doesn't conservatism = anarchy ?

[father_twilight]

liberal is supposed to be a dirty word now. conservative should be too - because what we really have to make clear is that conservative means being against all social programs, like medicare or social security.

being conservative is curiously like being anarchist - we don't need any rules in business, it will all work out by itself, we don't need government to try to take care of sick and poor, because people and religious charities will do that by themselves. clinton is the only one who actually tried to explain this position to the american people

[VTMechEngr]

1. Actually

Anarchy is a libertarian principle. Conservative is classically known as little government involvement in the economy, but heavy involvement in Morality issues. Translation: < Who needs minimum wage, let the F*ckers starve, but since I said a bad word, I need to go to jail >

[AP]

2. Close. Bush version = monarchy.

[FDRrocks]

3. Anarchism = Libertarian Socialism

... which as far as I can interpret is basically trying to achieve the basic end that Marx wanted: A collapse of governments (which are inherently corrupt), and the rebirth of egalitarian society.

[father_twilight]

4. we reach that stage in history

right after we learn to read each other's minds, right?

[wuushew]

5. What is the mechanism for maintaining anarchy?

It seems to me powerful individuals would accumulate economic or religious power and oppress others. Sort of a Mad Max universe.

[K-W]

7. communism is a touch different

Libertarianism doesnt call for egalitarianism, it just calls for a society that functions without a government.

[father_twilight]

9. ha... ha ha

society without a government ?...

so it is anarchy. a fascinating idea, if it actually could work. look, anarchy only works if you have 10 people living on a desert island which has unlimited resources, if its anything else you need to set basic rules for interaction, and then you need to appoint someone to enforce those rules, and bla bla bla before you know it you got government.

look, if father_twilight tells you that you are living in a dream land, trust me you are living in a dream land

[K-W]

11. Well, not impossible, but yah, very improbable.

Given enough time, it is possible that human behavior could evolve to the point where we can setup a sustainable governmentless society, but the earth will probably die, or we will all kill ourselves off before that every has a remote shot of happening.

[Pachamama]

39. Many Tribes in the world lived in a peaceful society without a government

...."governing" them...it wasn't until the Wise Whities came in to show them how to live or actually to "govern" them....

Um, "Father Twilight".....why would you tell someone on the DU they are living in Dream land? We are having a discussion here....

On the DU, we love freethinking discussion without personal attacks...I see your a Newbie....Welcome...:hi:

[Tommythegun]

14. Not quite...

That anarchism. Libertarianism sees a need for government. But that need is for a government as limited in scope and power such that it serves the purpose of preventing the initiation of force against others and not more than that.

[K-W]

20. Right,

I should go to sleep my brain is pretty fuzzy.

Anarchy is a destruction of social structures, the idea is that we dont need anyone poking around in our business and we could all just live by the law of the jungle in a sense, and that would somehow be better, anarchists dont have any clear philosophy.

Libertarianism thinks the government should only deal with other nations and have a military for such purposes, but that all domestic issues should run trhough free market capitalism. It is a convoluted philosophy that ignores the history of capitalism up till now.

Communism says that in time our system will evolve to the point that everything changes radically and people live in communities where everyone pitches in to keep the economy going and the goal is to give everyone the opportunity to fufill themselves as human beings. Since the goal is happiness and enrichment, not profit, no one is exploited and alienated and technology allows us to keep people fed, housed, etc with minimum labor from everyone. Plenty of free time and hobbies and fun.

[Tommythegun]

25. I don't agree...

although it may come down to a definition of terms.

I've never heard a libertarian, or anyone I would consider such, advocate 'leaaving everything to the market' on domestic affairs. That, again, sounds closer to an anarcho-capitalist or something. Libertarians still see a need for the rule of law, primarily for the enforcement of contracts, and to prevent the initiation of force.

As far as Communism goes, you forgot the role of revolution. There is the school, the Bernstein school, that goes for 'evolutionary socialism' and that is the school that informs social democrats in Europe and so forth, but actual Marxism is revolutionary, if you are going back to Marx.

Remember, also, that Marx viewed economics as zero-sum. Malthus would be the closest fellow-traveler to Marx, economically speaking.

[K-W]

28. Yes but the revolution to him was a natural part of the evolution

of society. Thats just how society seemed to evolve to him.

As far as libertarianism, yah I think its just terms, it is one of the more diverse schools of thought, since it isnt based on one mans writing or on an any implemented structures. Ive run into libertarians who thought society could run without domestic governmental involvement. Contracts would be enforced by the market, but you are right established philosophies tend to have more structure to them, even libertarians have a hard time buying total domestic anarchy.

[Tommythegun]

33. Revolution...

Marx argued that:
1) The material conditions of the proletariat would have to reach such a miserable level that they would be compelled to act (Joseph Tainter argued the opposite in "The Collapse of Complex Societies", that a society that failed to provide tangible economic benefit to the majority of its members over a simpler system would collapse due to malaise).
2) The proletariat would have to have sufficient class consciousness to view themselves accordingly.

So, even Marx qualified his remarks, though yes, in general, he subscribed to historiocity.

As far as contracts being enforced by the market, eventually you would have to have a neutral arbiter to decide any contract for anyone to be able to trust it and, ergo: the origin of government. At least according to Locke and he would be considered a seminal, probably the seminal, philosophical founder of libertarianism. John Stuart Mill approached the problem from the utilitarian perspective. Friedrich Hayek would advance some of the economics, and I can tell I'm treading on thin ice here... ;)

[VTMechEngr]

8. I wish more people understood Marx's thesis.

He wanted to end all national governments. Society would fall into a semi-feudalistic stage in the sense that communities didn't fight with weapons, but with trade. Each town or city would be its own "traditional village" in his view.

This ideology worked when each community made its own supplies, or traded very little only to get the raw materials needed by each community. This in a sense is partly a libertarian view.

BUT, All modern trials of Marx's thesis show that his core ideas on society were wrong. Humans are competitive by nature, and greedy. With the modern world opening many new choices and innovations, I can honestly say that capitalism is the only effective economy in the modern world. This doesn't mean you can't have healthcare systems and the like, but I believe that man Must have national governments to regulate trade in the modern world.

It was this flaw in the thesis that caused every trial in a communist system to be totalitarian. Anarchism does not work, nor does communism. At least, not with Humans...

[K-W]

10. BS!

Modern trials didnt show that his core ideas were wrong, they showed that his other ideas were wrong.

We have no proof at all that Humans are competitive by nature or greedy. In fact we have proof that they arent, people have existed who have not been competitive or greedy. Considering what we know of human behavior, that probably means all humans have the potential to be non-competive and non-greedy.

What trials of Marx's theories have shown that the likelyhood of the exact conditions he put forth ever happening are next to nil and
competitiveness and greed are ingrained in our behavioural repetoire and people cant simply choose to stop being that way and we dont have the behavioral technology to figure out how to raise them to be that way.

Your statement about capitalism is a bit maybe true, maybe silly, it depends what you mean.

Pure capitalism just means that we use currency for exchange value. Ther eis probably no better way to value resources or labor than that, but if you meant any more sophisticated philosophies of capitalism, I think thats dead wrong. All current incarnations of capitalism are piss poor. They are horribly inequitable and as systems are completely out of control. They suck up resources and exploit labor like crazy and if allowed to continue it will destroy our enviroment in short order.

[VTMechEngr]

16. Competition has always been a human trait

Some people fight it, but without a government, it only takes one person to want more and more and to eventually upset the system. I was trying to chew at anarchism in that sense. Competition is everywhere: sports, driving, clothing. we constantly try to outdo each other. Get a bunch of guys together and soon they will do something to compete.

Now, I agree that not everyone is greedy. But - it only takes one to mess up a communist system. At least, without a government in place. I was trying to hint at that point.

The problem with Marx's exact conditions, is that they were mostly eliminated with labor laws and modern society. Now I do say, if we continue on the path we are currently following, we may end up there again.


Now, before we get into a capitalism vs. socialism debate, My point was I think that having the choice of which soap bar to use from a supermarket is better than being given a set number of bars by a communist system is more compatible to modern life. Remember the time frame that Marx wrote the manifesto.

The only thing I completely agree with Marx on is the explotation of labor. This is why I support a Living wage.

[Tommythegun]

23. Thing with Marx...

Is that he was a radical in the truest sense of that word, in that he viewed the problem as residing in the roots of society, roots that he maintained had to be changed to their very core, which he viewed in economic terms, and, ultimately, in human nature.

Problems: He outlined a problem but left very little in the way of prescription of what to DO about it. He wasn't very clear about how his followers would proceed or what the end product would look like.

He may very well have been trying to make square circles. If your problem lies ultimately in the very roots of human relations, society and, ultimately, human nature, overcoming these obstacles may not be possible.

[K-W]

26. We definately dont know that it is a human trait. Please dont say that.

You are right that it only takes a little bit of greed and competition to mess up a communist society, though one person probably couldnt do it.

So yes, it is highly improbable that we will ever reach the point where a large enough percentage of people were raised to be non-competitive. It is not impossible, but it would require a very large evolution of our culture and behavior. Marx thought this was going to happen as a result of capitalisms downfall, he was obviously very wrong.

Do I think that if we are lucky enough not to kill ourselves off that with enough time human culture might evolve to something like a communist society, maybe. Do I think it is a reasonable solution for our time or for any sense of the forseeable future, definately not.

I do however think it is an ideal that every man and women on this planet should understand. It is, in that sense, alot like christian teachings. In fact it is remarkably similar. Christian teachings say that an ideal person loves everyone, shuns revenge for forgiveness, gives to the less fortunate, etc. A world of ideal christians could make communism work. ITs interesting how two such similar philosophies have been so pitted against each other in practice.

If we make that our ideal of a perfect world, the goal being a world where every individual is equally able to fufill themselves, then we can judge whether a society is working or not.

Currently in America, we obscure things by making means ends. Capitalism isnt a means to the end of making a better society, it is an end unto itself. This is where we go horribly wrong and sacrifice human happiness and life for a system.

[Tommythegun]

30. Marx sought a change in the roots of society...

His whole point was that the problem lay in the roots of society and that all history bore witness to class struggle and the property system. Given that, all of human history in all parts of the world, according to Marx, have given rise to that system.

Was Marx right in a normative sense? We may never know, because he was arguing, did argue that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was necessary, for the complete and total reformation of human society along a different path.

Again, perhaps square circles.

[wuushew]

31. Capitalism is inherently wasteful

The problem with a centrally planned economy is that it is unable to efficiently control the behavior of millions of producers and consumers simultaneously, but Capitalism also is wasteful. Right now more electricity is produced than is used at numerous small plants throughout the U.S. The expense of transmission lines dictates that the market favors inefficiency. Things like the design of utilities, transportation etc are basically engineering problems to solve and don't require the random shotgun effect of numerous producers wastefully duplicating results to generate a superior goods or services.

Functionally the few varieties of soap designed by a command economy perform the task of personal hygiene just as well as the excessive variety offered by capitalist markets. In America we allow idiots to buy SUV's, excessively large homes and myriad of other items of questionable use. Certainly American consumerism is incompatible with good environmental philosophy. Providing sufficient education to overcome inherent human selfishness is a difficult task. Our whole society is based on excess consumption of finite resources. A new paradigm must be found or the standard of living with fall dramatically.

[Tommythegun]

34. A few things...

For one, no human economy will EVER be perfectly efficient. Count on that as one of the earliest lessons of economics anywhere (in economic terms, we never completely reach the production possibility frontier).

Secondly, the environmental drumbeat has sounded that note for a good many years, at least three decades, and yet the economy has grown at the same time the environment, in many places, is better than it used to be in the 1970s. Socialist/Communist governments that existed during the last century had environmental records to whiten hair.

The best paradigm would probably be to find a way to incorporate the environment into our environmental planning. Find a way to quantify a clean environment and incorporate those costs into the system.

[wuushew]

36. The environment suffered because it was not a priortiy for the USSR

This was a country that spent 12-14% of its' GDP on military outlays in the early 1980s. Those weapon factories had to run unimpeded. Designing a good pollution shrubber is again basically an engineering problem one that country like the USSR could have easily meet with its' well trained cadre of technicians.

Certainly Western countries did not become clean by the miracle of the market. The EPA put its' foot down to improve air and water quality since 1970. Read Sinclair's The Jungle to see what private industry thought of food safety.

[Tommythegun]

37. I'm not saying that they became clean 'by the miracle of the market'...

Only that the market would provide the best medium through which to pursue those goals, not necessarily to dictate those goals.

There's been enough abuse on behalf of environmental law, witness CERCLA (Superfund) that has turned the law on its ear, presumption of innocence and mens rea on its ear and made owning or investing in land in this country a 'faith-based initiative': faith that the EPA won't bankrupt you.

At best you wind up with unintended consequences. Look at how the Clean Air Act grandfathered existing coal powerplants: that basically gave a major advantage to the owners and operators of those plants such that they have, essentially, built whole new plants in some cases that completely ignore the rules.

At least the market has a built-in corrective mode. The question is how can we make that work FOR the environment?

[Tommythegun]

38. My broader point...

Is that it is fallacious, as fallacious as Malthus' comparisons between population and economic growth rates, to assume that economic expansion MUST require despoiling the environment.

[VTMechEngr]

21. You must have missed the phrase "on society"

His core ideas on society were wrong. Think sheeple rather than uprising proletariat. Competition and occasional greed rather than communal sharing. My point is it was too idealistic.

[K-W]

29. I dont think that part of it was too idealistic.

I think humans are capable of it. I just think he was being too idealistic to think it could happen without a great great deal more history.

[tomorrowsashes]

24. Marx isn't the best model for the anarchist

Marx isn't really a good model for anarchist thought, as his ideas have been proven wrong. A better model is Mikhail Bakunin, who debated Marx, and predicted all of the problems state socialism would face, concluding that true socialism requires the elimination of the state. Anarchist societies have existed, and do exist. That is an undeniable fact. They tend to function in a very equitable and efficient manner.

The fundemental tenant of anarchist theory is that private property, that is property which is used to gain power or make a profit, is worng. Anarchists contend that the state is simply a vehicle to maintain the power of the few, and that with the abolition of capitalism and other hierarchies, government is unnecessary. When you don't have an institution upholding the concept of private property, the accumulation of power becomes impossible. People learn to share, and develop systems of mutual aid, where society and the individual each benefit from their relationship.

This is in direct opposition to conservatism.

www.anarchyarchives.org
www.anarchistfaq.org

[K-W]

6. This is complicated.

Conservatism has so many meanings. The anarchy philosophy is libertarianism, which is where the current conservatives get thier economic philosophy.

[Tommythegun]

27. Anarchy would be a step up...

Modern 'conservatives' of the Republican persuasion are beholden to an antiquated form of commodity capitalism, more closely related to mercantilism, that is enmeshed tightly with a friendly government able to provide favor.

[usregimechange]

12. No on social issues, yes on the economy in extreme W form nt

[K-W]

13. and not even on the economy

corporate welfare isnt exactly economic anarchy

[usregimechange]

15. true, but I couldn't fit "generally" in the subject line, :-) nt

[Tommythegun]

18. True enough...

"Conservatives" of the Republican bent are all for grants-of-privelege for their friends and donors.

[Tommythegun]

19. I've got one for you...

Friend of my wife had a business taking tourists and tour groups to Cuba. Changes in the laws regarding visting and trading with Cuba ruined her business.

So, in other words, we have a supposedly 'free' trade conservative administration shutting down a private business that was bringing tourists to a communist country. Esta vida loca.

[K-W]

32. Yah, the free trade thing is a smokescrean

It just tends to be a good way to justify alot of thier actions that are meant not to create a libertarian paradise, but to keep a certain group of elites elite and increase thier wealth.

[Tommythegun]

35. Grandees will never actually promote smaller government...

Not when they have a stake in the current system. And the system will never ignore them, not as long as it is dependent on their well-being and success for their budgets.

[Charlie Brown]

17. From what I've seen conservatism=fascism

Mussolini, Hitler and Franco (along with Peron and Batista in Cuba) were all propped up by big business and the military/industrial complex (weapons manufacturers, profiteers, etc.) If you've seen Schindler's List, many entrepreneurs took advantage of forced labor from Concentration Camps to profit, though Schindler ended up saving his worker's lives. We've already seen the potential of businesses with inside connections profiting from the current world situation. I wonder what's next.

[HarveyBriggs]

22. Good oberservation. Great way to start an earnest conversation.

Taken to it's most extreme, the current trend in conservatism does resemble anarchy. I've pointed this out to Bush supporters, and it does make them stop and think.

That event itself is huge -- a thinking conservative.

The issue forces them to consider exactly where they want to limit law.

Harvey Briggs

[Disturbed]

40. Amerika today,

Amerika is heading toward Fascism. Four more years of BushCo and it will be complete.

The goals of the Neo Fascists:

Abolish

Social Security
Medicare
Employer supplied health insurance
Unemployment Benefits
Welfare
Collective Bargaining
EPA
Public Education
Public Housing

Refer to PNAC for Intl. Goals