Rule consequentialist
Advertisement
by The Liberated Territories » Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:27 pm
by Renewed Dissonance » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:39 pm
by Renewed Dissonance » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:44 pm
Novsvacro wrote:Anarchists are actively advocating for the reduction of the division of labor, so thus you wouldn't have 'specialists'. Again, the magic of reading anarchist writings.
Mikhail Bakunin wrote:Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.
...
I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give — such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination
by The Liberated Territories » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:27 pm
by Kubra » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:42 pm
the opposition to the division of labour doesn't necessarily apply to intellectual workSociobiology wrote:Novsvacro wrote:
Anarchists are actively advocating for the reduction of the division of labor, so thus you wouldn't have 'specialists'. Again, the magic of reading anarchist writings.
there are so many different flavors of anarchists, I never assume I know what a specific one is advocating. you guys play "no true scottsman" with each other way too much.
reducing the division of labor would be a form of anarcho-primitivism whether you intend it or not.
no thank you I like MRI machines, heart surgeons, and the internet.
by A man is no one » Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:38 pm
Renewed Dissonance wrote:Novsvacro wrote:Anarchists are actively advocating for the reduction of the division of labor, so thus you wouldn't have 'specialists'. Again, the magic of reading anarchist writings.Mikhail Bakunin wrote:Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.
...
I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give — such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination
I bolded the important bit. Not all of us are primitivists.
by Prussia-Steinbach » Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:30 pm
by Sociobiology » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:45 am
Kubra wrote:the opposition to the division of labour doesn't necessarily apply to intellectual workSociobiology wrote:
there are so many different flavors of anarchists, I never assume I know what a specific one is advocating. you guys play "no true scottsman" with each other way too much.
reducing the division of labor would be a form of anarcho-primitivism whether you intend it or not.
no thank you I like MRI machines, heart surgeons, and the internet.
Opposition to such was an outgrowth of division of labour in the factory on the lines of subdividing the process of production (leading to what we moderns call taylorist management). Theoretically, it was supposed that the increase in workplace productivity was at the expense of the employees themselves, made dumber by the subdivision of tasks to a particular repetitive motion. Obviously, this problem does not exist for specialist work, where an employee is usually still engaged with a complexed tasks requiring an employee to have a skill particular to it, regardless of division and subdivision. In the economic analyses that form the basis of the opposition to the division of labour (Marx's Capital and Proudhons System of Economic Contradictions), specialist work beyond specific mind-numbing factory tasks are not mentioned as a problem, as far as I can recall. Therefore, it is better this question is rephrased: one ought to oppose the division of labour within the process of production. It's, ah, a bit silly in our context to talk of such a state of affairs, but where industrial development is a little more rudimentary it makes more sense.
Oh yeah a while back we had a little discussion about the Paris Commune and you stopped with it cuz it was off topic. I meant to make a thread on the matter, but I totally forgot, so I think I still owe you that. You cool with restarting that?
by Trotskylvania » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:47 am
Merizoc wrote:Do any of the non-anarchists here have any sort of moral/philosophical justification for their beliefs?
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Nameless Revolt » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:14 pm
Conscentia wrote:Nameless Revolt wrote:This is sophistry. Does freedom mean submission to oppression and violence to you? If not, then what will we do when someone commits violence against us? We defend ourselves and preserve our freedom. Has the attacker had their freedom curtailed? Only their "freedom" to dominate others, but to dominate is not a freedom, it is authority - we have denied their authority, not their freedom.
It's not sophistry. It's confusion. It had seemed as though by "freedom" you mean "freedom from coercion". Your defense sounds like it can become coercive. If it is coercion you oppose, then it hypocritical to apply it.
A militia shooting or capturing an individual would necessarily violate that individual's freedom (most obviously, freedom to live or freedom of movement respectively) regardless of what the individual has done to provoke the militia.
Conscentia wrote:Nameless Revolt wrote:Majoritarian? Defending one's freedom is not based on any quantitative justification.
Defending oneself against an oppressor does not create a hierarchy, it thwarts it. But I see now you are talking of "dissenters" rather than oppressors, despite the fact that I have not advocated suppressing dissent (and just to be clear, violating others freedom and "dissent" are two different things, in the way I understand it).
So it's not even majoritarian. It's just might makes right? You'd prevent dissenters from being successful, even if they were in the majority to protect your freedom?
Sounds like you'd impose law onto them. Laws designed to protect freedom, but laws enforced coercively nonetheless - and the "anarchists" would be the authority enforcing them.
I was initially thinking of killers, thieves, fraudsters, and such types. However, this seems to apply to dissenters who turn thoughts into action also.
Conscentia wrote:Nameless Revolt wrote:What we want is the best possible life for everybody, and we think this is best found through freedom, beginning with individual autonomy and fitting into an egalitarian social solidarity which affirms one another's liberty.
"I mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being — they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom."
-Bakunin
On the matter of laws, we run into an indistinctness of language. I understand "law" as the commands decided by a powerful minority for the benefit of that minority, enforced by violent or otherwise coercive means. Needless to say I reject law in this sense.
However I certainly do think that rules have a place in anarchist society. Some anarchists use the term "law" neutrally and differentiate between the law of a State and an anarchist form of law, but I think this muddles things and that we should make clear that we are referring to something entirely different when we talk of rules in anarchy.
There would not be a canon of rules applying everywhere and to everyone, only where they are needed or desired for the healthy functioning of society. Rules would be created, changed, or discarded through direct democracy, beginning with the commune or other voluntary association and connecting through various levels of federation. The details of how a direct democracy would function are still very much debated and experimented with in anarchist circles, and are something that, again, will be determined by those who live it, not at the decree of any anarchist theorist.
How is this federation not simply a state governed by direct democracy? It creates rules, and presumably therefore enforces them.
by Kubra » Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:59 pm
Labour reform is one issue among others that in their totality can be grouped under the abolition of capital. There's a lot of thing anarchists want, the matter of labour division is merely one particular issue.Sociobiology wrote:Kubra wrote: the opposition to the division of labour doesn't necessarily apply to intellectual work
Opposition to such was an outgrowth of division of labour in the factory on the lines of subdividing the process of production (leading to what we moderns call taylorist management). Theoretically, it was supposed that the increase in workplace productivity was at the expense of the employees themselves, made dumber by the subdivision of tasks to a particular repetitive motion. Obviously, this problem does not exist for specialist work, where an employee is usually still engaged with a complexed tasks requiring an employee to have a skill particular to it, regardless of division and subdivision. In the economic analyses that form the basis of the opposition to the division of labour (Marx's Capital and Proudhons System of Economic Contradictions), specialist work beyond specific mind-numbing factory tasks are not mentioned as a problem, as far as I can recall. Therefore, it is better this question is rephrased: one ought to oppose the division of labour within the process of production. It's, ah, a bit silly in our context to talk of such a state of affairs, but where industrial development is a little more rudimentary it makes more sense.
Oh yeah a while back we had a little discussion about the Paris Commune and you stopped with it cuz it was off topic. I meant to make a thread on the matter, but I totally forgot, so I think I still owe you that. You cool with restarting that?
so you don't want a different from of society just labor reform, which is already starting. Why connect it with anarchism?
I'm going to be on NS pretty inconsistently I got press ganged into trying to create a joint program with another university, you can create it just know I'll be replying off on on.
by New Werpland » Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:20 pm
by The Liberated Territories » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:13 pm
New Werpland wrote:Do any Anarchists here have some sort of moral justification for their beliefs?
by New Werpland » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:18 pm
by The Free Territory of Rothbardia » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:21 pm
by The Free Territory of Rothbardia » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:32 pm
New Werpland wrote:Do any Anarchists here have some sort of moral justification for their beliefs?
by Cyrisnia » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:34 pm
by The Free Territory of Rothbardia » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:36 pm
Cyrisnia wrote:Is it okay to derail the thread since there's no organized government that makes rules against it?
by The Free Territory of Rothbardia » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:39 pm
by New Werpland » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:47 pm
by Meryuma » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:50 pm
The Free Territory of Rothbardia wrote:Im sure someone already pointed it out, but just in case they didn't, they left out "free-market" on the poll thing.
First one to say that Free-Market Anarchists are not Anarchists agrees to forever suck Satan’s scaly, flaming, dong in hell.
FOREVER.
Niur wrote: my soul has no soul.
Saint Clair Island wrote:The English language sucks. From now on, I will refer to the second definition of sexual as "fucktacular."
Trotskylvania wrote:Alternatively, we could go on an epic quest to Plato's Cave to find the legendary artifact, Ockham's Razor.
Norstal wrote:Gunpowder Plot: America.
Meryuma: "Well, I just hope these hyperboles don't...
*puts on sunglasses*
blow out of proportions."
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
by The Free Territory of Rothbardia » Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:08 pm
Market anarchists are obviously anarchists. Capitalists are not market anarchists, though. Rothbard showed occasional anarchist leanings but in general he supported a very authoritarian social structure unabashedly. I can source this if need be.
by New confederate ramenia » Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:11 pm
The Free Territory of Rothbardia wrote:Im sure someone already pointed it out, but just in case they didn't, they left out "free-market" on the poll thing.
First one to say that Free-Market Anarchists are not Anarchists agrees to forever suck Satan’s scaly, flaming, dong in hell.
FOREVER.
by Kubra » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:33 pm
2spooky4meThe Free Territory of Rothbardia wrote:Im sure someone already pointed it out, but just in case they didn't, they left out "free-market" on the poll thing.
First one to say that Free-Market Anarchists are not Anarchists agrees to forever suck Satan’s scaly, flaming, dong in hell.
FOREVER.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cheblonsk, The Children of Mercy
Advertisement