Quote by:
grandpa
I think people generally want to learn technical skills, at least enough to where they know how to fix things that are important to them.
I fail to see how a lack of srtificially imposed costs would restrict the human instinct to create. If this indeed was the actual state of affairs I know I'd want to do more, not less.
For amore general example, I don't see how there would be a greater electricity crisis, just a profit crisis for existing electricity suppliers.
All we need to conduct electricity is relevant information, mechanical knowhow and a steady supply of conductivity.
Well, you haven't effectively defined a scenario, but I think trade would be alive and well, and people would trade in a cooperative, non-competetive manner as they see fit.
In an anarchic society, this should mean no artificial deprivation of resources, and no hierarchy, or at least highly limited hierarchy. The underlying knowledge could be the necessity of performing certain tasks to produce essential goods and services.
The same kind of knowledge that exists in general society, but is currently hampered by abstract interests and elitism.
Again, you assume that all knowledge knowledge and understanding of the world would instantly disappear and basic motives would all be removed in a more egalitarian society, which is itself an assumption that benefits existing elites.
And here you reveal a view that's truly incredible: Money and prices are a form of knowledge. But money is no source of knowledge. and capitalist economics simply entails going out of our way to ignore the "human cost" of work, aside from costs.
That's why people can easily end up in dire straits. When the only incentive for work is making money, what happens when the money is lacking? People are discouraged from doing some kind of work. And I'm not suggesting work is always grand, but that it's made worse by how it's commonly done.
I'm sure I'll be accused of having "utopian" visions here, but people often end up doing work they don't even like in order to survive--often jobs no one had to do for any good reason in the first place. I even would assume that not all scam artists like what they do, or all prostitutes--but it's a way to get by when other routes aren't clear.
If you free people's time, the issue of not being able to be everywhere at once will matter much less. Presumably they'll want to survive and do much more.
But capitalism isn't fair and impartial. One of it's mantras to the poor is "Life is tough, deal with it!"
There is no need for an abstract designation in order to allocate resources. In fact, resources needn't always be allocated in a strictly systematic fashion. Systems do sometimes complicate things, rather than help. Consider the elaborate nature of most bureaucracies, where plenty of people simply shift around paperwork in order for basic things to occur. This basic situation--whether we call it rational or irrational (I prefer irrational)--serves mostly to create a climate of servitude, to reduce the capacity for critical thinking and to focus attention on abstraction rather than on the bare reality of what the organization is up to.
It was a flawed example, to be sure, but nonetheless shows the remarkable resolve an anarchic society can have. Remember, these were people who were essentially being attacked by three different armies of ideology--state capitalism, state-communism and fascism. And on top of this they were in Civil War mode. The fact that the people organized so effectively--had better functioning healthcare, had innovative agriculture techniques and still acted in a cohesive way--should win them at least some respect, whoever you are. And most did all this with a certain type of enthusiasm.
I do think an anarchic society would be attacked, for obvious reasons. A spirit of independence has to be crushed in order for authorities to maintain their influence.
Grandpa h.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks