For me, Anarchism always meant opposition to centralised hierarchical government, commonly refered to as The State. This does not mean all forms of government and organized decision-making are bad. It seems to me that, as long as power is shared more or less equally among the people and individuals are allowed to make their own decisions regarding their own lives, it doesn't really matter what form of government you have. It's the State (capital S) that needs to be abolished: large, centralised, authoritarian institutions which are organized hierarchically. Thoughts?
I dunno. I'd hate to get into a semantic debate with you about exactly what you mean by "government", but my feeling is that the two are synonymous, or at least nearly so. I think that as soon as human beings started moving away from the hunter/gatherer mode of living that accounted for most of our existence, and towards agriculture and other more complex technologies, there came the need for some sort of social control, or coercive apparatus just to make people work. Having a government implies, by definition that there is some sort of division of labor going on, and that, I feel is one of the deepest roots from which hierarchy grows. Most primitive skills, such as bow making, basket weaving, friction fire, etc. are all fairly simple to learn, in fact I would even go as far as to say that these skills are innate to who we are as human beings. The principals are all very basic, common sense really, and the finer points of something like making a recurve bow, or a fire piston can come with practice, or passed down from a previous generation. Therefore no division of labor, no government, no hierarchy.
I wouldn't say that the division of labor necessarily leads to government. DoL is nothing more than people dividing tasks among themselves in a way that is most efficient in terms of results. It can be done in a violent way if government is involved or in a peaceful way, through cooperation, such as is done in an anarchist society. Just because they both exist in society doesn't mean one leads to the other.
Division of labor may or may not lead to statism, however, I do believe it leads to classism and the beginnings of inequity. That's because as soon as you have a significant DOL in society (such as a kind that goesbeyond traditional gender roles) then you get some jobs being considered more important than others, which consquently leads to those jobs entailing higher rewards or privileges.
hmm.. i dont think i am opposed to classism or inquity per se. as long as society is organized on voluntary grounds i think it can be considered legitimate, by my standards. also, i think the idea of some jobs being considered more important than others is within the minds of individuals, and something that cannot be helped, regardless of the socio-economic system one lives in.
Green summed it up quite well. The specialization that results from the division of labor can only lead to classism, which is really just the accumulation of wealth and power into the hands of a specific group. You just can't organize a society on voluntary grounds when this happens. You still have to force people to work in order to maximize efficiency. And the inner logic of this efficiency is revealed in the factories and production lines of today. Paralleling DOL is the centralization of production of comerce and production, and the rise of city states. So I really do feel that the two go hand in hand. It's a slow process, but I think any society that takes efficiency as it's modus operande and sees the world only in terms of human utility leads ultimately to oppression and statism.
surely division of labor has existed in anarchist societies before, this cannot be denied. i don't think people have to work. if efficiency is not there goal, then so be it. factories and production lines are not necessary. the fact that they exist, I think, is a result of the centralization of power that occurs in societies where private powers and the state collude i.e. fascism, corporatism, or what have you.
no, im advocating whatever kind of system people choose to live under. if they desire simple living at the cost of efficiency and material wealth, then so be it. my main point was that the state enacts certain policies that lead to centralization of industry, such as regulations that make it inefficient to for one to run a business below a certain size, such as minimum wage regulations, taxes, corporate welfare and various other policies such as tax breaks once a company reaches a certain size, etc.
"Efficiency" can create poverty too, since paying employees living wages is considered "inefficient" from a managerial perspective.
Bonsai, "living wage" regulations are not anarchy. They are socialism. Mysob when you say "factories and production lines are not necessary" i think you are advocating poverty. MRI machines, iphones, satellites and gas turbines are not going to get built by independent village collectives.
I don't recall claiming that it was Anarchy, (although actually there is no reason why it couldn't be, the Labour Movement can win wage-rights without recourse to the state). You are trying to dodge the point, namely, that so-called efficiency can and does create poverty. Not all Anarchists (not even most anarchists) advocate breaking society into little rural villages. Anarchy is not incompatible with industrial operations
I do not per se advocate abolition of industrial society. I merely say that if people all choose to disassociate themselves from such a form of production, than they may choose to do so, and should not feel the negative effects of government policies that might encourage them to do otherwise. Furthermore, such a policy of de-industrialization may no be absolute, people may choose to live in small farms or communes but still buy products from societies that are industrial, but just on a smaller scale, for example, occasionally drive into a city to purchase a tractor or some beams from a home depot, who knows. In regards to the living wage and efficiency, I'm not entirely sure what Bonsai is trying to say. Certainly a factory producer may try to pay workers less than they may want or even need in order to live a comparatively modest lifestyle, but he can not pay them less than their diminished marginal value product. If the workers have a problem they may try to unionize, at the potential cost of unemployment, seek other work, establish their own coops, try to bargain with the employer at some other terms, or just leave. The only thing in this kind of situation that will in the long term really raise wages is increased worker productivity.
I think people to a large extent already have that choice, mstob, as far as I can tell you think so too. I think that's a good thing, even if very few choose it. So I guess we agree here? Well is it or isn't it? I hear a lot of people trying to sell me anarchy but when i read the fine print its socialism. Collective bargaining doesn't sound very anarchist to me. Does it create the poverty though? I have my doubts about that. When people start to explain how large scale industry in an advanced economy functions under anarchy, it ends up sounding exactly like socialism.
I'm saying that most industrialists have historically opposed minimum wages because it increases their costs, thus lowering their overall efficiency, since efficiency takes into account more than just production speed etc. So efficiency, as espoused by capitalists, actually creates poverty, rather than diminishes it, because it involves the centralisation of wealth at the top-tiers of society only. As an Anarchist, I support living wages (wages that allow someone to afford their basic needs and avoid poverty) but I think they should be gained through Union organising, and not state-intervention.
A living wage is not inherently either Then you are woefully ignorant of the entire history of the anarchist movement. How is working together voluntarily for mutual benefit unanarchist exactly? Yes, it does create poverty, because the absence of living wages forces people to work for very long hours, for less than they require to live. It makes lots of very efficient corporations, and lots of very rich owners, but the workers are impoverished as a result, and are forced to except these unreasonable conditions through economic coercion. I suspect this has more to do with your scant knowledge of Anarchist theory and practice, than anything else
