As both Crystal and I keep saying, human individuals seem to really like submitting to leaders. Not all humans, but a heck of a lot of them seem most happy that way.

The ethnocultural studies on humans show us to have a strong disposition towards 'pecking order' type behaviors.

What can you expect when it's culturally and politically decided that education entails submission to authority ? Hence the prerequisite of an improved education.

Studies within authority-based systems, no doubt.

If people are taught from day one that people with this or that skin color are inferior, the majority will turn out racist. But that does not make racism an innate property of humans.

Which leads me back to the Marxist issue of anarchism requiring capitalism as a necessary precursor to provide the funding for that education.

New Guinae highlanders?

If you are going to call hunter-gather clans 'authoritarian' I must ask what you will call your anarchist associations!

True. But that's not the case here.

Much of our child-rearing and educational practices are directed towards producing individuals. Admittedly some of our educational practices are directed towards producing good little consumers, but with human diversity, we have a range of behaviors.

And nothing is ever cut and dried. In my upbringing, I had many elements available to encourage me to be a racist. I also had many elements available to discourage me from being a racist. That I'm not a racist has more to do with my choice between them.

I do find it interesting that you are arguing (similtaneously here) that people are (or ought to be) capable of self-direction, yet at the same time, you argue that people are total victims/prisoners of their own education.

Please clarify. Are all humans capable of the high ideals your anarchism requires? Or are they all prisoners of whatever they have been previously taught, unable to make choices for themselves? You seem to argue both ways in alternating paragraphs.

And if you tell me that humans don't have sufficient 'consciousness' of their own best intererst here without some special education, I really will laugh out loud.

I specifically stated a 'consortium' (of toll-seeking anarchic-capitalists) in my example.

It is up to you to provide an alternative (non-capitalist) example that would be efficient or at least effective to provide for the highways that we have agreed is necessary for anything close to our modern society to function.

We're not talking theory here - we are discussing highways and who's going to build/pay for them in your anarchic paradise?

You've eliminated the state paying for it through taxes, and individual charity is insufficient (Bill Gates' fortune could be drained in under a year paying for the highway maintenance in the USA). And you've rejected a private consortium collecting tolls.

So, who's going to build/maintain our highways?

Don't forget, you said no currency either!

Call me a cynic if you wish, but the idea of a million people getting together, spontaneously to build/finance/maintain a modern highway seems utterly laughable.

And what of the principle of the infamous tragedy of the commons?

Highways seem to fit that perfectly.

1. Linux is a modification/derivation from Unix, which originated as a private corporate financed development (correct me if I'm wrong here). Your example, like the issue of education, seems dependent upon capitalism and a market economy to create the original tools necessary for your anarchic utopia to be able to exist (in theory or in practice).

2. Many of the developers of Linux have huge material/financial incentives to do so and on an ongoing basis. They may tweak Linux for free, but they aren't going to install/manage/maintain/modify it for YOU for free.

Your reply to the road/highway question certainly leads directly to this conclusion.

The only way a 'roadway' can truly be created by spontaneous and unco-ordinated human efforts is through animal powered vehicles (the dirt pathway from point A to B).

This method is entirely insufficient to meet the needs of our modern society.

And if you want to go all environmentalist, feel free to substitute a subway line for the example - who shall finance/design/engineer/construct/maintain an underground subway line that costs billions of $$ and years to construct? All volunteers? Certainly voluntary fares from riders can pay for operations/maintenance, but what about the capital cost (if you will pardon the expression)?

1. This 'solution' produces a tragedy of the commons.

2. Again, anarchism requires capitalism & market economy to create all of the necessary conditions for anarchism to even theoretically exist.

3. The existence of a theoretical incentive doesn't always make the trains run on time. Lots of natural and even monetary incentives fail to achieve their goals.

Granted that some of our attained 'progress' is untenable and unsustainable. This is natural behavior. Overshooting the mark and then falling back to a more workable balance is an entirely rational process of growth or adaption to changing circumstances.

Nothing in our present system prevents this. Indeed, the combination of market theory and democratic principles (and human ingenuity) make it quite likely and possible that it will correct this give time. Markets are all about balance. The 'failures' of the markets in producing such unsustainable processes may be ascribed entirely to bad politics creating bad incentives or bad regulation. True market failures do exist, but they are fairly rare.

Excuse me? Taxation of resources rises with the value of resources and scarcity of resources drives the value ever higher - quite naturally if the tax is pegged as a percentage. Thus, as our resources become more scarce, government revenues will rise ever higher - increasing the (liberal democratic) State's ability to assist or manage the problems.

You cannot deny the market failure of oil dependency has not been politically driven.

And who says our population is ever growing? The majority of the 1st world's domestic population is quite stagnant or regressive in population numbers.

Affluence and our western liberties seem to reduce the birthrate substantially. As the 3rd world rises in affluence, they are likely to reach a similar effect - thus, the planet's population possibly will not always rise. It could easily level off (for example).

It is understood and granted that our there are challenges to our present system, but the present system has already started to respond, in exactly the way it ought to. This is not evidence of a failure of the system itself.

Indeed, the blame lies with humans and our egos and our ambitions, rather than the process/system that we use to achieve our liberty and prosperty.

Market economics and liberal democratic politics have proven to deliver liberty and prosperty under a huge variety of conditions and environments. No other known system can say the same.

What do you mean exactly?

Do you mean that all those human beings who are unable or unwilling to play along with this 'participatory' system ought to be left out in a ditch to die?

Participatory systems only work in closed environments of willing participants. That's all well and fine for a small enterprise, workshop, family, or perhaps even a town council. But it can't be applied as an analogy or the defining principle of the whole system.

If it could, it would already be a competitive format. That it isn't, suggests that it is not. And if it is not already, it is unlikely to be.

You are talking about a socio-political-economic philosophy that has been around for well over a hundred years. It is not unknown or unheard of or without support. Yet it remains shrouded in mystery in how it could work - yet you pronounce that not only does it work, but it will work better than anything known before, even if you can't exactly explain how it would actually function.

And you wonder why I call anarchism utopian?

And do you wonder why I keep mentioning Marx here? Your model increasingly sounds like Marx's 'future communist society' where 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need' becomes reality.

I now double-down on my accusation of utopian!

Nietzschian supermen are as rare as Rousseau's super-legislator! They are the dreams of those who think too much! At least Rousseau admitted as much, Nietzsche never did.

And Nietzschian supermen are very dangerous. The closest thing to a Nietzschian superman that I can think of was Napolean or AH. That's fucking ugly if you will pardon my french!

This screams for a separate thread discussion.

So anarchism is now a label or political movement or party? I thought it was a process?

Sure, it is easy to subjectively prefer some mysterious and non-existing utopian/hypothetical alternative to the reality of our human existence.

Our world isn't always a pretty one, but I can easily imagine it being much, much worse. That it isn't is remarkable and significant in my opinion.

The issue of funding is not relevant, as the monetary system is out of the window. All you really need for education are good teachers. We have buldings and books, don't we ? And don't tell me those are the exclusive products of capitalism. They both have been known to be produced outside of capitalism.

I've lost you here. What I can find about that people is that they have all sorts of social organization. The Baruya appear to have a cut-and-dry hierarchy while others appear to be purely collectivist and horizontally stratified. Depending on the tribe it seems, from, I admit, not a lot of sources, that their example can be used either way.

It's not just about consumership. It's about submission to authority. Children are literally trained to submit to the authority of parents. And it does not stop there. The very first requisite in educational institutes of most kinds is again, entire conformism to the authority of said institute. Initiative outside of the curriculum is, at best, not rewarded and more frequently, punished. Ad to that an eventual religious upbringing and the individuality is all gone.
It is in fact so deeply entrenched that it is hard for some people to even recognize it.

I've made it clear that a free and real education is a prerequisite for the ability of people to acquire self-determination. The indoctrination towards hierarchy is what stands in the way.

You've said yourself that most people seek to submit to authority which is a clear indication of lack of capacity towards self-determination. So, yes, it appears that an extra impetus is required. It is blatantly obvious that the relinquishing of responsability for the self to the hierarchy is not in the interest of the individual.

I'm going to come back to address some of the other points made in this thread, but first, please define "real education" and expalin how we keep this "real education" from becoming indoctrined education at some point down the line. If you teach people to question everything, that becomes the indoctrination at some point. If all you've done is gone from drilling one idea into the heads of children to drilling another idea then you really haven't changed anything. Besides, people are perfectly free to criticize and/or question things as they personally see fit. Just because I'm not questioning the same things you are questioning doesn't mean I have been 'trained' not to question anything. Teaching people to "question everything" is every bit on the same line as "question nothing".

I'm also interested in how people are going to obtain this "real education". I'm assuming we are going to do away with schools, in favor of 'home school'. Which leads to wonder about qualifications for employment. What kind of standards will be set for one to declare himself a doctor or are we going to do away with hospitals and there will be no need for doctors? I'm assuming we will do away with lawyers.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

Jo freeman couldn’t be more shallow about such an interesting subject if he liven in a trailer park and like his hair cut in a mullet..

Jo Freeman is a female. Have you heard of the BITCH Manifesto?

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

Why do you assume that nothing significant can be accomplished without hiearchy?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Here's a man whose thinking I much admire, chiefly concerned with education and it's function in preparing children for hierarchy.

The Underground History Of American Education

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

I just wanted to hop into the discussion with what I see to be a few practical questions.

The heirarchical State is obviously heavily entrenched around the world. The bureaucrats, soldiers, merchants, and criminals that are involved with the State have an interest in seeing its survival, and they have quite a lot of resources at their disposal to ensure that survival. I don't really understand the concept and function of anarchism well, but I've always been curious how the philosophy's advocates would (1) remove the vertically-structured State and (2) protect the new society from an outside "aspect" or "force" like any type of Statists seeking control.

Like I said, I don't really understand the philosophy that well, but the notions of liberty, cooperation, and general equality are enchanting. However, I don't see how this vision could be attained and maintained. Am I missing a very basic notion, or is this a fundamental problem for all stripes of anarchists?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Sorry, I thought people might be amused to see what the women - who typically drove to the rendezvous point in a fleet of these - were lying down in front of.



That would be a shame but it’s your choice.

Yes. Much scientific discovery involves checking large amounts of data against a theory. So if you fill an anarchist lab with 100 technicians (no disciplinary procedures, job for life, work when they want, free booze at lunchtime, etc) they’ll tend to work slower than 100 techs in a capitalist lab (tough disciplinary regime, no trade union, little Hitler managers, etc). Don’t forget that the tried and tested hierarchical capitalist working method - Fordism - is highly efficient in some ways. Which is one reason why capitalists use it.

Not if it’s agreed by a high proportion of the population. I see it happening on a smallish scale all the time – e.g. in allotment associations, PTAs, tenants’ unions, trade union branches. When groups of people agree a constitution they, effectively, agree a bill of rights. The idea they’re in thrall to the authorities when they do so is absurd. They agree to it freely, then most of them abide by the collective decision.

It's sometimes anarchists who refuse to agree, then refuse to be bound by the majority decision, who are the problem. As I said earlier, freeloaders in any collective endeavour need to be dealt with. Why? Because if they're not then others ask: 'Why should I be bound by collective decisions if they're not?'

It's a fundamental problem and you've put your thumb on it. The answers to your questions are:

1) Violent overthrow

2) Become just like the statists they just violently overthrew (but pretend not to be for propaganda purp