Communist-capitalist

[Qfwfq]

What should be done with these poeple in an anarchist society? Should the victim be free to deal with them as he/she pleases?

According to the anarchists I've heard, yes, whoever catches a thief or other wrong doer is expected to have a sense of justice. The mob is legislature, executive and magistrature.

[Qfwfq]

We are talking about the ideology. The word can also mean a lack of law and order for any reason but that isn't what we are talking about. It isn't just a lack of gov't either, it's an ideology in which people bring their children up properly and the majority teaches and maintains good behaviour and justice. There is such a thing in some little places.

...but that is something that becomes disorder and confusion with large groups of people.

Yes. That's why it's utopia. Except in small communities or where the mentality is highly favourable.

[Biochemist]

...it's not that there has to be malicious ones, just that there are. Observe for instance, some people think they are simply entitled to the possesions of another. They are otherwise known as thieves....

I really can't tell if this discussion is serious, but I am in pretty firm agreement with C1ay's point here.

 

We can wonder why some people act in such a way as to upset the proverbial apple cart of society, but to pretend that they would stop doing so is unrealistic.

 

Law does more that protect from violence, or theft of personal property. It allows for orderly function of society. Anarchy really only has applicability in somewhat primitive, agrarian cultures. Even there, agrarians aggregated into defensible positions to symbiotically relate to a common protector. We called that feudalism.

 

In a contemporary society, we need a tax structure to pay for things that all agree are for the common good (think about roads.) And we need property rights and contract law to maintain the flow of cash for taxes. In the absence of these common goods, much of what we see as progress would vaporize in a generation. We would have no utilities, no significant private ownership (hence no banks or capital investment), no capital goods (cars or computers) and little real medical care.

 

If anarchists are OK with a model that is similar to Europe in the dark ages, they are internally consistent. If they are not OK with an agrarian, feudalistic lifestyle, they should select another system.

 

P.S.- If the US elected to adopt anarchy, we would probalby have to learn to speak Chinese before the end of the current century.

[C1ay]

It isn't just a lack of gov't either, it's an ideology in which people bring their children up properly and the majority teaches and maintains good behaviour and justice.

Doesn't that assume that no one has a mental defect that causes bad behaviour or lack of remorse for offenses committed? I don't believe that everyone that is bad just lacks a proper upbringing. Isn't that what you're implying?

[Qfwfq]

Anarchy really only has applicability in somewhat primitive, agrarian cultures.

You mean non Capitalistic cultures?

 

Even there, agrarians aggregated into defensible positions to symbiotically relate to a common protector. We called that feudalism.

No! Feudalism is a totally different thing from anarchy. The feudal Lord wasn't a protector but an owner of the land labourers, why do you think they were called the servitude of the glebe? How much freedom do you think they had. Read up on the history before making examples of it. Same for the conclusions you draw.

 

In a contemporary society...

How about in a future society?

We would have no utilities, no significant private ownership (hence no banks or capital investment), no capital goods (cars or computers) and little real medical care.

Oh, yea, so it was a Capitalist society that you meant. Just as I thought.

 

P.S.- If the US elected to adopt anarchy, we would probalby have to learn to speak Chinese before the end of the current century.

What's wrong with learning Chinese? ;)

[Qfwfq]

I don't believe that everyone that is bad just lacks a proper upbringing. Isn't that what you're implying?

You quoted the whole sentence but you didn't read it to the end:

 

"...and the majority teaches and maintains good behaviour and justice."

[Biochemist]

You mean non Capitalistic cultures?

I really don't intend to be argumentative, but I did mean agrarian, not non-capitalistic.

No! Feudalism is a totally different thing from anarchy. The feudal Lord wasn't a protector but an owner of the land labourers, why do you think they were called the servitude of the glebe?

I did not mean to imply that feudalism was anarchy. I meant to imply that anarchy leads to feudalism. I understand that the feudal lords owned the land, but the net effect is the same. The underclass could either live off of the land in the wild, or associate with a defensive structure under a feudal warlord. The original structure under which the lords acquired land was through defensive (or offensive) power or threat of force. There were inter-lord batles regualrly.

How much freedom do you think they had.

Nearly none. That was my point.

How about in a future society?

The past is prologue. The point is that in an anarchy there is no mechanism to provide for the common good, so the common good deteriorates.

What's wrong with learning Chinese? ;)

Actually, nothing. I suspect we would all be advantaged by learning Chinese anyway under any circumstance.

[Qfwfq]

P.S.- If the US elected to adopt anarchy, we would probalby have to learn to speak Chinese before the end of the current century.

Actually, when the Chinese will conquer the US, you more likely won't have to learn Chinese, I'm sure they are going to be talking to you in English.

 

One thing you can be sure of, it's gonna happen whether or not the US becomes anarchic, so that sure ain't a point against anarchy.

[Qfwfq]

I understand that the feudal lords owned the land, but the net effect is the same. The underclass could either live off of the land in the wild, or associate with a defensive structure under a feudal warlord. The original structure under which the lords acquired land was through defensive (or offensive) power or threat of force.

I repeat, read up on the history. From the fall of the Roman Empire to Charlemagne. Your interpretation of how it came about, and of how things were is incorrect.

 

BTW, you understand the Lords owned the land but you don't seem to gather that they owned the peasants as well. They could decide to kill them just as much as the cattle or poultry.

 

The point is that in an anarchy there is no mechanism to provide for the common good, so the common good deteriorates.

According to the die-hard anarchists there would be no need for a mechanism other than mob rule, once the mob were mature enough.

[Qfwfq]

I really don't intend to be argumentative, but I did mean agrarian, not non-capitalistic.

I thought you posted:

We would have no utilities, no significant private ownership (hence no banks or capital investment), no capital goods (cars or computers) and little real medical care.

[Biochemist]

I thought you posted:

I am a little confused, Q- My argument is that anarchy has no construct to provide for the common good. The only mechanisms (to date) established to accomplish that end are a) totalinarianisn, or ;) some form of capitalism.

 

If we were to contend that no "common good" is required, then anarchy would be viable. But the level of productivity of society would be substantially decremented because of no common infrastructure (e.g, utilities, roads, banks, etc) and folks would then tend to aggregate for common defense (e.g., feudalism).

 

I do not understand what you are asking here.

[sanctus]

Bad link. Perhaps you meant this one. Regarding that post, it's not that there has to be malicious ones, just that there are. Observe for instance, some people think they are simply entitled to the possesions of another. They are otherwise known as thieves. What should be done with these poeple in an anarchist society? Should the victim be free to deal with them as he/she pleases?

I meant post number 55, but anyway what I said anarchy is not political disorder and don't remeber what the dictionnary gives as well (probably it has been written by some people with prejudice...). It is absence of laws, because they are not needed anymore (and not because they are abolished by a group of become-dictators), no political disorder there because there is no politics anymore.

I agree with all of you claiming that anarchy wouldn't work today, because there are too many people that would try to profit. I'm talking about which direction evolution of societies should go, i.e to get to the point where societies can be anarchic and it works!

 

And biochemist you asked indirectly if this discussion is serious, well it is a discussion about utopies (and social evolution) it's up to you if you take utopias as serious or not (but I do there some great books about that for example "BoloBolo" by P.M. or "terras and urras" by ursula k. leguin)

 

Qfwfq, I doubt that anyone knows the leoncavallo center outside northern italy and southern switzerland (where I actually come from "conosci il Ticino, no?"), unless some alternative tourists.

[Biochemist]

...According to the die-hard anarchists there would be no need for a mechanism other than mob rule, once the mob were mature enough.

So, once the mob became "mature enough," how are they organized for maturity? Would they agree (by vote?) to protect property rights of each other's property, or agree (by seniority?) to protect common assets owned by the "state"? Would they define property in common or individually? How would they enforce their decisions?

 

The solutions that surface by answering these questions will point either to totalinarianism or to capitalism or a permutaion of the two.

[sanctus]

I am a little confused, Q- My argument is that anarchy has no construct to provide for the common good.

 

I don't agree on that, it's easy to imagine a society where everybody does what he/she is good at. If you have enough individuals all the common goods would be made. Actually anrchy has the most constructs for the common good, because in our capitalist system you need a certificate to show to be allowed being mecanician, but if you went every day for years helping out a friend in his garage you know as much as a mecanician but are not allowed t call yours mecanician.

Don't understand me wrong, this not a critic to our system because there would be abuse, but if you take an anarchic society you could rely on the fact that if somebody says he is able he is.

[sanctus]

So, once the mob became "mature enough," how are they organized for maturity? Would they agree (by vote?) to protect property rights of each other's property, or agree (by seniority?) to protect common assets owned by the "state"? Would they define property in common or individually? How would they enforce their decisions?

 

The solutions that surface by answering these questions will point either to totalinarianism or to capitalism or a permutaion of the two.

 

 

Is there a need for organization if I know I'm best for chopping wood and you know you are best in doing informatic research?

Is there a need to protect property if there is a common sense (common to all!) which made it possible to abolish laws? Same applies for protection of common assets.

 

It seems to me you don't imagine what no need of laws implies, because all your counter example show that laws would still be needed!

[Biochemist]

I don't agree on that, it's easy to imagine a society where everybody does what he/she is good at. If you have enough individuals all the common goods would be made.

You think people would "get together" and build freeways? Who would have provided the capital for the first automobile plant? Maybe we dont' have cars then. Or airplanes. Or telephones. Or electricity. Or hospitals.

 

There is no process for deployment of "large" common-good elements without a political process to decide what is good. The nature of that political process defines the government.

[Biochemist]

Is there a need for organization if I know I'm best for chopping wood and you know you are best in doing informatic research?

There probably would be no need for informatic research of there were no computers.

Is there a need to protect property if there is a common sense (common to all!) which made it possible to abolish laws? Same applies for protection of common assets.

Ok. Who decides who feed the horses? Where did they get the hay? Did they trade hay for blacksmith services? how much hay for how much blacksmith services? Does the blacksmith get more for his service because he has more kids? He needs more food, doesn't he?

It seems to me you don't imagine what no need of laws implies, because all your counter example show that laws would still be needed!

That is pretty much my point.