Anarchism

[Casita]

I suggest you read this, if that's your view on things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Hunter-gatherer

One tribe in Namibia's amount of leisure time=/=The leisure time ancient hunter gatherers had.

Necessary calorie intake would be similar amongst tribes that live in similar climates and far less is needed than those in colder areas, which they might have to work a bit more for necessities, then and now. I'm curious if it adds up to the 40-60 hr work week that many have to work to survive.

Yanomami: less than 4 rs a day, and make decisions through concensus ( http://www.survivalinternational.org/tr ... /wayoflife) many sites have similar info.

Inuits work much longer in the past and present. I don't have exact numbers just yet. But factoring in all the energy spent keeping warm, hunting and living a semi-nomadic lifestyle one could assume that there work days are a bit more heavy.

That goes for nomadic tribes, that used and still use a lot of energy traveling, such as nomadic Mongolian peoples, they have to put more hours in a day toward animal husbandry etc

Then there is also variation in farming methods that can either increase or decrease work time.

As for industrial societies: Conquest of Bread, 'Ways and means' around page 92:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_ar ... t/ch8.html

"A few examples will suffice. Thus in the United States, in 751 cotton mills (for spinning and weaving), 175,000 men and women produce 2,033,000,000 yards of cotton goods, besides a great quantity of thread. On the average, more than 12,000 yards of cotton goods alone are obtained by a 300 days' work of nine and one-half hours each, say 40 yards of cotton in 10 hours. Admitting that a family needs 200 yards a year at most, this would be equivalent to 50 hours' work, say 10 half-days of 5 hours each. And we should have thread besides; that is to say, cotton to sew with, and thread to weave cloth with, so as to manufacture woolen stuffs mixed with cotton.

As to the results obtained by weaving alone, the official statistics of the United States teach us that in 1870, if workmen worked 13 or 14 hours a day, they made 10,000 yards of white cotton goods in a year; sixteen years later (1886) they wove 30,000 yards by working only 55 hours a week.

Even in printed cotton goods they obtained, weaving and printing included, 32,000 yards in 2670 hours of work a year—say about 12 yards an hour. Thus to have your 200 yards of white and printed cotton goods 17 hours' work a year would suffice. It is necessary to remark that raw material reaches these factories in about the same state as it comes from the fields, and that the transformations gone through by the piece before it is converted into goods are completed in the course of these 17 hours. But to buy these 200 yards from the tradesman, a well-paid workman must give at the very least 10 to 15 days' work of 10 hours each, say 100 to[Pg 93] 150 hours. And as to the English peasant, he would have to toil for a month, or a little more, to obtain this luxury.

By this example we already see that by working 50 half-days per year in a well-organized society we could dress better than the lower middle classes do to-day." - Kropotkin

This was in the 1800s. Today, technology is way more efficient and can help produce necessities and luxuries much faster. So, one could even workless, that is if we get rid of the noncontributing class of investment bankers etc.

[Atlanticatia]

It is the role of the state to uphold negative liberties, while making sure that everyone is entitled to certain positive rights.

The state must ensure that all people have the best standard of living and quality of life possible, and the state must act as a guide that tries to promote decent social and economic outcomes. For example, the right to own private property: taxation is justified because it is used to benefit people's lives via progressive tax, the welfare state, infrastructure, education etc. However it would be wrong for the state to take 100% of someone's income. So basically, both negative and positive liberties are equally important.

The state should be a tool of social justice, progressivism, and improving peoples' lives.

I am of the opinion that without the state, inequality would be worse, there would be no equality of opportunity, certain people would be more oppressed, and not everyone would get a fair go at life.

But with the state, inequality does grow between the ruling power and the people, there isn't equality of opportunity, many people are oppressed and not everyone gets a fair go at life. I find statism has these problems, and repeatedly refuses to fix them.

I assume by the 'ruling power' you mean the government. I don't see it that way - in a well functioning state, the 'ruling power' is simply a representative of the people. At the end of the day, the 'ruling power' has to rely on the people's vote. And any person is welcome to try to be elected to office.

I was referring to social and economic inequality. The state can do a good job of ensuring equality of opportunity and lessening inequality. In a capitalist economy, there will always be inequality - however the state can do a good job of mitigating it, and its effects.

For example, without the state, how would the unemployed have a guaranteed way of sustaining themselves? How would families with a low income be able to afford general living expenses like food and shelter, without a minimum wage or social welfare?

You can reply "charity" or "private groups" - but that is irrelevant. The state generally can result in a positive social outcome.

I know that anarchists always complain about being free from the state, but I have yet to see any evidence that suggests having no state would make anyone better off in the end.

[Casita]

Now we are getting somewhere.

Would you care to go into this a bit more?

I think the ways that people have tried to implement it (Leninism, Vanguard Party ideas) aren't effective or successful. I think the main problem is that most anarchist communities that were successful did not last do to the fact that they were in the midst of a civil strife, and lost do to military reasons, not ideological ones. For example, Ukraine, Spanish Republicans and the Paris Commune.

If anarchism was approached peacefully, I think we could get somewhere.

So, what do you propose as an alternate praxis, to what has been done before?

[Distruzio]

Meh.

[MERIZoC]

[citation needed]

Citation for what? That fewer women die in childbirth thanks to modern medicine? That we who have access to vaccines are immune to some incredibly debilitating diseases? That our existence is nice?

Citation for the bolded part…..

As for the diseases, I already pointed out that with a much lower population, disease would be less of a threat.

[Zottistan]

I never saw the appeal of anarchism.

[MERIZoC]

I think the same thing.

I think it's nothing more than a giant middle finger to all of human progress, advancement, and the future of the human race.

It's disgusting. If someone wants to play in the dirt and look at the sun as God, more power to them, but I will be damned if they're going to force that trash on the rest of us.

Since when does having some sort of ideology automatically mean you want to force it on people? I can't make anyone be primitivist, I can just try to convince them.

As for the sun god claim, it's suspected that most hunter-gatherer societies were animatist, and didn't have or worship any gods. Is that any worse than the kind of worship we have now?
http://people.opposingviews.com/huntergatherers-religious-beliefs-7409.html

[MERIZoC]

It said "for instance" as an example. It also said "Since the 1960s, the consensus among anthropologists, historians, and sociologists has been that early hunter-gatherer societies enjoyed more leisure time than is permitted by capitalist and agrarian societies."

Let's say that was true. That still leaves questions such as, "do you really believe primitive societies would have advances in medicine, a high life expectancy, and good education like we do today?"

Hell, in a primitive society, you couldn't be playing NS right now. You couldn't even use a computer. You wouldn't be able to drive places. You wouldn't be able to have access to antibiotics when you get sick. Do you really want that?

I would be absolutely fine with that. It's kind of the point of primitivism, not having all that advanced technology like cars and computers, you know?

[Zottistan]

What more do you need? Hmm, I don't know.....maybe mathematics, linguistics, physics, philosophy, electricity, and space flight? I mean, unless you like the idea of the human race being obliterated in an extinction event because we never learned how to spread through the galaxy.

Other species seem to have managed just fine without these things. Mathematics and the like aren't necessary for survival.

Most people want to prosper and not just survive.

[MERIZoC]

Other species seem to have managed just fine without these things. Mathematics and the like aren't necessary for survival.

Most people want to prosper and not just survive.

Define "prosper".

[Zottistan]

Most people want to prosper and not just survive.

Define "prosper".

Live longer, more fulfilling lives with more commodities, less suffering and more opportunity for individual development.

[MERIZoC]

Define "prosper".

Live longer, more fulfilling lives with more commodities, less suffering and more opportunity for individual development.

Well, in terms of the living longer, you have a point there. With the commodities, I'd argue that a simpler life, closer to nature and one's family is better than having more stuff. As for the suffering, well, there's less war, less risk of famine or starvation, and less work with primitivism.

[Norstal]

I have anarchist sympathies and I'll be the first to say that that isn't an especially good argument. The first 100,000 years of human existence had us at the mercy of disease, famine, and ignorance.

Population wasn't high enough for disease to be a big factor, we were hunter-gatherers, so famine wasn't much of a problem, and as for the ignorance, well, I'd argue that wasn't really important. We knew enough. We knew how to hunt, how to collect food, how to take care of our families, and how to survive. What more do you need?

Sucks for them disabled people who can't hunt, collect food, and mentally unstable huh? They should just die or something.

[MERIZoC]

Population wasn't high enough for disease to be a big factor, we were hunter-gatherers, so famine wasn't much of a problem, and as for the ignorance, well, I'd argue that wasn't really important. We knew enough. We knew how to hunt, how to collect food, how to take care of our families, and how to survive. What more do you need?

Sucks for them disabled people who can't hunt, collect food, and mentally unstable huh? They should just die or something.

No, they would be supported by the rest of the group. In primitivism, people don't just go off on their own, you know.
Edit: Here's a source.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19568-huntergatherers-cared-for-first-known-ancient-invalid.html#.U6maNVzxW8o
If they looked after the elderly, that stands to reason they looked after the sick or disabled.

[Norstal]

Pan-Anarchism. Anarchism without Adjectives. It's a movement to unite anarchists.

Doesn't seem very successful if you ask me.

Wouldn't it be hilarious though, to put an anarcho-syndicalist next to an anarcho-capitalist?

"WELL YOU'RE NOT A REAAAAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT!"

"YEAH WELL THIS IS MY PROPERTY SO GET THE FUCK OUT"

"PRIVATE PROPERTY? WHAT A STATIST!"

*Violence ensues.*

[Farnhamia]

Doesn't seem very successful if you ask me.

Wouldn't it be hilarious though, to put an anarcho-syndicalist next to an anarcho-capitalist?

"WELL YOU'RE NOT A REAAAAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT!"

"YEAH WELL THIS IS MY PROPERTY SO GET THE FUCK OUT"

"PRIVATE PROPERTY? WHAT A STATIST!"

*Violence ensues.*

ANd people wonder why the police are so crabby all the time.

[Norstal]

Sucks for them disabled people who can't hunt, collect food, and mentally unstable huh? They should just die or something.

No, they would be supported by the rest of the group. In primitivism, people don't just go off on their own, you know.
Edit: Here's a source.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19568-huntergatherers-cared-for-first-known-ancient-invalid.html#.U6maNVzxW8o
If they looked after the elderly, that stands to reason they looked after the sick or disabled.

Except I'm not talking about the elderly or the physically disabled. Obviously they're going to take care of them. I'm talking about the mentally unstable, who is unable to gather their own food or is a threat to society. Paedophiles, serial killers, those with Tourette's. How do you think those people were treated back when they still think a witch is someone who was possessed by the devil?

[Pandeeria]

Anarchism is a edgy ideological piece of trash.

[Zottistan]

Live longer, more fulfilling lives with more commodities, less suffering and more opportunity for individual development.

Well, in terms of the living longer, you have a point there. With the commodities, I'd argue that a simpler life, closer to nature and one's family is better than having more stuff.

The overwhelming majority of people would disagree, at least to a degree. Nature is uncomfortable. A nice house with electricity, central heating, a TV, a music system and a feather bed isn't.

As for the suffering, well, there's less war, less risk of famine or starvation,

There's no less risk of famine or starvation. I don't know where you got that from.

There's more risk of infection, disease, death from animal attack, the diseases we still have become untreatable, and life generally is unpleasant.

and less work with primitivism.

Work gives life meaning for many people. There's nothing worse, in my opinion, than having too much free time and nothing to do.

[MERIZoC]

No, they would be supported by the rest of the group. In primitivism, people don't just go off on their own, you know.
Edit: Here's a source.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19568-huntergatherers-cared-for-first-known-ancient-invalid.html#.U6maNVzxW8o
If they looked after the elderly, that stands to reason they looked after the sick or disabled.

Except I'm not talking about the elderly or the physically disabled. Obviously they're going to take care of them. I'm talking about the mentally unstable, who is unable to gather their own food or is a threat to society. Paedophiles, serial killers, those with Tourette's. How do you think those people were treated back when they still think a witch is someone who was possessed by the devil?

1: Why would you want them to look after serial killers and paedophiles? That's just looking for trouble.
2: As for those that can't gather food, I've already provided evidence to show that they look after such people. You're gonna need to provide a counter source if you want to claim they didn't.
3: Pretty sure early humans had no concept of a witch or devil. That was something that came from religion, which came from, you guessed it—civilization.

[MERIZoC]

Well, in terms of the living longer, you have a point there. With the commodities, I'd argue that a simpler life, closer to nature and one's family is better than having more stuff.

The overwhelming majority of people would disagree, at least to a degree. Nature is uncomfortable. A nice house with electricity, central heating, a TV, a music system and a feather bed isn't.

As for the suffering, well, there's less war, less risk of famine or starvation,

There's no less risk of famine or starvation. I don't know where you got that from.

There's more risk of infection, disease, death from animal attack, the diseases we still have become untreatable, and life generally is unpleasant.

and less work with primitivism.

Work gives life meaning for many people. There's nothing worse, in my opinion, than having too much free time and nothing to do.

1: Nature is uncomfortable only because you aren't used to it.
2: With agriculture came the risk of crop failure, and with that came the risk of famine. There's less risk of infection because there's a smaller population.
3: How does having free time mean having nothing to do? You can play with your family, you can tell stories, you can learn. It's a much better way to spend your life than toiling away on a farm or in a factory.

[Kuzestan]

It's completely possible. I don't actually get why people are being so skeptic about anarchism when there's no evidence that the anarchists themselves are causing it to fail.

[Zottistan]

The overwhelming majority of people would disagree, at least to a degree. Nature is uncomfortable. A nice house with electricity, central heating, a TV, a music system and a feather bed isn't.


There's no less risk of famine or starvation. I don't know where you got that from.

There's more risk of infection, disease, death from animal attack, the diseases we still have become untreatable, and life generally is unpleasant.


Work gives life meaning for many people. There's nothing worse, in my opinion, than having too much free time and nothing to do.

1: Nature is uncomfortable only because you aren't used to it.

And the fact that living "according to nature" is much less safe and much more difficult than my current lifestyle.

2: With agriculture came the risk of crop failure, and with that came the risk of famine. There's less risk of infection because there's a smaller population.

Fair enough for crop failure, I suppose, but large-scale agriculture like we see in the developed world today removes that risk.

I actually meant infection as in the infection of a wound, which has a much higher risk due to poorer sanitation and medical care.

3: How does having free time mean having nothing to do? You can play with your family, you can tell stories, you can learn. It's a much better way to spend your life than toiling away on a farm or in a factory.

I'd get bored of being around my family all the time and telling stories very quickly. It's pretty difficult to learn anything remotely interesting without books.

Toiling away on a farm or in a factory, then returning home to your comfortable, dry, warm house to relax, listen to music, watch TV, go out and meet somebody you've never met before, read a novel, learn about physics, enjoy fine food, play video games, etc.

I also didn't say having loads of free time gave you nothing to do. I said that you'd have much more free time, and nothing, by which I meant significantly less, to do.

[Ordysius]

My contention with anarchy is mostly that it simply results in an entity acting in the same manner as a state, yet being called something else. So the decider of issues might be called an 'elder' or 'chief' or said to be rotating, but it still functions identically to the state.

Anarchists (in particular AnCaps) contend that the root of human violence is how children are raised in society, in line with Jean Locke's ideas about human nature, mixed with the Praxology of Ludwig Van Mises and Ayn Rands' works. Its all centered on the Non Aggression Principle. I think the debate is not so much about politics as it is human nature.

I agree.

[Ordysius]

Primitivism is, without a doubt, the single most offensive ideology in existence. Above all others it would have us doomed to extinction while we watch our end with stupid, superstitious faces.

Everything is doomed to extinction. That's reality. You have delusions of grandeur if you think the human race will survive forever.

Not being too off-topic, but it is possible for the human race to escape extinction. The only problem is there are overwhelming odds against us. But if we can get to a higher technological and political point, then humans can colonize the universe. Then we could go so far to end any cosmological chances of us ending when the universe ends. That is, however, if technology can get that far.

This is speculative, of course, but just putting this out there.