Anarchism VS Socialism

[Judge'sDaughter]

Though I do not know much about socialism, I have been told that socialists do make some very good points. Socialism (as defined by dictionary.com) is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole".
As an anarchist, I do know quite a bit about anarchy. For those of you who aren't as enlightened on the topic as I am, anarchy (as defined by dictionary.com) is "a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society".
So, with both of these definitions in mind, what are the good and bad sides of both anarchism and socialism? What are the downsides? How can these ideas be changed?
Discuss.

[Smash Adams]

socialism sounds awesome in theory, but usually it doesn't work besides the rare exception like Sweden
for instance Sweden gives both men and women time off when a child is born, and they're both paid

[Judge'sDaughter]

that sounds like a really great idea. Why doesn't it work, with the exception of Sweden?

[EasySkankin]

wow.

Socialism (Which is basically communism minus the testicles) would be almost the exact opposite of anarchy (which is a ridiculous system, if you'd consider it a system).

The main misconception in people regarding marxist theories is that they believe they have been tried. They have only been tried partially, like democracy. Countries like cuba and the USSR only took parts of the theory, and then destroyed the rest of society through bad dictatorship. The best example of communism would be China, although it is also only partial.

Anarchism is just a death wish. There is no organization, no police or military, therefore no protection. Over time, any previously installed economic system would collapse, and any manufactured and distributed goods will no longer be available, and most likely everyone will revert to the ways of the hunter-gatherers, as settling would make them more vulnerable to attack.

I myself am a communist, and have taken the time to actually read the literature. It can't be summed up in a thread. If you're curious, you're simply going to have to read the books.

[Smash Adams]

that sounds like a really great idea. Why doesn't it work, with the exception of Sweden?

generally what happens is similar to Communism in the USSR- supposedly everyone is equal, and everyone works collectively but there are people in charge with more power and stuff

[Love As Arson]

Anarchism, as a state of being, and communism are interchangeable, since they both have the same foundation. The real difference lies in the approach to revolution and achieving a class-less, state-less society where democratic processes may occur. Socialism is the transitory state to communism, in which the working class takes control of the state apparatus and uses it as a means to liberate themselves, therefore achieving communism. I agree with this. Anarchists, on the other hand, believe that all aspects of state control must be abolished right after the revolution. I do not think this is a tenable position, for if we do not take hold of the state apparatus, a rather brutal counter-revolution will have no problem doing as much. The consequences of this may be seen in the Spanish countryside, where anarchists were quite successful, but when approached by the leader of the regional government decided to hand over power to the them, they rejected it on the basis that taking power would make them a dictatorship. As a result, the government was left in power and an opportunity for worker's power was lost. That is my main point of contention with anarchism. I rather agree with much of their philosophy and find my views quite compatible with anarcho-syndicalism. As to socialists, I think Marxism is the excellent way in which to approach the world, and my problem lie with those who misunderstand Marx, then apply his views in a manner that is counter to his method. For both, however, I wish the sectarianism would end, because it only serves to make us ineffective in a struggle. Certainly, they may engage in a discussion of ideas, but it is tragic when there exists such a divide.

[Judge'sDaughter]

wow.
Anarchism is just a death wish. There is no organization, no police or military, therefore no protection. Over time, any previously installed economic system would collapse, and any manufactured and distributed goods will no longer be available, and most likely everyone will revert to the ways of the hunter-gatherers, as settling would make them more vulnerable to attack.


False.
Though it is a common anarchist ideal that there should be no organization, poliece, or military, I personally believe that we, as a whole people, are able to govern ourselves without an opposing hierarchy for each country. Morals, ideally, guide people in this society, and what those morals are to be are decided by each individual, though to follow them or not to follow them is not the individual's choice, but rather the people's choice.
I see no reason for the economic system to collapse. Please explain this statement.

[Judge'sDaughter]

Anarchism, as a state of being, and communism are interchangeable, since they both have the same foundation. The real difference lies in the approach to revolution and achieving a class-less, state-less society where democratic processes may occur. Socialism is the transitory state to communism, in which the working class takes control of the state apparatus and uses it as a means to liberate themselves, therefore achieving communism. I agree with this. Anarchists, on the other hand, believe that all aspects of state control must be abolished right after the revolution. I do not think this is a tenable position, for if we do not take hold of the state apparatus, a rather brutal counter-revolution will have no problem doing as much. The consequences of this may be seen in the Spanish countryside, where anarchists were quite successful, but when approached by the leader of the regional government decided to hand over power to the them, they rejected it on the basis that taking power would make them a dictatorship. As a result, the government was left in power and an opportunity for worker's power was lost. That is my main point of contention with anarchism. I rather agree with much of their philosophy and find my views quite compatible with anarcho-syndicalism. As to socialists, I think Marxism is the excellent way in which to approach the world, and my problem lie with those who misunderstand Marx, then apply his views in a manner that is counter to his method. For both, however, I wish the sectarianism would end, because it only serves to make us ineffective in a struggle. Certainly, they may engage in a discussion of ideas, but it is tragic when there exists such a divide.
from what I can tell, this is why most problems occur between groups, is it not?

[Love As Arson]

socialism sounds awesome in theory, but usually it doesn't work besides the rare exception like Sweden
for instance Sweden gives both men and women time off when a child is born, and they're both paid
A good way to tell whether or not a country is socialist is easy enough: Do the workers control the means of production and make both political and economic decisions? If not, then it isn't socialist. Sweden has simply managed to integrate socialist demands into the capitalist economy. The socialist parties in the government aren't particularly revolutionary; rather, they believe in reforming capitalism into socialism.

[Love As Arson]

from what I can tell, this is why most problems occur between groups, is it not?
I can only speak of my own experience, which had groups conflicting with one another and putting ideological differences before the struggle. It became another means of viewing a person as "the other", rather than a fellow radical that wanted similar things.

[EasySkankin]

For both, however, I wish the sectarianism would end, because it only serves to make us ineffective in a struggle. Certainly, they may engage in a discussion of ideas, but it is tragic when there exists such a divide.

It is startling the similarities of certain events within the french revolution compared to the rise of communism in the USSR, which I agree is a very sad thing, but Cuba was an exception to this. Castro and his associates received virtually no opposition among fellow communists (Until after he abused individuals' freedoms, which would make the conflict irrelevant to their marxist differences).

I've found myself wondering why, and can only speculate and blame it on the lack of good education in cuba...

[Smash Adams]

A good way to tell whether or not a country is socialist is easy enough: Do the workers control the means of production and make both political and economic decisions? If not, then it isn't socialist. Sweden has simply managed to integrate socialist demands into the capitalist economy. The socialist parties in the government aren't particularly revolutionary; rather, they believe in reforming capitalism into socialism.
in that case a true socialist society isn't likely to happen, since utopian societies in the past have failed
look at a country like North Korea that doesn't have economic relations with other countries- the people are starving

[x togepi x]

Though I do not know much about socialism, I have been told that socialists do make some very good points. Socialism (as defined by dictionary.com) is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole".
As an anarchist, I do know quite a bit about anarchy. For those of you who aren't as enlightened on the topic as I am, anarchy (as defined by dictionary.com) is "a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society".
So, with both of these definitions in mind, what are the good and bad sides of both anarchism and socialism? What are the downsides? How can these ideas be changed?
Discuss.

didn't you say you liked ron paul?

[EasySkankin]

False.
Though it is a common anarchist ideal that there should be no organization, poliece, or military, I personally believe that we, as a whole people, are able to govern ourselves without an opposing hierarchy for each country. Morals, ideally, guide people in this society, and what those morals are to be are decided by each individual, though to follow them or not to follow them is not the individual's choice, but rather the people's choice.
I see no reason for the economic system to collapse. Please explain this statement.

Well, if you're going to have a system similar to capitalism, it requires government regulation or else the system corrupts itself, and production is quickly monopolized.

You didn't even address the issue of protection.


look at a country like North Korea that doesn't have economic relations with other countries- the people are starving

Although I know little of North Korea's economic policy besides their claim to communism, I think it's safe to say that abuses committed by Kim-Jong Ill regarding freedoms may have something to do with it.

[Judge'sDaughter]

didn't you say you liked ron paul?
I don't remember ever saying that.

[Judge'sDaughter]

Well, if you're going to have a system similar to capitalism, it requires government regulation or else the system corrupts itself, and production is quickly monopolized.

You didn't even address the issue of protection.



In the kind of society that I strive for, protection is not needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_without_adjectives

[EasySkankin]

So you're effectively ignoring the fact that not everyone is as "enlightened"?

I think it's unrealistic to assume that everybody will conform to one ideology, which is why a portion has to be regulated. If you liquidate any form of organized protection, then there are obviously people that are going to exploit that, because pillaging satisfies innate human desires.

[Love As Arson]

in that case a true socialist society isn't likely to happen, since utopian societies in the past have failed
Marx and Engels rejected the utopian conception of socalism. Engels wrote a pamphlet on it, which elucidates what he refers to as "scientific socialism":

Socialism : Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm)

Further, if one were to posit to a feudal lord that his position would become irrelevant, and there would exist a society in which a free market and republicanism were paramount, he'd likely refer to it as utopian; because within each society, the idea that current manifestation is eternal is disseminated through various propaganda channels.


look at a country like North Korea that doesn't have economic relations with other countries- the people are starving
This has little to do with utopianism.
It is startling the similarities of certain events within the french revolution compared to the rise of communism in the USSR, which I agree is a very sad thing, but Cuba was an exception to this. Castro and his associates received virtually no opposition among fellow communists (Until after he abused individuals' freedoms, which would make the conflict irrelevant to their marxist differences).

I've found myself wondering why, and can only speculate and blame it on the lack of good education in cuba...
What is interesting about Castro is that he did not call the Cuban revolution a socialist one until it became clear that the US would not have a relationship with the country. Once they rejected him, he accepted the rhetoric of the USSR.

[Love As Arson]

So you're effectively ignoring the fact that not everyone is as "enlightened"?

I think it's unrealistic to assume that everybody will conform to one ideology, which is why a portion has to be regulated. If you liquidate any form of organized protection, then there are obviously people that are going to exploit that, because pillaging satisfies innate human desires.
I imagine that there would be community militias which would deal with issues like crime.

[thetrueblood]

In the kind of society that I strive for, protection is not needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_without_adjectives

in the kind of society i strive for we have ice cream and pizza parties everyday.

[Smash Adams]

Well, if you're going to have a system similar to capitalism, it requires government regulation or else the system corrupts itself, and production is quickly monopolized.

You didn't even address the issue of protection.



Although I know little of North Korea's economic policy besides their claim to communism, I think it's safe to say that abuses committed by Kim-Jong Ill regarding freedoms may have something to do with it.
that's why they're isolated and yes you're right
Marx and Engels rejected the utopian conception of socalism. Engels wrote a pamphlet on it, which elucidates what he refers to as "scientific socialism":

Socialism : Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm)

Further, if one were to posit to a feudal lord that his position would become irrelevant, and there would exist a society in which a free market and republicanism were paramount, he'd likely refer to it as utopian; because within each society, the idea that current manifestation is eternal is disseminated through various propaganda channels.


This has little to do with utopianism.

What is interesting about Castro is that he did not call the Cuban revolution a socialist one until it became clear that the US would not have a relationship with the country. Once they rejected him, he accepted the rhetoric of the USSR.

I actually read the communist manifesto and that pamphlet last year, this shows how good my
ability to retain knowledge

I don't want to argue since you'll win

[EasySkankin]

I imagine that there would be community militias which would deal with issues like crime.

Am I wrong to assume an anarchist society is lawless?

[Nevuk]

It depends on the anarchist system as to whether laws exist. I'd see little use for them in an individualist anarchist system, but its the way it is. One thing many people do not realize is the many different types of anarchism that exist.

As far as it goes, an anarchist society (in my view) should be entirely lawless, as laws are immutable standards enforcing the will of the majority upon the entirety. Even majority is a bad definition, its more the will of those who have the power (look at drug laws).

This is a convenient time for this to come up, as I've been reading Bakunin, Aristotle and Plato lately.

[Love As Arson]

Am I wrong to assume an anarchist society is lawless?
Yes. Ascribing it the definition of "lawlessness" is a bastardization of the word. Essentially, anarchism rejects all unjustified sources of power and desires a society without those authoritarian structures. This includes the market system. Generally, what would replace this would be a free association of workers that have a create councils, who make economic and political decisions democratically. The laws would differ according to the community. However, something like stealing would be problem, since that would be an infringement on the right of a fellow community member. This site is fairly good if you'd like to learn more:

http://libcom.org/thought/libertarian-communism-capitalism-direct-action-introduction

[EasySkankin]

This is a convenient time for this to come up, as I've been reading Bakunin, Aristotle and Plato lately.

I began reading Aristotle a couple weeks ago, as well. It was perfect timing too because someone in another forum suggested mind and thoughts are comprised of matter, and I paraphrased his refutation against it.

I guess the planets are in the right order :-)

[Nevuk]

I began reading Aristotle a couple weeks ago, as well. It was perfect timing too because someone in another forum suggested mind and thoughts are comprised of matter, and I paraphrased his refutation against it.

I guess the planets are in the right order :-)
The only thing I've actually liked from the two were Plato's Allegory of the Cave and Aristotle's Metaphysics. The rest of the material I've read I don't particularly agree with. Plato is too utopic (as Aristotle correctly points out), but Aristotle is also a moralist who argues in favor of slavery, and inherent virtuousity. Thus far I've read the Politics and Ethics (sort of... I kept nodding off, have to read it for class), and the Republic. Plato's definition of Justice left me ... unimpressed. I've also read the first few books of the metaphysics, but I eventually could no longer stand the hideous free translation.

Love as Arson, do you have an opinion on post-structuralism? Edit: Er, I mean post-anarchism, but both are similar enough

[Love As Arson]

TLove as Arson, do you have an opinion on post-structuralism? Edit: Er, I mean post-anarchism, but both are similar enough
There are some aspects of that thought which appeal to me. Other aspects I find superfluous, but I think that something can be gained from their analysis of power and the way in which language influences our thought. In particular, Lacan's psychoanalysm has struck a chord with me over the past two years. Foucault, to a lesser extent, illustrated fantastic concepts and networks of power.

[selftitled85]

I imagine that there would be community militias which would deal with issues like crime.

but this could be very bad. militias could turn into something terrible like a lynching party or even like the so called militias in rwanda. some type of law is needed to protect people from these groups.

[Love As Arson]

but this could be very bad. militias could turn into something terrible like a lynching party or even like the so called militias in rwanda. some type of law is needed to protect people from these groups.
Laws do exist. The militia functions as a group to enforce them. Rather than an institution which exists independently and above a given community, as our police force does, it is made up of members of the community that have equal power and are accountable. Certainly, there are groups that use the word, which have made attributed it a negative connotation, but it is merely a means to defend and preserve the community.

[selftitled85]

Laws do exist. The militia functions as a group to enforce them. Rather than an institution which exists independently and above a given community, as our police force does, it is made up of members of the community that have equal power and are accountable. Certainly, there are groups that use the word, which have made attributed it a negative connotation, but it is merely a means to defend and preserve the community.

but if they have no power over the people how can you guarantee the people will follow the militia?

[Love As Arson]

but if they have no power over the people how can you guarantee the people will follow the militia?
There is no need to give a group absolute power in order to ensure stability in a community.

[Anne.Frank]

socialism sounds awesome in theory, but usually it doesn't work besides the rare exception like Sweden
for instance Sweden gives both men and women time off when a child is born, and they're both paid

Yes, but the men gets more percentages of their normal salary than a woman does.

Sweden isn't a socialist society.

[Anne.Frank]

An anarchist society isn't gonna work.

I don't know much about this question, but would there be prisons in an anarchist society?

[Anne.Frank]

It takes elements of socialism and elements of a liberal democracy.



One question you can never ask is "In an Anarchist society....?" because there is absolutely no cohesion amongst anarchists at all. They have almost no agreement on anything besides capitalism because shit.

Part of the reason there has never been an anarchist state is that they are by far the most divided political group and could never agree on anything or ever subject there will to another so it's nearly impossible an anarchist society to develop.

Therefore, there would be no prisons and it would be lawful to kill, rape and other things. I see but harm here.

[selftitled85]

There is no need to give a group absolute power in order to ensure stability in a community.

but how can a group be given the right to tell people what is right or wrong if they have no power? this militia you speak of would have about as much power as a neighborhood watch...which is nothing at all. even though the police sometimes act out and do wrong things...to say a society can function without it is just lying to themselves.

[Love As Arson]

but how can a group be given the right to tell people what is right or wrong if they have no power?
I never said they didn't have any power. I merely said they do not stand independently and above the community. The militia is accountable to the worker's councils, which is also comprised of the citizenry of a given community.
even though the police sometimes act out and do wrong things...to say a society can function without it is just lying to themselves.
A society can function without the capitalist institutions that enforce property relations. Other institutions may be erected to take their place, which are democratic and have working class interests in mind.

As to prisons, there would likely be different ways in which to address anti-social crimes. I refrain from getting into the specificities of such things, since decisions may change according to the situation at the time.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

Anarchy has practical applications to ensure people don't become too trusting to their societal "protectors". The actual practice of the Anarchist system, or lack thereof, is ridiculous. However, I find it impossible for a country to ever be governed properly by any type of national law body. This is due partly to the human monkey sphere. Basically a human can not possibly care about more than an average of about 150 other human beings and/or creatures, items, etc. The others which are cared for are straight generalizations, or in more of a negative connotation discriminations. Which is why America's ideal system should run flawlessly eliminating discrimination since power is constantly being delegated to smaller and smaller areas. But, that is the perfect scenario, luckily for us people are fucking morons and this system fails in its delegations to fucking ape-like thinking people.

No system ever will work. Systems ocnstantly need change for the better and fluctuations to meet the demands of society.

[scole]

Socialism in Eastern Europe did not work, but that was moreso due to the fact that economies in states such as Romania and Hungary were based more on agriculture than heavy industry, and once the collectivization and then the phasing out of agriculture took place, the technologies in place in those countries were not able to sustain long-term industrial growth.
Karl Marx predicted in the Communist Manifesto that the proletariat would rise up against capitalism in industrialized countries like Great Britian, because it takes an advanced technology to keep up with the demands of industrialization. However, the Communist/Socialist uprising took place in countries that were desperate for hope (see Russia). Socialism is nothing more than a naive ideology that has never worked outside of socialized medicine in Canada and France (Canada's medical care is suspect at best, horrible at worst; France hasn't done a bad job with it however). Even in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the Nomenklatura flaunted cultural supremacy over the masses. True egalitarianism is not possible, because its only human nature to try to do better than your neighbors.
However, what are the benefits of a completely anarchic system? Institutions are inherent in human nature (people always create groups of some kind, and rulers have been prevalent in society since society has existed) so anarchy in its truest form has never really existed in modern history.
But I agree with SubrosaSeductiv, every system has its failures, since every system is subject to corruption and is run by flawed individuals.

[EasySkankin]

Socialism in Eastern Europe did not work, but that was moreso due to the fact that economies in states such as Romania and Hungary were based more on agriculture than heavy industry,

Eh, the cold war might have had some small part in it.

Karl Marx predicted in the Communist Manifesto that the proletariat would rise up against capitalism in industrialized countries like Great Britian, because it takes an advanced technology to keep up with the demands of industrialization. However, the Communist/Socialist uprising took place in countries that were desperate for hope (see Russia).

... ever heard of 1848, the year of revolutions, which just so happens to be the same year the manifesto is published?

I couldn't get away with saying they were all influenced by marx, but many were, and overall, they had a liberal slant.

Socialism is nothing more than a naive ideology that has never worked outside of socialized medicine in Canada and France (Canada's medical care is suspect at best, horrible at worst; France hasn't done a bad job with it however).
Ever heard of the 60's? The hippie movement?

[Judge'sDaughter]

in the kind of society i strive for we have ice cream and pizza parties everyday.
there's always an ice cream/pizza party going on somehwere in the world at any given time.
Your society is already here and ruining the earth.

[thetrueblood]

there's always an ice cream/pizza party going on somehwere in the world at any given time.
Your society is already here and ruining the earth.

my point was your fairy tale idea of a society where protection is not needed will never be plausible because you can't control human's that will exploit this utopia that you would like to live in. It's one thing to say "hey it would be cool if we lived like this," and it's another thing to delude yourself to the point where you think it's actually possible and try to promote that agenda.

[Sikbeat37]

Haha he is just antichrist of all leftists.

Anarchism is the most desirable political system however it is completely unattainable in a developed society. I cannot see how society would progress or function under an anarchistic state and I would expect it would quickly turn into a conservative/libertarian paradise where a small few own everything.

If you look at ancient peoples they essentially were brought into an anarchistic world yet always progressed into feudalism, I just can't see it myself.

Democratic socialism is the fairest system of government that still allows for the realities of a developed world.

No no no, hold on a second. Anarchism is the most desirable???

I don't know exactly who your history teachers were, but anarchism is the lack of government. Maybe in a perfect world where everyone holds hands and agrees about everything, this is a good idea. In a realistic world where people have different opinions and will fight to defend them, anarchy is chaos. Thus on your second point, I do agree; you can't progress society in an anarchistic state since there would be too much fallout from conflict.

Same goes for socialism. In an ideal world, socialism is the best scenario because a completely pure, not corruptible government would see that all people are treated equally and fairly. In the same manner, the socialist economic policy, Communism, would work in a utopian society because the government would evenly distribute wealth and property. In the real world, governments withhold wealth from their countries and create a terrible divide between the small rich class and majority poor class. Look at Eastern Europe and Africa (save Botswana and South Africa).

Therefore, Karl Marx had his head in the clouds.

Capitalism is the most realistic economic policy. Work with the market and make your own fortune. Democracy is severely flawed, but if it was suggested that some people have no business stating their opinion on government policy, there'd be a horrible fallout. You will always have corrupt leaders, conflict over scarce resources, and other mechanisms that ultimately create a need for a people's government and a system of capitalism. Look at what's going on in the world. Keep an eye on the growing economies in China and Vietnam, and I guarantee you that eventually, their communist policies will start to give way to capitalist ones, and the countries will tremendously boost their GDP by taking advantage of world trade.

[Sikbeat37]

[/i][/b]
The best policy by a mile is democratic socialism. It combines the idealism of socialism which the practical approach of capitalism. Cold, unregulated capitalism is a disaster for humans, eveyone ends up poor except a small few and the whole system works on the basis that most people lives will be shitty at the bottom so a small few can be very very well off.

Social Democracy conquers this problem with tonnes of social programs designed to prevent business from taking the absolute piss as they do in America yet they still leave plenty of room for a progressive economy and growth etc.. as well as for personal achievement.

The highest living standards in the world, the best health care, the least corruption it's all in socialist western europe.


I've got to hand it to you, that was a really interesting read (no sarcasm intended). Obviously I'm a business major, not a history one, so I see a little more opportunity and less philosophy in capitalism. Now, when you say democratic socialism, does it use a mixed economy, or is there still government control over industry? Because when I was talking about capitalism, I probably should have specified "mixed economy" rather than pure capitalism. Capitalism does require restraints or, as you said, a small wealthy class will control all resources. Thus, I do agree that the government needs to prevent monopolies and other illegal business practices. The point I was attempting to make was that an open market allows for international trade, which I think is the most effective way in progressing the world economy.

What kind of social programs does the social democracy use?

[Love As Arson]

Are any of you familiar with reification? It is the process by which human constructs are made to take on the form of eternal laws. For example, arguing that humanity is innately selfish or capitalism is the end of progress as far as economic systems. As was said, however, they are human constructs and can be changed if it was so desired. If there is a shift in consciousness, and consequently, socialization, then anarchism and socialism are possible.

[Sikbeat37]

Yes the economy should be mixed.

Ntionalisation is a tricky one because on the one hand you have the huge succeses in Sweden and Holland with full employment yet a growing and competative economy however if mismanaged you end up with Italy where 2/3rds of the people work for government and the economy has been stagnant for decades. So it's a tough call, if managed well then nationalisation has the best results in my opnion but if done badly it can be disastrous. Private ownership definately has the advantage of being reliably efficient but it can also take advantage of the people such as the ridiculous over-medication you guys have.

I'd generally go for nationalisation of key industries such as health, public transport etc.. but leave most things in the hands of the market. Regulated of course to prevent business running the country.



Total free health care, free university, excellent state pensions, national insurance. Paternity and maternity pay for all persons for a year, the government obviously creates a lot of jobs and has a high minimum wage.

So tonnes of good stuff but of course it is paid for by A LOT of taxes. To me it's absoultely worth it as money only exists to make peoples lives more convienient so what does it matter how much money the government takes so long as everyones lives are better, which they are on average in the Scandinavian countries.

For a libertarian or conservative of course this isn't worth the trade off, but that's political opinions work.

You have to take into account how you tax people though, don't you? If you institute an extremely high income tax to pay for universal health care and whatnot, doesn't it seem like taking money from the rich and just sort of giving it to the poor? While not every rich person necessarily deserves his or her fortune, isn't it kind of unfair to take away from one person just because he or she worked harder to become more successful?

Have you ever read the book Atlas Shrugged? If you haven't, and you're looking for a good read, I think you'd definitely find it interesting.

[Sikbeat37]

Are any of you familiar with reification? It is the process by which human constructs are made to take on the form of eternal laws. For example, arguing that humanity is innately selfish or capitalism is the end of progress as far as economic systems. As was said, however, they are human constructs and can be changed if it was so desired. If there is a shift in consciousness, and consequently, socialization, then anarchism and socialism are possible.

It rings a bell...that's part of Karl Marx's philosophy isn't it? At least, the description sounds very much like something he would say.

[Love As Arson]

You have to take into account how you tax people though, don't you? If you institute an extremely high income tax to pay for universal health care and whatnot, doesn't it seem like taking money from the rich and just sort of giving it to the poor? While not every rich person necessarily deserves his or her fortune, isn't it kind of unfair to take away from one person just because he or she worked harder to become more successful?

Have you ever read the book Atlas Shrugged? If you haven't, and you're looking for a good read, I think you'd definitely find it interesting.
The majority of wealth is inherited. Is that not unfair? I think there should be a steep inheritance tax, which would be around ninety percent. Further, from a reformist standpoint, these nations provided the conditions under which they were allowed to accumulate their wealth, therefore they should pay more. My own point of view is that they make their fortunes by exploiting the working class, who produces the actual wealth. In that context, redistribution is not taking that which belongs to the wealthy, but rather giving to the working class that which they produced.


It rings a bell...that's part of Karl Marx's philosophy isn't it? At least, the description sounds very much like something he would say.
George Lukacs developed the concept. He used Marx's commodity fetishism as a basis.

[Nevuk]

You have to take into account how you tax people though, don't you? If you institute an extremely high income tax to pay for universal health care and whatnot, doesn't it seem like taking money from the rich and just sort of giving it to the poor? While not every rich person necessarily deserves his or her fortune, isn't it kind of unfair to take away from one person just because he or she worked harder to become more successful?

Have you ever read the book Atlas Shrugged? If you haven't, and you're looking for a good read, I think you'd definitely find it interesting.
The concept of the richest people being the ones who worked hardest for it is a myth perpetuated by our society as a way to motivate the lower classes.

[EasySkankin]

The majority of wealth is inherited. Is that not unfair? I think there should be a steep inheritance tax, which would be around ninety percent.

Why not abolish it altogether, as marx suggests?


I'd generally go for nationalisation of key industries such as health, public transport etc.. but leave most things in the hands of the market. Regulated of course to prevent business running the country.

Allowing the bourgeoisie to gain capital through a capitalist system is still exploiting the workers, and the rest of society. You are thinking too short term. What you model in here, is very similar to what is currently in use by many capitalist nations, like canada, and even the USA. Capitalism can be regulated even to extremes, but still the bourgeoisie will be triumphant, as they still exist.

In an ideal world, socialism is the best scenario because a completely pure, not corruptible government would see that all people are treated equally and fairly. In the same manner, the socialist economic policy, Communism, would work in a utopian society because the government would evenly distribute wealth and property.

#1 the government doesn't necessarily have to be "pure", but agree on setting up a communist system.

#2, probably the most definitive and concrete policy you can pair with communism is the abolishment of all private property, so you would not distribute it among anyone.

As for those who think it is impractical... You forget, this system is supposed to be implemented through a political and social coup by the proletariat. One of the main points marx makes is that the consistent nature of intellectual history as a building and reforming of the same ideas is a pure reflection of the oppression of one class onto another.

He does not wish to reform the economics, or society, he wishes to abolish and destroy all the traditional institutions and form an entire new social basis through the proletariat.

[Sikbeat37]

#1 the government doesn't necessarily have to be "pure", but agree on setting up a communist system.

#2, probably the most definitive and concrete policy you can pair with communism is the abolishment of all private property, so you would not distribute it among anyone.

As for those who think it is impractical... You forget, this system is supposed to be implemented through a political and social coup by the proletariat. One of the main points marx makes is that the consistent nature of intellectual history as a building and reforming of the same ideas is a pure reflection of the oppression of one class onto another.

He does not wish to reform the economics, or society, he wishes to abolish and destroy all the traditional institutions and form an entire new social basis through the proletariat.

Isn't communism the economic system in which the government owns and controls all property and resources? If so, then I would say that if the government is not "pure," (and I'm defining "pure" as uncorrupted for the purposes of what I was saying) then a government that simply agrees on setting up a communist system can still exploit workers for the profit of the government itself. At least, that's what I've been led to understand.

And I still say the fact that Marx wishes to "abolish and destroy all the traditional institutions and form an entire new social basis" makes it an impractical concept.

[Name_Taken]

Socialism is a nice idea, but it never works as Karl Marx intended it to.

[Sikbeat37]

The majority of wealth is inherited. Is that not unfair? I think there should be a steep inheritance tax, which would be around ninety percent. Further, from a reformist standpoint, these nations provided the conditions under which they were allowed to accumulate their wealth, therefore they should pay more. My own point of view is that they make their fortunes by exploiting the working class, who produces the actual wealth. In that context, redistribution is not taking that which belongs to the wealthy, but rather giving to the working class that which they produced.



George Lukacs developed the concept. He used Marx's commodity fetishism as a basis.

Can't say I even know who George Lukacs is, hahaha.

Anyway, the argument that I see against an inheritance tax is that the money had to originate with some member of the family. If it was the wish of the originator of the family's wealth to keep the money in the family, then does it justify taxing the inheritance and returning it to the government?

Yeah, not a strong argument, I'm just trying playing devil's advocate.

As for exploiting the working class, it's very possible that what you say is true. But couldn't it also be possible that the majority of the working class is either less motivated or less able to increase his or her social status. Look at a men like Steve Jobs (Apple) and the guys that made Google (Page and Brin). They used innovation to contribute something to society that met market demands, and then they took it from there. Sure, there are other people working in those organizations contributing brain power, but I'm sure they make a nice salary themselves. While some are less fortunate than others concerning where they grow up and the education that's accessible during childhood, I believe that in most developed nations, anyone has a chance to make a good living. I've seen people in my own town make a great living opening small businesses (restaurants, barber shops, etc.). While the wealthy may be exploiting the working class, I think some portion of the working class may be letting themselves get worked over.

I just want to let it be known now that I'm by no means some little stuck up rich kid defending his super conservative family or anything (quite the opposite actually). I'm really just arguing this for the sake of learning. My college is kind of biased on the conservative side, so this is actually pretty cool.

[Sikbeat37]

The concept of the richest people being the ones who worked hardest for it is a myth perpetuated by our society as a way to motivate the lower classes.

Did you ever watch that episode of South Park with the hippies that just keep saying, "The corporations, man...they're brainwashing you into doing what you don't want to do..." What you said reminded me of that a little.

Haha, no offense, but what you said just sounds a bit cliche. Like I've said before, I've met lots of people that have made above average livings by working hard at building a small business or starting a practice. There's actually a community college dropout that lives near me that started a market research company and became a self made millionaire in a few years. Before that, he wasn't exactly well off.

I'm just saying that hard work can pay off in a lot of scenarios.

[Sikbeat37]

I think as Nevuk put it, "The concept of the richest people being the ones who worked hardest for it is a myth perpetuated by our society as a way to motivate the lower classes."

Also the rich are rich because society exists in a way which suits them and has served them and thus it's only fair they pay society back to compensate for the persons society has not served. Of course you do have the lazy types but the vast majority of people work equally hard and often it is the folks in Macdonalds who work the hardest.


I actually have a couple of aunts and uncles at McDonald-esque jobs (one actually does work in a McDonalds actually) simply because they were older when they immigrated to America and lacked the education and skills to promote themselves. So yeah, I agree that society does better suit people with particular skills. I also have an uncle from the same side of the family that's found tremendous success from starting one small car garage and expanding it into six.

I'm not gonna argue that people in the working class don't work hard. I'm just saying that often, people fail to seize opportunities. That's the beauty, I think of capitalist policies. A person can start a privately owned sole proprietorship and make a fortune out of it. It's not what always happens, it's just what I see as its benefits.

You still have a good point though. I do believe that a lot of extremely wealthy people probably have not had to work too hard for their fortune, especially those that do inherit it. I still believe though that a fair amount of people live very comfortably off of hard work and that more people could if they took the initiative.

[EasySkankin]

Isn't communism the economic system in which the government owns and controls all property and resources?

That is a gross oversimplification. It is much larger and more complex than that, but yes, that is a facet.

If so, then I would say that if the government is not "pure," (and I'm defining "pure" as uncorrupted for the purposes of what I was saying) then a government that simply agrees on setting up a communist system can still exploit workers for the profit of the government itself. At least, that's what I've been led to understand.

Profit of the government? Since when does that matter? Government isn't like some kind of child that has to be satisfied with material gifts. Government is a tool of society, so you're going to have to further expound on what you're trying to say here.

And I still say the fact that Marx wishes to "abolish and destroy all the traditional institutions and form an entire new social basis" makes it an impractical concept.

Are statements with absolutely no meat in them some kind of epidemic here?

If you are going to make a statement, reason why it is true, given all the evidence.

I'm just saying that hard work can pay off in a lot of scenarios.

"pay off" can mean a lot of different things for a lot of different people. In a capitalist environment, the benefits of "hard work" are extremely limited.

[Sikbeat37]

That is a gross oversimplification. It is much larger and more complex than that, but yes, that is a facet.



Profit of the government? Since when does that matter? Government isn't like some kind of child that has to be satisfied with material gifts. Government is a tool of society, so you're going to have to further expound on what you're trying to say here.



Are statements with absolutely no meat in them some kind of epidemic here?

If you are going to make a statement, reason why it is true, given all the evidence.



"pay off" can mean a lot of different things for a lot of different people. In a capitalist environment, the benefits of "hard work" are extremely limited.

Damn dude, are you grading my work or something? I'm just casually discussing, I'm not trying to impress anyone. But, if you insist on being a pretentious ass towards, me, I'll at least give you the courtesy of explaining myself.

Obviously I was oversimplifying communism, but it was just a preemptive statement. Your criticism was unnecessary, but if you needed to reassure yourself that you've read the Communist Manifesto more times than I have, then have a cookie.

When I said profit of the government, I should have said profit of the government officials. The problem I see with giving a government control over everything is that a corrupt politician could use this to his/her advantage and take control over an industry. With the right investments, a crooked politician could use subsidies or other protective policies to jump prices up in an industry, and then proceed to make a fortune off of it. I get that the concept of "government" is a tool of society. Really, I'm capable of thought, I swear.

If you don't think it's impractical to abolish the world economy and replace it with a series of government run industries with no private property, then congratulations, you have more faith in the potential of humanity than I do.

Are the benefits of hard work in capitalism limited? Really. Oh, good thing you explain why...oh no wait, you didn't provide any "meat" to your statement. Hypocrite.

Seriously, chill out and I'd be happy to talk to you. Talk down to me again and I'll just ignore it.

[Nevuk]

Did you ever watch that episode of South Park with the hippies that just keep saying, "The corporations, man...they're brainwashing you into doing what you don't want to do..." What you said reminded me of that a little.

Haha, no offense, but what you said just sounds a bit cliche. Like I've said before, I've met lots of people that have made above average livings by working hard at building a small business or starting a practice. There's actually a community college dropout that lives near me that started a market research company and became a self made millionaire in a few years. Before that, he wasn't exactly well off.

I'm just saying that hard work can pay off in a lot of scenarios.

The main reason I am more confident in saying that is due to Aristotle and Plato, who are the founders of western thought. Both argued that a person's virtue should determine their place in society (Plato was roles through metals, Aristotle was more complex). Plato in specific believed that person's roles would be predetermined, but that if someone was of a higher class they would automatically rise above it, but that this would be rare. And also that you shouldn't produce offspring or even have sex with a different class.

Edit: And i probably should sound like I am one of them, cuz I sort of am. Barely (I almost never smoke pot) but enough that it counts, I guess.

[Nevuk]

I actually have a couple of aunts and uncles at McDonald-esque jobs (one actually does work in a McDonalds actually) simply because they were older when they immigrated to America and lacked the education and skills to promote themselves. So yeah, I agree that society does better suit people with particular skills. I also have an uncle from the same side of the family that's found tremendous success from starting one small car garage and expanding it into six.

I'm not gonna argue that people in the working class don't work hard. I'm just saying that often, people fail to seize opportunities. That's the beauty, I think of capitalist policies. A person can start a privately owned sole proprietorship and make a fortune out of it. It's not what always happens, it's just what I see as its benefits.

You still have a good point though. I do believe that a lot of extremely wealthy people probably have not had to work too hard for their fortune, especially those that do inherit it. I still believe though that a fair amount of people live very comfortably off of hard work and that more people could if they took the initiative.
I too am a Business major btw. This is one of the thing's I have noticed, that majority of business majors look at anomalies and write them as representative of the whole. The greater the risk, the greater the reward, of course. Intelligent risk, I should say. But the issue is that not everyone has the capability to take these risks.

[EasySkankin]

Damn dude, are you grading my work or something? I'm just casually discussing, I'm not trying to impress anyone. But, if you insist on being a pretentious ass towards, me, I'll at least give you the courtesy of explaining myself.

This is discussion, some people will be wrong, and some more wrong than others. I felt it necessary to point out the flaws in your post. I always thought that in the subforums such as these, the goal is a productive discourse, which may at first appear as pure hostility, but it is the conflict of ideas, I don't hold anything personally against you, I simply do not agree with you and want to find the answer.


When I said profit of the government, I should have said profit of the government officials. The problem I see with giving a government control over everything is that a corrupt politician could use this to his/her advantage and take control over an industry. With the right investments, a crooked politician could use subsidies or other protective policies to jump prices up in an industry, and then proceed to make a fortune off of it. I get that the concept of "government" is a tool of society. Really, I'm capable of thought, I swear.

It is pretty much assumed that in a successful communist revolt, the presupposed form of government would be either democratic or republican(consisting entirely of the proletariat, so maybe these aren't the perfect words to use.). So if a single politician wished to control the market and pocket profits into his own pocket, he would have to accomplish seemingly impossible feats, especially as there is no stock market. No one is allowed to have any sort of capital.

If you don't think it's impractical to abolish the world economy and replace it with a series of government run industries with no private property, then congratulations, you have more faith in the potential of humanity than I do.

There have been cases in which certain nations have come close. The first that comes to mind is modern day cuba, and what china used to be. A few weeks ago china privatized property, which is a blatant attack on the communist institutions that existed within that country. No one has really stuck to the manuel, often times revolting at inopportune conditions of the market.

So, really, it's inconclusive. It hasn't really been tried in the right circumstances.

Are the benefits of hard work in capitalism limited? Really. Oh, good thing you explain why...oh no wait, you didn't provide any "meat" to your statement. Hypocrite.

I admit, you caught me on that. Now, allow me to explain.

If you work in labor within capitalism, what rewards are you given? A paycheck at certain intervals of time. Is money the definition of "success"? Is hard work done solely for the gain of money? No matter how hard you work in the labor business, you will essentially do the same thing for the entirety of your career. If you mine, you are promoted only to jobs concerned with more mining. If you build houses, you promote to the overseer, yet you are still a carpenter, and your work is the same, just slightly embellished.

What i'm curious to know is how you think hard work within capitalism gives any real "pay-off"[/quote]

[Love As Arson]

Anyway, the argument that I see against an inheritance tax is that the money had to originate with some member of the family. If it was the wish of the originator of the family's wealth to keep the money in the family, then does it justify taxing the inheritance and returning it to the government?
The desires of the ancestor are irrelevant, as there are larger consequences of inherited wealth; for example, limited social mobility, lack of opportunities, etc.


As for exploiting the working class, it's very possible that what you say is true. But couldn't it also be possible that the majority of the working class is either less motivated or less able to increase his or her social status.
One would have to assume that the entire working class is simply unmotivated. One would then have to assume that every individual lives within a vacuum, with structural problems having no bearing on their success.


Look at a men like Steve Jobs (Apple) and the guys that made Google (Page and Brin). They used innovation to contribute something to society that met market demands, and then they took it from there.
Is it not more telling that there are so few individuals in that situation? That is to say, if social mobility were a norm, as it is portrayed, then there would be no need to consistently point to a select few individuals as proof; rather, it would simply be accepted.

While some are less fortunate than others concerning where they grow up and the education that's accessible during childhood, I believe that in most developed nations, anyone has a chance to make a good living. I've seen people in my own town make a great living opening small businesses (restaurants, barber shops, etc.).
Less than ten percent of those in a lower class transcend their class. Such a low percentage is evidence of systemic problems, rather than that of motivation.


While the wealthy may be exploiting the working class, I think some portion of the working class may be letting themselves get worked over.
There is socialization of the working class. Let us recall that the prevailing ideas within society are that of the ruling class. So, for example, free markets are taught to be the best system and working in a job that one despises, while fully knowing that they are being exploited, is adulthood.

Why not abolish it altogether, as marx suggests?
I was speaking in the context of the current political situation. Abolition would be impossible, but adjustments may be made. Marx saw value in reform, yet he also recognized that reform is limited in that the social relations of capitalism are still in tact and there would come a point where reform must be cast aside for revolution.

[Nevuk]

I just read an article about panarchism by Matt Nettlau, and it seems to be the most level-headed and sensible method for the method of deciding political systems.

http://www.panarchy.org/nettlau/1909.eng.html

[open mind]

Are any of you familiar with reification? It is the process by which human constructs are made to take on the form of eternal laws. For example, arguing that humanity is innately selfish or capitalism is the end of progress as far as economic systems. As was said, however, they are human constructs and can be changed if it was so desired. If there is a shift in consciousness, and consequently, socialization, then anarchism and socialism are possible.


i remember we were debating this subject more or less a few months back, the posts got to big and topics in them got to wide ranging for me to ever have the motivation to continue it in that form though. i will say that i agree that it is theoretically possible to end selfishness in humanity if all could agree to make it a goal......i just really have trouble believing that all will ever agree to do it and then stick to it for very long.

as for the topic of this thread, i don't really believe anarchy is suitable to large civilizations, and that socialism has some good ideas i'd like to see implemented but i'm far from believing it's truly the right way to go.

[asmolitor]

i remember we were debating this subject more or less a few months back, the posts got to big and topics in them got to wide ranging for me to ever have the motivation to continue it in that form though. i will say that i agree that it is theoretically possible to end selfishness in humanity if all could agree to make it a goal......i just really have trouble believing that all will ever agree to do it and then stick to it for very long.

as for the topic of this thread, i don't really believe anarchy is suitable to large civilizations, and that socialism has some good ideas i'd like to see implemented but i'm far from believing it's truly the right way to go.

well, everything's possible in theory.

i still don't think socialism could ever really prevail, as there's almost always an inherent economic incentive to deviate from the "goals" of the society.

[open mind]

well, everything's possible in theory.

i still don't think socialism could ever really prevail, as there's almost always an inherent economic incentive to deviate from the "goals" of the society.

yeah that was more or less my point......just alot shorter.

that's about where i sit to, i can't make my mind believe that a system that bases itself on the notion that everyone wants to help thier fellow man can work for any meaningful length of time without some pretty horrendous costs (braces self for the responses that say that isn't what socialism is really about and i've over simplified things).
i do like some of what socialism has to offer though and would like to see more countries try to adopt a hybrid of sorts out of socialism and capitalism though.

[Villanova1L]

Scandinavia shows this is not only possible but it ensures a fairer and higher standard of living than in America. Scandinavia is the triumph of socialism. Socialism has its failures and boy were they huge but so does Capitalism. Pinnochet is the obvious one but both our countries before 1945 and more like 1970 for America were deeply unfair heirarchical states which a phenomenal gap between rich and poor, which is still maintained today.


Aside from wanting a perfect society, what are the disadvantages of having a large gap between rich and poor?

[open mind]

This.

Also it has worked for a long time in Scadinavia.

And you're assuming capitalism "works". Which is highly debatable.

i thought scandinavia didn't have true socialism though.
no. i don't really believe capitalism in todays world is a really sustainable system in the long term which is why i said i'd like to see more countries adopt a hybrid of sorts out of the systems.

[open mind]

What is true socialism? Is it following Marx to the letter, cause no-ones ever done that and it is totally unfeesible based on industrial advances etc.. I'd say Sweden takes on the socialist ideal even if it omits some of what Marx said. It's certainly more socialist than any eastern bloc nation.



Which is what the Scandinavian nations and to a lesser extent Britain and Canada do. It's IMO the best way forward at the moment.



It's not very nice now is it?

you got me, all i know is whenever socialism is the topic i always here that true socialism has never really been tried.
guess we pretty much agree on that.
i'd add that poverty levels have a pretty clear link to crime levels.

[ascitiesburn101]

Anarchism is almost as bad as communism in my eyes. It could never work, society is so fucked beyond belief. Unofficial governments would be created and would most likely wage warfare on each other, like Somalia and their warlords.

[Villanova1L]

What is true socialism? Is it following Marx to the letter, cause no-ones ever done that and it is totally unfeesible based on industrial advances etc.. I'd say Sweden takes on the socialist ideal even if it omits some of what Marx said. It's certainly more socialist than any eastern bloc nation.



Which is what the Scandinavian nations and to a lesser extent Britain and Canada do. It's IMO the best way forward at the moment.



It's not very nice now is it?

Given that it isn't nice, but why knock everyone down onto a level playing field?

[Love As Arson]

i will say that i agree that it is theoretically possible to end selfishness in humanity if all could agree to make it a goal......i just really have trouble believing that all will ever agree to do it and then stick to it for very long.
There will obviously be a need for struggle to overthrow capitalism, and it will require a mass shift in consciousness. Marx, himself, argued that socialism is only possible when the majority of the working class recognizes its power and abolishes capitalism. The interesting thing, however, is that, during various working class struggles, anti-capitalist rhetoric is used quite frequently; however, the reformist elements have generally prevailed.


as for the topic of this thread, i don't really believe anarchy is suitable to large civilizations, and that socialism has some good ideas i'd like to see implemented but i'm far from believing it's truly the right way to go.
Anarchism is predicated upon the notion that that there will be no centralized government, only small, freely associating, communities that are run by workers.

well, everything's possible in theory.

i still don't think socialism could ever really prevail, as there's almost always an inherent economic incentive to deviate from the "goals" of the society.
A society, in which those that produce the vast majority of the wealth, yet receive little in return, is absent of incentive. On the other hand, if there was a construction of society that placed power within the hands of those that produced it, there would likely be a much more effective, and rational, allocation, creation and distribution of resources.



that's about where i sit to, i can't make my mind believe that a system that bases itself on the notion that everyone wants to help thier fellow man can work for any meaningful length of time without some pretty horrendous costs
Working class power is the basis of socialism.
braces self for the responses that say that isn't what socialism is really about and i've over simplified things).
If the definition is wrong, then it must be pointed out. It would be similar to arguing that America is an egalitarian society, when it is not.

Aside from wanting a perfect society, what are the disadvantages of having a large gap between rich and poor?
One notices that violence and crime occur in more frequency in societies that have harsh inequality.

[ascitiesburn101]

Erm what?

Do you know anything about politics?

Anarchism is 100 times more impracticle than communism.
In my eyes, Communism is worse. :shrug:

Anarchism has never really (legitimately) been attempted so I cannot say for sure.

[Villanova1L]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of harsh, but a huge gap between upper and lower class doesn't necessarily mean more violent.

If you're asserting that a radical different promotes violence then I'd have to disagree. A steep difference between upper and middle class typically means a huge middle class, and typically that is where people are content (depending on how high the median income is compared to usual cost of living). That isn't to say people are ecstatic to be middle class, but they usually are content. Just an observation.

[Love As Arson]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of harsh, but a huge gap between upper and lower class doesn't necessarily mean more violent.
Amongst industrialized nations, the US has one of the highest crime rate, whereas those with welfare state policies generally have lower rates, even when adjusted for population. It is in the company of poor countries, such as Bulgaria, which have similarly distorted distributions of wealth.

If you're asserting that a radical different promotes violence then I'd have to disagree. A steep difference between upper and middle class typically means a huge middle class, and typically that is where people are content (depending on how high the median income is compared to usual cost of living).
A large gap in income equality, as well as a shrinking middle class, is the reality in America. One finds that even those with college degrees are earning less than in previous eras.

That isn't to say people are ecstatic to be middle class, but they usually are content. Just an observation.
The majority of the individuals that believe they are middle class are not middle class at all.


Ben, one thing I like about the French is the strength of their labor movement. The workers actually wield power, and it will be interesting to see what the clashes with their newest president bring.

[Villanova1L]

Amongst industrialized nations, the US has one of the highest crime rate, whereas those with welfare state policies generally have lower rates, even when adjusted for population. It is in the company of poor countries, such as Bulgaria, which have similarly distorted distributions of wealth.


A large gap in income equality, as well as a shrinking middle class, is the reality in America. One finds that even those with college degrees are earning less than in previous eras.


The majority of the individuals that believe they are middle class are not middle class at all.


The United States, no doubt, has ONE of the highest crime rates, but not the highest among industrialized nations. Last time I checked, not recently, the United States had the largest gap between rich and poor, so wouldn't it follow that we would have the largest crime rate if the income gap was the cause of violence?

I don't disagree that America has a shrinking middle class, or that there is a large gap between rich and poor, I simply don't find it that disturbing.

I never said they are middle class, but rather that they are content with what they consider "middle class".

[Villanova1L]

You're completely wrong. The reason liberal democracies don't have revolutions or wars is the homogenisation of society and the ending of the three distinct classes.

Just look at France. No country in the world has had more social unrest, class consciousness and revolutionary fervor than the French but as the upper classes in France basically got liquidated with modernisation after the second world war there has been little power within the communist party since the seventies and eighties.

The only groups who are rioting are guess what? The poor folks in the ghettos in Paris and Marseille. Who are mostly first/second generation immigrants from north Africa. As all the white folks are on a comparitavely even footing thanks to 40 years of liberalism and socialism they don't have the same reasons to revolt anymore.

I'm not entirely sure how you're relating the fall of communist party strength in France to this argument, so if that is vital to your argument, please let me know. I will address the rest of your points and feel free to educate me on the relevance of the other.

I am assuming you consider the United States a liberal democracy, and I am also assuming that you don't assume that the United States is moving towards a revolution or war. The class structure in the United States is well defined. You have the rich, middle and poor. The poor, in our system, have little means for reform, and to be honest, little reason to revolt. While the theory historically has been one that would support a theory that class struggle creates struggle (bourgeois v. proletariat), the fact that the quality of life is higher in America offsets this contention.

Also, the reason you won't see a class war in the United States is simply that the lower classes don't have the means to mobilize. Simply put the rich run this country, and most countries, and revolution is unlikely because of this (not the dissolving of class systems, as I believe you are suggesting).

[Love As Arson]

The United States, no doubt, has ONE of the highest crime rates, but not the highest among industrialized nations. Last time I checked, not recently, the United States had the largest gap between rich and poor, so wouldn't it follow that we would have the largest crime rate if the income gap was the cause of violence?
We have the largest population of prisoners of any industrialized country.


I don't disagree that America has a shrinking middle class, or that there is a large gap between rich and poor, I simply don't find it that disturbing.
It is not economically tenable, and, being of the socialist point of view, find that there needs to be a more equitable distribution of wealth, especially because those that are creating it are suffering from the economic plans of those in the ruling class.

I never said they are middle class, but rather that they are content with what they consider "middle class".
My meaning is, they invariably find that they are actually a part of the working class, and this can be unveiled in numerous ways.

As to the reason there is little struggle, it largely has to do with the neoliberal reforms, and reformism amongst the left, that has left the labor movement, amongst other struggles, largely impotent. There is evidence, however, that there are individuals that are are class conscious, as evidenced by the minor struggles seen throughout the country and the millions of immigrants that marched last year.

[Villanova1L]

We have the largest population of prisoners of any industrialized country.


It is not economically tenable, and, being of the socialist point of view, find that there needs to be a more equitable distribution of wealth, especially because those that are creating it are suffering from the economic plans of those in the ruling class.


My meaning is, they invariably find that they are actually a part of the working class, and this can be unveiled in numerous ways.

As to the reason there is little struggle, it largely has to do with the neoliberal reforms, and reformism amongst the left, that has left the labor movement, amongst other struggles, largely impotent. There is evidence, however, that there are individuals that are are class conscious, as evidenced by the minor struggles seen throughout the country and the millions of immigrants that marched last year.

America is stricter on drug policies, which accounts for the largest number of people in prison, so the number of prisoners has nothing to do with violence, as you are trying to implicate.

Also, I think that an uneven distribution of wealth is not a harm on society. It is harmful to the lower class, but not to society as a whole.

Of course the people who think they're middle class find out they part of the working class, but that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. The reason for not having a struggle is no cohesion among the lower class. People rally around unfair circumstances, and while I don't believe the poor have chances that equal the upper class, I also believe that people here realize they are better off than they would be anywhere else.

[Love As Arson]

America is stricter on drug policies, which accounts for the largest number of people in prison, so the number of prisoners has nothing to do with violence, as you are trying to implicate.
Drug policy is the largest aspect, but it only serves to prove my point that crime generally emanates from those of the lowest circumstances, since those involved in crimes of that nature, and those related to it, are from that particular class.

Also, I think that an uneven distribution of wealth is not a harm on society. It is harmful to the lower class, but not to society as a whole.
It certainly is not economically beneficial/stable in the long term.


Of course the people who think they're middle class find out they part of the working class, but that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.
The veil of the middle class obscures whether or not one is actually affected by certain policies. There is a conception that simply being middle class offers one some sort of protection.


The reason for not having a struggle is no cohesion among the lower class.
The working class was quite a powerful force prior to the reforms I have mentioned. The lack of cohesion also plays a role, and it is generally in the conception that one's own struggle is disconnected from all others, when, in all reality, it is not.
People rally around unfair circumstances, and while I don't believe the poor have chances that equal the upper class, I also believe that people here realize they are better off than they would be anywhere else.
If you inundate them with pictures of Africa, certainly, but compare it to other social democracies, and I think one finds that there is a yearning for something similar. I recall seeing a poll which stated that the majority of Americans think that there should be higher taxes to ensure a more equitable distribution of the wealth.

[EasySkankin]

Something the title brought to me, although I don't think the author intended this to be discussed, is the ideal of an established state vs. no state.

I'd favor a state because it gives economic bonds between people, and allows for more products and materials to become available to everyone. The state exists to better the lives of it's inhabitants. If there were no state, then economically people would be very much more limited.

[Nevuk]

A state is just an extension of the societies man natural creates.

The state is a natural entity and any attempt to reverse that is very silly.
I disagree that a state is natural. In my mind, it is the most unnatural concept in existence.

[Villanova1L]

I disagree that a state is natural. In my mind, it is the most unnatural concept in existence.

Explain?

Most theories I've read say that even in the beginning of man that people formed societies (eventually), and to me these societies ultimately become states, unless we are defining states differently.

[x togepi x]

societies =/= states.

[Villanova1L]

Drug policy is the largest aspect, but it only serves to prove my point that crime generally emanates from those of the lowest circumstances, since those involved in crimes of that nature, and those related to it, are from that particular class.


It certainly is not economically beneficial/stable in the long term.


The veil of the middle class obscures whether or not one is actually affected by certain policies. There is a conception that simply being middle class offers one some sort of protection.


The working class was quite a powerful force prior to the reforms I have mentioned. The lack of cohesion also plays a role, and it is generally in the conception that one's own struggle is disconnected from all others, when, in all reality, it is not.

If you inundate them with pictures of Africa, certainly, but compare it to other social democracies, and I think one finds that there is a yearning for something similar. I recall seeing a poll which stated that the majority of Americans think that there should be higher taxes to ensure a more equitable distribution of the wealth.

A originally read you put violent crime, I'm sorry for misreading that. I'd like to think that if the same laws were applied here as in other social democracies (exact same policy) the crime rate would be essentially a wash.

A long term split between upper and middle class isn't beneficial to who? I'd say it is very beneficial for the upper class, and creates a greater chance for a large middle class because the upper class should reinvest into the economy.

Being middle class doesn't afford protections, and those who believe that are (for lack of a better term) foolish. I can't control the stupidity of others, and neither can the upper class.

Maybe I am missing them, but what specific reforms are you speaking of? The working class, in my eyes is synonymous with the middle class, but while it is large the diversity of the people in it will never allow for a cohesive middle class.

I'm not comparing just to social democracies, but the word. Also, I would like to see the poll you are speaking of, and again that speaks to intelligence of the middle class not their status in our society.

[EasySkankin]

^was about to say that.

[selftitled85]

I disagree that a state is natural. In my mind, it is the most unnatural concept in existence.

im assuming you are mixing state with country.

state is very natural. country on the other hand...is man-made and unnatural.

[Villanova1L]

societies =/= states.

While this equation is well constructed it does nothing to explain why, so I'll counter with.

societies=states

thanks

[x togepi x]

While this equation is well constructed it does nothing to explain why, so I'll counter with.

societies=states

thanks

i thought it was pretty obvious that two concepts that are different are different, but hell why not.

My local scene is a society. it does not have a government. show me how that's a state.

[Villanova1L]

Your local scene is a state because it is defined to a general region (springfield) and has an understood set of rules. An establishment of formal government is not necessary for a state.

I think you've greatly over simplified both the definitions, as well as the philosophy behind them. I believe that a society will ultimately become a state, as you first addressed it, if man is left to his own devices. That is to say the society created by man's dealing with one another will stay in one central location and have rules (either written or nonwritten). Hopefully you can make an argument based on the philosophy back, but if you'd like to provide me with another hypothetical you may.


Hope to hear from you soon.

[x togepi x]

Your local scene is a state because it is defined to a general region (springfield) and has an understood set of rules. An establishment of formal government is not necessary for a state.

No. my local scene happens to exist within a state's boundaries. it isn't "springfield". We don't have a government. (in fact, a lot of what we do is probably illegal ex: house shows)

I think you've greatly over simplified both the definitions, as well as the philosophy behind them.

explain to me what's wrong with my definition of society.

I believe that a society will ultimately become a state, as you first addressed it, if man is left to his own devices.

This doesn't make any sense, as there are many societies throughout the world that do not have governments, specifically ones that are based on certain ethnicities. For example, an african american community within a certain city could be considered a society, yet this society wouldn't function as a state.

That is to say the society created by man's dealing with one another will stay in one central location and have rules (either written or nonwritten).

Rules don't equal a state. Anarcho syndicalist communes still have rules. I know that seems simplistic, but I'm not sure how to explain the difference between rules and laws.

Hopefully you can make an argument based on the philosophy back, but if you'd like to provide me with another hypothetical you may.


Hope to hear from you soon.

I'm not exactly sure what good an argument based on philosophy is going to do since I'm quickly learning that philosophy is pointless.

[Villanova1L]

No. my local scene happens to exist within a state's boundaries. it isn't "springfield". We don't have a government. (in fact, a lot of what we do is probably illegal ex: house shows)
explain to me what's wrong with my definition of society.
This doesn't make any sense, as there are many societies throughout the world that do not have governments, specifically ones that are based on certain ethnicities. For example, an african american community within a certain city could be considered a society, yet this society wouldn't function as a state.
Rules don't equal a state. Anarcho syndicalist communes still have rules. I know that seems simplistic, but I'm not sure how to explain the difference between rules and laws.
I'm not exactly sure what good an argument based on philosophy is going to do since I'm quickly learning that philosophy is pointless.

I don't know how to post breaking up your quotes, but I will address your points in order.

The fact you scene exists within a state doesn't mean it isn't a state in itself. You AGAIN bring up government, I'm telling you a state doesn't need a formal government to be a state at all. A state is merely, in my view, a synonym for society in a general defined area.

Nothing is wrong with your definition of society, but constantly including government into your argument for state is wrong.

Functioning as a state, and existing as a state also aren't the same thing. I'd say that if there are implied rules within a defined geographic area, then you have a state. You claim a need for government, this is where we disagree.

A state is a defined region, consisting of a group of people who act under the same general customary rules. I assume you disagree with the definition preceding this, but I fail to see a need to differentiate a state from society when they serve similar functions.

I also, don't see a need to try and convince you philosophy isn't pointless, so go on believing that. Just as most will go on believing your close minded to those things which you can't fully comprehend.

Since you deem philosophy pointless I see no need to continue.

[x togepi x]

I don't know how to post breaking up your quotes, but I will address your points in order.

The fact you scene exists within a state doesn't mean it isn't a state in itself. You AGAIN bring up government, I'm telling you a state doesn't need a formal government to be a state at all. A state is merely, in my view, a synonym for society in a general defined area.

Your view is ignoring the standard definition of State, which is fine, but if a state doesn't involve a government, why bring it up as an argument against anarchy? Anarchism argues against governments in a statist sense, not societies (which it views as a different entity as state)

A state is a defined region, consisting of a group of people who act under the same general customary rules. I assume you disagree with the definition preceding this, but I fail to see a need to differentiate a state from society when they serve similar functions.

I don't think states serve the same function as society. What functions are these?

I also, don't see a need to try and convince you philosophy isn't pointless, so go on believing that. Just as most will go on believing your close minded to those things which you can't fully comprehend.

Oh, how open-minded of you to claim that someone who disagrees with your opinion of philosophy is one who can't comprehend things. PRO TIP: togepi is a 4th year philosophy major. I don't think you can call having been immersed in a field for years and then deciding it's pointless "close-minded". If you really want to argue the merits of philosophy, make another thread about it. It might be fun. I'd rather argue that than the definition of state.

[Villanova1L]

Your view is ignoring the standard definition of State, which is fine, but if a state doesn't involve a government, why bring it up as an argument against anarchy? Anarchism argues against governments in a statist sense, not societies (which it views as a different entity as state)



I don't think states serve the same function as society. What functions are these?



Oh, how open-minded of you to claim that someone who disagrees with your opinion of philosophy is one who can't comprehend things. PRO TIP: togepi is a 4th year philosophy major. I don't think you can call having been immersed in a field for years and then deciding it's pointless "close-minded". If you really want to argue the merits of philosophy, make another thread about it. It might be fun. I'd rather argue that than the definition of state.

The fact you capitalized State in this post is telling, you're speaking much more of a formal state than I would be. I'd argue that anarchy is an argument against any collective group. More of an everyman for himself philosophy, which would ultimately fail because in the long run people would create a "society" and also create a "state" eventually.

I think that a state serves the function of creating an expressed set of rules for a geographically defined group. I believe society does the same thing, only the rules are not explicitly state, but rather understood.

I agree its only an argument on the definition of state, but I think the definition would be critical to any argument made concerning anarchy.

The open-minded comment I made was meant to be ironic because in making it I was being close minded, I fully intended to do such.

What are you going to do with a philosophy degree?

Finally, I don't know if referring to yourself in the third person on a message board is hilarious or pathetic. If it means anything, I'm leaning towards hilarious.

[Nevuk]

The fact you capitalized State in this post is telling, you're speaking much more of a formal state than I would be. I'd argue that anarchy is an argument against any collective group. More of an everyman for himself philosophy, which would ultimately fail because in the long run people would create a "society" and also create a "state" eventually.

I think that a state serves the function of creating an expressed set of rules for a geographically defined group. I believe society does the same thing, only the rules are not explicitly state, but rather understood.

I agree its only an argument on the definition of state, but I think the definition would be critical to any argument made concerning anarchy.

The open-minded comment I made was meant to be ironic because in making it I was being close minded, I fully intended to do such.

What are you going to do with a philosophy degree?

Finally, I don't know if referring to yourself in the third person on a message board is hilarious or pathetic. If it means anything, I'm leaning towards hilarious.
State is a concept, it has to be capitalized to indicate what it is, the philosophical and political concept of it. The United States is a State, its capable of acting for its own interests independent of the citizens in it. A group of people is not a State.
And Individualist anarchists are the everyone for themselves, and that philosophy is argued by few, and their arguments are incredibly complex(Max Stirner's "The Ego and his Own" seems definitive for it) . Most of them are from the US.

[x togepi x]

The fact you capitalized State in this post is telling, you're speaking much more of a formal state than I would be. I'd argue that anarchy is an argument against any collective group. More of an everyman for himself philosophy, which would ultimately fail because in the long run people would create a "society" and also create a "state" eventually.

your definition of anarchy is too specific. Yes, there is one form of anarchism that is completely individualistic, but there are also many other forms that involve community. I think individualist anarchism is pretty stupid and unrealistic, partially for the reasons that you're bringing up.


What are you going to do with a philosophy degree?

nothing. i used to want to be a lawyer, so it was a pre-law major, now I'm trying to get a media production major added, but there's some red tape. i'm starting sound engineering classes though.

Finally, I don't know if referring to yourself in the third person on a message board is hilarious or pathetic. If it means anything, I'm leaning towards hilarious.

that's exactly what i was going for there.

[we.are.spirit]

You know, to really understand Anarchism, you have to completely rethink who you are, and who other people are. Far too often, people dismiss Anarchism as a legible solution because they cannot comprehend any other means of running society. You see, Anarchism isn't another means of 'running society'. And it's not just a political ideology. And it's not just an ideal. And it's not just an attitude. It's a heart, and a mindset.

To understand Anarchism, you have to seperate 'anarchy' from Anarchism.

In a sense, Individualist Anarchism is actually a form of submission. It's saying, "While I don't agree with you, and you may not agree with me, I do not feel any need to try and make you agree with me."

Here's an idea that's been floating around in my head lately. It's based on the idea of a singularity - a single Truth. While I realize there are those of you who would not agree with me, I'm going to put it out there. Haha, I doubt anybody will read this. But, argue with me, please.

I am a Follower of Christ. And thus, I believe that we were all created in the image of God. And I believe that there is only one God. I believe that there was only one Beginning, and only one Way. I believe that everything that has ever been created was instilled within each human being - the single Truth of that everything was blurred by the Fall. I think that Anarchism would work, because that single Truth that dwells within each human being would be brought to life when we release ourselves from earthly rule. As there is a single Truth, shared by all human beings, we would all live in harmony.

I had a discussion with my History teacher the other day. She brought up the notion that if there were no law, people would just go out and gun each other down. But, realistically, how often does a murder go uncommited because one is afraid of the consequences of the law? I would argue that if one has been brought to the point where murder is even thinkable, one would not hold back because he or she is afraid that it may result in their spending life in jail.
People don't kill other people because of the law - they spare each other's lives because they know that it is the right thing to do, and the wrong thing to kill. I see it in my own life; I do not require a policeman to tell me what to do. That sense of right and wrong has, I believe, already been instilled in me by my - the - Creator. Conscience is the prerequisite of Law, so I say do away with law.

Oh, wow. I am optimistic. Almost whimsical. Sigh.



---

The upsides of Anarchism?

No Governments waging war.
No nationalities being racially superior.
No complete disrespect for others.
No cynicism concerning the ability of the human race.
No enforcing beliefs on others.
No having to give up your beliefs, for others.
Complete freedom.

The downsides of Anarchism?

A reliance upon human nature.
Human nature is faulty.
Some need leadership.
A backward step in the availability of financial resources and support.
A vulnerability to those who would do us harm.
As there is wrong and right, the wrong would go unrefuted.

You know, I'm still figuring this all out. It does make good rainy-day thinking. I wish it would rain here - blasted drought.

[EasySkankin]

A backward step in the availability of financial resources and support.



side-stepping your useless and utterly irrelevant religious rant, This is the most important point. While I am in no way materialistic, I'm sure we can all agree that happiness is almost completely sensory, and we can only stimulate that through material products, usually ones that you don't find just lying in nature. Products such as these require a large, and regulated industry, dedicated to serving the people, all existing under a common law, very simply in order to maintain peace, and cooperation between the branches of industry.

If any industry were to exist in an unregulated society, it would serve only the most basic needs of the community, and wouldn't embellish their lives, wouldn't serve to further their happiness, which is ultimately the goal of a state.

For example, me and my mates wouldn't be able to get a hold of custom musical instruments for our band within an anarchy, and the resources of education would be severely limited, especially text books. Also, wouldn't science progress be severely halted within an anarchy? A good scientific community is a large one, and if they are limited only to small, self-subsistent community where documents and resources required to engage in scientific activities are already limited, how are they supposed to further discoveries? or even to implement them, and mass produce medicine for example to distribute among everyone?

Plus, with the loss of any standardizing institution, it would be exponentially harder for scientists especially to communicate with each other.

I just don't see how anarchy is appealing at all.

[Judge'sDaughter]

side-stepping your useless and utterly irrelevant religious rant, This is the most important point. While I am in no way materialistic, I'm sure we can all agree that happiness is almost completely sensory, and we can only stimulate that through material products, usually ones that you don't find just lying in nature. Products such as these require a large, and regulated industry, dedicated to serving the people, all existing under a common law, very simply in order to maintain peace, and cooperation between the branches of industry.

If any industry were to exist in an unregulated society, it would serve only the most basic needs of the community, and wouldn't embellish their lives, wouldn't serve to further their happiness, which is ultimately the goal of a state.

For example, me and my mates wouldn't be able to get a hold of custom musical instruments for our band within an anarchy, and the resources of education would be severely limited, especially text books. Also, wouldn't science progress be severely halted within an anarchy? A good scientific community is a large one, and if they are limited only to small, self-subsistent community where documents and resources required to engage in scientific activities are already limited, how are they supposed to further discoveries? or even to implement them, and mass produce medicine for example to distribute among everyone?

Plus, with the loss of any standardizing institution, it would be exponentially harder for scientists especially to communicate with each other.

I just don't see how anarchy is appealing at all.

1) I don't agree.
2)Again, I don't agree.
3)The entire point of an anarchy is to show that people can be happy without having to rely on one person or one power. I don't see how anarchism has anything at all to do with material happiness.
4)Please explain why because I think I see several large loopholes in this statement.

[Nevuk]

As far as scientists go, you don't particularly want them in an Anarchist society. Because they rely upon Science in a similar manner to a priests reliance upon god, in a way that commands obedience because they are the ultimate expert in that field. (This has nothing to do with whether science is right or not). The ideal solution is to have everyone be equally educated in the anarchy (as far as Science goes), enabling science to exist but not rule over the people. Is the ideal solution impossible? Maybe, most ideal solutions are.

(at least this is what I've gotten out of Bakunin)

[hXc_pwnage]

Anarchy is appealing because it's the utopian society. The only problem is that humans have become greedy and corrupt. There are too many people who would take advantage of a situation where you are in charge of your own actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

The only way I see any possibility for anarchy is if we created tons of small communities where people with similar ideals can govern themselves accordingly. Anything on a big scale would end up self destructing because someone always wants to be in control.

[hXc_pwnage]

As far as scientists go, you don't particularly want them in an Anarchist society. Because they rely upon Science in a similar manner to a priests reliance upon god, in a way that commands obedience because they are the ultimate expert in that field. (This has nothing to do with whether science is right or not). The ideal solution is to have everyone be equally educated in the anarchy (as far as Science goes), enabling science to exist but not rule over the people. Is the ideal solution impossible? Maybe, most ideal solutions are.

(at least this is what I've gotten out of Bakunin)
In any kind of anarchist society you would need to have people who represented your own ideals. This is why I feel like anarchy could only exist in small communities. Throughout history we've grown more and more greedy, selfish, materialistic and power hungry.

There would have to be religious communities and scientific communities. People would have to learn how to accept others as they are and not worry about conforming everyone to their own ideals and beliefs. Acceptance is key and humans for some reason have a hard time with that now.

[Nevuk]

One of the neat and difficult things about anarchism is everyone has their own view of how it would work, and these views are always different. I do agree with you on the small societies thing, but I can only see primitivism working in the long run.
It has always worked very well for small numbers of people, but the more people the harder it gets to function. There is a reason for this, beyond 161 people working together on anything and it usually fragments into more societies, with 5 and 60ish being the most effective at tasks.