Anarchist Bookfair 2013 October 19th

[el-ahrairah]

ironic union flags

 

[Citizen66]

A few years back there was a hoo-ha at the bristol one when i tried to book a stall on a basis they felt was not anarchist enough. Last week i saw people stopping the local maoist selling his paper at a meeting as well.

Anarchists and their bloody rules.

 

[DaveCinzano]

ironic union flags

Union? Flags?

This calls for a wee bit o'Wullie!

 

[Kizmet]

SWP are Social Darwinists, SP Provos?

I don't think it was - in fact, I think it was expanded, which is how I can justify "supporting" the NHS from an anarchist perspective.

It is a little odd to recognise how the state has shifted, quite often as a result of popular pressure (rather than merely resolutions of contradictions within capitalism). One may now answer yes to some of these questions:

Of course, in an anarchist society, healthcare would end up being transformed - there would be no hierarchical organisation of function. Different aspects of what healthcare will look like must be acknowledged though. The first is that (accepting the labour theory of value) employer or union funded healthcare within a state capitalist system is more regressive than utilising a progressive income tax. The second, again accepting the labour theory of value, is that resources must be rationed according to how much socially useful labour can be reified*. How resources are voluntarily allocated will likely depend on such measures as "Quality Adjusted Life Years", which is the standard way of doing so, but involve participation from the mass of the community. To be fair, there has been some support for involving the community in decisions of the NHS, possibly fuelled by classical liberal attempts to generate choice from above, rather concordant with the internal market. Of course, barriers to entry for working class people prevent attendance at independent reviews and healthwatch panels. In an anarchist society, one can only hope that the level of socially useful labour necessary is low enough for people to be involved in administering healthcare voluntarily.

* Thus the following argument from the otherwise excellent "The Floodgates of Anarchy" doesn't really hold:

The other two points depend on nationalism and internationalism. Should anarchism reign in a single nation, with porous borders "in", one could expect capital flight. This would not necessarily lead to a collapse of healthcare under old liberal principles - one of the artificial barriers to practicing healthcare would be abolished, namely that of accreditation. Now, in most cases, I don't deny that gruelling training is wonderful. I rely heavily on Quackwatch (sawbones ain't sawbones!) and dump any books on "homeopathy" or "natural healing" straight into the bin where I volunteer (I would recycle them, but there's no facility to, unfortunately). However, I hold that it's entirely possible for most individuals to learn the basic principles of triage and get acquainted with one type of surgical procedure. This would normally the province of a specialist that would have to learn the Latin names of every bone in the body before going near someone. The alternatives are to hold that every person with the knowledge and expertise to command a higher entitlement exchange would willingly give that privilege up because of a commitment to egalitarianism, or to accept permanent inequality. The former assumption is drastically at odds with the anarchist conception of human nature - in fact, as Gerald Cohen noted in "If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich", if everyone were a perfectly informed angel, capitalism would proceed without contradictions - a single individual with a huge hoard of capital would invest it so as to maximise group utility. The latter is no less at odds with communist anarchism, though would be in accord with Rawlsian justice and the basis of a currency like "Ithaca Hours" (which value the labour time of dentists and doctors above that of the proletaire). An internationalist health service following an anarchist revolution would probably mean lots of hard work just getting places like the Central African Republic, Sierra Leone and Lesotho up to par, without a lot of return for the nations funding them (other than the benefits of having more productive workforces globally). Which leads to the following:

One of the criticisms levelled at centralised planning in the USSR by Bookchin (IIRC, can't find the quote), was that steel produced at one factory was shipped halfway across the country while it was needed by a manufactory next door, which had to halt production. The same principle occurs in capitalist economies (countries with high rates of malnutrition may export food) and could even occur in countries where the needs of the population were considered (by taking into account opportunity costs of shifting steel and having an accurate scale to determine "need"). A similar problem would occur with voluntary systems of healthcare along local lines - a motive for rescission would remain, individuals would still underestimate the likelihood of their falling ill or having an accident and distinctions between regions would become entrenched (if I were living in South Kensington, would I want my healthcare insurance shared with individuals from Tower Hamlets, for instance?). This problem is known as the "Inverse Care Law" in socialist literature (a pun on the "inverse square law" in physics).

Of course, the opposition to monopolies from Andrade could be invoked by right-libertarians claiming "Pareto-efficiency", just as Proudhon's opposition to communism due to their neglect of the "country" or "family" (v.s) is latched on to by crypto-fascists.

But anarchists look equally bizarre to the parliamentary left.

Interesting analysis, though I didnt see any definite conclusions. I'd like to know how you see functions like research and development into health/care being maintained within a voluntary healthcare system. And also with regard to access to specialisms. Seems a huge problem.

 

[DotCommunist]

Nice to see Wilfred from the bash street kids getting a day out there

 

[imposs1904]

Can't believe i have the chance to get in on this first! The industrial part of the IWW name refers to organising across all sectors/companies/etc of an industry as opposed to craft unions (i.e organisation by specific trade or skill) - not to industrial working.

okay smart arse. Help me out with this one. Why have so many books and articles down the years referred to the IWW as the 'International Workers of the World'? Who was the historian and/or political commentator who made the original cock up in print? (I'm presuming it was the one bloke . . . and all the others have just carried on with the mistake ever since.)

I'd love to know the answer to that particularly annoying niggle and you're my only hope Obi-Wan Apron.

 

[Pickman's model]

okay smart arse. Help me out with this one. Why have so many books and articles down the years referred to the IWW as the 'International Workers of the World'? Who was the historian and/or political commentator who made the original cock up in print? (I'm presuming it was the one bloke . . . and all the others have just carried on with the mistake ever since.)

I'd love to know the answer to that particularly annoying niggle and you're my only hope Obi-Wan Apron.

INT workers of the world split from the IND workers of the world in 1902

 

[Pickman's model]

international workers of the world http://www.anarchy.no/iwwai.html

industrial workers of the world http://www.iww.org/

 

[Pickman's model]

btw i was lying about the 1902 thing

 

[butchersapron]

Careful with that Norway link

 

[imposs1904]

international workers of the world http://www.anarchy.no/iwwai.html

industrial workers of the world http://www.iww.org/

It predates that Norway link. I seen them mistakenly referred to as the International Workers of the World in articles and books that date back 30/40 years.

If Butchers' stumped I'll just pin the blame on A.L. Morton for the sake of it.

 

[butchersapron]

Don't know off top of head but will check refs when back later.

 

[revol68]

Emails from Norway

"**** Uplifting, anthemic" Q magazine

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

But it caused all those revolutions, and the broom army.

I prefer the Broon Army

 

[DaveCinzano]

I prefer the Broon Army

A tight little crew

 

[Nice one]

 

[krink]

I prefer the Broon Army

oi! you thieving southern git! that's my idea!!

 

[gamerunknown]

Interesting analysis, though I didnt see any definite conclusions. I'd like to know how you see functions like research and development into health/care being maintained within a voluntary healthcare system. And also with regard to access to specialisms. Seems a huge problem.

No doubt, but I think research (in itself) doesn't pose a particularly crucial threat to free communism. People are interested in investigating phenomena and sharing the results of their investigations. Should rent seeking be eliminated, I hope the balance between freer access to the published results (no more paywalls for journals or textbooks) will offset some of the the privileges that are currently bestowed on successful researchers. The same principle can be seen in germinal form in "Freedom of the Sea" and expounded on further in "Socialism and Superior Brains".

As for specialisms - that's a concern, without a doubt. Some part of it will be countered by higher rates of participation and collective decision making, which can sometimes trump the opinion of a well informed expert. Experience will eventually accumulate too, but that in turn creates a new opportunity for rent seeking as people would be willing to alienate labour for more experienced surgeons.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

D

oi! you thieving southern git! that's my idea!!

great minds and all that

 

[DaveCinzano]

ironic union flags

Jumpers for goalposts

 

[Kizmet]

No doubt, but I think research (in itself) doesn't pose a particularly crucial threat to free communism. People are interested in investigating phenomena and sharing the results of their investigations. Should rent seeking be eliminated, I hope the balance between freer access to the published results (no more paywalls for journals or textbooks) will offset some of the the privileges that are currently bestowed on successful researchers. The same principle can be seen in germinal form in "Freedom of the Sea" and expounded on further in "Socialism and Superior Brains".

No, research in itself raises no issues. But r and d in health applications require hundreds of test subjects and expensive machinery which itself needs to be r and d'd.

Access to machinery itself is a limited resource and thus needs to be allocated. How is that done?

I'm not expecting an answer to such a specific question.. I realise that its almost impossible, so I bring it up as an example of the need for an infrastructure that enables such access.

As for specialisms - that's a concern, without a doubt. Some part of it will be countered by higher rates of participation and collective decision making, which can sometimes trump the opinion of a well informed expert. Experience will eventually accumulate too, but that in turn creates a new opportunity for rent seeking as people would be willing to alienate labour for more experienced surgeons.

What it suggests is Even without rent seeking some measure of access to specialisms must be available.

And therein lies the rub. This cannot be acheived voluntarily. So we are talking state or privately funded infrastruture. Could you envisage such an infrastructure in free commumism?

 

[gamerunknown]

No, research in itself raises no issues...

Access to machinery itself is a limited resource and thus needs to be allocated. How is that done?

What it suggests is Even without rent seeking some measure of access to specialisms must be available.

And therein lies the rub. This cannot be acheived voluntarily...

I think these issues are quite similar and the response to them is the same. We can find examples of cooperation for limited resources even in the extant verrückt system. For instance, we do not require an authority to vacate occupied seats in order that a blind or pregnant person may sit while using public transport. Capitalism itself can only exist with the (coerced) consent of the governed - workers can be shot to death, but not to work.

Anyway, I think resources can be allocated according to how they afford the greatest quality of life outcomes, as determined by the mass of the people. There will always be discontent - people will feel that their concerns or those of their first "circle of sympathy" are more pressing, even when faced with majority opposition and countervailing evidence. The issue may be that vulnerable people will not be able to command much attention (the most voluble will not be those with communication impairments nor those with difficulty accessing public meetings), though this problem is amplified under capitalism where their voice is merely in proportion to their purchasing power.

But I don't regard mass participation as a "state or privately funded infrastructure" - I'm not an anarchist against organisation.

As for medical test subjects: these could be allocated randomly like jury service or use a ream of volunteers.

 

[krink]

D

great minds and all that

worst of all neither of us even got a like!

 

[butchersapron]

No one likes you.

 

[krink]

...we don't care!

 

[Bakunin]

Sam Ambreem (never heard of her before now)

Sounds like another wannabe 'Anything to get noticed' commentariat type to me. First they need to get noticed and then their supposed 'firebrand' persona waters down in direct proportion to their increased media appearances, income and inflated ego.

 

[newbie]

Sounds like another wannabe 'Anything to get noticed' commentariat type to me. First they need to get noticed and then their supposed 'firebrand' persona waters down in direct proportion to their increased media appearances, income and inflated ego.

maybe. or maybe she's just angry, articulate and motivated. I see no reason to dismiss or belittle her simply because her opinions aren't exactly my own.

she posted this yesterday specially for you, the disbelieving oppressor



I’m not middle class or a student or mixed race or even white.

I was born to immigrant parents, a mechanic and housewife bought here for the purpose of marriage. He worked but she raised us on child benefit. She remained in an abusive relationship until aged 16 I made her seek a divorce. I ended my education after my GCSEs.

For the next 12 years, I would live in over 30 different addresses.

I have been out of work for a few years now with PTSD and a spinal injury.

You don’t know me, you cannot dismiss my experiences with accusations of bourgie aspirations or reject my experiences because of my physical appearance. You cannot derail my lived oppressions with your judgmental and often wrong opinions.

Why would you believe me? You are after all, the oppressor.

 

[butchersapron]

I am a woman who oozes hefty privileges. I am white, cis, able bodied, and functionally middle class and I have an education

Pick and choose menz.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

.

 

[krink]

I DIDN'T ASK TO BE BOOOOOORRRRRRRN!!!