I hope you don't mind me being interested in the blueprint you have mentioned. I assure you that if there are good ideas to look at i would be pleased to read them.
You mention that your idea of anarchism is not 100% anarchism but some sort of mixed society where others of other beliefs can exist. What would happen if people disagree with anarchist principles? You describe yourself as an anarchist but most of the anarchists I have met are adamant that the system needs to be overthrown by a new one (again details are a rarity).
You then go on to mention the ruling elites, introducing a more traditional class issue. I am with you here and i consider the UK with its archaic system long in need of reform. I am always interested in solutions which promote equality of opportunity. Then no one would be able to blame the elites or the feckless or any others as their relative happiness would be down to them and no one else. Imagine that as a revolution!!
Then you go on to state that you would reject giving constructive suggestions because it should be democratic? Surely any system should have decent systems to enable such feedback? I am confused by your lack of cooperation.
Then you state that sewage systems would be rubbish in the capitalist system. Which may be true, though i find it useful to start at the basic needs, and am still waiting for a suggestion as to how anarchism would solve them differently from the current market solution.
Then you say:
inflatable jesus said:
If I was around in the 18th Century I would much rather be the guy saying 'let's chop the fucker's head off' than the apologist
Which pushes you into extremism and violence instead of reasonableness.
Then you accuse me:
inflatable jesus said:
'it's really fucking daft and infuriating to take one strand of anarchist thought, misrepresent it and then write off anarchism on the basis of that.'
Sorry for that, I was simply trying to get a grip on anarchism which is commonly held to be no laws, and i have been corrected to no government. Having looked it up now it seems that it is more properly termed as being against heirarchy.
Now that is more interesting though surely some people have more information than others and of course an important step in maturity is to know when to shut up and listen, if someone who knows stuff is around.
Another common element is the 'roots up' organisation. Chomsky seems to allude to this need to maintain control at a local level of all organisations, which i think is a good ideal. It was called subsidiarity in the European COnstitution. And i support this whole-heartedly.
"Anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time" Kropotkin
To start from basics, Man needs a place to sleep, where he is safe. This is why we have ownership. People simply want this security, and even if everyone owns everything, it is idealistic to the extreme.
Meanwhile there is also the issue of usury, which if abolished would make banks illegal. Anarchism insists:
"on the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man." [cited by Eunice Schuster, Native American Anarchism, p. 140]
Just how realistic is that? No banks! And entering into a contract is a necessary thing in society, unless we start idealising human selfish nature. Without this we'd never get anything done!
Much of the texts on Anarchism seem to be about 'not being in a coercive relationship' The assumption being that all teacher-pupil type relationships are oppressive, when in fact trust of one's teacher is key in countering this. This leads to further questions as to how this trust could be ensured in a society, and also how fear is dealt with by society.
Much is said about the destruction of society. As Bakunin said "the urge to destroy is a creative urge." Indeed economics accepts the need to destroy industries which are declining so that the newer industries can flourish. I accept that the creation of a better society necessitates this 'creative destruction' as Schumpeter described it. But inevitably people have spent the best part of their lives building up a business maybe or set of skills which they need to keep their family. So patience is needed. Jobs are a priority as well as idealism, and so education and cooperation need to be the keys.
As Alexander Berkman puts it:
"Any one who tells you that Anarchists don't believe in organisation is talking nonsense. Organisation is everything, and everything is organisation."
However this merely means that we should be describing these more progressive relationships, and trying to create such a society. Let us be visionary, not simply negative about how the world is. The UK system, with its lack of constitution and divisive education has many issues already. We should not get distracted by this. One must also be aware that imposing systems will not always be the best option as this is often simply replacing authoritarianism with authoritarianism. We need a localised system with local power to organise effectively.
Heirarchy cannot be chucked so simply. It is needed in organisations, often one doesn't have the time to sit around and discuss things over tea. In a kitchen for example, the chef needs to give orders and the kitchen assistants need to take orders and trust the chef that he knows what he is doing. Discussion about whether he is trustworthy can happen at another time. And should.
Which ever way it is i can take a hint and i'll wait until someone else more open to debate comes along.
), the question to me is how much law is needed as a minimum to facilitate the functioning of society, and how is it to be decided on and implemented? Several laws and threads of law are obviously unnecessary in an anarchist world, but going back to the nuisance question I posed earlier - who is the nuisance - the person who plays his stereo all night, or the person who insists on silence all night? And following on from that, what is the solution if both are insistent on the merits of the case?
