From: Alexander Sheppard (alexandersheppard@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 22 2002 - 11:56:57 MDT
"If it is a socialist state it exists, like National Socialist Germany
or Communist Russia to allow a few thugs to lord it over and terrorize the
rest of the citizenry. In addition the state serves to allow a few mooches
to get something for nothing."
Well, I don't think that, assuming a few things, it is really possible to
talk about a socialist state at all, I don't think that is a concept which
is self consistent. Because a state, at least in the normal sense of the
word, implies authoritarian organization, people coercing other people to
get what they want done (isn't that what the usual meaning is?). Socialism,
however, is supposedly a classless system of organization, which is in
contradiction with the idea of a state. Now, is it possible to have a
capitalist state? Well, I don't know-- capitalists tend to simply define the
word capitalist as being anti-state, but I don't think that is consistent
with what capitalism actually means-- I think that the existance of
capitalism is really synonymous with a state, or a number of small states,
even if they are at the level of individuals (a system which indicates utter
and complete destruction, by the way). So, these definitions are things
which have to be ironed out. Like, you can talk about a word which means
"Christian athiest", but that may not make sense, you have to find out what
it really means, how it is used, to understand it. (1)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"But similiary, Anarchism necessities that you can not
choose to engage in capitalism"
Well, what do you mean by engage in capitalism? If you mean the
monopolization of resources, that doesn't just affect you, if affects the
people who need the resources that you are monopolizing by force. Like, if
in a communal society I decide that a particular plot of land is off limits
to anyone who does not obey a command of mine, as I could do if that land
were private property, that doesn't just affect me. (2)
"How about, instead, a system where you can choose to work OR not work?"
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by work-- do you mean work for money, or
work in the more general sense, like work on a physics project? If you mean
the former, then I don't see how that is possible (see above). If you mean
the latter, then I agree. (3)
"There is no such thing as a life without a collar and a leash, as nature
imposes her own collars and leashes upon us."
That is true, but, as Bakunin said once, I don't see how it makes sense to
talk about the inherent bonds of nature as some sort of restriction--these
are rather the essential parts of existance itself. (4)
"If anarchism requires that to be free you must be free of the need to
'work' but one must 'work' to stay alive, how is an anarchist society even
logically possible?"
Well, I don't think that anyone supposes that food is going to pop up from
nowhere-- I think what anarchists are saying about not having to work means
not having to work in the capitalist sense. I mean, if there is abundant
food right there in front of you, but you can't have it because someone is
going to throw you in jail if you take it, and you have to obey some command
of the owner in order to have it... that's what they mean. If there is no
food at all, or all the food that exists is needed, that's different. (5)
"What if everyone chooses not to work?"
Then I guess everyone dies, but it is up to them. I mean, if there is no
food at all, just hypothetically, and you want to get some, so you go out
and make just enough for yourself, then I don't think anybody has any
legitimate right to take it away from you. (6)
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Any employer that abuses his workers will soon find the good ones have
left him and been welcomed with open arms elsewhere."
Well, first of all, changing jobs isn't easy-- there is a lot of work you
have to go through in order to do that, generally, especially if you don't
have certain credentials. However, what if all the jobs you can find are
worse, at the same level, or only marginally better than the job you have?
(7)
I mean, generally, the capitalist system inherently promotes exploitation of
the weak. That's because the strong, or those whose control of resources is
backed up by force, have very little to lose if someone decides to leave
them-- that is why unions are needed, and even then on a personal level, a
bankruptcy will generally not affect an employer very much, he'll still have
a well to do living standard. On the other hand, the person working for him
may be reduced to absolutely horrible conditions or even killed by
starvation, in the extreme case, if they do not find work. (8)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Quite. I wonder how is it that socialist "anarchists" can claim that
true anarchism is socialist when the single common characteristic of
every commune that ever existed is a tendency to become tyrannized by
control freaks."
But then it would no longer be a commune-- I mean, that's inherent to the
definition of commune, no single person or group has control. See (1). (9)
"I would posit that it is because non-free market based systems of
economic distribution are so unwieldy that they require tyrannical
control mechanisms to strongly dictate rules of distribution to avoid
communal dissolution and strife"
I don't really see why this is. In fact, I think it is precisely because of
the inherent force and inequalities used to maintain a "free market system"
that most if not all tyrannical controls exist in our society all. Of
course, the US is not a "free market system" in any sense of the phrase.
(10)
"The mere fact that the socialist 'anarchists' had to write a propaganda
piece calling itself "THE anarchist FAQ"
Here, go to www.infoshop.org/faq/intro.html and read the three paragraphs
which start with this sentence...
"We are sure that many anarchists will not agree 100% with what we have
written in the FAQ..."
That pretty much states the essence of any reply I could make to this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Since capitalism is based on a chaotic free market"
Assuming I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly about chaos... no
system which may be said to be successful is based on a such a thing... the
very definition of chaos implies disorganization, and disorganization
implies destruction (the levels of each being roughly correlated).
Organization does not, I think, require force in any normal sense of the
word, only people who are committed to working together. And of course it is
possible to cooperate voluntarily, for how else could, say, this
organization exist? (12)
"Ah, so the ability to avoid work to earn a living is seen as a natural
right."
See (5) and (6).
"The fact that socialist societies cannot tolerate capitalist enclaves
within them demonstrates which should be the plenipotentiary system."
See (1), (2) and (3).
_________________________________________________________________
Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:43 MST