<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV> <P><BR><BR></P><EM>>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? </EM></DIV> <P>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.</P> <P>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.</P> <P>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.</P> <P>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.</P> <P><EM>>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. </EM></P> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <P>I fail to see how former bosses are being "reduced to slavery" if they have to work like everyone else. Are you suggesting the bosses be allowed to go on being bosses? 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.</P> <P><EM>>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"? </EM></P> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <P>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.</P> <P><EM>>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. </EM></P> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <P>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. </P> <DIV></DIV><EM>>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. </EM> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <P>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.<I></P> <DIV></DIV></I> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV><EM>>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. </EM> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <P>My whole point is that a universal basic income would not be social emancipation, it would merely redefine the terms of slavery. 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.</P> <P><EM>>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. </EM></P> <DIV></DIV> <P>I don't see where you get the idea that a beefed up welfare state would force bosses to "beg and grovel". 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.</P> <P>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.</P></div><br clear=all><hr>The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMUEN/2019">2 months FREE*. </a> </html>