We Can Work It Out - Politics & Philosophy | Page 54 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

QuarryMan said
The anarchy I believe you’re describing would be an extreme form of libertarian capitalism, so no. That would mean every industry could easily be taken over by huge corporations, who would form monopolies through exploiting their workers in the name of efficiency, therefore allowing them to overtake other businesses and control the whole industry. Plus, since there would be no government to regulate them, they could get away with paying starvation wages, allowing horrendous working conditions, proving a poor value service and there would be nothing to stop them polluting the environment further.

This seems more like fascism than anarchy. In an anarchist society, they would want to keep their employees because if they didn’t, all of the workers would quit and work for the person who does treat their workers fairly.

I would argue communism has never been tried.

What about the USSR?

Slab City has no electricity, running water, sewers, proper toilets or trash collection service. It’s hardly a model society.

But what it also lacks is violence, proving that anarchy can done. I think of it more as a proof of concept then anything else.

The thing about capitalism and fascism is that they work the same on paper as in reality whereas communism and anarchy have the potential to work differently, depending on how people respond to it. So if i wanted a system i know will work, i’d go for capitalism but anarchy has the potential to be better.

Dark Overlord said

QuarryMan said

The anarchy I believe you’re describing would be an extreme form of libertarian capitalism, so no. That would mean every industry could easily be taken over by huge corporations, who would form monopolies through exploiting their workers in the name of efficiency, therefore allowing them to overtake other businesses and control the whole industry. Plus, since there would be no government to regulate them, they could get away with paying starvation wages, allowing horrendous working conditions, proving a poor value service and there would be nothing to stop them polluting the environment further.

This seems more like fascism than anarchy. In an anarchist society, they would want to keep their employees because if they didn’t, all of the workers would quit and work for the person who does treat their workers fairly.

I would argue communism has never been tried.

What about the USSR?

Slab City has no electricity, running water, sewers, proper toilets or trash collection service. It’s hardly a model society.

But what it also lacks is violence, proving that anarchy can done. I think of it more as a proof of concept then anything else.

  

It’s not fascism, because there would be no state. Fascism is a totalitarian state controlling pretty much every aspect of the people’s lives.

The idea that ‘workers could just go work somewhere else’ is pretty flawed too. It doesn’t work like that under the current system, and it wouldn’t work like that in an anarchist society. The companies that do treat their workers fairly usually tend to either do so because of regulation forcing them to do so, or because they are a small business with a more personal relationship with their employees, and as we’ve established, under extreme capitalism, these smaller companies would be wiped out by larger ones who would find it easier to gain monopoly over an industry. If workers could just go find a better job, then nobody would be working for companies like Amazon or Primark. The reality is, people are going to choose poor pay and poor conditions over starving every time, and corporations know that, hence why they get away with it. This problem, as with pretty much every problem with capitalism, would only be made worse without a government to keep them in check. 

As for the USSR, it was only communism in terms of Lenin and later Stalin’s interpretation of communism, which was completely different to what Marx actually defined communism as. According to the communist manifesto, after socialism was established, the state (worldwide, not just in one country) would ‘wither away’, leaving a stateless communist utopia in its place. Also, socialism and by extension communism requires workers control of the means of production, which was absolutely not the case in the USSR, in which the government wasn’t democratic and so wasn’t controlled by the workers at all. 

Slab City doesn’t have violence because it’s basically a hippie commune made up of retired people who live further north temporarily to sunny California during the winter months, then moving back home when the weather improves. The only permanent residents get their income from government welfare programmes. Don’t make the mistake of thinking it’s an accurate subset of society. 

Good point, it’s probably best just to stick with capitalism with a limited government. I guess anarchy is like America banning guns, something that would be nice to have but can never happen because of all the bad people in the world who would abuse it.

Australia’s much smaller and completely surrounded by water whereas America is massive and is connected to Mexico.

As with drugs, if guns became illegal in America, the bad guys would just smuggle them in from Mexico or make their own.

Don’t get me wrong, America’s gun laws are too lax but banning guns entirely would be no better then having no gun laws at all and no punishment would stop it. Even if there was a mandatory death sentence if you’re caught with a firearm, the bad guys would still have guns.

And then there’s the scenario of someone breaking into your house with a gun. If guns are illegal and this happens:

1. You run out of your house. This might work, it might not but even if it does, the intruder got away with all your stuff.

2. You defend yourself with a knife. Unless if you’re Solid Snake, the robber just laughs at you and blows your brains out.

3. You grab your gun and shoot him. Even if you went out of your way to ensure the shot was non-fatal, you’re going to jail for possessing a firearm and will have to endure the ridiculous prison sentence you’re suggesting even though it was either you or him.

4. You call the police:

4A. If the police aren’t allowed to have guns either, then they’re pretty much worthless. They could try using bear mace, but then criminals will start wearing safety goggles.

4B. If the police are allowed to have guns, that’s great for this situation but that also means that cops can easily abuse their power since they’re the only ones who are allowed to own guns. So if that were the case, police brutality would be rampant.

1. Maybe not 100% but certainly enough that it’s a good idea.

2. That’s why there’s the safety lock and if that’s not enough, you don’t keep the gun loaded but instead keep bullets in your pocket so when it comes time to defend yourself, you quickly insert the bullets.

3. I said that to prove that even the most ridiculous sentences don’t turn people away from committing crimes, all they do is ruin people’s lives.