I worry that many on the extreme Left are damaged people full of hate.

[kyser_soze]

Astonishingly, people on the Right and Left can be motivated by negative emotional responses.

The right to the perceived loss of what they want as 'theirs'

The left to the perceived loss of what they see as 'ours'

Don't get me wrong - there's enough venom and hatred in a lot of lefties on here and IRL (whom I've met) who'd turn into nasty, authoritarian little pricks or simply become oppressors in their own right were there to be a revolution, but I generally think that the left's reasons for anger are ultimately more constructive than the rights.

You gotta love it tho - people on this thread saying that there isn't an element of hate spurring some in the left on? HA!

 

[Tom A]

Would the Bahamas do?

 

[munkeeunit]

I think everyone has the potential to become an abusive power hungry hypocrite the moment they get into that position. The problem with Socialists / Anarchists is often that simply by dint of calling themselves those things, that those abuses can be somehow turned a blind eye to.

Their heart is in the right place, so it's different somehow.

We have to remain ever vigilant of ourselves, as well as those we seek to replace, and this is a lesson I certainly don't think the left have learnt, and along with economic illiteracy of many on the left, is a major reason why the left will not be in a position to influence society significantly, let alone 'lead' it anytime soon, whether those 'leaders' are anarchists or socialist in nature.

 

[munkeeunit]

Would the Bahamas do?

Possibly. Is there a chaffeur driven car in with it?

 

[Tom A]

Now, now, remember, cars use oil, and oil is bad, so no private motoring in the new anarcho-utopia (TM), capice?

 

[munkeeunit]

Damn. I thought our dodgy corrupt dealings we're being done by PM. Now I see that it has all been done on the open boards. I am so embarrassed.

 

[kyser_soze]

I think everyone has the potential to become an abusive power hungry hypocrite the moment they get into that position. The problem with Socialists / Anarchists is often that simply by dint of calling themselves those things, that those abuses can be somehow turned a blind eye to.

Their heart is in the right place, so it's different somehow.

We have to remain ever vigilant of ourselves, as well as those we seek to replace, and this is a lesson I certainly don't think the left have learnt, and along with economic illiteracy of many on the left, is a major reason why the left will not be in a position to influence society significantly, let alone 'lead' it anytime soon, whether those 'leaders' are anarchists or socialist in nature.

I think the main point is that it's hard to believe that a better, less violent society will result from people screeching 'We hate anyone who isn't poor!'

I made a similar observation (altho better expressed) on a thread a couple of days ago...wish I could remember it...AH YEAH...it was about how all a peasant that ties up and tortures a noble is simply replacing that noble and their way of thinking.

 

[Binkie]

I think everyone has the potential to become an abusive power hungry hypocrite the moment they get into that position. The problem with Socialists / Anarchists is often that simply by dint of calling themselves those things, that those abuses can be somehow turned a blind eye to.

Their heart is in the right place, so it's different somehow.

We have to remain ever vigilant of ourselves, as well as those we seek to replace, and this is a lesson I certainly don't think the left have learnt, and along with economic illiteracy of many on the left, is a major reason why the left will not be in a position to influence society significantly, let alone 'lead' it anytime soon, whether those 'leaders' are anarchists or socialist in nature.

Even under one-class ("classless") socialism, I would oppose a one-party setup. There should still be elections and different parties - all representing different ways of benefiting the one class. I don't think it's logical to say that since the interests of all have at last become the same, that just one party is needed. The whole strength of the dialectical method is the clash of ideas.

 

[munkeeunit]

Yes, the left needs to get it's act together, in terms of the aviodance of the need for expertise, it's tendency to point fingers and hurl abuse as a substitute for that expertise, and related to that, in terms of reassuring people that we won't put them up against the wall the moment we get a snifff of power.

Are people reassured on any of those fronts?

Not really, no.

 

[Binkie]

I think the main point is that it's hard to believe that a better, less violent society will result from people screeching 'We hate anyone who isn't poor!'

No, you're right. Socialism advocates wealth - for all who contribute - proportional to their contribution - in a classless society with equal rights and opportunities for everyone. The only thing that's banned is exploitation of one man (child, woman) by another.

 

[munkeeunit]

Even under one-class ("classless") socialism, I would oppose a one-party setup.

Good. Me too.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well no - I mean to start with how will you square the demands of the workers groups with the greenies to not produce so much, and do it in a less polluting fashion?

All a 'one-class' society will do is create new sources of conflict...probably some we've never even thought about yet...

 

[Binkie]

Yes, the left needs to get it's act together, in terms of the aviodance of the need for expertise, it's tendency to point fingers and hurl abuse as a substitute for that expertise, and related to that, in terms of reassuring people that we won't put them up against the wall the moment we get a snifff of power.

Are people reassured on any of those fronts?

Not really, no.

Amen to that. Socialists are only human - noticeably - all of them. A socialist 'Party' should realize that there is strength in debate and criticism. Calls for 'unity' are really calls for an end of thought.

 

[munkeeunit]

Well no - I mean to start with how will you square the demands of the workers groups with the greenies to not produce so much, and do it in a less polluting fashion?

All a 'one-class' society will do is create new sources of conflict...probably some we've never even thought about yet...

Society will always throw up conflicts and a clash of ideas. The point is to win the arguments in favour of socialism.

My general perspective is that socialism has a lot of potential for delivering the large scale infrastructure, but isn't that great at the more local issues, while anarchism isn't that great on the large scale infrastructure, and tends to avoid those issues, but has a lot to offer in terms of delivering local self-sufficency.

I would argue broadly for Anarchism and Socialism to specialise in these areas, and not to fear the autonomy which is thrown up, and not to overanalyse equality in ever minute facet of life to the point where it becomes intrusive, oppressive, and a hindrance to development (which doesn't always have to be measured in terms of raw GDP growth.)

 

[kyser_soze]

I'd also suggest that the diffilculty in getting over the most basic concepts of exploitation to people (in order that they start developing this 'class consciousness' thing) is a major stumbling block and needs to be addressed and sorted out using language that people will recognise as speaking to them.

Much like the BNP thread talking about how when given X policy people are like yeah yeah, then as soon as they hear it's BNP they say 'Nah' - the Left need to achieve that...except the 'Nah' bit...

 

[Binkie]

Well no - I mean to start with how will you square the demands of the workers groups with the greenies to not produce so much, and do it in a less polluting fashion?

All a 'one-class' society will do is create new sources of conflict...probably some we've never even thought about yet...

Yes. But new and better conflicts. The conflict between the owners and the producers will be just an interesting memory.

 

[Binkie]

Society will always throw up conflicts and a clash of ideas. The point is to win the arguments in favour of socialism.

My general perspective is that socialism has a lot of potential for delivering the large scale infrastructure, but isn't that great at the more local issues, while anarchism isn't that great on the large scale infrastructure, and tends to avoid those issues, but has a lot to offer in terms of delivering local self-sufficency.

I would argue broadly for Anarchism and Socialism to specialise in these areas, and not to fear the autonomy which is thrown up, and not to overanalyse equality in ever minute facet of life to the point where it becomes intrusive, oppressive, and a hindrance to development (which doesn't always have to be measured in terms of raw GDP growth.)

Yes again. What an original way of putting it. Made me think - socialism at the macro level; anarchism at the micro. Would you also agree that competition is not always a bad thing? Not competition for property and control. But competition in many other spheres.

 

[Binkie]

Well no - I mean to start with how will you square the demands of the workers groups with the greenies to not produce so much, and do it in a less polluting fashion?

A socialist society would not lose the right to birth control/population control. Tricky one. But I reckon with the toning down of the family and the toning-up of the community, the urge to 'have' 'your' 'own' children will be tempered.

 

[munkeeunit]

Yes again. What an original way of putting it. Made me think - socialism at the macro level; anarchism at the micro. Would you also agree that competition is not always a bad thing? Not competition for property and control. But competition in many other spheres.

Competition isn't always a bad thing. It depends.

Competiton within the context of driving out the competition with the intention of creating a corporate monopoly is counter-productive, except that there are times when monopolies (or near monopolies) are necessary to achiece economies of scale, such as in the NHS.

Which is where Socialism comes in.

But competition between stall holders and small businesses isn't an inherent threat. That can generate a vibrant economy and a great deal of inventiveness without being capitalist in any substantial sense of the word.

There are very clear reasons to intervene in the economy for economic reasons, and outlaw certain forms of capital accumulation, but outlawing market stalls and small businesses at the local level (as socialist societies have so often done) is politically motivated and should be avoided.

 

[Binkie]

Competition is fundamental and sometimes progressive. It's one of the strength of capitalism. Pride in winning and becoming a hero can be a great spur. Socialism should use that and incorporate it. Here's a (tricky) example: competition for mating rights is essential to the health of the species.

 

[audiotech]

Competition between firms, or trade wars can often lead to world wars.

 

[nick1181]

Competition is fundamental and sometimes progressive. It's one of the strength of capitalism. Pride in winning and becoming a hero can be a great spur. Socialism should use that and incorporate it. Here's a (tricky) example: competition for mating rights is essential to the health of the species.

Diversity is essential to the health of the species.

I'm not convinced that human sexual competition is healthy in any way at all - particularly not in the high-density, zero-sum game that most humans find themselves in. Is a 50 Billion dollar a year cosmetics industry a symptom of a healthy species?

What works for lions doesn't neccessarily work for people - what's good for an individual genetic strain doesn't equate to a benefit on a societal level - then there's the question of Royal inbreeding etc. Human sexual competition has a tendency to go for the richest as opposed to the most physically attractive - and that played out over generations is fairly bad I think.

 

[Fledgling]

A socialist society would not lose the right to birth control/population control. Tricky one. But I reckon with the toning down of the family and the toning-up of the community, the urge to 'have' 'your' 'own' children will be tempered.

And who would be responsible for toning down a desire which appears to have existed since human life began (and porbably before then too)? I think I would rather opt-out of having someone else tell me the right and wrong reasons for having children, I prefer to make my own decisions even if they run against majority opinion.

 

[kyser_soze]

A socialist society would not lose the right to birth control/population control. Tricky one. But I reckon with the toning down of the family and the toning-up of the community, the urge to 'have' 'your' 'own' children will be tempered.

WTF!?!?!

'Would not lose the righht to birth control'

Who exactly has this 'right' in government at the moment?

 

[munkeeunit]

I'm a bit lost on this one too

I'm not in favour of birth/population control. I understand the fear of overpopulation, but a point of socialism in opposition to much environmental debate is to question the very concept of overpopulation.

A very revealing statistic I remember (as with all statistics I wish I could remember off my head where it's from) is that using all western farming methods and industrial methods of production, Africa alone could support around 30billion people.

This, of course, would be entirely unsustainable in the long run, by all measures of pollution and environmental stress, but it cuts to the core of the concept of overpopulation at our current 6.5 billion.

I'm not arguing in favour of unchecked population growth, but do argue that 'overpopulation' is as much to do with the inability of a free market to internalise the costs of environmental damage, and so mitigate the harmful effects of that growth, as much as it is to do with raw numbers of people.

 

[audiotech]

When you have a modicum of a constructed welfare system then birth rates decline.

 

[Binkie]

Competition between firms, or trade wars can often lead to world wars.

Yes it's not all good, certainly in the current system.

 

[Binkie]

Diversity is essential to the health of the species.

I'm not convinced that human sexual competition is healthy in any way at all - particularly not in the high-density, zero-sum game that most humans find themselves in. Is a 50 Billion dollar a year cosmetics industry a symptom of a healthy species?

What works for lions doesn't neccessarily work for people - what's good for an individual genetic strain doesn't equate to a benefit on a societal level - then there's the question of Royal inbreeding etc. Human sexual competition has a tendency to go for the richest as opposed to the most physically attractive - and that played out over generations is fairly bad I think.

Who mates and reproduces with whom is really important. It's a fundamental principle in all of nature. In a free society such as ours (free-ish, in this respect), you go for the most attractive one you can get. Attractive is usually correlated with health, beauty, and in our society wealth and aggressiveness. The interesting thing, and this is where rapid evolution can occur, is that society, via the medium of fashion, can make different qualities seem attractive, which in turn is linked to social and environmental factors. To give a crude example, in an age of floods, good swimmers and boatbuilders seem more attractive. They will mate more and their offspring will tend to be like them. In a society where peace, freedom, equality, creativity and heroism are fashionable, you'll, through the mating mechanism, get more children born with qualities compatible with that. Under socialism, if we manage to bring it about, people with tendencies towards these fine qualities will be more likely to be born. This theory puts the popular theory 'socialism is against human nature' in perspective. Genetic engineering will/could have a major impact here - for good or bad.

 

[durruti02]

most socialist and anarchists belive in the fundamentalist idea that your party is right .. every one else is wrong .. and it is your job to convince them of your truth .. ( based on some form of xtian evangelical practice)

this arrogent deeply un humanist bullshit is more attractive to damaged angry individuals than a gospel based on talking to people .. actually working with people to build from the base .. most @s and leftists want little to do with so called ordinary people who they usual suspect of as being racist etc

 

[munkeeunit]

This may be partly true, and I don't entirely disagree (as I think my posts demonstrate) but it always makes me laugh / cry how the posts such as the opening piece, and the above post, seem to suffer so horribly from the same problem of making such sweepingly judgemental statements about people

Also, Isn't the first sentence common to all parties, groups.

The problem to me is the extent to which any party is deaf to criticism, and is willing to self analyse, and I see no evidence that the mainstream parties are, for the most part, any better. The left and anarchists are generally inclined to be intellectually lazy and too keen to judge those people they disagree with, yes.