Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[Mammoth Weed Mountain]

Will Anarchism allow the native Spanish Creole/Antilleans of the Malvinas "Falklands" to return to their homeland?

As borders are an enforced illusion, yes.

[Ganonsyoni]

Will Anarchism allow the native Spanish Creole/Antilleans of the Malvinas "Falklands" to return to their homeland?

As nationalism is incompatible with anarchism, no. In the sense that there won't be no nations and both communities will be able to freely act with one another, yes.

Communities and the individual are the core units of anarchism. Subordination to a nation is not compatible with anarchism.

[RickyMcMoney]

How does anarchism not destroy the fabric of society such that it's benefits disappear? How does an anarchist society raise unruly children, punish violent criminals, or organize labor specialization such that everyone is not farming for their own food supply?

It seems to me that someone truly dedicated to the exercising of their own will would walk the path of a billionaire, or tyrant, and subsume the will of others so as to amplify their own through various means.

In different ways than societies that came before it
That's kind of a non-answer, I know, but as a matter of historical analysis it's simply assumed. We'll do as those that came before it, and work it out as we go.
Plenty of folks in the roman republic dreamt up ways to bring down the roman senate and its authority, but in the end only one guy actually went and did it. He was dedicated no doubt, but there's not reason to suppose those before him were not.

Well don't be surprised when people resists your tearing at society upon no other basis than blind faith in what will come next.
Because what came before the modern nation-state was a bit of a horrid affair, and there's no reason to believe that humanity isn't predisposed to things such as warlords, kingdoms, and tribes. That those aren't the simple back-up mechanisms of human social order in absence of a more abstract state with a written rule of law.

[Northern Davincia]

Since UnionFacts was brought up, I thought I'd share this:

http://www.bermanexposed.org/center-for-union-facts/

The report compiled at the bottom of your article really has nothing that I can complain about.
http://nlpc.org/index.php?q=stories/201 ... ories-year
http://www.nilrr.org/files/Horowitz.pdf
https://fee.org/articles/the-corruption ... eadership/

[Kubra]

In different ways than societies that came before it
That's kind of a non-answer, I know, but as a matter of historical analysis it's simply assumed. We'll do as those that came before it, and work it out as we go.
Plenty of folks in the roman republic dreamt up ways to bring down the roman senate and its authority, but in the end only one guy actually went and did it. He was dedicated no doubt, but there's not reason to suppose those before him were not.

Well don't be surprised when people resists your tearing at society upon no other basis than blind faith in what will come next.
Because what came before the modern nation-state was a bit of a horrid affair, and there's no reason to believe that humanity isn't predisposed to things such as warlords, kingdoms, and tribes. That those aren't the simple back-up mechanisms of human social order in absence of a more abstract state with a written rule of law.

Well, I mean, they did when the french put their blind faith in the universal ranks of citizen. Lotta folks didn't like that, they went and had a civil war in the south of france.
But hey, it worked it alright-ish.

[The Grene Knyght]

In different ways than societies that came before it
That's kind of a non-answer, I know, but as a matter of historical analysis it's simply assumed. We'll do as those that came before it, and work it out as we go.
Plenty of folks in the roman republic dreamt up ways to bring down the roman senate and its authority, but in the end only one guy actually went and did it. He was dedicated no doubt, but there's not reason to suppose those before him were not.

Well don't be surprised when people resists your tearing at society upon no other basis than blind faith in what will come next.
Because what came before the modern nation-state was a bit of a horrid affair, and there's no reason to believe that humanity isn't predisposed to things such as warlords, kingdoms, and tribes. That those aren't the simple back-up mechanisms of human social order in absence of a more abstract state with a written rule of law.

society =/= the state
"tribes" is a pretty general term - and most definitions wouldn't constitute a bad society, kingdoms are states, and "warlords" came into existence alongside the state.

[RickyMcMoney]

Well don't be surprised when people resists your tearing at society upon no other basis than blind faith in what will come next.
Because what came before the modern nation-state was a bit of a horrid affair, and there's no reason to believe that humanity isn't predisposed to things such as warlords, kingdoms, and tribes. That those aren't the simple back-up mechanisms of human social order in absence of a more abstract state with a written rule of law.

Well, I mean, they did when the french put their blind faith in the universal ranks of citizen. Lotta folks didn't like that, they went and had a civil war in the south of france.
But hey, it worked it alright-ish.

The humanist movement which drove French revolutionaries had deep roots in Greek and Roman history and philosophy, and the British parliament had existed for around a century along with several merchant republics.

[RickyMcMoney]

Well don't be surprised when people resists your tearing at society upon no other basis than blind faith in what will come next.
Because what came before the modern nation-state was a bit of a horrid affair, and there's no reason to believe that humanity isn't predisposed to things such as warlords, kingdoms, and tribes. That those aren't the simple back-up mechanisms of human social order in absence of a more abstract state with a written rule of law.

society =/= the state
"tribes" is a pretty general term - and most definitions wouldn't constitute a bad society, kingdoms are states, and "warlords" came into existence alongside the state.

"the state" as we know it only came around during the monarchies of the renaissance era. The feudal system existed long before it, which included plenty of warlords. Tribes have had very little to no ability to organize a modern economy and the specialization of labor beyond rudimentary means. Again, nobody has of yet explained how you will do in an anarchy the following three things that I see as essential for a society to function in any real terms:

1. Raise and teach unruly children
2. Handle violent criminals
3. Organize the specialization of labor such that everyone is not stuck growing their own food supply

And that isn't even beginning to touch upon the age old question that has given rise to strong-men and states since the dawn of time: how you will defend your own social order from foreign nation-states, strong-men, and even simple bands of brigands or barbarians.

[The Grene Knyght]

society =/= the state
"tribes" is a pretty general term - and most definitions wouldn't constitute a bad society, kingdoms are states, and "warlords" came into existence alongside the state.

"the state" as we know it only came around during the monarchies of the renaissance era. The feudal system existed long before it, which included plenty of warlords. Tribes have had very little to no ability to organize a modern economy and the specialization of labor beyond rudimentary means. Again, nobody has of yet explained how you will do in an anarchy the following three things that I see as essential for a society to function in any real terms:

1. Raise and teach unruly children
2. Handle violent criminals
3. Organize the specialization of labor such that everyone is not stuck growing their own food supply

And that isn't even beginning to touch upon the age old question that has given rise to strong-men and states since the dawn of time: how you will defend your own social order from foreign nation-states, strong-men, and even simple bands of brigands or barbarians.

feudal systems were states.
Everyone has their own answers to those questions, but as for mine:
Children would be brought up by the community in healthy, social environments with little chance for abuse or negligence.
Violent criminals (of which there would be significantly fewer) would be exercised from the community after a tribunal of their peers.
The specialisation of labour would be organised sociocratically, with a heavy reliance on automation.

[Conscentia]

feudal systems were states.
Everyone has their own answers to those questions, but as for mine:
Children would be brought up by the community in healthy, social environments with little chance for abuse or negligence.
Violent criminals (of which there would be significantly fewer) would be exercised from the community after a tribunal of their peers.
The specialisation of labour would be organised sociocratically, with a heavy reliance on automation.

What does that mean exactly?

[The Grene Knyght]

feudal systems were states.
Everyone has their own answers to those questions, but as for mine:
Children would be brought up by the community in healthy, social environments with little chance for abuse or negligence.
Violent criminals (of which there would be significantly fewer) would be exercised from the community after a tribunal of their peers.
The specialisation of labour would be organised sociocratically, with a heavy reliance on automation.

What does that mean exactly?

somewhere between democratically and mutual consensus.
EDIT Oops nevermind - I meant the division of labour. Sorry

[Conscentia]

What does that mean exactly?

somewhere between democratically and mutual consensus.
EDIT Oops nevermind - I meant the division of labour. Sorry

I said "exactly". That description is not exact. It's still not apparent to me what "the [division] of labour would be organised sociocratically" means.

[Trotskylvania]

I just started reading a fascinating new leftist manifesto, An American Utopia: Dual Power and the Universal Army, by Frederic Jameson

Jameson is an old stalwart Marxist theorist, and the book, with some responses by other left-wing thinkers, is certainly provocative.

The publisher blurb says:

Fredric Jameson’s pathbreaking essay “An American Utopia” radically questions standard leftist notions of what constitutes an emancipated society. Advocated here are—among other things—universal conscription, the full acknowledgment of envy and resentment as a fundamental challenge to any communist society, and the acceptance that the division between work and leisure cannot be overcome. To create a new world, we must first change the way we envision the world. Jameson’s text is ideally placed to trigger a debate on the alternatives to global capitalism. In addition to Jameson’s essay, the volume includes responses from philosophers and political and cultural analysts, as well as an epilogue from Jameson himself.

I'm not finished yet, but it has been intriguing so far. Jameson takes seriously a number of stumbling blocks classical leftist movements have fallen prey to, and the solutions are not necessarily easy. The notion of the universal army as an emancipatory form isn't without precedent; many classical liberatory experiments sought to avoid the reactionary problem of state power and oligarchy by providing for the common defense through citizen-armies, and the American Revolution was no different. In theory, all able bodied American men are part of the militia, subject to call up by their states for internal security, defense, or disaster relief.

As he lays it out, it's not altogether different from the militias of the American revolution, though he has paid special attention to internal democracy.

[Kubra]

Well, I mean, they did when the french put their blind faith in the universal ranks of citizen. Lotta folks didn't like that, they went and had a civil war in the south of france.
But hey, it worked it alright-ish.

The humanist movement which drove French revolutionaries had deep roots in Greek and Roman history and philosophy, and the British parliament had existed for around a century along with several merchant republics.

lol except the British parliament has consistently been the least democratic of European democratic institutions
Like even still
Even less democratic than the dutch Staaten Generaal
And hey man we do to
I mean, everyone kinda does
To a very large degree

[PaNTuXIa]

society =/= the state
"tribes" is a pretty general term - and most definitions wouldn't constitute a bad society, kingdoms are states, and "warlords" came into existence alongside the state.

"the state" as we know it only came around during the monarchies of the renaissance era. The feudal system existed long before it, which included plenty of warlords. Tribes have had very little to no ability to organize a modern economy and the specialization of labor beyond rudimentary means. Again, nobody has of yet explained how you will do in an anarchy the following three things that I see as essential for a society to function in any real terms:

1. Raise and teach unruly children
2. Handle violent criminals
3. Organize the specialization of labor such that everyone is not stuck growing their own food supply

And that isn't even beginning to touch upon the age old question that has given rise to strong-men and states since the dawn of time: how you will defend your own social order from foreign nation-states, strong-men, and even simple bands of brigands or barbarians.

Gasp! No! Not children who resist the attempts by their corporate masters to control themunruly children!

[RickyMcMoney]

"the state" as we know it only came around during the monarchies of the renaissance era. The feudal system existed long before it, which included plenty of warlords. Tribes have had very little to no ability to organize a modern economy and the specialization of labor beyond rudimentary means. Again, nobody has of yet explained how you will do in an anarchy the following three things that I see as essential for a society to function in any real terms:

1. Raise and teach unruly children
2. Handle violent criminals
3. Organize the specialization of labor such that everyone is not stuck growing their own food supply

And that isn't even beginning to touch upon the age old question that has given rise to strong-men and states since the dawn of time: how you will defend your own social order from foreign nation-states, strong-men, and even simple bands of brigands or barbarians.

feudal systems were states.
Everyone has their own answers to those questions, but as for mine:
Children would be brought up by the community in healthy, social environments with little chance for abuse or negligence.
Violent criminals (of which there would be significantly fewer) would be exercised from the community after a tribunal of their peers.
The specialisation of labour would be organised sociocratically, with a heavy reliance on automation.

Abuse and negligence aside, how do you deal with an unruly child? As in a child who will not obey the rules of your anarchist society. In fact, how would you deal with an abusive parent to begin with?

How will you keep said violent criminal from refusing to leave your community?

How will you keep people from subjugating others in a society with access to automation?

[RickyMcMoney]

Gasp! No! Not children who resist the attempts by their corporate masters to control themunruly children!

A kid in my grade school kicked another kid's teeth out.
I know plenty of kids who would laugh in the face of your anarchist principles.
Explain to me how your anarchist society deals with these kinds of behavior.

[Kubra]

A kid in my grade school kicked another kid's teeth out.
I know plenty of kids who would laugh in the face of your anarchist principles.
Explain to me how your anarchist society deals with these kinds of behavior.

blut und eisen

[The Symplegades]

What do you guys think of community/local currencies? Just curious. Democratic Socialist following the teachings of Marx and the New Testament here!

[Kubra]

What do you guys think of community/local currencies? Just curious. Democratic Socialist following the teachings of Marx and the New Testament here!

communities could just trade in kind, and tally debt in IOU's instead of currency. Y'know, you're into that localism stuff.
If you're into Marx, as you say, non issue, ain't no localism there, at least no more than absolutely necessary

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

And that isn't even beginning to touch upon the age old question that has given rise to strong-men and states since the dawn of time: how you will defend your own social order from foreign nation-states, strong-men, and even simple bands of brigands or barbarians.

Why is it that everyone always seems to think anarchist societies always pop into existence in the middle of Dungeons and Dragons campaign settings?

[Ganonsyoni]

And that isn't even beginning to touch upon the age old question that has given rise to strong-men and states since the dawn of time: how you will defend your own social order from foreign nation-states, strong-men, and even simple bands of brigands or barbarians.

Why is it that everyone always seems to think anarchist societies always pop into existence in the middle of Dungeons and Dragons campaign settings?

If we are going off this train of thought, communities refer yourself from strongmen and brigands the same way DnD heroes defend themselves against goblins and beholders. Using weapons.

[Dagashi Shojo]

A kid in my grade school kicked another kid's teeth out.
I know plenty of kids who would laugh in the face of your anarchist principles.
Explain to me how your anarchist society deals with these kinds of behavior.

blut und eisen

Because this is preferable to the liberal democratic method of peaceful mediation.

[Kubra]

blut und eisen

Because this is preferable to the liberal democratic method of peaceful mediation.

well, I didn't want to be the one to say it, but.....

[MERIZoC]

A kid in my grade school kicked another kid's teeth out.
I know plenty of kids who would laugh in the face of your anarchist principles.
Explain to me how your anarchist society deals with these kinds of behavior.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say he wasn't jailed for it. Though I do find it amusing that your standards of ideology are that of grade schoolers.