Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So then, what you are proposing here is this pie-in-the-sky theory that has no more basis in fact or is no more workable than Rand's ideals. This is your vision of a "perfect world." But that doesn't make it universally perfect or workable. You are basically Rand with a different vision. The difference is that her ideas have a larger following than yours. And of course, your theory is no more proven than hers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Nope, individualism can only prosper based on the acknowledgement of how their actions affect others. Those who use resources affect others, that is why cooperatives of workers where that which is acted on is based on mutual agreement is the only way to allow freedom to everyone while avoiding the tragedy of the commons (which is based on capitalism by the way)-
Read Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution to learn how voluntary cooperation is the basis of human survival and prosperity.
You misunderstand individualism. You think it means hooray for me and to hell with everyone else. That's not it at all. Individualism assumes that there is more than one individual on the face of the earth and that all individuals are included individuals--meaning the ideals of individualism applies to Individual A AND to Individual B AND to Individual C, etc.
Individualism means you, as Individual A, have no right to negatively affect Individual B or any other individual. True, you are under no obligation to do anything FOR Individual B, but you are forbidden from doing anything to HARM Individual B (that's referred to in modern politics as a "negative liberty"). Individualism is something akin to an agro-artisan society, pre-industrial-revolution. Each individual in the village contributes his/her own talents and interests for his own benefit, which in turn provides a service for the village. It is not some beehive like your Utopian vision where an army of worker drones slave away for the good of the collective (by consent, no less ).
As for your specific ideas:
There is no such thing as "mutual agreement." What you mean is the majority decides the way it's going to be and anyone in disagreement will either submit or face the consequences of defying the majority.
What you propose has been tried, both under force from government and in communities where members were all there voluntarily. As for the forced government version, we all know from the history books the way that turns out.
As for the cooperative communities, I suggest you read of the "United Order" in the early LDS church history. Ignore the religious aspects and concentrate on the coop society communities they were trying to achieve--it was essentially voluntary socialism without a government overlord or coercive factor. It may have been a noble cause, but it did not work out well at all. Read about the reasons it did not work. The reasons were not religious in nature, but due to the the general nature of mankind. And this failure was in spite of all the participants being almost fanatically dedicated to the cause of a coop society.
I will say this: due to my belief in liberty, I'm not opposed to your cooperative society idea. What I am opposed to is any attempt to make it coercive. If you can make it work with ONLY participants who are there voluntarily and nobody has forced them into a system they do not wish to be a part of, more power to you. I applaud you. But as soon as one person is forced into your society, I am immediately your enemy. That's the main reason I don't support most of what the US government does right now... much of it is coercive. Voluntaryism, on the other hand, regardless of the specific system embraced, gets a thumbs up from me. Form your coop VOLUNTARILY. The only thing I insist upon is that I have the choice to either be a part of it or not be a part of it. If that's the case, we're cool.
So then, what you are proposing here is this pie-in-the-sky theory that has no more basis in fact or is no more workable than Rand's ideals. This is your vision of a "perfect world." But that doesn't make it universally perfect or workable. You are basically Rand with a different vision. The difference is that her ideas have a larger following than yours. And of course, your theory is no more proven than hers.
You misunderstand individualism. You think it means hooray for me and to hell with everyone else. That's not it at all. Individualism assumes that there is more than one individual on the face of the earth and that all individuals are included individuals--meaning the ideals of individualism applies to Individual A AND to Individual B AND to Individual C, etc.
Individualism means you, as Individual A, have no right to negatively affect Individual B or any other individual. True, you are under no obligation to do anything FOR Individual B, but you are forbidden from doing anything to HARM Individual B (that's referred to in modern politics as a "negative liberty"). Individualism is something akin to an agro-artisan society, pre-industrial-revolution. Each individual in the village contributes his/her own talents and interests for his own benefit, which in turn provides a service for the village. It is not some beehive like your Utopian vision where an army of worker drones slave away for the good of the collective (by consent, no less ).
As for your specific ideas:
There is no such thing as "mutual agreement." What you mean is the majority decides the way it's going to be and anyone in disagreement will either submit or face the consequences of defying the majority.
What you propose has been tried, both under force from government and in communities where members were all there voluntarily. As for the forced government version, we all know from the history books the way that turns out.
As for the cooperative communities, I suggest you read of the "United Order" in the early LDS church history. Ignore the religious aspects and concentrate on the coop society communities they were trying to achieve--it was essentially voluntary socialism without a government overlord or coercive factor. It may have been a noble cause, but it did not work out well at all. Read about the reasons it did not work. The reasons were not religious in nature, but due to the the general nature of mankind. And this failure was in spite of all the participants being almost fanatically dedicated to the cause of a coop society.
I will say this: due to my belief in liberty, I'm not opposed to your cooperative society idea. What I am opposed to is any attempt to make it coercive. If you can make it work with ONLY participants who are there voluntarily and nobody has forced them into a system they do not wish to be a part of, more power to you. I applaud you. But as soon as one person is forced into your society, I am immediately your enemy. That's the main reason I don't support most of what the US government does right now... much of it is coercive. Voluntaryism, on the other hand, regardless of the specific system embraced, gets a thumbs up from me. Form your coop VOLUNTARILY. The only thing I insist upon is that I have the choice to either be a part of it or not be a part of it. If that's the case, we're cool.
I understand all this and yet still left wing anarchism is the only system that has ever offered freedom:
They were all destroyed from the outside by state powers. If people read mutual aid, they would know production based off of cooperation is the only way to get things done. Add decentralized federation, worker councils, and public property to all within an organized nature, you have the only system that can succed.
I know the Israelis tried it and the LDS, but real anarchist-communism goes beyond cooperative towns, it functions on the basis of a worker run classless society that follows the tenets of Marxism. When done based on voluntarism, and formed with Syndicates to create supply chains, you will have excess wealth that you'd desire, it would just be organized based off of participation.
A global change is required, one where the supply chains are no longer controlled by for profit organizations.
No, I disagree with a lot of this. Read Kropotkin, he has a lot of scientific and social studies to back his beliefs. Also, I'm not a Marxist, I'm an anarchist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe90
Scientific studies on social matters, refer to majority behaviour, not absolutes about what individuals believe/think.
Any system based on those "study" conclusions, is just shackling some, with the belief of others.
Good point.
The Social Sciences are not true Science, because they are not universal, and because they aren't universal, you cannot make predictions.
The fact that Social Sciences might employ the Scientific Method does not make them Sciences.
If I mix an Acid and Base, I will get water and a salt everywhere on Earth, and everywhere in the Universe, and not only that, but I can predict with extreme precision the exact quantity of water and the exact quantity of salt, and it doesn't matter if I'm using Magnesium Hydroxide, Sodium Hydroxide, Potassium Hydroxide or Calcium Hydroxide, I will always without fail get a Magnesium salt (MgCl), table salt (NaCl), Potassium Chloride (KCl) or Calcium Chloride (CaCl).
At best, the Social Sciences can only come up with vast generalizations that border on stereotypes, with absolutely no ability to make any accurate predictions.
If people read mutual aid, they would know production based off of cooperation is the only way to get things done. Add decentralized federation, worker councils, and public property to all within an organized nature, you have the only system that can succed.
It's not the only way to get things done, and your dream of a classless society is really a fantasy, because it could never work unless you replace people with automatons totally devoid of any desires or ambitions.
Classes are inherent in the human condition. There are classes of those who can bear children, and those who cannot. Classes of those who can rear children and those who cannot. Stratified classes of differing physical abilities and differing mental abilities, and differing skill-sets.
There are leaders and followers; those who have ambitions and those that don't; and those who take pride or satisfaction achieving personal or professional goals and those that do not.
Precisely because needs, desires and ambitions vary so greatly, conflicts ultimately arise, and compromise is often either impossible or undesirable.
Worker councils always fail, because workers simply lack either the requisite knowledge or the requisite understanding, or both, to make timely decisions or to make the correct decisions or the best possible decisions, and worse than that, people are far too short-sighted, demanding immediate gratification in the short-term rather than delaying gratification over the long-term to derive a greater benefit far superior than the benefit obtain in the short-term.
And that is why Capitalism is superior over Feudalism, Mercantilism, Socialism, Communism and Anarchy, because it gives every person the opportunity to excel.
The fact that some people refuse to take advantage of the plethora of opportunities available is not a failure of Capitalism, rather it is a failure of the individual.
It's not the only way to get things done, and your dream of a classless society is really a fantasy, because it could never work unless you replace people with automatons totally devoid of any desires or ambitions.
Classes are inherent in the human condition. There are classes of those who can bear children, and those who cannot. Classes of those who can rear children and those who cannot. Stratified classes of differing physical abilities and differing mental abilities, and differing skill-sets.
There are leaders and followers; those who have ambitions and those that don't; and those who take pride or satisfaction achieving personal or professional goals and those that do not.
Precisely because needs, desires and ambitions vary so greatly, conflicts ultimately arise, and compromise is often either impossible or undesirable.
Worker councils always fail, because workers simply lack either the requisite knowledge or the requisite understanding, or both, to make timely decisions or to make the correct decisions or the best possible decisions, and worse than that, people are far too short-sighted, demanding immediate gratification in the short-term rather than delaying gratification over the long-term to derive a greater benefit far superior than the benefit obtain in the short-term.
And that is why Capitalism is superior over Feudalism, Mercantilism, Socialism, Communism and Anarchy, because it gives every person the opportunity to excel.
The fact that some people refuse to take advantage of the plethora of opportunities available is not a failure of Capitalism, rather it is a failure of the individual.
Capitalism doesn't allow healthy competition, it requires total domination. Capital is seen as a commodity with rightful ownership and transactions being based on legal authority.
Such a model is built for a centralized economy as large corporations and states are required to organize distribution by the will of the few.
In a real free society, where mutual ownership requires usage and functionality, and capital is not valued by a monetary system but by its explicit function by each individual, allowing ambition to be relegated to only personal abilities.
Conversely, it offers democratic functions to all forms of economy producing a lack of over usage of capital, in return to production based on needs.
And most of what you say is back up by nothing, you make wide claims that are based on propaganda and nothing else. No, humans aren't naturally divided into classes, they are divided into roles, which are significantly different. Now human societal structure on the immediate level formed sole power in the hands of a few, rather it procured individual roles that were reliant on the voluntary behavior of everyone else. You can look at pre-empire societies, or even villages in Siberia, the Swiss alps, etc. There are positions considered that of leader, but that control is not of itself a different class. All are treated equally based off of their work and their importance, and all have equal say in how they wish to practice their roles and which roles they wish to assume.
These concepts are vastly different from economic class which is a modern state invention that claimed legal power of some above others due to either financial or political control over capital that is not directly utilized.
The Social Sciences are not true Science, because they are not universal, and because they aren't universal, you cannot make predictions.
The fact that Social Sciences might employ the Scientific Method does not make them Sciences.
If I mix an Acid and Base, I will get water and a salt everywhere on Earth, and everywhere in the Universe, and not only that, but I can predict with extreme precision the exact quantity of water and the exact quantity of salt, and it doesn't matter if I'm using Magnesium Hydroxide, Sodium Hydroxide, Potassium Hydroxide or Calcium Hydroxide, I will always without fail get a Magnesium salt (MgCl), table salt (NaCl), Potassium Chloride (KCl) or Calcium Chloride (CaCl).
At best, the Social Sciences can only come up with vast generalizations that border on stereotypes, with absolutely no ability to make any accurate predictions.
Psychics are more accurate than Social Sciences.
Again you fail to understand the argument we were having, and instead resort to congratulating someone based off of ideological agreement.
Social sciences shouldn't be the base of economic systems, but when so many (including yourself) assume positions of social Darwinism or what not and assume class systems are human nature based on zero historical or anthropological evidence and instead mainly on what you consider fact, not opinion.
The conversation we were having was that of Ayn Rand, I claimed for someone so ideologically assured on the facts of human nature and its justification of capitalism, she didn't take anytime to offer examples or research why such claims are true. She just expected us to believe her because it was common knowledge.
I offered Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, not as a basis for anarchism, but as a social backing against these false claims of 'human nature' that were used as an excuse to justify authoritarian control.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
