> >Their power is entirely derived from the fact that they can force
> >others to work for them. In saying that you want to "force the
> >ruling class to work", you appear to be saying that someone else
> >(Anarchists?) should have that power, rather than the existing
> >ruling class. Wouldn't that make whoever was giving those orders the
> >new ruling class? And wouldn't those who had to take the orders be
> >the new working class?>
>Sure, their power is derived from the ability to force people to
>work for them, nothing I've said denies that, what I was pointing
>out is that you're claim that the link between the need to work and
>economic scurity can be abolished is false, because our economic
>security, individually, and far mroe importantly collectively, is
>derived from our ability to work.
Yes, silly me, I was forgetting that. Lucky for everyone you weren't fooled by me talking about people being forced to work. You knew that meant ability and need to work. Either that or you can't even conceive of any other outcome of people being freed from the compulsion to work except that of everyone doing no work.
I can imagine a somewhat different outcome. But if you don't think freedom is practical, because you can't conceive that free people will do the work that is necessary to produce what they need, then it follows that the sort of society that you think is necessary is one where people cannot be permitted freedom.
>You seem to have misinterpreted what I meant by "force the ruling
>class to work". Currently, the ruling class are parasites, living
>off the working class. In an anarchist society, no one can live as a
>parasite off the labour of others. This doesn't mean that people who
>are invalids, mentally ill, etc. will be rejected, this is not the
>implication or intent of my statement, which I think is quite
>obvious.
Well, it wasn't explicit, but I assumed that you weren't going to advocate killing those who can't work. And I said so. So why you are claiming I said the opposite is unclear to me. I suppose you are simply unable to understand what I'm saying.
>In practical anarchist societies, during the Spanish Civil War for
>example, community assemblies [organised largely by the anarchist
>federation and anarcho-syndicalist union] determined what the
>economic priorities of a community would be and the community,
>through this means and others, decided how to best fulfill their
>needs and the needs of those in other communities through the
>practical application of those priorities to the economy of their
>community.
>
>I rejected your view of anarchism, where you claim it is merely a
>new ruling class. Under anarchism, production and distribution is
>determined in a non-burgeois democratic fashion.
>
> >But worst of all, what you seem to believe is that a society in
>which former bosses are reduced to slavery, is an improvement on a
>society where only the working class are slaves. I assume you would
>apply the doctrine that the ruling class be forced to work to
>everyone else too of course, in a spirit of egalitarianism.
>
>I fail to see how former bosses are being "reduced to slavery" if
>they have to work like everyone else.
Yes, you would fail to see that. I've often noticed that there are none so blind as those who don't want to see.
> Are you suggesting the bosses be allowed to go on being bosses?
No, I'm suggesting they be allowed to go on being free and that instead of taking away their freedom by making them into wage slaves, or ration slaves (or whatever it is you are advocating) that the economic freedom and security that the ruling class now enjoys under our current system be extended to all. Obviously, if you believe that free people will not voluntarily engage in productive activity, you will be horrified. I can't expect you to agree, but that is what I'm suggesting. I don't see any need to punish the ruling class by dragging them down to the level of the proletariat, especially if the price to be paid is no improvement in the conditions of the proletariat.
> I don't belive communities should be forced by other communities to
>provide for themselves. The reality is, nature forcs us all to work
>because if none of us were to work, we would all starve and die.
Its the law of nature then. But I don't really understand,why don't I see anyone forcing wild animals to work? Why it it that wild animals in a state of nature don't refuse to do what is necessary to gather their food, without a master (be the master a capitalist or a committee)?
> >But, even conceptually, a society in which everyone is a slave is
> >impossible. A slave requires a master. Who would be the masters in
> >your society and if you imagine there would be no masters, then who
> >in God's name is going to "force the ruling class to work"?
>
>No one is advocating a society in which "everyone is a slave". I
>don't get where this idea of yours comes from. Unless, of course,
>you think nature is enslaving us all! What you don't seem to get is
>that already the ruiling class have no fear for their ecnoomic
>security. That the whole point of this class war.
To take away their privilege right? To make them suffer the same as us. Forgive me, I assumed the object of the class war was emancipation of the working class, thank you for correcting my error. The object of the class war is to to achieve universal enslavement.
> >In my conception, an egalitarian society would be one where
> >everyone was free and no-one was a slave. You hold to the opposite
> >view, that everyone should be a slave. Frankly, this is not a very
> >attractive proposition. Not a "brave new world" that many people
> >would be keen to fight for. Even if it wasn't logically impossible
> >to start with.>
>You're consructing a strawman arguement against me by claiming I am
>advocating everyone be a slave. I'm not, and it's telling you've
>produced no qoute to document your claim.
>
> >I would appreciate an explanation of the mechanism by which this
> >"requirement" that all who eat would be required to work would
> >operate. Obviously there must be exceptions, so there would need to
> >be a way of deciding what those exceptions would be, as well as a
> >system of policing the requirements and the exceptions. So, if
> >you'll pardon my sarcasm, would you mind explaining how that would
> >be done in a way which was consistent with "anarchist" principles?
> >I'm quite sure there is no way you see, an anarchist" society based
> >on the principle of "work or starve" would be fairly much exactly
> >the same as the existing society. probably a lot worse.>
>Like I've said before, the requirement is not that everyone must
>work or eat. but that it is up to the community of people who work
>whether or not they want to support with their labour those who do
>not contribute in any way whatsoever with the product of their
>labour. If it isn't up to them to determine that, then they are
>being forced to support what effectively becomes a ruling class
>against their will.
> I've already explained above briefly the mechanisms that anrachist
>societies have used to determine how production and distribution
>were organised.
You haven't explained the mechanism by which the community would police its welfare policy, its policy on who will be fed and who will not. I'll make it easy for you, no need to go into elaborate detail, just explain how it would differ from the current system?
> >But that's just it, a universal and unconditional basic income
> >would emancipate the working class from your "work or starve"
> >dictate. It is completely at odds with the philosophy and practice
> >of the welfare state, as it has been practiced for the last 400
> >years. Work or starve has always been the central tenet of the
> >welfare state. Think the "workhouse", the "work test", "workfare",
> >etc. etc.>
>My whole point is that a universal basic income would not be social
>emancipation, it would merely redefine the terms of slavery.
In what sense?
> Not only is this notion completely unfeasible under capitalism in
>the majority of the world, where entire country's economies are
>geared towards cash crops for first world consumption, but even in
>advanced industrialized nations this wouldn't be that progressive.
Whether it is feasible is of course an open question, I said so myself. But I can understand why you would be horrified and think it wasn't progress to stop forcing people to work for a boss to live. However I don't agree. Obviously our respective definitions of "progress" depend very much on which direction we want to travel - and we are striving in opposite directions. Your object is universal enslavement, mine is universal emancipation, so what is progress to me would strike you as a step in the wrong direction. I'm curious, what would you see as "progress"? Workfare I'm guessing.
> >Whether such a radical change is actually practical under
> >capitalism is another question entirely though. It would certainly
> >make for a very inefficient capitalism, if bosses had to beg and
> >grovel to get people to work for them, or worse, pay their workers
> >what the workers think they are worth.>
>I don't see where you get the idea that a beefed up welfare state
>would force bosses to "beg and grovel".
Its pretty obvious. An unconditional income would have the result that taking a job would be voluntary, rather than something you must do to be able to eat. So the boss's would have to change their tune a very great deal. I could paint you a picture, but I don't want to torture you by raising the spectre of a whole population free to live their lives without fear and insecurity. Given your sensibilities that would be cruel of me. I'll confine myself to a moderately sarcastic tone.
> If anything, it would increase their control of the working masses.
>Ultimately, the "guaranteed univeral income" would be granted as
>something from the bosses, not something the workers themselves had
>control over.
Well, the workers would have control over their lives, that might be some consolation. "Social suicide," I hear you thinking.
>As an anarchist, im opposed to your conception of people being "paid
>what their worth". If not for the simple fact that for me, people
>don't have this monetary worth you ascribe to them. Money is a
>thing, people are living beings. The purchase of someone's labour is
>what anarchists such as myself are trying to eliminate.
You'd replace wages with rationing I suppose? Anyhow, given that you clearly haven't understood a word I've said, I better stop spouting more ideas you can't digest.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas