Whoever said they're aiming for complete equality anyway?
There can never be such a thing as complete equality
Quote:
Complete equality is an unstable equilibrium, like a ping-pong ball balanced on the tip of your erect nipple/penis
I love it when people use symbolic language to avoid any actual reasoning. Its great, cos the symbol can be convincing, and thereby convince one to make a similar judgement of that to which the symbol applies, even when there is no logical connection between the two. Can you explain the problem with equality without using analogies?
undercomer wrote:
Either in terms of wealth or power. Complete equality is an unstable equilibrium, like a ping-pong ball balanced on the tip of your erect nipple/penis (delete as appropriate).
So how can a future anarchisty system re-adjust the distribution of wealth/power without creating an uberstructure to perform the task? It doesn't seem possible that people's revolutionised attitudes alone will ensure the task is performed spontaneously, since that would require a uniformity of attitudes that even Mao couldn't produce. So how?It's always bothered me, this question, so any help appreciated.
From my perspective, I don't forsee "complete equality" in a future with anarchism. First off wealth/political power are not the only means of power. Many people have powerfull personalities that inable them to manipulate people, many people are involved in un-equal relations with friends and lovers and so on. No revolution will ever rid the world of that shit, those situations are personal problems and should be dealt with individually. In other words its up to you to liberate (if you even want too??) yourself from those type of people.
In terms of wealth (substitute material goods) I also don't forsee "complete equality" in a future operating anarcho-communisticly. If it were a time of plenty in our little land of make believe, I would hope that people get the goods according to need, not some subjective "equality". Please take exception to dire situations requiring rationing of the basics.
For the record, I'm the southwest-montana regional champ at the ping-pong ball penis balance 3 years in a row. To climb to the top like I have you have to have a very stable equilibrium. So I'm afraid your analogy only served to confuse...
sam sanchez wrote:
Quote:
Complete equality is an unstable equilibrium, like a ping-pong ball balanced on the tip of your erect nipple/penisI love it when people use symbolic language to avoid any actual reasoning. Its great, cos the symbol can be convincing, and thereby convince one to make a similar judgement of that to which the symbol applies, even when there is no logical connection between the two. Can you explain the problem with equality without using analogies?
Thats not symbolic logic.
undercover wrote:
sam sanchez I think that even under anarchism inequality will tend to feed back on itself to increase itself - i.e. those with more power will act, consciously or not, to increase that power - which is why I reckon there needs to be 're-adjustment mechanisms'.
So, you speak of the socialist state? As a Trotskyist, I believe that we should have a transitory phase before communism where a state would exist if only temporarily. Perhaps a generation or two, where the workers' state would begin to form a new human being. This human being would be adjusted to communal life and whose very nature would be even more inclined to co-operation than ours today.
Of course, however, Stalinists corrupted the Soviet Union before us and I fear it may happen again, lest a separate organisation is there to keep the socialist government in check. A separate anarchist movement, for instance, that would co-exist with the socialist state. Ideally, it would help keep it untainted by Stalinist or Maoist factors, as well as show a working example of a de-centralised anarcho-communist society.
Niemand1917 wrote:
where the workers' state would begin to form a new human being. This human being would be adjusted to communal life and whose very nature would be even more inclined to co-operation than ours today.
Niemand1917 wrote:
Of course, however, Stalinists corrupted the Soviet Union before us and I fear it may happen again, lest a separate organisation is there to keep the socialist government in check. A separate anarchist movement, for instance, that would co-exist with the socialist state. Ideally, it would help keep it untainted by Stalinist or Maoist factors, as well as show a working example of a de-centralised anarcho-communist society.
doesn't the fact the world's first actual trotskyist state co-run by the man himself crushed the anarchist movement and massacred workers organising anarchistically suggest a flaw in this arrangement?
Quote:
So how can a future anarchisty system re-adjust the distribution of wealth/power without creating an uberstructure to perform the task?
But anarchists often do advocate this, such as via anarcho-syndicalism. We just don’t think handing individuals the power to do whatever the hell they like in hierarchical institutions is a good idea because it tends to rely on everyone in charge being lovely and wise and kind not only before but also after they’ve exercised that power for a while.
Which is about as likely as balancing a ping-pong ball on your nipple.
Basically you’ve got things arse-up, anarchists are the cycnical ones, we don’t think anyone’s inherently trustworthy.
Tacks wrote:
I know what inequality is, but i have no conception of what equality would look like.
me neither, and that's important, because:
1: some people claim they do have such a conception, and they must be lying, but are willing to engage in any physical and rhetorical railroading of others to get there;
2: if we (here, the types on this board) want to work towards economic (and/or social) structures of maximum possible latitude, we've got to move towards visible/imaginable structures first
It should be noted that anarchists do not advocate absolute equality any more than they do absolute freedom.
A free society will see a great diversity of consumption patterns -- there would be equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome.
As far as social equality goes, there would be differences in expertise, knowledge and influence -- there would be equality of opportunity to express your ideas but no equality in terms of the outcome of that process (people may just no agree with you).
What it will not see is some people being in positions of power over others and so forcing people to accept what they say. Unless you can convince them to follow your suggestions, they will ignore you.
As for the Trotskyist notion that we need inequality of power to abolish inequality of power, well, history has shown that Bakunin was right rather than Marx.
This is all discussed in "An Anarchist FAQ" (www.anarchistfaq.org). To be honest, this whole thread seems to be a straw man argument.
Iain
An Anarchist FAQ
Joseph K. wrote:
Niemand1917 wrote:
where the workers' state would begin to form a new human being. This human being would be adjusted to communal life and whose very nature would be even more inclined to co-operation than ours today.
All right, maybe that sounded way too insane. In retrospect, I should've re-worded it to the effect that if human nature does indeed exist and is changable, then it will be changed by not only the socialist state, but the armed working class as well. To prepare humanity for anarchy.
Joseph K. wrote:
Niemand1917 wrote:
Of course, however, Stalinists corrupted the Soviet Union before us and I fear it may happen again, lest a separate organisation is there to keep the socialist government in check. A separate anarchist movement, for instance, that would co-exist with the socialist state. Ideally, it would help keep it untainted by Stalinist or Maoist factors, as well as show a working example of a de-centralised anarcho-communist society.doesn't the fact the world's first actual trotskyist state co-run by the man himself crushed the anarchist movement and massacred workers organising anarchistically suggest a flaw in this arrangement?
Well, obviously I don't agree with everything Trotsky did and believed in and I think that he was quite wrong in doing so. And, the Soviet Union (Soviet Federation during the truly socialist era) didn't last that long as a Bolshevik-Leninist state seeing as how Stalin fucked everything up.
Niemand1917 wrote:
And, the Soviet Union (Soviet Federation during the truly socialist era) didn't last that long as a Bolshevik-Leninist state seeing as how Stalin fucked everything up.
The Bolsheviks forcibly requisitioned food and goods, ordered the shooting of strikers, brought in strict centralised control and state monopoly way before Stalin came along. So how can that ever be called a 'socialist era'?
Niemand1917 wrote:
So, you speak of the socialist state? As a Trotskyist, I believe that we should have a transitory phase before communism where a state would exist if only temporarily. Perhaps a generation or two, where the workers' state would begin to form a new human being.
Really? Just another generation or two of the state, no prob bob...
Quote:
This human being would be adjusted to communal life and whose very nature would be even more inclined to co-operation than ours today.
Only after you unplug him from the trotsky matrix and pull em' outta that crazy tube filled with green liquid.
Quote:
Of course, however, Stalinists corrupted the Soviet Union before us and I fear it may happen again, lest a separate organisation is there to keep the socialist government in check. A separate anarchist movement, for instance, that would co-exist with the socialist state. Ideally, it would help keep it untainted by Stalinist or Maoist factors, as well as show a working example of a de-centralised anarcho-communist society.
But seriouslly now. Could you please explain how a socialist government and a ligit anarchist movement could possible co-exist? It seems to me that a ligit anarcho-movement would from the states point of view would make stalinism or maoism more and more neccessary, considering that the anarchos would pose a descent enough threat. Let the purging BEGIN!
Niemand1917 wrote:
Joseph K. wrote:
Niemand1917 wrote:
Of course, however, Stalinists corrupted the Soviet Union before us and I fear it may happen again, lest a separate organisation is there to keep the socialist government in check. A separate anarchist movement, for instance, that would co-exist with the socialist state. Ideally, it would help keep it untainted by Stalinist or Maoist factors, as well as show a working example of a de-centralised anarcho-communist society.doesn't the fact the world's first actual trotskyist state co-run by the man himself crushed the anarchist movement and massacred workers organising anarchistically suggest a flaw in this arrangement?
Well, obviously I don't agree with everything Trotsky did and believed in and I think that he was quite wrong in doing so. And, the Soviet Union (Soviet Federation during the truly socialist era) didn't last that long as a Bolshevik-Leninist state seeing as how Stalin fucked everything up.
it was fucked up way before Stalin. Lenin and Trotsky were shooting revolutionary workers down like partridges by 1921. there was an excellent discussion of Kronstadt on the backup forums between a trotskyist and some anarchists and a left-communist which goes into more detail: http://www.punkt.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=111
Quote:
I love it when people use symbolic language to avoid any actual reasoning. Its great, cos the symbol can be convincing, and thereby convince one to make a similar judgement of that to which the symbol applies, even when there is no logical connection between the two. Can you explain the problem with equality without using analogies?
"Symbols are given power by people and often the representation of a symbol can inspire more action than a black and white book entitled -Truth"
Hmmm, equality eh? It depends on what level you're talking about, 100% of the world can't be millionaires and buy gold plated shoes because for every 1% who live this way, they subject the other 99% to slavery.
On the other hand, equality is given by the population only "consuming" the goods or services that they need to live and be content. Enough food to satisfy a family, fairly based on the number of people per household and their situations.
Labour credits in credit card form given equaly to each worker; if a worker supports a family, i.e children not of working age or in training, then that worker is given more "credits" to satisfy the needs of his or her family. If a mother stays at home to look after the family, then she is given "credits" as well.
I need a lot more time to go into this... and will do soon.
But from what you've read, any thoughts?
undercover wrote:
So how can a future anarchisty system re-adjust the distribution of wealth/power without creating an uberstructure to perform the task?
I think perhaps this is the wrong precedent for the question. Would not equality be acheived, not by redistributing wealth/power, but by doing away with it altogether? I'd like to relate this to the last but one post regarding the Credits system. I like the idea somewhat, but wouldn't it be much simpler, and much fairer to give nobody any credits on the basis that they won't need them? I mean to say that if every man, woman and child is provided with precisely what they need (though this thought isn't very far developed so what these needs are I'm unsure of) and any surplus service is readily and freely available, there is no need for any other form of "possession".
If I've missed a step in my logic and gotten it a bit arse upwards then somebody correct me quickly please!
Either in terms of wealth or power. Complete equality is an unstable equilibrium, like a ping-pong ball balanced on the tip of your erect nipple/penis (delete as appropriate).
So how can a future anarchisty system re-adjust the distribution of wealth/power without creating an uberstructure to perform the task? It doesn't seem possible that people's revolutionised attitudes alone will ensure the task is performed spontaneously, since that would require a uniformity of attitudes that even Mao couldn't produce. So how?
It's always bothered me, this question, so any help appreciated.