Varoius Critique's of Anarchism

98 posts / 0 new
Last post
stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 23 2004 12:22

er... how does it 'look' any different to other people whether I write it, or you quote it?

As I say, it was in response to this stroke of genious;

"he is a poseur with a crude understanding of some of the academic heavyweights he just listed"

Now for the hard part; in less than 200 words, please describe to me why you or he could not have done exactly the same thing as me.

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Apr 23 2004 17:13

stevey111333 argues his position very well.

I suggest trying to debate the guy instead of resorting to insults.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 24 2004 19:04

Alexa was quite reightly pointing out that trying to prove your intelligence by saying you have a degree is irrelevant to the argument. I have a degree in Journalism from 'one of the best courses in the country', it doesn't mean my judgment of the national press is therefore beyond reproach. I don't see that the comment is an insult under those circumstances.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 24 2004 19:34
Quote:
Let's imagine full communsm for a minute; work would not just be under wage labour, but, compulsory for all, so people would still have to 'sell' themselves to each other, they just wouldn't be using money, but, presumably, endless guilt tripping and direct barter.

Direct barter isn't a feature of Communism in the non-monetary system you're describing. The point of it is that people give freely of all goods they produce, so you don't have to cart around your wares under your arm because people will only come to you for them where needed.

Guilt tripping... Possible I suppose, but fundamentally this is a problem not specific to Anarchism, and as methods of stopping people from leeching off their peers goes it's far less nasty than most forms of pressure.

Quote:
This would not overthrow the 'sale' of labour power, it would just mean there was not the current unit of currency, but somehting else. There would of course be no escape from this drudgery for those named in the previous paragraph.

Including your further example under labour power, you yourself very nearly answered the question at the end when you talked about the other women complaining about the pretty one selling her body. It's not an enormous leap surely to acknowledge that under these circumstances in a society predicated on solidarity and earning your way people acting like that would be defended against?

Frankly I'd have little problem with seeing the get rich quick stuff go given that removing capitalism's inbuilt drive for profit would make everybody better off both in wealth and free time. Get rich type things give false hope to millions all over Britain. Playing the lottery for example sees most of the money disappear in profits, frankly I'm a little mystified why you'd want to keep something which overall has a VERY negative impact on the poor to make one person in 14 million (or whatever) wealthy enough to escape?

Oh and please don't use phrases like 'oh dear', it's needlessly patronising, particularly from someone who seems to consider themselves a cut above. If you are secure in your intelligence then you really don't need to be advertising it quite so clumsily.

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 25 2004 13:39

but surely if someone said you had a 'crude understanding' of how the press works, you'd point this out?

"point of it is that people give freely of all goods they produce, "

Look at what you just wrote. Now give me say, one example, from say, the whole of recorded human history, where this has worked, verified by non-anarchist sources. Why don't you just do this now?

People want more 'out' than they put 'in'; whether it be work, love parent/offspring relations, almost an axiom of 'human nature'

"It's not an enormous leap surely to acknowledge that under these circumstances in a society predicated on solidarity and earning your way people acting like that would be defended against? "

But you only have two ways of doing this; persuasion and force. What happens if you fail with persuasion? You have to institute either authority (force, whether statist or not is still authority), or hierachy (her differential, priveleged position). To me, it seems much more pragmattic to accept heirarchy rather than authority; why should the pretty woman be held accountable to ugly people? Why should she suffer?

" Get rich type things give false hope to millions all over Britain. "

but this DOES happen to some people. and in england, it is MUCH more likely than revolution, which is NOT going to happen.

why does the lotery have a 'negative impact' on 'poor' (whatever that's supposed to mean) people?

Augusto_Sandino
Offline
Joined: 21-02-04
Apr 25 2004 20:08
Quote:
"point of it is that people give freely of all goods they produce, "

Look at what you just wrote. Now give me say, one example, from say, the whole of recorded human history, where this has worked, verified by non-anarchist sources. Why don't you just do this now?

I think the first anarchists assumed that come the revolution, the sudden impact of freedom and the realisation that everyone was interdependant, there would be an actual change in peoples heads, and they would cease to be selfish, to put it bluntly. I cant back this up with non-anarchist sources, but supposedly fully working communes where people were not paid did actually exist in civil war Spain.

Also important is that for an anarchist revolution to have happened and succeeded, there would need to be alot of commited anarchists. They would not expect to be paid, and would give freely of their labour and skills etc. becuase they would be commited to the anarchist utopia.

Quote:
why does the lotery have a 'negative impact' on 'poor' (whatever that's supposed to mean) people?

The lottery is a sort of regressive tax, alot of the money goes to the government. The lottery is also overwhelmingly played by working people, so its almost like a stealth tax.

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Apr 25 2004 20:31
Saii wrote:
Alexa was quite reightly pointing out that trying to prove your intelligence by saying you have a degree is irrelevant to the argument. I have a degree in Journalism from 'one of the best courses in the country', it doesn't mean my judgment of the national press is therefore beyond reproach. I don't see that the comment is an insult under those circumstances.

Saii,

I wasn't referring to Alexa's post. I was commenting on some of the language coming from another quarter.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 26 2004 10:11
Quote:
but surely if someone said you had a 'crude understanding' of how the press works, you'd point this out?

No I wouldn't because my degree does not automatically confer on me the wisdom to pontificate. I'm 22 years old, my degree is merely basic training for a possible lifetime in the field. When I'm 75 and have seen it all, perhaps I'll ask for a bit more respect. Until then I'll make suggestions I think helpful but I'm damn sure going to listen if people tell me what I'm saying is crap.

Having a degree does not give you a deep understanding of related issues, in fact if you've only just finished it the likelihood is that you have only a crude understanding, because you simply haven't had the time or life experience to refine it.

Quote:
Look at what you just wrote. Now give me say, one example, from say, the whole of recorded human history, where this has worked, verified by non-anarchist sources. Why don't you just do this now?

I entirely recognise that this is a concept that hasn't yet been realised and is unlikely to under current conditions, however this is not a reason for the entire thing to be dismissed as impossible. To use a crude example, Columbus kept getting told he'd end up dropping off the face of the (flat) earth. What has gone before is not the one and only framework for what is to come.

As a matter of fact I do practice it wherever possible, I give freely of my time, possessions etc and do favours for people, who do the same for me if I need them to. It is not in any way a mere theory, it happens all the time. I'd imagine you do the same thing yourself.

Quote:
People want more 'out' than they put 'in'; whether it be work, love parent/offspring relations, almost an axiom of 'human nature'

I assume this is the crux of your argument, that human nature is to be selfish. Forgive me if I remain unmoved, this is the single most frequently repeated catchphrase by everybody (including me) at some point.

Anarchists believe that almost all human behaviour is directly linked to upbringing and social norms, and if these are changed substantially enough, it can act far more effectively than any law to dissuade people from acting selfishly - wanting to get out more then they put in.

A couple I know became vegan a few years ago. When they were younger they ate meat without any problem. Having been vegan for a while and because they are together, they have between them normalised a repugnance of eating meat, to the extent that they cannot walk past a butcher's without feeling physically sick. That is the power of changing someone's percieved normalities.

Anarchists believe Human 'nature' is a construct, a phantasm made up by people who act selfishly to justify their abhorrent actions. Selfishness is something that can be changed.

Quote:
But you only have two ways of doing this; persuasion and force.

Notwithstanding the excessively simplistic way you've said this (and bearing in mind the above paragraph, which would in almost all cases render this entire section of the debate meaningless), force would not need to be used. No-one can live in a vacuum, social or otherwise. If you live in a town whose entire population contines to shun your behaviour until you shape up, you shape up. It's as simple as that.[/i]

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Apr 26 2004 10:32

But that's being oppressive, maaaan!

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 26 2004 11:27
Quote:
But that's being oppressive, maaaan!

Yes thankyou pingtiao roll eyes

Quote:
why does the lotery have a 'negative impact' on 'poor' (whatever that's supposed to mean) people?

Very approximate lottery figures (figures aren't exact cos I'm extrapolating on vagueish stats):

Total money spent on Lottery tickets etc: 60 billion

Of which:

300 million to Camelot in profits, 2.7 billion for their 'operating costs'

3 billion to retailers (sales commissions)

7.2 billion to the government

15 billion to good causes

The rest goes to winners (mostly in 10 quid/100 quid etc payouts which doesn't actually raise anyone out of poverty but acts as a loss leader to get them to keep buying).

Effectively 22 per cent of all money made goes to the government, business cronies and keeping the business going. The vast majority of this money comes from people with low incomes (middle class and wealthy types don't feel the need to play it after all), which when it comes to the crunch means that far from being a useful institution which enriches some at a minimal cost to others, the lottery has leeched over 13 billion since its inception straight out of the pockets of the poorest (as in least wealthy) sections of society, with that money failing to go back to the poor it was taken from.

NB// Also, if you wish, you can check the 'which charities get paid what' section. It makes interesting reading. Billions have gone to political vanity projects, or 'highbrow' art which the poor aren't allowed to or have no interest in seeing. I have no problem with keeping highbrow art around, some of it's very nice but I'll be damned if I'm going to support a group who makes the very people who have least interest or need for it pay for its upkeep.

http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/goodcauses/whereTheMoneyGoes.jsp

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
Apr 26 2004 13:18
Saii wrote:

The vast majority of this money comes from people with low incomes (middle class and wealthy types don't feel the need to play it after all),

Good points except maybe the above. We are living in a world where money talks and you can never have enough...

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 26 2004 13:56

Oh I'm not saying the middle/upper class aren't greedy enough to want that money, just that they don't reckon they need do it (want would perhaps have been a better word I guess). Better education and perception of the odds means that they are less likely to fork out however much a week for it than less well educated people who just see the advert of someone holding up a champagne glass.

Also poor people would buy the vast majority of tickets even if this weren't true, simply because there are more of them (same as with cigarette taxes, if everyone buys one ticket/packet the poor outnumbering rich by 5:1 - for example - would mean they were paying five times as much as a group).

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 26 2004 14:07

“come the revolution”

isn’t this like a secular version of the ‘final judgement’ (the revolution) and the ‘kingdom of heaven on earth’ (anarcho-communism); the idea of a conflict free society of friends, utterly lacking in historical precursors, and indeed, as far as I think , fundamentally anti-thetical to being human. I experience conflict in my own personal psychology. what should I do over the short term compared with over the long term etc; should I drink excessively? Should I sleep with my friend’s girlfriend? I LIKE these conflicts. I am ‘free’ in this situation; I could CHOOSE to be selfish, and I don’t ever want to lose the possibility of doing this, and am fully prepared to accept unpleasant consequences. To me this gives me more ‘freedom’ than any abstract socially constructed fantasy. Perhaps this is because of things Ive read; psychology, existentialism etc, all of whom ‘anarchists’ would probably be very critical of. But then I don’t care. I don’t have a problem with conflict. And I’m not a word (‘anarchist’), I’m a complete human being. Must I mentally imprison myself in order to live within the permitted confines of an ideological doctrine? To me this is more like christianity than ‘thinking for myself’ which is what I thought anarchism was about.

And of course, historically, anarchists have widely disagreed with each other in theory and practice, and also with autonomous and council communists Marxists, which some on here try to equate with each other. See Debord’s passage on anarchism in society of the spectacle, (or anything Ken Knabb says on the subject). Read ‘Men Against the State’ and see the transitions from Tucker to Stirner, and the general dislike of European anarchism. See the Marx/Bakunin/Proudhon debates. Bakunin of course advocated a ‘dictatorship’ subordinate to his will (eh?) and Proudhon was active in fascist circles, hated jews, women’s suffrage, democracy, supported Napoleon, and stood as what would be an MP.

“everyone was interdependent”

of course everyone is interdependent. My desire to fuck your girlfriend intereferes with your desire to have a monogamnous relationship. My desire to rape her interferes with her desire not to be raped. Why is me deciding to not rape her ‘good’ and raping her ‘bad’, if say, I enjoy raping people? It is only her who thinks it bad, and me who thinks it good. What if I convince a small group of people to take part in regular rapes? (apart of course, from the fact that rape is entirely a legal concept as such, and couldn’t exist outside of political authority and a legal discourse that defines what it is, just like ‘crime’ ‘madness’ etc) .

“I cant back this up with non-anarchist sources, but supposedly fully working communes where people were not paid did actually exist in civil war Spain. “

aren’t these all anarchist sources? So in this utopia, people wont even do something as trivially selfish as say, not work for a living, and yet, to GET to this society its permissible to commit mass murder to anyone who doesn’t want to live in this utopia. Er, have you heard of a chap called George Orwell?

” commited to the anarchist utopia.”

This is just secular evangelism. Don’t people sacrifice this everyday because they recognise that people ARENT like that and that people CANT live without conflict. Im an ‘unterrified anarchist’; Im prepared to accept not just the abolition of the state, but all morality. I just don think its necessary. ‘but what about murderers’; fuck off. Im not interested. As long as Im not killed it doesn’t matter. “Away with any concern that is not altogether my concern”

”however this is not a reason for the entire thing to be dismissed as impossible”

No, but you’ve failed to convince me (an ‘individualist’ anarchist of sorts) to work towards the same ends (i.e. to be part of the same ‘movement’); mainly because the kind of society you want to create sounds to me utterly awful. Even worse than the current one. Everyone would be forever quacking on about each other’s ‘selfishness’ and their ‘commitment’ to the anarchist ‘ideal’, etc. ugh. No thanks.

”Anarchists believe that almost all human behaviour is directly linked to upbringing and social norms, and if these are changed substantially enough, it can act far more effectively than any law to dissuade people from acting selfishly - wanting to get out more then they put in. “

I think I’ll just respond to this with a quote from a very famous anarchist;

“From the moment when he catches sight of the light of the world a man seeks to find out himself and get hold of himself out of its confusion, in which he, with everything else, is tossed about in motley mixture.

But everything that comes in contact with the child defends itself in turn against his attacks, and asserts its own persistence.

Accordingly, because each thing cares for itself at the same time comes into constant collision with other things, the combat of self-assertion is unavoidable”

”A couple I know became vegan a few years ago. When they were younger they ate meat without any problem. Having been vegan for a while and because they are together, they have between them normalised a repugnance of eating meat, to the extent that they cannot walk past a butcher's without feeling physically sick. That is the power of changing someone's percieved normalities. “

I’m lost. Which is ‘better’ in your utopia?; eating meat or not eating meat? If you believe the latter, what about MY contradictory belief that the human species is ‘naturally’ omnivorous (confirmed by mainstream science) and that I would endanger myself because there are NO sources of B12 and D2 in non-animal sources (confirmed by mainstream science and vegan cookbooks and health advice).

Wouldn’t this create a conflict if I lived in a vegan commune? My ‘freedom’ to kill and eat an animal and get natural sources of B12 and D2 interferes with your scientifically unsound assertion (to me, as far as I as an individual understand reality different to the commune) that I can live without it. If these ‘norms’ where enforced upon me by social sanction I believe this community would be endangering my life, and would meet this threat with equal and opposite force. Oh dear, that’s utopia out the window again.

that’s the power of psychologically imprisoning themselves in an IDEOLOGY; a system of rules requiring the following of RULES and the renunciation of praxis (reflection upon the world and resultant action). The rule in this instance is ‘consuming no animal parts means you don’t kill any animals’ something again I think is unsound, (all agricultural and industrial products and processes kill animals). I think their feeling sick is largely a result of neurotic anthropomorphic projections of their own inflated sense of sensitivity to pain and suffering (and perhaps mankind’s inherent death anxiety). While they walk past the window they breath out, thus killing thousands of organisms living in their body. Is this a model for your anarchism is it? Again this sounds to me like a society of such uncritical rule following and orderliness I likewise would want no part of your ‘utopia’ (i.e. a society of self-flagellant, smug, secular evangelists).

” Human 'nature' is a construct,”

of course it is. But people have a will. The first thing some people will do (nonconformists) if people try and construct ‘rules’ ‘norms’ etc, secular or otherwise, is to break them, to show the weakness of the rule and the strength of their will. That is the essence of ‘freedom’ to disagree with others. You can tell no one on here has kids cant you?

” force would not need to be used. No-one can live in a vacuum, social or otherwise. If you live in a town whose entire population contines to shun your behaviour until you shape up, you shape up. It's as simple as that.”

No its not. What if men continue to treat this woman more favourably, and she continues to fuck them? What if there are 10 men, and 10 women? Then you have 11 against 9, so her privilege would become institutionalised, if subject to a vote. If not, ONLY violent conflict can result IF they wish her to persist and she continues to act as she has. You assume she conforms, but there is no convincing reason why she should. She can still deal with more than helf the community (10 as opposed to 9) favourably. Your thought experiments are little but tired clichés from anarchist ‘FAQ’s’ with little comparison to the real world in which there are large, rival competing factions and the unity and social cohesion you speak of doesn’t exist.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Apr 26 2004 14:15

Wow. For someone so very clever, you can spectacularly miss a point, can't you?

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 26 2004 14:18

2 points on the lottery;

1) So do the 'anarcho-communists' on here accpet that buying lottery tickets is beyond the 'needs' of people's 'species being'? people need food, shelter and social interactin. they dont need; computers, satelltite tv, newspapers, cars, fashion, cameras, etc etc. but most people have these things. So why is there any need for a 'revolution' to set up a society based on distribuion accordin gto 'need' when almost everyone has a vast excess of things beyond need?

2) dont 'working class' people play the lottery more because they are stupid? Im sure this one will get the knee-jerk response about middle classness again. whatever. how else do you explain it. the majority of the population has a reading age of 15 or lower. 16% cannot read. why must we 'save' these people? To be honest I don tfucking care. I have never bought a lottery ticket and never will. I AM 'free' of enriching the people who run it. I don tcare that other people lose money on it every week. Millions follow religions for the same reason (stupidity) but I think I get more smug satisfaction out of feeling superior to these people than I would if they abandoned religion. Just a thought.

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 26 2004 14:20

what point have I missed exactly? You assert that social sanctions induce compliance, but your claim is unconvincing, and, if I was the woman in the example or the meat eater in the commune, I would now be continuing to behave as previously, despite sanctions. What do you intend to do now?

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Apr 26 2004 14:24

Brilliant!

Quote:
dont 'working class' people play the lottery more because they are stupid?
stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 26 2004 14:27

ok then; statistically more likely to have lower intelligence, as corroborated by conventional intelligent quotient testing data.

but its a bit dry. I like the more invective style of the former.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Apr 26 2004 14:31

Conventional intellegient quotient data illustrates consistent systematic disparity between those with black skin (who score lower) and those of caucasian ethnic origin.

Are blacks more stupid than whites?

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 26 2004 14:40

over the long term, blacks consistently score lower than whites in IQ tests. Asians consistently score higher.

does that mean whites are stupider than chinks? I dunno. sompe people think that is what it menas (Eysenck etc), others say it just points to the socially constructed nature of intelligence.

Like most facts. I dont care. But i think youve only asked me to engage in point scoring, trying to draw me into the non-political correct stance (what does PC have to do with anarchism again?), again in a drawn out avoidance of any criticisms in the original articles, not authored by me, and instead a shallow herd-like atteot at character assassination.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Apr 26 2004 14:49

You might not care, but what is your opinion?

You have already stated that the working class is less intelligent than the ruling class (let me guess which class you place yourself in), and i'm wondering whether you also think that whites are more intelligent than blacks.

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 26 2004 16:18

You have made an utterly baseless asertion.

What I ACTUALLY said was;

"dont 'working class' people play the lottery more because they are stupid?"

note; I did not refer to the 'ruling class' and I put 'working class' in apostrophes in order to signifiy the illusion that has coherence only in your head; to what YOU are referring to. I do not find the term of liberatory value. I do not place myself in any class.

" i'm wondering whether you also think that whites are more intelligent than blacks."

To have an opinion of either 'yes' or 'no' on this subject in general, it would appear to me that I would have to agree with the following statements with each new premise resting on the answer 'yes' to the previous one, in order to logically progreess to the next one. namely;

1) There are two (or more) disctinct racial groups subsumed under the general category of human beings, one of which can be deemed 'white' and the other 'black'. These terms refer to really existing biological and/or genetic differences between the groups, which can be measured with scientific verifiability.

2) There is an innate, biologicallly manifested phenomenon called 'intelligence' which is physically present in human beings.

3) This quality ('intelligence') can be measured by other human beings and referred to in a meaningfully inter-subjective way that actually tells us something of scientific verifiability about those humans thus measured.

Since I don't agree with any of these premises, it is impossible for me to answer your question. My 'opinion' is that 'race' like intelligence' is socially constructed.

In 1) my opinion is that genetic diversity is so widely divergent that to refer to race at all, even to call someone a 'black' person or a 'white' person, is extremely problematic, if not useless, scientifically. If someone calls themselves 'black' they are 'black' only in the same sense you are an 'anarchist' or any other voluntarily adopted cultural identification. In this sense, I could be 'black'.

2) I believe there isn't, because there is no 'objective reality' 'out there' waiting to be discovered; we are forever imprisoned in our differing subjective understanding of what reality is to US as individuals. Indeed, it isn't meaningful to thinkthat there is a 'reality' out there at all. This has relevance to point 3) also. Most social scientists, and current mainstream scientific methodology rejects the category of 'objective reality';an intellectual revolution of the post war period. Something that might be worth reading about, if one is to dare to venture out of the 19th century.

Hey! What about tose links at the start of htis post? Any thoughts?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 26 2004 16:33

Just quickly, do you reckon you could do quotes rather than speechmarks? It just makes it easier to get through.

Quote:
I am ‘free’ in this situation; I could CHOOSE to be selfish

Unfortunately, that holds true for everybody else as well, which means you are also at some point going to get fucked over, which you won't like. Constant conflict might be fine for the big fish, because they consistently win, but for small fry such as (in this country, one of the world's richest, 2/3 of the population) this means they're being cheated out of most of their livlihoods.

In the future, this will mean increasing deprivation not just for the poor, but for everybody in this country who does not actually own their own business. We are competing with the Indians for wages, China for cheap productivity and Eastern Europe (when it joins the EU) for corporate taxes/working hours. In the long run this means if we wish to keep our jobs, we're going to have to drastically slash our wages, stop taxing corporations, slice huge chunks out of our social services (or even abolish them) and still watch our unemployment levels and national debt rise.

This is a direct result of the national 'choice' to be selfish. Your choice.

If you are destined to become a leader of big business, these things wont affect you, it is pointless even having this conversation. If however you are not, and you are like the countless millions inhabiting Britain who's livelihood depends on the generosity of the big fish, that love of selfishness you claim needs to be rethought, because it is doing you no good at all.

Quote:
I’m lost. Which is ‘better’ in your utopia?; eating meat or not eating meat?

It was an example of how drastically 'inbuilt' behaviour can be changed by a simple change in percieved normality, not a suggestion that you do the same. Personally I quite like eating meat, but then I've been brought up to do so.

The only time at which anyone woud have any right to interfere with your lifestyle is best summed up by J.S Mill's harm principal (which I'm sure you're familiar with), so something like eating animals would be irrelevant unless it could be proved that by doing so you are actively harming the community around you. There are anarcho-greens who would argue eating meat does just that, but this is an entirely different debate to the one we're having here.

Quote:
The first thing some people will do (nonconformists) if people try and construct ‘rules’ ‘norms’ etc, secular or otherwise, is to break them, to show the weakness of the rule and the strength of their will.

Absolutely agree, part of childhood is rebellion, but if treated in the right way rebellious children turn into decent adults.

Quote:
No its not. What if men continue to treat this woman more favourably, and she continues to fuck them? What if there are 10 men, and 10 women? Then you have 11 against 9, so her privilege would become institutionalised, if subject to a vote.

This would assume that all ten of the men are selfish, going against every part of their upbringing and expectation of how society should work. It would also assume that they all fancy her, which is unlikely if she's behaving like a lazy slut. It would further assume that what you have here is an unconnected, entirely self sufficient society comprising solely of 20 people, 10 girls, 10 boys. Tbh I'd say your example is by far the more unlikely scenario here.

Quote:
So why is there any need for a 'revolution' to set up a society based on distribuion accordin gto 'need' when almost everyone has a vast excess of things beyond need?

Because almost everyone doesn't have an excess of goods outside of the Western world. Most people don't even have water. And as I said before, as far as the UK is concerned it is not the situation now I'm worried about, it's the situation in future brought about by people refusing to work co-operatively to stop big business from screwing us.

dont 'working class' people play the lottery more because they are stupid?

No, they don't. They play it because they are unaware of the facts behind the system (hell even I had to look them up just now because I had only a vague understanding of it from reading the Times) and they are desperate.

IQ is a wholly inadequate way of testing intelligence (even its inventor said so). My mother raised hers by 16 points simply by training for it. Public schools do the same thing with their pupils (mine certainly did), while state schools afaik don't, which might explain the discrepancy?

Quote:
Like most facts. I dont care.

No wonder I'm having difficulty here roll eyes

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 26 2004 16:52

I don't know how to put quotes in.

"Unfortunately, that holds true for everybody else as well, which means you are also at some point going to get fucked over, which you won't like."

Unfortunately this has already happened many, possibly hundreds of times (stolen from, lied to, beaten up etc). Do I wish these things hadn't happened? Well, I can't imagine anything remotely resembling human soictey which in which there was no conflict; such harmosious agreement would seem to me to require a level of self-sacrifice only seen in religious cults. Suffice to say; no. I learnt valuable experiences from these events (don't believe people, use weapons, etc). I've certainly stolen much more from employers than has ever been stolen from me as an individual. "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger."

"(in this country, one of the world's richest, 2/3 of the population"

not sure what this means.

" We are competing with the Indians for wages, China for cheap productivity and Eastern Europe"

we have the dole. like Ipointed out. but that comes from social democracy, not anarchism.

" we're going to have to drastically slash our wages,"

ey? what happened to strikes, stoppages, theft, etc?

"This is a direct result of the national 'choice' to be selfish. Your choice."

that is an abbsurd statement that does not follow from what I said. it MIGHT be in my interest to act as if there were such a things as class, and hence to participate in its social construction. however, it might not. thus is life.

"If you are destined to become a leader of big business"

not likely.

"If however you are not, and you are like the countless millions inhabiting Britain who's livelihood depends on the generosity of the big fish that love of selfishness you claim needs to be rethought, because it is doing you no good at all."

yes it does. in 12 years since leaving school, I have only engaged in 'wroking class' jobs and being profited from for about 2 years in total. so how did i manage that. got to have your wits about you.

"J.S Mill's harm principal"

I thought you were an anarchist, not a fucking liberal?!

"irrelevant unless it could be proved that by doing so you are actively harming the community around you. "

what if THEY thought I was (by subjecting them to feeling phywsically sick), and I thought I wsnt? then we have conflict.

Im just wondering; what is a 'decent adult'?

"This would assume that all ten of the men are selfish,"

Thats your judgement about them. they might feel they are being selfless by fulfilling her large sexual appetitie. again, conflict over meaning, and hence action.

"which is unlikely if she's behaving like a lazy slut."

so now in the anarchist utopia, attractive women with large sexual appetites are demed 'sluts' by disgruntled males? all sounds very much like real society. Why would her being ay mean they didnt fancy her. I dont find my sexual attraction ot others related in any way to their personal qualities, indeed I would quite enjoy giving some people I dont like a good seeing to.

"entirely self sufficient society comprising solely of 20 people, 10 girls, 10 boys. "

its hypothesising. thats the idea

"Because almost everyone doesn't have an excess of goods outside of the Western world."

yes they do. all of latin american socities have cars, teleivions, consumer commodities etc.

"Most people don't even have water."

where did you get this from?

"No, they don't. They play it because they are unaware of the facts behind the system"

but why dont THEY know the 'facts' and yet, you do. isnt this just resatating that they aRE stupid in another way?

"IQ is a wholly inadequate way of testing intelligence (even its inventor said so).2

I agree.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 26 2004 18:03

Just above where you write text there's a series of buttons. If you highlight the phrase you want to be a quote and hit the requisite button, it shows up like:

Quote:
Unfortunately this has already happened many, possibly hundreds of times...

Interesting, that sort of thing almost never happens to me, maybe I'm just consistently very, very lucky roll eyes.

Quote:
Well, I can't imagine anything remotely resembling human soictey which in which there was no conflict

That's a great shame, you must have a really shitty life (though by the sounds of it, mostly self inflicted).

Quote:
not sure what this means.

Something like 2/3 of the population works on or below the poverty line.

Quote:
we have the dole. like I pointed out. but that comes from social democracy, not anarchism.

The dole is not a given, it is usually the first thing to be slashed when the economy is in trouble. In the event that most of the country was out of work, it would be abolished.

Quote:
yes it does. in 12 years since leaving school, I have only engaged in 'wroking class' jobs and being profited from for about 2 years in total. so how did i manage that. got to have your wits about you.

You are thinking very short term. Yes you are able to get a job now, perhaps even a better paid one than some if you're screwing your peers over, but in the longer term you're going to be as fucked by the bosses as they are.

Anyway I thought you said you had a masters from one of the best courses in the country? If you're so intent on getting ahead in life surely you should be in a better job than what you're describing?

Quote:
I thought you were an anarchist

I am, this doesn't mean that no other thinkers get a look in.

Quote:
what if THEY thought I was (by subjecting them to feeling phywsically sick), and I thought I wsnt? then we have conflict.

They would have to prove their theory to the entire community first, and given that under a democracy this sort of unison would result in a law against meat-eating anyway...

Quote:
Im just wondering; what is a 'decent adult'?

I thought I'd made it quite clear what I meant by decent when I mentioned the Harm principle, anything other than that is entirely up to the community to decide, not me.

Quote:
so now in the anarchist utopia, attractive women with large sexual appetites are demed 'sluts' by disgruntled males?

No, someone who sells their body instead of doing any work is deemed a slut (and there is a difference between someone who is a slut because they have to be and someone who does it because they fancy it more than pulling their weight before you ask). There's nothing wrong with having a large sexual appetite.

Quote:
its hypothesising. thats the idea

It's only useful if it has a basis in reality. What you were suggesting didn't.

Quote:
yes they do. all of latin american socities have cars, teleivions, consumer commodities etc.

No they don't. Outside of the major urban centres in Latin America are vast tracts of land where high tech doesn't penetrate (nor even running water/electricity in most cases).

Quote:
where did you get this from?

Yeah sorry got a bit carried away there, should have said Many people don't even have Clean water. embarrassed

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 26 2004 18:43

I cant gighlight your phrases, they arent here. its blank.

" (though by the sounds of it, mostly self inflicted)."

how is it self-inlficted that people have lied to me, stolen from me, or attacked me?

"Something like 2/3 of the population works on or below the poverty line."

poverty is relative. virtually all of those 2/3 have a huge array of luxuries well beyond their needs to sustain the human organism. And I speak as someone who has probably lived on the poverty life for my entire adult life (10 years), and probably for most of my early infancy as well. I do not experience this as poverty however. it does not feel like poverty to me because I am not induced to go to work by the socially constructed pressures to have a mortgage, car or television (none of which I have, and which would probably put me in the 'poverty' bracket).

and if the dole was abolished people would form groups to rpessure the govt. and as the govt acted extra-legally, people would begin to act extra-legally. This has all already happened, you dont need to tell me british history. The only difference is you believe in some kind of static 'post-revoltuonary' utopia where thewse conflicts no longer exist, no doubt due to dialactical thinking, which I find limiting.

"You are thinking very short term."

because life is very short term. 70 years, if youre lucky. then nothing.

" perhaps even a better paid one than some if you're screwing your peers over,"

why must this be so? why do machinists eran more than brick layers? are they 'screwing over' bricklayers. they earn more than me, but I dont feel they are 'screwing me over'; theyre just earning more money than me. Them having more money doesnt mean i have less.

"surely you should be in a better job than what you're describing? "

I do research. it is very poorly paid. certainly way below the average workers wage

"law against meat-eating anyway2

I thought there were no laws in an anarchist society?

" anything other than that is entirely up to the community to decide, not me."

the community is composed of INDIVIDUALS. yourself included. These individuals DISAGREE with each other, often up to and including violent conflict and death. Something I am quite prepared to accept.

"and there is a difference between someone who is a slut because they have to be and someone who does it because they fancy it more than pulling their weight "

I dont agree with you. Nor do many others, such as high earning professional women in the pornography and prostitution business. How do you propose to go about changing their behaviour?

"It's only useful if it has a basis in reality. What you were suggesting didn't. "

touché

"No they don't. Outside of the major urban centres"

Most of the population lives there.

So you want more intensive capital penetration of latin america?

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 26 2004 19:17

The national statistics office defines 'poverty' as 60% of the median wage befoere housing costs.

As I find maths utterly alienating, and not an agent that usually helps with the liberation of my desires, I can't be arsed to try and remember what median means or how to calculate it, not having paid attention at school, but usually preferring to look at the young women in my class.

anway, it says the 'average' wage is £400 a week. I certainly earn way below that. probably around £170, but I dont pay tax, so if I did, it would presumably be somewhere around £200? I dunno, thankfully, ive only ever paid taxes for about 6 months of my adult life.

In any case, this would no doubt put me in 'poverty' and I seem to remember not owning a tv(Is that Guy Debord I hear turning in his grave?) being an 'indicatior' from when I studied sociology (oh dear), and I dont own a tv.

AND RIGHT NOW, I EARN MORE THAN I EVER HAVE IN MY ADULT LIFE. This is not 'poverty'. Anally sadistic state employees may wonder why I don't want to voluntarily enslave myself in a concrete cell for 8 hours a day in return for blocks of congealed labour ('computer's, 'tv's', 'cars'), but there is clearly a chasm that separates me from them. I enjoy sleeping late. Riding my bike. Going to see friends. listening to music. playing guitar. philosophising before dinner. learning how to make explosives. reading about the surrealists. fucking. eating. I do not live in poverty. I have a rich life. I dont work.

no doubt I wouldnt fare any better under 'committed' anarchists than civil service sycophants.

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 26 2004 19:23

I mean, if I earnt £400 a week, what would I spend it all on? I honestly cant imagine what it must be like to have so much money. I'd just buy crap. Crap. mountains of useless crap you dont need.

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 26 2004 19:31

hang on, no. I'm lower than the low. "The lowest paid of all full-time employees were ‘Retail cashiers and check-out operators’ with £208 a week."

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 26 2004 20:22

For any one else interested in moving beyond an anarchism that depends upon pseudo-religious metaphors, here's some more food for thought;

http//www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/subculture.htm

http//www.nonserviam.com/

http//www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/

http//www.anarchymag.org/