Socialism Vs Anarchism

by John - WSM-pers cap Mon Mar 20, 2006 02:46

I had planned to turn my speech into an article but i never got around to doing so. However, after reading Cians analysis, i feel that i should post up what i actually said. In the intrests of honesty (and laziness) i decidied to leave it as it was on the day despite its mistakes, grammatical errors and rhetorical flourishes.

ORGANISING FOR CHANGE

To start I would like to thank Socialist Youth for inviting us along today and hopefully we will both learn something from our different traditions.
Theoretically Marxists and anarchists have the same goal. A stateless, classless, communist society. Both of us realise that this state of affairs won’t come about spontaneously through revolution or through the intercession of Lenin’s or Bukarin’s ghost. Rather it requires organisation and work. And it is on this question, the manner of organising society, of fighting for change, and of organising as revolutionaries that major differences emerge. In my talk I will try and cover the sort of actions that anarchists lay emphasis on and how we think we should organise to change society.

Anarchists believe that the methods you use to do something will affect the result you get. That is what we mean when we say means and ends are linked. So obviously the manner in which we organise is influenced by the society we want to create. While this post revolutionary society is the topic of this evening’s discussion I will briefly highlight the crucial element of an anarchist society. Anarchists want to no only abolish capitalism but we also want to abolish all relationships that involve subordination and domination. Our aim is a truly classless society that isn’t divided into bosses and workers, or order givers and order takers.

This is why anarchists oppose hierarchy. We feel that if you leave the running of any organisation or society up to a minority, even an elected one, that minority with use its power, its time and its energy to consolidate its control. Even if that minority didn’t abuse its power that type of organisation divides society into the majority that isn’t used to taking decisions and the majority that feels it has the experience and the knowledge to run society. How a self managing, communist society could ever to created out a system that perpetuates this division is beyond me.

We recognise that we are not going to, some day, far of into the future come across people ready made, with all the attributes needed to create socialism and run society. That’s why anarchists talk about creating the seeds of a new society within the old. We try and promote actions that actively transform those that take part in them. Actions that help people gain sense of their own powers and abilities and prepare them for the revolution and the communist society we want to create afterwards.
We feel that if you have experience organising in a libertarian manner, weather its in a union or an anti war group or a community organisation not only will you have had some training, no mater how small, in running your life, you will also be far less likely to believe that you need people to exercise power and control on your behalf in future. In this fashion we limit the possibility of a dictatorial clique seizing power after any revolution.

Direct Action

Another way that anarchists try to do this is by laying emphasis on direct action. While this is sometimes caricatured as a simply consisting of petrol bombing and breaking windows, by direct action we mean, the process by which people act for themselves rather that getting people to act on their behalf. Direct action can take many forms. It can take place when workers are on strike, when areas implement non collection, when fascists are beaten off the streets, when communities stop a pipe line being built on their area. While direct action takes a myriad of forms the crucial aspect is that people act for themselves. We favour direct action not only because it is effective but also because it transforms those who use it. In this sense it the process of organising and participating in direct action that is the crucial bit.

By working with your neighbours and fellow workers, by standing up against the state and capitalists people can gain a sense of their own collective strength. But if these actions are to have the desired empowering effects they must be self generated and democratically controlled. It is through the process of formulating ideas, arguing and debating for them and then democratically voting for them that people gain the confidence and experience needed to stand up for themselves and be confident in their own abilities. That is why we want direct action to be organised in a non hierarchical manner.

Direct action looses much of it power when the people on the streets getting arrested, or blocking trucks are simply following the dictates of a different leader. When the participants in a campaign are seen as foot soldiers following instructions.

Absenteeism

Linked with this, and following on from it is the issue of absenteeism. Now I realise that the socialist party has the position that running for election gives the party a platform to promote its ideas and feel that it recognises its limitations. In the Dail Joe has certainly promoted a left wing message and in the recent situation involving Gamma did good work publicising the issue. So we do not claim that running for elections does not result in certain tactical benefits on occasion.

Anarchists look at things a bit differently. Because we oppose the concept of a minority wielding authority over a minority, we oppose the concept of picking that authority. But our objection is not an ideological conviction separated from the real world. We reject voting in elections for a number of reasons.

Firstly voting endorses this authoritarian power structure. It legitimises the bourgeoisie state. By not voting we strip away the democratic veneer of the state and reveal it for what it is, the representative, policeman and administrator of the ruling class.

Absenteeism allows us to put forward these arguments at election time and highlight the differences between what a politician promises and what he does when he gets into office. The difference between real democracy and the sham we have at the moment.

Also the election of left wing politicians into office can actually have a detrimental effect on social movements. By necessity the party and politician has to claim as much credit as possible in order to get elected next time. This can impact on the way that ordinary members in a campaign can look at the movement and themselves. Rather than seeing themselves, and their comrades, as the motor of change, and relying on their own energies, they now look to the politician to get things done. In my opinion this detracts from one of the most beneficial aspects of direct action.

Historically there has not been one party that upon gaining some semblance of power in a parliament that has not sold out. From ones organised along democratic centralist lines to social democratic ones, all end up being corrupted by the atmosphere of parliament and seduced by the power. One way of trying to combat this is to take the attitude of saying the elected official will only take the average industrial wage and donate most of the rest to the party. In my opinion this creates other problems. When a parties structure is heavily dependant on money from their representatives salary the party itself, especially the leadership, has an interest in not taking action that would jeopardise this income. Consciously or unconsciously they may take decisions that are more popular with the voters but are not necessarily the right ones from a revolutionary standpoint.

On a more positive note we feel by rejecting representative forms of organisation the space is opened up to direct and democratic forms of organising. So our rejection of voting is not a rejection of the political sphere of struggle as some claim. Rather it means that we want political struggles to be conducted in the same way as social and economic struggles. With direct action, solidarity and self organisation.

Lib Organisation

Libertarian organisation consists of a few basics. The meaningful participation of all those involved not only in implementing decisions but also in drawing up proposals and debating for them. Because we recognise the same policy cannot be implemented in different areas with different conditions we reject decisions that are made by a centre and imposed on the wider movement. At the same time we recognise that in order to increase the possibility of success a struggle has to be spread and those in struggle have to work together. We see the solution to this difficult problem as local autonomy matched with a wider federation.

Federalism is an organisational structure based on “the free agreement of individuals and organisations to work collectively towards a common objective”. All decisions are made by those affected by them as opposed to centralism, where decisions are made by a central committee for those affected by them.

So far I have spoken about some of the aspects of organising that anarchists promote. But now I am going to talk about anarchists and organisations. Throughout history anarchist communist have embraced different forms of organisation from the affinity group, to revolutionary cells, to anarchist syndicalism. I, and the WSM, consider ourselves within to fall within the platformist tradition. That means we have a concept called organisational dualism and it consists of two main parts. On the one hand you have the organisation of conscious revolutionaries willing to operate with the four main principles of Theoretical unity, tactical unity, collective action and discipline, and federalism.
I have already explained federalism so now I will briefly talk about the other principles.

Theoretical Unity meant simply that if you don’t agree with someone; don’t be in a political group with them! This doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree all the time (they won’t) but there does need to be a certain amount of ideological unity.

Tactical Unity meant that the members of an organisation should struggle together as an organised force rather than as individuals. Once a strategy has been agreed by the collective, all members should work towards ensuring its success saving resources and time concentrating in a common direction. So for example when we made a decision to prioritise the bin tax it became the main focus of our collective work.

Collective responsibility means that each member should take part in the collective decision-making process and respect the decisions of the collective.
In this manner we try to tackle some of the problems that faced the anarchist movement in the past, which I believe were partly due to lack of org, while at the same time being consistent with the liberation ideas of self management and democracy .

The other organisation that we refer when new talk about organisational dualism is the mass organisation. These are the general organisations created by the working class in the process of the struggle. They consist of the unions, various campaign groups and other organs of struggle.

We see ourselves as operating with these mass organisations and arguing the anarchist line within them. We analyse history and the present day and try to learn from the past. We also try to elaborate a common strategy that attempts to link the various expressions of the class struggle.

In a sense we can be said to be a leadership of ideas but this does not mean we are some kind of all knowing teacher. We learn from the struggle and the people we interact with.

So while we see ourselves as offering leadership we reject the idea that we should become sort of institutional leaders or managers of the movement. We refuse to take positions of power that lifts us above the broad movement and gives us control over it. Instead we rely on the strength of our ideas, and the example we set, to convince people, rather than hoping our position on some hierarchical ladder will allow us to control the people below us.

So to summarise we don’t make the revolution for the proletariat, we don’t direct it in their interests and we don’t govern them for their own good. We simply exist as an organisation within the class and attempt to speed up its growth and emancipation.

Leninst Organisation

So far I have really concentrated on how Anarchists organise and fight for change. But seeing as this is a debate I suppose I should also have a look at the manner in which Leninists do the same.

Because I can’t go into everything here I will just offer an anarchist critique of the concept of a vanguard party and democratic centralism.

Doing this is quiet difficult because concepts change over time and in different situations, and pamphlets, the same phase seems to mean very different things. So to avoid confusion, seeing as I couldn’t find the S.Ps collectively agreed upon positions on line, I have stuck with what Lenin and Trotsky said on the matter, unless specifically refuted in an official document by the party.

Like an anarchist organisation the Leninist party sees itself as offering leadership to the class. But it is a leadership of a completely different sort. Because Lenin felt that the working class could never develop beyond “trade union consciousness” they need a leadership not only to instruct them but to govern them and channel their energies in the right direction. This is not simply a leadership of ideas; it consists of seizing control of organs of power and exercising them on behalf of the working class.

Trotsky’s transitional programme starts by saying the “The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterized by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat.” and while it was written 50 something years ago I think the party feels the same way today. The assumption is that the old leadership, the Stalinists and Social Democrats, led the workers astray so what they need is new leadership in the form of the Trotskyist party. While all groups offer critiques of history the danger of seeing leadership as all important is that instead of focusing on rousing the people and encouraging their self reliance and independence what they need to do is put the right leadership in power and follow its commands.

I feel that this idea of democratically seizing the representative leadership positions, within campaigns, unions, and government reinforces the divisions between Leaders and led; those that come up with the orders and those that follow them.

Rather than electing the right leaders Anarchists feel that it is only by discussion, debate and the experience of democratic self management that the uneven development with our class can be overcome

Internally the Leninist party is organised on the basis of democratic centralism. There is a tendency within the left at the moment to equate this with democratic unity, simply meaning that collective decisions are enforced by the party as a whole. Lenin however disagreed with this and summarised democratic centralism by saying its most “important feature” was a system whereby the lower bodies elect the higher and the decision of the higher bodies could then be imposed on the lower unconditionally and without wavering between party conferences. He also said it had “a strong central party leadership whose authority over all leading party members is universally accepted”. This form of organisation is supposed to allow the party react quickly to events and remain democratic.

Needless to say Anarchists have many problems with this way of organising. As I have mentioned before anarchists want to try and create the seeds of a new society within the present system. Clearly organising in such a hierarchical and top down fashion is not conducive to training people in creative thinking, self management and democracy.

Conclusion

So to finish up while we have similar goals we have different ways of trying to get there. If we were playing at being revolutionaries or if we didn’t really believe in the possibility of a revolution these differences wouldn’t matter to the same extent. However, as people who do believe in a revolution, the manner in which we organise is crucially important. Too many times in the past the dreams of libratory movements have turned into the nightmare of totalitarian dictatorship. It is something that we must not allow to happen again. Its time that we truly took seriously the phrase “The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.”. I feel that this is the only way to avoid the mistakes of the past and reach the future that we both want to see.

Main Sources:
The Anarchist FAQ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
www.libcom.org

by aware Mon Mar 20, 2006 02:48

there are no amount of tricks the dead and dying socialists would deploy to hijack the international anarchist phenomenon - and this is one of them.

Socialism is a TOTAL FAILURE -- the 'debate' is simply become an anarchist!

by John - WSM-pers cap Mon Mar 20, 2006 02:52

Here the talk given by James, the other WSMer.
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=2443&sea...rxism

by Duine Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:59

Cé a bhuaigh an diospóireacht?

Cuireann sí i gcuimhne dom an scéal a dúirt Cearl Meaircs i dtaobh na Sualainne: Dá dtarlódh an reabhlóid sa tSualainn, go dtabharfadh na fostóirí cuireadh chun dinnéar do na hoibrithe, go dtiocfaidís, go níosfaidís agus le linn caitheamh na dtodóga ina dhiaidh go bpléfidís go mín macánta an reabhlóid agus malairtú na cumhachtaí. Ar a dhur abhaile dóibh bheadh an reabhlóid curtha i gcríoch.

Sin idirbheartaíocht duit!

by Colm - ISN Mon Mar 20, 2006 21:40 breathc at hotmail dot com

I found this debate interesting to read but I have one smalll quibble: it probably would have been better to call it Leninism versus Anarchism. Marxist socialists are a diverse bunch and many would reject the Leninist form of internal organisation usually called 'democratic centralism'. There are many Marxist organisations throughout the world that have democratic internal structures and who reject what they regard as the elitist/top-down nature of the Leninist model. The Irish Socialist Network would be one group that subscribes to that strand of participatory socialism or democratic Marxism.

For a basic outline of the ISN's ideological position see:
http://www.irishsocialist.net/introtoisn.html

by Joe - WSM 1st of May (personal capacity) Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:46

The WSM were invited to take part in the debate by SY but being the organisers SY set the title and did the publicity. I think both the WSM contributions are quite fair in critiquing Leninism where leninist organistional structures are being talked of and only referring to marxism when they are critiquing marxist postions (well actually more Engles reduction of the state to 'bodies of armed men).

Given the long tradition within Marxism of insisting that group A's understanding of Marxism is what Marxism is then it is not surprising that SY conflate marxism with leninism. I don't think we did this.

by Peter Murphy Tue Mar 21, 2006 14:20

Two men, one small and the other large and strong, both work digging with shovels in a communist society - they each work the same hours and recieve the from the general store of production.
However the bigger stronger man manages to dig more than the other smaller man though they do the same hours and get the same pay - the smaller man is simply not strong enough to do the same amount of work in the same time.
In fact if the smaller man was working on his own without the help of the stronger man he would be unable to finish the job but if the stronger man did not have the help of the smaller man he would find the work more difficult but would be well able to finish the job in the same time.
The smaller man gets a bright idea - if he takes it easy, it will make no difference how much he is recieves because it is the rule that he and the stronger man will still recieve the same no matter how hard they work or even if they do no work whatsoever - even the managers who oversee the work recieve the same as they do - so is the engineer who planned the project they are working on. The manager's duties are to stand nearby and ensure that they do not slack - he in fact does no digging himself - the engineer merely drew up the plans for the project - he has gone home with his work done. But they all get the same.
The smaller man has discovered that if he does nothing whatsoever by law he is obliged none the less to recieve the same as his comrades who break their backs working all day in the hot sun.
The smaller man meanwhile is single while his bigger stronger comrade who does most of the work has a wife looking after their five children at home. Yet both receive the same.
The strong man is no fool either - he is disgusted but realises he is powerless - he knows that if he complains nothing will come of it - the smaller man cannot be fired because by law each person in the society is garanteed job security - even if he were moved to some other area - perhaps cutting wood - he would still he recieve the same for shovelling because everyone recieves the same.
The strong man decides not to work as hard because after all even if his skills were recognised he would still recieve the same because nobody is allowed by law to recieve more than anyone else.
The smaller man notices the stronger man is not working hard enough to complete the project because he is slacking off - but neither can be fired because both have job security and besides even if they stayed in bed that morning they would still recieve the same for breaking their backs in the sun.
The manager's duty is to make sure they dont slack off but he would still have his job and still get the same even if they walked off and went home to bed. The engineer decides that whether he designed the project or not - he would still recieve the same - why waste his time designing projects?
Indeed the all the citizens of this society would realise that whether they worked or not they would still recieve the same regardless - so why work?Why even pretend to work? Why not go home to bed and let the rest of society pay for what they recieve?

by historian Tue Mar 21, 2006 14:24

You are like the child who tells the other kids in the yard there's no Santa. Jeez! Let them fantasize just so long as they don't get the opportunity to inflict the horrors of socialism on us again. Which they won't.

by Pól Tue Mar 21, 2006 14:24

You have to realise, Peter, we are not all like Pavlov's dog.

by historian Tue Mar 21, 2006 15:04

Peter's fable is actually not too far removed from the reasons why socialist economies failed. They worked when terror ensured that people didn't slack off but once the worst excesses of Stalinism and Maoism disappeared people just did as little as possible. Hence the collapse of the system.

by Joe - WSM 1st of May (personal capacity) Tue Mar 21, 2006 15:07

Peter if you bothered to check it out you'll find there are already large amounts of socialist economics that discuss the 'problem' you imagine and which advocate various solutions to this. Parecon is one such model over which there is a huge amount of debate, see for instance http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1832

A shorter reply is to ask you how much you got paid to put the work into typing your post? If as I suspect the answer is nothing that you yourself illustrate that the 'problem' may be smaller than you imagine.

by historian Tue Mar 21, 2006 15:17

The reason Peter enjoys posting (as opposed to what he is probably being paid to do - like myself!!) does not support you claim that people would produce efficiently in a communist society. Quite the opposite. Who would prefer digging roads, or wiping old people's arses to playing music or hurling? There needs to be an incentive, that is why society has evolved the wages system, which you must admit is a rather large improvement on other forms of encouraging work, which - if not for oneself or one's family, all involve/d some form of coercion, usually slavery.

by Joe Tue Mar 21, 2006 15:40

I'm not sure I worship in front of the great god efficency in quite the manner you do.

That aside for a 'historian' you seem quite ignorant of the history of attempts to put communism into practise. More than this - any teenage marxist could tell you that neither Stalin or Mao even pretended to be putting communism into practise, instead like you they saw the need for efficency as too much of a barrier and insisted that first we would need a tranisitional stage where the state played the role of the individual boss.

There were other attempts that either skipped this transitional stage or which instead went for a stateless or minimum state version, you can find out about these with a bit of googling.

My main objection was simply to Peter imagining he had discovered something new rather than a debate that is as old as the socialist movement. In fact the very thread you are posting to is actually a report on a debate that was based around these very topics. As a historian i would have thought you were able to set Peter straight - I hope 'historian' describes what you would like to be rather than what you do.

(Your not MickyMcD are you be any chance, I heard you on the raid today quoting point 1 of the editorial guidelines. Looks like you live here. You should post under your real name like our ex Lord Mayor)

by blargh Tue Mar 21, 2006 15:46

who pays you to tidy your house, cook your dinner, etc? who pays people to dig their gardens, or do general DIY around their homes?

If a socialist community needed roads dug, food grown, old people's arses wiped (?) you really think everyone would sit around posting on indymedia or listening to music? That's a ridiculously patronising view of people in general. You really think people can't handle the responsibility of providing for themselves? What kind of historian are you? Slavery was used to make people serve their masters, not work for the common good.

The incentive of survival is what causes people to work, to cooperate etc. That incentive is present in any form of society, however some systems are more efficient in terms of the amount of work necessary for survival. Anarchists believe that a non-hierarchical socialist system, where the majority are not providing for the wants of a few, is the most efficient.

by historian Tue Mar 21, 2006 15:50

Paranoia was also another feature of socialist/communist societies, so you'll fit right in!

The debate you refer to may indeed be as old as the socialist movement but the fact remains that it has never been resolved. Nor, as someone who is intimately aware of the history of the movement, do I accept this spurious doctrinal distinction between the actual attempts to implement socialism/communism, and the doctrine as upheld by people such as yourself. The fact that all attempts have been total fuck ups proves that the doctrine itself is flawed.

by CSSR Tue Mar 21, 2006 15:59

The incentive to survive is present irrespective of the society we line in - capitalism now offers little to the vast majority of people bar an immediate wage and is in the process of trying to claw back all the gains made by the left since 1945.

In the name of competition, wages and conditions are slashed and we are fed the lie that this is necessary due to the need to compete, market forces blah blah but in reality this is purely down to greed. Are the capitalists/shareholders/directors dividends or bonuses ever slashed proportionately? Are they fu*k!

by Joe Tue Mar 21, 2006 16:02

Its not a question of doctrinal dispute. It is a historical fact that neither Stalin nor Mao even pretended they were trying to implement communism. The only people that pretend otherwise are lazy right wingers that can't be bothered to put together a decent argument.

The doctrinal dispute would be between those who insist that Stain or Mao's actions were intended to create the material base on which communism would later be introduced (the parallel with your efficency argument) and those who argued that in fact they were counter revolutionaries who destroyed any chance of those revolutions introducing communism. In fact both sides of the debate this thread is above would go for the second argument here - the real difference would be over whether in fact Leninism is itself the problem (I get the strong impression you haven't bothered reading any of the actual contributiions or this would be already obvious).

As to the overall dispute not being settled - of course it hasn't, that is the sort of dispute that can only be settled in the doing. Large scale experiments, some involving over seven million people have taken place though from which limited conclusions can be drawn. Those conclusions tend to contradict Peters assumption about motivation but if he can't be bothered to understand what communism is I hardly expect him to research the actual results of the various experiments in communism.

Anyway if you want to know what communism is have a look at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1555

by Peter Murphy Tue Mar 21, 2006 16:14

Why do most young men go out to nightclubs?
To meet women and get laid of course.
How do you get women to take an interest in you?
Very few women are romantically interested in an unshaven sweaty man dressed in his scruffy work clothes. So before you go out even if you are an extremely ugly looking fat bloke you go shower, shave, put on some aftershave, deodorent and gel in your hair, put on a clean fresh shirt, clean trousers and a presentable pair of shoes. You need money to get in of course( the nightclub owner is not letting you in out of the rain and giving you drink for the good of his health) and money for drinks (usually women like men to buy them drinks for them). You don't try to chat up the first woman who comes along - women range from fairy tale princesses to fat ugly dirty slappers. If you are a fit good looking confident red blooded male you are assured of getting a women any women you want - if you are a confident but uglyish bloke sometimes one of the goddesses will go home with you, usually an average nice girl will and if you are too pissed and lazy you can always shag one of the dirty slappers. If you are a poor shy ugly bastard it doesnt matter how nice you are - forget it - unless you win the Lotto - go home have a wank.
If you are confident enough to even talk to a women you usually have to sit and listen (women love to talk about themselves and love guys who listen). So if you want to get laid you have to sit through all her shite and enjoy it.

Getting laid is the goal of all economic activity.
You need to work to earn money to eat food to stay healthy to buy good clothes to go to the gym to stay attractive to buy a flash car and buy drinks to afford dance lessons whatever - to get the chicks.

What about marriage?
Well when you become an old fat bastard the nightclub full of young ones is not the place for you - you have come to that age where women need a dependable man who will father their children and a double income household usually pays the bills. Its an economic exchange.

What about old age? When you are an artritic geriatric you would prefer the company of a woman any woman rather than die alone -and emotionally blackmailing you adult children to look after you by paying the nursing home bills is not bad either because you never walked out on the wife and the kids.

Love and sentimentality is all a cloak for our individual self-interest. We dont love those who dont love us back.

Society is full of self-interested individuals who cannot survive totally independent of eachother but also not in perpetual conflict - so we make a compromise with other people - to get what we want - they usually give us what they want - not always - thats why we have laws and governments and politics. But if we could - we would live like orangatans - totally blissfully self-reliant, alone and happy.
But we got sick of jungle canopies, we soon got sick of hunting, we soon got sick of subsistence farming, we soon got sick of feudalism, so now we have capitalism which is the closest economic system to human nature - we tried communism and it doesn't work

by Joe Tue Mar 21, 2006 16:37

Peter I get the strong impression that you are not reading any of the responses to your posts but are just cut and pasing from some neo liberal social darwinist text book or web site. Your economic analysis of dating above is very amusing but fortunately humans are quite capable of making decisions outside of the narrow biological determinism you imagine. The main purpose of such analysis is to sell 'how to get a partner' books to people who are unable to escape the idea that relationships are based on conquest rather than mutual choice.

I don't know if you have seen the film Magnolia but the above sounds a lot like the sort of thing the character played by Tom Cruise comes out with. All it really tells us is that your quite a damaged individual and you have internalised capitalist logic in order to deal with society. Capitalism creates more than one type of poverty.

by blargh Tue Mar 21, 2006 16:44

who can argue with such wonderful logic. i recant all my theories. goodbye joe, i'll never see you at a meeting again. for i am no longer an anarchist. communism doesn't work because people like getting laid. or something. if only marx/bakunin/millions of spanish workers/whoever had met someone like peter the 20th century wouldn't have been wasted on such silly arguments and experiments. thank you for opening my eyes.

(By the way- "Society is full of self-interested individuals who cannot survive totally independent of eachother but also not in perpetual conflict - so we make a compromise with other people - to get what we want"

is an argument for why anarchism works. mutual aid and whatnot)

by Peter Murphy Tue Mar 21, 2006 17:42

I only help my family and friends and people i know - because those people are people I share my immediate environment with - but only because there presence in my environment is of benefit to me - I couldn't care less about you or someone else I might have sat next to on the bus or passed in the street because your existence means nothing to me - that is what a stranger is - if hear about a suicide bomb blowing up school bus in Israel or an American bomb landing on an Iraqi tank - i only care about it because It gets me thinking what if my kid was in that bus, what if I was one of those sods vaporised in the tank - and I think thank fuck that wasn't me - tragedies like that are far away and besides I can do fuck all about them. If I see a drunken lying on the street really I can do fuck all about his sorry existence - give him my spare change or give something to charity - its up to him to stop drinking and get a job whether its the injustice of the system or not. I just thank fuck its him and not me. If I want to help these people its up to me - nobody can tell me who or what I want to care about or who I want to aid.
Jesus ranted about the richman and Lazarus - the dogs were licking poor Lazarus's sores while the richman enjoyed his life - so Lazarus goes to heaven and the richman goes to hell - the pure jealousy of Galilean carpenter - backwoods fanatic proto-unabomber.
Communism is just secular Christianity - its slave morality - the weak powerless little people transforming themselves into saints and cursing those who are simply more sexy, more intelligent, lucky, successful or richer than they are.
Communism along with Al-Qaida is the religion of losers.
The poor think god is on their side, the rich know he is.

by Seán Ryan Tue Mar 21, 2006 18:35

Peter - judge yourself. You just did that. That's an anarchist's most fundamental right.
I'll be honest, I don't get socialism, communism, marxism, lenisinsm, or many of the other 'isms' that are associated. Rather I should say that I find many associated principles to be illogical. Eg. political representation or rather political misrepresentation.

But I find the way we practice democracy to be an abomination was well as being illogical.

My point is, what is your judgement of yourself. You must admit that your environment has influenced your development. Are you the way that you wish to be? Do you think that citizen lying in the street is a necessity? Does this poor man really tell you how good you have it? Or, does he tell you how bad you could have it?

You are halfway there - you judge yourself. The rest of the journey is simple. Judge your society and act on your judgement. It is your society afterall.

Allow me to misquote the following.

For want of a nail the shoe was lost, for the want of a shoe the horse was lost, for the want of a horse the rider was lost, for the want of a rider the battle was lost.

Our association with one and other is without doubt a chaotic one that would defy any absolute proof. Nonetheless we need each other, regardless as to political creed.

Sometimes in order to highlight our differences and I suppose in turn to assert our validity as seperate and in control entities, we forget our common purpose.

ACT.

by Peter Murphy Tue Mar 21, 2006 19:17

We have free will only if we are the ultimate cause of our actions.
Everything ultimately is caused by events and circumstances outside our control.
Therefore we are not the ultimate causes of our actions.
We don't have free will

We cannot ACT.

You can no more control who your parents were, what language you learned as a child, how smart you are, how ugly or attractive you are, how incidents in childhood aroused a fight or flight response which led to your presently insignificant cowardly or magnificent glorious powerful existence, the degree of fanaticism or indifference of your political or religious beliefs or the chain of causes from birth to the present which have led your brain to think the thoughts and your body to commit the actions it is performing at this very instant. No more can you change the course of history before you were born from the Big Bang, the birth of Jesus or Hitler, the evolution of life from the lowest single cell organism to a globe dominated and perhaps threatened with extinction by the human species today. If you cannot control events up to this moment neither can you control the course of the future - nothingness is hostile to the universe, the universe is hostile to the existence of the Earth, the Earth is hostile to the existence of the human race, the human race is hostile to your existence, your existence is hostile to your mind, your mind is hostile to nothingness.
Existence is what remains when you cease to believe in reality - the universe is meaningless absurd and beyond our understanding - what we call reality is merely the stimulation of our nerve endings - there is no "self" - the mind is just our "conscious" experience of neural activity - mere chemical reactions - the human body as are all animal and plant organisms mere vehicles within which sustained chemical reactions continue until fuel is no longer forthcoming - your no more alive than the atoms that constitute your matter - indeed atoms are composed of charged "particles" - which may or may not exist - indeed they are actually fluctuations in frequency - nothing really.

Communism? Utopia? The END of Capitalism?
You can no more stop your toenails growing!

As for my incentive in continuing this thread?
My own amusement.
Your all my pets.

by Richey Tue Mar 21, 2006 20:02

I'm afraid we're all having a laugh at your expense, Peter. Why anyone would take the time to cut and paste this garbage is beyond me. But it's funny all the same. The fact that you imagine us all to be "your pets" is even funnier.

by blargh Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:44

Eh, what's your point? You seem to think Anarchism is about altruism. Maybe you should try to understand something before you argue against it.

I'm gonna try this one more time, and then I'm finished with this thread.

People cooperate because it is in their own best interests. Humans are the dominant species on this planet because of their intelligence. That intelligence evolved through cooperation.

We cooperate with our community in order to survive, not out of altruism or morality. This is what Anarchism is based on. We don't seek a Utopia where everyone loves everyone and we all sit around making daisy-chains. It is because people act out of self-interest that Anarchism would work. Do you really think it is in most people's best interest to maintain a social and economic system where power and wealth are in the hands of a minority?

I'm not an Anarchist because of some moralistic concern for the state of the world, I'm acting out of self-interest. I want a say in what happens in my community, in my workplace. I'm sick of producing profits for others while I can barely get by. Maybe you're one of the few who live such a comfortable existence that redistributing wealth and power would not be in your interests. If that's the case, you are irrelevant and your opinion means nothing to me. For the rest of us (the majority) who are not so lucky, there is a definite incentive to change the way things work.

Wise up and stop arguing with straw men.

by Peter Murphy Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:39

The economic and social "system" is not a "system".
Nobody sat down and designed it on a sheet of paper - it is the natural result of blind environmental and social forces - human beings like all other species are competitive - just as other animals mark their territory, fight for mates and hunt for food - humans have developed the phenomena of capitalism which we schematise as a "system".
It is TOTALLY based on self interest - naturally there are dominant individuals who can acquire more than others - in a pride of lions - the largest strongest male lion get the "lion's share" while the weakest lowest cubs fight for the scraps or die. Everyone piggy backs everybody else to survive based on exchange for mutual gain- just a some species of bird have adapted to pick the ticks out of the rhinos back.
It is dog eat dog - we either kick ass or kiss ass - kicking ass is a high risk business - so "we", most of "us" kiss ass - we have no choice - when we co-operate it is not altruistic.
Capitalism is the term we use for the phenomena of human economic activity based on self-interest - it cannot be based upon anything else.
There will always be class divisions but the individuals who make up the richest strata in every society are always in an unstable position - elites fight their way to the top, fight to maintain their control and go down fighting as another elite rises to take their place.
The postion of all humans is precarious - we do not have the time for wishful thinking - thats for children and marxists - the real world continues relentlessly - if you relax for a moment you get squashed - we struggle to live.

by eeekkkkk Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:50

they're from reliable pollsters who his opposition frequently and repeatedly hired

they give the lie to the hobbesian worldview which you espouse (you naughty chicago boyo you)*

As do the ppl of cochabamba and el alto who by a simple communal campaign turned the rapacious corporations away from the global privatisation of water. See reporting of the corporate and non corporate world water conferences just concluded.

* I'll not look them up for you but they are certainly more impressive than those of mr danger or the pd's or bertie for that matter

by blargh Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:51

System:

# A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.
# An organized set of interrelated ideas or principles.
# A social, economic, or political organizational form.
# A naturally occurring group of objects or phenomena: the solar system.
# A set of objects or phenomena grouped together for classification or analysis.
# A condition of harmonious, orderly interaction.
# An organized and coordinated method; a procedure. See synonyms at method.
# The prevailing social order; the establishment.

I'll let you argue with yourself here:

"Society is full of self-interested individuals who cannot survive totally independent of eachother but also not in perpetual conflict"

"It is TOTALLY based on self interest" (to be in constant competition/conflict with each other.)

You're an idiot, and I said I was done with this thread. Goodbye

by Peter Murphy Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:18

Systems do not exist independently of the human mind - we systemise the world ourselves - but our scientific knowledge of the world is always subject to doubt - to advance we usually chose the best system of apprehending the world for our own practical goals - but this system is always flawed because we encounter an unsystemized blind universe which does not care about what is best for us.
Systems are merely concepts for schemtising reality - but our concept of reality is not what the state of the actual universe actually is - it is a mere approximation which may in fact and has often proved to be grossly mistaken.

If I were to chose between two "systems" - communism or capitalism - I would chose the system which benefits my interests and best approximate schemitization of the universe to advance my practical goals - communism or anarchism or whatever totalitarian ideology who espose simply does not do that - it is utterly mistaken because it has made assumptions about the malleability of human nature which have been proven to be wrong - I would chose capitalism and liberal democratic society because it best suits my needs - perhaps some other system can serve my needs better but I would not bet money on it.