User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: The State: Polly vs. Alyosha

  1. #11
    Points: 73,464, Level: 66
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 1,986
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocialOverdrive50000 Experience PointsYour first GroupVeteran
    Alyosha's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    97522
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    18,343
    Points
    73,464
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    6,028
    Thanked 13,074x in 8,482 Posts
    Mentioned
    1256 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    @IMPress Polly

    (I'm bored, lonely, and waiting for people to wake up, so...)

    My query to you is on our area of disagreement, and that circles around using the state to produce a communitarian society. You seem to feel, and I'd like to know if a) I'm wrong and b) the justification, that it is acceptable to use controls/force to produce the society you want against the wishes of those who may disagree.

    In a voluntarist society we foresee something similar to federalism so that force is not applied. To the voluntarist the nonaggression principle is the only "law". A community is an organic, voluntary collective and accept that other communities may be different and should handle their own "injustice". So for example, my ideal community would have a central garden that everyone can work. If you don't work, you don't eat from it. People would chip in on livestock. If you don't chip in you get no livestock. There would be medishares for health. Roads would be paid for by the community or by toll for those not in the community. Power is a cooperative, etc. Land ownership would be non-existent in the modern understanding of it but Georgianism (you own the improvements). Private paid security and something akin to neighborhood watch would be the method of protecting citizens from crime and fire.

    If someone wish to aggress we'd have a militia.

    We would not prevent a business owner from hiring because that is a voluntary exchange between that owner and the people who chooses to work for him or her. How a monopoly would be prevented is the organic approach where there are no special favors given, regulations would not be existing to prop up one over another.

    You may ask how in my anti-state we'd prevent pollution or toxic dumping:




    an active militia to defend the town from bad water, bad food, etc. The non-aggression principle allows for the defense of your person, property, or shared resources.
    And if we should die tonight
    Then we should all die together
    Raise a glass of wine for the last time
    Calling out father, prepare as we will
    Watch the flames burn auburn on the mountain side
    Desolation comes upon the sky..

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Alyosha For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (11-09-2014)

  3. #12
    Points: 100,504, Level: 77
    Level completed: 22%, Points required for next Level: 2,046
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    156189
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    8,547
    Points
    100,504
    Level
    77
    Thanks Given
    10,191
    Thanked 7,612x in 4,342 Posts
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    First of all, let me say that your most recent post indicates that we're even more closely politically aligned than I'd previously thought (perhaps more like 80%), as honestly I'd be basically fine with the kind of economic system you propose in post #11 (which I would describe as socialist, personally), with the biggest difference between us being that I'd simply consider it the midpoint in a larger societal journey toward a more radically different society and world: one without things like money and classes and states. I likewise share your optimistic view of humanity writ large, recognizing it to be fundamentally both rational and altruistic in nature.

    Now as to your proposal to replace formal police with neighborhood watches, armies with militias, and so forth, I think that those kinds of steps would be good ones to take over time, as class distinctions progressively shrink along this aforementioned path. Historically speaking, it is from the emergence of class distinctions that state institutions arose. (They were created to defend the property of those who could afford to buy the labor power of others, and thus stop the laboring classes from becoming disobedient.) It is therefore the abolition of class distinctions that will successfully eliminate the state, as equality translates into greater social peace. The anarchists have had these realities imposed on them every time they have attempted to "skip ahead" so far. As in the Spanish Civil War and all the other examples, the mere fact that your community chooses to have no professional army, for example, does not mean that hostile neighboring communities will also refrain just to be fair. Anarchist societies (which are invariably small and almost always agrarian, incidentally) invariably wind up either getting destroyed by invading, professional armies or integrated into a larger political infrastructure that includes a proper state. Hell, America itself has learned the hard way what happens when you try to fight a war without a regular army (see the War of 1812)! We were only lucky that Napoleon's forces were defeated when they were or else we would be a British colony right now! The moral of this story is that when you don't have proper state institutions, you had best the hell avoid war at all costs. The cost of doing so, however, can be total subjugation! Now methinks that Iceland is onto something in terms of how a progressive society can do this sort of thing right: they have no standing army, for example (and thus hardly pose a threat to anyone), but reserve the right to establish one at any time that the need should arise. I think that's an example of the best kind of nuance one can apply to this question along the way to a world of universally shared wealth. The principle that no standing army, no formal prisons, no regular police for or court system, shall ever be established again is for another, more civilized age than our own.

    Now in post #10, you make the argument that "the accumulation of wealth is a psychological disorder" and that class distinctions (mostly) arise from states (i.e. the libertarian "crony capitalism" argument). The former point (the "psychological disorder" contention) defies the basic recognition that human beings are, in an overall sense, rational creatures. In reality, if class society has come to exist, then it has come to exist for a reason, not just because our species has become collectively stupid at some point. The accumulation of wealth on the part of some occurs because it is possible; because human beings tend to pursue the maximization of rewards for the least amount of output, i.e. the maximization of efficiency. In a world characterized by sufficient production to provide for some but not all, class distinctions and corresponding oppressions are inevitable. The preceding state of affairs -- the general absence of production -- was conversely characterized by sufficient poverty to more or less guarantee equality. And likewise one can then logically deduce that, since the rational character of our species ensures that production levels will only continue to increase over time, a time can be foreseen when scarcity will be done away with entirely, thus guaranteeing universal wealth and therefore at least relative equality once more. The eruption of new, and accelerating, democratic revolutions and the rebirth of communism as a human ideal since the first industrial revolution serves as evidence of where things are going in the long run: we are in a slow process of historically repeating the kind of revolution that the invention of language once brought about: a protracted revolution to establish political, social, and economic equality in proportion to the opportunity. Production revolutions are leading to improvements in communication and coordination amongst the poorer classes of society, which in turn are yielding accelerating waves of revolution that serve as the political expression of human society's growing ability to provide for all. Corresponding to all this, as I've pointed out on my blog, a new form of communist distribution is emerging in our era in particular (the Information Age) and it's sure to play a key role in any future distribution of the social product in general as we gradually move away from money and production for exchange.

    As to your latter argument (crony capitalism), what you've done there is reverse cause and effect. In reality, the emergence of class distinctions (which, again, became inevitable once a certain level of production was reached) precluded and motivated the creation of state institutions. The state was created to ensure the obedience of the laboring classes to the dictates of the propertied classes. And, as pointed out in an earlier paragraph of this post, it only then follows that attempts to forever do away with these institutions prematurely always result in failure. We thus see that mentally reversing cause and effect does not make all things possible. The big picture is this: the state cannot yet be forever abolished because class distinctions yet exist (obviously!) and class distinctions cannot yet be abolished because scarcity has not yet been fully done away with (though it certainly will be, and probably within a couple centuries' time).

    In summation, human beings are both rational and altruistic creatures who seek to minimize the burden of labor through the creation of ever increasing wealth and then distribute that said wealth in a fair and equitable way. These two things, however, cannot occur in a way that's fully simultaneous amidst lingering conditions of scarcity. Rather, the one thing must be accomplished before the latter becomes fully possible. And it is only when the latter becomes possible that approximate social peace sufficient to abolish the use of state force in a way that's guaranteed to last can be realized.

    Alyosha wrote:
    Thanks Polly, I'm having a day. Wish you were here.
    *hugs*

    I hope you made it through alright!
    Last edited by IMPress Polly; 11-12-2014 at 08:36 AM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to IMPress Polly For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (11-12-2014)

  5. #13
    Points: 100,504, Level: 77
    Level completed: 22%, Points required for next Level: 2,046
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    156189
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    8,547
    Points
    100,504
    Level
    77
    Thanks Given
    10,191
    Thanked 7,612x in 4,342 Posts
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well it looks like we're almost done here @Alyosha, as our disagreements appear to more in the area of theory (which I don't think we're about to reach reconciliation on) than of actual program. It's probably almost time to open this topic up to the general membership. However, before we do, there are two final programmic matters I'd like your opinion on related to this question of the state's role and eventual abolition:

    1) We've discussed (and mostly agreed on) what a better society might look like and we've agreed that the path from here to there is a political one, but what about the actual process of making revolution? Do you think that ultimately armed force will be necessary to defeat the existing state (as I do), or do you believe that acts of civil disobedience can prove sufficient by themselves?

    AND...

    2) Do you think there's a role for electoral politics in between where we are now on the one hand and revolution on the other? (I do, as you know.)
    Last edited by IMPress Polly; 11-14-2014 at 06:53 AM.

  6. #14
    Points: 73,464, Level: 66
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 1,986
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocialOverdrive50000 Experience PointsYour first GroupVeteran
    Alyosha's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    97522
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    18,343
    Points
    73,464
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    6,028
    Thanked 13,074x in 8,482 Posts
    Mentioned
    1256 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    Well it looks like we're almost done here @Alyosha, as our disagreements appear to more in the area of theory (which I don't think we're about to reach reconciliation on) than of actual program. It's probably almost time to open this topic up to the general membership. However, before we do, there are two final programmic matters I'd like your opinion on related to this question of the state's role and eventual abolition:

    1) We've discussed (and mostly agreed on) what a better society might look like and we've agreed that the path from here to there is a political one, but what about the actual process of making revolution? Do you think that ultimately armed force will be necessary to defeat the existing state (as I do), or do you believe that acts of civil disobedience can prove sufficient by themselves?

    Yes, or a large enough global disaster as to dismantle the current system and force mutual aid between the remaining masses.

    So, either way, there will be bloodshed. I'm not of Chris or Ethereal's belief system this will all happen organically.


    AND...

    2) Do you think there's a role for electoral politics in between where we are now on the one hand and revolution on the other? (I do, as you know.)

    No. I think religion was the opiate of the masses until about 1700 and not it's democracies and republics. People feel like their vote may count, even a little, so that tricks them into endorsing the current system which enslaves them.

    You have no say in Washington. If you did you wouldn't be allowed to vote. When people vote at the local level (no judgments on the vote, just that they allegedly have the right) the state will intervene using judges.

    Our votes don't count, but they extend the lifetime of the system and the elites who have created it. They no more want governments to go away than a business wishes to lose customers.
    And if we should die tonight
    Then we should all die together
    Raise a glass of wine for the last time
    Calling out father, prepare as we will
    Watch the flames burn auburn on the mountain side
    Desolation comes upon the sky..

  7. #15
    Points: 100,504, Level: 77
    Level completed: 22%, Points required for next Level: 2,046
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    156189
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    8,547
    Points
    100,504
    Level
    77
    Thanks Given
    10,191
    Thanked 7,612x in 4,342 Posts
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Alyosha wrote:
    Yes, or a large enough global disaster as to dismantle the current system and force mutual aid between the remaining masses.

    So, either way, there will be bloodshed. I'm not of Chris or Ethereal's belief system this will all happen organically.
    ...Well this is boring. I mean, the only thing here for me to disagree with is the likelihood of a natural disaster causing humanity to revert back to a primitive form of collectivism.

    No. I think religion was the opiate of the masses until about 1700 and not it's democracies and republics. People feel like their vote may count, even a little, so that tricks them into endorsing the current system which enslaves them.

    You have no say in Washington. If you did you wouldn't be allowed to vote. When people vote at the local level (no judgments on the vote, just that they allegedly have the right) the state will intervene using judges.

    Our votes don't count, but they extend the lifetime of the system and the elites who have created it. They no more want governments to go away than a business wishes to lose customers.
    Good, I was hoping for an excuse to hawk my blog a little more: I wrote an at-length blog entry on precisely this subject earlier this year dissecting the fact that yes, as you say, elections are basically fair, but that the results, left to themselves anyway, make only a minimal difference because political power under a republican system is measured in terms of the amount of time that one commands the attention of politicians. It is thus mainly things like lobbying and campaign fundraising that influence the decisions made on Capitol Hill, not your vote. Democracy still feels real though to most Americans because most Americans belong to either the middle or upper classes, who agree on policy prescriptions 89% of the time. The re-proletarianization of the general populace will solve that problem though. (Hint: A recently-concluded 30-year survey of the degree to which public opinion lines up with public policy has supplied the hard evidence as to how decisions in high places are actually made. More info can be found at the linked blog entry.) There is, however, an interim between here and there; an interim where proletarian revolution is structurally impossible due to the class composition of the nation, and yet wherein there do exist these minor venues of access to political power, like elections...and more importantly, protests. It is accordingly that I can't help proposing that the poor and working classes should definitely take advantage of them, especially in the said interim, if only to marginally defend themselves against the very worst that the ruling class might have in store for them...perhaps by working as part of a strategic, defensive class coalition with as many other class elements as will join (like the Democratic Party) as they naturally do whenever politically activated.

    And that concludes my thoughts. We might, if you want, continue debating the merits of electoral politics, but I think we're sufficiently done with this debate to go ahead and open it up to the general membership, don't you?

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to IMPress Polly For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (11-18-2014)

  9. #16
    Points: 73,464, Level: 66
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 1,986
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocialOverdrive50000 Experience PointsYour first GroupVeteran
    Alyosha's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    97522
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    18,343
    Points
    73,464
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    6,028
    Thanked 13,074x in 8,482 Posts
    Mentioned
    1256 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I don't use terms like proletariat and capitalist anymore as I find them to be meaningless in all actuality. They are specific to a brand of communism, Marxism, that also did not take into account the nature and composition of the middle class. It is far more diverse in categories and in culture than he gave it credit for and was disdainful of agrarian society which I am highly in favor of.

    I lean towards anarcho primitivism and agrarian voluntarism.

    I don't believe that there will be a revolution without catastrophe, but when that happens and it will, people should be prepared because the currency is fiat and meaningless. It is an ancient trick used by Chinese warlords to increase their own wealth at the expense of the rabble. What people should be doing is planning now by creating true "wealth": food, guns, ammunition, alcohol, metals, building supplies. The world markets are much like the juggler with the plates. They must be kept in the "spin" cycle and the more plates added, the more difficult it gets. Even the best juggler loses a plate eventually then they all topple.
    And if we should die tonight
    Then we should all die together
    Raise a glass of wine for the last time
    Calling out father, prepare as we will
    Watch the flames burn auburn on the mountain side
    Desolation comes upon the sky..

  10. #17
    Points: 100,504, Level: 77
    Level completed: 22%, Points required for next Level: 2,046
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    156189
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    8,547
    Points
    100,504
    Level
    77
    Thanks Given
    10,191
    Thanked 7,612x in 4,342 Posts
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ugh, I'm no primitivist. I don't have a romantic view of poverty, having lived in some measure of it for most of my life. I look forward to days when human beings will freely travel through both space and cyberspace. The future I envision is quite high tech, but also includes the localization of food supplies. I can foresee a time coming when basically everyone will live in cities and wherein they will hence be encircled by farmland instead of by suburbs...or alternately, humanity may gravitate toward one of these newer ideas in development for the future of agriculture, like stacking farmland in layers encased in skyscraper greenhouses, so that our agricultural land extends vertically instead of horizontally and can thus be located WITHIN city space rather than outside of it. I'm also about halfway to being one of those singularity people who believes that human beings may well soon be able to achieve eternal life. I am, in other words, a future-oriented person. In fact, I'm probably more of a futurist than a Marxist these days, as I'm even finding myself gravitating toward embracing the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, which would cause me to jettison dialectics. What of Marxism I definitely retain is the idea that human history can be examined scientifically, that human civilization progresses through technological revolutions that lead to social revolutions, which in turn yield political revolutions, and the recognition of the central role that class plays in making political revolutions. I also retain some of the mass line politics that Mao introduced (which basically fuse populism with vanguardism in a back-and-forth kind relationship between the two poles). Aside from these things, I'm basically a futurist today. The past is not the path to a better future, IMO.

    I do agree with you though that revolutions are born out of major crises. I don't think ecological degradation is going to lead its beneficiaries, human beings, to make revolution though. I really don't. (I kind of wish it worked that way, but I don't think it does.) Now a bankruptcy crisis might though, and that I think is something that's bound to happen. We're not going to solve global warming by consuming less energy, for example, but by finding clean ways of consuming more. Sustainable development is the path of the future, not opposing development.

    Just my two cents. I think we've stopped discussing the state at this point, which is why I think we should go ahead and open up this topic to the general membership.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to IMPress Polly For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (11-18-2014)

  12. #18
    Original Ranter
    Points: 856,676, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496108
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,090
    Points
    856,676
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    152,933
    Thanked 147,118x in 94,140 Posts
    Mentioned
    2547 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    information

    Information

    Information: This thread is now open for the general membership.


    If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  13. #19
    Points: 172,455, Level: 98
    Level completed: 71%, Points required for next Level: 1,195
    Overall activity: 31.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    donttread's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    88473
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    51,785
    Points
    172,455
    Level
    98
    Thanks Given
    18,180
    Thanked 20,441x in 14,732 Posts
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The state you describe in post 1 is a combination of the prison industrial complex and the military industrial complex , both of which are over grown and have taken on a life of their own.
    I believe 3 policy changes could drastically alter that pattern
    1) Non-interventionism , including the CIA
    2) Ending drug prohibition and spending much of the resulting savings/tax revenue on addiction prevention and treatment
    3) Romeo and Juliet laws everywhere ( admittedly this would be the least impactful of the three , but still)
    Even if we do all that there will still be dangerous criminals and the potential for aggression against us. We will still need, police, prisons and a Military in their proper scale.

  14. #20
    Points: 664,075, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433119
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,306
    Points
    664,075
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,903
    Thanked 80,708x in 54,608 Posts
    Mentioned
    2009 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Sorry but there was no real debate here. It was interesting reading the expansion of two points of view, especially as both are anti-state--though only one truly wants to eliminate the state while the other merely wants to replace the state with another form of it. But it wasn't a debate.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts