DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Varoius Critique's of Anarchism

98 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 26 2004 20:41
Quote:
how is it self-inlficted that people have lied to me, stolen from me, or attacked me?
Quote:
I don’t have a problem with conflict.

The point being that if you, as it sounds like, inhabit a world where you are prepared to screw over other people, that attitude is reflected by them when they do the same. Anarchism seeks to remove the first by removing any need for the second.

Quote:
poverty is relative.

I totally agree, the British pubic is very well off compared to most. But at the moment the value of real wages is going down, and as I do keep saying my fear is not of what we have at the moment (though let's be honest about things aren't exactly fair even now), but of what the continuation of Capitalism will do to us in future.

Quote:
if the dole was abolished people would form groups to rpessure the govt.

You'd think so wouldn't you? But partial privatisation of the NHS, schools and transport has gone through without a whimper. Continual removal of our civil liberties, removal of public housing and raising of regressive taxation has gone through similarly quietly.

The government has gotten very good as showing how necessary these things are, while ignoring the fact they and their business buddies have created that problem in the first place. The problem with only getting involved when you think there's a problem that will affect you is that no-one else will bother when it's your turn (trite but true). Since Thatcher gutted union militarisation and asserted her 'there's no such thing as society' rubbish on the population, we've been ripe for these sorts of divide and conquer tactics.

Quote:
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

Surely a static utopia is not dialectical thinking at all, you know, cos it's static and stuff? tongue

I also don't believe that a revolution would work (certainly not under current circumstances and probly not at all) but that's just me. In all fairness I'm not looking at the situation and saying that within my lifetime it's going to happen either. However that's no reason for me not to try and make the whole thing more likely by spreadin the word/helping with alternative media sources to subvert the official doctrine/doing direct action both locally and nationally, because that sort of thing is generally helpful in improving people's lives anyway.

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

True enough, but during that time I may as well try and improve matters a bit, cos why the hell not?

Quote:
why must this be so?

Soz I was thinking of a specific guy I know who took a job with a company up north which he knew he'd gotten only because someone else being paid more (they'd been working in the job a while and thus had senior wages) had been fired down south. Presumably when he gets a bit older and is earning full whack he'll be replaced either by some younger model or by some outsourcing move. I disagree with the more money thing, I don't belive any job should be paid more for any reason (this being a different topic to the concept of implemented Anarchism though it'd probly be best to leave it there).

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

Yet you still do it. A general degree from a top university will get you a decent job in any number of fields other than research for a great deal more money (teaching for example), so it seems an odd choice of career. Sorry if this seems a bit prying it just doesn't seem to fit with your general attitude.

Quote:
I thought there were no laws in an anarchist society?

The point I was making is that with the sort of unity needed to do something like stop you eating meat under Anarchism it would have long since become a banned substance under democracy anyway, so it'd hardly be some dire imposition of a minority madness if it did happen.

Far more so than for a democracy, which would perhaps require only that a substantial voting chunk of people and perhaps a few politicans would be necessary to impose a nationwide ban (depending on the pressures of big business to continue selling of course), they would need to convince absolutely everybody that meat eating was a harmful pastime. If they couldn't you'd be free to chow down. If they could it would have to have been done with such reasoned and unassailable arguments that you'd be an idiot not to give up meat.

Quote:
the community is composed of INDIVIDUALS. yourself included. These individuals DISAGREE with each other

Indeed, I never said there'd be no argument under Anarchism, where would be the fun in that? grin

Quote:
How do you propose to go about changing their behaviour?

Undoubtedly some women do have large sexual appetites and as I said before I have no problem with that. What would be a problem would be if they weren't doing their share of the work, but that would apply to anyone not just prostitutes.

Quote:
Most of the population lives there.

Hmm depends on where you define as the urban areas. Just outside the bright lights are where most of the population lives, in shanty towns which also have no running water or electrics. I spose that could be defined as part of the cities but I don't think the government sees it that way.

Quote:
So you want more intensive capital penetration of latin america?

Facetious sod. roll eyes

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 26 2004 21:51

The insurgent desire article has some valid points, but the conclusion is absurd. Yes Anarchist culture is mired in the practicalities and upbringing of capitalist society, but this is not a valid excuse to say, as the article seems to, that all forms of social organisation are therefore pointless and individuality is the only freedom. All it means is that Anarchicts must be aware of the fault and as subsequent generations (in a society moving towards Anarchism) were brought up begin to correct it gradually. The other stuff I'll read later.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 27 2004 09:39

Non Serviam: Christ not that prick Stirner again. The guy's a self indulgent, navel gazing idiot with no practical value to man nor beast.

Sorry that's not very detatched is it.

Capitalism allows only for the promotion of the popular and the eventual rejection of variety (Mill again, bless im) because in a society such as this, where minority goods are taken off the shelves because they don't sell well enough and advertising reinforces 'popular' notions friom a very young age a true adherence to egoism is impossible, because your percieved choice is severely limited. Further, because you are working as a wage slave, you have less free time to explore yourself/ find out what you like and a great pressure to conform to your bosses' expectations in order to keep your working wage. These expectations will amount to much more than simply asking you to do your share of the work, they will include such things as 'voluntary' overtime, not speaking up about ill treatment etc etc.

Egoism, while taking advantage of what Capitalism does allow us at the moment, does not provide any means to improve on these problems.

Something like Anarchism on the other hand (once fully implemented) allows everybody the greatest freedom of time and creation to fully explore themselves. Although yes it is a limiting concept in some ways (namely of prohibiting harm to others which is something anyone with any sense would realise is the only way for a great number of people to all achieve substantial freedom), in terms of the amount of things you can actually do if you wish it is vastly more advanced than Capitalism, which bans all sorts of things which are not actually harmful to the human condition, as well as the things which are.

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 27 2004 09:58

"you, as it sounds like, inhabit a world where you are prepared to screw over other people,"

like who? I've never stolen from individuals I know. I've stolen from every employer where this was possible, and never been caught. This is liberating in itself, and I don't need to 'jsutify' it via an external morality (being an anarchist, I don't believe in the coneept 'justice' which can necessarilly only be determined by an agent that has the power to enforce this 'justice')

The example of fucking someone's girlfriend was a good one. I have done this in the past (once not even realising the person was with someone else). But this sex was consenual. The woman wanted to do it as well. So the two people out of the 3 wanted it to happen. So this 'selfishness' is in the majority and by your ethics justified, is it not? (I'll not get into the socially constructed nature of sexual morality, be it 'monogamy', 'polyamoury' or otherwise - all these terms refer to MARITAL, not SEXUAL relations).

"You'd think so wouldn't you? But partial privatisation of the NHS, schools and transport "

another anarchist in support of state socialism? why does this bother you then. Surely if these 'private' companies became workers collectives, that would be anarcho-syndicalism in action. Why not encourage workers to buy shares ('PLC' means collective after all), a lot easier than having a civil war?

"civil liberties,"

yeh, this doesn't exist anyway.

"public housing"

"regressive taxation "

this is all social democratic reforms that you appear to be favouring, NOT anarchism.

"no-one else will bother when it's your turn"

I've never needed them to. Never been in a union. Never been part of an organised strike, union or otherwise. Never been part of anti-fascist or anti-employer hit squads or self defence teams. Never earned more than poverty wages. But never went without anything I 'needed'. I've also stolen from every employer I could and never been caught, signed on and worked at the same time numnerous times and never been caught, and basically never needed anyone elses help.

Why quote thatcher again? if people REALLY did think there was no such thing as society, then perhaps they wouldn't be prepared to die for illusions (the nation state).

"Surely a static utopia is not dialectical thinking at all, you know, cos it's static and stuff?"

but dialectics to get there.

"spreadin the word"

Does this need comment?

"A general degree from a top university will get you a decent job in any number of fields other"

No it won't, because there is a surplus of laboureres, in this field as any other. I didnt get offered anything.

"great deal more money (teaching for example)"

this owuld have been 6k while training, les than I get, and its not very well paid when you finish either.

"it seems an odd choice of career"

like workers, Im dependent on employers. I wasnt offered anything else. I had one telephone interview, and was offered a post teaching english in japan, which I neglected in afavour of a phd.

Of course it fits with my general attitude. my attitude is I dont enjoy mundane work on somoene elses time, and I dont want to buy lotys of crap. This fits perfectly with selfish amoralism. I generally in academic contexts put in less work than average to get the same grades, so it's ideal. You assume I want to be part of the 'society of the spectacle' in which we are each judged according to our purchasing power, and while challenging capitalism in an abstract global way you have no critique of its actual social manife4stations (the commodity economy)

" become a banned substance under democracy anyway,"

if there was a vote on eating meat, it would NOT be banned??!

I dont goive up meat and never will, because I am allergic to dairy products and require a natural source of b12. Even if I was the onlty man in england I would engage in my own war to eat meat against the whole of society.

"What would be a problem would be if they weren't doing their share of the work, "

thye think they do. they use their talents to get what they want by fucking people. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO STOP THEM? (Theyve apparently taken guns from the collective armoury, pre-empting self-defence

"Facetious sod."

is that yes or no then?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 27 2004 12:03
Quote:
being an anarchist

Really? Cos some of your arguments seem to suggest otherwise (i.e that it should be your inalienable right to harm others, that you enjoy the conflicts this sort of behaviour engenders etc)

Quote:
So this 'selfishness' is in the majority and by your ethics justified, is it not?

I think you'll find that's Bentham's stance, not mine. The act of sleeping with someone else's girlfriend could well be harmful to them, in which case it shouldn't be condoned. I'll happily avoid that whole sexuality minefield too cos it'll take forever, except to point out that it is a big factor in Anarchism not to percieve sexual relations as 'naturally' binding (particularly given their associations of ownership etc).

Quote:
another anarchist in support of state socialism?

etc...

What is it with you and trying to place me entirely within an Anarchist framework at all times? I am more than capable of holding a view of where I think society should go in future, while simultaneously holding views on the current situation and what it would be useful to keep while support builds up for Anarchism in the meantime. It would be stupid to ignore today for the sake of tomorrow, just as it would be stupid to ignore tomorrow for the sake of today.

Quote:
basically never needed anyone elses help

Except for signing on obviously roll eyes. It is because of organised resistance that you have the rights you do, not because everyone steals from everyone else. I have nothing against you stealing from your employers, more power to you but I fail to see what relevance it has. In the end if our lack of solidarity allows big business to move vast numbers of jobs overseas, stop contributing to our economy and drop our wages, you're out of work or unable to pay the rent. The fact that you've achieved this state of affairs by relying entirely on yourself (along with everyone else who's done the same thing) is not something to be proud of.

Quote:
Does this need comment?

Not really, I've never denied that the promotion of Anarchism has certain similarities to religious evangelism. The same thing could apply to the promotion of any view on any topic, anywhere. This doesn't make the message any less useful.

Quote:
Im dependent on employers
Quote:
basically never needed anyone elses help

Compare and contrast.

Quote:
You assume

Perhaps I did, you appear to be guilty of the same thing however - the fact I haven't critiqued the commodity economy in this particular thread doesn't mean I haven't done so in the past (or for that matter pretty much any Anarchist throughout history). If we stopped to ponder every facet on Anarchism in this thread we'd be at it for years (it's already getting pretty long as it is).

Quote:
I dont goive up meat and never will, because I am allergic to dairy products and require a natural source of b12.

Try Marmite, which is both vegan and extremely high in B12. There are also such things as vitamin supplements.

Quote:
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO STOP THEM?

Assuming there is actually an armoury (pretty odd thing to have in a society without borders)... As I've said before societal norms would be such that these people would be likely to show up only VERY rarely. They would easily be kept under control by the lack of like minded people and social pressure from the people around them. Chances are even if they got a couple of guns they'd have difficulty keeping an entire village/town/city under control.

Quote:
is that yes or no then?

It'd be an irrelevant question under Anarchism.

Under our current system, if free market capitalism was entirely fair it would be a better system than it is at the moment and I would say yes. As it is however afaik these people would be added to the pool of available labour, driving down wages for all, but without any real improvement to their lives so I say no. However I am not an economist and haven't really done enough research on the subject, so I could be persuaded either way by a conclusive enough argument.

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 27 2004 12:04

"Christ not that prick Stirner again"

What a wonderful in-depth critique.

He's useful to me. I find his model of liberation useful, as It has often helped me in my one and only life.

"Capitalism allows only for the promotion of the popular and the eventual rejection of variety"

that's consumerism. consumers are stupid.

"because your percieved choice is severely limited."

because of the mindset of the majority of the population around me.

"because you are working as a wage slave"

I dont.

" speaking up about ill treatment etc etc." people do this all the time.

"goism, while taking advantage of what Capitalism "

egoism is against abstract socio-economic arrangements.

" everybody the greatest freedom "

my 'freedoms' conflict with others. only might can triumph.

"(namely of prohibiting harm to others"

you want to prohibit prostitution. the prostitutes have now armed themselves and are going to start shooting if you enter their premises. Do you enter? I notice youre not responding to this. there are 10 prostitutes and 10 others. You cannot get a democratic vote to practice authority, so what are you going to do?

" Capitalism, which bans all sorts of things which are not actually harmful to the human condition, "

like what?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 27 2004 13:51
Quote:
that's consumerism. consumers are stupid

I thought we'd established that the only way in which any group had been 'proven' stupid was in fact a crock of shit? Plus I know plenty of very intelligent people who are into consumerism, that's an asinine thing to say.

Quote:
because of the mindset of the majority of the population around me

Anarchism...

Quote:
egoism is against abstract socio-economic arrangements

There is no way you can avoid them if you want to survive (unless you wish to grow your own food, produce your own power, tap your own water source, make your own clothes...)

Quote:
my 'freedoms' conflict with others. only might can triumph.

Oh please roll eyes if there's one thing you can't do on your own it's triumph through might.

Quote:
I notice youre not responding to this.

That's because as I've repeatedly pointed out, the situation simply would not occur. It has no value as an example (you acknowleged this earlier). Ask me a sensible question based in some semblance of reality and I will answer it (and have done already).

Quote:
like what?

Certain drugs, public nakedness, excessive swearing, loitering, raves, but far more important, trespass, unofficial protest and a host of land/capital laws which are designed to keep the haves rich and have nots poor.

nosos
Offline
Joined: 24-12-03
Apr 27 2004 16:22
stevey111333 wrote:
The national statistics office defines 'poverty' as 60% of the median wage befoere housing costs.
Quote:
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?

The median wage isn't the same as the average wage.

nosos
Offline
Joined: 24-12-03
Apr 27 2004 16:24
stevey111333 wrote:
my 'freedoms' conflict with others. only might can triumph.

Indeed! You anarchist you.. grin

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 27 2004 16:25

"it should be your inalienable right to harm others,"

I never suggested that. I pursue my own ends. it is people who create the problem. For example if i wanted to pay for a prostitute and some one tried to stop me (police, religion, anarcho-communist bureaucrats, all spooks to me)

" The act of sleeping with someone else's girlfriend could well be harmful to them"

how? and do you thin kthis reason is why people may then physiclalyy attack someone for doing so?

"I am more than capable of holding a view of where I think society should go in future,"

but that makes you an advocate of state socialism, as opposed to anarchism.

"It is because of organised resistance that you have the rights you do, "

but I dont have the rioght to; you just said I didnt, and that it could be taken away. in that case, I wouldn't campaign for my 'rights'. I would beat rrich people to death and take their money.

" I have nothing against you stealing from your employers, more power to you but I fail to see what relevance it has."

It enabled me to avoid wage labour, hence exploitation, now, in the present, rather than in some utopian future.

"move vast numbers of jobs overseas, "

I dont perform a job that could be exported. I'm not engaged in the processing or extration of raw materials.

"The fact that you've achieved this state of affairs by relying entirely on yourself "

why not?

"Not really, I've never denied that the promotion of Anarchism has certain similarities to religious evangelism."

thats fine if its not a problem, but I prefer to deal with material reality than philosophical abstractions.

"Compare and contrast."

I mean Ive never had to engage in working class collective organising. which you are advocating. I dont need YOU specifically.

"Try Marmite, which is both vegan and extremely high in B12. There are also such things as vitamin supplements. "

these are non-animal sources of B12, which does not occur naturally in any non-animal sources. I believe the vast degree of evidence suggests that it is healthier to be omnivorous. Believe me Ive had lengthy conversations with others, and I cant convince them of my point, nor me theirs. Hence, if the anarcho-vegan commune is going to sanction me, Im going to start snuffing people out while theyre asleep. Utopia out the window again, and the problem is caused by the vegans, not me.

"Assuming there is actually an armoury (pretty odd thing to have in a society without borders)"

but their WILL be borders if you're going to enforce youre socio-economic arrangements, because their is not the illusions of unity you suggest. the prostitutes may start employing armed gaurds. if there's no plants making guns, they'll maybe start giving their high earnings to invest in one.

"As I've said before societal norms would be such that these people would be likely to show up only VERY rarely."

this is not a convincing claim.

"They would easily be kept under control by the lack of like minded people and social pressure from the people around them."

This is not convincing.

"Chances are even if they got a couple of guns they'd have difficulty keeping an entire village/town/city under control. "

because that is not the case. in the example it was 11 against 9, THEY were actually in the majority. You just assumed people would think the way YOU do, but they wont (nor the way i do of course, im just suggesting they COULD)

"It'd be an irrelevant question under Anarchism. "

no it wouldn't. capital is corporate or private owned enterprsies, you are advocating this on a massive scale in s.america.

"However I am not an economist2

you dont say?

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 27 2004 16:36

"Anarchism..."

I dont want 'direct democracy'. Or a communist society of sanctions. I'm an anarchist who wants to live in a totally different kind of society to the one you advocate.

"There is no way you can avoid them if you want to survive"

right. but you want to prohibit others. You havent convinced me that there is anything else than force or persuasion that can to do this, and have simply restated force in other ways. so YOU cant avoid the privileged people (people who are better, faster at certain tasks and want to earn more etc), using force against you, and chances are youre going to loose, because they are more highly skilled.

"unless you wish to grow your own food, produce your own power"

nope!

"Oh please if there's one thing you can't do on your own it's triumph through might."

I have done. Ive stolen from employters, and not been caught. I have turned situations round when people have attacked me. alone.

"That's because as I've repeatedly pointed out, the situation simply would not occur."

yes it would. Read the link by Caplan. There is an actual historical event in which a singer would not perform for workers unless they gave him what he normally got. They had to give in to him. Youre wrong.

"Certain drugs"

1) which ones?

2) how do you know theyre not harmful?

3) how do you know youre right?

"public nakedness,"

if there was no state, the fucking idiot public that intimidated paediatricians would probably publicly beat to death anyone who walks round naked.

"important, trespass,"

how are you going to stop the prostitutoion business without trespassing on their property. Youre trespass abridges their 'freedom'. They DONT AGREE with YOU . youre FUCKED!

nosos
Offline
Joined: 24-12-03
Apr 27 2004 16:40
stevey111333 wrote:
I never suggested that. I pursue my own ends. it is people who create the problem. For example if i wanted to pay for a prostitute and some one tried to stop me (police, religion, anarcho-communist bureaucrats, all spooks to me)

You did so say that. You're stripping away any notion of respect for the autonomy of other individuals from your analysis. You believe it should be your inaliable right to harm others insofar as they may or may not be able to stop you from harming them when you so desire.

Quote:
how

You don't see how sleeping with someone's girlfriend could be harmfull for them? confused

Quote:
but that makes you an advocate of state socialism, as opposed to anarchism.

This may have already been asked but I'm gonna ask it anyway, what do you think 'anarchism' actually means? What do you think state socialism means?

Quote:
I wouldn't campaign for my 'rights'. I would beat rrich people to death and take their money.

black bloc

Quote:
led me to avoid wage labour, hence exploitation, now, in the present, rather than in some utopian future.

What utopian future? I saw you engaging in this shite straw-man earlier on the thread. Do you really think everyone who disagrees with you believes in this stactic smear-by-numbers deus ex machia revolution and subsequent anarchist utopia? Of course they don't.. people off here (the ones I know at least) do shit loads of stuff to actually try and make a difference to things in the here-and-now.

Quote:
I dont perform a job that could be exported. I'm not engaged in the processing or extration of raw materials.

You think processing or extraction of raw materials are the only kinds of jobs that can be moved abroad? confused

Quote:
I dont need YOU specifically.

Which negates her/his's point how exactly?

nosos
Offline
Joined: 24-12-03
Apr 27 2004 16:43
stevey111333 wrote:
"Certain drugs"

1) which ones?

2) how do you know theyre not harmful?

3) how do you know youre right?

Who claimed drugs weren't harmful? Do you think it's right for the state to prohibit 'harmful' things? confused

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 27 2004 16:51

"You're stripping away any notion of respect for the autonomy of other individuals from your analysis"

he's doing that, by not allowing people to CHOOSE wage labour. Im prepared to accept the conflict, and shoot anarcho-communists.

"insofar as they may or may not be able to stop you from harming them"

What if im the prostitute/meat eater? they are attacking me.

"You don't see how sleeping with someone's girlfriend could be harmfull for them? "

No. I dont. please explain.

"what do you think 'anarchism' actually means?"

absence of political authority. no rulers. from the greek 'anarchos' i think.

"What do you think state socialism means?"

means of production owned or proxy controlled by the state (one party state socialism), or a political party (multi-party state socialism)

"What utopian future?"

the one in which the whole of society agrees to the same socio-economic arrange ment of either anarcho-communism, or anarcho-syndicalism (who didnt agree with EACH OTHER anyway!)

"Do you really think everyone who disagrees with you believes in this stactic smear-by-numbers deus ex machia revolution and subsequent anarchist utopia?"

no, but some do.

"do shit loads of stuff to actually try and make a difference to things in the here-and-now. "

None of which helps ME further MY ends.

"You think processing or extraction of raw materials are the only kinds of jobs that can be moved abroad? "

I cant imagine how mine could be.

"Which negates her/his's point how exactly?"

It means I am not on their side, if their was a revolution.

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 27 2004 16:53

I dont care whether they are illegal or not. I have taken them and not been caught. Under 'anarchism' if I could buy a gun, I would make one, and shoot police men, and any else who tried to stop me taking htem.

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 27 2004 16:55

http//www.loompanics.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/cgi-local/smpagegen.exe?U+scstore+hyzr0178ff142e14+-p+-c+scstore.cfg+25052

http//www.loompanics.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/cgi-local/smpagegen.exe?U+scstore+hyzr0178ff142e14+-p+-c+scstore.cfg+25052

Now shut up, before I shoot you with my home made gun.

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Apr 27 2004 23:56

seriously steve, if you think so poorly of people generally (not to mention your feelings about your "fellow" anarchists), then what the hell are you doing talking on here?

If you're such an individualist why don't you go have fun on your own, or like you said rape someone.

Also I think it's rather silly you being so rude to the anarchists on this thread, because I think they're giving you a fairer hearing than most "stupid" normal people would, who would probably tell you where to go from the outset...

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 28 2004 10:26
Quote:
but that makes you an advocate of state socialism

No, because I don't believe the state is necessary. You seem to be having trouble with the concept of 'now' and 'future'. I agree that as far as governmental policy in this country today is concerned, I am more of a fan of state socialism than of Thatcherism (for example). However this is not a reflection of what I want to happen in the future.

Quote:
but I dont have the rioght to; you just said I didnt

Is this a wind up? Are you really incapable of understanding that what is banned by the state is not physically impossible? And you couldn't 'beat rich people to death' on your own idiot, they have bodyguards to stop that sort of thing. You might at a pinch be able to beat up moderately wealthy people, but that's a mug's game, too many things to go wrong.

Quote:
It enabled me to avoid wage labour

No it hasn't, you still work.

Quote:
I dont perform a job that could be exported

What, low grade research? How on earth did you get that impression? India, China and parts of Eastern Europe are all fast creating a glut of highly trained graduates able to do that sort of thing - you even said yourself that your degree hasn't garunteed you a good job in the field that you wanted. The only jobs safe in the UK are those inextricably linked with being here, and the problem with that is there's too many people looking for them. Without consistent mass solidarity to counteract this we're all FUCKED, to coin your eloquent phrase.

Quote:
Hence, if the anarcho-vegan commune is going to sanction me

But if you're that confident in your argument there should be no problem, cos they have to prove their case, not you yours.

Quote:
but there* WILL be borders if you're going to enforce youre socio-economic arrangements, because there is not the illusion of unity you suggest.

*changed for spelling (yes I know I'm a pedantic shit, so sue me)

Fair point, if we were talking about a circle of influence expanding from a designated region. However that wasn't what we were talking about, we were talking about a fully implemented Anarchist system, hence worldwide. No borders see?

Quote:
if there's no plants making guns, they'll maybe start giving their high earnings to invest in one

What earnings? No money remember? And again, the idea of 'employing' armed guards and a large number of metalworking experts, who are able to get materials off miners, food off farmers etc etc in order to make their weapons to fuck up society is laughable. It's not logistically possible in a world where the VAST majority of people are inherently against the very idea of what you're suggesting.

Quote:
this is not a convincing claim.

I'm yet to be unconvinced, do you have any reasoned arguments for why this wouldn't be the case?

Quote:
capital is corporate or private owned enterprsies, you are advocating this on a massive scale in s.america.

Have I fallen into a parallel universe or something? I thought that was exactly what I said I'd opposed.

Quote:
you dont say?

Wow that's awesome, the way you took my entirely acknowleged ignorance of a subject and tried to make me look generally more stupid than you... genius. That's the sort of facile pointscoring I'd expect from a three year old, not an educated adult.

Quote:
I'm an anarchist

No you aren't. Anarchism is very much NOT about taking what you want in the short term and ignoring all other considerations. If you want to live out that sort of warped 'philosophy' you are missing the fundamental part of what makes a person Anarchist.

Quote:
but you want to prohibit others.

The only prohibition I have actually stated outright is that of harming others. I haven't ruled out force either in extreme circumstances, I just think those circumstances would be exactly that, extreme. What's more, as I keep repeating, in a REAL society, comprised necessarily of hundreds or even thousands of people providing for each other, the rarity of selfish, harmful behaviour would make it eminently controllable.

Quote:
There is an actual historical event in which a singer would not perform for workers unless they gave him what he normally got.

There are thousands of examples of that, the singer in question would first of all not have any wages to demand, second would be reliant on the goodwill of his audience for his food, clothes, entertainment etc so he would have a big dissuasion from pissing them off and third, in a society brought up not to tolerate that sort of behaviour they wouldn't give in to the demands and would simply not bother listening to him.

Quote:
how are you going to stop the prostitutoion business without trespassing on their property.

But they wouldn't HAVE any landed property under Anarchism, that's the point. Law bars us from walking where we like, but would it actually harm the millionaire if people were allowed to sit next to his pond in summer? And if it doesn't why does he have to right to bar us from doing so?

I have answered you philosophical points, your practical points and your constant attempts to goad with a great deal of equanimity stevie, but I really don't have time to talk in circles endlessly while you try and convince me that you are justified in your outlook, and I really don't have time to explain where you've been going wrong with your bizarre interpretations of what I'm saying .

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Apr 28 2004 14:08

i've been wondering for a while now, what is your obsession with prostitution? are you a pimp or something?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 28 2004 15:10
Quote:
I haven't ruled out force either

Actually scratch that I did rule out force early on, and I shouldn't have done.

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 28 2004 15:46

“what the hell are you doing talking on here?”

I don’t know. It doesn’t make me not an anarchist though. It just makes me an anarchist with a very cynical view of human nature. That enforces my anarchism because I believe as people are basically selfish, if you institutionalise power relations theyre going to abuse them.

I don’t feel any desire to “rape” someone (which is a legal concept in any case, not an anarchistic one) so I don’t. If I did, I would.

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 28 2004 16:08

“No, because I don't believe the state is necessary.”

Ok then, don’t claim dole, and fight for its abolition.

“Are you really incapable of understanding that what is banned by the state is not physically impossible?”

of course I do. I think we agree on this. Humans don’t have rights. That’s my opinion.

“No it hasn't, you still work. “

is research work? I thought it would make me a middle class wanker or something? Also I do non-profit state funded work. It’s NOT wage labour, (or at least exploitative wage labour) because 1) no profit is made. 2) I don’t ‘feel’ exploited.

”What, low grade research?”

A Phd. That’s almost the highest level. There are research fellowships above that and paid research assistantships. In any case, I now know more than any other human being on earth about my (very) specific subject. It makes no sense to talk of ‘my’ job being shipped abroad, this would be an irrational move on my employers part, and they would lose a great deal of their investment if they did this.

“your degree hasn't garunteed you a good job in the field that you wanted.”

No – the jobs I applied for I didn’t really want. I was going to do them for the money like anyone else. Now I AM doing something very close to what I want. So close in fact there seems little point in distinguishing.

“ The only jobs safe in the UK are those inextricably linked with being here,”

Mine is in a sense; my institution is internationally renowned in the dept. Im in.

“Without consistent mass solidarity”

4 other people applied for the post, out of 60 million. 599,996 didn’t bother applying, and I beat the rest. I benefited from competition, not solidarity. The uni doesn’t have enough money to employ 5 people to do the task.

“But if you're that confident in your argument there should be no problem, cos they have to prove their case, not you yours. “

but what if theyre not convinced? I know there are vegans who deny the facts to your face that humans are omnivorous (this is a biological classification, it doesn’t have anything to do with dietary choices). So what do I do? I either have to fight them, or do what they want.

”Fair point, if we were talking about a circle of influence expanding from a designated region. However that wasn't what we were talking about, we were talking about a fully implemented Anarchist system, hence worldwide. No borders see? “

Assuming everyone agrees with each other over socio-economic living arrangements (as well as others, such as eating arrangements). The empirircal evidence of the Spanish civil war says what you want to happen wont. The fascists and capitalists want to live differently to you.

”What earnings? No money remember?”

But what of those who WANT to use money? Like capitalists. Or state capitalists. Or those like the anarcho-synidcalists in the Spanish civil war, WHO USED MONEY?

“number of metalworking experts, who are able to get materials off miners,”

then they’ll hjust use whatever is at hand. They have to de3fend themselves somehow, because they disagree with you, and they don’t want to submit to your authority, seeing themselves as anarchists.

”'m yet to be unconvinced, do you have any reasoned arguments for why this wouldn't be the case? “

the historiography of the Spanish civil war? You could try just reading a segment of it in th elinks.

”ow that's awesome, the way you took my entirely acknowleged ignorance of a subject and tried to make me look generally more stupid than you... genius. That's the sort of facile pointscoring I'd expect from a three year old, not an educated adult. “

I don’t really care either way. But I assure you, Im not point scoring when I saw I have read quite alarge degree of economic literature; quite literally, all of Marx, lots of the second international commentary, the major works of JK Galbraith, Myrdal, Adam Smith, JM Keynes, Ricardo, Hayeck, Rational choice, etc.

”o you aren't. “

I do consider things. I consider others’ ability to resist. And I’m against any instituted political authority that seeks to dominate others (such as anarcho-communism).

”he only prohibition I have actually stated outright is that of harming others.”

No. You said the ‘slut’ was lazy and wanted to prohibit her behaviour. It is only YOU who thinks she is ‘harming’ anyone,, she doesn’t think this.

”here are thousands of examples of that, the singer in question would first of all not have any wages to demand, second would be reliant on the goodwill of his audience for his food, clothes, entertainment etc so he would have a big dissuasion from pissing them off and third,”

But in actual reality. This DIDN’T happen. What I SAID HAPPENED. What don’t you get?

“n a society brought up not to tolerate that sort of behaviour they wouldn't give in”

but they were anarchists. And they DID give in. there was nothing else they could do.

“o the demands and would simply not bother listening to him. “

but crucially THIS DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN. What happened was they DID give in and they DID listen to him and they DID pay him. What are you refuting? Historical reality?

“ut they wouldn't HAVE any landed property under Anarchism, that's the point.”

This would just be chaos. They want to run a business and you wont let them. It has to come to blows, one way or the other.

“ut I really don't have time to talk in circles endlessly”

its you doing this because you haven’t read the links, and you want even acknowledge historical reality.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 29 2004 20:20

I seem to have been slated for not continuing with the argument, which I feel is a bit harsh given that it's desended to:

Quote:
Ok then, don’t claim dole, and fight for its abolition.

On stevie's part, which seem to be nothing but a poorly concieved wind-up. Nevertheless:

Quote:
I either have to fight them, or do what they want.

Only if they've convinced every person in the entire community. I know several vegans, they've never once tried to force me not to eat meat or threatened me with physical violence, and there's no reason to think they would be any more likely to under Anarchism.

Quote:
Mine is in a sense; my institution is internationally renowned in the dept. Im in.

My apologies, I didn't realise you were in such an unassailable position. Evidently you don't need anyone else's help (though let's hope that your department itself isn't deemed entirely unecessary in future if Britain, and your uni, actually does have to tighten its belt).

Quote:
The fascists and capitalists want to live differently to you.

Indeed they do, and this is the bit I'm having most trouble with myself, is how to get to the state of affairs in which I think Anarchism could work. I'm quite interested in Colin Ward's take, particularly with regard to how I can personally help make a difference, but I don't think it's entirely practical, just as revolution isn't.

Quote:
But what of those who WANT to use money

But it would be irrelevant in an implemented system (as opposed to a transitory one, such as in the civil war). Money is a simple method of exchange, confering value on a good. In a society where you can simply ask and be given, what possible use would it have except as decoration?

Quote:
the historiography of the Spanish civil war?

Again, it's an irrelevant example compared to an implemented system. The civil war was an attempted transition to Anarchism, not a fully working and fully evolved Anarchist society. There were vast numbers of capitalists hiding in Barcelona throughout, and the Republicans/Communists both had more powerful blocs than the Anarchs did, right from the start (see I've read Homage to Catalonia too).

Quote:
It is only YOU who thinks she is ‘harming’ anyone,, she doesn’t think this.

I don't think she is harming anyone in the short term, I'm taking the long term view that it sets a precedent where some people are allowed to avoid working, thus setting up a class apart, something which could eventually lead to a division of society in just the way you portrayed, if left unchecked. It's the same dripping tap effect that allows people like Blunkett to severely curtail our freedoms without drawing overwhelming condemnation which could force him to back off.

Quote:
but they were anarchists. And they DID give in. there was nothing else they could do.

Interesting thing to leave out, it could almost be seen as a setup... The fact that those particualar Anarchists gave in does not mean that somehow they had to.

Quote:
It has to come to blows, one way or the other.

Why?

Quote:
its you doing this because you haven’t read the links

That's a bit unfair, I'm the only one who bothered replying to them. The one about home made guns was interesting (and you could have mentioned bombs too), but you don't think that they'd have trouble with only a few of them trying to keep control over a huge number of people who hold them in utter contempt, even if those people don't have guns? It'd hardly be much of a life, not even worth trying in fact just for the sake of not doing a few hours work (because remember we aren't talking a horiffic daily slog here, a few hours each a week would be all that was needed under Anarchism because you aren't having to do admin/make profit).

The very drive to do less work that you're relying on to drive this war would actually be an argument against doing it - they'd have to spend their entire time looking over their backs and fighting everybody, rather than getting along with everyone and doing a bit to help out every few days.

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
Apr 30 2004 16:02

Sorry no, it WASNT a wind up. There are substantial amounts of people against the welfare state, and many working classs people against immigrants, the dole etc; but youll probably say this is a 'conspiracy of the rich' or something.

"Only if they've convinced every person in the entire community."

Thats what I meant. Theres no 'convicning' to do, because veganism is an unproven ideological rule ('eat no animal parts means you kill no animals')

"there's no reason to think they would be any more likely to under Anarchism. "

Have you heard of the ALF?

"In a society where you can simply ask and be given, what possible use would it have except as decoration?"

Because there'd ne no incentive to produce in the first place. If everyone owns eveything, then everyone owns nothing. and there wouldnt be anything to own, because no onw would have bothered working, if o one else was going to. Besides, this is a minority viewpoint within anarchism. Most of the history of anarcho-synidcalism all over europe and individualist anarchism in the US accepts it as unpractical.

"some people are allowed to avoid working2

she thinks it is work. shes not against exchange value.

"The fact that those particualar Anarchists gave in does not mean that somehow they had to. "

but thwy did they? because there was NO alternative IF they wanted to hear him sing.

"Why?"

because YOU think shes doesnt work, and SHE thinks she does. She is going to carry on, despite you, or any social sanctions. She IS going to use violence, because she CAN.

"don't think that they'd have trouble with only a few of them trying to keep control over a huge number of people who hold them in utter contempt,"

they probably wouldnt; most people admnire and envy those better off than themselves. I know I have no grudge against a lot of rich people (writers, artists, rock starts).

"under Anarchism because you aren't having to do admin"

but this WAS tried and became just as burueacratic, with everyone making sure everyone gave and recieved their 'fair share' (??!)

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Apr 30 2004 18:23
stevey111333 wrote:
"In a society where you can simply ask and be given, what possible use would it have except as decoration?"

Because there'd ne no incentive to produce in the first place. If everyone owns eveything, then everyone owns nothing. and there wouldnt be anything to own, because no onw would have bothered working, if o one else was going to.

What rubbish!

Right so everyone would just sit around and starve themselves to death then, in an ever-increasing pile of trash and shit. Because everyone is just that stupid aren't they steve.

Look if you hate people this much, you'd probably be happier somewhere like euthanasia.com

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
May 3 2004 14:09
Quote:
Have you heard of the ALF?

Yes I have. There was a grand total of 15 people operating in the ALF at the height of their activism (who weren't inflitrated spooks), and there's about 250,000 vegans in the UK. If they were all the violent nutters you're suggesting, they would have wiped out the army and forcibly imposed Veganism already.

Quote:
because YOU think shes doesnt work, and SHE thinks she does.

But you said she was prostituting herself to avoid work.

Quote:
Because there'd ne no incentive to produce in the first place.

In that case why aren't you on the dole?

People want to have a comfortable life, so they work for it. This wouldn't suddenly cease to be the case in Anarchism.

Quote:
they probably wouldnt; most people admnire and envy those better off than themselves.

Are you seriously saying that if a couple of people from work held a gun to your head and made you do all their work for them as well as your own you'd admire them for it? There's a huge difference between admiring someone for their success and putting up with someone persecuting you for profit. I have no problem with admiring someone if they do something that wins my respect, but I'm not going to like it if someone is sitting on their fat arse benefitting from my work.

Quote:
but why did they? because there was NO alternative IF they wanted to hear him sing.

The important word there is IF. They could have as easily told the guy where to stick it. The fact that in this case they didn't means little.

Quote:
but this WAS tried and became just as burueacratic, with everyone making sure everyone gave and recieved their 'fair share'

You're obviously thinking of a specific instance here...

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
May 3 2004 15:44

Incidentally, why is it that you, a PHd of 12 years experience, have ended up trolling and using CAPITAL LETTERS in a debate with a 22 year old journalist? I'd expect more sensible discourse from someone of such high education.

This may be entirely unfair, but I'm beginning to doubt your professed credentials, particularly given your earlier inability to tell the difference between 'their' and 'there', your need to have the basis of the lottery explained to you and your inconsistency in saying you don't need anyone while talking of situations where evidently you have.

meanoldman
Offline
Joined: 15-01-04
May 3 2004 21:51

The International Union of Sexworkers is always a good place to start for anything to do with prostitution. There's normally a few of them on most demos in London, worth talking to.

Oh and Stevie you're talking shit.[/url]

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
May 4 2004 15:24

I dont know what people would do its up to them. For a very long time they lived as hunters and/or gatherers. Then for another long time as herdsmen. But you dont have to do any work at all to feed and hosue yourself in the UK, thanks to actually existing social demcracy, and regarldess of anarchism's minute influence.

I dont hate 'people' in the abstraction; I just dont care one way or the other.

stevey111333
Offline
Joined: 14-04-04
May 4 2004 15:33

Well you or anyone else cannot know how many people were in the ALF, or if they were MI5 agents, because it is predicated on ot knowing, due to its cell structure.

They are violent nutters; there just isnt enough of them. If there was, they probably would have done that.

"But you said she was prostituting herself to avoid work. "

she thinks prostitution IS work. You dont. You have disagreed over ideas, and you have failed to convince me there is anything other than 2 solutions, given that you are not going to agree; exchange. or force.

"In that case why aren't you on the dole? "

Because its boring, and I want to consume, not ridiculous levels of rubbish, but at least a little beyond my 'needs'.

"People want to have a comfortable life, so they work for it. This wouldn't suddenly cease to be the case in Anarchism. "

so if differential wages served to further this goal, it would seem logical to adopt it, and thus dispense with communism.

Who has the 'gun' to my head? My landlord? My bank? In that case, I have a 'gun' to their head; I can go to a different lanlord, or bank. In fact, I have more of a 'gun' at their head; if i live somewhere for 6 months i can then stop paying rent and carry on livin there.

"I'm not going to like it if someone is sitting on their fat arse benefitting from my work. "

isnt this what people signing on are doing?

"They could have as easily told the guy where to stick it. The fact that in this case they didn't means little. "

Errr... so the fact that millions of workers tried to apply anarchism and failed, has no bearing upon anarchist praxis?

"You're obviously thinking of a specific instance here..."

like say; the largest experiment in applied anarchism to date.