Transition to an anarchist society issues
Oct 31 2009 03:37
Hi,
First post! There's plenty I agree with in terms of anarchist communism / anarcho-syndicalism. Just wanted to run a few moral and practical issues I've thought about with a transition to an anarchist society. Would love to hear peoples thoughts on these.
If say there was a spontaneous insurrection tomorrow and all private property put under collective ownership and all business under collective control, would this be fair? To give an emotive example, someone builds a business up from nothing, works night and day for years with little initial return and finally gets to a point where it's turning a decent profit, then there's a revolution, and all the perks the person worked so hard for disappear in a cloud of collectivisation. Essentially it's a moral question, a question of Utilitarianism, should the moral worth of the action be determined solely by the overall outcome? That is, revolution would likely bring about the greatest happiness to the greatest number, but at the cost of landowners, business owners etc... Sure, amoral, soulless corporations get it in the neck, but so does said former emotive example. Ok, property is theft, but could collectivisation also be perceived as a form of theft? Now for an emotive parable... Huge amounts of people are on organ donor lists, and without the replacement organs will die. There isn't enough supply of organs to meet demand. One solution would be to kill a proportionally small number of healthy people and use all their organs to meet that demand. The means may be morally dubious, but the outcome is a far greater number of people survive then are killed. Is this right?
Next, what about where people live? Would people remain in the houses and areas they currently live in? If not, where would they go? If so, would this not retain a good portion of the current inequality and class structures in place from the previous capitalist system. How would this be resolved?
It's unlikely a coordinated global revolution would occur, meaning an anarchist society would have to exist within the context of an otherwise capitalist globalised world. With this comes coercion. Look at what happened with the foreign coercion from the soviets in Spain in the thirties. How would the inevitable coercion be addressed? I don't say inevitable lightly, a radical economic system such as anarchism would be be an immediate threat to capitalist states and their interests. Military, economic, and diplomatic strategies would likely be implemented to temper its success and influence. The society would have to engage with the rest of the world, it couldn't be insular and self sufficient, it would likely need outside food and energy at the very least, it would need to trade with the rest of the world to ensure any kind of reasonable quality of life for it's citizens. With this comes coercion and compromise. Also what would become of government bonds, what would happen with public debt owed to to foreign lenders? The collectivised economic reforms would certainly not be for the benefit of foreign lenders or the government bond owners. This would be yet another incentive for foreign coercion. Also what about foreign businesses resident in the newly revolutionary society? How could they be collectivised if they are centrally controlled elsewhere?
Next, I wonder how the revolution would occur, would it have to be violent, especially with the kind of forces and power anarchists would be up against? It was certainly violent in Spain. If so, would violence be justified? Could non violence be realistic? If, so how?
Oct 31 2009 17:07
#2
Quote:
I guess it could be perceived as theft by someone who has an interest in maintaining capitalist property rights. This sounds like theft to me though.
Yeah absolutely, exploitation is theft. However my point was, it doesn't appear as black and white as that. Not all capitalists are passive owners. many are very hands on, hard working, innovative, and risk their own capital on the ventures they undertake. In a transition to an anarchist society, a level of injustice would have to be accepted in taking collective ownership from such people. The morality of it goes beyond simply those who have an economic interest in maintaining capitalist property rights. Would a poor man, who has say neglected his education, or even say was not bright enough to excel academically, would he have a moral sense of entitlement to a shared wealth if it was in part at the cost of said former hardworking example? There is a point at which collectivisation becomes ethically and morally dubious. Do the ends justify the means?
Quote:
I would imagine that people in sub-standard or overcrowded housing would take possession of the many empty homes and buildings. Area councils would probably assess what homes exist in their area and match homeless or improperly housed people to them. You could probably sort most people out just by seizing second homes and the assets of property developers.
My point wasn't so much about housing the homeless, or reallocating people from sub standard housing. My point was most people would have to remain in the houses and area's they already live in looking at it practically. The poor would remain in council estates, the middle class in nice semi's and detached housing and the super rich would remain in their mansions. A class structure would be retained.
Oct 31 2009 18:19
#3
Quote:
Yeah absolutely, exploitation is theft. However my point was, it doesn't appear as black and white as that. Not all capitalists are passive owners. many are very hands on, hard working, innovative, and risk their own capital on the ventures they undertake.
It doesn't mean shit that some individual capitalists pitch in with their workforce before their enterprise becomes successful, when it does they can and will sit back, be a hands off director and enjoy their profits. If you say 'absolutely' to exploitation being theft, why do you have a problem with the ending of it?
Capitalists fetishize the 'entrepreneurial spirit' but does the drive and risk taking required to get a business off the ground really merit the rewards? For example, because Alan Sugar grafted his way into the position to own an electronics company, is it right that he should profit from the original thought and innovation of the engineers that designed the first Amstrad computers? What did he really do apart from provide resources they couldn't personally or collectively obtain?
Quote:
The poor would remain in council estates, the middle class in nice semi's and detached housing and the super rich would remain in their mansions. A class structure would be retained.
Council estates largely are sub-standard so I think my point still stands really. And an egalitarian society wouldn't tolerate a family of 4 living in a 12 bedroom 5 acre mansion whilst others live in shitty tower blocks. I'd imagine there would be quite a lot of re-development involved in a post-revolution society and I don't see why that would be impractical in a progressive society.
Oct 31 2009 19:32
#4
Quote:
does the drive and risk taking required to get a business off the ground really merit the rewards
I guess it depends on the rewards, it is subjective. There's plenty of business owners who spend their whole lives running their business because they can't afford not to. There's plenty that fail because they didn't have the ingenuity to make their business competitive enough.
I'm well aware of the inequalities of capitalism, in a lot of circumstances it can be deeply unfair and utterly deplorable. Whether it's the state or private enterprise, large concentrations of unaccountable economic power corrupts democracy, human rights and freedoms. I understand it is purposefully corrupted and tailored for the benefit of these vast assimilations of economic power, which create ever increasing levels of inequality. We now have a situation where most sectors have only a few large companies dominating the market, with unprecedented levels of collusion, political manipulation and corruption. Since we live in a globalised world, comprised of competing sovereign nations, these states have little choice but to bow to the whim of private enterprise in order to secure investment, lowering taxation, deregulating industry, weakening unionisation, the list goes on. More powerful countries often exploit the weaker positions of poorer nations through the IMF and world bank, with inhumane conditionalities on aid and highly leveraged loans such as austerity and privatisation of public services. Ruthless dictatorships are backed by industrialised nations in order to secure resources of the countries they control.
What I'm trying to say, possibly not succinctly enough, is people can be so dogmatic in their ideals, their blinded to the moral issues apparent in their own beliefs. Like it or not, not all capitalists can be neatly compartmentalised into one generalised concept in order to be conveniently vilified. There would be unjust casualties were an anarchist revolution to occur, it wouldn't and couldn't be a fully fair transition.
Nov 1 2009 00:01
#5
It's not about vilifying anyone - capitalists, bankers etc; they're a product of a system which encourages these social relations. The social relation is the problem, not any individual.
I don't understand what you mean by fair - is it fair to keep a system where people are completely alienated from political processes which dictate their lives and which keeps all their basic needs to experience life in a constant state of stress and risk? In this regard the 'greedy capitalist' and 'humble small business owner' - as interdependent, social beings - all have something to gain.
Capitalism uses examples that you give - Oprah Winfrey and the like - to justify itself as a system where supposedly anyone can make it. These are a minority and the examples always fail to acknowledge privilege, access to resources & networks etc which 99% of people could never gain.
You make it sound like progression will be imposed by some abstract structure? Anarchism only seeks to influence the mass movement/revolutionary climate into a direction which is participatory, directly democratic and decentralised.
Nov 1 2009 09:54
#6
boognish wrote:
There would be unjust casualties were an anarchist revolution to occur, it wouldn't and couldn't be a fully fair transition.
No, what is Unjust is how we live now.
It is Unjust that houses & other living spaces are left empty for up to years when there are families desperate for somewhere to live.
It is Unjust that some people can have 2nd, 3rd, or more houses when others have nowhere or nowhere decent to live.
It is Unjust that children & adults are suffering health problems because they are in substandard and unhealthy accommodation while others live in luxury houses with enough room for several families.
What is Just is for us to do everything we can to help those in need find decent accommodation, somewhere to live & bring up a family and have a fair part of our collective society.
Nov 1 2009 21:02
#7
I think your misinterpreting what I'm saying to mean I'm in favour of capitalism over anarchism, or defending it. I stated many issues with capitalism and how unjust it is in my previous post. I also stated there's a lot I agree with in terms of anarchist communism / anarcho-syndicalism. That isn't the point I'm making. You saying 'No' to a particular criticism I have regarding moral issues surrounding a transition to an anarchist society, then simply stating why the system we have now is unjust, doesn't address the issue, it deflects it. There will be an element of injustice in a transition. Do the ends justify the means? It's a question of utilitarianism, the assertion that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority. It's a perfectly valid to explore these moral questions.
Quote:
You make it sound like progression will be imposed by some abstract structure? Anarchism only seeks to influence the mass movement/revolutionary climate into a direction which is participatory, directly democratic and decentralised.
Where do you perceive I implied that? I'm discussing the means of transition to an anarchist society such as anarcho-syndicalism. Means such as a general strike in order that workers could take control of industry and services
Quote:
to experience life in a constant state of stress and risk? In this regard the 'greedy capitalist' and 'humble small business owner' - as interdependent, social beings - all have something to gain.
Those that choose to become business owners clearly feel the risk is worth it. There's no point pretending their really gaining something, and being done a favour, when in reality they're losing out. There is a subjective level of injustice in taking ownership of their business away from them. Whether it's an acceptable level of injustice is another question.
I'd be interested in peoples views on the other two points I raised in the first post regarding foreign state coercion, and opinions on violent / non violent revolution.
Nov 2 2009 00:26
#8
On your "parable" in your original post, you say that there aren't enough organ donors for people needing organs. I'm assuming you're in the UK? In the UK, far more people die with usable organs they need them in transplants. Simply switching the donor system so that by default people are registered as organ donors, and people can only opt out (as opposed to the opposite arrangement used currently) would solve the problem of organ shortage. So there would be no need to kill people to use organs - a completely ridiculous proposal.
Nov 2 2009 01:20
#9
Aye, it's meant to be a ridiculous proposal, I used it highlight the issues that can surround utilitarianism. Being a parable, it wasn't really meant to be taken literally, as it's just meant as a story to illustrate a moral lesson. There are still moral issues with the donor system you propose though, one it couldn't be assured everyone in the country could be made aware of this new default rule. It's a matter of whether society would deem such a reform as morally acceptable, risking freedoms to save lives. Also there are plenty of opportunities for people to opt in to the donor system - it's on driving license forms, passport forms, often asked when registering with a doctor.
Nov 2 2009 02:47
#10
boognish wrote:
one it couldn't be assured everyone in the country could be made aware of this new default rule. It's a matter of whether society would deem such a reform as morally acceptable, risking freedoms to save lives.
corpses don't have freedoms, so this is a bit of a non-issue
Nov 2 2009 09:42
#11
Welcome to the boards Boognish!
If you're centering your argument around utilitarianism, which you seem to be, then your talking in terms of what utilitarians call "common sense morality" - working towards the "greater good" based on a concept of "common sense". What is common sense - that it is preferable that a certain amount of teenagers be slaughtered on foreign sands for the "greater good" of the economy? Common sense itself is based on notions of morality. In the current climate that morality is rooted in the capitalist and monotheist traditon which has proven itself the bane of humanity, and why we seek its destruction. Therefore to use this morality to justify, to use your example, the removal of a self-made businessman in a speculative transfer to anarchist society negates the problems inherent in the 'common sense' model.
One offers that the use of force is wrong, another suggests that pushing someone away from being hit by a speeding car is correct. Therefore is force wrong or right according to common sense? All pain is wrong, yet your dentist may have to drill your teeth for the greater good. Dick Cheney would argue that the use of torture in Guantanamo Bay was used to extract information to help safegaurd the US from 'terrorists', therfore it was for the greater good. These are the problems in utiliatrianism as a construct.
So is it fair that the self-made businessman is removed from his office come the glorious day? Absolutely - the 'self-made-man' wet dream of capitalism has long been the ace in the banker's hole. You too can share in this filth! This is capitalism's justification, that anyone can rise up throught the ranks. But at what cost? Who is trodden on along the way, are no workers mistreated or smaller industries put out of business on the route to the top? Why should someone like the 'self-made' be treated 'fairly'. The issue is certainly not 'emotive'. When we talk about the end of capitalism, we mean the end of capitalism. Nobody will be given special favour because they once worked hardbuilding up a business. I'm wary of speculation at the best of times but you might also consider that workers may decide to appoint their own 'director' (instantly recallable of course) based on their knowledge of the task at hand and because they are highly regarded. A boss under the old regime may find a place 'runnning' an industry at the wish of the workers too.
(Briefly on the issue of organ donors - I would ask what preventative measures could be taken in the long term to prevent a need for such operations, such as the removal of fast food poisons from society, the end of military combat, less vehicles on the roads etc but you can have all of me otherwise...once I'm dead I hope.)
Again, where will people live in your speculative society? This will be entirely relative to time and place however redistribution of property will be central initially based on the idea of actual need and adjusted accordingly when homelessness per se has been dealt with. Hospitals etc will likely remain as hospitals,electricity power stations etc and other buildings central to infrastructure too. Ultimately there are no hard and fast rules (relativity again) but systems of hierarchy will be avoided.
Co-ordinated global revolution is a liberal fantasy that detracts from what needs to be done on the ground locally. In anarchist history we see many small movments but very few large scale experiments such as Barcelona in 1936. We do know that anarchists are often crushed because of the danger they represent (erosion of capitalist elites) so your point has some merit. How do we protect what we have built? The Spanish experiment tells us to be careful about potential allies (itself a reminder of the failure of Marxist-Leninism) but like all forms of organisation, defence would require careful planning and would be the responsability of all. As anarchist society would be self-sustaining economic bullying from those outside in the old capitalist world would not be an issue. The main question here is the use of military force which brings me to your last point.
Ward Churchill argues that pacificm is a pathology and that ultimately it protects the state by failing to actually challenge it. That is NOT to say there are not instances when pacifist tactics are useful but as a dominant tactic it is likely to be counterproductive. There are two visions of the path to anarchism - one a popular rising and the other the general strike (which may lead to a popular uprising). In these instances the state (domestic or foreign) will resort to varying degrees of force from riot shields to live ammunition be they cops, squaddies or strike breakers, or even tanks and aircraft. As anarchists we need to realise that in order to protect ourselves we too will need to apply force in such instances to defend what we are trying to create and I think many anarchists shy away from this. That's understandable. Malcolm X said in speech concerning the KKK "we have to learn to speak their language, so they can understand us, and there's a few things we'd like to say".
Nov 2 2009 10:38
#12
As Joseph says, dead people are dead, so "freedom" for them is meaningless.
On your example of small businessmen, while the first thing is if they are employing other people, then it is not their hard work that has made them successful, but largely the work of their employees.
If they are just self-employed, and don't employ anyone, then basically they're probably in the same position as most workers anyway - or possibly worse as they won't have protections like annual leave, sick leave, etc.
Finally, if like many capitalists they actually perform work in their enterprises as well, then this won't be taken away from them necessarily. They could continue working there if they wished, but would no longer have any economic insecurity which might compel them to. Many capitalists currently are compelled to work incredibly long hours - this would no longer be the case. Furthermore, all useless sectors of the economy would be eliminated, thus freeing large numbers of people, including bosses, from their useless toil.
So okay, some people would lose their third/fourth/fifth homes and private jets, but they will no longer have to to be slaves to the rat race in which they're as trapped in as the rest of us.
Nov 2 2009 13:17
#13
Quote:
Why should someone like the 'self-made' be treated 'fairly'. The issue is certainly not 'emotive'.
Ok, and here is the crux. You don't see it as emotive. But to give an example of myself. I work in a small technology company of 10, we offer IT solutions for digital pen and paper to businesses. I enjoy the job, I do graphic design and web development. The boss pays me a salary I'm perfectly happy with, which I deem is fair and non exploitative for the work that I do. I like my boss, he works a lot harder then I do, he works all day, doesn't take lunch and a lot in the evenings as well. He worked for 5 years with great determination and effort to build up the business. I've worked there 8 months. So if we transfered to a anarchist society, I think I would feel a little guilty and unjustified in taking all the perks he's worked so hard for away from him. Now I'm not saying the ends don't justify the means. But I am saying there would be injustice in taking that business away from my poor old boss, I didn't earn or deserve a share in that business (I mean seriously, I'm procrastinating in an anarchist forum while I'm AT WORK). So for me, in my situation, from my perspective, it would be a emotive. Even though, as we I'm sure we all agree, that this isn't a representative of a lot that goes on under capitalism, there will still inevitable be plenty of injustice in such a transfer.
Quote:
"we have to learn to speak their language, so they can understand us, and there's a few things we'd like to say".
I do agree there would inevitably be violence in a transition, it's something I am trying to reconcile. Again, it comes down to utilitarianism.
Quote:
The Spanish experiment tells us to be careful about potential allies
Serious cash would be required to garner influence though. Could anarchists afford to be choosy about who they allied with? It would be no easy undertaking. For a start, they'd have to be powerful, well funded and aggressive lobby groups. The media alone would be a major and costly barrier. Most outlets simply recycle news stories from centralised wire agenies like the Press Association and Reuters, or PR material. They just report what's said, with no time to investigate whether it's true or not, mostly the voices of the wealthy and powerful, as they are the ones who can afford the lobbying and public relations required to push their stories through. Also governments, and the mainstream political class in general get attention by default, and they also have plenty to spend on public relations. Lack of quality localised investigative journalism in the media is a major hurdle as it allows huge amounts of distortion and propaganda to seep through. Investigative journalism is too costly for them, it doesn't make business sense. So those with an interest in exposing truth over distortion and propaganda would have to pick up the slack and fund external investigative work to ensure transparency. All very very expensive.
Thanks for such a long and well considered reply by the way, was read with much appreciation and interest!
Quote:
Finally, if like many capitalists they actually perform work in their enterprises as well, then this won't be taken away from them necessarily. They could continue working there if they wished, but would no longer have any economic insecurity which might compel them to. Many capitalists currently are compelled to work incredibly long hours - this would no longer be the case.
I still don't think this would go anywhere near to balancing out the injustice imposed on my poor old boss.
Quote:
Furthermore, all useless sectors of the economy would be eliminated, thus freeing large numbers of people, including bosses, from their useless toil.
Are you imagining large parts of the financial sector, cause I am 
Quote:
As Joseph says, dead people are dead, so "freedom" for them is meaningless.
I myself couldn't give toss what was done with my body after I died, if it can help people, that makes me happy. However, others do have concerns about what happens to their bodies after they die, and would argue they want the freedom to choose what's done with them. If the default was set to opt in, there would inevitably be people that either didn't hear about the rule or didn't get round to or get a chance to declare their opt out status. It could be argued that that is an injustice. I don't personally think it is an injustice, but then there are plenty of people with different moral stances who would say otherwise. So is it right for us to impose our morality on them for the greater good?
Nov 2 2009 13:41
#14
boognish wrote:
Quote:
Finally, if like many capitalists they actually perform work in their enterprises as well, then this won't be taken away from them necessarily. They could continue working there if they wished, but would no longer have any economic insecurity which might compel them to. Many capitalists currently are compelled to work incredibly long hours - this would no longer be the case.I still don't think this would go anywhere near to balancing out the injustice imposed on my poor old boss.
what exactly do you think is going to happen to your boss? What would he lose? He could continue doing the same work if he wanted to (apart from bossing others around if they didn't elect to keep him). He would have economic security. So what "injustice" is he suffering?
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, all useless sectors of the economy would be eliminated, thus freeing large numbers of people, including bosses, from their useless toil.Are you imagining large parts of the financial sector, cause I am
yes, as well as things like marketing, insurance, sales, manufacturing with planned obsolescence etc
Quote:
Quote:
As Joseph says, dead people are dead, so "freedom" for them is meaningless.I myself couldn't give toss what was done with my body after I died, if it can help people, that makes me happy. However, others do have concerns about what happens to their bodies after they die, and would argue they want the freedom to choose what's done with them. If the default was set to opt in, there would inevitably be people that either didn't hear about the rule or didn't get round to or get a chance to declare their opt out status. It could be argued that that is an injustice. I don't personally think it is an injustice, but then there are plenty of people with different moral stances who would say otherwise. So is it right for us to impose our morality on them for the greater good?
you're just being petty here - if people can opt out then their freedom is not being impinged in any way. If they don't care enough to opt out then obviously they're not fussed about it.
Nov 2 2009 15:39
#15
Quote:
He would have economic security. So what "injustice" is he suffering?
In his case, the new economic system would be denying him much of the (arguably deserved) wealth he'd have otherwise obtained for all his previous hard work and drive under the old system. There are perks to his current situation that transcend simply economic security.
Quote:
you're just being petty here - if people can opt out then their freedom is not being impinged in any way. If they don't care enough to opt out then obviously they're not fussed about it.
I'm not being petty, I'm simply stating there would be inevitable fallout with the reform you propose. For instance, people care about their teeth, but there's plenty who don't bother sorting out an NHS dentist until the day they get an unbearable abscess. Putting an administrative barrier between a person and their freedom to choose what happens there body when they die would have inevitable issues. If someone is killed in a accident and hasn't opted out of the donor system, there's no way of truly knowing if it would have been their wish, whether it's through lack of awareness of the rule or not having chance to opt out. The assumption can't simply be made that they didn't care enough if they didn't opt out. You or I may find having our organs removed from our body after death trivial, but others do not. Has this reform ever been raised in national debate? If so, what were the arguments?
Nov 2 2009 15:49
#16
boognish wrote:
In his case, the new economic system would be denying him much of the (arguably deserved) wealth he'd have otherwise obtained for all his previous hard work and drive under the old system.
it'd be kinda quaint to see capitalists taking refuge behind the labour theory of value, but the whole point of being a capitalist is that your wealth isn't simply the product of your hard work. i don't doubt that the former masters of the would feel agrieved by expropriation. neither do i care.
boognish wrote:
You or I may find having our organs removed from our body after death trivial, but others do not.
i guarantee you 100% that it doesn't bother dead people.
Nov 2 2009 16:50
#17
Boognish it seems that you're taking some sort of parecon line here (i.e participatory economics) where reward is proportional to effort. Thing is the 'wealth' in monetary value your beloved boss stands to lose is completely negated by the 'wealth' an anarchist society might offer in its place. This really is the crux and belies a lack of understanding of central anarchist tenets. That happiness, success or reward are not measured in monetary terms in anarchist economics is a given. I'm sure your boss might be happier to work less hours for example, be able to eat lunch and spend half his hours not at work but in pursuit of whatever it is that tickles his fancy.The new economic system is denying him nothing but offering him far more and for less effort. Your arguement is a bit of a non-starter really.
Yes force will be necessary to achieve our aims. I don't like the word violence and find it inappropriate. The word force is more accurate. A lot of anarchists particularly of the liberal pacifist traditon refuse to see that nonviolence (nonforce) as a central tactic is playing into the hands of the state. As I've often said - look at the run up to the invasion of Afghanistan? Estimates vary that 1-2 million marched through London along pre-ordained routes, made a fuss and went home. Where was the threat? Especially when the decision had already been taken? Current protest in the UK is nothing more than token gesturism and is designed so by law to render it ineffective while at the same time allows the UK to boast to China et al how really liberal it is.
Nov 2 2009 16:57
#18
There are things he's being rewarded for other then simply hard work. In order to differentiate his company from the competition, he invested lots of his own money creating bespoke software that can used easily by anyone to create digital forms that can then be printed out and used with digital pens. It was a speculative innovation which makes it cheaper for businesses and our company as it reduces the need for future labour costs by specialists creating the digital forms in more complex ways. He speculated with his own money and used his ingenuity to improve the service and grow the business, as well simply putting in the hours. Is it fair that his previous contribution isn't taken into account when transferring to an anarchist society? There isn't in many instances a separation between those who innovate and work hard and those who capitalise the venture. How is this reconciled, other then by simply accepting it as collateral damage?
Quote:
i guarantee you 100% that it doesn't bother dead people.
Hehe haha 
It could be argued it's about respecting peoples wishes, which couldn't be guaranteed with a default opt in system. Personally I think the ends would justify the means. But I can't guarantee I'm being morally objective as I don't have any issue with what's done with my body when I'm dead, others might look at things differently and have objections. If there was a national democratic decision which went against my own moral stance, I'd accept it and not wish to impose my own.
Nov 2 2009 17:31
#19
Quote:
That happiness, success or reward are not measured in monetary terms in anarchist economics is a given.
No I do personally subscribe to this notion, however is it morally right to decide this is how it's going to be for my boss? He worked as hard as he did, in part, for the of promise of material wealth. Is it for me and others to say, no you've got it all wrong, money can't buy you happiness, so we'll take that away from you. This is what's going to make you happy instead. For a start, he's got a fit wife, and he weighs about 20 stone, I'm sure his material wealth has something to do with it. As vacuous as that may seem, he does seem pretty chipper with his lot.
Nov 2 2009 17:55
#20
Quote:
however is it morally right to decide this is how it's going to be for my boss?
who decided that you must sell your labor-power or starve to death? were you ever given a choice in the matter? were any of us?
i think it would help you to take an imaginative leap here and stop thinking about a future anarchist society in the same terms as current class society. all your emphasis on 'morality' is predicated on the logic of capitalism, a logic that must be dispensed with after capital's abolition.
Nov 2 2009 18:13
#21
You still haven't said what it is he will supposedly lose. His wife?!
Just what is it you think will be taken away from him? Okay, so any money in the bank will become worthless, but money inherently isn't worth anything - only the objects it can purchase have any use. And in an economy based on "to each according to need" he will have everything he needs.
If you mean he owns several houses now, while 400,000 people in the UK are homeless, then okay he will lose the extra ones. But who cares about that?
Nov 2 2009 19:31
#22
Quote:
i think it would help you to take an imaginative leap here and stop thinking about a future anarchist society in the same terms as current class society. all your emphasis on 'morality' is predicated on the logic of capitalism, a logic that must be dispensed with after capital's abolition.
Why must the logic be dispensed? For convenience? The greater good? I'm looking at the moral implications of the transition between capitalism and anarchism, the fallout from such a transition. I can't see much issue with anarchism when looked at as an isolated ideal, and think the more just anarchist society ends probably do justify the means of transition. However that doesn't mean to say I believe its without its moral issues. If a person starts up a company, and works hard, takes strides in innovation, all under the assumption they'll be rewarded with material wealth for that, then society turns round and says sorry, rules of the game have changed, your not going to be rewarded for that anymore, it's for the greater good you understand, we've decided it probably won't make you happy anyway, is it fair on that person? Are they really being done a favour looking at the situation through their eyes?
Quote:
Just what is it you think will be taken away from him?
Essentially his future purchasing power, and yeah, I guess along with it probably his wife. Poor boss He might understandably argue he's entitled to that future purchasing power, being as he went through a hell of a lot to get to the point he's at, and brought huge innovations to the technology. The solution we provide in itself saves huge amounts on labour for business, namely administrative data input. So rather then say a council having its social workers wasting time, retyping data into a computer they've written on normal paper, they write on paper that has a digital pattern printed on it, and use a digital pen (essentially a biro with a miniature camera), which reads the pen stokes using the printed pattern, the information is then sent to a mobile, converted to computer text using handwriting recognition, then the information is automatically entered into a central database. On average this saves a social worker 12 hours in their working week from doing data input, and saves the council a fortune. This is clearly a valuable contribution to society, both anarchist and capitalist. However under the capitalist system, for his efforts and ingenuity, the boss was promised a reward of material wealth and likelihood of a decent future purchasing power, having built up a good reputation and superior service, bringing the improved technology to the public and private sector. That promise would then be broken with the transition to an anarchist society. Is that broken promise fair on him, even if it is for the greater good?
Nov 2 2009 21:01
#23
Quote:
Why must the logic be dispensed? For convenience? The greater good?
you're doing a good job of answering those questions yourself. the logic of capital emerges from a historically specific mode of social organization. the moral questions you're raising are a direct reflection of liberal ideology and will have no bearing on a post-capitalist society. to wit:
Quote:
If a person starts up a company, and works hard, takes strides in innovation, all under the assumption they'll be rewarded with material wealth
the way you phrase this it appears as though the entrepreneur is a sort of genius robinson crusoe figure who magically creates value out of nothing but individual innovation. this totally ignores the social aspect of value production under capitalism.
here is another way to phrase the above:
Quote:
If an individual capitalist starts up a company, buys means of production and labor-power, takes technological and organizational strides in increasing the productivity of living labor, all under the assumption that they'll accumulate surplus value through the exploitation of workers
from this perspective, it is entirely fair to stop this person from doing what he is doing. indeed, it is moral.
the logic of capital (whose worldview you seem to be stuck in) must be dispensed with not for convenience or the greater good, but because it will fail to reflect a future society where production is not dictated by the market, but by self-organized workers and the principle, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."
Nov 3 2009 00:40
#24
I understand that the logic of capital *can't* actually have a bearing on a post capitalist society. My personal worldview isn't stuck there. I'm simply pointing out a moral issue apparent in transition from capitalism that can't be reconciled. My boss undertook the business under the assumption of future reward for his efforts, under the logic of capital, it was the driving force for his efforts. That he'd accumulate surplus value from workers he'd organised yes, but also as a product of a significant amount of his own hard work and ingenuity, bundled with the risk and stress he endured initially. He went through that for the promise of reward, a reward he can no longer attain in a post-capitalist society. There must be a point for which what some business owners are doing isn't exploiting in the sense that workers are being taking advantage of, but simply in the sense that their skills are being utilised. If, for example, the material reward for a business owners time, ingenuity, risk and stress endured, as viewed by the workers under the current system of capitalism, is proportionally fair to what they are being being paid themselves for their time and effort. And there lies the moral dilemma that can't be reconciled. That he only made the colossal effort to start the business for the material rewards, even though he wasn't deemed to be particularly exploitative under the system of capitalism, is now being told the rules have changed and can't have material rewards, as society deemed that in order to create a fairer society, the new economic system would entail that reward is no longer proportional to effort - that's a raw deal for the man who put in a mammoth effort for years, on the assumption that reward is proportional to effort, especially when he has only more recently starting to see those rewards.
Nov 3 2009 00:56
#25
I posted something here but got locked out an accident new post a response to another thread. So here's my post again:
You still haven't answered my question as to what it is your boss would actually lose. Because the idea of "future purchasing power" is meaningless in a moneyless economy based on the principle of " to each according to need".
Unless, like I said he has got multiple additional homes, but when 400,000 people homeless who is going to cry about that?
Nov 3 2009 03:21
#26
Hi Boognish-
Let me give you a counter example. My dad just retired so I put together a short movie retrospective. I spent between 50-60 hours working on the movie. If this were on the open market the work would be worth probably $4-$5K but never once did I think about how I wasn't getting paid for the work. Nor did I care if I got any more acknowledgment for my work than my siblings who appeared in the movie but only put in about an hour or so each; I just happen to have different abilities than my siblings. What mattered and the reward for this hard work was seeing my pops tear up while watching it and knowing I had done a good job. The point isn't that I'm altruistic or that I love my dad anymore than anyone else. In fact, it's just the opposite.
People do things like this all the time whether it is by bringing food for a party, cooking dinner for a neighbor who has lost a loved one, or helping a friend move. These seemingly mundane acts that happen daily are an example of what communist behavior looks like.
Nov 3 2009 03:46
#27
Quote:
He might understandably argue he's entitled to that future purchasing power, being as he went through a hell of a lot to get to the point he's at, and brought huge innovations to the technology.
This came about through unearned privilege. An unlimited number of people who work just as hard/harder but will never achieve this position. Ideas/knowledge etc are social, many people have great ideas that could improve society immensely but lack the privilege and resources to be able to implement them.
Nov 3 2009 11:46
#28
Quote:
You still haven't answered my question as to what it is your boss would actually lose. Because the idea of "future purchasing power" is meaningless in a moneyless economy based on the principle of " to each according to need".
This assumes of course, for him to not materially loose out, that production and consumption would increase to the point so high that everyone in society could consume what my boss could have consumed with his purchasing power under the capitalist system. I'm yet to be convinced this would be the case, and the reason for this is related to another issue I brought up on post 1...
Quote:
It's unlikely a coordinated global revolution would occur, meaning an anarchist society would have to exist within the context of an otherwise capitalist globalised world. With this comes coercion. Look at what happened with the foreign coercion from the soviets in Spain in the thirties. How would the inevitable coercion be addressed? I don't say inevitable lightly, a radical economic system such as anarchism would be be an immediate threat to capitalist states and their interests. Military, economic, and diplomatic strategies would likely be implemented to temper its success and influence. The society would have to engage with the rest of the world, it couldn't be insular and self sufficient, it would likely need outside food and energy at the very least, it would need to trade with the rest of the world to ensure any kind of reasonable quality of life for it's citizens. With this comes coercion and compromise. Also what would become of government bonds, what would happen with public debt owed to to foreign lenders? The collectivised economic reforms would certainly not be for the benefit of foreign lenders or the government bond owners. This would be yet another incentive for foreign coercion. Also what about foreign businesses resident in the newly revolutionary society? How could they be collectivised if they are centrally controlled elsewhere?
and related to back2fronts response...
Quote:
As anarchist society would be self-sustaining economic bullying from those outside in the old capitalist world would not be an issue.
In a self-sustained, economic bubble, restricted within a geographic area, the ability to increase production would be severely restricted. Assess to outside foreign resources would be next to impossible. Look at what happened to Cuba after the fall of the Soviet Union - Loss of more than 50 percent of its oil imports, much of its food and 85 percent of its trade economy. Transportation halted, people went hungry and the average Cuban lost 30 pounds. How can this be prevented?
Jweiner, I'm not debating that a reward system is *required* for a society to function, I understand the social philosophy behind communist behaviour and I believe it's valid. I'll give an example away from the world of work to try and put across what I'm trying to say;
Your a parent, and you tell you 9 year old son that if he tidies his room, behaves when his Grandma visits later, and does all his homework, then you'll cook his favourite dinner later and buy ice cream for after. The parameters have been set for the deal, the dynamic of the relationship in place. So he goes and does what you requested, his rooms immaculate, he's a little angel with his Grandma and does his homework. Then it comes to dinnertime, and you say actually we're not having you favourite dinner and ice cream, you really shouldn't need a reward to do those things, you should want to do them regardless, there are kids your age who are starving in this world, me cooking your favourite dinner would be an unearned privilege. Your moral stance has changed, what your saying is valid, put the poor kid did all that stuff with enthusiasm and great effort for the reward, under the assumption of a completely different set of moral values. Is it fair on the kid? Well from my perspective the answer is no. However this injustice can't be reconciled. But if I continue raising him with the new moral stance, and he grows up to be a better human being for it, I'm all for it.
Nov 3 2009 12:09
#29
boognish wrote:
This assumes of course, for him to not materially loose out, that production and consumption would increase to the point so high that everyone in society could consume what my boss could have consumed with his purchasing power under the capitalist system.
no it's entirely possible that today's bosses would be worse off under communism because they couldn't live off the labour of others. boo fucking hoo. that's why i expect most bosses and their mercenaries to be on the other side of the barricades. i'm really not sure what you're getting at? it's not 'fair' to expropriate the bosses? well it's not 'fair' that i have to sell my labour or jump through hoops for the dole in order to live. i mean slave owners were quite possibly worse off for the abolition of slavery. so what?
Nov 3 2009 12:29
#30
boognish a couple of points
Exploitation means that workers are paid less than the value of there labour, this is where the bosses profits come from. It has nothing to do with if you feel exploited of not, if some one employs you then they are getting more value out of your labour than what they give you back.
I never agreed to give your boss anything if they would innovate or whatever, and as far as i know no one else did either. So why should I care about some arrangement i never supported in the first place?
And also anything he employed someone else to do wasn't his own work, even if he had the idea in the first place
I guess it could be perceived as theft by someone who has an interest in maintaining capitalist property rights. This sounds like theft to me though.
I would imagine that people in sub-standard or overcrowded housing would take possession of the many empty homes and buildings. Area councils would probably assess what homes exist in their area and match homeless or improperly housed people to them. You could probably sort most people out just by seizing second homes and the assets of property developers.