Best form of government?

Im warming to the idea of anarchy, but syndiclyst anarchy. Worker controll, whilst difficult to acheive would be a good thing, and through the trade unions, no one person would be bestowed with ultimate power. Thats not to say i fully support it, but im kicking the idea around.

 

its already around, anarco-syndicalism, thats my party...
heres a mini-site of theirs
http://www.nucleus.com/~markv/aslinks.html

 

gee, that makes alot of sense.

 

and no taxes, public schooling, federal loans, public shelters, food stamps, public transportation, subsidized housing, domestic welfare, or social security, o and no fat chicks!
Also u say no slavery, but u dont define slavery, I consider men, women, or children working in sweatshops for substandard wages to be slavery, or alteast indentured servantry, but without a government who'll dictate minimum wage, and punish those outsourcers who open sweatshops overseas(and in US territories). But minimum wage would be coersion wouldnt it? Isnt it also coersion to tell that fat cat what he can and cant do in his factories(economically)?
i like the idea of liberatarianism, but the economic sides a little shady...

 

Orwell volenteered to fight for the Republicans against Franco. He joined the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification, in which he fought as an infantryman.

He fought for anarchism, and if both anarchism and communism are classless, stateless societies without money nor market (and where society works according to the term "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"), then what is the difference between anarchism and communism?

 

communism has government to redistribute wealth, anarchism has no government what-so-ever...pretty big difference...
i mean types of socialism have no "official government" to collect taxes, rather its done through unions(in deleonism) or expected for participation in society(in anarco-syndicalism)...but redistribution efforts are still an important part of the process, none are required in anarchy

 

Ayn Rand was more or less an anarchist, she certainly would not be welcome in the communist crowd.
The Middle Ages were more or less anarchy(as their was no fed. govt. (and technically no real laws)), yet society in those times was the polar opposite of communist society, so much so that it helped paved the road for communism.

 

No, that's socialism.

In marxist theory, society has to go through a period of socialism in order to reach communism. This period is also called "the dictatorship of the proletariat", which basically means the proletariat (workers) are in control of society. In marxist theory, capitalist society is "the dictatorship of the bourgeois (capitalist class)".

However, marxists believe that society will eventually progress towards communism, and that the state will fade away, because there is no one to supress (marxists see the state as a tool of class dominans and supression).

When society reach communism, however, the state, money and markets will be gone. Communism is a classless, stateless society, just like anarchism.

You're absolutely right.

Ayn Rand is the exact opposite of anarchist thought.

I'm not an expert on Ayn Rand, but I do know enough to tell you that she was a great supporter of class society. Anarchists are not, nor are communists.

Let me put it like this.

If a class war broke out, Ayn Rand would support the rich people, while the anarchists would support the workers.

Chaos does not equal anarchy (anarchism).

Exactly. And it was the exact opposite of anarchism, too. Just as much in fact, because they are both different names of the same social system.

Neither communism, nor anarchism could have existed in the medieval ages either, because the means of production were not developed enough.

 

I would think some kind of mix between anarchy and communism would be great.

Stick with me here...I mean little to no government, except that communities would be communal, sharing (at least to the extent of the building) living space. Then all these suburbs that are so wasteful on space could be farmed, there would be plenty of room for playspace and recreation, and all would be good. If people could live together instead of thinking it necessary to have separate homes and dining areas and stuff, we could be much more efficient as a species.

That's my ideal, anyways.

 

Freaker, that form of govt exists already on communes, and reservations around the world... its called anarco-syndicalism
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7017/what_is_as.html
a sub-site of theirs...
Communism, u got me beat on the communism, socialism thing...i fold. but i meant anarchy leads to what we had in the middle ages, rich get richer poor get poorer until uve got fuedalism...and rand is in my opinion an anarchist(she still wants no govt.(regardless of her motives(help the rich)behind it)). She prob would support the rich, in a class conflict, but thats also anarchys stance, theres no govt to pick a position, so the individual can suport whichever side he agrees with most...that would be anarchys stance, i feel...

 

One of the rules in capitalism is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Why should it lead to what we had in the middle ages?

Anarchism isn't just about getting rid of the state. Anarchism is about getting rid of all forms of hierarchy and oppression. That include capitalism.

No, that is not an anarchists stance. A true anarchist will stand by the side of the working class.

Here's a link to an Anarchist FAQ.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/


I remember reading this FAQ before, and it is a very good introduction to anarchism.

 

This is too chaotic , im numbering my responses in order of the appearence of ur comments, scrolling down
1. agreed
2.because that was an anarchist society and look what happened...fuedalism, i dont think anarchy is self-sustaining, i think anarchy is a natural state of rule(or lack there of) while ur in between governments...ie. europes middle ages, anarchy was the state things during that transition from teh barbaric, capitalistic, insensitive, system of emperors, dictators, and tzars, to the more sensitive, democratic, liberal style of govt we are now accustome to.
i guess ur definition of anarchy is different from mine, according to that website, anarchy has guidlines, in my opinion anarchy is the absence of federal government.
3. i wasnt aware of that, thats interesting...i'll reconsider my stance
4. when i said thats an anarchists stance, i didnt mean supporting the rich, i meant anarchy wouldnt have a stance, b/c theres no govt to officialize it...

 

Yeah, this is getting chaothic.

Where?

When the anarchist territories were conquered, the fascists took away the factories from the workers, and gave it to the upper class.

Played too much Civilization 3?

The period between feudalism and capitalism was often characterized by conflict and revolution. I don't have detailed knowledge of that period, but I assume it may have been slightly chaotic, but one thing is very important to remember here, and that is.. Many people confuse chaos and anarchy.

In an anarchist society, there will be no rulers. The only people in power, would be the workers. So because everyone has power, "no one" has power. It is equally divided.

In an anarchist society, people will sort of "give what they can, and receive what they need", just like communism. That is not what happened between the change of social systems (like, for example, feudalism to capitalism, or capitalism to socialism).



When I first started reading on anarchism, I was very confused, and many (real) anarchists, told me several times that there was no state in an anarchist society, that anarchism is not chaos, and truth to be told, I was very confused. But eventually, when I read more and more, and actually thought about it, it made sense. I saw anarchism as an independent social system, not like a caothic order like the West would like us to perceive.

It's more of confusing words and definitions, I think.

My guess is that you think of simply chaos, but I think of what anarchists do advocate.

So if we can both agree to that anarchists favor the social system I described above, but that a "state of chaos" exist between the change of government and/or social systems (feudalism, capitalism, socialism etc.) then I think we agree.

It's only a matter of definition and defining...

What are you refering to?

I see.

So what you thought was basically that anarchists want to destroy the state, and the rest is basically up to "nature"?

I'm sure there are some people who are confused about anarchism, and think that "hey, I want chaos! fuck the state", but real anarchists don't think so, although they want to destroy the state, it's much more to it than that.

Eventually, what you want to believe in is your choice. Just want to share with you the real views of anarchists. I think this is important, especially because people so often confuse them with lawless maniacs.

 

but if some explot others they can get ahead and continue to exploit until a class system develops(thats capitalism) without federal redistrubition and extensive labour laws, theres nothing stopping it.

>>>side note: is anarchy, capitalist (i dont know)???<<<

i numbered my reponses according to the order of the appearence of ur paragraphs ur 1st paragraphs response is labeled 1, the 2ns paragraph is labeled 2, third:3, fourth:4 and so on... if that helps

 

Thanks, I wasn't sure if you were taking the first line, so the second, like you explained.

Yeah, I see where you are going. In short: Instead of having a state that is controlled by the rich like today (just like at all the people in the US government, all rich), we will have workers control. We, the workers will make sure people won't exploit each other. Not some politicians who we don't even know the name of, but all of us will have a responsibility, you and me.



I think, in order to get the clearest picture, we have to see it in a bigger picture. I will make this as easy as possible, as it is midnight. If I'm unclear, it can be because I'm tired and write some things that are inconsistent, but I think it's gonna be fine

Anyways, if you have any questions of anything, don't be afraid to ask. Really.


There are several theories on how to create an anarchist society, but they have similarities. Here it is.

As you know, we live in a capitalist society. The upper class (the rich) exploit the peasants and, most importantly, the workers (the poor and exploited classes in society). How do they exploit the workers? They own means of production (ie factories, shops, etc).





The exploited rise up against the rich, and nationalize the means of production. But because those who once used to exploit wants their power back, we will have to supress them, that is, we will have to make sure that does not happen. The working class (ranging from the cleaner to the doctor) have to be "class-conscious". That means, they have to be aware of that they have been exploited, and that they now have power in society, because the means of production are now in their hands. In this period (at least in marxist theory), we will need a state. All that has really changed is that the capitalist class is gone, and that the workers have taken power.


From there, we will move to an anarchist/communist society. In this society, people don't have to work in order to survive. A common idea is that people can work a certain number of hours a week (minimum work), and they can get what they want (food, clothing, television, whatever).

The exploitation has ended. The capitalist class is gone, and the workers are no longer the powerless and oppressed, but are now in CONTROL of society. The exploited have taken their "revenge" against the exploiters. Kind of like the victim finally making up for the terrible abuse by the bully, who has robbed him for money, deceived and physically abused him.

As the workers are in power of the means of production, and do not want the bullies to exploit them again, they make sure

You see, the little capitalist class has to use more power than us workers in order to be "on top". We can co-operate, but they have to have workers to help them. Without workers, they won't get rich. Without workers, they cannot possibly continue their exploitation. They will simply die.

So the very tiny capitalist class ("the rich") exploit millions of workers who work for a tiny elite. They will have to use force and a very centralized government in order to have control.

The workers, who consist of over 95 percent of the population in the West, do not need to have a giant government making sure of everything, because simply, WE ARE EVERYWHERE. WE ARE THE PEOPLE.

And is it not natural that society, made up by the people, serve the people?

If Bill Gates or some other capitalist was to say, "Hey, you are destroying my freedom! I have the right to start a business", the workers will simply know (and most likely reply) that "you exploited us", and that "there is no freedom in exploiting the people".

So the guys who were rich before, won't have the chance to start taking back control, because workers (like you and me) have control over society.

So instead of a few dusin people owning half the planet, we will ALL reap the fruits of labor. So when a huge achievement is made, everyone wins, so it's not like in capitalism where a few win, and many lose.

It's really democratic.

And instead of politicians making decisions for millions, or if not, billions of people, the billions of people on this earth will control their own future, and do what's best for ourselves, making the world a better place.

No.

Anarchy is not capitalism. In anarchism, we (all people, like you and me) control society, and in capitalism, a few rich only control.

So anarchy is basically the most democratic way of organizing a society, and in turn, people will feel free from the terrible exploitation by the rich.

So we will both have individualism... We will be free to do almost whatever we want.

But, we will also be collective, in the way that we can work without being exploited, and we can take for example music lessons and everything else you can imagine without paying anything, and that we are democratic, and that all people have a vote on everything.




So if you have for example martial arts lessons you couldn't pay for in this capitalist world, that will be possible in an anarchist society, for free. If you're hungry and can't afford food in this world, you can walk into a store and take what you need, provided you also pay back to society, doing something good for the world. That's anarchism.

 

thats cool, i like how that sounds, but that form of anarchy is really just an intensified version of anarcho-syndicalism
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7017/what_is_as.html

 

that doesnt devalidate it

 

Yes, Anarcho-Syndicalism is a branch in anarchism which which focuses on the labor movement. Although I haven't read about it in detail, I think it's great idea.

That link of yours look really good. Quality piece of work. I'll have a read through it.

True, not per se,

I play Civilization, too, btw.

 

The flaw with syndoclism is that they want controll to be from unions. People would then have a lot more time taken up by unions, with people having to chair these unions. The union chairs would almost being running a direct democracy, which would take up a hell of a lot of time. The chair would most likely have to do that full time. This is where the hypocracy exists. If the chair is doing all that, then surely he is becoming to a lesser extent, part of a government??? I just dont see how it can work. Im open to explinations of how this is all wrong though, as i have not discussed it with anyone yet, so it is probably a very flawed argument.

 

thats deleonism (russian syndicalism), not anarco-syndicalism...theres a huge difference