Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 12, 2024, 8:03 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The interesting history they don't teach in schools
#1
The interesting history they don't teach in schools
In "The General Idea of Revolution" Pierre J. Proudhon writes:

"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

He was an early to mid 19th century socialist thinker, who was the first to call himself an anarchist.

In "Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory & Practice" Rudolf Rocker writes:

"Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are, rather, forced upon parliaments from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. Just as the employers always try to nullify every concession they had made to labor as soon as opportunity offered, as soon as any signs of weakness were observable in the workers' organizations, so governments also are always inclined to restrict or to abrogate completely rights and freedoms that have been achieved if they imagine that the people will put up no resistance. Even in those countries where such things as freedom of the press, right of assembly, right of combination, and the like have long existed, governments are constantly trying to restrict those rights or to reinterpret them by juridical hair-splitting. Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace. Where this is not the case, there is no help in any parliamentary Opposition or any Platonic appeals to the constitution."

I am sympathetic to the ethical ideals espoused by anarchist and anti-authoritarian thought, but I avoid ideological labels for the simple reason that I like the flexibility to cherry pick good ideas, no matter their ideological origin. But I think Noam Chomsky best outlines the fundamental premise of anarchism:

"Well, anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics.  Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy.  It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified.  It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them.  Their authority is not self-justifying.  They have to give a reason for it, a justification.  And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just.  And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency.  It takes different forms at different times."

I myself have gone through many gyrations of thought when contemplating what approach could offer us a better system with more robust protections against corruption. I've oscillated between strands of libertarian thought and progressivism. I've also entertained anarchism, the approach endorsed by Murray Bookchin (libertarian municipalism), traditional Marxism, newer branches of socialism (such as market socialism), etc.

Anarchism has enjoyed brief periods of success. For instance, during the Spanish Civil War (1933-36), anarchists held Catalonia and were the first to fight the fascist powers (Hitler and Mussolini). George Orwell joined what was called the international brigades and fought alongside the anarchists in Spain during this period (he writes about it in his book "Homage to Catalonia"). Here's a youtube video that briefly describes this period in Spanish history:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXrc5Y6RBuQ

Today, anarchists again find themselves on the front lines against the fascists of ISIS. Here's an article detailing this Kurdish movement:

http://roarmag.org/2014/08/pkk-kurdish-s...-autonomy/

The new PKK, or Kurdish Workers Party, has adopted a form of anarchism called libertarian municipalism (mentioned above). They, along with fighters from the YPG (the Peoples Protection Units), an arm of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (another left-radical Kurdish group) have successfully fought off ISIS advances in Kobani. Well known for integrating women into their fighting force, and practicing horizontal democracy, complete with anarchist and feminist ideology (and religious egalitarianism), these fighters (aided by western air strikes) have been the most effective ground forces in the fight against ISIS (or ISIL).

IMHO the history of anarchism is one of the most interesting bits of history that they'll never teach in schools. Curious to hear the thoughts of my fellow atheists on this movement and ideology?
Reply
#2
RE: The interesting history they don't teach in schools
The problem with liberty is that most people are assholes; liberty FROM something is a great and unifying goal, but a system of non-government is just going to lead to me getting my stuff taken by a tougher dude, or my sister getter raped or whatever.

It seems to me anarchy is always a transitional step. It's a revolution, except that it's so deep in the trenches that it hasn't had the time to ask "What next?" What happens when ISIS fucks off, and nobody knows who's going to build roads or schools?
Reply
#3
RE: The interesting history they don't teach in schools
I guess the anarchist response would be that anarchism does not equal chaos or lack of organizational structure. For instance, among the Kurds, there are municipal authorities, there is law enforcement, and there are rules. The main distinction is how they make public policy decisions. They strive for as much consensus as possible (they can be classified as a direct democracy, but who uses consensus versus majority rule). They have organized decision making meetings, a voting system, a way for everyone who wishes to be heard on a topic to be heard, etc. And it works very well for those Kurds.

But they are also socialists (which is a feature of left-anarchism). They ascribe to maxims such as 'to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.' In other words, they don't have to worry about their property being stolen, because in a society where all its citizens can simply walk into a store and get what they want for free (they do not use currency in internal transactions), there's simply no incentive to steal.

But they do build roads when they need to, they do build schools, water treatment facilities, electrical power plants, housing, etc. They also staff these facilities. They collect garbage just like any other city (and so on and so forth).

They call ideologies like this "radical" for a reason, most people who have not taken the time to really learn this stuff, literally have no basis from their experiences by which they can understand how a system like this could work. So most people would just write this off without any real analysis (which is unfortunate, because there's a really rich history here that most people never learn about).
Reply
#4
RE: The interesting history they don't teach in schools
Quote:Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master.


G. Sallustius Crispus  1st century BC
Reply
#5
RE: The interesting history they don't teach in schools
(April 20, 2015 at 3:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master.


G. Sallustius Crispus  1st century BC

And maybe that's true ... another reason why I don't necessarily endorse anarchism, even though I love its ethos. 

But then, if I were to turn to a master/slave sort of Nietzschean ideology, wouldn't the logical conclusion would be egoism and narcissism? I mean, if most only desire to be slaves, the only other logical alternative would be a desire to be master. So the argument narrows to benevolent or malevolent master, but why would benevolence enjoy any special claim to truth?

So then, why not just be Romans and drop the pretenses  Smile 

Ahh yes, the other ingredient we're missing here .... people prefer to be well treated slaves, but they also like thinking they're free.
Reply
#6
RE: The interesting history they don't teach in schools
Quote:the only other logical alternative would be a desire to be master.

Precisely.  Today we call them greedy corporate cocksuckers.  The term would have meant nothing to Sallust.
Reply
#7
RE: The interesting history they don't teach in schools
(April 20, 2015 at 2:17 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: They call ideologies like this "radical" for a reason, most people who have not taken the time to really learn this stuff, literally have no basis from their experiences by which they can understand how a system like this could work. So most people would just write this off without any real analysis (which is unfortunate, because there's a really rich history here that most people never learn about).

Ideologies like this are marketed as 'radical' to get around the fact that they never address basic functions required of any government or community structure. It's easier to do as you just did and claim a 'radical' knowledge of something others don't understand.

These ideologies, which all hinge on some form of direct assembly, cannot function beyond however many people you can squeeze in a room and provide enough time for all concerned citizens to be heard. Doesn't leave much time for debate. Keep in mind that this is just for deciding if the parking lot should have straight or angled parking. Repeat for everything else considering the utopian consensus that is constantly being invoked with no clear definition or prescribed means of gaining consensus.

The ideas of administrative confederations to herd local assemblies is also unrealistic regardless of the agreed human rights and ecological standards that are to serve as the basis of confederation decisions. How do roads built in any one community have a hope of mating with roads proposed in another community?

None of these ideas propose forms of dispute resolution, just more hand waving at the idea of consensus. Seriously, by what means are disagreements to be arbitrated/adjudicated? Saying that in a perfect world people will come to an agreement is quite frankly idiotic making the entire enterprise not worthy of serious consideration.

What mechanism is in place to protect individual rights?

You mentioned that people can just go get what they want from the store, but there's never an explanation of how the goods get to the shelves. Who makes them? What if nobody wants to make toilet paper? What about unsavory services, like emptying your shit from a septic tank? What if nobody agrees to perform this service? I suppose this means that everyone is compelled to perform this task on their own. Extend this to all sorts of goods and services and you quickly revert to some sort of subsistence existence.

The very worst aspect of these ideas is that they ignore history and why certain institutions were developed. There's certainly room for improvement, but jettisoning all current community and societal organization institutions while pretending that the underlying problems for which they were created don't actually exist is naive.
Reply
#8
RE: The interesting history they don't teach in schools
(April 20, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Cato Wrote:
(April 20, 2015 at 2:17 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: They call ideologies like this "radical" for a reason, most people who have not taken the time to really learn this stuff, literally have no basis from their experiences by which they can understand how a system like this could work. So most people would just write this off without any real analysis (which is unfortunate, because there's a really rich history here that most people never learn about).

Ideologies like this are marketed as 'radical' to get around the fact that they never address basic functions required of any government or community structure. It's easier to do as you just did and claim a 'radical' knowledge of something others don't understand.

These ideologies, which all hinge on some form of direct assembly, cannot function beyond however many people you can squeeze in a room and provide enough time for all concerned citizens to be heard. Doesn't leave much time for debate. Keep in mind that this is just for deciding if the parking lot should have straight or angled parking. Repeat for everything else considering the utopian consensus that is constantly being invoked with no clear definition or prescribed means of gaining consensus.

The ideas of administrative confederations to herd local assemblies is also unrealistic regardless of the agreed human rights and ecological standards that are to serve as the basis of confederation decisions. How do roads built in any one community have a hope of mating with roads proposed in another community?

None of these ideas propose forms of dispute resolution, just more hand waving at the idea of consensus. Seriously, by what means are disagreements to be arbitrated/adjudicated? Saying that in a perfect world people will come to an agreement is quite frankly idiotic making the entire enterprise not worthy of serious consideration.

What mechanism is in place to protect individual rights?

You mentioned that people can just go get what they want from the store, but there's never an explanation of how the goods get to the shelves. Who makes them? What if nobody wants to make toilet paper? What about unsavory services, like emptying your shit from a septic tank? What if nobody agrees to perform this service? I suppose this means that everyone is compelled to perform this task on their own. Extend this to all sorts of goods and services and you quickly revert to some sort of subsistence existence.

The very worst aspect of these ideas is that they ignore history and why certain institutions were developed. There's certainly room for improvement, but jettisoning all current community and societal organization institutions while pretending that the underlying problems for which they were created don't actually exist is naive.

And that's a good and fair critique of anarchist and similar ideologies. But for the most part, there are different solutions for all the problems you mention. First, direct democracy is not new, nor is consensus decision making. Nonetheless, it does seem strenuous to think that it can perform adequately in a technologically advanced society such as ours (that is, perform up to peoples expectations and what we've become accustomed to), at least superficially. 

But we don't need to begin by trying to imagine the abrupt dismantling of government (this sort of situation always creates a crisis from which societies rarely recover from). Many don't realize this, but approximately 12% of the US economy is already employee owned and managed. That's something like $1.7 trillion in economic activity (that's more than the GNP of most countries). So employees can collectively make decisions in a cohesive and highly functional way, and they do so each and every day in this country, and in fact, studies have shown that employee owned/managed enterprises are more productive, survive longer, and generally outperform conventional companies in most of the standard metrics. I'm not saying employee ownership is appropriate in all circumstances. I still think incentives are important, and I think in new tech start ups or innovation intensive companies, employee ownership may be inappropriate (but it does work very well, across many different industry sectors). 

Looking at direct democracy, Switzerland was a direct democracy until very recently (ever since the Swiss confederation of the 13th century), and it has been perhaps the most highly functional democracy in the western world. In fact many of its cantons still use direct democracy, but it has been in decline, particularly in large cities (probably because of large amounts of immigration into Switzerland, particular its urban centers). 

BTW, I've been to Switzerland, and they have very nice roads (thank you very much).

How will disputes be handled, law enforcement, etc.? Well, how are they handled today? We imprison more people than every other nation on earth, and we have higher violent crime rates than most of our western counterparts. So let's begin by admitting that we don't do such a great job at this stuff. In Scandinavia, where they use restorative justice, they're actually closing prisons down. Not needed anymore. 

So yeah, I reject your very reactionary slippery slope, OMG it's gonna be like that movie where all the police went away and chaos ensued (reminds of one of Bill Maher's hysterical fits of panic at the thought of anarchy and chaos, like that time he thought banning plastic might be a great idea, in reaction to that guy who printed a gun using a 3D printer) Smile

And this how they keep their hooks in us, by prompting us to think in such absurd ways. Like your implicit assumption that any transition to a new system must involve the abrupt dismantling of the state and police forces, leaving us at the mercy of violent criminals. That's just ridiculous. There are many many ways we can transition towards a non-authoritarian society, and do so in a very smooth way. 





 
Reply
#9
RE: The interesting history they don't teach in schools
Quote: What mechanism is in place to protect individual rights?

Well...if you listen to the libertards...they claim the "free market" will handle that.  Ignoring of course that like all of the phony gods created by mankind the free market is just as phony.  Markets exist but are subject to manipulation by rich cocksuckers.
Reply
#10
RE: The interesting history they don't teach in schools
What mechanism exists now to protect civil rights? Let me guess, you guys really think our system automatically protects these rights, without the blood, sweat, and tears of activists and freedom fighters who have put it all on the line to win their liberty. Come on, give me a break. BTW, to narrow this into the false dichotomy of either a) democrat, b) republican, or c) libertarian ... shows how clueless cats in this country really are.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Video thread for interesting philosophical discussions on YouTube and elsewhere GrandizerII 2 420 August 26, 2020 at 8:43 am
Last Post: GrandizerII
  Interesting Study Minimalist 2 640 October 24, 2017 at 5:07 am
Last Post: WinterHold
Question How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :) fruyian 44 8322 May 19, 2016 at 5:08 pm
Last Post: SteveII
  Interesting statistics about academic philosophy Mudhammam 35 7768 September 18, 2015 at 10:24 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Dead for 45 minutes; an interesting near-death experience CleanShavenJesus 55 22549 August 19, 2013 at 8:33 pm
Last Post: Walking Void
  Aw, WTH....Let's Mix History and Philosophy Minimalist 2 1565 April 3, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)