Communist-capitalist

[Biochemist]

Can you imagine the incentive Bill Gates would enjoy somewhere like Cuba?

Well, I know a number of folks would like to send him there.

[Biochemist]

.. Where do you get this idea about how feudalism came about? Feudalism is something imposed, starting with conquest or an ethnic prevalence. Spontaneous aggregation needn't lead to it...

I was using "feudalism" in the common usage sense, not comparing it explicitly to its historical develpment in Europe.

 

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

It has been used most narrowly to describe relations between lords and vassals that involve the exchange of land for military service. Feudalism in this sense is thought to have emerged in a time of political disorder in the 11th century as a means to restore order, and it was later a key element in the establishment of strong monarchies.

You will note the reference to restoring order from disorder by providing for common defense.

[Biochemist]

...(not that totalitarism and capitalism are the only options, but that would be another thread)...

I think I was weak in my explanation here. When I mentioned totalitarianism and capitalism, I meant to characterize them as two ends of a continuum of asset control. At one end the state controls everything. At the other, the people control everything in explicit portions. Everthing else (in terms of asset control) falls in between. I was using this construct to question the mechanism (within an anarchistic model) to create large elements that are are "required" for the public good (e.g., utilities, roads, banks, etc) and was asking how they would arise if there were not some ownership structure (anywhere on this continuum) and an associated rule/control structure (e.g., democracy, socialism, executive rule, etc) to identify the assets that would be contributed for the common good. I think I was not very clear.

...don't you agree with mine if you look at a society where laws aren't needed (I emphatise the difference between laws abolished and laws not needed)?

I may be a little thick, but I can't figure out how any group of people can coexist without rules. If the group establishes a mechanism to make rules, and a mechanism to enforce rules, it would (I think) define them as something other than anarchy.

[Fishteacher73]

THUNDERDOME!!!!!!!!

Two man enter; one man leaves!

 

Sorry...had to bring up good old Mel in his Mad Max role....

[Qfwfq]

Ok by the way , I think Bill Gate have succesfully to prove that capitalism is 'the truth way' of human culture coming this millenium now we easily enjoy to communicate by internet.

I don't see how Bill gates is proving that. He created a monopoly in the PC software market which has only weakened but still hampers a more open programming community. Unfortunately I don't think Ra is aiming for a much better situation.

[Qfwfq]

What kind of organization could exist in anarchy that would not carry some other label (e.g., democracy, communism, etc)?

Tom, Dick and Harry agreeing that it would be useful to have a road from here to there, persuading other people of their opinion and eventually the thing getting organized, people chipping in with resources. Unlike in direct democracy, this wouldn't mean that the assembly of citizens votes pro and agrees on a compulsory contribution. That's the kind of way anarchists, that Sanctus and I know of, think.

 

You will note the reference to restoring order from disorder by providing for common defense.

I think I said myself something about Charlemagne's idea of how to organize such a vast empire and that it worked no longer than there was loyalty toward the vertex of the hierarchy, but I was being brief.

 

The topic is more complex than should be gone into here but, because it isn't as simple as that, I don't see that your Encyclopedia Britannica quote proves your point. The disorder referred to by EB was Charlemagne's organization no longer working. That wasn't the beginning of feudalism anyway, it's talking about an evolution of it. Here's another thing from http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc1/lectures/19feudalism.html:

 

Feudalism can be simply defined as

l) fragmentation of political power;

 

2) public power in private hands; and

 

3) armed forces secured through private contracts.

Seems more akin to Capitalism than to anarchy. I found other links which also tell me I wasn't remembering wrong.

I may be a little thick, but I can't figure out how any group of people can coexist without rules.

Is mutual respect a rule? Is a sense of ethics a rule? Anarchists are against Laws, in the sense of imposition. Subtle distinction but they see it, whether or not you or I agree with them. It's no use arguing that it would amount to something which it isn't. The only thing I think is that it's utopia.

[C1ay]

He created a monopoly in the PC software market which has only weakened but still hampers a more open programming community.

Quite true. He also lowered the standard for quality programming by pushing more and more software out the door without the stringent debugging that was such an intimate part of development in yesteryear. He is the true inventor of the BSOD.

 

OTOH, he has brought usablity of common desktop computers to the average Joe, the one that does good to hit the power button and thinks the CD tray is a cupholder. The systems purchases of all those average Joe's out there has brought down the hardware cost for the rest of us that do know how to compile our own kernel while downloading mp3s from the command line. For that I give him credit.

[Fishteacher73]

Tom, Dick and Harry agreeing that it would be useful to have a road from here to there, persuading other people of their opinion and eventually the thing getting organized, people chipping in with resources. Unlike in direct democracy, this wouldn't mean that the assembly of citizens votes pro and agrees on a compulsory contribution. That's the kind of way anarchists, that Sanctus and I know of, think.

 

This again is a nice way of thinking, but I think it is unobtainable in the real world. To borrow a bit of Rodney king, "Why can't we all just get along?"

Because we are humans and we want as much as possible with as little work as possible. There are variations on this, but the archtype human is a selfish lazy creature that will use anything to their own advantage.

 

Is mutual respect a rule? Is a sense of ethics a rule? Anarchists are against Laws, in the sense of imposition. Subtle distinction but they see it, whether or not you or I agree with them. It's no use arguing that it would amount to something which it isn't. The only thing I think is that it's utopia.

 

As I stated earlier, it sounds great, but is impractical in the real world. You are right it is a utopia. (u= no, topia= place. ergo non-existant).

[Biochemist]

Tom, Dick and Harry agreeing that it would be useful to have a road from here to there, persuading other people of their opinion and eventually the thing getting organized, people chipping in with resources.Unlike in direct democracy, this wouldn't mean that the assembly of citizens votes pro and agrees on a compulsory contribution. That's the kind of way anarchists...

Hmmm. But even in this case, Tom, Dick and Harry might be in favor, but Betty and Fred might think that the road divides their farm in half. Then what ot they do? Vote? It seems to me this model would break down pretty quickly, even with a group as small as 50.

Feudalism can be simply defined as

l) fragmentation of political power;

2) public power in private hands; and

3) armed forces secured through private contracts.

I can accept this definition of feudalism. I apologize if I pushed the anaology to feudalism too far, but my only point was that folks might aggregate into units similar to feudalism to provide for common defense if the population got large enough in an anarchistic society.

It's no use arguing that it would amount to something which it isn't. The only thing I think is that it's utopia.

Well, I realy did not assume you were advocating it. I was just trying to understand how this would work at all in any group of significant size.

[Qfwfq]

OTOH, he has brought usablity of common desktop computers to the average Joe, the one that does good to hit the power button and thinks the CD tray is a cupholder. The systems purchases of all those average Joe's out there has brought down the hardware cost for the rest of us that do know how to compile our own kernel while downloading mp3s from the command line. For that I give him credit.

For this, I give him as much credit as I would be giving to anyone else who could have done it. It happened with so many other technological products, with or without compatibility problems. What did Uncle Bill do that wouldn't have happened, especially with greater competiotion? Monopoly typically doesn't improve competition. Compatibility between OS and apps was an offset to competition, that hadn't been solved by an industry standard as had been partially done for the hardware. Uncle Bill exploited this to the fullest, to his advantage. I don't give him credit for that.

[Qfwfq]

To borrow a bit of Rodney king, "Why can't we all just get along?"

Because we are humans and we want as much as possible with as little work as possible. There are variations on this, but the archtype human is a selfish lazy creature that will use anything to their own advantage.

This is obvious and even anarchists realize it is utopic. The ones I know don't expect it to just happen, and they don't expect the world to ever be perfect. They just like to do what's possible toward people improving and getting along better and so on. Like John Lennon, they say: "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...". The important thing, in this discussion, is to make clear what the ideal is and what it isn't.

 

Obviously, if you just shot your President, all congressmen, Supreme Court, state governers and so on, there would be nothing but disorder and confusion. Although there have been anarchist extremist that have assasinated heads of state, that isn't the idea at all. They like Freedom, just like the guys that carried out the Boston tea party, but they think a step further than just Democracy. They like to dream, and they have a lot of little communities which are efforts to have a little island of it.

[Qfwfq]

But even in this case, Tom, Dick and Harry might be in favor, but Betty and Fred might think that the road divides their farm in half.

I once heard an anecdote of an American judge, impatient at the defendants arguments about freedom. The judge beckoned him before his desk, clenched his fist in front of the guys face and said: "My freedom to move this fist ends exactly where your nose begins."

 

This is what is meant by mutual respect. Anyway, in the type of community anarchists dream about, the Capitalist notions that you keep trying to apply are somewhat replaced, as they are usually somewhat Marxist. They would respect Betty and Fred's work rather than Betty and Fred's farm because the farm itself would be a resource of which Betty and Fred had chosen to take care.

 

Then what ot they do? Vote?

They would weigh all things against each other, Betty and Fred's opinion would certainly count more than others' and, after everybody exchanging pov, they might even vote. If the community decided it was so urgent they needed to sacrifice some of the crops, too early for harvest, they'd be very sorry for the wasted effort and make some agreement about it.

 

Anarchists don't think that everything would just work smooth and flawless, without the much hated authoritative laws, compulsory things and banned things, but they believe things can be sorted out in the end, somehow, if everybody has sense and goodwill. If there are defectors, these won't be very welcome in such a community.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Fishteacher,

 

Please forgive me for being perhaps too critical here but I think it's necessary to focus on some of the fallacies, or at least some beliefs that I think are fallacies. I have the utmost respect for good teachers and no disrespect to you is intended. I suspect you to be a good teacher simply because you take ideas seriously and you state them clearly.

 

"First I think it is not the school's job to teach values...These should be taught at home. I have enough of a handfull teaching my subject matter to have to teach little Johnny manners on top of the quadratuc formula."

 

Well, that's not exactly true. You teach manners in school by example. The first thing that Mandatory schooling teaches all of us is that it's ok to force people to do things they don't want to do. Just for starters, that seems rather bad manners. We just pretend that it has no bad consequences.

 

I suspect that typically, people behave badly because they are operating under the influence of at least one fallacy. If everyone uses it, it doesn't mean it's not a fallacy.

 

We also make little children sit still and be totally unnatural. I strongly suspect that if we were to look at little children in a culture that didn't 'school' their kids but let them run free, the last thing we'd see them doing is sitting listening to an adult talk about something they had zero interest in listening to. My point here is that the way we do it is not...natural. We ignore this observation because we don't know how to do it any other way.

 

But I agree with BIO who suggested a separate thread. Perhaps several. Maybe we'll learn something usefull.

[C1ay]

What did Uncle Bill do that wouldn't have happened, especially with greater competiotion? Monopoly typically doesn't improve competition.

Who knows at this point? All I was saying was that he made a system that helped bring computers to the home. He produced a product and convinced all of the computer illiterate out there to suck it up which helped you and I to get a cheaper system because of the market volume he created. I didn't mean to imply that he did a good job of it because he didn't. In actuality, Apple would have probably had better success with a better quality to boot if Bill's predatory practices hadn't done the same thing to them that it did to Netscape.

[Biochemist]

....In actuality, Apple would have probably had better success with a better quality to boot if Bill's predatory practices hadn't done the same thing to them that it did to Netscape.

Agreed. Or even CPM (remember CPM?) as an early competitior to DOS. I think that MicroSoft's predatory practices drove a lot of insularity in the industry, just out of fear. Just like IBM in the 1965-1985 window, the dominant player was hard to displace. The difference, however, is that IBM actually had a pretty good product (i.e., MVS systems) that survived based on a high-quality performance standard. Microsoft could make no such claim, at least for an operating system.

 

On the application side, I always thought Excel was a good product, in that it was easily superior to the market (Lotus 1-2-3) when it was introduced. Of course, you might recall it only ran on MACS (!) when it was released because the Windows OS (2.0, as I recall) was still brain dead at the time.

[Biochemist]

...Anyway, in the type of community anarchists dream about, the Capitalist notions that you keep trying to apply are somewhat replaced, as they are usually somewhat Marxist....Anarchists don't think that everything would just work smooth and flawless, without the much hated authoritative laws, compulsory things and banned things, but they believe things can be sorted out in the end, somehow, if everybody has sense and goodwill....

Thanks for the clarification, Q. It looks to me (supported by your inference to Marxism above) that a small anarchist community would grow into a small communist community, sort of like a kibbutz. I understand how that would work. I just can't see it retaining any true "anarchist" nature for very long.

[Qfwfq]

The differences between anarchy, Marxism and Communism can be subtle, sure enough, and I'm not such a great expert as to discuss them in detail.

 

Once a student, that was pushing a course, told me that Marxism sees the state ownership of productivity as a transient stage with the aim of there being no state at all, just the people. I'm not sure how much difference there would be between this and anarchy, I didn't go to that course and I haven't read "Capital". A Communist state is somewhat a variant on Marxism, as one of the definitions posted by Tarak stated.

 

I think one difference would be that, in Marxism, there would be such a notion as laws or rules, as decided democratically by the people, and therefore also a stronger notion of property than there could be in anarchy. Individual property would be like personal belongings.

 

In anarchy, the farm of yesterday's hypothetical example ideally would belong to neither "Betty and Fred" nor to "the people", it is a resource to be used. A sense of belonging would reduce to respect of people, hence also of any effort they have made or even of their needs etc. It would be concieveable to trade, in the sense of exchanging efforts, and any unfairness might result in getting kicked in the arse. Not because Hammurabi's code perscribes it but because a behaviour is percieved as unfair and a defence is considered necessary.

 

I think it is, slightly, different from Marxism but somewhat akin to it.