Strikes me as a false dichotomy between the social and the individual.
Anarchy - can someone explain the basics to me?
- Thread starter soulfulofsoul
- Start date
Strikes me as a false dichotomy between the social and the individual.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
The individual is also formed by social relationships, we are ordered both by ourselves and the relationships we have.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
I don't know, it seemed to me that he was saying that how we order ourselves is purely down to the "individual" rather than a relationship between the individual and our social relationships.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
But who is responsible for my behaviour as a result of those relationships? Me. Anarchism changes the nature of those relationships to one where my notion of authority, of moral choice, comes from me, not a third party - as would everyone elses. Rather than moral choice being imposed from 'above', it is internally accepted and developed by the individual - i.e I am good because I know being good is worthwhile, not because someone tries to enforce goodness (which only ever causes badness, because being good is no longer seen as an end in itself).
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
However, the choices you have available to you are as a result of the relationships you have with others.
Yes it comes from you, but it is shaped and informed by others.
have you heard of barry horne?
Would there be schools? I never really questioned schooling too much before I had my own child. I mean, I questioned it a lot, but in the sense that I saw its ideological function, and I understand it in the context of the history of mass education and the purpose that serves. And I'm very critical of mainstream ed. in its reliance on behaviourist psychology, reward-punishment systems. But I just assumed that there would be schools (in a socialist/anarchist society), that I wanted schools run differently, maybe like the Sudbury schools in the US, but more socialist.
But being 'at home' with my child, separate and excluded from all social activity apart from The Toddler Group has really made me question the point of having separate learning spaces for children. If work was collective, non exploitative non-alienating etc. wouldn't children be involved in work? IME children want to be useful and involved. Wouldn't there be less of a dichotomy between work and play? What would a child learn in a school that would be different from what they'd learn in the context of everyday living?
I'm not saying that special learning spaces wouldn't exist, but would they need to exist purely for children?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I suspect that a better way of putting it would be 'schooling' rather than 'schools'. Altho again, it would be very much down to groups of people to decide for themselves - if a bunch of parents (and their kids) wanted a special learning place purely for kids they could organise to make one, if not so be it. I suspect that there would still be formal academies - the medical example used earlier is a good one - surgery requires specialised training and a lot of practice and skill, for example - but the way they were governed would be very different from today (or not - one of the best ideas I ever read about an anarchist society was one that allowed people to enter into a volountary tyrrany sub-culture!)
To me an anarchist society could still be highly developed, highly sophisticated, densely populated with lots of different high tech industries. The difference would be that there would be no class system. The whole of society would be geared around the common good.
The major change imo would be an end to imperialism. So the UK/US and other countries would stop exploiting their cousins around the world. The globe would be developed according to need not according to capitalism. So Africa for example would receive lots of investment
The major change imo would be an end to imperialism. So the UK/US and other countries would stop exploiting their cousins around the world. The globe would be developed according to need not according to capitalism. So Africa for example would receive lots of investment
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Hmm...what do you mean by 'investment' in an anarchist context?
Well let me put it like this. In my view of an anarchist society investment decisions would be decided democratically by society as a whole rather than by distant corporations. The resources of society as whole would be marshalled and directed by democratic means rather than private whim
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Investment means an expected return (profit) in the future. In a classless scoiety, the profit motive wouldn't exist.
Of course.
It currently involves 20 years of education before they get to wield a knife. Whats necessary background to learning a skill and what is a means of maintaining power and prestige aren't that easy to disentangle are they? I think there are features of practicing medicine that require stamina and strength, that a very long training equips you for, for instance.
Im talking about the use of resources which in an anarchist society would be targetted towards social needs rather than profitable enterprises
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
OK, but I'm not sure "investment" is the right term.
I know what you are saying but Chomsky uses that phraseology. He talks about introducing democracy into investment decisions.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Why would you have a medium of exchange like currency anyway? If the means of production are communually owned, which leads to everyone having access to a minimum standard of accomodation & nutrition why would you bother with money?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
And what is the method by which this would happen on a society wide level?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I don't think it would take too much of a change in social psychology to disentangle the 'heroic' aspect of medcine (even for surgeons
) into it being seen as a socially worthwhile thing to do, but that following a 'career' into it, rather than being 'prestige' would become more about the development of the person IYSWIM. Plus of course, hopefully you'd see far, far more people able to practice because the social and financial barriers wouldn't be there...Probably a federal system with neighbourhoods/cities/regions/continents. Decisions would be taken at the relevant level. For example if it was to do with the enivronment or space exploration that would be taken on a global level with many groups co-operating. Something to do with the road layour in a particular neighbourhood would be decided at a local level.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
would an anarchist govt really want to look at space exploration?
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Of course it would-'the anarchist movement' already seems to have more than its fair share of space cadets.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Question fail. If enough fowks in an anarchism wanted to combine their energy allocations (or whatever means of distribution you end up using) and could persuade enough others that such a thing was worthwhile, you could start a space programme. Somewhat the point of an anarchy - those who didn't want to get involved wouldn't have to.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
possibly, but not a space program essentially driven by a desire for more efficient and superior weaponry.
There'll be no choice once the insectoids attack.
Good job really. If most people wanted to get involved in a space program it wouldn't leave many people to empty the bins, and drive the ambulances and taxis and what have you.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Making contact with potential Europan cetacean analogues instead of planting cock-surrogate flags on dead worlds
Similar threads
