Socialism & Communism - Page 3

Headless-Pixie · #21 (**permalink**) 02-02-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

The problem with anarcho-syndicalism (left-wing anarchism) is that it's impossible. People always want to rule over others. It's an instinct left over from evolution. Where there is anarchy, the next person to take control is usually very authoritarian (e.g. Franco), since nothing is stopping the strongest from simply taking power. Anarcho-capitalism might be possible because it would be a de facto plutocracy, but that is hardly an ideal society. Regarding communes, if someone wants to set one up that's fine by me (it's perfectly legal even in capitalist America), but when such communes are faced with opposition in a volatile political situation, especially from a right-wing authoritarian, they crumble, since they have little organization or wealth while the conqueror has both.

Force Anarco-Sydicalism is not left wing anarchism. I certainly place it to the right of me. Sydicalism believes in the trade unions taking full control of the economy and most other aspects of life (education etc.). Personally i don't see it solving social problems, even if it is fairly easy to implement and it does redistribute wealth more fairly.

What i'm talking about (and i think you are) is Anarco-communism. The belief that local councils and communes should organize the economy and most other aspects of life. I don't know where you get the impression these communes are weak to outside influence. In the Spanish revolution when facing overwhelming opposition from the Fascists (backed by Germany and Italy) they managed to hold until they were also attacked by the authoritarian Marxists aswell. A anarchist society is well organized and can be extremely productive. Once again i can use the examples of the Ukraine and Spain.

Why i stick with Anarco-Communism is that i can be done through local council elections (although i'd want smaller areas and instantly recallable representatives) thus eliminating any need for violent revolution.

ForceoftheTruth · #22 (**permalink**) 02-02-2006, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

The problem with anarcho-syndicalism (left-wing anarchism) is that it's impossible. People always want to rule over others. It's an instinct left over from evolution. Where there is anarchy, the next person to take control is usually very authoritarian (e.g. Franco), since nothing is stopping the strongest from simply taking power.

People don't always want to rule over others as a product of evolution. If that were true you and I would want to rule over others. Am I not human? The thing your getting mixed up is the need of people to be accepted for their social status within the community they are socialized into. Dogs and apes are the same way, but their communities are more instinctually based than ours. That is why in egalitarian hunting-gathering tribes more focus is spent on feeding friends and family than on acquiring stuff. Actually acquiring stuff is considered bad to them.
People only seek power over others if that is what they are conditioned to do for status in their community. Notice that most successful Americans are more worried about having control of themselves than over others. Control over others also is necessary to those of low status or who have little control over themselves as a means to gain control of themselves or gain status.
In a small enough community, such troublesome deviants can be redirected or detained. It's only when there is a large enough number of like-minded low-status people that revolution occurs. And as far as war goes, it only happens when there is a scuttle over resources or some kind of interest. That is why a moderating authority and rule of law is always required or else standing militaries to act as deterrents.
So yes, some amount of law or defense is required. But no, there is not some built-in human "want to dominate others" mentality. We worry about our status, not who we control or what we control. And how we define status can vary almost infinitely.

Leadership, as I understand it, is not a cultural construct. All early civilizations that I have heard of were absolutist monarchies, and I'm guessing that prehistoric societies were very hierarchical as well. Personally, I view it as part of the will to power. It is true that, theoretically, we might want power only over ourselves, but as soon as the fear of want enters the equation, people inevitably begin competing for control over others, believing (usually wrongly) that it is necessary to have control over themselves. For anything approaching anarcho-syndicalism to be possible, one of two things would have to change. Either there would have to be almost no basic human wants unfulfilled or there would have to be no fear of not achieving wants. Since there will always be frustrated needs and wants and since fear of loss of us control (with the resulting attempt to control others) will always exist, a strong hierarchy will always exist in society. Hence the issue is not one of whether some people are to rule over others, but rather who those rulers are to be and how their power can be contained. Which sociologists have had theories similar to mine, by the way?

Hansmoleman · #23 (**permalink**) 02-02-2006, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p=&quot

Am I alone in having empathy for even digital people. I once tried to run Tropico like a fascist military dictator but couldn't do it. I just wound up turning nice.
Same with Civilization. Never once won by military victory in any incarnation of the game.

I was always the first one to use nuclear weapons in the Civ series (Alpha Centauri or the newere Civ games). That doesn't mean I'm a nasty person, I just had to get my aggression out somehow, and I wans't harming any real people.

ForceoftheTruth · #24 (**permalink**) 02-02-2006, 08:35 AM

Why would the wealthy consent to be part of anarchist communes? If they wouldn't and a socialist transition phase would be necessary, what reason do we have to believe that the socialist government would give up its power to the communes? Finally, even if such a society were possible, what would prevent its corruption and the formation of a government (probably worse than the original) by the more crafty and capable members of the communes?

JavaBlack · #25 (**permalink**) 02-02-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

The problem with anarcho-syndicalism (left-wing anarchism) is that it's impossible. People always want to rule over others. It's an instinct left over from evolution. Where there is anarchy, the next person to take control is usually very authoritarian (e.g. Franco), since nothing is stopping the strongest from simply taking power.

People don't always want to rule over others as a product of evolution. If that were true you and I would want to rule over others. Am I not human? The thing your getting mixed up is the need of people to be accepted for their social status within the community they are socialized into. Dogs and apes are the same way, but their communities are more instinctually based than ours. That is why in egalitarian hunting-gathering tribes more focus is spent on feeding friends and family than on acquiring stuff. Actually acquiring stuff is considered bad to them.
People only seek power over others if that is what they are conditioned to do for status in their community. Notice that most successful Americans are more worried about having control of themselves than over others. Control over others also is necessary to those of low status or who have little control over themselves as a means to gain control of themselves or gain status.
In a small enough community, such troublesome deviants can be redirected or detained. It's only when there is a large enough number of like-minded low-status people that revolution occurs. And as far as war goes, it only happens when there is a scuttle over resources or some kind of interest. That is why a moderating authority and rule of law is always required or else standing militaries to act as deterrents.
So yes, some amount of law or defense is required. But no, there is not some built-in human "want to dominate others" mentality. We worry about our status, not who we control or what we control. And how we define status can vary almost infinitely.

Leadership, as I understand it, is not a cultural construct. All early civilizations that I have heard of were absolutist monarchies, and I'm guessing that prehistoric societies were very hierarchical as well. Personally, I view it as part of the will to power. It is true that, theoretically, we might want power only over ourselves, but as soon as the fear of want enters the equation, people inevitably begin competing for control over others, believing (usually wrongly) that it is necessary to have control over themselves. For anything approaching anarcho-syndicalism to be possible, one of two things would have to change. Either there would have to be almost no basic human wants unfulfilled or there would have to be no fear of not achieving wants. Since there will always be frustrated needs and wants and since fear of loss of us control (with the resulting attempt to control others) will always exist, a strong hierarchy will always exist in society. Hence the issue is not one of whether some people are to rule over others, but rather who those rulers are to be and how their power can be contained. Which sociologists have had theories similar to mine, by the way?

Civilization is only 10,000 years old. And yes they were totalitarian. Primarily because that form of authority was the easiest way to manage a large population and develop the economy at the time. The things that we like about authoritarians today stem from those strengths, but thankfully most of us prefer more individualism these days. Pre-civilized people were much less authoritarian, if you're talking about chieftains. Chieftains were accountable to their tribes. Before that, people lived in hunting-gathering bands in which it was to no one's advantage to gain power. Instead they helped more in order to gain status, status with little actual dominance and little material reward. They were actually the freest of all societies, but the standard of life sucked and growing population made it unsustainable.
We did create authoritarianism because we needed it. Now that we don't, we should destroy it.

rockyreagan · #26 (**permalink**) 02-02-2006, 09:33 AM

I mean health care, and stuff is nice..... but I also want a Yacht....

ForceoftheTruth · #27 (**permalink**) 02-02-2006, 10:45 AM

This is my basic reasoning (correct me if I am wrong). Most people are naturally empathetic and so something close to anarcho-communism would be possible if it were not for the pathologically selfish and callous. Since I've seen studies that indicate that extreme callousness is genetic, I don't think it will go away. Since a significant number of people have this selfishness, they seek societal gain without sufficient empathy towards others. In other words, they seek power over others for cold, rational reasons. This causes others (justifiably) to fear that they will lose power over themselves and makes them selfish- not because they are bad but because they are afraid. This leads to a society in which either there must be no underactive consciences (which seems impossible to me) or there must be no fear even in the face of deprivation (which also seems impossible to me) for anything approaching anarcho-communism to work. If there is an alternative solution to this problem, though, I'd definitely like to know about it.

Headless-Pixie · #28 (**permalink**) 02-02-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Why would the wealthy consent to be part of anarchist communes? If they wouldn't and a socialist transition phase would be necessary, what reason do we have to believe that the socialist government would give up its power to the communes? Finally, even if such a society were possible, what would prevent its corruption and the formation of a government (probably worse than the original) by the more crafty and capable members of the communes?

The wealthy probably wouldn't consent. They'd therefore vote against communist rule in their soviet elections. If the communists still won then the'd have no choice but to surrender assets to the community. If they didn't then the assets would be seized. No socialist transaction phase necessary.

Instantly recallable electables would prevent representatives filtering off money, as if any found out they would be removed from power straight away. How would people know when someone was siphoning off money? Hold open council meetings at times when all can attend with discussions about everything passed. I'd also make the job of council representative unpaid (so to speak) so the person would have to work normally and volunteer to be a seat holder on the soviet.

What do you think Force?

ForceoftheTruth · #29 (**permalink**) 02-02-2006, 12:37 PM

Well, in a perfect world, it would work, but giving a government that much control of the economy in the real world is downright dangerous. With economic (and hence political) power so concentrated, the time of the transfer would be a perfect opportunity for a dictator to seize power. Anyone in the government could, for example, pay off the military with the money of the wealthy and set up a dictatorship. I can imagine a seemingly selfless person taking a volunteer position with that aim in mind (I think that is probable, in fact). In terms of radical wealth redistribution, I once supported it. But then someone pointed out that the wealthy would probably leave the country if they thought a socialist (or communist) victory was likely in an election and so take the wind out of the economy's sails. Then, even if wealth redistribution was achieved, there would be far less wealth to distribute. Finally, in the utopian stage, do you really think that collective incentive would be as strong a motivation for prosperity as individual incentive? That is where my theory about the callous and the fear that they spread (see my last post in this thread) comes in. I'm sure you've read all of this before, by the way.

Hansmoleman · #30 (**permalink**) 02-02-2006, 03:13 PM

I don't think communism would work even in a perfect world. I think it is inherently flawed.

Communism does nothing to encourage innovation because everything hinges on a state controlled economy. The problem is this is inherently un-natural. Governments move slowly, and inefficiently. Moreover, communism does not encourage people to work hard unless you threaten them. That's the only way that Stalin was able to get people motivated. Granted, it worked in some areas, but at a huge cost to human rights.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode