Anarchy's progression

Discussion in 'U.K.' started by Random Andy, Jan 23, 2005.

  1. Random Andy

    Random Andy Member

    I was chatting to someone about anarchy the other day and they asked me how any movement was supposed to get anywhere without leaders. I told her that was the whole point - because there are no leaders, anyone is free to contribute to whatever they feel like contributing to, they don't have to contribute to the employer who is paying their salary. How many people come up with good ideas, from an advertising slogan to a whole new invention or something, and do nothing with it because they simply hadn't the time.

    I think the first few steps have to be taken within the modern incarnation of democracy. I think food should be free for everyone (i.e. payed for by the taxpayers). I think this because land is currently payed for by the taxpayers; farmers are subsidised depending on how much land they own, not how much food they produce. In fact they are positively encouraged to keep production down so that prices remain high. How precisely this benefits anyone escapes me but I know it's done. If we the taxpayers paid for basic foodstuffs instead of paying rich landowners to do nothing then it could be up to the goodwill of the truck and train drivers to distribute it. It would require freedom in everyday life to a much greater degree than is currently evident. For example, if you went in your car to the local supermarket and they had no carrots, you would have to be prepared to go off to the carrot farm and pick up a load. If everyone transported a car load of goods from the point of production in return for their week's shopping then productivity could be maintained. Dya see?

    Also, I don't understand the kind of competitiveness that is encouraged in schools. We should have a system like I've heard they have in Pakistan whereby instead of having exams at the end of each year or so to see if you're the best or worst in the year, they have exams every semester to see who progresses into the next stage, and maybe retakes after the holidays. Basically, instead of all finishing together at the same age, we all finish together at the same ability. School where the pupil is basically a spectator should - after the first few basics like reading and writing - be exchanged for a lively interactive course where at the end of each semester the pupil chooses where he or she wants to go from there. There are certain prerequisites for each course but only necessary ones, and once you have reached a certain level in anything you can go out and use it. Get rid of this law that says anyone beyond a certain age can go out and work whether they are prepared and trained for it or not and say they can go out and work if they can go out and work.
    The teacher/pupil dichotomy is a strange one and is frequently turned on it's head - this should be taken advantage of the way postgrads are used in universities. ie anyone who has a few levels in a certain discipline should be allowed to teach it to anyone a few levels their junior from a very young age, this way teaching would become a way of life for many people and, the more skilled workers the better. Life is a learning experience and one should always have the freedom to better themselves if they want to. It shouldn't be the standard thing to go into a job and stay there, not (visibly) moving except laterally for the rest of one's life. Equally, when you're in training you shouldn't be expected to get a dead end job like university students do. There should be a balance with learning on one side, working in the middle and teaching on the far side. An individual's life at any moment should be taken up with all three of these, not just one as is practised today.

    Later though, we're really gonna have to change. Cos it's not gonna be entirely about this item for that item - we're gonna have to work skills into the equation and try to reward those that do a lot for the community - while not excluding those that don't have the capacity to do a lot for the community. Anarchy is seen as a harsh ideology because of what it shares in popular belief with natural selection - the "survival of the fittest". I see anarchy as an extremely simple ideology. Just use your common sense... Back in the days when we were living in caves we could provide for everyone, think how much more we can now provide with all our modern tools. We have to forget all about this for that, 1 of these for ten of those etc. and distribute purely by need. If everything necessary is provided for everyone, they will seek distraction, and I think it is a natural instinct that is very hard to break to want to be doing something for the greater good. As long as teachers are encouraged and pupils allowed to study with a degree of freedom and productivity everything will work out fine:)

    What do you think? Am I going wrong somewhere? Please, correct me.
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice