Anarcho theories on law

[inflatable jesus]

Hmm. I'm rather pleased with how this one turned out.

Perhaps I should explain that I've been talking about this sort of thing on here for about five years now and generally the post preceeding my rant would be:

'Yeah, but in an anarchist society right........'

It's kind of nice to see someone doing some research for a change. In retrospect I should probably have posted some links rather than just mouthing off, but it looks like no harm was done.

I'd like to address a few things though:

You mention that your idea of anarchism is not 100% anarchism but some sort of mixed society where others of other beliefs can exist.

Well firstly, It is anarchism. It's just not sitting around and awaiting for the messianic arrival of an anarchist society. It's a process of active engagement with what we've got and trying to build what we would like to see.

What would happen if people disagree with anarchist principles?

To try an make sense of that question I'll have to turn it around a bit. When people do disagree with anarchist principles, I generally try to convince them of their value. When I've been talking to people on the street about campiagns I've been helping out with, some people agree and some don't. Sometimes this means I have to leave them to their views. Sometimes it means I have to do something active to oppose the actions they want to take. It depends largely on the circumstances.

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!!

Um, lovely. You're that convinced about the worthlessness of working class people are you?

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.

You've lost me with that one. I thought I was suggesting the opposite.

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.

Here's the thing though. Do you really think these needs are being met? We allow a system where rich people own empty houses while poor people sleep in the street. We allow private landlords to buy up affordable property raising house prices beyond what young poor working clas people can pay and then make a killing renting the properties out and not actually working for a living.
An anarchist would look at this situation and recognise that the concentration of power and wealth in this case is negating the common good that housing represents. An anarchist would say a level of resistance is therefore required in order to address this problem.

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.

Maybe at your fancy school that would be true. But in St Bastard's school for lower class Taig bawbags, I found that completely trusting anything your teachers said to be a terrible idea. Don't get me wrong, education is perhaps the most important thing in the whole world, but from what I recall, there was a ridiculous amount of time spent in school trying to enforce a system where your job was to shut up and the teacher's job was to maintain order. There are loads of ways that I think education can benefit from anarchist ideas.

Hmmm, this post is going to be epic length, so I'll introduce a new level of conciseness.

1) For most of the rest of the post, what you're describing is Anarchism.

2)Except when you're not. There's some silly bits there too.

3) I have a certain level of admiration of Kropotkin, Proudhon, etc. But we don't live in the 19th century anymore and Anarchist thought has moved on a bit.

4) I've never met an Anarchist who takes Bakunin seriously. His spats with Marx were hilarious, but I don't think anyne would confuse him with a philosopher.

5) Wait, do you really disagree with the French revolution?!?!

 

[Gmart]

Thankyou for the civilised answer, i keep expect a herd of anarchists to descend, shouting 'Persecute the non-believer'.

Um, lovely. You're that convinced about the worthlessness of working class people are you?

I never said anything about the worthlessness of the Working class, you did. I merely mentioned two stereotypes which are commonly attacked as being the problem. Maybe you have a bit of a class issue.

Do you really think these needs are being met? We allow a system where rich people own empty houses while poor people sleep in the street. We allow private landlords to buy up affordable property raising house prices beyond what young poor working clas people can pay and then make a killing renting the properties out and not actually working for a living.

Well to be honest i think that the 70% home-ownership does indeed mean that this need is being met, but you are right to point out that those at the bottom of the scale are losing out. There are too many houses left empty at no cost to the landlord, and there are indeed many homeless, for many reasons. There should be a system of penalty for unused space. I would suggest charging for square meterage used, with a personal allowance, which would solve the council tax issue too and encourage small shops too.

Maybe at your fancy school that would be true. But in St Bastard's school for lower class Taig bawbags, I found that completely trusting anything your teachers said to be a terrible idea.

Cheers for that, lets stay playing the ball, not attacking the player. As i mentioned in my post there is indeed a divisive education system in the UK. This is certainly an argument for change with an emphasis on equality of opportunity, not necessarily for anarchism.

There are loads of ways that I think education can benefit from anarchist ideas.

No offence, but i'm still waiting... You are still to mention any.

I didn't mention the French Revolution, but i did mention:

A huge list of things that exist in our society which is run by the government. (What have the Romans ever done for us).
Subsidiarity
Usury
The place of banks in our society
Contracts
Heirarchy and its need in kitchens as an example
Coercive relationships
Jobs as a priority
replacing authoritarianism with another form of authoritarianism
Creative destruction
Equality of opportunity

Also, when do you think violence is justified in a democracy (even a dodgy one like ours) Just curious.

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

I'm afraid most anarchists are grotesquely misguided about the nature of human beings and society.

And it is utopian to believe in this new Jerusalem when people will be co-operating with one another, where there will be no need for a state or a police force or set of rules.

At least most socialists accept that they must coerce people and bend them to their will to achieve the state of affairs they want.

 

[kropotkin]

Kenny, good job you're right then!

1. anarchists don't want 'no rules', we advocate the elimination of systems that create rules that uphold 'ruling' class power
2. you could make a good case that anarchists are pessimistic about 'human nature' so advocate social structures that prevent the inevitable abuse of power by devolving it to local participatory councils (unless you think that the 'human nature' of those who monopolise power is somehow...benevolent?)

any other misconceptions you want to chat about?
3.

 

[Col_Buendia]

I'm afraid most anarchists are grotesquely misguided about the nature of human beings and society.

Really? You've just confirmed everything I feared...

 

[Col_Buendia]

To start from basics, Man needs a place to sleep, where he is safe. This is why we have ownership.

I'm surprised that I.J. hasn't pulled you up on this. This is such a non-sequitur, really (you trolling again?). But for the benefit of my tiny little illogical brain, would you mind showing how this follows?

For the record, it would seem to me that if I need somewhere safe to sleep, I would go and find somewhere safe to sleep. Ownership, as perhaps the Tony Martin case would demonstrate, offers not a shred of security (I presume you are talking about ownership in the legal sense of property rights). If it did, why are there so many "safeguards" against those who would threaten this "safety"?

PS - where do the women need to sleep?

 

[inflatable jesus]

Aye, I let that one go because I could see what he (or she) meant by it. I presumed it was that tory idea of property as a way of safe-guarding abilities to meet individual needs. Personally I think it's daft, but whatever.

So in response to GrMathews:

You've suggested options to counter some negative aspects of the property based housing system. You've suggested a system of de-incentives or punishment, presumably administered by elected bureaucracy. That's one way of making capitalism work better. It tends to be innefficient and difficult to administer properly, but it is an option.

Most anarchists tend to believe that people who exercise power over us should feel the burden of responsibility for that power at all times. Anyone making money out of housing should be able to justify it by showing us how they help run the best possible system for providing this vital social necessity. Except they can't, because they don't and the question is never asked in the first place. The reason it's never asked is because there is a small class of people that see interfering in people's right to buy whatever they want and to make money doing whatever they want is more important than actually meeting genuine social needs properly. So real estate functions as a way of making people rich and not as a way to adequately provide housing.

I know, that you probably think that anarchists deliberately avoid giving proper practical suggestions so on this issue here's mine: More public debate, democratically run tennant's unions and democratically run bodies with the power to hold landlords and councils to account. I would say any of those perfectly achievable things would make housing work better. Those are short term proposals. If you liked I could imagine you a perfect system, but I'm not really interested in those.

On education, I have more questions than I do answers. But, they're questions that I think need to be considered. 1) What do students want out of education? 2) How can we improve the system along those lines 3) Are schools worthwile social institutions or an institutionalised system of brutality? 4) Are stressful end of year examinations as we know them worthwhile or even reliable test of knowledge and ability 5) Are young people respected by teachers? 6) Should education stop at 16 or 18 or 21? Or should it be ongoing throughout one's lifetime.

In the short term I would say that we need to work towards getting rid of end of year examinations, getting students more involved in the running of schools and looking at ways to make sure that students are able to feel valued within their school community.

In the long term, any further changes I would like to see would be dependant on what progress we can made in aleviating the causes and symptoms of poverty and in changing the competitive nature of the job market. Eventually I would like to see a system whereby all students are able to learn whichever subjects they want to learn at the pace that suits them, with adults playing more of a guidance role than an authoritarian one. We have a lot of work to do before that could happen though.

With regard to your list of things. I still think you have the wrong end of the stick. I'll happily accept that any of those things have some kind of use-value, but that doesn't make them justifiable. They would only be justifiable if they provided a way for all humans to enjoy the most amount of benefit and the most amount of liberty, which they don't.

I think your continuing misconception is this: Anarchists believe in the immediate removal of everything that is flawed. You think that we have given no attention whatsoever to the effects of 'removing' whatever it is that we criticise and no thought to the practical matters of how to do it.

It's nonsense.

I don't believe that people need governments. it does not mean that I think governments never ever do anything useful. It also doesn't mean that I would expect all the useful functions of a government to be magically assumed by the cheering liberated proles come revolution day.

If we ever get to a stage that we don't have governments, it will be because it will have been demonstrated that we can do everything we want without them.

Finally,

Also, when do you think violence is justified in a democracy (even a dodgy one like ours) Just curious.

Because even elected leaders use violence politically. Why would it be okay for them and not us?

I don't recall saying that I approved of violence in the contemporary UK though.

 

[Gmart]

You don't seem keen for a government to guide the population through incentives/punishment. Do you hope for some idealistic world where everyone agrees with the principles of society and thus agree? How will you deal with dissent? What if people decide that your way is destroying 'the soul of England'? Do they have the right to demonstrate? Would you allow their revolution seeing as you don't feel that even an elected government has the right to defend itself against attack?

You seem unhappy with property as a concept, I wonder if you would feel that everyone should have the right to break into your house in the middle of the night if you had kids? Do you have kids? Who would protect them from the inevitable burglar?
I accept that the relationship between landlords and tenants needs to be addressed. We also share a common dislike for a housing system which does not facilitate the housing stock adequately. This means that we need to work out a system, not just abolish property. Your idea to have more rules to govern people to do with housing might well be met by the usual rebellion towards any rules. Tenant's Associations are evidence of cooperation though, so that would be good.
I find it strange that in the same post you want to force rules on Landlords, but later want to relegate adults to a guidance role in the education sector.

Any hierarchic relationship should be marked by mutual responsibility for each other. Though to say that they "should feel the burden of responsibility for that power at all times" might be going too far. We all are entitled to enjoy life too.

You feel that the ‘Right to Buy’ material possessions is unable to help towards meeting social needs, but the market is all about mutual gain. Publics goods and services that are needed by all are paid out of a (hopefully) fair tax system.

Your questions as to education are fine and I would love to take part in that debate on the education forum if you would post it? Your proposals do not seem particularly anarchic per se, and I would not be surprised to see your proposal in a manifesto of any of the major parties.

You ignore (again) my list merely commenting that it does not "[provide] a way for all humans to enjoy the most amount of benefit and the most amount of liberty". How does equality of opportunity or jobs as a priority not do this? Or did you mean my other list you ignored (post 20) with sewage, emergency services etc?

I understand your aim towards small government and share it. I am a European and agree with the principle of subsidiarity enshrined within these laws. I agree that violence cannot be an option, and we need to find ways to create a society which does not necessitate violence to maintain the status quo. I suggest that violence, though a sad indictment of our society is here now. Go out on Saturday night in any city centre, and therefore I would rather an elected authority used minimum force, rather than an unelected one. A world without laws would simply put the poor at the mercy of the rich.
Again one has to remember that the UK has never taken on a Constitution, and thus cannot be described as a modern liberal democracy; it is more of an elected dictatorship, as we found out when a majority of us demonstrated against Iraq, but were ignored. To throw everything away would be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

These are salient points raised by Gmarthews.

Anarchists' chief objection is to the state. And since the police force is an arm of the, it follows that there will be no police officers.

Therefore, human beings will have become so rational - whatever that is - that they will never behave in an immoral or criminal way. Laws will ceased to exist, even the words to describe them will have been consigned to the past, to a time when man was stupid or ignorant of how he should act and what he should be. The words, the mental concepts, of criminal or immoral behaviour will also become redundant. I cannot steal or murder or fornicate if I do not know what it is.

Consider for a moment what sort of place this would. I would not regard these people as human beings, they would be so different to what I think it means to be human as to be unrecognisable. They would have been dehumanised by the anarchists' magic wand.

But then look at people. Yes there are people capable of acts of remarkable selflessness, bravery and good, who put others before themselves.

These are matched by the capability of men to be violent, evil, callous, heartless. People everywhere rob, fight, kill, slaughter one another in their thousands.

Even without the work genocidal tyrants like Stalin and Hitler, people come to blows and lose their tempers. Everywhere people are ruled by their passions and emotions rather than cold logic and reason. What place these in an anarchist paradise?

That's why in our imperfect world, a world of people of differing outlooks and temperaments, we have governments that legislate, police to enforce those laws and courts to punish the offenders.

 

[Col_Buendia]

<waves magic wand. Makes Kenny Vermouth disappear.

Kenny still on the boards.

Hands back magic wand and rips up anarchist party membership card in disgust.>

 

[ICB]

Hello IJ :waves:, long time

Just popped in to say if you (j26) want a literary exploration of what rules would be necessary and how they would be enforced in an anarchist society then The Disposessed by Ursula LeGuin is worth a read. Cracking good book. Also deals with a point Kenny touches on, the importance of language to such a project.

I wish we could get away from the automatic assumption that "human nature" (grrr) is red in tooth and claw and that we have to have a social contract justified on selfish grounds to overcome this, it really is such a load of old shite.

 

[inflatable jesus]

Hello yourself ICB! It's been a while since we crossed paths, but I still read your posts and always think 'what a sound guy that ICB character is'.

Anyway, arselicking aside.

GrMatthews

1) You don't seem keen for a government to guide the population through incentives/punishment. Do you hope for some idealistic world where everyone agrees with the principles of society and thus agree? How will you deal with dissent? What if people decide that your way is destroying 'the soul of England'? Do they have the right to demonstrate? Would you allow their revolution seeing as you don't feel that even an elected government has the right to defend itself against attack?

I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense.

Firstly, what are 'the principles of society?', If I was to try and draw any meaning from that term, I would suggest that you're talking about the basic and commonly understood rules about how to act like a civilized human being -which quite clearly have nothing to do with the state. I don't need a policeman or the threat of a jail term to stop me from raping old ladies and neither do you. Why would you think otherwise?

Secondly, I don't deal with dissent. Politicians and football referees deal with dissent because they occupy positions of power. I often disagree with people. When I do, I try to resolve disagreements amicably through dialougue. Once again, I reserve the right to defend myself and to meet force with force and I recognise the right of anyone else to do the same.

Now I realise that with that statement I'm not adressing the same point as you and I'll explain why. You're still dealing with anarchist ideas in some mad max hypothetical 'after-the-revolution' kind of way. In order to make any sense of them I have to apply the rough ideas of what you're saying to how anarchism works in the real world.

I'll try and restate this simply, becuase either you're not understanding this or you're deliberately ignoring it. I do not believe that anarchists will ever take up arms and overthrow the goverment of this country and then try to institute a perfect society. As such, I see no reason to concern myself with the moral questions of revolutions and counter-revolutions. I have never met an anarchist who has ever suggested forcibly overthrowing the government and I have never doubted that pointing guns at people in the name of freedom is a hypocracy.

Now come on, you're clearly not an idiot. If you want to talk about anarchism, lets keep it in the real world eh?

You seem unhappy with property as a concept, I wonder if you would feel that everyone should have the right to break into your house in the middle of the night if you had kids? Do you have kids? Who would protect them from the inevitable burglar?

The only thing that ties anything I've said to that pile of nonsense is that I used the word 'property' in my last post. To claim that I approve of burglary based on what I've said would be like me claiming that you approve of slavery because you of what you have.

1) Like most anarchists, I differentiate between personal property (like the things in your house) and the things people own for the purposes of making money. I dislike using the term 'means of production' because I'm not specifically talking about factories and it's just going to lead to misunderstandings, but it's that that I'm concerned with, not your telly. I'm not going to claim it for the revolution.

I believe in the principle that workplaces should be 'owned' and run by the people that work in them, the same with agriculture and so forth. I object to unlimited property rights just as any sane person would. As an anarchist I believe that there should be more debate about where property rights should end and where human rights start. I believe that right now we're pretty far from the appropriate balance.

Any hierarchic relationship should be marked by mutual responsibility for each other. Though to say that they "should feel the burden of responsibility for that power at all times" might be going too far. We all are entitled to enjoy life too.

I have a hierarchical relationship with the Queen of England, does that make me responsible for her? Should I wish the Al-Sauds and Bin Ladens all the best in spending their money because they're entitled to enjoy life?

I really haven't the slightest idea where you're coming from here.

You feel that the ‘Right to Buy’ material possessions is unable to help towards meeting social needs.

No I don't. I think the market is just very unreliable in meeting social needs. It's something that really does seem quite self-evident.

You ignore (again) my list merely commenting that it does not "[provide] a way for all humans to enjoy the most amount of benefit and the most amount of liberty". How does equality of opportunity or jobs as a priority not do this?

I'm sorry you think I'm ignoring the points you are making. As it happens I'm doing my best to do the opposite but I'm a bit worried about writing novel-length answers as it's generally accepted to be bad bulletin board manners. I attempted to be concise because I thought (and still do) that you were suggesting that anarchists plan on a big revolution followed by an ill-thought out purge of all of those things on your list. So since it's not true, it didn't seem like the best use of my time to state that individually for each one.

If there's anything you particularly want an anarchist opinion on, can you please restate it and be a little more specific about what you mean?

For example, my main problem with the term 'equality of opportunity' is that the people I've heard using it all seem to think it can be acheived without also ending the current inequality of wealth and power, which is something that seems really demonstratably false to me.
I'm also not so clear on what the opportunity being refered to is. Is it to become a big successful businesman, or Prime Minister or something like that? If so, then the principle seems to be suffering from a serious lack of imagination. I don't think that we need super-rich businessmen or Prime Ministers any more than we need kings or preists, but any steps towards real equality would be welcomed by me, of course.

Then on the other hand, when you say 'jobs as a priority', I haven't the slightest idea what you mean. Are you saying that's what governments offer? Or what they should offer? Are you saying that jobs in of themselves are a good thing regardless of what the job is and what the conditions are?

I honestly have no idea how to aproach that line at all.

A world without laws would simply put the poor at the mercy of the rich.

One of the more central themes of anarchism is a belief that people should not be divided into rich and poor. Again you're straying into the hypothetical mad-max world, but even allowing for that, the idea that anarchists could somehow get everyone to abandon laws but still keep a class divide in tact doesn't make any sense at all.

Again one has to remember that the UK has never taken on a Constitution, and thus cannot be described as a modern liberal democracy; it is more of an elected dictatorship, as we found out when a majority of us demonstrated against Iraq, but were ignored. To throw everything away would be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I agree, but when I hear people use that term, they generally seem to believe that the correct thing to do is to do nothing and continue letting our betters run things. That, I disagree with.

**edited to add:

I'm slightly conerned that I'm giving you my own personal opinions and not reflecting the diversity of anarchist thought. TBH I think that's slightly unavoidable, but much of the thrust of what I'm trying to say is laid out here:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ7.html

It covers some of the basics of what anarchist writers and thinkers have said on the subject of revolution. I don't agree with all of it, particularly the parts that go into he specifics of post-revolutionary life, but I hope it might clear up some misunderstandings you seem to be having.

 

[inflatable jesus]

. People everywhere rob, fight, kill, slaughter one another in their thousands.

Even without the work genocidal tyrants like Stalin and Hitler, people come to blows and lose their tempers. Everywhere people are ruled by their passions and emotions rather than cold logic and reason. What place these in an anarchist paradise?

That's why in our imperfect world, a world of people of differing outlooks and temperaments, we have governments that legislate, police to enforce those laws and courts to punish the offenders.

Do people everywhere really do this? Do you rob, kill and slaughter? Or do you perhaps only find yourself constantly fighting the urge to kill and maim, then remember that if you do you'll go to jail? Or should I be aware that it's just those bad people that do that sort of thing and not us nice ones?

Anarchism can't stop all people doing bad things to each other. But then again neither can liberal capitalism in a representative 'democracy'. It should be fairly obvious to everyone by now that no matter how many people you jail and how harsh the sentences are, it will never ever stop people from doing foolish things.

Here's the thing though, there's a wealth of evidence linking various kinds of crimminality to poverty and inequality. It seems fairly likely to me that serious attempts to eradicate poverty would see a significant reduction in crime rates. Wouldn't it be nice to try and actually do something about crime for a change?

With regard to war and other kinds of mass crimes, I would think it would be fairly obvious that anarchist principles could only help prevent such things occurring.

 

[llantwit]

Inflatable Jesus: Just returned to this thread after losing patience with it a while back. You're a fecking hero mate. Lucid, patient, and interesting posts - cheers.

 

[Gmart]

It may be 'rude' to post 'novels' but luckily Urban75 is big enough for many types of discussion, so i hope you don't mind continuing. I do try to keep them short, but there is just so much to comment on, and i just can't help it sorry!

I appreciate that you and I might not need a policeman, but that is because we are mature, peaceful adults. The same goes with trying and resolve disagreements amicably through dialogue. However it is another thing to have the discussion with children as to why they have to put aside their innate selfishness for the good of a peaceful life. It would indeed be a better world where laws are more of a guide to life, but we live in a world where there are many people who do not accept that rape or murder is wrong. For these people and many others it is necessary to write down these rules and enforce them. I appreciate that in an ideal world we would not need to, but we both live in the real world aren't we?

I do not believe that anarchists will ever take up arms and overthrow the government of this country and then try to institute a perfect society.

Your link said the same and I agree. The UK system is too entrenched to cause a revolution, which is why we need to try and produce a well argued alternative, persuading people's hearts not imposing. And engaging with the political process.

I never said that you approved of burglary, i was using burglary as an obvious argument for the protection of private property. I am glad that you differentiate between personal property and property for making money. Do you feel that the rich should have the right to own big houses? Lots of cars etc? Where would you draw the line, or how? Remember if you abuse the rich too much then they will leave and take their jobs with them.

I object to unlimited property rights just as any sane person would.

Am i to assume that anyone who says that unlimited property rights might provide work for millions and thus enable them to feed their families, would be pronounced insane by you?

I have a hierarchical relationship with the Queen of England, does that make me responsible for her?

I am talking about people you meet.

I think the market is just very unreliable in meeting social needs. It's something that really does seem quite self-evident.

Well the market does tend towards catering for the rich. This is why we have controls and regulators for the market and government services to ensure that the poor don't get left behind.

You say that you don't believe in equality of opportunity because you don't think that it can co-exist with a continuation of the current inequality of wealth and power. However with equality of opportunity this very inequality would be countered by hard work and talent. I am talking about the opportunity to do what you want whether it be a doctor or a biologist. I am talking about creating a free society which doesn't simply pit brother against brother, where if you don't succeed, you don't blame it on the other class, but on yourself because you had the same opportunities as everyone else.

The 'Paradox of Social Change' and the addiction to power points are well stated in your link, but no solution. Education certainly (have you started that thread yet?), without a system with equality of opportunity we will never get anywhere. Do you have a solution?

You do seem annoyed by those who have wealth and power. Do you think that they should have it taken off them in some way? This is your implication. Kropotkin (the poster rather than old philosopher) said that "we advocate the elimination of systems that create rules that uphold 'ruling' class power", Equality of opportunity would do just this in time. As would a fair tax system.

You seem not to understand the central tenet of all governments, ie that 'jobs are the priority'. This is because people have families that they need to feed, and to do this they need jobs, which are half and half (ish) provided for by the private/public sector.

One of the more central themes of anarchism is a belief that people should not be divided into rich and poor.

Are you saying that those with the funds should be supported by the government in the same way as those without, thus taking resources away from others who might have a greater need?

With regard to war and other kinds of mass crimes, I would think it would be fairly obvious that anarchist principles could only help prevent such things occurring.

This reminds me of a visit to Sagrada Familial in Barcelona where the saddest thing is that it was the Anarchists who smashed up the original plans in the thirties.

I appreciate the ideal of common ownership through cooperatives but lets make sure that we stay in the real world with everyday examples. I think that though a creeping anarchism pushing the cooperative structure would be a good idea, however i suspect that many feel that being able to buy shares in a company is already close to this ideal. And that making boards more responsible to their shareholders is a more realistic path towards your ideals. In both structures the worker would have to do things right, in a professional way, ie not be lazy, and so where is the difference? Cooperatives seem like a great idea, but in Manchester there are two cooperatives who don't always allow their workers to become members of the cooperative, creating a two-tier workers and owners dichotomy again. So again what's the difference? Housing coops also often take in normal tenants rather than new members, accepting rent for a time until they leave with no recompense. There seems to be a gap between the ideal and the reality, and some are using the right labels but not actually putting the ideals in action and reaping the awards from unsuspecting customers who think they are supporting such ideals. Such is human nature i suppose. Maybe some rules need to be written down, even for mature adults.

I appreciate that poverty causes crime, but so does the political system. For example, legalising drugs would significantly reduce crime, and for that to happen would need a change in legislation, maybe caused by a roots up movement, but certainly a top-down change. This along with adding the right to choose what to put into one's body into a constitution (also needed). This type of legislation would make the government more in tune with the attitudes of its population, making force less necessary.

Roots up revolution is a fine idea, but a liberal framework would need to be in place, in the form of a Popperian Open Society to allow this to happen, or else totalitarianism would simply take over, playing on people's fears of the new and starting the circle again.

Here are the questions i have asked but which seem to have been forgotten/ignored:

Do you accept that violence is justified for the elected government to maintain peace? Such as on Saturday night?
Do you feel that those with money do NOT have the right to enjoy it, and spend it as they see fit?
Do you agree with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in European law?
Do you agree with usury? Or do you feel that banks should be cooperatives? Would they be able to charge interest?
Do you accept the need for heirarchy in a kitchen environment as described in post #26?
Do you feel that dissent would disappear if heirarchy disappeared? In other words what would happen if there were no football referees? I say that the rich would abuse the poor, but you do not accept these labels as valid.
Do you really believe that landlords should have more rules, but at the same time teachers should teach our kids not to accede to rules?
Do you feel that a man should be allowed to find his own path, or should society impose a role on him?
Your link suggests civil disobedience and the non-payment of tax, do you practice this? How?
Do you accept that man has the right to enter into a contract of his free will? Selling his work for a price?
Doesn't every worker have the right to leave his job if he feels abused?
Isn't it down to the individual to develop skills which are so valued in the workplace as to make abuse an unlikely event?
Do you think that all heirarchic relationships are coercive?
What exactly is the difference between your anarchism and liberalism?

 

[inflatable jesus]

LLantwitt - Cheers dude. I still have my lower-class embarassed-by-compliments thing going, but then I'm also really worried about sounding like a dick when I get into this sort of thing, so it's nice to know somebody thinks I'm not just spewing shite, so cheers.

GrMatthews - Okay be prepared, I've tried to answer everything, that means this post is actually too long to be posted here so I have to break it in two.
I won't complain if any mods think it's a waste of bandwidth.

<ahem>

I hope that you won't be offended if I say that your last post seems a lot closer to the important issues that anarchism brings up than the one before it. But then, we both know I'm biased.

I appreciate that you and I might not need a policeman, but that is because we are mature, peaceful adults. The same goes with trying and resolve disagreements amicably through dialogue. However it is another thing to have the discussion with children as to why they have to put aside their innate selfishness for the good of a peaceful life. It would indeed be a better world where laws are more of a guide to life, but we live in a world where there are many people who do not accept that rape or murder is wrong. For these people and many others it is necessary to write down these rules and enforce them. I appreciate that in an ideal world we would not need to, but we both live in the real world aren't we?

Firstly, I share ICB's skepticism about the basics of Social Contract theory. I honestly don't think that people's systems of ethics can be so neatly divided into 'selfish human nature' and 'for the good of society'. For one thing, we have natural insticts towards compassion and kindness as much as we do towards selfishness and anger. Then I also think it's a mistake to think that the nature of our obligations to others can be explained sufficiently by talking about 'society' and what is in it's interests.
Humans are usually always simultaneously members of various different social groups with competing and well as converging interests. I found social contract theory is a bit light on considering how power relations affect our ability to agree on what is in the common good, but it's been a while since I read anything about it.
It also seems to me that there is a strong tendancy within the political establishment and within elite circles to imagine that the common good of society is miraculously also what is in the interests of the ruling classes. So a de facto consensus arises in elite circles and this becomes (to them) the only acceptable notion of what a common social good might be.

Okay, point 2 (yes, that was all point 1). Yes, I agree that laws can serve a useful purpose. For example making slavery illegal in the UK was a good thing. However, I often find that when really noticably beneficial laws are passed by governments, it's purpose is to correct morally apalling aspects of existing legal systems rather than to invent brand new moral paradigms.
For example when women campaigned for the right to legally own property and to vote they weren't trying to invent a right that had never been imagined before, they were trying to correct the systematic injustices that were done to them by the existing legal system by denying them these things on the basis of their sex.
Right now, I would applaud any legal recognition of women's rights in various contries, just as I would queer rights law etc. But, I think it's a mistake to imagine that governments invent morality were it did not exist before. Their role (if they have one) is to ensure that people are able to stand up for their own rights and are not blocked by the systems of authority they construct and uphold.
Rape for example is a far more widespread problem in countries that deny basic legal rights and protections to women. The only people that I know of that bother trying to invent a moral argument for murder are politicians and of course they enjoy a considerable level of legal protection for their acts.

Do you feel that the rich should have the right to own big houses? Lots of cars etc? Where would you draw the line, or how? Remember if you abuse the rich too much then they will leave and take their jobs with them.

I have no objection to anyone owning anything so long as they can justify it to whomever else has a stake in it. For example if the said rich person owns a company where every employee has freely agreed that he should be paid more than they do, then I would see no reason to object.
However, most people gain great wealth by underpaying employees so that they can take a bigger slice for themselves. As an anarchist I think that the process by which employees demand a fair share of wealth is perhaps the most important struggle there is. However, because bosses hold all the power in the relationship and enjoy the support of the state, the dialougue necessary to bring about a fair balance is prevented. So I think this needs to be addressed.

Am i to assume that anyone who says that unlimited property rights might provide work for millions and thus enable them to feed their families, would be pronounced insane by you?

Slavery could provide work and food for millions. That would be the logical extention of unlimited property rights. I was suggesting that property rights need to be appropriately balanced out with human rights. By which I mean that property rights should never be able to interfere with a person's ability to obtain food, shelter, education, freedom from physical harm, etc.

This is why we have controls and regulators for the market and government services to ensure that the poor don't get left behind.

Those controls and regulations are doing a rubbish job then.

Seriously though, take a drive around any lower-class neighbourhood and then tell me that poor people are not left behind by politicians. Try Possilpark or Easterhouse in Glasgow, or Bed-Stuy in New York. I see nothing but poor people being left behind.

I am talking about creating a free society which doesn't simply pit brother against brother, where if you don't succeed, you don't blame it on the other class, but on yourself because you had the same opportunities as everyone else.

If you can think of a way for everyone to have the same opportunities despite some starting off rich and privileged and others starting off poor and despised, I'm all ears. Personally, I can't see it.

The 'Paradox of Social Change' and the addiction to power points are well stated in your link, but no solution. Education certainly (have you started that thread yet?), without a system with equality of opportunity we will never get anywhere. Do you have a solution?

People need to be able to stand up for their rights. Workers need to be able to demand fair pay, women need to be able to demand equal treatment. Attempts my those in power to resist dealing with these demands need to be overcome. The actual methods of how this can be done are all up for debate. It's a really difficult thing to do, but it's not impossible.

You do seem annoyed by those who have wealth and power. Do you think that they should have it taken off them in some way?

It depends on the way really, if it's done in a way that allows the most freedom for the most people, then yes. The way I would like to see is by rich people recognising the right of employees to fair pay and acting accordingly. I have my doubts about any boss managing to come to this conclusion on their own though. I think a level of persuasion is going to be required.

I think that though a creeping anarchism pushing the cooperative structure would be a good idea, however i suspect that many feel that being able to buy shares in a company is already close to this ideal. And that making boards more responsible to their shareholders is a more realistic path towards your ideals.

My main problem with this is that shareholders are usually only concerned with whether or not they are going to get a return on their investment. This just adds extra pressure on the executives to pay lower wages, to outsource and to adopt environmentally unfriendly practices that sadistically enough tend to negatively affect poor people more than rich. So no, I don't think that an ability to own shares in of itself is particularly helpful.
You may possibly be refering though to activist groups buying shares in companies to have a dissenting voice at coorporation's AGMs. I don't really think that this aproach is the answer to corporate greed, but I think it's a good thing for what it is.

 

[inflatable jesus]

Do you accept that violence is justified for the elected government to maintain peace? Such as on Saturday night?

I have no problem with policemen stopping a drunk person from beating the shit out of others, or anyone else doing the same. I would query whether these sort of events are unavoidable though. Personally, I think there are other preventative actions that should be looked in to.

Do you feel that those with money do NOT have the right to enjoy it, and spend it as they see fit?

That doesn't concern me. It's how they get the money and who they fuck over (if anyone) to get it, that I'm bothered about. Obviously, I believe in sensible limits. I don't support anyone's right to spend money on a slave, or to hire a hitman, or anything else that interferes with the rights of another person. But I don't think that was really what you were asking.

Do you agree with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in European law?

I don't find it grossly immoral. But I don't think it's the best way to organise resources either.

Do you agree with usury? Or do you feel that banks should be cooperatives? Would they be able to charge interest?

Usury is just a way of organising access to resources. My basic grasp of economics suggests to me that it doesn't seem too clever to assume never-ending sources of wealth to pay back interest. It goes without saying banks allow greater access to resources to the already rich than it does to the poor so that's a problem. Also, I believe that it's been used historically and even now as a way of locking people into kinds of servitude. So there are some problems with it as far as I can see.

If you believe that Usury is the single greatest tool for making society work, then I would say you're mistaken. But it's not beyond having some positive effects either. I recall hearing about a lending scheme in India that seemed to do some good a while ago.

Anything that helps the most vulnerable is a good thing. Is usury the best way to do this though? I doubt it.

Do you accept the need for heirarchy in a kitchen environment as described in post #26?

A hierarchical system is usually the most efficient for forcing people to do things they don't particularly want to do, yes, you're correct about that. However, I think that it's worth asking several questions. Why do we need to pay poor people to bring us food? Why do we need to pretend that the said poor people are our servants? Why can't people cook a nice meal themselves?
Why would respect need to be demanded so forcefully by chefs in the food insustry if that respect was actually due? Why is the food industry reliant on cheap non-union labour and in the US illegal immigrant (and therefore with no-rights) labour?

It is the most efficient system? does it allow the most freedom for the most people? It's these questions I'm concerned about.

Do you feel that dissent would disappear if heirarchy disappeared? In other words what would happen if there were no football referees? I say that the rich would abuse the poor, but you do not accept these labels as valid.

There can't be no hierarchy and a class divide. It's a logical impossibility.

Also, how will hierarchy dissapear? With yer man Vermouth's anarchist magic wand?

The role of hierarchy can only be reduced when there are new kinds of social relations governing the organisation of resources. It seems utterly pointless to imagine an overnight dissapearance of all bosses and politicians.

These questions might have some relevancy if we were discussing how anarchists should react to a revolutionary situation were a government is being overthrown, but I really don't think that's what you meant.

Do you really believe that landlords should have more rules, but at the same time teachers should teach our kids not to accede to rules?

I believe that all relationships should be formed on the basis of equality and mutual respect. I think that we could do without landlords completely but I think addressing the abusive power relationship between landlords and tennants would be an important first step.
I don't think teachers should tell children not to follow rules and can't imagine why you thought I would. I think rules are an essential part of life, however rules should be mutually agreed, not enforced through violence or the threat of it.

Do you feel that a man should be allowed to find his own path, or should society impose a role on him?

Society isn't a homogenous entity that imposes anything. Of course people should have the freedom to decide things for themselves, however we also share a world with others and we have to take our obligations to those around us seriously. Quite clearly I don't think Saddam Hussein should be able to do whatever he wants, but then I don't really think that we belong to one society that we should always be acting in the best interest of either. Human relationships are more complicated than that.

Do you accept that man has the right to enter into a contract of his free will? Selling his work for a price?

If those were the terms I would have no problem with it. However, it seems glaringly obvious to me that the power relationship in this situation is unfairly balanced towards the employer. As such, when we are dealing with working-class wage labour, I don't think the term 'free will' is the correct one to use. When the alternative to accepting whatever terms an employer asks is unemployment, or in some places starvation and death, then it's difficult to see why we should regard this arrangement as being freely entered in to.

It would also be a gigantic misunderstanding of the history of wage-labour to imagine that various kinds of violent compulsion were not behind the development of the current system. We have now a system where (with the exception of landowners) one's ability to survive is dependant on one's ability to obtain wage-labour. It seems to me that the least we can do is to try to apply some sensible organisation to this system that requires every adult to work. We should look at which jobs are necessary and which are not, to look at what a healthy number of hours a human can work is, and to look at what people should get in return for selling their labour. Working class people should be involved in this debate.

Doesn't every worker have the right to leave his job if he feels abused?

Most have that right, in some cases it's debatable whether they do or not. More importantly though, many don't have the ability to leave a job though because the effects of them losing their job would be so catastrophic for their families. That description would apply to a huge number of people working in the USA and most wage-labour outside Western Europe.

Isn't it down to the individual to develop skills which are so valued in the workplace as to make abuse an unlikely event?

No.

Everyone should have the right to be treated with dignity and respect at their place of work.

Do you think that all hierarchic relationships are coercive?

Yes. That's not always a bad thing. It just is most of the time.

What exactly is the difference between your anarchism and liberalism?

Well Chomsky sees anarchism as a kind of outgrowth of classical liberalism and I wouldn't really argue with that. The difference as far as I can see is that a mainstream liberal thought seemed to go down a line (in the late 19th Century I mean) that gave a lot of concern to the freedom of the male members of the merchant and industrialist classes to do whatever they wanted and not much concern to anything else.

Anarchism is more of an attempt to apply the same notions of freedom to majority of the world, which mainstream liberalism ignores.

 

[Gmart]

Thanx for the very complete answer. I am sorry if i take a bit of time to reply, I am often thinking about the points you raise and don't want to reply too quickly as it often compromises the reply.

Firstly a bit of humble pie I would like to clarify one of my points about heirarchic relationships. I did not mean to imply that people don't have the right to respect if they don't have skills. Everyone has the right to exist in whatever way they wish. It is their life and if they choose to not give themselves skills, then this should not mean that they are accorded no respect for their life choices. However in a world where the supply and demand of skills is a factor it should come as no surprise to anyone that those with skills are valued by their community more than those without. People without skills are very common, and thus the pay for these jobs is not surprisingly low. If a business did not accept this, they would be at a competitive disadvantage, causing a resultant reduction in their market share as the competition moves in. This does not mean that a boss should abuse them, far from it, though I would not be surprised if the ready availability of replacements means that their relationship with their employer will that much more one-sided.
I suggested a kitchen as an example as a place of work where simple trust of the chef (in this case) is essential for enabling the kitchen to run. There is no time for everyone sitting around and discussing what should be the best next step and coming to a consensus. Another good, everyday example would be in a hospital where a doctor may have to direct a nurse to get a syringe for example. There is no time to sit down and explain exactly why he or she needs this exact syringe, the nurse simply needs to trust the doctor.
This is the issue, there has been a breakdown in trust between members of this society. Your reaction to my kitchen example was that the poor are being abused, and it's terrible. This was not what I was talking about, I was giving an everyday example for positive heirarchic relationships. Certainly there is no excuse for abuse but there will always be poor people, and though you and I don't like this, feel sorry that they exist and even a bit guilty that we are not starving like they are, we should concentrate on creating a system which helps them to help themselves. Restaurants can make a fortune if run well, and though often over regulated in Europe, they provide a good source of employment. Why shouldn't people pay for food if they want to? And why shouldn't people cook food for these people if they want to?

I am truly stumped as to what you believe concerning whether everyone needs policeman or not. You claim doubts as to two separate theories, and then claim that the Elites are just out to get 'us'.

Do you trust people, or do they need to be controlled by your version of authoritarianism?

You were upset that I divided people into rich and poor, but seem very keen to divide them into the elite and others and talk about the working class. What kind of divisions are allowed for you? How would you define these distinctions?

I am glad that you accept the need for laws and rights in every society, this would progress many of the issues you talk about. I think it is sad that the UK fails to have the balance of debate about both, seeing as it doesn't have constitutional rights, but maybe this is better than a constitution being ignored as in many countries. A more effective debate could feasibly create a document that both the people and the government would be bound by. Historically all the agreements so far have been between the government and the ruling class, I agree and you are also right when you state that the government reacts to situations rather than embracing moral idealism. Still I feel that a good, balanced debate would be a good start. For people to be able to stand up for their rights as you suggest, they need to have rights in the first place!

I share your sadness that exec pay is so high when other jobs lower down the scale get paid less. I would predictably suggest that these figures and the exec's job description with responsibilities should be published along with the accounts, I also think that shareholders should have more than the simple technical ability to fire the board if they aren't doing a good job. If they saw abuse by their board of directors they would then be able to punish it and rightly so.

You state that you don't want property rights to interfere with a person's ability to get the basics in life, but if someone decides not to contribute to the community, what resources should be given to them to reward this behaviour. Everyone needs to pay their way surely (apart from a few extreme examples)?

I would argue that the UK system with its two-tier education system and lack of equality of opportunity, pits brother agaist brother, with the educated blaming the un-educated for all of society's problems and vica versa. If this was addressed, I feel that the abuse of heirarchy would lessen. I assure you I have seen enough neighbourhoods which show terrible poverty to last a lifetime.

I obviously cannot conceive of a system which does not have the rich with more money and therefore opportunities than the poor, that is unrealistic, however i could conceive of a system which mitigated the excess of this effect. Still this would be in your hitherto un-started thread on education.

My suggestion for solving the Paradox of Social Change as well as my education reforms would be to set up Constitutional Courts to uphold the constitution, which is found in many other countries in Europe, and which provide an affordable way for the poor to ensure that their rights are not being trampled on.

You state that you are aiming at "the most freedom for the most people", this reminds me of the utilitarians who aim at the most happiness. Sounds great but it was later pointed out that this created too much disagreement as to what represent the most happiness. Thus it was decided that resources should be given to things that minimise unhappiness. This proved much more effective. Maybe rather than running after unachievable ideals such as the most freedom for the most people, we should aim at the least oppression for the least people, this would be much more achievable.

Why do you think that subsidiarity is not the best way to allocate resources? It is about localisation of power, not resources. Perhaps a link to clarify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

I share your concerns about excessive liberalism, the market fails in many ways, and we need to create ways to mitigate these failings. The market will not go away tomorrow even if we want it to. Also many people truly believe that this system works. Change means engaging and discussing effectively. Too many people have homes and families to threaten property and jobs, so we need to leave these extremes behind and create a progressive system. Now that debate would be worthwhile, instead of going on about what's wrong, and what shouldn't happen. That much is obvious.

I do empathise with many of your thoughts. The world is indeed not perfect, and could be better. However we have the ability and intelligence to solve everything if we try.

It should be acknowledged that mutual trade dependency makes war less likely. This is a very good thing in contrast with the Isolationism which was prevalent for most of history.

If you can think of a way for everyone to have the same opportunities despite some starting off rich and privileged and others starting off poor and despised, I'm all ears. Personally, I can't see it.

This is useless, we can both see the need for change, but to use the inequality of income distribution as an excuse to do nothing, or only concentrate on policies which will never be adopted, just means that they have won. We need to create a system which mitigates the excess of this inequality.

You seem upset at the profit principle. People won't do anything if they aren't going to gain from it. You seem similarily upset that Landlords can make money out of doing nothing, just owning property. I accept that this may seem unfair, but if someone works for 25 years to pay off a mortgage, and then retire into their old age, to live on the rental income of that property, then I don't have much of an issue with them. Indeed with pensions as they are, I wouldn't blame them. My issue is with excess, people holding lots of properties and not even bothering to rent them out, and not being penalised. This needs to be looked at, rather than property per se.

Meanwhile as a bit of a laugh i went on a site which tells you where you stand on political issues. It asks you a few questions, and then gives you your score. My score was Economic Left/Right: -3.38 and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97. The second figure states Anarchy as -10, so at -5 i'm halfway there I was wondering what your score would be. The site is at: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ if you fancy a go.

 

[inflatable jesus]

***OK for anyone not reading this for the first time, I'm going to break the rules and do a fairly substantial edit. There is something I missed earlier that in retrospect seemed fairly important to GrMatthews' last post. The edited part will be marked in a different colour just to make it clear.

Hi

I've taken the political compass test a few times, it's fairly well known around here. I took it again and I got Economic Left/Right: -7.38, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54, which sounds about right to me.

Also, please feel free to take as long as you like to reply. I may actually start that education thread, although I can't say my hopes for it are that high.

I did not mean to imply that people don't have the right to respect if they don't have skills. Everyone has the right to exist in whatever way they wish. It is their life and if they choose to not give themselves skills, then this should not mean that they are accorded no respect for their life choices.

The thing about this statement that worries me most is that you seem to think that there are people out there that choose not to have any skills.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking responsibility for my actions and decisions. But I can only think of elitism or blindness as explanations for why one would not look at poverty and it's effects as the main reason why some people develop sellable skills and others don't. To call this process a 'life choice' is a gross miscategorisation as you're assuming a level of free-will that just isn't there. People gain skills through education and relevant experience. The poorer you are, the less access you will have to these things.

I suggested a kitchen as an example as a place of work where simple trust of the chef (in this case) is essential for enabling the kitchen to run. There is no time for everyone sitting around and discussing what should be the best next step and coming to a consensus. Another good, everyday example would be in a hospital where a doctor may have to direct a nurse to get a syringe for example. There is no time to sit down and explain exactly why he or she needs this exact syringe, the nurse simply needs to trust the doctor.

That's all fine, however it's worth noting that in one case, (the doctors) respect and consideration goes two ways and in the other it does not. The case of the doctor is a good example of humans organising themselves in a way so that the people with the relevant skills and training are able to serve the greatest common good and that's universally accepted by all the parties involved.

However, from what I've seen and heard about proffessional kitchens, the other example is miles from it. It's a scenario were there is a hierarchy constantly being enforced on the lower class of worker because the chef does not respect or value the other workers in the kitchen. It's a scenario where several of the participants don't actually want to be there and where threats and harassment are seen as the only way of enforcing the authority of the chef.

I have no objection to people purchasing food or other people making food for a living. However, there are several things about the restaurant industry that show some of the some of the worst sides of capitalism and they should be criticised and improved on.

If restaurants are an institution worth hanging on to, they will easily be able to live with paying all their workers a living wage and ensuring that all their their workers are treated with respect. If a restaurant is unable to do those things, then it should not exist.

This is the issue, there has been a breakdown in trust between members of this society. Your reaction to my kitchen example was that the poor are being abused, and it's terrible. This was not what I was talking about, I was giving an everyday example for positive heirarchic relationships. Certainly there is no excuse for abuse but there will always be poor people, and though you and I don't like this, feel sorry that they exist and even a bit guilty that we are not starving like they are, we should concentrate on creating a system which helps them to help themselves.

On the first point, that there has been a breakdown of trust between members of society, I couldn't disagree more. When exactly was it that the rich and poor, or even the men and women of this or any other country were all singing from the same hymn sheet? There was no breakdown because the rich have always despised the poor, and the poor have always distrusted the rich. Bosses have never respected workers and workers have never respected bosses. All Hierarchical relationships have always had a level of antagonism and always will.

You also mention that there are positive hierarchic relationships. I don't disagree. Positive effects can occur through them. What I don't accept is that the end justifies the means, that because a positive outcome can be obtained, any criticism of the method is automatically invalid. My point is not that all hierarchic relationships are useless, it's that they can all be improved upon and should be.

I don't accept that there will always be rich and poor (at least not in any way resembling the current set-up). I've yet to hear a convincing explanation why it's in the majority of the world's interests to live in poverty while a handful of people live in luxury.

At some point I hope to be part of a world that recognises that what rich people in this world do to poor people is as immoral as what slave owners did to slaves, or as what men did to women.

I am truly stumped as to what you believe concerning whether everyone needs policeman or not. You claim doubts as to two separate theories, and then claim that the Elites are just out to get 'us'. Do you trust people, or do they need to be controlled by your version of authoritarianism?

Is this for real?

Okay 1) 'Everyone' does not need a policeman. That should be obvious.

2) You're going to have to explain the rest of that to me, because I've only got a vague idea of what you're talking about.

You were upset that I divided people into rich and poor, but seem very keen to divide them into the elite and others and talk about the working class. What kind of divisions are allowed for you? How would you define these distinctions?

I wasn't upset, about this or about any of those other things you go on to list. What I was saying is that a state of affairs where some people are rich and some people are poor is by definition a hierarchy. Therefore to suggest that ending hierarchy would enable the rich to expoit the poor would be like suggesting that republicanism would give the king too much power.

The problem wasn't that you talked about a division between rich and poor. It's that you imagined this division as a constant unchangable relationship, present even after the rise of an imagined 'anarchist society'.

You can feel free to use whatever terms you want to describe human relationships. I know I do.

For people to be able to stand up for their rights as you suggest, they need to have rights in the first place!

That depends on whether you think rights are things that people have naturally, or if they are just legal gifts from their governments.

Personally I think governments are capable of recognising rights, not creating them.

if someone decides not to contribute to the community, what resources should be given to them to reward this behaviour. Everyone needs to pay their way surely (apart from a few extreme examples)?

It's a good question and one I don't have a definite answer for.

I know some anarcho-syndicalists have discussed ways in which a locally-managed community would handle such a problem and it usually involves refusing to share the spoils of your own labour with such a person. But then we're back in hypothetical anarchist societies again and there's only so much use such a plan is going to be.

Back in the real world, however, I would say that my sympathy for such a person diminishes substantially in relation to the benefits he or she would recieve in return for his or her contribution to the community.

For example, the decision facing a great deal of people in the UK, is whether to get by purely on benefits, or to work for a tiny amount of money in a handful of low-skill jobs where you will not be respected by your employer or your peers and you will be expected to be thankful for the opportunity. If the terms were different, I would have less sympathy with somebody that gets by purely on benefits when they have other options. As it is, I think there are worse things happening in the world.

I would like to think that people would be more willing to contribute to their communities when they have an equal stake in them and an equal opportunity to share the benefits of their labour in a direct way. There is a certain amount of evidence for this being the case. Certainly, I've seen little evidence that making the punishments for non-contribution tougher is an effective way of ensuring that everybody does contribute.

 

[inflatable jesus]

Oops, I hit reply by accident.

Why do you think that subsidiarity is not the best way to allocate resources? It is about localisation of power, not resources. Perhaps a link to clarify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

As it happens you were right to think that I had misunderstood the meaning of that term. I guess I was presuming you were talking about Keynes-esque subsidy system.

That principle is fine by me. I think much could be gained by handling more things at local level and with a greater democratic involvement.

This is useless, we can both see the need for change, but to use the inequality of income distribution as an excuse to do nothing, or only concentrate on policies which will never be adopted, just means that they have won. We need to create a system which mitigates the excess of this inequality.

I think you misunderstand me. I most certainly do not advocate doing nothing and unlike your average socialist, I'll take any scraps from the rich man's table. However , I think it's possible to almost completely end inequality so I would like to keep working towards that end.

I doubt that too many policies I would suggest would be pursued by a government, but that's not really the point to me. I think much can be acheived by people organising themselves sufficiently and it generally this aproach that I favour.

 

[Gmart]

I don't agree with your description of kitchens, but have not worked in one, though there are people who i've talked with who would agree with my example, and some who might agree with yours. I definitely think that you are exaggerating and simplifying. To say that all heirarchic relationships have always had a level of antagonism, is just assuming no trust between people. Highly unlikely, it's just that we hear about the bad cases not the good cases. Papers deliberately do this as bad news makes better stories. Actually the whole world is based every day on millions of people cooperating, and one cannot say that they are all unhappy.

I would have thought that asking whether you trust people to make their own decisions, or do they need to be controlled by your version of authoritarianism is as clear as i can make it.

I never said that ending heirarchy would enable the rich to abuse the poor, i merely said that without the current institutions, no matter how imperfect, the rich would be able to abuse the poor more than now.

I'm glad you agree with subsidiarity, i can therefore presume you are a pro-european?

You have not commented on the need to have constitutional courts, a constitution or the need to concentrate on minimising the abuse of freedom as opposed to maximising freedom.

Also i have been discussing a controversial system on another thread which would save lives, but which would be inequitous. Still lives would definitely be saved, and so i was curious as to whether you would prefer an imperfect system which saved lives but which was not egalitarian, or maintain the existing system where everyone suffers equally and not save the lives?

 

[inflatable jesus]

GrMatthews

I really don't see where ideas of 'trust' figure into anything I've been talking about. You're not a subscriber of that old Tory idea that we plebes should trust our betters to decide things for us are you? It's the only angle I can think of where trust could possibly be a contentious idea in labour relations.

Sadly, I still can't make any sense of your question. Firstly, what is it you think my version of authoritarianism is? I wasn't even aware that I had one. Secondly, do you think trusting or not trusting people to make decisions can only be an absolute position? There are a lot of people in the world making a variety of decisions. Should I regard them all the same?

On Pro-Europeanness: I'm certainly not anti-european. I find the EU to be terribly undemocratic and I'm suspicious about some of the terms of their trade rules, but I would regard myself as an internationalist and not a nationalist.

On a constitution and constitutional courts:- Sure, why not? They're not going to do much harm (other than wasting tax money pehaps). Given their track record in other countries, I wouldn't be setting my expectations too high though. Just to put it in perspective, I'd be equally enthusiastic about getting better football goals in my local park. Maybe even more so.

With regard to freedom and the persuit of: If we're serious about it, those would both amount to the same thing. The fact that you think there's a marked difference only suggests to me that you're not all that serious about it in the first place.

On your ethics rattling proposal: I'm sorry, but when somebody offers me the choice between two options and then claims there's no alternatives they're usually either politicians or Christians. If you talk to some of the trot groups they'll tell you the same thing. It's either the horrible status quo or the beardy vanguard, no inbetweens, criticisms are counter-revolutionary.

So, perhaps you can tell me your proposal and I'll tell you if I think it's worthwhile or not. If it's 'inequitous' I probably won't. Pretending that the only alternative to it is the status quo just seems to me like you're trying a hard-sell.

 

[Gmart]

Well at least it's got down to a more manageable size of post

The most important thing i have to say is that it certainly is NOT the same thing to aim at maximising freedom as to minimise the abuse of freedom. I thought i had clearly stated why!! If one keeps the former, then everyone argues over what will maximise freedom leading to arguments over where to spend money, meanwhile the latter can be seen clearly by all through stats etc. It is just a general point to get beyond idealism.

That said it is absolutely necessary to have a reasonable, democratic system which people believe in; which as we both seem to agree we don't have in the UK by a large margin. This is why we have so many people dedicated to idealism in this country, because the system is so obviously not ideal. However this does not mean that we will get a perfect world if we only did it 'right'. This often replaces 'their' totalitarianism with 'our' form and we would switch places like Orwell described so clearly in 1984. This is what happens when people don't trust the people to make their own decisions. They apply force and then are surprised when people demonstrate against this force.

Popper talks about this in his argument for Open Societies being the only way out of this cycle; as he also talks about minimising unhappiness in his critique of Utilitarianism. One should concentrate on people in pain. They are the priority. Concentrating on maximising happiness is not the same thing because one mans pain is not outweighed by another man's happiness. Likewise one man's lack of freedom is not outweighed by another mans freedom.

I am certainly not saying that we should trust everyone/thing in the same way as (i hope) you are not saying that we should distrust everyone/thing. I am not looking for extremist viewpoints, that would be a waste of my time. You said that all heirarchy has a level of antagonism, but in fact everyday people trust each other on a vast number of issues from the bus driver to the postman to the barman. Everyday at work things will go fine for the majority of the time, until one feels that one's boss has "disrespected" one. Trust and distrust is a balance and a difficult one at that. Trust too much and you might be taken for a ride for someone else's 'evil' pleasure, trust too little and you live in perpetual fear of everyone/thing.

You seem to fear that having a constitution and constitutional courts may not do much good, even to the point of saying that they have a bad track record in other countries. However in my experience they have proved to enable people to believe that whatever the faults of the government they will have these rights which are guaranteed. They can even go to inexpensive courts if there is a case to answer. This results in a much smaller court system than in the UK, and less unhappy people, who cooperate with a system they trust more than if they had no constitution.

I agree that the EU is not adequately democratic, i hope it will be in time.
Meanwhile have we had enough talking about what is wrong with the world yet? I am still keen to hear your ideas about how to solve some of these problems you see. Unions for tenants was a good idea. Any more? How do you envisage your creeping anarchism?

Meanwhile the discussion i was referring to was:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=156960

Edited to add some pace to a rather solid bit of text

 

[inflatable jesus]

GrMatthews,

On Popper, Utility and Freedom: I see what you're saying now. Oddly enough it's something I think few Anarchists would disagree with. It backs up the basic anarchist belief that that extending the freedoms of the wealthy is pointless whereas freedom with equality is the only worthwhile goal. As an anarchist I believe that my rights and my freedoms stop where another person's begin. It's what I expect from everyone else I deal with too.

If you use Popper's (I presume, I've only skimmed some overviews of his work) words, then the important question is 'who should we consider to be in pain?'. Personally, I think it's obvious that these people are the poor, those who are discrimminated against and marginalised. In other words, the people that anarchism have always been concerned with.

On idealism and totalitarianism: I'm not convinced that there's a causal link. It's entirely possible to be idealistic while beng respectful of the rights of others. A quick glance at political history will also show you that totalitarianism and a cynical ruling class is just as common a combination.

On trust and Society 'working': Firstly, I don't feel that I have a hierarchical relationship with my postman, bus driver or barman. I regard these people as my equals and expect them to do the same to me. Secondly, I'm not saying that beneath the surface of every human relationship, there is a simmering pot of fear and distrust - That's what conservatives think.

What I'm saying is that any true hierarchical relationship, like the one I have with my employer or with an agent of the state there is always an understanding of the power dynamic involved even if we do not address it directly. I know that I have to do what my boss tells me or he can fire me and I will struggle to feed myself or pay my rent. I know that a policeman can mouth of to me as much as he likes, but if I do the same I will be assaulted or threatened with crimminal charges.

I don't trust my boss or a policeman to treat me fairly. I think that the level to which they will, depends ultimately on how much power I can have (or appear to have) when dealing with them. For example if I am in a Labour Union, I think an employer is probably less likely to make me work unpaid overtime and suggest that I will be fired if I don't.

It's not necessary to think about such things when I deal with the post office because everyone involved understands that the power balance in the situation is much different. In much the same way it is also commonly understood that middle class professionals with an ability to find work easily will encounter a much different power dynamic at their place of work, than people working in low-wage low-skill industries.

It's that sort of antagonism I was talking about. I never thought that it described all human relationships.

On constitutional courts: My problem with any court is that it will by nature reflect the ideas of the ruling class. So if there is inequality, then the court will largely side with the opressor. It's something that has been true in US supreme court history, although perhaps you know of better examples than I do or have a different model altogether in mind.

On Solving problems: It's the really tough question isn't it?

Join a union, get your co-workers to do the same. If you're in one, try to influence it to work in solidarity with other workers all over the world. Write letters to politicians or to companies with dodgy trade practices. If you see an organisation that helps people out, support it as much as you can. If there isn't one that solves a problem you care about, then start one. Pick an issue that you think is important and work as hard as you can to make a small part of the world better.

In terms of grand ideas, I have some.

I think people need to accept the principle that most people work too hard for not enough reward. I want more money for less work. I want a 20 hour week and think that the world could manage just fine on that, maybe even less. I want to pay more for goods made in the third world and for management and execs to take a smaller slice so that development can happen.

I want armed forces disbanded. I think that one can happen very quickly. I think that every company that employs more than ten people should have a labour representative involved in every part of decision making. All budgets should be available for public scrutiny. I think people should look at how much money is spent on advertising and have a good think about how that might be better spent.

I think that there needs to be much better regulation of lobbying and political donations. I think that everyone should be able to own their home.

I think that most of the world's problems could be solved by paying rich people less and poor people more. And I think that until that happens, we're fucked.

Obviously, I believe in the basics like collective ownership, the abolition of bosses, government and so forth. But the main problem with that is that I have no idea how humans would actuall get to that point. Until someone gives me a good explanation, then I'll just continue to back any old idea I think will help.

 

[aylee]

anarchism does not mean without rules or laws, it means no government and more specifically no state.

Forgive me for being over-simplistic, but can you explain to me very shortly how the latter two things don't lead to "without rules or laws"?

 

[inflatable jesus]

Forgive me for being over-simplistic, but can you explain to me very shortly how the latter two things don't lead to "without rules or laws"?

People have various kinds of rules that don't involve the state. Anarchists believe that if there was no government, people would still need to agree on what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

 

[aylee]

People have various kinds of rules that don't involve the state. Anarchists believe that if there was no government, people would still need to agree on what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

If everyone agrees on what constitutes acceptable behaviour and adheres to that, fine.

But what if they don't agree?

And what if they do agree, for example, that to rape a woman is unacceptable, but someone then proceeds to do just that? What happens to them?

 

[inflatable jesus]

There's not a simple answer to that question.

As we've discussed earlier in the thread, anarchism isn't a blueprint for a future society so I can't tell you how that would work in that said society.

If you haven't read the entire thread, some similar things have been discussed already so you might want to take a flick through.

This quote from kropotkin is particularly relevant:

anarchists don't want 'no rules', we advocate the elimination of systems that create rules that uphold 'ruling' class power

Laws about rape have very little to do with ruling class power, so are not likely to be resisted by anarchists. If your assumption was that anarchists would have more of a problem with jailing somebody for rape than with rape itself, then that's very wide of the mark. Rape is a clear abuse of power and an attempt to assert domination and control, so it's clearly something anarchists would never see as tolerable.

Also, while I'm sure any systems or changes that I suggest may be unlikely to stop the crime of rape from ever occurring, it's worth pointing out that neither capitalism nor representative 'democracy' has been able to do that either. If there's a defence to be made of authoritarianism, it's certainly not it's effectiveness in dealing with sexual crime.

It would an even worse argument to suppose that we should put up with all the bad things about having governemnts deciding things for us, specifically because we require them for stopping sexual crimes.