Anarchy

[iAnonymous]

communism isn't a bad thing, but how the russians did it was not a good thing, they sayd "everyone is the same" but they did control everything... so they were not the same as the others...

i am a socialst that looks better to me

russia was never communist. despite all the smaller details, it wasn't global, it wasn't post-capitalist, and it had a state. leninism/stalinism isn't really communism, and it certainly isn't marxism

never heard of the cold war? it was communism but on a different way as the man who did creat it thought it would be,

He meant that Russia never had an actual communist system.
"Some people were more equal than others".

[foolish_yeti]

In fact it happens more often than it did it societies without law....and especially in capitalist societies- which are very competitive.

This is the bit I can't accept without statistics.

There are no statistics- record keeping like that is a very recent development. You could think of it in these terms, though: capitalism basically creates a society of haves and have nots. With the means of production privately owned and operated for profit, those who have things are interested in gaining more things. This of course leaves those with nothing to begin with even less, and for all intensive purposes no means to get it (the majority of wealth is held by few). This widening inequality spurs violence. You will most likely agree that in general it's not the upper middle class or the social elite running around physically robbing places, getting into gunfights, etc. In a society where things are more equitable, competition decreases, and along with it crime. The complete end of the spectrum is lack of private property. Why would you try and stab someone over an apple which everyone has access to?

How will our new anarchic society choose the punishment for adultery since you've dissolved the legislative branch of government? Is there something stopping that punishment from changing on a case by case basis? Who would decide what the punishment was? Surely there are different levels of adultery, possible excuses etc that would need to be considered in sentences. You can't say the community at large because we are no longer living in tribal societies. I live in a city of three and a half million (Melbourne, Australia), that's not even close to the bigger cities in the world but it's still very large. You can't reasonably expect everybody to come together and decide what to do about one adultery which means that issues will need to be delegated. Who will they be delegated to now that you've dissolved the judiciary?

All important considerations- you should run away from anyone who says things will be easy and seems to have an airtight way of doing things. The short of it is that the community will have to find a way that works for them- there could be hundreds of ways to deal with the same problem- just depends on the community. As for this working on a mass scale- obviously as numbers increase challenges present themselves based on sheer numbers alone. You may see the abolition of such large communities- they may not be possible without bureaucracy. Perhaps what we see now as a city would be a collection of smaller communities working together (e.g. a community that specializes in medicine, for example). This would increase diversity in the human species- if everyone is living the same way then one wrench in the cog will cause mass problems.

anarchy to me sounds like your trying to give everybody access to these 'unlimited' resources.

well they're for sure not unlimited- I think one of the goals of anarchy is to get equitable access to resources. So that 85% of global wealth isn't in 10% of the population's hands.

Capitalism only appears to be based on "perpetual growth and increasing complexity" because it works so well that we keep doing it.

I would say it's not working so well - but capitalism is based on profit. Corporations need to come to shareholders with good news. People buy shares to make money. If a company isn't making them money, investors don't want anything to do with it.

Yup, supply and demand is going so save us from most of these natural problems. All we really have to fear is the system not working fast enough.

Supply and demand is the cause of a lot of these problems. For example with soil- we have topsoil degradation and increased erasion from improper farming techniques (monocultures) and loss of ground cover. Or take the whole rainforest issue- companies are razing forests in South America to raise cattle to meet demand. Demand will for sure speed up attempts to solve problems, but doesn't guarantee success.

[Wisse]

communism isn't a bad thing, but how the russians did it was not a good thing, they sayd "everyone is the same" but they did control everything... so they were not the same as the others...

i am a socialst that looks better to me

russia was never communist. despite all the smaller details, it wasn't global, it wasn't post-capitalist, and it had a state. leninism/stalinism isn't really communism, and it certainly isn't marxism

never heard of the cold war? it was communism but on a different way as the man who did creat it thought it would be,

He meant that Russia never had an actual communist system.
"Some people were more equal than others".

yup but it was named communism

[spurgistan]

communism isn't a bad thing, but how the russians did it was not a good thing, they sayd "everyone is the same" but they did control everything... so they were not the same as the others...

i am a socialst that looks better to me

russia was never communist. despite all the smaller details, it wasn't global, it wasn't post-capitalist, and it had a state. leninism/stalinism isn't really communism, and it certainly isn't marxism

never heard of the cold war? it was communism but on a different way as the man who did creat it thought it would be,

He meant that Russia never had an actual communist system.
"Some people were more equal than others".

yup but it was named communism

so? i could call my cat a hamster, but that would hardly prove anything. the point is, the communist experiment in the soviet union failed, turned into a police state, and millions of peaceful citizens of the USSR died as a result of that experiment. it was never communist in anything more than name.

[Neutrino]

BTW, all this talk of a doomsday with 99.3% casualty rates is supposed to convince us that capitalism is evil and any change will be one for the better? The earth is facing problems, no doubt about that, we've got global warming, poverty, pandemics, the threat of nuclear warfare and terrorism... But doomdayers such as yourself have been promising the end of the world for thousands of years.

Yes, but now humanity has the power to destroy itself. Previously it was always God, or the Devil, or those deamon-worshiping bastards in the next country over causing the end of the world, but it was always on a very, very small scale. You know, some volcano erupts or some plague comes along and everyone within a few score kilometres dies. Now its humanity with the power to cause the end of the world, and if and when it happens, it is not likely to be local.

Even if you ignore Nuclear war and all the other deliberate ways humanity has developed to destroy itself, you are still left with all the inventive byproduct ways to die.

The great thing about biological and other natural systems is that they have a habit of crashing without warning. And when they crash it isnt just a case of leveling off at an acceptable number, no, they go all the way down, killing off most of the native lifeforms in the process.

Poverty isn't something new to capitalism so stop blaming it for everything.

Poverty may not be new to Capitalism, but the hights that it is being taken to is.

Just because there are flaws to capitalism does not mean that we need to change and give anarchy or communism or anything else a go. Every system will have flaws, but you're suggesting replacing a slightly flawed system with a system that doesn't even make theoretical sense, let alone practical sense.

Slightly flawed? The fact that a system is completly and totally unsustainable is a mere 'flaw'?
Its like saying "Oh yeah, that. I was meaning to insall a proper cooling system, but we would have had to shut down the power station for a few months and, really, I just couldnt be bothered"
when the cooling systems fail on a Nuclear power station, and you all die from radiation poisioning.

[chewyman]

Why would you try and stab someone over an apple which everyone has access to?

Maybe because you want two apples or because you are mentally unstable and it isn't about the apple at all? Besides, we already agreed that there simply isn't enough supply to meet demand, unless we plan on giving everybody 1/8th of an apple (that was the statistic for the number of earths we would need at the present rate of consumption or something similar).

Yes, but now humanity has the power to destroy itself. Previously it was always God, or the Devil, or those deamon-worshiping bastards in the next country over causing the end of the world, but it was always on a very, very small scale. You know, some volcano erupts or some plague comes along and everyone within a few score kilometres dies. Now its humanity with the power to cause the end of the world, and if and when it happens, it is not likely to be local.

Even if you ignore Nuclear war and all the other deliberate ways humanity has developed to destroy itself, you are still left with all the inventive byproduct ways to die.

The great thing about biological and other natural systems is that they have a habit of crashing without warning. And when they crash it isnt just a case of leveling off at an acceptable number, no, they go all the way down, killing off most of the native lifeforms in the process.

Yup, capitalism is the reason that we have nuclear warfare, biowarfare and any other technological complaint you'd like to make. Then again, it's also the reason that you have a computer, a house, a high quality of life, superannuation, medicine, means of transport other than walking etc etc. Those things aren't run or invented for the betterment of society, that's just a byproduct. People actually bother doing those things to better their own position. Wait, don't tell me you've got bored of the communist discussion in the Marxist thread so you're coming over here now??

Poverty may not be new to Capitalism, but the hights that it is being taken to is.

I'd love to see the statistics to this little gem. That said, what I'd love even more is for people to stop making idiotic claims without evidence to support them. Global GDP has been growing every year since the depression at least. Peasants in feudal societies haven't become worse off now that capitalism has taken hold (except for in the USSR until it fell, but you'd have to talk to some communists about that ) People in China and India are becoming richer everyday. People are suffering, they always do during industrialisation, but the benefits can be seen in today's Western society of going through that process.

Slightly flawed? The fact that a system is completly and totally unsustainable is a mere 'flaw'?
Its like saying "Oh yeah, that. I was meaning to insall a proper cooling system, but we would have had to shut down the power station for a few months and, really, I just couldnt be bothered"
when the cooling systems fail on a Nuclear power station, and you all die from radiation poisioning.

No, it's more like, well not everybody gets their way but the numbers that don't are fewer than any other way we know. Foolish_yeti admitted that I raised some very good questions when I got into the specifics on how an anarchic society would be run. Good questions as in there weren't any real answers to them unless we all broke up into tribes again. Now if that sounds like a better society to you then go ahead and move to Africa, otherwise quite your complaining and enjoy the benefits that capitalism brings you

[foolish_yeti]

we already agreed that there simply isn't enough supply to meet demand, unless we plan on giving everybody 1/8th of an apple (that was the statistic for the number of earths we would need at the present rate of consumption or something similar).

Current estimated global footprint is 2.2h, with the sustainable footprint being around 1.8h. So globally we're only around 25% over...but the largest capitalist countries are up around 10h- 500% over.

Then again, it's also the reason that you have a computer, a house, a high quality of life, superannuation, medicine, means of transport other than walking etc etc.

These things are grand but ultimately mean nothing if they cannot be achieved sustainably. The measure of a societies success by future generations has to do with the ecosystem. When all the water is polluted and the earth sterile you won't see people huddling around going "Boy, didn't the internet sound grand? Those people were amazing!". Nope- they'll be cursing, wondering why we were such fools.

Global GDP has been growing every year since the depression at least.

GDP is a used to measure economic growth, and does not correlate to human development. In fact, GDP growth is often at the expense of the people- remember, wealth distribution is sooooo lopsided in capitalism. For example, in India the rate of poverty reduction got worse as it industrialised (you mention India later on- something about people making idiotic claims without evidence to support them...sorry couldn't resist on that one). GDP affecting the poor positively would depend on trickle down economics- unfortunately capitalists pockets are very large and can hold a lot before spilling over.

Foolish_yeti admitted that I raised some very good questions when I got into the specifics on how an anarchic society would be run. Good questions as in there weren't any real answers to them unless we all broke up into tribes again.

Now you're putting words in my mouth- I never ceded that these would prevent the formation of anarchist societies. I said they were important considerations. Good questions in that these are things that need to be thought of. There are answers to all of them- my point was there may not be one single answer- how different communities deal with these problems will be varied.

[chewyman]

Current estimated global footprint is 2.2h, with the sustainable footprint being around 1.8h. So globally we're only around 25% over...but the largest capitalist countries are up around 10h- 500% over.

I'll take your word for it.

These things are grand but ultimately mean nothing if they cannot be achieved sustainably. The measure of a societies success by future generations has to do with the ecosystem. When all the water is polluted and the earth sterile you won't see people huddling around going "Boy, didn't the internet sound grand? Those people were amazing!". Nope- they'll be cursing, wondering why we were such fools.

Funny, as a history student I don't remember learning that the ancient Romans were great because they maintained European ecosystems... We still have at least 100 years of oil by most estimates and that's plenty of time to develop new sources of energy. The rate of research is only going to continue increasing as that time ticks down. The earth has gone through plenty of climate changes before (sometimes at even faster rates than at the present), global warming might be a problem, but don't get too frightened just yet.

GDP is a used to measure economic growth, and does not correlate to human development. In fact, GDP growth is often at the expense of the people- remember, wealth distribution is sooooo lopsided in capitalism. For example, in India the rate of poverty reduction got worse as it industrialised (you mention India later on- something about people making idiotic claims without evidence to support them...sorry Wink couldn't resist on that one). GDP affecting the poor positively would depend on trickle down economics- unfortunately capitalists pockets are very large and can hold a lot before spilling over.

Wealth distribution is always lopsided. Witch doctors had more than hunters in tribes, kings then peasants and slaves. I don't suppose any of us here are old enough to remember when Japan was in the same economic situation as China? Sweat shops were common, people in the West complained that capitalists were abusing the poor. Now look at Japan today, sweat shops gave the locals money that they otherwise couldn't have got and when they saved up enough they started their own companies. People weren't being forced to work in sweat shops, they wanted to because the pay, while not great, was better than anything they could get otherwise. So like I said, capitalism may not be perfect, and it's a hard road to economic independence, but it's very doable and it actually works.

Now you're putting words in my mouth- I never ceded that these would prevent the formation of anarchist societies. I said they were important considerations. Good questions in that these are things that need to be thought of. There are answers to all of them- my point was there may not be one single answer- how different communities deal with these problems will be varied.

Does passing-the-buck sound like a better term? These societies aren't giving me the answers I'm looking for, I need your help. If they are such important considerations then shouldn't somebody advocating anarchy have answers to them other than: 'each society will deal with it differently'. I can accept that there won't be one single answer, so just give me one of the options, preferably the one that you would like to see in your society. Then again, maybe that would classify you as a leader in your society if you put forward those suggestions, and we can't have a leader in an anarchic society so you'd have to go somewhere else

[foolish_yeti]

Funny, as a history student I don't remember learning that the ancient Romans were great because they maintained European ecosystems...

That's because they left their ancestors with an ecosystem- what I'm saying is that this considerations trumps all else. It doesn't mean jack all what you accomplish if you don't leave the future a functioning ecosystem.

We still have at least 100 years of oil by most estimates and that's plenty of time to develop new sources of energy.

The actual number is speculative and it really depends on who you ask. The general consensus seems to be that oil production, as it has for the last little bit, will remain constant for the near future. The problem is population is not remaining constant- it's growing exponentially. Also more of the world is industrialising, also creating more demand. We will also run into a problem before the oil runs out- it's basically a bell curve- once supply is greater than demand, price goes up. The greater the gap, the higher the price. We're already seeing resource wars surrounding this precious resource to our lifestyle- this will only get worse.

Wealth distribution is always lopsided. Witch doctors had more than hunters in tribes

You really need to look more into tribal societies.

Sweat shops were common, people in the West complained that capitalists were abusing the poor. Now look at Japan today, sweat shops gave the locals money that they otherwise couldn't have got and when they saved up enough they started their own companies. People weren't being forced to work in sweat shops, they wanted to because the pay, while not great, was better than anything they could get otherwise.

I can't believe you actually just said this. First there is the moral implications of sweatshops. But ignoring that- Japan's economic growth did not occur because of workers making money in sweatshops. Phil Knight himself said when they started in Japan workers were making 4$ a day (and remember that's his numbers)- and that's for like 12hr days. Adjust for the time period and it still is pretty horrible. And yeah- if you basically have no other means of survival- you're being forced to work in sweatshops. It's not as overt as someone kidnapping you, but you're being forced none the less.

Does passing-the-buck sound like a better term? These societies aren't giving me the answers I'm looking for, I need your help.

Sure I'm passing the buck- if you try do want help understanding these issues you're going to have to do a lot of legwork yourself. It's not simple by any means. But sure, I'll bite- pick a specific issue and I'll attempt to address it.

Then again, maybe that would classify you as a leader in your society if you put forward those suggestions, and we can't have a leader in an anarchic society so you'd have to go somewhere else

Who says anarchist societies don't have leaders? Is the only form of leadership you can think of governmental?

[chewyman]

That's because they left their ancestors with an ecosystem- what I'm saying is that this considerations trumps all else. It doesn't mean jack all what you accomplish if you don't leave the future a functioning ecosystem.

If by that you mean your descendants can only say how great you were if they're alive then sure, I can agree with that. But I'm sure we'll pass on a habitable earth to our descendants. That's the problem with the global warming debate, neither side is right. Global warming is happening, but we aren't all going to die horrible horrible deaths from UV rays in 20 years. Who knows, we might even be able to enjoy longer summers

The actual number is speculative and it really depends on who you ask. The general consensus seems to be that oil production, as it has for the last little bit, will remain constant for the near future. The problem is population is not remaining constant- it's growing exponentially. Also more of the world is industrialising, also creating more demand. We will also run into a problem before the oil runs out- it's basically a bell curve- once supply is greater than demand, price goes up. The greater the gap, the higher the price. We're already seeing resource wars surrounding this precious resource to our lifestyle- this will only get worse.

I completely agree. Thing is, that when prices start to rise too high the market will become more and more interested in other sources of energy. Since those will be renewable sources I'm actually hoping we start running out sooner rather than later. This is a perfect example of the market doing what the market does best. As I've said, it won't be the government funding that gets us using solar or hybrid or whatever cars, it will be the market. Huzzah for capitalism!

You really need to look more into tribal societies.

I could lie and say your wrong but your not. My study in history really starts from ancient China's Shang dynasty to the split of the Roman Empire and then starts again around the end of the 19th century. Everything in between and before is just general knowledge and I don't claim to be an expert. What I can definitely say is that feudalism had a far more lopsided division of wealth that we have today and if you disagree with that then you're the one that needs to do more research

I can't believe you actually just said this. First there is the moral implications of sweatshops. But ignoring that- Japan's economic growth did not occur because of workers making money in sweatshops. Phil Knight himself said when they started in Japan workers were making 4$ a day (and remember that's his numbers)- and that's for like 12hr days. Adjust for the time period and it still is pretty horrible. And yeah- if you basically have no other means of survival- you're being forced to work in sweatshops. It's not as overt as someone kidnapping you, but you're being forced none the less.

Yup, I said it and I'll say it again. I'm also in good company in the economist community. Look we'd all love for sweat shop workers to be getting paid $20 an hour with health care and an enormous superannuation but realistically that isn't going to happen. Now without sweat shops these people have nothing, they can work on infertile land for even less that this $4 a day and in even worse conditions. I'm not going to say it's a great choice but at least it is a choice. An influx of foreign investment through sweat shops is the only way to bring a third world economy into the first world. Aid doesn't work, we can see from Africa that it all just disappears into corrupt dictators and their lackey's pockets.

EDIT: BTW, if sweatshops aren't the way to go then what is in your opinion? I've already mentioned why plain aid isn't working so what other options are there? We can't have your great communist revolution, we'd end up with another USSR since you'd have completely skipped the bourgeoisie stage of class evolution. There aren't enough wealthy people in developing countries to make everybody happy if you shared their assets with the masses. It's interesting that these great grandiose plans for society (communism and anarchy) can only be tried on wealthy countries, is that because the poorer countries can't sink any lower but the wealthy ones actually have something to lose? Anyway, what exactly is your plan for effectively tackling poverty?

Sure I'm passing the buck- if you try do want help understanding these issues you're going to have to do a lot of legwork yourself. It's not simple by any means. But sure, I'll bite- pick a specific issue and I'll attempt to address it.

You've got the specific issues I'm interested in already. If you can't possibly answer those questions because anarchy is divided into so many different strains of thought then perhaps we should just choose one and you can answer for that strain. I'm not picky, you can choose the strain.

Who says anarchist societies don't have leaders? Is the only form of leadership you can think of governmental?

firstly, anarchy means a lack of leaders (archons) not a lack of laws. free market capitalism is a retarded idea and if you can't work out why for yourself then that says a lot. there is a reason governments stepped in to stop it, and there is a reason they continue to do so every time it starts to happen again.

He does for one. Now if you aren't happy with that fine, give me a better definition of anarchy to work with. But since you've just told me there are plenty of different forms of anarchy and we aren't discussing one particular branch what choice do I have but to take information from everywhere in putting together my thoughts?

[foolish_yeti]

But I'm sure we'll pass on a habitable earth to our descendants. That's the problem with the global warming debate, neither side is right. Global warming is happening, but we aren't all going to die horrible horrible deaths from UV rays in 20 years. Who knows, we might even be able to enjoy longer summers

We are doing damage as we speak- how much depends on how soon we stop. If we go too far the damage done will depend on how soon the ecosystem can get rid of a large amount of us. As for the whole global warming debate- the threat isn't only UV rays. Among other things it's what you mention- longer summers. Changes in weather patterns affect, among other things, animal populations. For example the is a pine beetle epidemic currently going on. Populations are exploding, killing thousands of trees- on top of that these dead trees make for excellent forest fires- killing even more trees (not to mention the gases released). Other issues just with insects is that their life cycles are getting out of synch with the predators- affecting both of their populations.

I completely agree. Thing is, that when prices start to rise too high the market will become more and more interested in other sources of energy. Since those will be renewable sources I'm actually hoping we start running out sooner rather than later.

But it will still be unsustainable- if anything it will put added pressure on renewable resources- threatening them as well. Renewable sources can't handle capitalist consumption rates of billions of people. You could also take a look at ethanol- which is already driving corn prices up and we don't nearly depend on it for anything. This drives the price of other foodstuff up as well (corn is found in a lot of things). The main point though is surrounding sustainability. If it 'aint sustainable then it's just not working.

What I can definitely say is that feudalism had a far more lopsided division of wealth that we have today

Yeah, I don't know much about wealth distribution for feudalism- but I can image it sucked as well. The most recent UN study on wealth distribution for the current time however, found 85% of it in 10% of the people's hands. Frankly I don't really care if that's better or worse than feudalism- it just plain sucks.

Now without sweat shops these people have nothing, they can work on infertile land for even less that this $4 a day and in even worse conditions. I'm not going to say it's a great choice but at least it is a choice.

Well it's not much of a choice- die or work in inhumane conditions. They both suck- but I'll pick the living one any day of the week. I for one don't buy the "it's better than nothing" argument. Just doesn't sit well with me. I want to find a society where this doesn't occur.

BTW, if sweatshops aren't the way to go then what is in your opinion? I've already mentioned why plain aid isn't working so what other options are there? We can't have your great communist revolution, we'd end up with another USSR since you'd have completely skipped the bourgeoisie stage of class evolution.

I've stated it elsewhere but make it clear- I'm not a communist. As for how you can make this work within a capitalist society you are quite correct- I don't see it happening. There are a lot of problems that need to be solved which cannot within our current system. Hence why we should be looking outside the box. As for the whole goal of bringing everyone to our level of development- I'm for sure against that. It's a non-problem. If we continue to try and do so we're only speeding up a collapse (which some would say is a good thing). As previously stated, if everyone lived like the states we'd need five earths. Europeans, for comparison's sake, are somewhere around 5 or 6h...still a long ways from sustainable. We're basically speeding up our own suicide.

Anyway, what exactly is your plan for effectively tackling poverty?

Well the main thing is to have a more equitable wealth distribution, and to decrease consumption. Thus, increasing the population sustainable by the same amount of resources, and making sure that whatever resources a community does have aren't in the hands of the few. That to me would be a good start. Both things are the exact opposite of what capitalism ensures.

He does for one. Now if you aren't happy with that fine, give me a better definition of anarchy to work with. But since you've just told me there are plenty of different forms of anarchy and we aren't discussing one particular branch what choice do I have but to take information from everywhere in putting together my thoughts?

Archon is better understood to mean rulers, not leaders. As for a definition of anarchy wikipedia does a decent job in a short space- even goes into short descriptions of different forms.

[Guiscard]

Just wanted to comment on what an interesting debate this has become... Nice to see it being argued reasonably between two people.

[chewyman]

We are doing damage as we speak- how much depends on how soon we stop. If we go too far the damage done will depend on how soon the ecosystem can get rid of a large amount of us. As for the whole global warming debate- the threat isn't only UV rays. Among other things it's what you mention- longer summers. Changes in weather patterns affect, among other things, animal populations. For example the is a pine beetle epidemic currently going on. Populations are exploding, killing thousands of trees- on top of that these dead trees make for excellent forest fires- killing even more trees (not to mention the gases released). Other issues just with insects is that their life cycles are getting out of synch with the predators- affecting both of their populations.

Yup, a whole heap of bad stuff is happening. If you'd like to discuss it in more depth I think it deserves a thread to itself. I'll stay out of that though since while I believe global warming is happening I really don't see it as the huge threat the media make it out to be. What I will say concerning capitalism is this: as we run out of oil (which will happen a lot faster than any serious global warming issue) the market will invest more heavily in renewable energies and then and only then will they take off in any real shape or form.

But it will still be unsustainable- if anything it will put added pressure on renewable resources- threatening them as well. Renewable sources can't handle capitalist consumption rates of billions of people. You could also take a look at ethanol- which is already driving corn prices up and we don't nearly depend on it for anything. This drives the price of other foodstuff up as well (corn is found in a lot of things). The main point though is surrounding sustainability. If it 'aint sustainable then it's just not working.

I don't much like the idea of considering ethanol as a renewable energy source. I realise it can just be grown again, but as you said, it takes up too much fertile land. Solar, wind and hydro are the way of the future, and of course fission and I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting that are on their way. Going nuclear is also a medium term solution, although obviously uranium will eventually run out just like every other fossil fuel. Anyway, the point is that solar, wind, and hydro are perfectly sustainable, we just have to get them to a point where they are effective.

Yeah, I don't know much about wealth distribution for feudalism- but I can image it sucked as well. The most recent UN study on wealth distribution for the current time however, found 85% of it in 10% of the people's hands. Frankly I don't really care if that's better or worse than feudalism- it just plain sucks.

It definitely isn't a great statistic, no arguments here. I also realise and accept that the gap between rich and poor is widening. But what I ask you to accept is that the majority do benefit from capitalism, it just isn't an immediate fix. People as a whole are getting richer (including the poor). I've already mentioned sweatshops as an example of this.

When those living in third world countries have gone through the same process as countries like South Korea and Japan have been through and China and India are currently going through then they too will have a chance to become just as wealthy as those in Western Europe and North America. Those countries can then invest in their own sweatshops in other countries classed as developing and bring them up (and this is already being seen with Japan and South Korea). Once a country's people have accumulated enough wealth through these means to start their own private enterprises then that is when wealth in that country will really shoot up. Their is no discrimination in capitalism, one person's dollar is worth just as much as another's.

Well it's not much of a choice- die or work in inhumane conditions. They both suck- but I'll pick the living one any day of the week. I for one don't buy the "it's better than nothing" argument. Just doesn't sit well with me. I want to find a society where this doesn't occur.

I'd love that too but I'm a realist. Such a society doesn't exist and the two current ideas (communism and anarchism) are just so incredibly flawed in their design that they could never truly function. Society is meant to represent human nature, you can't fight it and that is why those two systems will never work. I'm sorry but it just sounds like you're looking for an easy fix to a complicated problem. We can't just sit back and dream of an ideal society for the future, capitalism is offering us a chance to better our standings and in doing so better that of others. We won't see results tomorrow, but results are definitely happening.

I've stated it elsewhere but make it clear- I'm not a communist.

My apologies, but you've never given me a reason to think anything to the contrary so I assumed, obviously incorrectly. May I ask what exactly you would consider yourself?

Well the main thing is to have a more equitable wealth distribution, and to decrease consumption. Thus, increasing the population sustainable by the same amount of resources, and making sure that whatever resources a community does have aren't in the hands of the few. That to me would be a good start. Both things are the exact opposite of what capitalism ensures.

That sounds great, but I guess I'll have to reword my question. How do you plan on achieving those goals?

Archon is better understood to mean rulers, not leaders. As for a definition of anarchy wikipedia does a decent job in a short space- even goes into short descriptions of different forms.

Then we are accepting dictionary.com's definition of anarchism? If so, which one?

Just wanted to comment on what an interesting debate this has become... Nice to see it being argued reasonably between two people.

Thanks for that, it means a lot.

[Huckleberryhound]

I cant believe that those in favour of Anarchy accept the chaos between conception and actualisation, the murder of millions of our society, and the destruction of most of our social and economics structures as an unfortunate, and acceptable non-issue.

That is where they enter the realm of Cloud cookoo land in my opinion.

[chewyman]

I cant believe that those in favour of Anarchy accept the chaos between conception and actualisation, the murder of millions of our society, and the destruction of most of our social and economics structures as an unfortunate, and acceptable non-issue.

That is where they enter the realm of Cloud cookoo land in my opinion.

I don't actually know any anarchists personally so I can't comment but I'll agree with you about communists. When the war in Iraq was first announced I was having a discussion about it with some political friends of mine. I was surprised to see one friend, who is a staunch communist, who supported the Americans invading Iraq. I said I was shocked to hear that and asked why. He basically told me that the war would turn global opinion against America and reveal the flaws of the bourgeoisie. The idea of supporting a war where tens of thousands of people would die because it would send a political message horrified me. Human life means nothing to a true communist, it is all about the will of the majority. It's a very utilitarian system and that's why it sounds so good on paper. Unfortunately, it's when you get down to the practicalities, like the lives of a few thousand human beings, that you start to see the flaws in it.

[unriggable]

"Some people were more equal than others".

"You two are the same, especially you."

It was a very corrupt communism, they took corruption on a whole new level. So in a sense they didn't follow the rules of communism.

[Wisse]

"Some people were more equal than others".

"You two are the same, especially you."

It was a very corrupt communism, they took corruption on a whole new level. So in a sense they didn't follow the rules of communism.

the right quote is: all people are equal but some are more equal.

[foolish_yeti]

I cant believe that those in favour of Anarchy accept the chaos between conception and actualisation, the murder of millions of our society, and the destruction of most of our social and economics structures as an unfortunate, and acceptable non-issue.

That is where they enter the realm of Cloud cookoo land in my opinion.

I'm outta the house in a few- so I'll get to chewyman's post later- but I felt the immediate need to respond to this one- as it (the death of millions) seems to be a very common defense against changing societal systems.

The first thing to mention is that I'm not advocating some monolithic event to dismantle capitalism. To spread it over a period of time would help minimize deaths, as it would give time to help teach people what they do not know (how to live off their local environment)...in fact this is already happening.

Who are we talking about here? I think it's important to establish this. The people starving people of India? They'd be better off- which is the case in a lot of places with cash crops- the resources available for the local population is being shipped off for profit. The indigenous people of the land? Well hopefully they've retained enough to survive off the land like they did for thousands of years before they were forced off the land. The 1.6 billion people without electricity? No biggie there! The rural poor? Well they'd finally have access to land and most likely can at least be substinance farmers (if they're not already). Rural rich would obviously be fine. This is not to say there won't be deaths here, but the overall population will see an increase in quality of life.

Urban poor will be in the short run be pretty screwed. There would be land reform so they'd have more access to resources- but supermarkets wouldn't be working so hot, so for sure it'd be crazy tough- especially with their lack of knowledge of the land. So yeah, you would probably see the most loss of life here in the short term- but in the long run their situation would be a net gain.

Will the urban rich will be bad off as well? If they're smart they'll see it coming and prepare. If they're not they'll have a rough run as well. Anyone who relies on the supermarket system for food would need to looks elsewhere.

Interestingly enough, there actually is a form of agriculture that can sustain a family on a very small tract of land- and that some urban dwellers are already practicing...but it's obviously not helpful if you don't have the knowledge.

The point is that for the vast majority of the population this would be an improvement. Obviously since this debate is going on in highly developed nations, the vast majority who will be involved see it as a bad thing- you are quite correct- if not prepared then it will hit us the hardest.

That's not to say it's going to be easy and not involve death.

But more importantly (if you want to shrug off all of the above)- most of the problems that will occur due to a collapse (artificial or natural) will occur as those in power attempt to stay there. They could easily turn around and make it a "soft landing" so to say. For example, a huge thing you always hear is about fresh water shortage. So many people today are without fresh water. Well there's more than enough to go around- the majority of fresh water is used for industrial, commercial and agricultural purposes. Use it for life instead of profits. And you always hear of the millions of starving, juxtaposed with an obesity epidemic in the States- same deal goes there. Those in power could just as easily turn around and prevent a lot of loss of life (that's not to say they will).

Also, if you're part of this system- capitalism- you're already responsible for mass atrocities and deaths. Most people just aren't aware of it or chose to ignore it. I mean, everything you do in today's society has negative impacts. The shirt you're wearing was made in Bangledesh by slave labour, the meat you're eating is factory farmed in south america, the grains you eat are from industrial monocultures, we have pesticides appearing in breast milk, crime arising from wealth distribution, mass amounts of death from warfare- we already live in a horribly violent society. As a direct result of my everyday actions and your everyday actions, people are dying. Every day. I know I struggle with the fact that people are suffering and dying for me to obtain even my basic needs under capitalism.

Unfortunately, it's when you get down to the practicalities, like the lives of a few thousand human beings, that you start to see the flaws in it.

How can people not see the same things in capitalism? It's because we're so far removed from the sources of our substinance and can't/won't look at the consequences of our actions.

And on top of that: capitalism is already on its way to collapsing....it's not a matter of if but when. It is unsustainable- it uses way too many resources per capita, and produces too much waste for the earth to process. It has delayed this collapse through annexing resources from other countries as well as through technological innovation. But eventually there are no more resources to annex and technology will only get us so far. When you have billions more people (exponential population growth) consuming more and more- eventually a crash will occur. The longer you wait the greater the population (and thus loss of life) and the greater the environmental destruction- the weaker the ecosystem for those who live after capitalism. So by continuing along with capitalism you are by no way avoiding this predicted loss of life, and in many ways increasing it.

The issue then is how to minimize it. How do you begin to live sustainably, transitioning in such a way that will work for the majority of the population?

[vtmarik]

About the earlier comment made about how the GDP keeps going up, that's because everything makes the GDP go up.

There's an old PSA somewhere that says things like "Every time a child dies, the GDP goes up," and so on.

My thoughts on Anarchism is that it would work. Forget the line between idealism and realism, because discussing which is more feasible when dealing with hypotheticals is like shoving legos up a pig's ass, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Human nature is inherently neutral. It is external stimuli that colors it good or bad. We aren't naturally cruel and greedy anymore than we are naturally good and giving. We're naturally inclined to survive according to what our past experiences tell us that we need to survive.

There will always be strife during a paradigm shift be it political, economic, spiritual, or otherwise. One cannot stare at the negatives of one situation and say "A shift like that is unnecessarily harsh" while ignoring the negatives of the current situation.

In America we are closer than ever to losing the principles that made this country what it is today, and we are also closer than ever to falling into martial law and oligarchy. Perhaps this country could use a shift in the other direction.

Anarchy, as I see it, is the exact polar opposite of dictatorship: Power held in the hands of everyone rather than a select few or one person. When power is shared equally by all, rather than in some illusory "You give us your money and we'll spend it in your best interest" form of equality, things can achieve a real positive level of activity.

Call it idealistic nonsense, call it bunkum if you want, but don't forget that we're abstracting here. First rule of improv: Don't negate the premise.

[chewyman]

And on top of that: capitalism is already on its way to collapsing....it's not a matter of if but when. It is unsustainable- it uses way too many resources per capita, and produces too much waste for the earth to process. It has delayed this collapse through annexing resources from other countries as well as through technological innovation. But eventually there are no more resources to annex and technology will only get us so far. When you have billions more people (exponential population growth) consuming more and more- eventually a crash will occur. The longer you wait the greater the population (and thus loss of life) and the greater the environmental destruction- the weaker the ecosystem for those who live after capitalism. So by continuing along with capitalism you are by no way avoiding this predicted loss of life, and in many ways increasing it.

Capitalism is going nowhere fast. The idea that the world will suddenly collapse because we've been buying too much plastic is ludicrous. Do I honestly need to argue about a 'Day After Tomorrow' type situation? There is only one limit to technology: nature. You can't break the rules of nature, but you can utilize them with fantastic results. As I've already stated, when oil runs out the market will move on to another source of energy. The same will happen for all your other concerns. Too many mouths to feed? The market, if allowed, will reach an equilibrium whereby the population evens out at a sustainable level. Now you give statistics that show how we are currently above sustainable levels, but there is time to correct this problem, to even out issues. You're right in that if we kept going at the same pace things would eventually collapse, but the market and technological advances will make sure that never happens by adjusting before your prophesied dooms day.

About the earlier comment made about how the GDP keeps going up, that's because everything makes the GDP go up.

There's an old PSA somewhere that says things like "Every time a child dies, the GDP goes up," and so on.

OK, you care to explain this one? After all, the world's population is increasing as opposed to decreasing. So under this logic shouldn't global GDP be decreasing? That said, you've got some serious flaws in your economics if you think that GDP and children's deaths are at all related.

There will always be strife during a paradigm shift be it political, economic, spiritual, or otherwise. One cannot stare at the negatives of one situation and say "A shift like that is unnecessarily harsh" while ignoring the negatives of the current situation.

Sure one can. When the shift will cause more harm than good. Nobody's saying that capitalism is perfect, people are suffering. But to change to this idealist nonsense without actually solving specific issues (I'm still waiting for those questions to be answered...) first just because you don't like the present system is madness. You look at the world and and say 'people are dying today, capitalism exists today, therefore capitalism is terrible' but if you lived in an anarchic society would things be any better? I believe not.

Anarchy, as I see it, is the exact polar opposite of dictatorship: Power held in the hands of everyone rather than a select few or one person. When power is shared equally by all, rather than in some illusory "You give us your money and we'll spend it in your best interest" form of equality, things can achieve a real positive level of activity.

I'll agree with the first and second sentences. In the third sentence your getting a bit muddled between the notions of power and wealth (which is understandable, although they are clearly distinct terms). Let's deal with power first: when power is 'shared equally' it lasts for as long as nobody does anything. As soon as it becomes clear that some people are better at convincing others than are other people then the whole equality system falls apart. We aren't all equal and it's time everybody came to accept that. Without the state or a separation of powers the end result of this anarchy would be a new dictatorship within weeks. As for money, I completely agree, people should have the right to buy what they want rather than what states want them to buy. Of course, you've now just given your support for a free market and capitalism, congratulations on converting to the light

Call it idealistic nonsense, call it bunkum if you want, but don't forget that we're abstracting here. First rule of improv: Don't negate the premise.

Then stop abstracting and get down to the practicalities already. You've got an advantage in these debates in that everything you discuss about true communism and anarchism are entirely theoretical. Neither of these societies have ever existed or will ever exist (for reasons explained earlier). That means that you can attack capitalism's reality all you'd like without fear of reply fire. It's easy to attack a system that exists as a reality, you can connect any and every problem the world faces to it. So stop discussing abstract concepts and put some meat on those bones and I can really have some fun





PS. sorry if this post was a bit less intelligible than previous ones. It's 3:30am and I'm really tired

[vtmarik]

OK, you care to explain this one? After all, the world's population is increasing as opposed to decreasing. So under this logic shouldn't global GDP be decreasing? That said, you've got some serious flaws in your economics if you think that GDP and children's deaths are at all related.

What's to explain? I wasn't touting its accuracy, merely mentioning it. Please stop attaching motive to my madness, it's almost completely pointless.

Sure one can. When the shift will cause more harm than good. Nobody's saying that capitalism is perfect, people are suffering. But to change to this idealist nonsense without actually solving specific issues (I'm still waiting for those questions to be answered...) first just because you don't like the present system is madness. You look at the world and and say 'people are dying today, capitalism exists today, therefore capitalism is terrible' but if you lived in an anarchic society would things be any better? I believe not.

In either situation you have people suffering and dying, so how are they different? If a transition to a new system does the same damage as sticking with the current system, why not switch and see if things improve?

I'll agree with the first and second sentences. In the third sentence your getting a bit muddled between the notions of power and wealth (which is understandable, although they are clearly distinct terms). Let's deal with power first: when power is 'shared equally' it lasts for as long as nobody does anything. As soon as it becomes clear that some people are better at convincing others than are other people then the whole equality system falls apart. We aren't all equal and it's time everybody came to accept that. Without the state or a separation of powers the end result of this anarchy would be a new dictatorship within weeks. As for money, I completely agree, people should have the right to buy what they want rather than what states want them to buy. Of course, you've now just given your support for a free market and capitalism, congratulations on converting to the light

Money is power. The current system abides by the first rule of free markets "He who has the gold makes the rules." Unfortunately, in a free market society, there are still the massive rifts between the haves and the have-nots, only there are no more systems to equalize the playing field. In the free market equation the rich prey on the poor and there's no one to stop it. As long as there is a socio-economic gap like that, there will continue to be suffering.

Then stop abstracting and get down to the practicalities already. You've got an advantage in these debates in that everything you discuss about true communism and anarchism are entirely theoretical. Neither of these societies have ever existed or will ever exist (for reasons explained earlier). That means that you can attack capitalism's reality all you'd like without fear of reply fire. It's easy to attack a system that exists as a reality, you can connect any and every problem the world faces to it. So stop discussing abstract concepts and put some meat on those bones and I can really have some fun

But isn't this thread about discussing the theories and abstractions? When one attempts to inject reality into a debate involving theory, it's kind of like arguing over who's got the better imaginary friend.

Anarchism is the foundation by which a society can be rebuilt and improved. Anarchism, like any other philosophy, is an abstract. You cannot discuss abstracts by attempting to make them concrete.

You reject abstraction as non-productive. That's fine, you can leave the discussion at any time. The original aim of this thread was to discuss what anarchism means to the individuals posting on this thread. You think it's idealistic nonsense, that's just groovy. Some of us do not, and we're going to tout its potential. So sorry if that confuses you.

[qeee1]

Ok, way too much to read, just to say that anarchy doesn't rely on everyone being equal. Obviously different people have different abilities, however the fact that some people might be more persuasive than others doesn't automatically mean a dictatorship will result.

Without the state or a separation of powers the end result of this anarchy would be a new dictatorship within weeks.

Don't be silly.

Ok, here's a thought experiment:

The motivations behind some of the institutions of our state, a desire to protect the weaker (old, young etc.), a desire to ensure safety from harm etc.

In the absence of the state, would these desires disappear? Is the state the only thing ensuring we don't just throw the elderly out on their asses.

The motivations that would supposedly topple anarchy, greed, power persuasiveness etc. do they not exist in current systems? What has stopped them (completely) dominating current systems? Is it just the existance of a state?

It's sometimes said that anarchy is democracy without the government.

[foolish_yeti]

When those living in third world countries have gone through the same process as countries like South Korea and Japan have been through and China and India are currently going through then they too will have a chance to become just as wealthy as those in Western Europe and North America.

Wealth does not come from nowhere- unless you are suggesting that Europe and North America got rich of their own resources (which of course is false- remember they're living off of other's resources). The resources for this growth have to come from somewhere- it is a physical impossibility to have all 6 billion people in the world reach the level of even Mongloia, or Mexico, or Iran- let alone Europe or North America. I simply cannot happen- and the higher we push global footprints in the effort of development the faster a collapse will occur.

Their is no discrimination in capitalism, one person's dollar is worth just as much as another's.

Currency? Also how much money is a person's labour worth under capitalism (a sweatshop worker working 12 hrs for 4 bucks, versus...well, pretty much any other job).

Society is meant to represent human nature, you can't fight it and that is why those two systems will never work. I'm sorry but it just sounds like you're looking for an easy fix to a complicated problem. We can't just sit back and dream of an ideal society for the future, capitalism is offering us a chance to better our standings and in doing so better that of others. We won't see results tomorrow, but results are definitely happening.

Easy fix? Oh yeah- going against the global established culture and social order is quite an easy fix....to me it seems a lot easier to stick with what we have, without going through the trouble of attempting to live sustainably. Capitalism is offering us a short term increase in quality of life that is ultimately unsustainable- I would for sure argue that it is for sure not ameliorating our standings. To use an anology- it's like you drove a glider off a cliff- it may seem like you're flying at first, but in the end you'll hit the ground....hopefully you realize it wasn't such a good idea in the first place an bail out.

My apologies, but you've never given me a reason to think anything to the contrary so I assumed, obviously incorrectly. May I ask what exactly you would consider yourself?

Ummm- I guess if you wanted to classify me it'd be under Tribalism.

That sounds great, but I guess I'll have to reword my question. How do you plan on achieving those goals?

Capitalism is going nowhere fast. The idea that the world will suddenly collapse because we've been buying too much plastic is ludicrous. Do I honestly need to argue about a 'Day After Tomorrow' type situation?

It's not ludicrous- population crash is an observed result of over consumption, of exceeding carrying capacity. It's not a "Day After Tomorrow" situation- for example on St. Michael's island is was predominantly food issues (with interaction of weather factors) that resulted in the catastrophic population loss. It's tough to imagine a population almost disappearing within the space of a year- but it happens.

Now you give statistics that show how we are currently above sustainable levels, but there is time to correct this problem, to even out issues. You're right in that if we kept going at the same pace things would eventually collapse, but the market and technological advances will make sure that never happens by adjusting before your prophesied dooms day.

Time is something we can't judge- we may be months away from a crash, we could be years, we could be decades. To say we have time is to assume too much. As for the required social adjustments occurring, this won't happen. Do you truly expect Monsanto to stop what they're doing? Do you expect Exxon to stop what they're doing? Do you expect the States to stop what they're doing? People underestimate the threat here. In the States you are currently living at above 9h per person. Roughly 7h above what is sustainable. This is the level of economy that the entire world is aiming for. This is at current population levels- add another 2 billion people (estimated by 2030). and where does that leave us? Even at the high end of estimated sustainable footprints- 2.2h for 6.5 billion- by 2030 that drops to 1.7. We need to get sustainable and we need to do it ASAP.

You look at the world and and say 'people are dying today, capitalism exists today, therefore capitalism is terrible' but if you lived in an anarchic society would things be any better? I believe not.

You're ignoring the reason behind these deaths....it's not a false connection as you would imply. It's not simply that both exist in the same space. Take a look at starvation- what are major contributing factors? Destruction of arable land through capitalist practices, and a relocation of local resources to meet demand in areas that have outgrown their resources. Take a look at violent crimes- more often than not a case of money- the have nots vs. the haves (or the have notes versus themselves). Take a look at people dying from the effects of mass pollution (cancer, respiratory disease), people dying because of their lifestyle (e.x. obesity). People dying as a result of resource wars. The list goes on.

You've got an advantage in these debates in that everything you discuss about true communism and anarchism are entirely theoretical. Neither of these societies have ever existed or will ever exist (for reasons explained earlier)

Tribal societies proved sustainable for thousands, tens of thousands, hundred of thousands of years. These are the only true sustainable cultures we have seen. Many of the arguments used here share common links with these cultures. Other arguments, such as ones surrounding the ecosystem- are demonstrated facts. These schools of thought are for sure not solely based on theory.

[iAnonymous]

"Some people were more equal than others".

"You two are the same, especially you."

It was a very corrupt communism, they took corruption on a whole new level. So in a sense they didn't follow the rules of communism.

the right quote is: all people are equal but some are more equal.

All of them were said and have the same meaning, there's no "right" quote. Russia was communist only in name.

[chewyman]

What's to explain? I wasn't touting its accuracy, merely mentioning it. Please stop attaching motive to my madness, it's almost completely pointless.

Right, that's like all those jokes you hear about Fox News: you can say anything if it ends with a question mark or begins with 'some sources say'. If I was to casually say that some sources close to me have been saying that anarchists actually go out every second day and beat up kittens would you like it? I'm not actually confirming of denying that I believe it, just merely mentioning it.

In either situation you have people suffering and dying, so how are they different? If a transition to a new system does the same damage as sticking with the current system, why not switch and see if things improve?

Because:
1. A transition would do more harm than good; and
2. This isn't just some scientific experiment you're talking about, this is people's lives

Money is power. The current system abides by the first rule of free markets "He who has the gold makes the rules." Unfortunately, in a free market society, there are still the massive rifts between the haves and the have-nots, only there are no more systems to equalize the playing field. In the free market equation the rich prey on the poor and there's no one to stop it. As long as there is a socio-economic gap like that, there will continue to be suffering.

Incorrect, money is often confused with power in capitalist countries but look at the French pre-revolution as an example. The aristocracy had the power regardless of the wealth of the bourgeoisie (with was often much greater than that of the nobles). It's true that from a rich person's perspective it appears that other rich people are exploiting the poor. But from a poor person's perspective it looks like they are exploiting the even poorer and getting the money to do so from those that are richer than themselves.

But isn't this thread about discussing the theories and abstractions? When one attempts to inject reality into a debate involving theory, it's kind of like arguing over who's got the better imaginary friend.

Anarchism is the foundation by which a society can be rebuilt and improved. Anarchism, like any other philosophy, is an abstract. You cannot discuss abstracts by attempting to make them concrete.

You reject abstraction as non-productive. That's fine, you can leave the discussion at any time. The original aim of this thread was to discuss what anarchism means to the individuals posting on this thread. You think it's idealistic nonsense, that's just groovy. Some of us do not, and we're going to tout its potential. So sorry if that confuses you.

Maybe, if your desperate to win an argument I'll give you this: anarchism sounds great theoretically. Now that we've sorted out the point of this thread, let's move on shall we? Of course, I can understand why you'd rather keep it theoretical, my system actually works in practicality and yours has more holes than a golf course.

PostPosted: 16 Apr 2007 18:24 Post subject:
Ok, way too much to read, just to say that anarchy doesn't rely on everyone being equal. Obviously different people have different abilities, however the fact that some people might be more persuasive than others doesn't automatically mean a dictatorship will result.
Quote:
Without the state or a separation of powers the end result of this anarchy would be a new dictatorship within weeks.

Don't be silly.

Ok, here's a thought experiment:

The motivations behind some of the institutions of our state, a desire to protect the weaker (old, young etc.), a desire to ensure safety from harm etc.

In the absence of the state, would these desires disappear? Is the state the only thing ensuring we don't just throw the elderly out on their asses.

The motivations that would supposedly topple anarchy, greed, power persuasiveness etc. do they not exist in current systems? What has stopped them (completely) dominating current systems? Is it just the existance of a state?

It's sometimes said that anarchy is democracy without the government.

It's easy to say: 'the community would support the elderly'. Unfortunately, the reality is that you'd only really want to support your own parents/grandparents. Those who actually did give to the elderly as a whole would be in the minority and wouldn't be enough to cover the needs. When communities get as big as cities are there is a complete dislocation from society, you don't feel responsible for the entire community and even if you did you couldn't do anything to have a significant benefit. The state does stop a dictatorship from rising up because it effectively separates powers and makes sure that they remain so. In an anarchic state there would be nothing to stop a popular figure gaining the support of the masses, coming to power and then initiating a reign of terror.

Wealth does not come from nowhere- unless you are suggesting that Europe and North America got rich of their own resources (which of course is false- remember they're living off of other's resources). The resources for this growth have to come from somewhere- it is a physical impossibility to have all 6 billion people in the world reach the level of even Mongloia, or Mexico, or Iran- let alone Europe or North America. I simply cannot happen- and the higher we push global footprints in the effort of development the faster a collapse will occur.

That's right, everybody gets rich off of everybody else. First it was Western Europe and North America, then Japan and South Korea joined in, now China and India are getting into the swing. It seems like an unfair deal because your coming from the richer society. From the poorer society's views they realise that trade will benefit them even if it isn't equal at least it's something. The poor are still benefiting and one day when they've benefited enough they'll start doing the same to another country and the cycle will continue.

Currency? Also how much money is a person's labour worth under capitalism (a sweatshop worker working 12 hrs for 4 bucks, versus...well, pretty much any other job).

Fine, one person's US$1 is worth just as much as another persons US$1. I should have expected such a point to be made As for labour, sure it's a shame that these people aren't earning $20 an hour + super as I've already said. But it's better than nothing, which is what anarchy would offer.

Easy fix? Oh yeah- going against the global established culture and social order is quite an easy fix....to me it seems a lot easier to stick with what we have, without going through the trouble of attempting to live sustainably. Capitalism is offering us a short term increase in quality of life that is ultimately unsustainable- I would for sure argue that it is for sure not ameliorating our standings. To use an anology- it's like you drove a glider off a cliff- it may seem like you're flying at first, but in the end you'll hit the ground....hopefully you realize it wasn't such a good idea in the first place an bail out.

Yup, an easy fix. If you were reading a book and you saw that the author, a friend of yours, had made some spelling mistakes would you tell your friend to correct them or tell him to give up on this book and write another. Sometimes it seems easier to just give up and start again, but things just simply aren't in that bad of a state. There's plenty of statistics and plenty of statistical debate, but ignore it for a second, sit back and look out your window. Life continues just like normal doesn't it? Life has always continued and grown while people have been prophesying the end of existence as we know it and that's not about to stop now.

Ummm- I guess if you wanted to classify me it'd be under Tribalism.

Tribal societies proved sustainable for thousands, tens of thousands, hundred of thousands of years. These are the only true sustainable cultures we have seen. Many of the arguments used here share common links with these cultures. Other arguments, such as ones surrounding the ecosystem- are demonstrated facts. These schools of thought are for sure not solely based on theory.

Then why are you still living in a capitalist society? If tribalism is so much better feel free to move to any one you want. Sure they are poor, but many of them have never even been touched by capitalism so they wouldn't know what poor is, now would they? To say that tribalism has worked for hundreds of thousands of years is fine. But what happened to it? It ended in civilisation and dictatorships every time. It has only been fairly recently that democracy has finally emerged out of those kingships. We aren't going back to an old system. Civilisation was more effective than tribalism and so it prospered and tribes died out, simple as that.

It's not ludicrous- population crash is an observed result of over consumption, of exceeding carrying capacity. It's not a "Day After Tomorrow" situation- for example on St. Michael's island is was predominantly food issues (with interaction of weather factors) that resulted in the catastrophic population loss. It's tough to imagine a population almost disappearing within the space of a year- but it happens.

Sometimes it is good for scientists to compare animals and humans. But sometimes, like in this experiment, it is a mistake. Those deer didn't have technological advances and they didn't support each other. Maybe if we were all tribes and completely separated from one another I would be worried

Time is something we can't judge- we may be months away from a crash, we could be years, we could be decades. To say we have time is to assume too much. As for the required social adjustments occurring, this won't happen. Do you truly expect Monsanto to stop what they're doing? Do you expect Exxon to stop what they're doing? Do you expect the States to stop what they're doing? People underestimate the threat here. In the States you are currently living at above 9h per person. Roughly 7h above what is sustainable. This is the level of economy that the entire world is aiming for. This is at current population levels- add another 2 billion people (estimated by 2030). and where does that leave us? Even at the high end of estimated sustainable footprints- 2.2h for 6.5 billion- by 2030 that drops to 1.7. We need to get sustainable and we need to do it ASAP.

Will launching a global revolution help? When supply starts to run out we'll simply move to something else. It's important that we conduct research that we are prepared for this eventuality. It is a mistake to panic and start screaming for mass culling and the end of civilisation as we know it.

You're ignoring the reason behind these deaths....it's not a false connection as you would imply. It's not simply that both exist in the same space. Take a look at starvation- what are major contributing factors? Destruction of arable land through capitalist practices, and a relocation of local resources to meet demand in areas that have outgrown their resources. Take a look at violent crimes- more often than not a case of money- the have nots vs. the haves (or the have notes versus themselves). Take a look at people dying from the effects of mass pollution (cancer, respiratory disease), people dying because of their lifestyle (e.x. obesity). People dying as a result of resource wars. The list goes on.

People have always starved, it's an unfortunate fact of life. It isn't great and I'd be just as happy as you to see that 10% own 85% of the world's wealth figure even out. I recommend you giving up all of your wealth as an example to others, maybe if they are as worried as you they will follow you and do the same. If they aren't worried, then you can explain it to them and if you're very persuasive they will follow you. So you see the problem, people aren't about to just give up all that wealth they've accumulated because it's unfair on others. That's greed, and it's human nature, and it's why communism would never work.