|
|
Post by htaylor on Jan 14, 2016 21:02:21 GMT
While everyone is arguing if socialism, communism, or capitalism is the solution to poverty, I am choosing to go against all of these and propose a new solution: anarchy. Contrary to popular belief, anarchist highly value community and organization, however, they are just against all power in society and the economy. In most cases, the government has corruption in it. By eliminating the government all together, there is no issue of corruption. In a collective anarchist economy, the means of production are owned collectively and controlled and managed by producers themselves. According to St. Imier Congress in anti-authoritarian sections of the First International, "'the aspirations of the proletariat can have no purpose other than the establishment of an absolutely free economic organization and federation, founded upon the labour and equality of all and absolutely independent of all political government', in which each worker will have the 'right to the enjoyment of the gross product of his labours and thereby the means of developing his full intellectual, material and moral powers in a collective setting.' This revolutionary transformation could 'only be the outcome of the spontaneous action of the proletariat itself, its trades bodies and the autonomous communes.'" So, to conclude, the actual way to prevent poverty is the lack of government and power all together.
|
|
|
|
Post by erikroise on Jan 15, 2016 0:17:30 GMT
Ultimately all forms of government are just subgroups of an overarching anarchical social system. There are no natural laws that force populations to organize themselves like they do, but we do for our own wellbeing, and because it would be impossible to advance as a species otherwise. So, how do you propose that we remove all forms of power and hierarchy from this social structure? And if there is no hierarchy or power, is it really an organized system at all? Would society not just fall into unrest and disarray?
|
|
|
|
Post by htaylor on Jan 15, 2016 1:39:27 GMT
Anarchism is focused on self managing and "decision making from the bottom up". In organizations that practice anarchy, since there is no authoritative power, every member has equal power; everyone has a role of decisions in the society. Anarchists believe people must handle their own affairs both as an individual and a collective community as a whole. Only under this type of organization system can a society of individuals valuing each other and working in a manner to benefit themselves and society as a whole without government control and corruption. We can remove all forms of power and hierarchy by simply eliminating government and set order. If everyone agrees with true anarchist principles, this shouldn't be an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by harperw on Jan 15, 2016 3:27:09 GMT
Anarchism is focused on self managing and "decision making from the bottom up". In organizations that practice anarchy, since there is no authoritative power, every member has equal power; everyone has a role of decisions in the society. Anarchists believe people must handle their own affairs both as an individual and a collective community as a whole. Only under this type of organization system can a society of individuals valuing each other and working in a manner to benefit themselves and society as a whole without government control and corruption. We can remove all forms of power and hierarchy by simply eliminating government and set order. If everyone agrees with true anarchist principles, this shouldn't be an issue. If our country can't even handle itself while being managed, what makes you think we wouldn't fall into a reality like Gotham^10 if that power was removed? Also, groups where every member has equal say in decisions aren't anarchical, they're democratic. You can't have organized groups making decisions by hearing everyones say, similar to the Grecian councils that led to our representative democracy today then claim anarchy. You also can't claim that it would work IF everyone agreed. Every system would work perfectly if absolutely everyone agreed to follow its principles; that's why everything works in theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Lange on Jan 15, 2016 3:38:02 GMT
I agree with Harper; you call it anarchy but what you're actually arguing is essentially collectivism. The only difference between your solution and the real thing is that you argue that must happen without leadership or direction. There are two major issues with this theory. First, how do you propose the community should decide what to produce and who to distribute to? Would these decisions (and many others) not require a governmental structure? Second, How do you define 'community'? Were the American people to adopt "anarchy" how large would the communities be. You don't believe that the entire United States could function as one autonomous unit without any leadership do you? In the case a power vacuum a person or group is bound to take control in order to satisfy the communities need for direction. Therefore, an anarchist society would not last long.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcellovial on Jan 15, 2016 3:39:18 GMT
Harper makes a valid point. To insist that a system would be the perfect solution if executed perfectly is not an argument worth any merit. What matters is fact and the fact of the matter is that anarchy is not a form of government that protects the poor. At best, it can eliminate poverty by leaving all citizens to scrounge around in the dirt, free from economic confines. But that is not a solution to the issue at hand. Anarchy only guarantees lack of structure, and as Harper says, we barely continue to thrive as a structured nation. To strip the nation of its structure and expect it to remain standing is a ludicrous fantasy at best. And fantasy does not make changes, only rationally based action does.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcellovial on Jan 15, 2016 3:46:03 GMT
To address what Ian is saying, it is inconceivable that a country of so many different religions, races, and beliefs would stand together without a structure to hold them together. Left to their own devices, most people would refrain from coexisting with others who do not satisfy their idea of "socially acceptable". And with social darwinism being a very true aspect of human life, a vacuum of power would not stay empty for long. Human nature cannot accept anarchy as a sustainable form of government, and while it could be an effective way to reset a society, eventually that society would establish a new hierarchy and structure.
|
|
|
|
Post by harperw on Jan 15, 2016 4:01:02 GMT
Marcello - agreed! If there weren't different types of people, this thread wouldn't exist. Humans crave order, so much so that we cite patterns and report on anything we can, from the structure of cells to the way comets move in the sky. I'm not sure if you've seen Mad Max, either the new or old one, but gaps in power don't last long. And when a huge group of equal people are at the mercy of a single leader, thereby rises Immortan Joe.
|
|
|
|
Post by htaylor on Jan 15, 2016 4:02:04 GMT
People aren't going to be a part of an anarchist community if they have any desire of control. And unlike communism regimes of the past, one person or group can't force a population into that society as there is no one in power. In response to you saying groups where every member having an equal say is democratic, actually that's not true. Democracy refers to all citizens having an equal say in government in relation to voting. There is no voting in anarchy as there is no government at all. Of course in the extreme, utter chaos could ensue in an anarchist society, but it shouldn't get to that extreme if everyone in the society is a part of the anarchist community because they agree with anarchist principles. Most of the time when an economic system excellent in theory fails and collapses it's because of the corruption of the government running that system. Once again, you bypass or corruption with the complete absence of power all together. And to clarify, I didn't mean everyone has equal say in decisions in the practice of anarchy, I meant that everyone has the same power and ability to make individual decisions hopefully with consideration to the society as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcellovial on Jan 15, 2016 4:27:10 GMT
But that doesn't prevent the spread of poverty. It negates poverty as a possibility. What that means is that due to a lack of structure, in a sense every single person who lives in anarchy is its own nation. Poverty cannot be measured if no one has anything to offer each other. But in a community, there can be a social structure in which even a barter system can create a difference in wealth. Furthermore, communities have order, they must, for community indicates a sort of dependence which doesn't seem to match the anarchist mantra. Order presumes structure, so "anarchist society" seems to me like an oxymoron
|
|
|
|
Post by theangieyang on Jan 15, 2016 4:31:29 GMT
Ideally communism, capitalism, socialism and even anarchy would all be great forms of a society but the world never works ideally. Human beings have in innate craving for order and power, and in an anarchist population without things like a government, social hierarchy or any hierarchy for that matter the human population would eventually crumble in the search of one person or party to follow, creating power within a society. Similarly in communist China, the economy was purely based off of a collectively owned production that is run by the producers themselves, but when some were not able to produce as much as others and in turn not able to afford goods priced at a point that allowed for the producer of them to be able to live comfortable a cycle of both not being able to afford goods and not being able to sell goods emerged resulting in widespread poverty and disarray. (I also have limited knowledge on anarchy, only from what I read above. Please let me know if I got anything completely wrong.)
|
|
|
|
Post by bethdolin on Jan 15, 2016 4:49:48 GMT
Angie, I totally agree with you. The possibility of America becoming anything other than Capitalism is extremely low. Everyone in this country grew up around Capitalism; we are used to this government system, and I've realized that we really don't like change, and we all crave power. In an Anarchist government, the need for power would create endless problems, and the lack of order would likely heighten crime as well. Without an overall government or superior power, for lack of a better word, America could transform into a country of disarray instead of order and organization.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Strehlow on Jan 15, 2016 5:03:34 GMT
Honestly, even ignoring huge issues like the fact that as long as everyone is growing up in a capitalist society being taught that all the alternatives are worse (Which there is some truth to in my opinion), a truly anarchistic society would never work. Who would control nuclear power plants to keep them from melting down? Who would manage filtration plants where we make our fresh water suitable for consumption? In an anarchistic society, everyone would see it as an opportunity to do whatever they wanted without government constraint, and even if there were people who had the ability to perform such tasks necessary for people to live the highest quality of life (or not die in a massive nuclear meltdown), would anyone want to do so? Anarchy is an idea engineered to appeal to those who are sick of 'the government' or 'the man' supposedly controlling every aspect of their life, but the closest you can having those ideals while still maintaining a functional society would be libertarianism, an ideology based on making the government as small as possible so people can essentially live their lives how they desire. However, I would argue libertarianism was close to what the United States had under the Articles of Confederation, which evidently did not work out very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by davosp on Jan 15, 2016 6:02:54 GMT
Haley, I gotta say I'm kinda confused.
I'll give my opinion based off the statement of "there's no one to enforce the laws," as I think that's what you're proposing. If this is wrong, everything else I say will be.
1) Knowing people can't (reliably) act on morality to do the right thing, there's gonna be a lot of fighting/scourging for resources. Whoever has them is then in danger at all times getting shot/shanked for said resources, being food, building materials (if the cities aren't where people live), weaponry, ammunition, and the like.
2)In this sort of system, someone has to come up short, or dead. If someone isn't willing to pull the trigger or support someone who will, then they probably won't get far. As a result, people such as this will inevitably band together, creating what an organized gov't would call a terrorist group who fight as basically a guerrilla faction for supplies.
3)There will be more than one gang like this, and eventually they'll either A) compete for dominance and wipe each other out, or B) Band together. But after they do unite themselves, someone has to distribute supplies reliably and not cut anyone short. This is communism, most likely run at a (probably) purer form then what we've seen happen so far unless one of the higher-performing gang members gets greedy.
I guess my main point is that in a society like that, human effort is an extremely necessary resource. But it'd just end up being Game of Thrones with Guns.
|
|
oxi
New Member
Posts: 4 
|
Post by oxi on Jan 16, 2016 15:14:16 GMT
While everyone is arguing if socialism, communism, or capitalism is the solution to poverty, I am choosing to go against all of these and propose a new solution: anarchy. Contrary to popular belief, anarchist highly value community and organization, however, they are just against all power in society and the economy. In most cases, the government has corruption in it. By eliminating the government all together, there is no issue of corruption. In a collective anarchist economy, the means of production are owned collectively and controlled and managed by producers themselves. According to St. Imier Congress in anti-authoritarian sections of the First International, "'the aspirations of the proletariat can have no purpose other than the establishment of an absolutely free economic organization and federation, founded upon the labour and equality of all and absolutely independent of all political government', in which each worker will have the 'right to the enjoyment of the gross product of his labours and thereby the means of developing his full intellectual, material and moral powers in a collective setting.' This revolutionary transformation could 'only be the outcome of the spontaneous action of the proletariat itself, its trades bodies and the autonomous communes.'" So, to conclude, the actual way to prevent poverty is the lack of government and power all together. OP has a few problems, first his characteristics of anarchist economics as separate to capitalism, communism or socialism is wrong. The modern (post-Bakunin) anarchist movement has be entirely associated with libertarian-socialist economics (apart from Rorthbarts hilarious attempt to combine anarchism and capitalism) and OP's definition of anarchist economics: "the means of production are owned collectively and controlled and managed by producers themselves" Is virtually identical to the definition of socialism that being: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." As for the functional problems ideological motivations for economics have a history of horrifically failing horrifically and resulting in catastrophes as significant as the Holodomor (which killed around 7 million people) and anarchist economics have a similar history in the limited areas that they have been applied, it took years to rehabilitate Catalonia's agricultural economy after the anarcho-syndicalist CNT/FAI militia forced agrarian collectivism at gunpoint. |
|
