From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Tue Oct 22 2002 - 13:38:34 MDT
From: Alexander Sheppard [mailto:alexandersheppard@hotmail.com]
To: extropians@tick.javien
>>"But similiary, Anarchism necessities that you can not choose to engage in
capitalism"<<
"Well, what do you mean by engage in capitalism?"
I mean am I able to choose to 'work' for someone else, am I able to
voluntarily place myself under the command of another person? It seems
'socialist anarchy' forbids such an arrangement. Am I able to trade my
usefullness in some area for someone else's usefullness in another area? If
that other person does not happen to need or want what I am able to create,
might I be able to trade my usefull output for something that is
representative, in some amount, of the usefull output of any productive
individual, and thus trade that common item? See below for more.
"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."
Can you explain in to me what the daily life inside a socialist anarchy
would be like? Would we all be poor peasant farmers just doing enough work
to feed and cloth ourselves? Or can I hope that products that free up my
time from things I have to do to live and enable to use them on things I
WANT to do while alive will become more available at less cost continually?
When no man has the right to 'own' anything, how do I get a piano, or a
computer? Is it fair, in a socialist anarchy, that one person has a piano
while another does not? Arent I 'monopolizing the resources' of pianos
then? So if someone feels they 'need' a piano as well, they are justified
in claiming a right to mine?
"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)"
So if nobody 'owns' anything, where do I live? Where do I build my house?
where do I drive my car? where do I grow my crops? Only where everyone
else agrees I can place it? Does everyone have to agree to it? everyone in
my 'commune' or just the majority?
>>"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)"
If social anarchy requires (as the authors of that FAQ suggest) that to be
free one must be free from the requirement to do work, but merely being
alive requires that we do work, how is anyone truly free? It is undeniable
that to remain alive, one must do work. There are three kinds of work
I)work for things you need (to stay alive, minimal requirements) II)things
you do not need III) because someone else forces you to work.
How will social anarchists provide for work type I, things you need. Will
everyone be expected to produce whatever his basic needs are? What if I am
a capable able bodied worker, but my neighor has no legs. How will my
neighbor produce what his basic needs are (to stay alive). Because of this,
it is impossible to expect each individual to be first and foremost
responsible for only producing his sustinative needs. My neighbor may have
no legs, but he may be able to figure out and design cheap abundant solar
cells. Is his contributation of cheap abundant solar cells equal to my
contribution of producing only my own sustinence? Or can he trade his
contribution of cheap abundant solar cells for help from me to produce his
basic sustinence? Or can he claim that I am 'monopolizing resources' of
sustinence and I claim that he is 'monopolizing resources' of solar cells,
thus we are justified in 'robbing' each other of our productive output. And
this is 'freedom'?
How do social anarchists account for work type II? What if I want to
produce extra of whatever I am capable of producing so I can acquire other
things because I want them? Well, if I produce extra, I am no
'monopolizing' the results of my production, which means, as far as I can
tell according to socialist anarchy, they my neighbors are now justified in
robbing me (otherwise, they would be forced to 'work' for me, which is not
freedom) Thus, everyone in an anarchal socialist society would have a) the
incentive to produce only what is absolutely necessary for survivial, as
anything else will result in the society robbing them and b) never want to
acquire anything more than the basic necessities for survival. This is why
Anarachal Socialism, as far as I can tell, is not compatable with allowing
someone to 'choose to engage in capitalism' because whatever they will
acquire, no one else will have, and thus everyone else may justly rob them.
And this is 'freedom'?
Social anarchists will deal quite well with Work type III, being forced to
work for someone else, because that someone else will be nature. Since
being 'forced to work' and 'needing to work to survive' are not a whole lot
different, and given the incentives to produce nothing beyond what is
absolutely necessary to survive, social anarchists will only be working for
nature to eek out an existence. Anyone who tries to build a better life for
themselves will be robbed. And this is 'freedom?'
It seems Ironic that some of the very things that social anarchists despise
(capitalism, markets) are the *only* things capable of creating a world
where men will truly not be required to *work* at all to stay alive, a world
full of intelligent machines, nanobots, and complex autonomous and
non-autonomous systems which are controlled by our mere whim give us
indefinate lives of enjoyment. How is it possible a peasant commune could
ever bring about such a reality?
>>"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)"
The point is, social anarchists were claiming that the objection 'you can
just quit your job' against being a 'slave to capitalism' was invalid
because you would be forced to 'walk the streets' (meaning what?) It seems
to imply that everyone has the right to the basic necessities of life
without having to work to get them.
Or as Mike Lorrey so eloquently summed up
"Ah, so the ability to avoid work to earn a living is seen as a natural
right. This cuts right to the heart of the socialist fallacy: that the
individual is for some reason entitled to have their needs met without
having a responsibility to work for it. This is inherently a looter
mentality, and inherently fallacious. "
What are the 'essential parts of existence' exactly? And who decides this?
And who enforces this?
You would be hard pressed to find someone starving to death in the United
states, or any post industrialized nation for that matter, as the excess
production of those who have embraced production as a way of life is more
than enough to feed those who do not want to produce. Would you say a
social anarchist who feels they have a right to not work to stay alive has
more rights than the right to have a sustinance life if he chooses to not
partake in life? Do they have a right to a home? 500 square feet or 2500
square feet? Indoor plumbing? Indoor heating? Indoor air conditioning?
If, whatever the socialist anarchist believes they have a right to is not
provided to them, then they are not free. Because if they have to work for
something they have a right to, they are subordinates to a master somewhere,
and not free. Being forced to work for nature is still being forced to
work.
>>"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."
Define the difference between 'work in the capitlist sense' and 'work to
stay alive' I have presented what I feel to be the three reasonable
iterations of 'work'. That was I-Work because you need to, II-Work because
you want to and III-Work because you are forced to [not a whole lot
different than I really] Where does 'work in a capitalist sense' fall in
these catagories?
"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."
>>"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)"
So you serve to emphasize the point, if you produce *anything* more than
what is your absolute basic need, then others are justified in taking it
from you. And this is 'freedom'? It is freedom only for the looters and
moochers, and enslaves the productive man. This is also why one can not
freely choose to engage in capitalism in an anarchist socialist paradise,
because anything they produce will be looted.
Michael
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:43 MST