|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| techstepgenr8tion wrote: |
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: | | This is the problem with your notion of a revolution. Revolutions need leaders, leaders need to be charming and charismatic otherwise people just don't find them sexy enough. Leaders or, I love John Ralston Sauls terminology for this ilk 'rational heroes', are your Napoleans, your Hitlers, your Lennons and your Trotskys. |
i agree that revolutions need leaders. perhaps not in the same sense as you mean, though. but regardless, leaders, during a revolutionary phase, don't require to ascend to absolute authority, as befell the situation in russia. |
The problem isn't what 'needs' to happen but rather what 'does' happen and the personality types that lend themselves to certain roles. |
the problem, though, isn't leaders per se, it's rather leaders with the power to compel. if the masses were mobilised, educated and empowered in a revolutionary period... always going back to the russian revolution is imprudent, it was fraught with flaws, hence the outcome.
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | as an example, i, and many others known to me, have no interest in folowing the charming and charismatic leaders of our contemporary society. |
Two things on this: you might live in a bubble in terms of thinking that most people share your intelligence, secondly people who haven't necessarily made it to power but who'd be of the type of sociopathic ruling class ilk just not come to pass yet - you or anyone else might have a heck of a time ever seeing them or realizing what they are until its too late. At the present time everything's pretty static so seeing who's who isn't a particularly big challenge comparatively speaking. |
again this would be a problem to be watchful for during a revolutionary period or in a pre anarchist/communist stage, however i think where an anarchist or communist society is established, this wouldn't be so much of a concern as you seem to think. much easier for sociopathic types to rise up the ranks of a hierarchical, authoritarian power structure and emerge at the top than it would be in a society with a flat structure and a fundamental tenet against coercion and compulsion. such motivations would be easily detected and rooted out.
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | not to derail the conversation, but i and many others have deep reservations about the intervention of the west in the third world. as i recall you and i discussed gates before. as i say, i don't want the discussion to be derailed onto this huge topic, however it might be an interesting side point to spin off to a new thread? |
Well, I'll at least tell you why I brought it up. Africa needs food, next infrastructure, next industry of its own and the ability to pursue those ends. Good farming techniques and aid in infrastructure building are the most important things we could do for them. That said though - any kind of aid - would decrease to near nothing if we threw away monetary systems and had no sense of what we could realistically give. Being able to quantify progress or quantify extra resources is something you can't get away from and have much hope for efficiency nor abundance to share (even if hypothetically the megalomanic rich were eating the majority of that abundance up). |
the intervention of the west in the third world is fraught with problems, though. again, don't want to derail the discussion by opening this can of worms, if this discussion gets nearer to a conclusion at some point we can spin it off to a new thread, it could make for another interesting discussion.
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | capitalism, if you take it from it's origin as engels postulated, DID start as a top down system. the more influential and powerful members of the community laid claim on the surplus, and thousands of years later, here we are... |
To go from Dickonsonian to now its pretty clear that its steadily become less malevolent and more benevolent, even if it still has quite a long way to go in being the system that would truly 'take care of' people. That forward march shows no sign of stopping and you have to rememeber, every new generation is a new generation and they're taking in the new ethics, new standards, of their peers and their generation. The generation of the 1920's was different from that of the 40's, of the 60's, of the 80's, of the 2000's, and similarly the behaviors of the rich, of corporations, of pretty much anyone go with the times. |
it might outwardly appear so, however in reality things are gradually getting worse for the poor. in the uk for example, the welfare state has systematically been transformed into a penal state, real wage levels are dropping, poor and vulnerable people are being denied services and benefits they need to survive, workers are increasingly disempowered, unions decimated, the health service decimated etc. etc. i concede that it's not black and white though.
| Quote: |
At this point as well its become increasingly more responsive to its customer base. When's the last time you heard any company or auto maker say "You can have my product in any color you want - as long as its black"? |
consumer choice doesn't equate with freedom, though.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | i.e. they came from "the system" as a whole. people won't be responsible if they are not given responsibility. |
Well, you can give people credit cards but, you can't guarantee they're adult enough not to run it up to full balance, not pay, and end up in court. It would be great if we had good classes about financial health and even gave kids some tantilizing peaks at what you can do when and as you get older to get rich. The problem with that - and I know my saying this will cause an uproar - in public schools capitalism is a dirty word. Yes, in America, many teachers, especially on the east and west coasts, think at least somewhat like you do. If they won't teach kids about how to master and harness a 'repressive, biggoted, racist system' then they simply won't and especially when you go out of your way to never teach minorities these things you get a wonderfully, albeit horridly intellectually dishonest, self-fulfilling prophecy. |
talking about credit cards is not talking about giving people actual, real and tangible responsibility for themselves and for their community. this is a false premise. |
I was giving credit cards as an example because they're a combustable responsibility or techinically a liability with some benefits. Those are the types of responsibilities that when mishandled/mismanaged can break a society.[/quote]
yes, but on the scale of what we are talking about it's not relevant. you're looking at the topic from the perspective of where we are now rather than an objective overview.
again, just a quick half reply typed over pre work coffee and cigarette. i'll try and get back to the rest, and to your next post, later in the day...
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techstepgenr8tion wrote: |
That said you do have me curious - what kinds of responsibilities are you talking about? I can think of many things that I would consider responsibilities but I'm still vague on which ones you'd want to employ in order to enfranchise people in the process. |
giving people full control over their own life, which can't ever happen when they're financially dependent upon selling their labour to a ruling class, benevolent or otherwise, and having a real say and real power invested in the activities and decisions made within the community. and this doesn't equate to things like voting. i mean real input.
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | they won't behave like rational, adult human beings unless they are respected as such. |
I'd have to know if you believe in meritocracy at this point. Not 'nod nod wink wink' oppressor designed double talk 'meritocracy' but the real thing. Ie. - that people, if given the right tools, should be allowed to do what they will with them. That if they become adults they'll be treated like adults, if they don't, then they aren't. |
i do believe that people given should be given the privilege of earning respect from their peers for good works done, if you consider that meritocracy. i don't, however, believe that people should be rewarded materially to the detriment of others. |
But you're already somewhat contradicting yourself. If you reward someone for doing good work its an implied punishment to those who don't do good work and aren't rewarded. You have to figure out where your egalitarianism ends and your meritocracy begins. To even grade people based on merit you're headed at least somewhat back toward a capitalistic system where people's mobility (meaning I suppose in the spectrum from poor to upper-middle class) has a lot to do with their innate abilities. |
it's not in any way a matter of grading. esteem and respect are not finite commodities like money. if a person gains respect, it's not at the expense of another. no one would subsequently attract disdain. i think we might be thinking about different senses of meritocracy. if it involves material reward, then no, however i don't think there is anything wrong with people gravitating towards positions in society for which they are well suited. just not in the way this happens now. as you know, i don't think governance should come from fixed, rigid institutions that hold power over the people at large. people should be encouraged to be multi-faceted. we have far too fixed a notion of how social organisation should work, when really i think there are so many unexplored and potentially far more functional alternatives.
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
If we don't at least have that to go on, we'll be (in our anarcho-communist utopia) be giving the mentally disabled homes that they'll be burning down or be giving people things that will fall apart into disrepair simply because they can't act as custodians of even free property; they either don't have it in them, simply don't have the desire, or won't. |
this is a hugely disparaging and discriminatory statement. especially given that it's likely that the majority of users of this forum would, under current legislation and social convention, be considered "mentally disabled". the "mentally disabled" need nothing more than a supportive, structured and stable environment in which to live. unfortunately by and large the current system deprives them of this, and they are at the mercy of paid employees who provide them with care. some of whom, i concede, are highly motivated, passionate and caring individuals worthy of praise. it is unfortunate, however, that some of them, a minority, perhaps, but still, a minority that, in a society that considers itself civilised, shouldn't exist, quickly develop contempt for those under their charge.
perhaps, before i go further, you could clarify what exactly you mean by "mentally disabled"? |
I might have been a bit too vague, when I said people who would burn a house down I literally meant people who would burn a house down. It wasn't a value judgment on them, no was it an attempt to band the 'disabled' (which I'm technically a part of myself) together. On the other side of that I've had a laugh when I've talked about my 'disability' and had certain members of the forum jump on me or other people saying similar things with knee-jerk platitudes and tautologies about how ASD isn't a 'disability'. I suppose since you get all types I try not to worry about perfect sensorship and, if what I say needs explaining I'm happy to do so. Also when I mentioned the people who are too lazy or don't care I was in most cases refer to other groups but didn't really explain that well. |
fair enough. i might have over-reacted here, and it's likely due to my coming across people through work who at certain points in their lives have been in unfortunate situations and less than optimal psychological states (often resultant of such situations) which have led to incidents happening, that have subsequently led to their future being dictated by said historical incidents when the chances of a repeat performance given current presentation and circumstances are so slim, and the incidents in the first place being equally down to inappropriate placements and lack of support structure, and general failings of the system... ok, personal rant over...
anyway back on point... the notion of an anarchist society specifically implies far stronger community links and a much more rigourous support network existing within the community. if people need support, those around them, relatives etc., would be far better placed to provide needed care and support. lip service is paid to this at the moment in the uk, with the introduction of self directed support for disabled people and those with learning difficulties and mental health problems, but it is only lip service. the policy is fairly transparent as nothing more than a ploy to cut spending, and there are many cases that make this glaringly obvious, including more than one that are currently going through the courts.
to tiresomely go back to marx again, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
| Quote: |
Regardless - the thing I do realize about the world is that it seems most people can have the realization that they're kind of just here, they weren't brought here by choice, and that if they don't want to participate in society there's no one who can 'make' them. I agree with you that people generally don't give into that kind of nihilism unless the dissincentive is already stacked pretty high. At the same time though the jury is still out on what can really be done about that; not what we'd 'like' to work but what will work vs. what won't. |
i'd still be insistent that this is actually encouraged, directly or otherwise, by capitalism, and that to some extent at least it would be mitigated by an anarchist society, or even really any society in a more left leaning and less authoritarian direction.
the other problem being that people are essentially forced to participate in society as things are now. non participants, for any number of reasons, simply end up homelessness, mental health, and crime statistics.
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | much of the "don't have it in them", "lack of desire" or "won't" of which you speak is indeed the direct result of our current system. i know this from experience, working with such people on a daily basis, many of whom are very, very far from what the daily mail and it's ilk would have one believe. |
I know that but they're also caught in a self-created vicious circle with crime, drug 'abuse' (which I'll gladly deliniate from 'use' - two very different things IMO), throwing themselves at having kids out of wedlock and without financing (in America LBJ had a big role in that), that makes the social norms worse and from there makes it even harder for people born into that to get out. |
i know. it's a vicious circle. the problem is that many believe it's their only choice, and for some their is indeed at least some truth in this belief.
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
Would giving people what they need to succeed in a real sense improve the situation drastically? Yes, but I'm still thinking on the order of a 60% or 70% improvement, ie. disenfranchisement is not the whole cause of these problems - its a big part but political inclusion is far from being everything there is to us and our behavior. |
anarchism isn't about giving an individual what they need to succeed. rather, it is about the success of the community en masse. regardless of how successful i am, it is always with a bitter taste if i risk being jumped on my way home from work by those whom society has failed. |
How does anarchism resolve that? It sounds great in promise but I need to hear something in the way of actual content. How does the 'community' decide to distribute? Is it equal to all? How would that be compatible with any amount of meritocricy? Without meritocricy how do you get anyone to take the crap jobs that need to be done? |
in a society where a bin man is respected as much as a scientist - because let's face it, bin men fulfil a fairly essential role, arguably as essential as the scientist - the bin man will have a far greater degree of motivation than if he simply has to fulfil his function because circumstances have led to him being able to do nothing else. the motivations of the scientist take care of themselves, he pursues his career because he loves what he does and understands that he is making a great contribution to society. money as a motivator inevitably leads to unsatisfactory results. people should indulge in such a profession because it is their vocation.
additionally, many of the really shitty jobs could fairly easily be automated. their is a very real antagonism between capitalism's need for a reserve of unemployed workers, it's attendant need for menial labour, and real evolutionary progress for humanity.
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | and we aren't talking simply about political inclusion, we are talking about a level of meaning and worth in the life of a person. |
That worth and meaning is fully relative and sadly it seems like there's really little you can do to give people worth without getting into the taking from someone else territory. You can enertain people, keep them plugged in to virtual reality, perhaps simulate their success, but reality itself and such terms as worth and meaning are on too slushy of a ground already to ever say that any definition can be universally held, let alone that it can be given to all based on its subjectivity. |
when there are people sleeping on the streets and living in homeless hostels contrasted with those with more than enough money than they and their descendants could hope to spend in their lifetime, it is really objective reality. redistribution of wealth is an ultimate necessity, and part of the reason why an egalitarian society is highly unlikely ever to exist without violent revolution of the oppressed classes.
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | they won't respond to discipline if the discipline is forced upon them from above and they have little recourse to self-management and governance. |
And this is vacuous. They won't respond to discipline if its forced on them and they'll also revel in the life-long vacation they're given if its not. Same thing could be said for people who respond well to discipline as it exists within the system. You'd get the impression that industrious people are industrious people, that lazy people are lazy people, that some people have the mental faculties to get a lot done, some don't and never will. Obviously you don't give people obligations or responsibilities that they aren't equipped to handle but then again that statement of common sense leads us right back to what you hate - stratifying society. |
it's not at all vacuous. the majority of people aren't equipped to handle real responsibility. and it is primarily because they grew up in surroundings that deprive them of real responsibility. |
Not being antagolistic here, what is 'real responsibility' from your perspective? Can't respond to that unless I know what you're getting at. |
outlined this further back up the thread.
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | and your comment on the stratification of society seems somewhat prejudiced... |
How do you compensate people with rare abilities and talents for taking on jobs that just about rack up brain damage and leave them pretty stressed out and exhausted much of the time? |
why would this happen? their natural abilities would predicate that they would gravitate towards such a vocation.
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: | | The thing about capitalism is this - its too big and unwieldy for anyone to truly have their hands on the joystick. When they do engage in some type of adventurism (typically via legislation) the system rips or tares and when that happens, the poor get poorer, the middle class get poorer, and the rich get poorer. |
clearly, the obscenely wealthy tiny majority have their "hand on the joystick" to some extent. if not, you appear to be suggesting, based upon your earlier comments, that they are either simply grossly superior genetically than the rest of us, or it's all a matter of luck? seems unlikely. |
From the way capitalism is moving its looking like the obscenely wealthy tiny majority are as human as anyone else and want the things that everyone's working towards - if that's the case that they're at the helm. |
of course they're at the helm. but again we meet an un-surmountable antagonism. they might think that things aren't really so great, but they generally don't think that their wealth should be spread across society as a whole. this leads again to the notion of the missionary and benevolent rich, which is not satisfactory on any level.
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | i don't think it can be done. neither do i think your argument is particularly convincing. given that i share your atheism, hence my general outlook on the world. |
In your argument the rich need to be a class of psychopaths. There's no evidence to extent that they're majority psychopathic. |
no, they don't need to be psychopathic. but the system over which they preside does display elements of the pathology of sociopathy.
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
I'm quite confident though that if a whole bunch of people get together right now and attempt to overthrow the governments around the world for communism that another form of.... non-communism as you and Sweetleaf describe it....is what we'd end up with. |
the circumstances leading to it would be profoundly different from the circumstances that led to the last attempt at communism. |
Well right, it couldn't be a physical revolution at all. |
why not?
| Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | but i agree with you to an extent. i think what would most certainly be required before any attempt at revolution would be the engagement and de-apathising of the masses. |
By the time you deapathize the masses you have a political process in place, a big shift in public opinion and, from all the evidence I'm seeing - surprisingly little resistance from the rich. |
i'm just not so sure about this. i don't see any evidence that the rich are ready to devolve their status.
| Quote: |
The challenge is; there's only one type of idea that can deapathise the masses like that and get people moving in harmony - something that *works* and holds up under scrutiny on the strength of its own intellectual merits. That's what alternative economic and social philosophies still haven't yielded yet. |
we don't really know that. many philosophies have been proposed that remain untested. the problem remains the current system and those with a vested interest in allowing it's continued perpetuation.
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techstepgenr8tion wrote: | | peebo wrote: | again, i'm short on time and will have to truncate your post. it's an interesting discussion and there are points further down to which i do wish to reply, however i do wonder if aspects of our discussion are becoming circular, and you're getting somewhat ahead of me in terms of volume of replies. it's unfortunate nobody else seems to be chiming in which might permit the discussion to flow better given my limited posting time...
i'll try and get back to the rest of this post later tonight. |
No worries, I'll wait till you're done with the follow-up.
As for other people not chiming in, I think the sensation of trying to keep up with conversation tends to border on brain-damage. If someone's immediately fascinated with the issue they may keep up but, that's few and far between. |
ha ha, it's becoming something of a brain strain for me to keep up. it's unfortunate, as it's only when a debate really develops to this extent and moves beyond facetious comments and suchlike that new common ground and simultaneous new disagreements and antagonisms arise. input from other posters might help to open the debate up a bit. but oh well... real life commitments notwithstanding i'll do my best to keep up.
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
techstepgenr8tion
that chatty American
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 14833
Location: A beautiful vector among many
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: | | ha ha, it's becoming something of a brain strain for me to keep up. it's unfortunate, as it's only when a debate really develops to this extent and moves beyond facetious comments and suchlike that new common ground and simultaneous new disagreements and antagonisms arise. input from other posters might help to open the debate up a bit. but oh well... real life commitments notwithstanding i'll do my best to keep up. |
I've just lucked out in that work has been *really* dead. Not the most encouraging thing for going concern but it is what it is.
The thing about ideas though, especially new ones, is that they need scrutiny. Like science the more their inspected with a fine tooth comb the better they look if they hold up. It seems like this is something you're really passionate about and the trick is knowing how to explain it from top to bottom (either yourself or who ever is the most out front making the case of it - preferably anyone). Also, I think its a good reminder that I think most people can be sold an idea on its merits and that most of us fundamentally want the same things, just that we still live in a world where the particulars haven't been scintifically ironed out and leave a lot of room open to perspective. Here in America there's too much of a tendency I think of parties or groups to be too cynical to have any kind of conversation out of immediate dismissal - it's been like that since the late 90's and it hasn't helped us much at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
techstepgenr8tion
that chatty American
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 14833
Location: A beautiful vector among many
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: | | The problem isn't what 'needs' to happen but rather what 'does' happen and the personality types that lend themselves to certain roles. |
the problem, though, isn't leaders per se, it's rather leaders with the power to compel. if the masses were mobilised, educated and empowered in a revolutionary period... always going back to the russian revolution is imprudent, it was fraught with flaws, hence the outcome. |
Its all the more important that they're crystal clear on what they stand for and exactly what the system should or shouldn't look like - to the point where any deviation at all would be cause for significant alarm. That degree of composure though still sounds more practical for an evolution than a revolution.
| peebo wrote: | | again this would be a problem to be watchful for during a revolutionary period or in a pre anarchist/communist stage, however i think where an anarchist or communist society is established, this wouldn't be so much of a concern as you seem to think. much easier for sociopathic types to rise up the ranks of a hierarchical, authoritarian power structure and emerge at the top than it would be in a society with a flat structure and a fundamental tenet against coercion and compulsion. such motivations would be easily detected and rooted out. |
Sociopaths, like us, have a disability though - the difference with them being that they're ability to be chameleons is significantly better because they don't lack the theory of mind nor are they overwired in their processing centers to where the wiring competes. From their MO it seems like they can blend into anything. The trick is, having an apparatus that can keep them quarantined to a specific piece of a puzzle rather than any sweeping authority.
I suppose my auditing background comes in here as well and one of the first things I think of is you never give someone both physical and accounting custody of an asset. It may make the process more complicated and cumbersome but it helps mud out and obfuscate attempts at corruption.
| peebo wrote: | | the intervention of the west in the third world is fraught with problems, though. again, don't want to derail the discussion by opening this can of worms, if this discussion gets nearer to a conclusion at some point we can spin it off to a new thread, it could make for another interesting discussion. |
Fair. I think we'd agree on most of the basics and likely it would be a bit of bickering over what we believe is being done, could be done by who, etc.
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: | | To go from Dickonsonian to now its pretty clear that its steadily become less malevolent and more benevolent, even if it still has quite a long way to go in being the system that would truly 'take care of' people. That forward march shows no sign of stopping and you have to rememeber, every new generation is a new generation and they're taking in the new ethics, new standards, of their peers and their generation. The generation of the 1920's was different from that of the 40's, of the 60's, of the 80's, of the 2000's, and similarly the behaviors of the rich, of corporations, of pretty much anyone go with the times. |
it might outwardly appear so, however in reality things are gradually getting worse for the poor. in the uk for example, the welfare state has systematically been transformed into a penal state, real wage levels are dropping, poor and vulnerable people are being denied services and benefits they need to survive, workers are increasingly disempowered, unions decimated, the health service decimated etc. etc. i concede that it's not black and white though. |
I get the impression that you might want to take a trip to America one of these days if you can get the funds together. I only say that because I've heard consistantly that, at least with England, the middle class here live like England's upper class and our lower class live like England's middle class. That could be part of the disconnect.
Also, regarding economies of scale, the British Isles would likely have significantly less of a problem being run by much smaller autonomous groups where most commerce can be done by ocean easily rather than the USA where you have a sizeable stretch of interior to traverse, we're already past 300 million people and its amazing that we're even holding it together with that kind of population quantity. China can because its an authoritarian regime, India kind of isn't and another poster in a different thread made mention that India will always have the drop on us in terms of production - the problem is their states can't agree on tarrifs and there's bickering between states that likely goes back thousands of years - we started with a clean slate and our UCC (uniform commercial code) which kept us from having the problems that history tends to lend.
With that said though the transportation of needed resources, raw materials, etc. from point A to point B across any larger land mass would essentially impovrish that landmass if it doesn't have a ruling set of principles and some type of arbitration higher than the localities to sort inter-community disputes.
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
At this point as well its become increasingly more responsive to its customer base. When's the last time you heard any company or auto maker say "You can have my product in any color you want - as long as its black"? |
consumer choice doesn't equate with freedom, though. |
Product recalls and things of that nature might be a better example but I get that we're talking across systems though and we're still talking about Toyota's with sticky gas peddles or whatever else it is that people bought from working wages.
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
I was giving credit cards as an example because they're a combustable responsibility or techinically a liability with some benefits. Those are the types of responsibilities that when mishandled/mismanaged can break a society. |
yes, but on the scale of what we are talking about it's not relevant. you're looking at the topic from the perspective of where we are now rather than an objective overview. |
I think the most helpful thing - for the argument in favor of anarchism - is if you can really specify the responsibilities you speak of in this sense and how they work. To have a highly educated and nonfleasible core group leading the charge on this we're talking about needing crystal clear arguments and, clearer arguments than the current system can provide in its favor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i had planned a response to your post but given that my cognitive function is not what it might be following a nice bottle wine, i'll leave this quote and hopefully follow up our discusion in the morning, time permitting...
| rosa luxemburg wrote: | We have always distinguished the social kernel from the political form of bourgeois democracy; we have always revealed the hard kernel of social inequality and lack of freedom hidden under the sweet shell of formal equality and freedom - not in order to reject the latter but to spur the working class into not being satisfied with the shell, but rather, by conquering political power, to create a socialist democracy to replace bourgeois democracy - not to eliminate democracy altogether.
But social democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people, who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class - that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses. |
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
techstepgenr8tion
that chatty American
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 14833
Location: A beautiful vector among many
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: | | techstepgenr8tion wrote: |
That said you do have me curious - what kinds of responsibilities are you talking about? I can think of many things that I would consider responsibilities but I'm still vague on which ones you'd want to employ in order to enfranchise people in the process. |
giving people full control over their own life, which can't ever happen when they're financially dependent upon selling their labour to a ruling class, benevolent or otherwise, and having a real say and real power invested in the activities and decisions made within the community. and this doesn't equate to things like voting. i mean real input. |
Horizontal structures of that nature need really good system architecture. To sell that one you need that first and formost. You'd need to sell that as readily to a COSO/COBIT specialist as you would the common man, as you would to a legal scholar, a construction contractor, a doctor, an IT or DB admin expert, etc. etc.
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
But you're already somewhat contradicting yourself. If you reward someone for doing good work its an implied punishment to those who don't do good work and aren't rewarded. You have to figure out where your egalitarianism ends and your meritocracy begins. To even grade people based on merit you're headed at least somewhat back toward a capitalistic system where people's mobility (meaning I suppose in the spectrum from poor to upper-middle class) has a lot to do with their innate abilities. |
it's not in any way a matter of grading. esteem and respect are not finite commodities like money. if a person gains respect, it's not at the expense of another. no one would subsequently attract disdain. i think we might be thinking about different senses of meritocracy. if it involves material reward, then no, however i don't think there is anything wrong with people gravitating towards positions in society for which they are well suited. just not in the way this happens now. as you know, i don't think governance should come from fixed, rigid institutions that hold power over the people at large. people should be encouraged to be multi-faceted. we have far too fixed a notion of how social organisation should work, when really i think there are so many unexplored and potentially far more functional alternatives. |
I perhaps didn't mean a different meritocricy but perhaps I'm used to hearing from people left of center that egalitarianism is the core but then again it seemed like the egalitarian part was taken to obsessive/compulsive extents to where even merit-based inequality was seen as a wrongful act. If you're simply talking about equality in the eyes of the law and then extending equality in a few more economic aspects but careful not to crush meritocricy under the weight of that then its a better proposition.
| peebo wrote: | | anyway back on point... the notion of an anarchist society specifically implies far stronger community links and a much more rigourous support network existing within the community. if people need support, those around them, relatives etc., would be far better placed to provide needed care and support. lip service is paid to this at the moment in the uk, with the introduction of self directed support for disabled people and those with learning difficulties and mental health problems, but it is only lip service. the policy is fairly transparent as nothing more than a ploy to cut spending, and there are many cases that make this glaringly obvious, including more than one that are currently going through the courts. |
Essentially what you're talking about though is a bit more like a conservative philosophy around the other side where the power really resides with the localities. It seems like the trick is, really tying the commuties together strongly as well to the point where you've got something like a carbon fabric or a neural network of power as a result. I'd never suggest it can't be done, just that you're still essentially looking at finding means which rethink the whole way human beings have handled public forum in mass up until this point. Its by no means a small or easy target. Again, not one to pass on because of what the benefits could be if someone can answer that question but its definitely something that needs practical answers before the idea gains popular appeal.
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
Regardless - the thing I do realize about the world is that it seems most people can have the realization that they're kind of just here, they weren't brought here by choice, and that if they don't want to participate in society there's no one who can 'make' them. I agree with you that people generally don't give into that kind of nihilism unless the dissincentive is already stacked pretty high. At the same time though the jury is still out on what can really be done about that; not what we'd 'like' to work but what will work vs. what won't. |
i'd still be insistent that this is actually encouraged, directly or otherwise, by capitalism, and that to some extent at least it would be mitigated by an anarchist society, or even really any society in a more left leaning and less authoritarian direction. |
When I was younger my biggest confusion with looking at how things were done is that I wondered why people didn't hang together, if they lived in poverty why not try to make it as cordial and bearable for each other as possible instead of escalating crime as a response. It had been impressed upon me for a long time that it was a cultural response, that politicians as well were - in aggregate with the media - often out to start race and class war for the sake of votes for whoever gave handouts, and that the family had been disintegrating largely due to the way policies were sculpted which meant that families in poverty essentially couldn't get the help they needed unless the father left, at which point the more kids the more stamps - after which contagium of moral hazard went wild and, from that system essentially laying a tire track down their backs the essentially became a group of people who, as a result, couldn't come up with anything that they were about.
As an adult, I've heard things spelled out so many ways, also as a full determinist its strikingly clear that nothing and no human action comes from a vacuum - its a blend of genetics, circumstance, ideas, and how the three mesh. I always had the notion too that the lower the income the more cutthroat each gender was with the other in terms of mating and perhaps that's how culture gets crass - ie. back at the age where I was wondering why the poor simply didn't try to build stronger and better communities ethically to soften the blow or even reverse the impact and change their communities - I was also living with a belief in Adam and Eve and, realizing that we are nothing other than monkeys, I understand a little better how the human condition and how our genes and fundamental instincts do all they can to keep us at war with each other, even more over genetic resources than physical ones.
I would definitely agree on this though - tighter nit communities are needed for two reasons: 1) as much as pure libertarians may dislike my saying this, a culture doesn't do well if it doesn't know what its about and have the organization to talk about it often (yes, presiding 'morals' and goals even if a-religious in nature), and 2) Part of the big problem with inner city crime is anonymity of character - that you can make a steaming mess, walk away, and in most senses be able to start over without much effort; for some people that's a way to run from pain, for others though its a new way of finding fresh victims and largely being insulated from the consequences of their actions.
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: | | I know that but they're also caught in a self-created vicious circle with crime, drug 'abuse' (which I'll gladly deliniate from 'use' - two very different things IMO), throwing themselves at having kids out of wedlock and without financing (in America LBJ had a big role in that), that makes the social norms worse and from there makes it even harder for people born into that to get out. |
i know. it's a vicious circle. the problem is that many believe it's their only choice, and for some their is indeed at least some truth in this belief. |
You'd also have to stop the snake oil salesman who get their income on race-baiting and sewing cynicism for their own benefits. They'd be just as much of a problem for any system as they would capitalism.
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | anarchism isn't about giving an individual what they need to succeed. rather, it is about the success of the community en masse. regardless of how successful i am, it is always with a bitter taste if i risk being jumped on my way home from work by those whom society has failed. |
How does anarchism resolve that? It sounds great in promise but I need to hear something in the way of actual content. How does the 'community' decide to distribute? Is it equal to all? How would that be compatible with any amount of meritocricy? Without meritocricy how do you get anyone to take the crap jobs that need to be done? |
in a society where a bin man is respected as much as a scientist - because let's face it, bin men fulfil a fairly essential role, arguably as essential as the scientist - the bin man will have a far greater degree of motivation than if he simply has to fulfil his function because circumstances have led to him being able to do nothing else. the motivations of the scientist take care of themselves, he pursues his career because he loves what he does and understands that he is making a great contribution to society. money as a motivator inevitably leads to unsatisfactory results. people should indulge in such a profession because it is their vocation.
additionally, many of the really shitty jobs could fairly easily be automated. their is a very real antagonism between capitalism's need for a reserve of unemployed workers, it's attendant need for menial labour, and real evolutionary progress for humanity. |
I think the reproductive scarcity thing would need a pretty strong blow dealt to it as well somehow. As far as I can tell I can't escape the impression that its the root of the need for oneupsmanship, pettiness, etc.. I don't want to say that I'm making a proposition like legalize prostitution for all genders or whatever have you, I'm thinking that our culture needs to come to face with that as the core of our stratification problems and figure out what we do with that antisocial part of us that still leads us as if we were living in the jungle and needing to buck each other (male or female) for dominance.
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: | | That worth and meaning is fully relative and sadly it seems like there's really little you can do to give people worth without getting into the taking from someone else territory. You can enertain people, keep them plugged in to virtual reality, perhaps simulate their success, but reality itself and such terms as worth and meaning are on too slushy of a ground already to ever say that any definition can be universally held, let alone that it can be given to all based on its subjectivity. |
when there are people sleeping on the streets and living in homeless hostels contrasted with those with more than enough money than they and their descendants could hope to spend in their lifetime, it is really objective reality. redistribution of wealth is an ultimate necessity, and part of the reason why an egalitarian society is highly unlikely ever to exist without violent revolution of the oppressed classes. |
I get what your saying, just suggesting that its far from the end all be all. Maybe not be a vital point, and its not an argument against advocating that the poor be brought up, just that 'meaning' itself is a bit of a mirage.
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
How do you compensate people with rare abilities and talents for taking on jobs that just about rack up brain damage and leave them pretty stressed out and exhausted much of the time? |
why would this happen? their natural abilities would predicate that they would gravitate towards such a vocation. |
Lower pressure environment, got it.
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
From the way capitalism is moving its looking like the obscenely wealthy tiny majority are as human as anyone else and want the things that everyone's working towards - if that's the case that they're at the helm. |
of course they're at the helm. but again we meet an un-surmountable antagonism. they might think that things aren't really so great, but they generally don't think that their wealth should be spread across society as a whole. this leads again to the notion of the missionary and benevolent rich, which is not satisfactory on any level. |
Where I still disagree with you; real wealth consists of much more than money and much more than what we can financially account for in that sense. Its kind of like how a neighborhood appreciating in value from an improvement in the downtown area doesn't mean that its a direct detraction from another, nor does the enhancement of intellectual property that proliferates outward have a direct dollar correlation to the wealth of the people it helps, nor a direct correlation to a life saving drug.
If I were to take my thoughts a bit farther and condense them down I'd say that yes, the wealthy have more power than the middle or lower classes but, I get the impression that by the time your a multimillionaire the increase in power between being that or a multibillionaire or even the richest person alive gets smaller and smaller in terms of how much social 'power' it gives (to put it a bit clearer I'd suggest it has greatly diminishing return). The laws in this country keep them from really being able to throw those dollars into dominating the political system. Yes, they can fund advertisements, they can fund lobbyists if their megawealthy and have the full weight and credit of a corporation beneath them, they can get press coverage and Forbes covers if they're in the top, but true power to crash democracy isn't something they have. Legalities still put a roof on how much influence they yield just like they can put a floor on the amount of influence that an impoverished individual has. One of our bigger problems has been with the latter and how some politicians will weild their predicament by essentially buying their votes.
Overall though it seems like the rich are generally of Winston Churchill's mindset - ie. capitalism being the second worst system to everything else - and given a real solution that holds up to accounting, internal integrity/security, and any other proper academic scrutiny, I don't think it would yield a wild backlash. The mentality and 'closer to God' notion of rich vs. poor has been dropping as the rich and poor aren't as socially isolated from one another as they once were. The rich of course would be dead set against a system that simply cleans them out for cathartic value, and I'm sure even a good system they'd realize they were getting the short end of the deal, but I get the impression that they'd have to comply in the end. A well-written and intellectually sound idea is something that can't be defeated and is as lock-tight as fate. Then again that's the key, 'if' that particular idea fits that description.
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
I'm quite confident though that if a whole bunch of people get together right now and attempt to overthrow the governments around the world for communism that another form of.... non-communism as you and Sweetleaf describe it....is what we'd end up with. |
the circumstances leading to it would be profoundly different from the circumstances that led to the last attempt at communism. |
Well right, it couldn't be a physical revolution at all. |
why not? |
I might have answered this above. An air-tight idea is more potent than any sort, any gun, any bomb. An air-tight idea is something more akin to gravity or thermodynamics in that its a newly unveiled force of nature. Things like that completely change people's concepts of everything.
IMHO if an idea for a new type of government necessitates violent overthrow it means that idea needs to go back in the oven till its ready. Otherwise oversights and unanswered questions are being answered with the barrel of a gun and a very loud and clear 'Because I say so'. Those last four words constitute one of the most rabidly anti-progress thoughts ever held by man.
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
| peebo wrote: | | but i agree with you to an extent. i think what would most certainly be required before any attempt at revolution would be the engagement and de-apathising of the masses. |
By the time you deapathize the masses you have a political process in place, a big shift in public opinion and, from all the evidence I'm seeing - surprisingly little resistance from the rich. |
i'm just not so sure about this. i don't see any evidence that the rich are ready to devolve their status. |
Because at this point its still not about them moving over for a better ideology and if there is a better ideology out there, no one's done that idea any justice yet in debate and detail. Short of that it simply looks like extortion attempts by political means and smells of Lenin, Castro, Gueverra, and Robespierre. Its like anyone poor, rich, middleclass; engage a person antagonistically and you get a like response.
| peebo wrote: | | Quote: |
The challenge is; there's only one type of idea that can deapathise the masses like that and get people moving in harmony - something that *works* and holds up under scrutiny on the strength of its own intellectual merits. That's what alternative economic and social philosophies still haven't yielded yet. |
we don't really know that. many philosophies have been proposed that remain untested. the problem remains the current system and those with a vested interest in allowing it's continued perpetuation. |
The masses only move to that extent if its a sure shot and they know its giving them a better world (or at least in this day and age - demogogery might have done it in the pre-media days, it can't now).
That said, you can't mobilize any nation against itself for the sake of 'testing' a theory. No sane person would go along with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
techstepgenr8tion
that chatty American
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 14833
Location: A beautiful vector among many
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: | i had planned a response to your post but given that my cognitive function is not what it might be following a nice bottle wine, i'll leave this quote and hopefully follow up our discusion in the morning, time permitting...
| rosa luxemburg wrote: | We have always distinguished the social kernel from the political form of bourgeois democracy; we have always revealed the hard kernel of social inequality and lack of freedom hidden under the sweet shell of formal equality and freedom - not in order to reject the latter but to spur the working class into not being satisfied with the shell, but rather, by conquering political power, to create a socialist democracy to replace bourgeois democracy - not to eliminate democracy altogether.
But social democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people, who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class - that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses. |
|
I'd still say your author speaks from a day and age where the monochrome white rich were across town from the poor and neither group really met or interacted, let alone really had anything more than a vague intellectual sense that the other group was human.
Fast forward to now and you get stories like a British Sri Lankan immigrant of the Talma becomming a world-famous star and having a near marriage to a billionaire in the US who's a rock/raggae/punk musician and environmentalist who looks more like a member of the Red Hot Chili Peppers on paper than a generational silver-spoon elitist. No doubt Mark Zuckerberg has all kinds of other hipster millionaire and billionaires all over Facebook. You've also got a pretty decent music producer, perhaps not the greatest stage performer though, making waves with her sort of blue-grass and folk-influenced electronica these days albeit she really bit it pretty badly on Saturday Night Live last month but, lots of trance and dubstep producers have been remixing her nonetheless.
No, I don't think telling the rich - no matter how che, hip, groovy, or hackey-sacking and vegan they might become - "Hey, we're going to repossess everything you own - hope you don't mind!" will ever be a particularly smooth one-liner to start a conversation but there's still a big difference between a stick-up as I just mentioned and authentic progress. A stickup is a stickup, standing in the way of progress is a group of ludites trying to break industrial machines or ban them, or being part of the ID crowd. As much as the rich like having what they have, I don't think anyone wants to be 'that guy', especially if its strikingly clear and they're treated in a super-hospitable way that its clear that its not the former situation (ie. extortion) but the later. I'll admit too - they may be laggards and they may be testing the water, seeing who else makes the move before they do and are crossing their fingers hoping people aren't being executed or grossly mistreated. That kind of revenge reflex though is exactly what's wrong with 'overthrow' as well though. We live in a universe with no free will, where people technically are what they are and where they're set down anyway, penalizing people for that in either direction when given a choice not to is suspect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
artrat
Occupy Wrong Planet!
Joined: Nov 07, 2011
Age: 28
Posts: 1268
Location: The Butthole of the American Empire
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I confess that I didn't really understand the definition of anarchy when referring to political philosophy.
I actually agree with it now that I have a better understanding.
_________________
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" ~George Orwell
"I belive in God, only I spell it Nature."
~ Frank Llyod Wright
|
|
| Back to top |
|
techstepgenr8tion
that chatty American
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 14833
Location: A beautiful vector among many
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| artrat wrote: | I confess that I didn't really understand the definition of anarchy when referring to political philosophy.
I actually agree with it now that I have a better understanding. |
I think the problem is that its not 'anarchy', its essentially democratic socialism with a few specific tweaks. I get the sense that democratic socialism ends up being such a fuzzy term simply because so many people with so many ideas weren't able to bite their tongues until they really got together, had a conference, and worked out the details of what they believed to be the best system of it. When an arbitrary name gets chosen, heck, call it 'Horizontal Conservatism' it just gets dicey because terms that already have loaded meanings are getting rehashed before there's any proper name recognition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sweetleaf
Metalhead
Joined: Jan 07, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 14828
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techstepgenr8tion wrote: | | artrat wrote: | I confess that I didn't really understand the definition of anarchy when referring to political philosophy.
I actually agree with it now that I have a better understanding. |
I think the problem is that its not 'anarchy', its essentially democratic socialism with a few specific tweaks. I get the sense that democratic socialism ends up being such a fuzzy term simply because so many people with so many ideas weren't able to bite their tongues until they really got together, had a conference, and worked out the details of what they believed to be the best system of it. When an arbitrary name gets chosen, heck, call it 'Horizontal Conservatism' it just gets dicey because terms that already have loaded meanings are getting rehashed before there's any proper name recognition. |
Not sure anarchy and democratic socialism would be the same thing, as socialism indicates the existence of a government.
_________________
It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mikhail bakunin wrote: | | Organizing of a society by means of a free federation from below upward, of workers associations, industrial as well as a agricultural, scientific as well as literary associations - first into a commune, then a federation communes into regions, of regions into nations, and of nations into international fraternal association. |
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sweetleaf wrote: | | techstepgenr8tion wrote: | | artrat wrote: | I confess that I didn't really understand the definition of anarchy when referring to political philosophy.
I actually agree with it now that I have a better understanding. |
I think the problem is that its not 'anarchy', its essentially democratic socialism with a few specific tweaks. I get the sense that democratic socialism ends up being such a fuzzy term simply because so many people with so many ideas weren't able to bite their tongues until they really got together, had a conference, and worked out the details of what they believed to be the best system of it. When an arbitrary name gets chosen, heck, call it 'Horizontal Conservatism' it just gets dicey because terms that already have loaded meanings are getting rehashed before there's any proper name recognition. |
Not sure anarchy and democratic socialism would be the same thing, as socialism indicates the existence of a government. |
not necessarily. anarchism is essentially stateless socialism.
| mikhail bakunin wrote: | | We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. |
socialism is such a wooly term though, and so many different people and groups use it to define such hugely differing philosophies. like techstepgeneration mentions above. the same thing happened with libertarianism. the americans who describe themselves as libertarians are hugely removed from those who referred to themselves as such when anarchism was banned following the demise of the paris commune.
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| techstepgenr8tion wrote: | | peebo wrote: | i had planned a response to your post but given that my cognitive function is not what it might be following a nice bottle wine, i'll leave this quote and hopefully follow up our discusion in the morning, time permitting...
| rosa luxemburg wrote: | We have always distinguished the social kernel from the political form of bourgeois democracy; we have always revealed the hard kernel of social inequality and lack of freedom hidden under the sweet shell of formal equality and freedom - not in order to reject the latter but to spur the working class into not being satisfied with the shell, but rather, by conquering political power, to create a socialist democracy to replace bourgeois democracy - not to eliminate democracy altogether.
But social democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people, who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class - that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses. |
|
I'd still say your author speaks from a day and age where the monochrome white rich were across town from the poor and neither group really met or interacted, let alone really had anything more than a vague intellectual sense that the other group was human. |
i don't think things today are so different as you imagine, though.
| Quote: |
Fast forward to now and you get stories like a British Sri Lankan immigrant of the Talma becomming a world-famous star and having a near marriage to a billionaire in the US who's a rock/raggae/punk musician and environmentalist who looks more like a member of the Red Hot Chili Peppers on paper than a generational silver-spoon elitist. No doubt Mark Zuckerberg has all kinds of other hipster millionaire and billionaires all over Facebook. You've also got a pretty decent music producer, perhaps not the greatest stage performer though, making waves with her sort of blue-grass and folk-influenced electronica these days albeit she really bit it pretty badly on Saturday Night Live last month but, lots of trance and dubstep producers have been remixing her nonetheless. |
aye, i don't think anyone would deny that there is a tiny percentage of anomalous spontaneous upward mobility, particularly in the area of celebrity culture. i mean there are people who buy glossy magazines and pore over photoshopped images of half wits who are only famous due to appearing on some reality tv show or other. however, these are anomalies. beneath this facade, things are not so different now from what they were in luxemburg's day.
| Quote: |
No, I don't think telling the rich - no matter how che, hip, groovy, or hackey-sacking and vegan they might become - "Hey, we're going to repossess everything you own - hope you don't mind!" will ever be a particularly smooth one-liner to start a conversation but there's still a big difference between a stick-up as I just mentioned and authentic progress. A stickup is a stickup, standing in the way of progress is a group of ludites trying to break industrial machines or ban them, or being part of the ID crowd. As much as the rich like having what they have, I don't think anyone wants to be 'that guy', especially if its strikingly clear and they're treated in a super-hospitable way that its clear that its not the former situation (ie. extortion) but the later. I'll admit too - they may be laggards and they may be testing the water, seeing who else makes the move before they do and are crossing their fingers hoping people aren't being executed or grossly mistreated. That kind of revenge reflex though is exactly what's wrong with 'overthrow' as well though. We live in a universe with no free will, where people technically are what they are and where they're set down anyway, penalizing people for that in either direction when given a choice not to is suspect. |
i'd counter this by saying that a temporary situation in which excessive wealth was seized and redistributed is far more humane than a system that promotes inequality, subordination and oppression in perpetuity.
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| techstepgenr8tion wrote: | | artrat wrote: | I confess that I didn't really understand the definition of anarchy when referring to political philosophy.
I actually agree with it now that I have a better understanding. |
I think the problem is that its not 'anarchy', its essentially democratic socialism with a few specific tweaks. I get the sense that democratic socialism ends up being such a fuzzy term simply because so many people with so many ideas weren't able to bite their tongues until they really got together, had a conference, and worked out the details of what they believed to be the best system of it. When an arbitrary name gets chosen, heck, call it 'Horizontal Conservatism' it just gets dicey because terms that already have loaded meanings are getting rehashed before there's any proper name recognition. |
it certainly is anarchy. anarchism as a political philosophy has existed as long or longer than socialism. but i'd agree that if the socialism you describe is stateless and bottom up, they are essentially the same thing. the main difference is anarchists rejection as futile of the notion of reformism, which is advocated by pretty much all people these days who talk of socialism as a preferred means of societal change than direct revolution.
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
