The Learning Curve

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Dec 10 2015 21:47
The Learning Curve

I envisage this will be a work in progress as I hone my theory.

I'm no expert in anarchist theory. In fact, as I write, I'm not 100% convinced for anarchism, though I am avowedly anticapitalist.

I get the feeling that a lot of the theory struggles in the face of the reality of human nature and, as there's no way to put it to the test currently, is based on assumptions - reasonable or otherwise.

So I struggle, especially in conversation with others, to convince people that anarchism can trump human nature: how do we deal with the need for laws/regulations to prevent bad behaviour or antisocial behaviour on any level?

Also in the modern world, with its technology and global society, how big would an anarchist society be? Would Britain be a single Anarchist community, would it comprise a number of anarchist communities on the island landmass? How would they function in the context of a global society?

That's all for now.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Dec 10 2015 22:34

What do you mean by human nature? Why would you want to trump it? Surely folk are happier without someone banging them on the head and telling them to conform?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Dec 11 2015 05:28
Quote:
I struggle, especially in conversation with others, to convince people that anarchism can trump human nature:

Just on this, I'll link you to something I wrote on another thread:

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/how-respond-darwinist-capitalist-argumen...

But the gist of it is that, in the absence of a lived experience of solidarity, I don't think any amount of debate will beat the human nature argument. If you've experienced, say, hundreds or thousands of people taking a risk to support another person or another group or people, that's the kind of thing that I think will change people's mind.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Dec 11 2015 09:12

I believe that contrary to what Marx thought, after several thousand years of irrational, authoritarian, patriarchal, mechanistic conditioning, the social irresponsibility and worship of power I see around me is not only reflected in people's inner, psychic world, but has long since been carved into our biology. I'm going through a bit of weird time at the moment though, so don't take this as the voice of authority or anything.. For example, people's body language has become very pronounced to me all of a sudden, they seem very machine-like in their thinking, feeling and in the rigidity of their movements and speech, very unnatural, not like they should be, not in keeping with my intuition of what their 'nature' should look like externally. They look frightened, like trapped animals. Human nature is not what it used to be.

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Dec 11 2015 09:24
Auld-bod wrote:
What do you mean by human nature? Why would you want to trump it? Surely folk are happier without someone banging them on the head and telling them to conform?

I'm talking about greed and ambition.

Especially when times get tough: what happens when the resources run dry or something goes wrong?

If we do away with money what happens when we haven't enough to trade with for example?

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Dec 11 2015 09:27
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Quote:
I struggle, especially in conversation with others, to convince people that anarchism can trump human nature:

Just on this, I'll link you to something I wrote on another thread:

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/how-respond-darwinist-capitalist-argumen...

But the gist of it is that, in the absence of a lived experience of solidarity, I don't think any amount of debate will beat the human nature argument. If you've experienced, say, hundreds or thousands of people taking a risk to support another person or another group or people, that's the kind of thing that I think will change people's mind.

What about the size of an anarchist community? Would they be the size of exiusting countries or states? For example, would one anarchist community comprise the entirety of the British Isles, replacing Great Britain?

One of the arguments put against anarchy was that people need an authority and that the size of a society (hence the question above) requires some form of centralised state to administer how things get done.

What about those within who do not wish to participate?

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Dec 11 2015 09:53

In order to ensure that irrational behaviours like greed don't get in the way, you'd really need to eradicate the methods of social conditioning leading to them. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to attempt to construct anarchist communism in a federated arrangement or whatever in a few hours with the current flavour of people, unless your goal was brutal failure. It's about education not just formal structures or mass, and that takes time. If people still feel that they need authority, centralised or otherwise, you're on a loser. By 'trade' do you mean try to rip each other off? Why would people want to trade that which was freely available to them?

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Dec 11 2015 10:17

But stuff isn't freely available, it is limited by location, accessibility and the means to acquire and shape it. If I want a computer, someone has to construct it. If a lot of people want computers then we have production lines and people manning them in soul destroying alienating production line jobs. Those people also need the resources necessary to build them, which may require parts from all over the planet. Someone would also need the skill to design the machine and its software, which requires knowledge and thus authority.

Barter is all well and good, but how can it work in the world of today? It's all well and good when I have 10 apples and you 10 oranges and we want to swap half for half, but what happens when my apples don't blossom? Then we need money as a medium of exchange.

What happens when people need to defend themselves from crime? Do we end up like the US with guns everywhere? We can't unmake that technology and so people will have to arm themselves and thus submit to authority regulating them (in case they suffer mental health problems for example). Who makes the guns? Who regulates them? What happens to people that don't want to carry guns, like me. In Britain guns aren't carried and if that ever changed I would no longer want to live in that society.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Dec 11 2015 16:59

Factvalue #4
I’m sorry you sound as if you’re in a bad place at the moment. I’ve had a couple of periods when the best part of my day was getting into bed and being warm. It did pass.

Ghost Whistler #5

I think greed and ambition are part of the human make up. Our society exaggerates and encourages these tendencies. However we are a multiple of personality traits. We show different parts of ourselves to different people, family, friends, etc.

What I find amazing is how helpful people are, even to strangers, after two hundred years of capitalist alienation from our cooperative selves. We thrive cooperatively, which is a reason human beings were historically successful at surviving in a hostile environment.

You are right about the problem of limited resources - that is the ‘fly in the utopian ointment’. A strong argument runs like this: capitalism has expanded the means of production to the point where all basic human needs can be met. Because capitalism is based on the never ending drive to create profit it can never satisfy these needs. The main reason why this is impossible is that every time it over-produces a product the price collapses and with that the profit. Production of the commodity ceases until it again becomes profitable as there is a demand for it. Boom-bust. Boom-bust

Capitalism and the market must go or humanity is doomed to this never ending cycle. Capitalists are not stupid so they seek to generate scarcity by expanding the market with new consumables or when necessary a war to capture the international market/resources. But hey, it is simpler just to say we have ourselves to blame – it’s our nature!

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Dec 11 2015 11:04

I agree about capitalism, but I don't see how anarchism is the answer. I don't see how you can avoid either creating or needing a state of some kind. I'm not even sure i'd want to do away with the state entirely nor do I believe a positive version of such can't exist. I'm not convinced of that yet. Society needs some form of regulation in some areas.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Dec 11 2015 12:08
Quote:
But stuff isn't freely available, it is limited by location, accessibility and the means to acquire and shape it. If I want a computer, someone has to construct it. If a lot of people want computers then we have production lines and people manning them in soul destroying alienating production line jobs. Those people also need the resources necessary to build them, which may require parts from all over the planet. Someone would also need the skill to design the machine and its software, which requires knowledge and thus authority.

I don't understand this. In an anarchist communist arrangement, the stuff of society would be made freely available, removed from the influence of money, which is one of the pivotal techniques currently in use to prevent each new generation from liberating itself. Power as ability is not the same as power as irrational dictatorship. How does the ability to create machinery automatically imply the irrational authority to hinder and abuse the self-regulation of human beings? You seem to be arguing that the reciprocity of a natural scientist or technologist who uses an electron microscope to create new forms of computer hardware and a metallurgist who creates its material structure, both of whom depend on the laws of physics - which are completely separate from every kind of arbitrary, authoritarian decree - can only ever mean exploitation and enslavement. I disagree. People's natural, reciprocal economic dependencies upon one another ensue spontaneously from the work itself and can only be distorted by power relationships of the kind you seem to think are somehow inevitable.

And if there weren't any apples in one of the fruit and veg buildings nearby, I'd try and make do with pears until they arrived, rather than immediately demand that we revert to the use of a money system. I don't need, nor can I remember off-hand even a fraction of the objects that I possess, the trinkets of capitalism which reward me for the time theft. I've been in the process of getting rid of them for the past few weeks. I don't need communism to maintain a consumer lifestyle, I fucking hate my consumer lifestyle and this society. I don't have an answer to your gun problem, apart from the one earlier about re-education and experimenting with new forms of life, having removed all the current hindrances to rational behaviour. Personally I believe that just as an organism grows freely because of its biological nature, an anarchist communist society of the future will also only be able to develop naturally, that it will be self-regulating, and that it can only be subverted by such legislation and dictat as you seem to require. But I also think that although people's yearning for freedom (which I'm certain still exists beneath all their irrational behaviour) can't be organised, the necessary state of affairs which would allow the free unfolding of our true natures must itself be intricately organised if this fearful capitalist prison is to be burned to the ground. But this will require more than just a re-think and destruction of the economic nightmare of the past few hundred years, because the problems aren't just economic. Concentrating exclusively on the economic aspect has been the fatal error of past efforts at fundamental change. We also need to address ourselves to how all historical authoritarian societies have cumulatively built in awe, helplessness and all other irrationality, and eradicate all of it as we unearth it, or we will forever fail to create a free society.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Dec 11 2015 14:29

Ghost Whistler #10

I wonder what you mean by a state. A nation state? A world state? With police, standing army, politicians, and laws – courts – prisons – prison guards. Why? To protect and maintain private property? How can this ever be made to work for a ‘classless society’?

Libcoms would agree that society needs to be organised - using direct democracy.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Dec 11 2015 14:37

GW, society does need regulation (or what I'd call organisation) but that's not synonymous with the state.

Quote:
Especially when times get tough: what happens when the resources run dry or something goes wrong?

I don't know, disaster communism is a thing. Sometime disasters bring out the worst in human nature, other times you see a real flourishing of solidarity - both for people involved involved in the disaster itself and those who give their time and money and labor to help the victims. And that's under capitalism!

As for selfishness and greed - I wish people were more selfish! - or, rather, self-interested. I wish people looked at how much profit they produced for their employer and got really selfish about keeping as much of that surplus as possible.

Re: People who don't want to participate. You don't choose to participate in social relations. We don't choose to participate in capitalism and if we are truly able to re-make the world, former bosses or anti-social dickheads or whatever could choose to live a life outside of the world freely shared resources by living on some sort of totally self-sufficient farm. But good luck with that.

Re: size. Federalism!

Finally, in the here and now, it's about the class struggle, fighting for as much of the wealth that we create as possible. Or, in other words, until we get to the point where we can abolish money, I want as much money as possible

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Dec 11 2015 15:40

libcom.org, 2012, Anarchism & Human Nature?

AFAQ: A.2.15 What about "human nature"?

Quote:
These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state are denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy. That modern society calls such people "savages" or "primitive" is pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is against "human nature"? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may not be.
.
As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human nature," it is often non anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For "while our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth -- the rulers, the employers, the leaders -- who, happily enough, prevent those bad men -- the ruled, the exploited, the led -- from becoming still worse than they are" we anarchists "maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority" and "both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation." So "there is [a] difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers." [Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 83] If human nature is so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.
.
Moreover, as noted, Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations bring out the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the oppressed are negatively affected by the authoritarian relationships so produced. "It is a characteristic of privilege and of every kind of privilege," argued Bakunin, "to kill the mind and heart of man . . . That is a social law which admits no exceptions . . . It is the law of equality and humanity." [God and the State, p. 31] And while the privileged become corrupted by power, the powerless (in general) become servile in heart and mind (luckily the human spirit is such that there will always be rebels no matter the oppression for where there is oppression, there is resistance and, consequently, hope). As such, it seems strange for anarchists to hear non-anarchists justify hierarchy in terms of the (distorted) "human nature" it produces.

also:
AFAQ: A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work?

A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Dec 11 2015 16:53

Yeah, GW, the anarchist FAQ is a great place to start on all these questions.

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Dec 11 2015 22:04
Auld-bod wrote:
Ghost Whistler #10

I wonder what you mean by a state. A nation state? A world state? With police, standing army, politicians, and laws – courts – prisons – prison guards. Why? To protect and maintain private property? How can this ever be made to work for a ‘classless society’?

Libcoms would agree that society needs to be organised - using direct democracy.

I think I mean government, on whatever scale.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Dec 12 2015 06:23

Ghost Whistler #16

‘I think I mean government, on whatever scale.’

Well I believe in the right of people to govern themselves. We do not need the ‘help’ of gods or masters. We should organise to help each other without the threat of being punished or rewarded by our overlords.

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Dec 12 2015 08:57
Auld-bod wrote:
Ghost Whistler #16

‘I think I mean government, on whatever scale.’

Well I believe in the right of people to govern themselves. We do not need the ‘help’ of gods or masters. We should organise to help each other without the threat of being punished or rewarded by our overlords.

Isn't that what government is meant to be?

I agree that our current government, full of capitalists, is not the ideal.

Our current form of government, with full time elected decision makers representing us (or at least they should be), is what evolved in a complex society such as we have now. Our societies are large and so need complex planning. Can decisions be made effectively if they are to involve everyone? What about the opinions of those who are expert in whatever issue is being discussed versus those who aren't?

This is why i mentioned the example of guns. Some people will want them, even if they mean well, to defend themselves and their society, but some won't. What then? How do you ensure that everyone receives adequate firearms training? How do you acquire the arms without an arms industry?

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Dec 12 2015 09:08
Chilli Sauce wrote:
GW, society does need regulation (or what I'd call organisation) but that's not synonymous with the state.

Quote:
Especially when times get tough: what happens when the resources run dry or something goes wrong?

I don't know, disaster communism is a thing. Sometime disasters bring out the worst in human nature, other times you see a real flourishing of solidarity - both for people involved involved in the disaster itself and those who give their time and money and labor to help the victims. And that's under capitalism!

As for selfishness and greed - I wish people were more selfish! - or, rather, self-interested. I wish people looked at how much profit they produced for their employer and got really selfish about keeping as much of that surplus as possible.

Re: People who don't want to participate. You don't choose to participate in social relations. We don't choose to participate in capitalism and if we are truly able to re-make the world, former bosses or anti-social dickheads or whatever could choose to live a life outside of the world freely shared resources by living on some sort of totally self-sufficient farm. But good luck with that.

Re: size. Federalism!

Finally, in the here and now, it's about the class struggle, fighting for as much of the wealth that we create as possible. Or, in other words, until we get to the point where we can abolish money, I want as much money as possible

Federalism still means a central government, like the US or Russia. THat's the problem: those are big countries, how would a small society relate to larger countries or societies? If you had an anarchist 'state' the size of one the US states, how does it deal with the outside world? Does it have an airport? If not, where do the airports get placed, or will they forego interacting with the world beyond a certain distance? Sea travel? What if you are landlocked?

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Dec 12 2015 12:16
Quote:
Isn't that what government is meant to be?

Government/the State is the shadow cast on society by the interests of the rich.

Quote:
Our current form of government, with full time elected decision makers representing us (or at least they should be), is what evolved in a complex society such as we have now. Our societies are large and so need complex planning. Can decisions be made effectively if they are to involve everyone? What about the opinions of those who are expert in whatever issue is being discussed versus those who aren't?

It doesn't represent us. How could it anyway? How could one person represent the complexity of nuanced opinion from the plethora of different positions held on all manner of issues by thousands of others in any coherent way? How can the wealth of expert talent and ability of a population of billions be utilised to greatest effect in planning by subtracting nearly all of it?

Quote:
This is why i mentioned the example of guns. Some people will want them, even if they mean well, to defend themselves and their society, but some won't. What then? How do you ensure that everyone receives adequate firearms training? How do you acquire the arms without an arms industry?

Why stop at guns, I mean if we're really going to haggle here, what about people who want to explode nuclear devices? How do we cater for their needs? I know some people won't want to, so how do we ensure that everyone has the training in quantum mechanics and engineering necessary to be able to construct a device if they need to? We're going to need schools with direct links to the arms industry and core weapons training subjects built in to their curricula.

Quote:
Federalism still means a central government, like the US or Russia. THat's the problem: those are big countries, how would a small society relate to larger countries or societies? If you had an anarchist 'state' the size of one the US states, how does it deal with the outside world? Does it have an airport? If not, where do the airports get placed, or will they forego interacting with the world beyond a certain distance? Sea travel? What if you are landlocked?

Of course federation means centralised government because that is the only kind of government that is possible or effective, I mean, come on! And countries really exist, their borders have been fixed in the lithosphere for hundreds of millions of years. Is there an outside world? I hadn't noticed. Does the outside world have adequate hand-washing facilities? What if you had a really big rubber band and catapulted anyone wanting to leave high above the ionosphere, what then eh? What if you left your keys at the bar? What happens next?

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Dec 12 2015 13:10

How would anarchy replace taxation?

We all agree that taxation shouldn't be used to fund wars and oppression,but I'm struggling with the idea that taxation is wrong in the sense that there are things surely we all agree need to be provided: hospitals and decent roads need to be built, teachers need to be trained, the elderly and the vulnerable need to be cared for etc.

Granted taxation is money taken without perhaps consent (i don't agree with the use of the word force or theft in this context, it seems facile). But do we not consent in some degree because those things such as I have mentioned are so desirable as to be necessary?

What is the difference betweeen a government and a group (or whatever you want to call it) within an anarchist society that ensures the funds for such projects get built, the resources get supplied, and the job completed?

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Dec 12 2015 13:56

GW, I've noticed that almost everyone is, to some degree, in love with capitalism. Even 'anti-capitalists'. It's easy for liberals and leftists to point out bad things about capitalism but they still can't imagine a society without it and they fear the loss of the good things, some of which you've pointed out, that they imagine government gives us. I think your questions and reasoning exhibit symptoms of this. The thing is though, that all the great things of the modern age are there in spite of capitalism, not because of it. Capital doesn't invent things, inventors do. Capital doesn't run factories, the workers do. Media and entertainment is produced by workers too although it is heavily influenced by capital.
The point is that anything that we can do now we can do under communism. A lot of things we'll do better. The pointless stuff we won't do at all. We don't need a perfect plan for post rev society, just courage, imagination and willingness.
It really surprises me that people can see the absolute failure of capitalism to provide a satisfactory material and spiritual life for its subjects along with all the war, poverty and cultural dereliction that it creates yet are still very fearful that we can't do something better.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Dec 12 2015 14:17

I think Capitan Webberino has nailed this one for me. Over and out.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Dec 12 2015 14:22

An' another thing..

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Dec 12 2015 15:03

Couple of thinks GW:

Quote:
Our current form of government, with full time elected decision makers representing us (or at least they should be)

So this, for you, might be the crux of the matter. Anarchists don't believe in or support "representative" democracy. Instead, we believe in direct democracy, which leads to the next point...

Federalism does not mean a federal government a la the US. I'm too lazy to type up a much more in-depth response, but I'd look at the structure of, say, the Solidarity Federation or the Anarchist Federation to see what anarchists mean when they say direct democracy or federalism.

Re: Taxation. When you've abolished money and all the necessities of life are freely available and any scarce items rationed in some sort of democratic fashion, taxation doesn't exist.

Again, Id recommend you read the libcom intro guides or the anarchist FAQ and then maybe try to ask more specific questions.

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Dec 12 2015 15:04
Quote:
It doesn't represent us. How could it anyway? How could one person represent the complexity of nuanced opinion from the plethora of different positions held on all manner of issues by thousands of others in any coherent way? How can the wealth of expert talent and ability of a population of billions be utilised to greatest effect in planning by subtracting nearly all of it?

But that's the problem I'm defining: how can a modern society do that? How would an anarchist society do that? What is the mechanism that would be involved? If Britain were to become anarchist, how would it resolve a situation where people in the north wanted to build X, but the people in the south objected to X? Should they have a say over what happens in another part of that society? Would they be separate societies? If size is a factor then how do anarchist societies interact across the world? If Anarchist Britain wanted a port to trade and receive goods from somewhere else, how would it be decided where to place that port? If there are multiple anarchist socities in waht is now the British Isles, does everyone of them get a port or an airport? How would that work?

Quote:
Why stop at guns, I mean if we're really going to haggle here, what about people who want to explode nuclear devices?

But the point about guns is relevant; they exist in the world. We cannot unmake that technology. So when it comes to matters of defence or even policing an anarchist society from crime or unwanted violence etc, how would you resolve who gets to use guns? Would an anarchist society have nuclear weapons? they exist as well.

Quote:
Of course federation means centralised government because that is the only kind of government that is possible or effective, I mean, come on! And countries really exist, their borders have been fixed in the lithosphere for hundreds of millions of years. Is there an outside world? I hadn't noticed. Does the outside world have adequate hand-washing facilities? What if you had a really big rubber band and catapulted anyone wanting to leave high above the ionosphere, what then eh? What if you left your keys at the bar? What happens next?

I asked a question and you can't seem to answer. I don't think there's any need to be childish.

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Dec 12 2015 15:07
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Couple of thinks GW:

Quote:
Our current form of government, with full time elected decision makers representing us (or at least they should be)

So this, for you, might be the crux of the matter. Anarchists don't believe in or support "representative" democracy. Instead, we believe in direct democracy, which leads to the next point...

Federalism does not mean a federal government a la the US. I'm too lazy to type up a much more in-depth response, but I'd look at the structure of, say, the Solidarity Federation or the Anarchist Federation to see what anarchists mean when they say direct democracy or federalism.

Re: Taxation. When you've abolished money and all the necessities of life are freely available and any scarce items rationed in some sort of democratic fashion, taxation doesn't exist.

Again, Id recommend you read the libcom intro guides or the anarchist FAQ and then maybe try to ask more specific questions.

I'm not ignoring those links by the way, I just find reading off screens very difficult.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Dec 13 2015 21:23

Ghost Whistler, people have often tried to imagine their utopian state.
It probably started with the ancient Greek Plato, author of ‘The Republic’. Common to all the attempts is a desire to mould humans into their ‘ideal’ citizens for their ‘ideal’ state. It’s based on the arrogance of believing it is possible and desirable to shape individuals into happy and contented inmates of a dream state.
All attempts at these authoritarian schemes have ended in tears.
The primary reason for these disasters, is that all states are the tools of repression of a ruling elite.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Dec 12 2015 23:49
Quote:
But that's the problem I'm defining: how can a modern society do that? How would an anarchist society do that? What is the mechanism that would be involved?

By removing as many obstacles blocking the free development of people's potentials as possible, including imo the particularly destructive notion of a limited set of inhuman automatic mechanisms for governing our machine-like existences. I'd imagine there'd be a potentially limitless number of rational ways of going about this in a planetary sized federation, in which local decisions would be arrived at through directly democratic means, and larger scale decisions which would affect larger numbers of people would be carried out through upward regional delegation, with delegates who are fully aware of the overwhelming feelings on all issues and empowered to convey the will of the communities they come from, and who would be instantly recalled if they overstepped their remit/became politicians, perhaps all run on consensus or some other model. Of course not every single little thing would require the input of the entire community in this way, only those which affected everyone significantly. All of this is what the current system pretends to be, since those who own it know that this is what people want, and that it would work. Maybe you could print out some of the AFed or SolFed documents Chilli referred to and have a read if you don't like screens, there's some lovely clear writing and excellent description there if you're exploring these things.

And sorry for being childish, don't take it personally I meant no offence, I'm a very silly person at a turning point in my life and some of your questions made me giggle. I'd heard the 'who cleans the toilets' one before but your airport question and sea travel for the landlocked conundrum cracked me up a wee bit, sorry.

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Dec 13 2015 09:11
Webby wrote:
GW, I've noticed that almost everyone is, to some degree, in love with capitalism. Even 'anti-capitalists'. It's easy for liberals and leftists to point out bad things about capitalism but they still can't imagine a society without it and they fear the loss of the good things, some of which you've pointed out, that they imagine government gives us. I think your questions and reasoning exhibit symptoms of this. The thing is though, that all the great things of the modern age are there in spite of capitalism, not because of it. Capital doesn't invent things, inventors do. Capital doesn't run factories, the workers do. Media and entertainment is produced by workers too although it is heavily influenced by capital.
The point is that anything that we can do now we can do under communism. A lot of things we'll do better. The pointless stuff we won't do at all. We don't need a perfect plan for post rev society, just courage, imagination and willingness.
It really surprises me that people can see the absolute failure of capitalism to provide a satisfactory material and spiritual life for its subjects along with all the war, poverty and cultural dereliction that it creates yet are still very fearful that we can't do something better.

It really surprises me as well. Unfortunately I seem to be the minority in my own experience of this.I joined the Socialist Party a few years ago as a result of hating capitalism, but even that I struggle to get involved with. I don't reallyf eel comfortable handing out leaflets, especially to people who aren't remotely interested, and they are never going to win an election.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Dec 13 2015 09:54

Ghost Whistler #30

‘I don't really feel comfortable handing out leaflets, especially to people who aren't remotely interested, and they are never going to win an election.’

Yes more ‘socialist’ politicians sitting in the Commons is the answer to the problem of capitalism. Eventually they could form a government and pass some laws. It is strange no one has tried this before! Always room for one more inside.