donkey wrote:
there is a view supporting this type of approach to living an dit is called anarchy/anarchists, it was a popular movement in the 80's. amongst dissafected youth.
while it is an idealist approach to suggest that everyone should be equal, the fact is, some are more equal than others.
its not a matter of right anf wrong, it is how it is, in most societies, cultures and social and herd animals.
we can only construct our physical environment to suit us, some things we are more animal than we want to know or admit.
I'm a philosophical anarchist inspired by Noam Chomsky and Mikhail Bakunin.
Quote:
The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key. As Kropotkin noted, "[collectivist anarchism] express[es] a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution [i.e. distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself." Thus, while communism and collectivism both organise production in common via producers' associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed. Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear.
An idea is only an idea unless people have the courage to implement it in their lives. I don't believe the current system is working for most people. It works for the wealthy few, not the largely poor masses.
12 Aug 2008, 10:33 am
