communism. in fact, i think anarchist history itself shows that anarchism isn't achievable through "revolutionary action". there needs to be a different approach to address the state and capitalism.
[editline]14th December 2013[/editline]
also if i said anarchy is preferable to capitalism i was mistaken since anarchism in general doesn't provide any economic solution for capitalism. that's why you have the "anarcho-" prefix attached to the economic idea.
i'm an "anarcho-communist". i am a communist who uses anarchist philosophy as a basis for my struggle for communism. people can be just "communists". they are generally associated with marxism or marxist-leninism. their ideology is not one that struggles against hierarchy as a whole, it is one that sees hierarchy as an acceptable tool for the purpose of eventually getting to communism.
there are also syndicalists, mutualists, collectivists, and primitivists. people can also be "non-tendency", which means they don't advocate any particular system and instead feel that any work to dismantle the state/capitalism is good enough on its own.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43177722]i can't answer these questions because any answer i give comes from the context of a cis hetereo young white man living in a post-industrial capitalist society. there are probably as many solutions as there are people coming up with the solutions. anarchism is meant to be adaptable and fluid. it's an idea of resistance to authority and a call to figure out alternatives that work for you, as they are needed. there ARE alternatives, some of which have been shown through scientific evidence or moral reasoning to be superior, but they aren't a complete "utopia".[/QUOTE]
You can't claim to know truth and then, when challenged, say the truth is impossible to know. By advocating for something better you are claiming to know that something better is possible. In order to know this you must both know [B]how [/B]it's better and that it is possible. So far you haven't, in any way, shown it to be possible.
For example: I think the world would be a better place without the concept of inflation. That way we could give everyone infinite money and everything would still cost the same. While this might be a nice idea in theory, it simply isn't possible, but under your logic I could just claim, "Well, I just can't figure it out because I'm a cis hetero young white man living in a society that has inflation, but I'm sure someone will figure it out."
[QUOTE=sgman91;43177906]You can't claim to know truth and then, when challenged, say the truth is impossible to know. By advocating for something better you are claiming to know that something better is possible.
Also, you're advocating for a societal system, not an individualistic system. So while many people may have different ideas, they all can't happen.[/QUOTE]
i know that the state is morally wrong. i also know that people got along for thousands of years without a traditional state, so it's possible to do. those two are enough to justify taking action against the state. until we actually get rid of the state, any utopia i describe to you is untested, no matter how morally justified they are.
i literally can't provide you with an adequate replacement because there is no way to know whether the replacement works until [i]after[/i] you begin testing it. that leaves us with two options: accept a morally unjustified force in our lives for the safety and predictability it provides, or work towards a world where we become liberated, with all the unpredictability liberation can provide.
i have a feeling those who chose the former option would be advocating feudalism or monarchism in the 17th century. the usa almost failed because a lot of the ideas(like the articles of confederation) hadn't been fully tested and they weren't applicable in the current context for what the "founding fathers" were trying to build. progress will always be unpredictable and scary.
we need to realize that being in a liberated state isn't "static", it's a constant march forward with plenty of setbacks and constant re-evaluation. but that's ok because freedom is beautiful on its own and even if we fail we fail based on our own merits, not the merits of our leader.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43177986]i literally can't provide you with an adequate replacement because there is no way to know whether the replacement works until [I]after[/I] you begin testing it.[/QUOTE]
The idea you're advocating doesn't even work in theory (shown by your inability to answer basic questions). How can you have any semblance of hope that it would work in reality?
Change, on it's own, is neutral, neither good or bad. Change can just as easily lead to an even less moral society.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43177906]
For example: I think the world would be a better place without the concept of inflation. That way we could give everyone infinite money and everything would still cost the same. While this might be a nice idea in theory, it simply isn't possible, but under your logic I could just claim, "Well, I just can't figure it out because I'm a cis hetero young white man living in a society that has inflation, but I'm sure someone will figure it out."[/QUOTE]
inflation isn't a philosophical concept, it's more scientific than that. you can't snap away "inflation" because it simply describes a part of an economy.
anarchism isn't the same. it isn't a scientific concept, it's philosophical. in that sense, you can "snap away" anarchism, or statism, or capitalism. these concepts do not describe anything "real", they only exist in the minds of those who base their actions around the assumption that those systems are real or justified.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43178015]inflation isn't a philosophical concept, it's more scientific than that. you can't snap away "inflation" because it simply describes a part of an economy. [/QUOTE]
... and so are the basic concepts we are presenting against you, like the information problem.
[editline]13th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43178015]anarchism isn't the same. it isn't a scientific concept, it's philosophical. in that sense, you can "snap away" anarchism, or statism, or capitalism. these concepts do not describe anything "real", they only exist in the minds of those who base their actions around the assumption that those systems are real or justified.[/QUOTE]
Sounds to me like a religion.
Also, let me be clear: I have absolutely no problem with anyone believing in something whether they have proof for it or not. The problem is that when your entire idea is based around a non-provable assumption you can't make a logically compelling argument.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43178006]The idea you're advocating doesn't even work in theory (shown by your inability to answer basic questions). How can you have any semblance of hope that it would work in reality?[/quote]
i could answer them, i just acknowledge that it is useless to answer them. i can't know how different groups will respond to different circumstances. i can only claim that their response would ideally be fluid, applicable to their unique situation, and rooted in anarchist philosophy(specifically that any authority used must be justified and voluntary).
[quote]Change, on it's own, is neutral, neither good or bad. Change can just as easily lead to an even less moral society.[/QUOTE]
i don't seek change for the sake of change. i seek change for the sake of liberty. liberty is tends to be moral, so i find just about any change that increases people's liberation to be a moral change.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43178049]i could answer them, i just acknowledge that it is useless to answer them. i can't know how different groups will respond to different circumstances. i can only claim that their response would ideally be fluid, applicable to their unique situation, and rooted in anarchist philosophy(specifically that any authority used must be justified and voluntary).[/QUOTE]
Earlier you said: "i can't answer these questions because any answer i give comes from the context of a cis hetereo young white man living in a post-industrial capitalist society."
So can you answer then or not?
[QUOTE]i don't seek change for the sake of change. i seek change for the sake of liberty. liberty is tends to be moral, so i find just about any change that increases people's liberation to be a moral change.[/QUOTE]
An idea must both be moral and possible to be a good idea. Being moral isn't enough in reality.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43178027]... and so are the basic concepts we are presenting against you, like the information problem.[/quote]
it certainly needs to be addressed, but it isn't something that i really know how to address. even if i did know how to address it, i might only know how to address it in a specific context or situation. it's up to people to figure out applicable solutions to their problems because the same solution doesn't work in every unique situation.
[quote]Sounds to me like a religion.
Also, let me be clear: I have absolutely no problem with anyone believing in something whether they have proof for it or not. The problem is that when your entire idea is based around a non-provable assumption you can't make a logically compelling argument.[/QUOTE]
my entire idea is based upon resistance to the state and hierarchy. that is strictly philosophical and cannot really be proven to be moral or not(although you can accept it as moral). i find liberty to be a preferable outcome for human beings. to be clear, that is [b]all[/b] anarchism implies.
the different things i add on to that basic resistance has varying levels of practicality. some things have been tested or has some usage within the system already. some of it is largely untested outside of hunter-gatherer society. the merits of these things can be argued about and discussed or refined. it's even fun to do. at the same time, though, the failure of one or all of these ideas means nothing for any justification of anarchist philosophy because anarchist philosophy doesn't base itself on the premise that any of these ideas work.
once you accept the idea of anarchism, that coercive force is immoral and must be opposed, then you can get into arguing about all the ways you can replace the coercive institutions in place. but until the point that you accept that premise, you gotta make sure that you understand the difference between ideas inspired by anarchist philosophy(like communism) and whether anarchism is a justifiable philosophy.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43178101]once you accept the idea of anarchism, that coercive force is immoral and must be opposed,[/QUOTE]
We've already shown that you don't even fully believe this. (referring back to using coercive force to stop a murderer)
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43177722]i would say communism is a preferable option based on morality alone but the practicality of a communist society needs to be analyzed and tested. that's why i like these sorts of news stories. even if the "communist society" isn't perfect, it gives us valuable knowledge to use when the time comes to build the system. we can learn from the past mistakes, and use the successes to hopefully be better off than our predecessors.[/QUOTE]
Do you like to conveniently forget about all the failed communist societies that thousands of years of history has shown us?
And the funny thing about morality is there is no objectivity. Your morally wrong can be my morally right.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43178068]Earlier you said: "i can't answer these questions because any answer i give comes from the context of a cis hetereo young white man living in a post-industrial capitalist society."
So can you answer then or not?[/QUOTE]
yea i can answer them but the quality of the answer will probably be questionable. it won't be "adequate" because it will probably use untested ideas.
but instead, i say "i don't know" and leave it at that. we are a long way from having to find a solution to the "information problem". someone smarter than me might think of a good idea. a proper solution might make itself apparent as we get closer to a day when a solution is needed as well.
there's no shame in saying idk. it means that communism is largely untested and it's totally ok if you have misgivings about throwing in with a specific idea like communism when it hasn't been really tested. i like the idea because i find egalitarianism to be appealing to me. i like the idea of equality among people, so communism is a natural tendency. will it work? fuck if i know, but i sure wanna get to the point where me and like-minded folk can begin constructing a society along communist lines so we can figure it out for ourselves.
[quote]An idea must both be moral and possible to be a good idea. Being moral isn't enough in reality[/quote]
well since it's a philosophical idea, the acceptance of the idea helps dictate how "possible" it is. if everyone accepted anarchist philosophy, we would be living in an anarchist world.
the practicality of replacement structures can be questioned. however, the validity of ideas stemming from anarchism do not necessarily reflect on the validity of anarchist philosophy.
[editline]14th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43178136]Do you like to conveniently forget about all the failed communist societies that thousands of years of history has shown us?[/QUOTE]
like?
[quote]And the funny thing about morality is there is no objectivity. Your morally wrong can be my morally right.[/quote]
exactly. that's why we should keep the stuff that can be practically tested(like communism, for example) separate from the things that seeks to argue morality(anarchism).
i'm probably guilty of not separating it properly. so yea, if i conflated the two then i was wrong. i will try to be clear in the future.
[editline]14th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;43178135]We've already shown that you don't even fully believe this. (referring back to using coercive force to stop a murderer)[/QUOTE]
that isn't coercive force. we can avoid a semantic bullshit argument if you acknowledge the idea that we(anarchists) can simultaneously oppose the imposition of force while using the force available to us as long as it is [I]defensive[/I]. it isn't "coercive" to an anarchist to prevent someone from subjugating you. it's actually the opposite, really, because it is force exercised with the sole purpose of resisting subjugation.
that's my definition. another anarchist might add onto it or w/e but i think it's pretty straightforward. if you disagree with that, then cool, we have different definitions. if you want to say that self-defense is morally equatable with imposition of force(e.g. murder), then i think that you are the one making the outlandish statement. it's pretty much an acceptable distinction to just about everyone.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43178140]like?[/QUOTE]
catbarf has posted so many examples. I don't feel searching through this thread's 24 pages to find them. You must have very selective memory.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43178140]exactly. that's why we should keep the stuff that can be practically tested(like communism, for example) separate from the things that seeks to argue morality(anarchism).
i'm probably guilty of not separating it properly. so yea, if i conflated the two then i was wrong. i will try to be clear in the future.[/QUOTE]
And the whole point of law is to remove subjective morality and create objectivity.
I just want to point out that, hilariously enough, communists who are such fans of the "glorious revolution" were ousted in Spain, that very country, by a revolution against communism and socialism.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War[/url]
[QUOTE=deadoon;43173171]What about one run by pretty much a computer overlord(complete AI or group of AI's) that can convince people of a more efficient way to progress and understands death reasonably well. People would be able to argue with it, but so long as it learns from those arguments and if it finds a flaw in it's methods can adapt, it wouldn't require either of those things.
This is ignoring that both of those things are key points of a dystopia.[/QUOTE]
Well it depends - how do you deal with people that won't to be convinced, no matter what? Many people are not reasonable. Does the computer then send killbots to take care of them?
[quote]
that isn't coercive force. we can avoid a semantic bullshit argument if you acknowledge the idea that we(anarchists) can simultaneously oppose the imposition of force while using the force available to us as long as it is [I]defensive[/I]. it isn't "coercive" to an anarchist to prevent someone from subjugating you. it's actually the opposite, really, because it is force exercised with the sole purpose of resisting subjugation.
[/quote]
Your use of force is both defense and preventive. In a lot of ways it's no different from the standard police.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43178140] that isn't coercive force. we can avoid a semantic bullshit argument if you acknowledge the idea that we(anarchists) can simultaneously oppose the imposition of force while using the force available to us as long as it is [I]defensive[/I]. [/QUOTE]
That is a meaningless semantic distinction. I can just as easily say that in our society the use of coercive force is defensive in that it protects the society that gives it the power to enforce law. You're justifying force used to protect the members of society, which is how law enforcement in traditional social structures is supposed to work in real life.
You're still using force against those you see as a threat, defining that threat as 'oppression'.
And you [i]still[/i] haven't explained how you can address people taking advantage of your system without oppressing them through force.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43180485]That is a meaningless semantic distinction. I can just as easily say that in our society the use of coercive force is defensive in that it protects the society that gives it the power to enforce law. You're justifying force used to protect the members of society, which is how law enforcement in traditional social structures is supposed to work in real life.[/quote]
well yea, the society uses force to perpetuate itself. if it didn't use force to perpetuate itself, force would not be needed to dismantle the institutions, nor would it be moral to use force. it isn't a "meaningless distinction" because one form of force is imposed, and another form of force is meant to resist that imposition. do you really make no distinction, morally, between murder and self-defense?
[quote]You're still using force against those you see as a threat, defining that threat as 'oppression'.[/quote]
it isn't just someone who is "a threat", it's force against a person or entity that seeks to subjugate you. the force is defensive. it is used only to the point necessary to stop the imposition of force.
[quote]And you [i]still[/i] haven't explained how you can address people taking advantage of your system without oppressing them through force.[/QUOTE]
my idea of communism wouldn't need a way to address people "taking advantage" of the system. communism works on the principle of everyone collaborating to create a society that is sustainable. people "taking advantage" of the system would hurt everyone involved, even the mooch. it's not really a good choice to mooch off the system because the system doesn't work on mooches.
people generally don't like starving. they don't like dying. they like living in a society with luxuries. it's not in their best interest to take from the society without giving back in some form because the system that they depend on won't sustain itself. humans are not naturally greedy and not naturally lazy because if we were greedy and lazy we wouldn't have survived long enough to reproduce. i'm able to say with some degree of confidence that humans are naturally collaborative because history and science have shown us that.
[url]http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene[/url]
that isn't to say some people won't mooch. however, societal pressure would be enough to keep it from being a major problem. no one really wants to be "that guy" who lives off everyone else with no contribution. we want to feel like our presence on this planet helps contribute to our lives and the lives of others.
also you can try and address the reasons why people become "lazy" in the first place. laziness isn't a character trait. no one is lazy. laziness is an expression of other character traits, or even just ignorance. for example, someone with depression or another mental disorder might act "lazy" even though their lack of action is caused mostly by chemical imbalances in the brain. someone might act "lazy" due to anxiety disorder. someone might act "lazy" because they have no idea how to best contribute to the system. someone might act "lazy" because their parent just died and they are mourning.
we can address the root causes of laziness and mooching behavior to best mitigate the expression of mooching in the economic system. mixed market capitalism has failed to do this. it institutionalizes laziness because everyone is paid based on supply/demand. your value is the money you take home after work. that creates a mentality where people feel that their value to their society is completely quantifiable and they don't want to work harder unless they get paid more to reflect that.
people also see those above them who get paid excessive amounts of money simply because they are in a position where they control their own pay or their job involves a lot of power. people are awarded based on luck and inheritance. capitalism doesn't really incentivize working hard and working together because the way resources are distributed and wealth/power is accumulated. the system also encourages competition. that is destructive if you are on the low end of the "ladder".
[editline]14th December 2013[/editline]
communism tries to repair us after being alienated by capitalism. instead of contributing to society for some paycheck that you can use to stuff the pockets of some company, it directly ties us to our society. our failures and successes reflect powerfully in society. instead of society being this big abstract thing that we are all "just part of", society becomes a living, collaborative, creative endeavor that we foster a relationship with. we have direct power in our society, we finally get the power to create a world that we want to live in. that's a pretty powerful motivating factor.
[editline]14th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43178235]And the whole point of law is to remove subjective morality and create objectivity.[/QUOTE]
that's stupid. law will always be subjective because it will always reflect the subjective morality of those in power. instead of trying to deny that, let's get rid of the power and have a set of rules that is based on the will of the people.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43180920]well yea, the society uses force to perpetuate itself. if it didn't use force to perpetuate itself, force would not be needed to dismantle the institutions, nor would it be moral to use force. it isn't a "meaningless distinction" because one form of force is imposed, and another form of force is meant to resist that imposition. do you really make no distinction, morally, between murder and self-defense?
it isn't just someone who is "a threat", it's force against a person or entity that seeks to subjugate you. the force is defensive. it is used only to the point necessary to stop the imposition of force.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that your criteria can be so easily twisted or used to ends that you yourself do not consider valid.
If someone tries to rob me then he is arrested. By your standards, this is to protect me from oppression, which is the robber's imposition of force upon me. So you're now justifying the role of police in the real world, since they enforce laws designed to protect the people against the imposition of force by others.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43180920]my idea of communism wouldn't need a way to address people "taking advantage" of the system. communism works on the principle of everyone collaborating to create a society that is sustainable. people "taking advantage" of the system would hurt everyone involved, even the mooch. it's not really a good choice to mooch off the system because the system doesn't work on mooches.
people generally don't like starving. they don't like dying. they like living in a society with luxuries. it's not in their best interest to take from the society without giving back in some form because the system that they depend on won't sustain itself. humans are not naturally greedy and not naturally lazy because if we were greedy and lazy we wouldn't have survived long enough to reproduce. i'm able to say with some degree of confidence that humans are naturally collaborative because history and science have shown us that.
[url]http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene[/url]
that isn't to say some people won't mooch. however, societal pressure would be enough to keep it from being a major problem. no one really wants to be "that guy" who lives off everyone else with no contribution. we want to feel like our presence on this planet helps contribute to our lives and the lives of others.
also you can try and address the reasons why people become "lazy" in the first place. laziness isn't a character trait. no one is lazy. laziness is an expression of other character traits, or even just ignorance. for example, someone with depression or another mental disorder might act "lazy" even though their lack of action is caused mostly by chemical imbalances in the brain. someone might act "lazy" due to anxiety disorder. someone might act "lazy" because they have no idea how to best contribute to the system. someone might act "lazy" because their parent just died and they are mourning.
we can address the root causes of laziness and mooching behavior to best mitigate the expression of mooching in the economic system. mixed market capitalism has failed to do this. it institutionalizes laziness because everyone is paid based on supply/demand. your value is the money you take home after work. that creates a mentality where people feel that their value to their society is completely quantifiable and they don't want to work harder unless they get paid more to reflect that.
people also see those above them who get paid excessive amounts of money simply because they are in a position where they control their own pay or their job involves a lot of power. people are awarded based on luck and inheritance. capitalism doesn't really incentivize working hard and working together because the way resources are distributed and wealth/power is accumulated. the system also encourages competition. that is destructive if you are on the low end of the "ladder".[/QUOTE]
That's another dodge. 'It won't happen because rational people will want to contribute' doesn't address the question of what you do if they don't. You can't seriously mean to suggest that in your society nobody will ever make decisions with their own interest above that of the group, and that everyone will always have the foresight to act in the interests of long-term society rather than short-term gain.
Maybe I'm not lazy. Maybe I really want to be an artist, and want to give back to the community, but my art is awful and nobody values it. And now winter comes and they need more people to work the farms. I don't want to work the farms, I want to make art. What happens? This is not a highly specific, needlessly complex example, this is a situation that crops up all the time in any society. Capitalism handles it implicitly. How does anarchy?
[editline]14th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43180920]that's stupid. law will always be subjective because it will always reflect the subjective morality of those in power. instead of trying to deny that, let's get rid of the power and have a set of rules that is based on the will of the people.[/QUOTE]
'Have a set of rules that is based on the will of the people'
Like laws? Rules which are decided by the community for mutual benefit, and then enforced with set punishments for their disobedience? Doesn't matter who you hand it off to to enforce, it's still a law.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43180974]By your standards, this is to protect me from oppression, which is the robber's imposition of force upon me.[/QUOTE]
"protecting" something is not moral in this case. it is excessive force to arrest someone because it an exercise in force that goes beyond the initial imposition of force.
[quote]That's another dodge. 'It won't happen because rational people will want to contribute' doesn't address the question of what you do if they don't. You can't seriously mean to suggest that in your society nobody will ever make decisions with their own interest above that of the group, and that everyone will always have the foresight to act in the interests of long-term society rather than short-term gain.[/quote]
it doesn't require everyone to do it though. like i said, you can mitigate the issue to the point where it doesn't threaten the long-term sustainability of the society. there will always be mooches. the question is whether mooches are a "threat" to the system, and i say no. you are basing your hypothetical on an assumption that i don't agree with.
[quote]I don't want to work the farms, I want to make art. What happens?[/quote]
you might have to choose between working to produce food or facing starvation. idk what happens because the choice is yours.
what do you do, catbarf? do you choose to produce food to contribute to you and your society's continued existence or do you take the short term pleasure of spending all your time producing art?
[quote]'Have a set of rules that is based on the will of the people'
Like laws? Rules which are decided by the community for mutual benefit, and then enforced with set punishments for their disobedience? Doesn't matter who you hand it off to to enforce, it's still a law.[/quote]
laws aren't decided by the community, they are decided by the systems of power that forcefully subjugate the communities. that is an imposition of force. nothing about a law inherently reflects any will of the people who are forced to follow that law.
idc if you call the rules "laws" or not, because your silly word choice and failure to make key distinctions doesn't actually change the meaning of what i'm saying. we need to get rid of the legal structure(courts, cops, prisons, and rigid law) and replace it with voluntary codes of conduct to facilitate positive relationships between individuals. our rules should reflect our collective will, and it should be dynamic enough to account for the unique situations that will arise in the system.
you can't do this in the current system. it claims objectivity in morality. it has to be changed by people in power. it has to be followed and interpreted strictly. most importantly, it is a third party forcing its way into the relationships and issues that arise between individuals and their community. it is preferable to chaos, but only just.
Communism is the work of the devil.
[QUOTE=kuydna;43201460]Communism is the work of the devil.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know the devil wrote political philosophy.
I didn't know the devil was.
If you talk to some LaVeyan satanists the devil favours the wonderful economic doctrine of Ayn Rand :P
Has anybody written a political philosophy for maximizing human misery yet?
Perhaps "anarcho-capitalism" i.e. complete deregulation with no state although it certainly doesn't concede that that is it's purpose...
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;43203125]Perhaps "anarcho-capitalism" i.e. complete deregulation with no state although it certainly doesn't concede that that is it's purpose...[/QUOTE]
It doesn't really work though. Anarcho-capitalism is basically advocating the creation of a stateless society in which the economy is essentially a laissez-faire system. The closest examples to reality I can think of them are usually Medieval societies or Russia and Spain during their respective civil wars (private enterprise occurred in both places with no state authority). Like the anarcho-communist ones they existed alongside (or had elements of in both), they failed in the long run.
Bioshock is probably unlikely, given it existed at the bottom of the sea and was filled with magic slugs.
What I am interested in however, is a political philosophy deliberately designed to create more misery and to actively reduce anything that could be construed as improvement (wealth, happiness, equality, health, etc). It would require the population to be continually on decline, to be suffering from constant hunger and decrease of material goods, increasing inability to think freely within the mind, etc.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
