Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-15-2020, 09:28 AM
Mike Mabes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 664

Anarcho-syndicalism


OK, WTF?

I bring this up because I have a very liberal friend - he rented a room in our apartment in NYC in 2000, he is now in Australia and has lived there for about 20 years.

We got along very well when he was living in the apartment, for 6 months. Then he moved out, and that was that. I thought. But somehow a few years later we connected on Facebook. By then he was living in Australia, where he lives today, with his wife and new baby. And I love the guy for his musical and literary taste. And we have been Facebook friends for years, and real friends. If my whole world came crashing down, and I had no other place to go, he would welcome me. (an aside, maybe moving to Australia now would be a good idea(

Anyway, I knew he was very left wing (I'm Liberal) but I didn't know exactly where he stood. Did he think Lenin was a great guy? Was he a Bolshevik? Thought the Provisonal Government was a good idea? Finallly pinned him down and he said he was an Anarcho-syndicalist.

Now I knew he was an admirer (worshipper?) of Emma Goldman. I love Emma, she was fighting the good fight. But she was an anarchst. No government at all. Yeah that is a realistic view - That we were all just going to get along and govern ourselves. She was, and is, a hero for worker's rights and women's rights. But beyond that, she was naive and innocent, and hopeful, believing in the "better angles of our nature."

But my friend's political beliefs, to this day in the modern world (it's getting close to a hundred years!) are based on that.

Anarcho-syndicalism. When you get down to the bone, isn't it just that the workers own everything? Oh I know there are differences, I've just gone to several sites, and I found the difference beween anarcho-syndicalism and pure anarcho communism and a half dozen other varities. It is like getting into a debate about what is expressionism and abstract expressionism

So when my friend says he is an anarcho-syndicalist, is that basically the same as Democratic Socialist, or just pure Socialist, or neither?

And BTW, I was watching Mad Men the other day, and this guy, I can't remember his name but he was the guy that dated the black woman, he said Marx was the greatest economist who ever lived. Was he? Has Marxism ever happened anywhere in world history. I think it is supposed to go from bourgiese to proletariat, or have I got that backward?

Has anarcho synDICKalism ever been practicted anywhere?

Last edited by Mike Mabes; 02-15-2020 at 09:31 AM.
  #2  
Old 02-15-2020, 09:59 AM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 4,723
The fact that workers' rights have advanced somewhat since the 19th century proves that some of those ideas have been put into practice, yes, even if you are not living in a communist utopia just yet.

Economic theory has advanced since Marx's day, like any science, but a book like "Das Kapital" is well-written and well worth reading if you are interested in learning about the fundamentals of capitalism.

Emma Goldman was fired for "naively and innocently" daring to suggest that workers should be paid enough in order to afford to see a movie once a week or buy the occasional novel or ice-cream cone or go dancing, and was inspired to do something about it. Lo and behold, there are such things as workers' syndicates and safety standards today, even though things are not perfect there is progress. She was also a gifted writer and full of critical observations (including of those who would worship left-wing figures, or right-wing figures for that matter. She was pretty pissed off about the Soviet Union, for example).
  #3  
Old 02-15-2020, 02:30 PM
blindboyard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Newark
Posts: 2,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
Now I knew he was an admirer (worshipper?) of Emma Goldman. I love Emma, she was fighting the good fight. But she was an anarchst. No government at all. Yeah that is a realistic view - That we were all just going to get along and govern ourselves. She was, and is, a hero for worker's rights and women's rights. But beyond that, she was naive and innocent, and hopeful, believing in the "better angles of our nature."
Non angli, sed angeli.

Syndicalism is just the next advancement of democracy.
  #4  
Old 02-15-2020, 02:53 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,939
I suppose when individual education and awareness reaches a certain level within a society, it doesn't really need a permanent political structure because enough of the citizens have enough of an understanding about enough of the issues to be able to intelligently vote on how they should be handled.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
I was once trolled by smoke signal. He said the holocough wasn't real.
  #5  
Old 02-15-2020, 02:55 PM
Ynnad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: The City Different
Posts: 226
"Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed." Somebody had to say it sooner or later.
  #6  
Old 02-15-2020, 07:48 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
Now I knew he was an admirer (worshipper?) of Emma Goldman. I love Emma, she was fighting the good fight. But she was an anarchst. No government at all.
Bzzzzzzt. Anarchism doesn't mean no government. It means no hierarchy or any relationships based on power, force, coercion. That, perforce, precludes the notion of "ownership" as a starter, so "isn't it just when the workers own everything ?" is pretty much not even wrong.

Possibly listen to some actual anarchist theory before opining that it's dumb, unworkable, naive etc... ? I don't even mean "come back when you've worked your way through the complete works of Proudhon", something like this easy, digestible primer (which nevertheless is cited and full of further avenues of inquiry) could be a start.
Also, the fact that several large scale anarchist communities have existed and some are still out there to this day kind of puts to rest the idea that "it could never work !", dontchoo think ?

Quote:
Has anarcho synDICKalism ever been practicted anywhere?
Sure. Revolutionary Cataloña during the Spanish Civil War was explicitly anarco-syndicalist. Makhno's stateless state in Ukraine is another well known example, although I suppose the "syndicalist" part could be argued there (*). The Zapatistas of Chiapas would probably dislike being dubbed anarchists but.. c'mon guys, you're a stateless society with full participatory democratic decision making, that's at least anarchy-adjacent .

(*) but really, at least as I understand it, the -syndicalist part of anarcho-syndicalism is more about the process or strategy by which the proles could eventually establish anarchy (or at least, how wage labour could eventually be abolished altogether) rather than the specific nature of any post-capitalist, post-coercive, post-hierarchical utopia. That much is for the whole community to decide, communally and freely, when we get there.
  #7  
Old 02-15-2020, 09:25 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I suppose when individual education and awareness reaches a certain level within a society, it doesn't really need a permanent political structure because enough of the citizens have enough of an understanding about enough of the issues to be able to intelligently vote on how they should be handled.
We're actually moving away from the point where that's a sensible proposition, since no matter how sensible and educated a person is, the world is sufficiently complex now that no one person can be across all the issues you might need to make a decision about.

Of course, that applies to politicians too. Particularly since getting educated about the ins and outs of all the issues they may be called upon to make decisions about also has to be packed in around their job of getting re-elected next time...

One solution could be to simply stop insisting that all society's decisions are made by the same group of people all the time. We could simply divide the kinds of things governments need to decide into a bunch of committees (education, health, defence, trade...) and let every voting citizen join exactly one of them, where they get to make decisions about whatever is the one thing that they themselves have decided is the most important.

I don't know if that would be considered a form of anarchy too. Definitely anarchy-adjacent
  #8  
Old 02-16-2020, 04:46 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
Has anarcho synDICKalism ever been practicted anywhere?
Well, this anarchist with syndicalist leanings can clearly see you're here for reasoned debate...

but anyway, the answer is yes.

Last edited by MrDibble; 02-16-2020 at 04:48 AM.
  #9  
Old 02-16-2020, 05:32 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I suppose when individual education and awareness reaches a certain level within a society, it doesn't really need a permanent political structure because enough of the citizens have enough of an understanding about enough of the issues to be able to intelligently vote on how they should be handled.
There's been far too much whoooshing lately. PLEASE add an appropriate emoticon to your sarcastic posts in future.
  #10  
Old 02-16-2020, 09:46 AM
Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 923
The OP might find the political compass at politicalcompass.org Interesting and useful. Noam Chomsky is close to an anarchist-syndicalist position. As for Marx as an economist, he set out to continue the work of the classical economists, who could not figure out where profit came from in capitalist economies. After he demonstrated that it came from exploiting workers, mainstream economists decided they weren’t going to explore that issue anymore and became uncritical apologists for capitalism. As for “where has anarchism/anarchism-syndicalism ever worked?” you might consider how much of your life is lived without someone compelling you to act in certain ways. As one anarchist put it, every car pool is an example of actually existing anarchism. It’s a stretch, but she had a point.
  #11  
Old 02-16-2020, 09:53 AM
Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 923
As to the point about the world being too complex to manage, that assumes that the anacho-syndicalist position is that everything should remain more or less the way it is now, only with dramatic democratic input. More accurate would be to reject the concepts of state, nation, corporation, etc. and consider more human scaled societies. We might think “neighbourhood” rather than megalopolis, and federations of smaller communities rather than nation-state. Part of the anarchi-syndicalist critique is about size and complexity as problems themselves. It is perhaps interesting to note that it seems to be more difficult to imagine cooperative democratic small scale societies in our era of instant communication and connections than it was in earlier times.
  #12  
Old 02-20-2020, 06:12 PM
Mk VII is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 3,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynnad View Post
"Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed." Somebody had to say it sooner or later.
Bloody peasant.
  #13  
Old 02-20-2020, 06:25 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,597
There you go, bringing class into it again.
  #14  
Old 02-20-2020, 06:31 PM
Mk VII is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 3,001
well, that's what it's all about. If only a few more people would realise ...

Last edited by Mk VII; 02-20-2020 at 06:33 PM.
  #15  
Old 02-20-2020, 07:13 PM
Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 923
Help, help, I’m being repressed!
  #16  
Old 02-20-2020, 08:31 PM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 5,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kropotkin View Post
The OP might find the political compass at politicalcompass.org Interesting and useful.
Thanks for that its been a while since I've thought about that site and in the crazy state of today's politics its nice to have a third party identify me where I think I am. Especially hanging out on the SDMB I feel like a crazy right winger some times but the political compass has me a slightly left leaning -0.13 but very far down on the libertarian scale -5.28.
  #17  
Old 02-20-2020, 08:31 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kropotkin View Post
Help, help, I’m being repressed!
What, again, within ten posts?

(and of course, what better Username/post combination that anything with Kropotkin in an anarchism discussion)

Last edited by JRDelirious; 02-20-2020 at 08:34 PM.
  #18  
Old 02-21-2020, 07:31 AM
Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 923
“Still,” not “again,” because some people are exploiting the workers by hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there’s ever going to be any progress....
  #19  
Old 02-21-2020, 08:56 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kropotkin View Post
“Still,” not “again,” because some people are exploiting the workers by hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there’s ever going to be any progress....
...some moistened bint has to chuck a scimitar at someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Peasant with Shit All Over Him
Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
And he's right, because violence is inherent in the system where watery tarts chuck swords around. And also in a system where supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses. Hierarchy of power is a necessary component of all political systems, because all political systems include people who don't respect the mandate, either occasionally or habitually. And all political systems exist in a world where other systems don't respect the mandate, also either occasionally or habitually.

And yes, that includes Catalonia in 1936.

The movie Seven Samurai is an exploration of the question of how being exploited might be better than the alternative.

Regards,
Shodan
  #20  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:45 PM
Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 923
No point in getting into a discussion here, but for those interested in exploring anarchism, you might start with
Anarchy Explained to My Father by Francis Dupuis-Deri, Thomas Deri
Daniel Guerin, Anarchism, is old but useful.
Cathy Milstein, Anarchsim and Its Aspirations and
Ruth Kinna, The Government of No One: The Theory and Practice of Anarchism are new and interesting
James C. Scott, Two Cheers for Anarchism, is lively. I don’t buy his spirited defence of the petite bourgeoisie, but others might
  #21  
Old 02-26-2020, 12:00 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
...some moistened bint has to chuck a scimitar at someone.
And he's right, because violence is inherent in the system where watery tarts chuck swords around. And also in a system where supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses. Hierarchy of power is a necessary component of all political systems, because all political systems include people who don't respect the mandate, either occasionally or habitually. And all political systems exist in a world where other systems don't respect the mandate, also either occasionally or habitually.
Nah. It's probably impossible to eliminate violence altogether from human societies (even something as "mild" as social shunning/refusal to associate being a form of violence) ; but eliminating hierarchy is piss easy.
  #22  
Old 02-26-2020, 01:03 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,737
The fact that you can't eliminate violence, both inside and coming from outside a society, means you can't eliminate hierarchy either. Nor can you eliminate the need for violence, and therefore some members of the society will have the authority to employ violence to enforce the hierarchy.

This is going to be true of any society large enough that each member doesn't already know every other member.

There are also hierarchies of competence, where higher performers or the more experienced exert authority over others.

If it were so easy, there would be all kinds of anarchist societies with no hierarchies, and there aren't. They either don't arise, arise but fall apart, or arise and are conquered by better-organized and therefore more efficient societies.

Regards,
Shodan
  #23  
Old 02-26-2020, 05:58 PM
Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 923
Someone hasn’t done the reading.
  #24  
Old 02-26-2020, 06:29 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Also, the fact that several large scale anarchist communities have existed and some are still out there to this day kind of puts to rest the idea that "it could never work !", dontchoo think ?
Are there any that operated as an independent state (for a reasonable amount of time, and not in squalor, etc.)?

You can make just about any kind of organization work as long as you embed yourself in a society that handles all the hard stuff like defense and a working economy. But that's just outsourcing the problems.
  #25  
Old 02-26-2020, 11:54 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
even something as "mild" as social shunning/refusal to associate being a form of violence
No, it's not.
  #26  
Old 02-27-2020, 12:15 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Are there any that operated as an independent state (for a reasonable amount of time, and not in squalor, etc.)?

You can make just about any kind of organization work as long as you embed yourself in a society that handles all the hard stuff like defense and a working economy. But that's just outsourcing the problems.
Again : revolutionary Catalonia (some 6 million people), Makhno's slice of Ukraine (7-8 million). They didn't have anybody doing their defence for them.

Although systematic hard data is difficult to come by and everything wasn't happy rainbows on account of, well, civil war stuff ; industrial output reportedly doubled in Catalonia (although that varies a lot by sectors and there were issues with sourcing materials which, for the most part, were produced in areas controlled by Franquists) and agricultural output increased 30 to 50% compared to pre-war conditions. How's that for a working economy ?

And on smaller scales, even within our late capitalist hellscapes there are a whole bunch of entreprises practising autogestion (couldn't find a translation for that word - self-governance I guess ?), and thriving (e.g. Buurtzog covers 70% of at-home medical services in the Netherlands) - I mean, it's a lot easier to motivate workers when they actually get a fair slice of the profits of their labour, a say in what they do & why and there are no idle cats syphoning off the wealth nor anybody permanently relegated to "shit tasks"... There's really nothing spectacularly efficient about hierarchical structures ; and quite the contrary in many cases.

Last edited by Kobal2; 02-27-2020 at 12:20 AM.
  #27  
Old 02-27-2020, 12:19 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
Helpful, innit ?

Last edited by Kobal2; 02-27-2020 at 12:20 AM.
  #28  
Old 02-27-2020, 01:28 AM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Again : revolutionary Catalonia (some 6 million people), Makhno's slice of Ukraine (7-8 million). They didn't have anybody doing their defence for them.
They each seem to have lasted about three years before being overrun by their neighbors. I wouldn't quite call that a rousing success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
industrial output reportedly doubled in Catalonia (although that varies a lot by sectors and there were issues with sourcing materials which, for the most part, were produced in areas controlled by Franquists) and agricultural output increased 30 to 50% compared to pre-war conditions. How's that for a working economy ?
Hard to say. What was the output compared to more stable areas? The percentage change doesn't mean much if the production was still miserable before and after.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
There's really nothing spectacularly efficient about hierarchical structures ; and quite the contrary in many cases.
Sure. There are many alternatives and variations on the corporation. And small communes can be stable. But again, they depend on the state they're embedded in.

States are better able to organize armies and mobilize against their stateless neighbors. History is littered with examples, with nothing to the contrary as best I can tell. Maybe in the modern world, where developed nations are very reluctant to go to war with each other, it's possible again to go stateless. But even then, it depends on the good will of their neighbors. Just one bad actor ruins it for the rest.
  #29  
Old 02-27-2020, 02:13 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
They each seem to have lasted about three years before being overrun by their neighbors. I wouldn't quite call that a rousing success.
Sure, but that's kind of the utopic part of it - right now most every bit of the world is run by hierarchies where handfuls of people wield disproportionate amount of power and control (be it militarily or economically). They have an inherent incentive to destroy any example of societies that don't run that way in a successful manner. And so any would-be stateless state or fully socialized economy will almost immediately be dogpiled and/or undermined (see: Allende) and is at an inherent disadvantage ; unless it happens at the margins where nobody really cares (as in Chiapas).
The same thing happened with e.g. the French Revolution : it was immediately beset by its every neighbouring monarchies, which caused enough damage and internal strife & fear that it derailed almost entirely and ended up an Empire.

That being said, what with the Internet and whatnot, it's conceptually imaginable for sweeping movements to overthrow The Boot across large swathes of territory within a relatively short timespan - something like the Arab Spring but with black flags . Ultimately The Boot only works because it has successfully managed to convince everyone that it is necessary for everyone's safety and either anything else doesn't work or there simply isn't and cannot be anything else. "Before you make revolution in the streets, you must do it in your mind", as the old May '68 slogan goes.
I mean, just the word "anarchy" is immediately associated in people's minds with some Mad Max-ish post-apocalyptic vision, how's that for successful propaganda ?

Quote:
Hard to say. What was the output compared to more stable areas? The percentage change doesn't mean much if the production was still miserable before and after.
Well the pre-war output was in stable-ish conditions, inasmuch as early 20th century Spain ever was stable.

Quote:
Sure. There are many alternatives and variations on the corporation. And small communes can be stable. But again, they depend on the state they're embedded in.

States are better able to organize armies and mobilize against their stateless neighbors.
I don't believe that's true. We've all worked in structures where complete tools wound up in managing/control positions by virtue of relationships or office politics or corruption and so on, with strictly negative effects on the actual work or its output. The same is true of armies. The reason the Franquists won or Makhno lost or the Paris Commune was thoroughly crushed wasn't because anarchists suck at fighting - it's because God is on the side of big battalions.

There is also a question of the definition of "better" - e.g. within a capitalist framework, Walmart is "better" enough that it succesfully smothers small businesses. But Walmart employees are much worse off, as are their customers in some regards. If the ultimate goal of a society is to maximize collective happiness, Walmart ain't it. Or the United States of America, come to that.

Quote:
History is littered with examples, with nothing to the contrary as best I can tell.
Well, where armies are concerned for example, in the Athenian military the troops (who were all volunteer, although there was also a whole wealth dimension to it since each soldier provided their own gear, meaning the poor were mostly relegated to rowing and slings and also slavery made any expedition possible to begin with so that's not super great) not only elected their officers and generals ; they also had a say in grand strategic goals. There are even expeditions that stalled for a while because the grunts essentially striked mid-campaign. Athens did all right for itself nevertheless

(naturally, the Athenian hegemony was far from uncoercive or non-hierarchical or peaceful more generally speaking - I'm deliberately focusing on one aspect of it to show that it can, in fact, work without some West Point idiot barking orders and enforcing them by force/jail/tribunals & so on)

Quote:
Maybe in the modern world, where developed nations are very reluctant to go to war with each other, it's possible again to go stateless. But even then, it depends on the good will of their neighbors. Just one bad actor ruins it for the rest.
Yup. And the "winners" of capitalism & established hierarchies won't let themselves be removed nor have their exorbitant privileges stripped away without a fight.
  #30  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:21 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Yes, it is.
Helpful, innit ?
Only if you're in the argument sketch.

Please, enlighten me, under what commonly-accepted definition of violence is shunning a violent act?
  #31  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:59 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Only if you're in the argument sketch.

Please, enlighten me, under what commonly-accepted definition of violence is shunning a violent act?
It's a form of structural violence, so you can start reading up on that. At a fundamental level, "do as we want you to do or we won't trade with you, talk with you, help you in any way or let you live among us ; also we'll keep telling you how shit you are" is just as coercive as "do as we want or we'll kick you in the 'nads" ; and can cause crippling psychological damage. Ask any gay kid who made the mistake of being born in Fundie Central .
  #32  
Old 02-27-2020, 06:40 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
It's a form of structural violence.
I'm well aware of what structural violence is. I don't dispute its existence or its effects in the slightest, either. I will dispute it falls under the "commonly-accepted definition" clause, though.

I don't, though, slip references to structural violence into ordinary conversation as something being "a form of violence", because that would be very obfuscatory. I'd actually say "X is a form of structural violence" because the qualifier is important. Because that would make everyone involved in the conversation aware that I was not, in fact, using the common definition of violence.

This assumes, of course, that your purpose was to take part in dialogue, and not to obfuscate for whatever reason.

Last edited by MrDibble; 02-27-2020 at 06:44 AM.
  #33  
Old 02-27-2020, 06:59 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I'm well aware of what structural violence is. I don't dispute its existence or its effects in the slightest, either. I will dispute it falls under the "commonly-accepted definition" clause, though.

I don't, though, slip references to structural violence into ordinary conversation as something being "a form of violence", because that would be very obfuscatory. I'd actually say "X is a form of structural violence" because the qualifier is important. Because that would make everyone involved in the conversation aware that I was not, in fact, using the common definition of violence.

This assumes, of course, that your purpose was to take part in dialogue, and not to obfuscate for whatever reason.
Pedantic objection duly noted ? To me, the general word "violence" perforce includes every subtype or "shade" (for lack of a better word coming to mind) of the concept and specific qualifiers are only required when differentiating between said subtypes or their effects, causes etc...
I'm not sure what's "obfuscatory" about that, nor what you're accusing me of - what would I be trying to obfuscate, exactly ?
  #34  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:15 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,521
Of course it's obfuscatory to use a less common definition of a word without clarifying that you're doing so. You yourself acknowledge this when you have to qualify with "To me" - because you're well aware that's not how everyone else uses the word - most people will intend the "physical force causing damage, injury or death" sense absent any qualifications.

As to what you're trying to obfuscate? The actual sense in which you're using the word, obviously. As to why, I don't know, but if I had to speculate, I'd say it was to score rhetorical points later, by whipping out the trump card of "Aah, no, I mean this special term of art, person who is clearly less informed on these topics". Since that's what you actually tried to do.

Last edited by MrDibble; 02-27-2020 at 07:16 AM.
  #35  
Old 02-27-2020, 09:09 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,422
Uh uh. OK, then. I'm going to slooowly walk three paces back without breaking eye contact now. Then I'm booking it.
  #36  
Old 02-27-2020, 10:15 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,521
No, no need to run away, there shouldn't be any embarrassment to you just because your obvious rhetorical tactic was exposed.
  #37  
Old 02-27-2020, 02:30 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,422
*whispering* guys. GUYS. Where do we keep the tranq darts ?
  #38  
Old 02-27-2020, 04:47 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspidistra View Post
One solution could be to simply stop insisting that all society's decisions are made by the same group of people all the time. We could simply divide the kinds of things governments need to decide into a bunch of committees (education, health, defence, trade...) and let every voting citizen join exactly one of them, where they get to make decisions about whatever is the one thing that they themselves have decided is the most important.
So when the education, health, defense, and trade committees each respectively decide that their committee's mission is the single most vital thing in the whole society, who decides where to allocate more resources?
  #39  
Old 02-27-2020, 06:03 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So when the education, health, defense, and trade committees each respectively decide that their committee's mission is the single most vital thing in the whole society, who decides where to allocate more resources?
Proportionally, by the number of citizens enlisted in each committee ? Seems like a workable start. Couldn't be worse than "the one guy who gets money shoved into his pockets by lobbyists from each sector", innit ?
  #40  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:47 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,597
Dead horse, thoroughly beaten.

Last edited by dropzone; 02-27-2020 at 07:51 PM.
  #41  
Old 02-27-2020, 08:50 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Proportionally, by the number of citizens enlisted in each committee ? Seems like a workable start. Couldn't be worse than "the one guy who gets money shoved into his pockets by lobbyists from each sector", innit ?
Who decides what committees there are? Suppose I want a Christianity committee because I believe that it is important that Christian values are part of our new community. Who decides if there is even such a committee?

If the people decide by spontaneously joining or creating one, does the proportional vote then allow my Christian committee to outvote the Islamic or Jewish committee giving them nothing?

I guess I just don't understand. So we have a community of 100 people. According to the proposal, each citizen can join whichever one single committee they choose to join and may only vote on matters specific to that issue (e.g. members of the education committee can only make decisions on education) but your modified proposal allows a proportional vote from the committees to allocate resources as a whole.

So suppose the membership is thus: 30 Education, 25 Health, 20 Trade, 18 Defense, 4 Christian, 2 Islamic, 1 Jewish. Can the members of the Education committee allocate 85% (or indeed 100%) of the community resources to education? Can the Christian committee demand that the only religious belief allowed is Christianity (and remember, the atheists or those of other religions just joined a different committee)? How does it work?

And if you start allowing cross voting on these issues, say you realize that religion is a different beast, so you allow all members to vote on religious issues, aren't you just enacting a democracy? That is, unless there is a supreme ruler who designates which committees can even exist.

Last edited by UltraVires; 02-27-2020 at 08:52 PM.
  #42  
Old 02-27-2020, 08:56 PM
sisu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: oi, oi, oi
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
but eliminating hierarchy is piss easy.
Nah hierarchy is built into our nature, you can dismantle it but then it comes back. Better to recognise it and understand it.
__________________
My opinions may or may not reflect the truth.........
  #43  
Old 02-28-2020, 03:29 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Who decides what committees there are?
Everyone ?

Quote:
So suppose the membership is thus: 30 Education, 25 Health, 20 Trade, 18 Defense, 4 Christian, 2 Islamic, 1 Jewish. Can the members of the Education committee allocate 85% (or indeed 100%) of the community resources to education?
My suggestion was more "each committee gets a part of the ressources strictly proportional to its size (which they can decide to hand away to a different committee if they want)" ; but a general assembly could work as well of course.

Quote:
Can the Christian committee demand that the only religious belief allowed is Christianity
That's impossible to enact non-coercively, so, sure, they can try. And then they get to fuck right off.
Though I don't really see what the point of a religious committee would be - they're already communities of their own, and their existence doesn't benefit anybody not in them so selling any religion as a community benefit is a tough sell IMO.

Quote:
And if you start allowing cross voting on these issues, say you realize that religion is a different beast, so you allow all members to vote on religious issues, aren't you just enacting a democracy?
Anarchy *is* a form of direct democracy. That's not *all* it is or involves, but yeah.
  #44  
Old 02-29-2020, 12:16 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Everyone ?



My suggestion was more "each committee gets a part of the ressources strictly proportional to its size (which they can decide to hand away to a different committee if they want)" ; but a general assembly could work as well of course.



That's impossible to enact non-coercively, so, sure, they can try. And then they get to fuck right off.
Though I don't really see what the point of a religious committee would be - they're already communities of their own, and their existence doesn't benefit anybody not in them so selling any religion as a community benefit is a tough sell IMO.



Anarchy *is* a form of direct democracy. That's not *all* it is or involves, but yeah.
1) By what mechanism does "everyone" decide which committees there will be? If my #1 issue is combating drunkenness in public places, can I form a committee just for that purpose or will I be told to join the crime committee or the alcoholic beverage control committee? By what mechanism will I be permitted or denied the right to form the committee?

ETA: And just because for whatever idiosyncrasies I have, the fact that I believe public drunkenness is so important, it means that I get absolutely zero say on how my kids are educated, the health care plan, the trade policy, etc.? Zero? What if I have strong expertise in education, but my preferred issue is something else? Society gets no benefit from my expertise?

2) I think that is a poor method of allocating resources. Just because X% of society thinks an idea is the most important, it doesn't follow that X% of society's resources should go to that. Costs of different things vary and are not proportional to the belief of citizens that they are most important.

3) Who enforces the rule that everyone acts non-coercively? Who has the power to tell the Christian group to "fuck right off." Isn't forcing someone to fuck off coercive? To whom would they apply to convince that their view that society is benefited by religion and that their committee should exist?

4) This hypothetical anarchist society looks simply like direct democracy and nothing more. What is the more in this system?

Last edited by UltraVires; 02-29-2020 at 12:19 PM.
  #45  
Old 03-03-2020, 01:52 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
1) By what mechanism does "everyone" decide which committees there will be?
Votes ? General assemblies ? Bear in mind, I'm not the one who suggested the arrangement (I'm more of a "large federation of semi-autonomous micro-communes" type anarchist). However :

Quote:
If my #1 issue is combating drunkenness in public places, can I form a committee just for that purpose or will I be told to join the crime committee or the alcoholic beverage control committee? By what mechanism will I be permitted or denied the right to form the committee?
If that's your #1 issue right now, how do you put if forward ? How do you get Things Done about it ?
You don't, by and large. You can call or mail city hall, or the Governor, or your federal congresscritter, and they'll politely ignore you while smiling and thanking you for your valuable contribution. End of.

Anarchists, btw, tend to be very big on praxis, "being the change". If your #1 issue is combatting public drunkenness, do something about it today. Get out there, talk to people about it, organize, write about it, open a halfway house or a lemonade stand...

Quote:
2) I think that is a poor method of allocating resources. Just because X% of society thinks an idea is the most important, it doesn't follow that X% of society's resources should go to that. Costs of different things vary and are not proportional to the belief of citizens that they are most important.
Hence the "and can opt to give part of their funding to another committee". People aren't idiots, or rather people ARE idiots but they're no worse idiots than the monkeys in government who approve funding right now.

Quote:
3) Who enforces the rule that everyone acts non-coercively? Who has the power to tell the Christian group to "fuck right off." Isn't forcing someone to fuck off coercive?
No. Much like not tolerating the intolerant, it is a paradox only at the most superficial level. The goal of anarchy (well, one of its goals) is to eradicate violence from society altogether. Which allows the use of violence against those who would commit violence to begin with. Forcing a religion on someone or restricting the religious freedom of another person is a violent act, cannot be done without implicit violence.
So they get to fuck off, politely at first, then less politely should they persist.

Quote:
4) This hypothetical anarchist society looks simply like direct democracy and nothing more. What is the more in this system?
Every anarchist has his or her own ideal. Anarchy is a sea, individual anarchists are fish. Get your read on, several suggestions have already been made upthread.

Last edited by Kobal2; 03-03-2020 at 01:53 AM.
  #46  
Old 03-03-2020, 04:49 PM
Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 923
Let me note in passing that the concept of positive and negative freedoms, often associated with the conservative liberal and CIA recruiter Isaiah Berlin, was first put forward by the anarchist Bakunin in the middle of the 19th century. One writer has gone as far as to suggest Berlin took the idea from Bakunin without bothering to credit him. Further, most of the arguments against anarchism in this thread were made and refuted more than 100 years ago: while anarchist thought has evolved, its critics have not.
  #47  
Old 03-03-2020, 05:08 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,264
Fascinating to hear what sort of government should be in place to ensure that there's no government in place.
  #48  
Old 03-03-2020, 07:45 PM
Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 923
Let us explore the possibility there is a difference between “government” and “administration.” Perhaps this analysis will help:
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
  #49  
Old 03-04-2020, 02:03 PM
Hellestal is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Storyland
Posts: 2,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kropotkin View Post
As for Marx as an economist, he set out to continue the work of the classical economists, who could not figure out where profit came from in capitalist economies.
Adam Smith didn't compute systems of differential equations to simulate monetary flows in an economy or solve for a price vector giving a general equilibrium, but even so, large portions of modern economics can be seen as a generalization and clarification of what he was trying to describe. I'd say he does pretty well with profit.

Still, I see how this is arguable. It depends on how formalized and explicit we demand explanations to be.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kropotkin View Post
After he demonstrated that it came from exploiting workers,
A tautological assertion is not a "demonstration".

The two things are almost exactly opposites. A demonstration comes at the end of a logical argument. It isn't something assumed axiomatically to be true at the beginning, as Marx does when declaring by fiat that all "value", under his idiosyncratic definition of that word, comes from labor.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kropotkin View Post
mainstream economists decided they weren’t going to explore that issue anymore
And this is just silly.

If a person wants to complain of critics not having evolved for a hundred years, it might be a good move to avoid relying on false 19th century criticisms of economics in the same thread.
  #50  
Old 03-07-2020, 07:08 PM
Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 923
Those wishing to learn more about radical critiques of mainstream economics—the two fields really do ask very different questions about the meaning and aims and nature of “economics” and the good society—may want to look at the work of Michael Hudson; Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics; Jonathan Aldred, Licence to be Bad: How Economics Corrupted Us; Stephen Marglin, The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community. A useful introduction to Marx that demonstrates the labour theory of value is not a tautology—a critique of Marx he addressed himself in different editions of Capital—is Wayne Price, The Value of Radical Theory: An Anarchist Introduction to Marx’s Critique of Political Economy.

Admittedly, it’s taking longer than we thought....
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017