Tomorrow is also Remembrance Day

My mother grew up under apartheid S. Africa and drummed into us the fact that my relatives could not vote and when they were able to, she would point out that they walk for miles to queue for hours at the polling station. Hence I have always voted. However, I don't think I would bother taking the time to walk to the polling station to do so (I voted by post) given that I live in Harriett Harman's safest labour seat in London and the one party I could happily vote for is not fielding a candidate. To me, civil society is a trade-off of freedoms. I agree to abide by certain rules in exchange for certain freedoms for myself being respected. The Lib dems respect social freedoms but violate economic freedom. The (old) conservatives or UKIP have some respect for economic freedom but violate social freedom. Labour violate both. Political power/ governance has decoupled from the principles of civil society and therefore it is unsustainable. So whoever is elected, they have not respected economic and social liberty and therefore I do not have to put in my side of the trade (there is no moral onus on me to play by the rules, pay tax etc.) Of course most of these rules are enforced via laws or PAYE so there is no escaping them but there is some degreee of reliance on cooperation and I forsee a long slide into anarchy as more and more ordinary people either 'play' or 'avoid' the system.

You can challenge my position about the contracts of civil society but that is how I and many others feel and act regardless of whether you or others agree. I would not break the law and neither would most people but here's an example. Susie is 35 and she works as a Marketing Executive for £27K. Her boyfriend Colin works as a college lecturer for £35k per year. Their joint income of £62 k means they can comfortably buy a property for about £150k but all they can get in the South East is a very small flat. Susie wants children but with the mortgage, childcare etc. they can barely afford it and the flat has no outdoor space and little inside playspace for the children anyway. She realises the only way of providing the children with a decent life is to separate from Colin, move into a rented house with a garden and work part time, topped up with tax credits and housing benefit. Never mind the Tory rhetoric 8u11$h!t, Colin can still be a good father (and see the children more often than a married couple where the father works long hours and travels a lot) and given their education and social status, the children won't turn out to be reprobates. Now the government can bang on about morals and responsibility but since they stoked house prices and tax middle earners to death do you really think Susie and Colin are going to listen? I agree that's an unsustainable position and no society could function on that basis. So as increasing numbers of people act like Susie, the status quo will become unsustainable. Maybe then it will be replaced with something better. Maybe it will be replaced by something worse which requires a harder fight. jude

Cock! I will not give my vote to a system based on exploitation and violence. The liberal democracy you value so much is a sham, a fig leaf to cover the true nature of capitalism. True democracy can only exist if it is practised in every workplace and in every community. Equality and liberty are the sine qua non of democracy and they cannot exist under capitalism. And don't give me this "people died fighting fascism so that you could vote" shite, it's a handy myth which bear much historical examination. So, go to the polling stations and cast your votes, kid yourselves that it means you are citizens. It's a sham and by your actions you legitimise a war machine, global exploitation and the permanent rule of the rich.

Kropotkin, I think I am finally coming around to your viewpoint, at least as far as the invalidity of government and State, the sham of democracy and global exploitation and the permanent rule of the rich (or current elite). Though we still diverge and as I feel capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is Corporatism, State Capitalism, Monopoly Capitalism and Welfare Capitalism. I would put my position somewhere between anarcho-capitalist and geolibertarian. jude

The only misconceived 19th Century ideology around here is yours brooosh. The system that you support has brought us to the very edge of ecological catastrophe and social dissolution, not to mention spreading economic crisis and growing inequality. Why should I work with that system? It is opposed to life. It is a system for making war on people and on the Earth. What I call for is radical democracy; democracy in every workplace and in every community. I call for an end to nation states and an end to hierarchy. You may well call this naive, but the onus is on you to prove that the system you and your ilk peddle can work. At the moment the signs are not good for your global capitalist experiment, nor, if you maintaiin you are a reformer, for your notion of reforming the beast. The sneer and the sarcastic remark would be better suited to someone defending a system that does not leave children to starve, that does not make money by making war, and that does call a choice between fools and crooks every five years democracy.

I am not interested in forcing anything on you. What you and your state do is forced on me and has been from the day of my birth. For your information libertarian ideas have been practised successfully in the past and are still practised against the all the odds around the world today. Your hatred exercises me not at all. The fact that you can compare my ideology to fascism proves that your antipathy is based on ignorance. I will have you know that anarchists laid down their lives trying to stop the march of European fascism when social democrats were still preaching appeasement and doing all they could to oppose the revolutionary working class. How dare you accuse me of energising the BNP when it is precisely the failure of reformists which has always given rise to the far right? You will find no anarchists talking tough on immigration to eat into the BNP vote. I shall say again, just so you understand, that I do not advocate violent revolution, I advocate fundamental social and cultural change through the remaking of communities and people's lives. You will find this "nonsense" in the ideas of Peter Kropotkin, Tolstoy, Gandhi, George Orwell, Noam Chomsky and many many others. Why not educate yourself as a start towards chaning the world?

I can't see any coonection Broosh between libertarianism and fascism. Tue liberty cannot be extended to grant BNP thugs the right to aggress against non-whites since that violates the harm principle. Okay, the world may not be ready for anarchism but I would advocate the reduction of the state and its powers through varying degrees of minarchism towards an ideal. jude

... or through agorism (counter economics that challenge the authority of the State) which is what I was advocating in my original post. jude

Be very careful what you accuse people of at a great distance brooosh....... there are a number of conflicting reports coming out of Athens and in at least one case in Greece a few years ago a similarly fatal fire was shown to have been caused by a misdirected police tear gas canister. "Violence will ensue".... why don't you try telling that one to the Iraqi children, or the Afghan children, or the children who die of hunger everyday around the world? Do you even realise that May Day became an international holiday after a show trial and the hanging of four anarchists following a wild allegation of "anarchist violence". The history of the state's response to anarchism is full of martyrs convicted on the testimony of liars. You insist on the notion that anarchism is outmoded as an ideology and yet I would have you understand that anarchism is essentially only the demand for thoroughgoing direct democracy. Clearly you find the notion that people should directly take the crucial decisions that affect their own lives "out-moded". I don't believe that you have any idea that the form of "democracy" that you advocate is a poor joke alongside the democracy of which true democrats talk. Yes, I am communist as well as being an anarchist. I believe in the principle of "from each according to his or her ability and to each according to his or her need". This is not an idea dreamed up or confined to the internet, and nor is it an idea which has given rise to a history of terrorism. I take very seriously the need to assess and re-assess my beliefs and I can assure you that I do not follow them blindly. This is one of the reasons discussing notions of liberty with someone like poetjude could be so interesting. The idea of The Vote on the other hand is clearly no more than a sacrament promoted by the priesthood of liberal democracy; it changes nothing of significance and encourages the abdication of responsibility in return for a few weeks of superficial debate and a quick trip to the village hall. Your General Election is to democracy what a drunken knee-trembler is to love.

Kropotkin, I think I would support communalism but I struggle with communism. The problem with democratic decision making within each local community is that it is still tyranny of the masses. I can't see the distinction between tyranny of five people against me and tyranny of a million people. It is the "each according to his or her need" that I struggle with if it is enforced. If my ability produces more than my need, I feel it has to be my free decision to give my surplus away. Ironically, I think I would be inclined in a communal structure to do this. I say ironic because my natural disposition is one of generosity which is why I find many arguments against my 'right leaning' economics which often descend into personal insult that I must be rich, privileged or selfish, weak. I would agree with Nozick that self-ownership and property acquisition shouldn't strive for egalitarianism but must not violate the Lockean proviso of leaving enough in common for others (hence finite resources like land need different treatment) or directly harm others. Can you explain to me your justification of coercion of "each according to his or her need" or am I misunderstanding something? jude

For consistent anarchists there must I believe be space for diversity, if not, then what could we possibly claim for our notion of liberty. It seems idiotic to me for an anarchist to believe in the creation in one fell swoop of the new society and the End of History. I leave such dreams to the adherents of little Marxist parties. The Revolution in those terms has always been a millenarian myth. That said then, what is left to the revolutionary? To be the change that he wants to see as Gandhi said? In some ways certainly. To move the world from where it is, bit by bit in a direction of greater liberty, greater equality of outcomes and greater solidarity? Yes, but without resorting to the tools or tricks of hierarchy. But also to demand and to work for the liberty to create a community, or a series of communities, perhaps eventually a whole world, in which an entirely new kind of life can be lived. It is in that context that I envisage the creation of an economy based on production for need rather than for exchange. The communist economy would be one based on solidarity. And that principle could, I believe, cope with human frailty (the "I don't want to work today" factor) and with the need to leave some people the perfect freedom to work for themselves. After all, as long as they did not become employers, landlords or capitalists how could their work have a negative impact on the commune. Even if they traded with other "free traders" would they eventually eclipse the commune? Well, it would be for future generations to defend their liberties in that regard. I am a communist who demands the absence of coercion. That doesn't mean that people living in a community might not feel some pressure from their neighbours from time to time; it does not mean that I imagine a world of millions of perfect, trouble free villages. What I envisage is, in response to needs (ecological and social), the rise of small communities (villages, neighbourhoods, districts, bio-regions whatever), and, in mine I would like anarchism to go with communism. Beyond that, I think that the idea should spread because it's a good idea, not because anarchists make good marksmen! (I doubt we do) Capitalists dream of global markets; priests and kings of world salvation or domination. I think libertarians need to think differently about the future.

I am attracted to the concept if it does indeed give me and others "the perfect freedom to work for themselves". I may not take this up but the freedom must be there. I also agree that I must not become a landlord due to the violation of the Lockean proviso, haven't yet considered the legitimacy of becoming an employer but what do you mean by capitalist? If by capitalist you mean the private ownership of the means of production, then I'm not sure there is a strong case agqainst it. As you point out, a new society in one fell swoop is unlikely but for the purposes of the discussion if we use a thought experiment. I live in a small community whose primary diet is fish. Traditional fishing methods mean that generally people have enough food but from time to time, weather conditions mean we cannot catch enough and some people die from malnutrition. I invent and build a fishing machine out of natural resources like wood which means I can catch twice as many fish to cure for my family in times of hardship. I do not have the inclination to share my knowledge of how to build the machine which is a tool, an instrument of labour. I believe in my legitimate ownership of the machine, the means of production (capitalism) so long as I leave enough natural resources for others to build their own (even if they don't know how) and my increased fishing does not deplete the fish stocks to an extent it effects their ability to catch fish by traditional methods. Now, being nice, I would probably give any suplus fish to someone who is starving but I don't think this can be coerced (as you concur) or my ownership of my machine prevented. It is Global Capitalists who dream of global markets and Corporatists and State Monopoly Capitalists who endorse the manipulation of those markets to perpetuate their own wealth. The problem is the corporatism and State monopalism rather than capitalism with a small c. I think one of the difficulties is that the definition of capitalism is perhaps a little fuzzy.

Kropotkin, can I say this without offending you, tough im saying it. I agree with anarchism, Treat others how you want others to treat you, but when ya start ranting about and getting passionate about your views you put true knowledge and understanding aside and allow emotion to run your thoughts for a bit, yes it would be great if we all lived happily in a commune, but it would collapse like a house of cards if a little unknown psychic infection caught the group, if we repress things to our unconscious, eventually it builds up and bites us on the arse. Carl Jung said that I think. The point I'm making is we should learn all what we can about anarchism and the rest, but stick to doing what we know best, and thats living our own lives and treating others how we want others to treat us. if we pursue ideals we forget what really counts. Can i recommend, C.J Jung - The undiscovered self.

Infact, kropotkin don't take that as aimed at you, cause its aimed at those who believe in their right to vote aswell, wake up people. Its time to flow as a species on earth, not a competitive bacteria trying to spread and infect.

Willsimpson, can I say this without offending you, tough I'm saying it, you can keep your Jungian psychology thanks. When I use the word "commune" I do not mean a big house full of hippies. I refer to the equivalent of a village, and people have successfully been living in villages for a lot longer than there have been psychiatrists. If we have a natural state it is in a village, or a village-sized community. In a world of villages we won't be needing Jung thanks.

poetjude, capitalism is far more about accumulation than about ownership of your own tools. I don't see why he would want to, but your fisherman could keep his boat design to himself if he wanted - although with all good conscience I could criticise someone for stealing his design to keep children fed. But in fact I would very much hope that co-operation between confederated communities would resolve food insecurity. In communities without the market after all there would be no premium in shutting warehouses until prices rose. From an ecological point of view I would strongly recommend that such a community diversified and ceased to rely on just fishing. Normally over-reliance on one food source is a symptom of desperate conditions or the distortions caused by the market...... they should garden and keep small livestock; eat fish rarely and smile at the eccentric with his super boat!

My old dad (he were like a father to me) fought in the last war, and he had an Iron Cross to prove it!

How would you define capitalism? I understood it to mean that the means of production are in private ownership. Wage labour rather than self -employment (the jury is still out for me on that one) and the accumulation of objects of value. My example was a thought experiment; of course one food source is not a good idea. But if I was super talented and had a super boat, and cross bred a super disease resistent wheat (and wanted to keep all the seeds myself)... in other words had an extra-ordinary means of production in all aspects of my life; surely those are in private ownership and I am accumulating objects of value as a consequence. The valid criticism of capitalism is often not against capitalism at all but against corporatism, trade tariff and other distortions, monopolies and cartels. The Marxist criticism of Capitalism is a consequentialist argument. The owners of Capital eventually accumulate so much they do not work and exploit the worker. This is particularly bad when it comes to Landlords. My take is that you can accumulate capital so long as enough is left in common for others so that working for the capital owners (modern serfdom) is not the only option. But I can't see how you prevent the accumulation of capital without aggressing against the individual and violating liberty. jude

It is also an interesting comment that "I don't see why he would want to, but your fisherman could keep his boat design to himself if he wanted" Of course, I wouldn't want to keep my design to myself. I personally am happy to share everything. What grates me is being told that I have to. I have a strong sense of personal autonomy and any mode of engagement with a community has to be voluntary. I am a kind person but the one way of turning me nasty is trying to force or regulate kindness! It is one of my primary objections to welfarism. It erodes the natural capacity of the human heart for generosity. In a genuine community, vulnerable peaople would have their welfare taken care of ... the State trying to mechanise and regulate this natural human instrinct is counter-productive. jude

You and I are on a similar wavelength with regard to voluntarism poetjude. If you own your tools and your land you can work but still not be a capitalist. To be a capitalist you must essentially control the work of others and alienate from them the value of their work. In other words, if I work for you and produce x amount of widgets everyday but I only see half of what I would normally see out of my work because you claim to own the workshop or my hammer then you have become a capitalist. Everyday that I work you get richer and have the opportunity to add another poor so-and-so to your workforce. Capitalism seems to have emerged with the development of a free market in leaseholds for land in England in the 16th Century. Once the idea that you could charge a higher rent than was customary for someone's home took hold, the corrosive nature of capitalism could take hold across the economy. Capitalism has an ethic and that ethic says that if you cannot afford something then you cannot have it; if that something is food, or a home, or shoes for your children then so what? That's life. Oscar Wilde pointed out that the best thing about socialism would be the absence of charity. A communist society would reduce no-one to the need for charity and, I am afraid, could allow no-one to reduce others to that state. So, the freedom to work for yourself could not include the freedom to destroy the common wealth of the wider community. At that stage what you might see as coercion of the enterprising "Big Man", perhaps even as violence, I would see as self-defence. I do hope that you understand I don't believe in the possibility of a perfect community or The End of History. I do believe that libertarian communities would have to deal with the world in their own way and would face all kinds of problems which communities have faced in the past, including the rise of powerful individuals. I can't promise that equality would not be maintained at the expense of some liberty, but then could any supporter of liberal democracy truthfully claim that "the rule of law" and so on is free of problems. All I can say is that I believe that in a world in which libertarian communities were the norm there would be less aggression against the freedom of individuals than now,less of the gross crimes of war and ecological destruction than now, less inequality of outcomes than now, and a greater chance that the human race might fulfil the enormous potential for creativity and thoughtfulness than now.

I see. What you are saying is that of the three main elements of capitalism i) Private ownership of means of production ii) Wage labour iii) Accumulation of objects of value ... element ii. has to be present in order to qualify you as a capitalist. The alienation of the worker from the value of his work is the Marxist critique and understanding of capitalism; that element i. results in unequal/unfair iii. via ii. I would probably be happy with just elements i and iii. However, as I said, the jury is still out on item ii. Scenario 1. If my fishing machine needs labour and Jon next door catches 4 fish a day on average by traditional methods. Surely Jon must be free to operate my machine in exchange for 7 fish a day, even though by having him on my superboat, he catches an additional 10 fish. It is only wrong in scenario 2. where my boat uses all the local wood and takes so many fish, I have to move into ever deeper water and Jon catches on average only 1 fish a day so has no choice but to work for me in order to feed his family... and I only pay him 3 fish a day, less than he used to catch by traditional methods before I overfarmed the water. Can you have scenario 1 without it inevitably becoming scenario 2? jude

poetjude, the reason I don't like thought experiments too much is that they often fail, by their very nature, to reflect the complexity of life. Jon seems better off in your thought experiment scenario 1, but only because you do not give him a garden and a workshop and access to all of the benefits of mutual aid which would come from living in a community. Also, you must ask yourself why John would want 7 fish. Presumably he has been living quite nicely on 4 up to now. Why would he want to put himself into a subordinate position on your boat for the extra 3? It seems that the independent weavers were poorer in simple financial terms than their successors who went into the mills, and yet still they defended, at times with violence and sabotage, their way of life: working with their family at home, keeping a garden and having a high degree of self-management. Now, I must come back to my insistence on diversity. I imagine a post-global world with a myriad of models, some of which, no doubt, you and I would find quite abhorrent. There are good examples from the Spanish Revolution of communities in close proximity holding different loyalties, for example to the Anarcho-syndicalist union on the one hand and the Socialist union on the other. In one celebrated example a bridge separated two villages like this; they lived at peace, different but respectful.

Even after all the benefits of living in the community; I would argue that a person should still be free to sell his labour for a wage and somebody else should still be free to offer to buy it. To prohibit this is to compromise freedom. If jon has access to a workshop, garden etc etc. and he has no need nor desire to sell me his labour, so be it. I will have to manage without it. Weber's definition of the State as holding the monopoly on force in a given territory means that were the community to force me not to offer wage for labour and prohibited via force another person from selling his labour for a wage then the community has become a geographically small State. The end of wage-labour must come about (as you suggest it would) as a natural consequence of the community organisation, not as an enforced prohibition. If you can agree that "each to his own need", community cooperation and the move away from wage labour is entirely voluntary then you and I could peacefully co-exist. jude

I shan't be taking up arms to stop someone working for you poetjude, I shall however be forcefully arguing that instead of that we should all be working together. Freedom of association is exactly that for me - the freedom to associate or not. You see I am convinced of the principles of anarchism because I am convinced of their practicality, and this is no dewy eyed claim that we could all get on and that there will be no problems. I believe that mutual aid, solidarity and liberty work and should be extended. You are completely right, either the libertarian communist ideas work and evolve or they don't. It would be foolish to imagine that in practice a vast range of human responses to different circumstances will not emerge. One of the most terrifying aspects of global capitalism and of hierarchy in particular is the tendency to homogenise people,products, settlements, and natural environments....... I would not seek to become the monster I detest.

If you strongly and cogently argued that that we should all be working together; I probably would, so long as I knew I was free to opt out. I agree that mutual aid, solidarity and liberty work, indeed, the liberty is essential to mutual aid and solidarity working. You have to allow people the freedom to be selfish and most of them won't be, most of the time. Try to force solidarity and prohibit selfishness and you end up with resentment and anger. Everytime I see those Tory poster saying "We're all in this together" I want to take out a marker pen and answer, "Er, no actually, we're not". jude

You live, you die, some people shit on you, some people love you and lay down their life for you. Other people just want to control you. At this moment in time its the media machine, in the anarchist future it will be the bullies who want to control. Wether you like it or not Kropotkin38 Jungian philosophy has many answers to man's little problems, answers that anarchism, marxism, voodooism, liberatism and all the rest of the little idealisms don't provide. But who am I to tell anyone how to live their life. Im just a happy guy, wishing the world could just chill out and stop being so far up its own arse. The dinosaurs went extinct, the earth lived on. Mankind will follow the same path. So while were here lets just make the most of our individual lives.

Individualistic nihilism Will. Not interested.

All I am advocating is true personal freedom. Anyone can understand that simple idea. jude

If that's a criticism of me then I don't think you've read the thread brooosh. You have still offered no defence of the system you would have us all dance along with on the road to the apocalypse.

Whats nihilism? I've just watched gunfight at the OK coral, made me realise what anarchist communes would be like, I personally would love it, but I'm not sure my quiet easily intimidated neighbour would but he would soon adapt. Or else. Cause fact is kropotkin some people in the world just like violence and intimidation and any anarchist commune living in peace would soon come under attack from there not so peaceful neighbours. Its just human bloody nature. To deny that is to deny it in yourself.

Ok just looked up nihilism, "that life[1] is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value" Well kropotkin you must misunderstand my views, I think life has a purpose, I also think everything happens for a reason, I also think one day you will wake up old and think, well that anarchism idea was good, but things tunred out pretty good anyway without it. Gone off topic now, I didnt vote. Did you?

"Your time and energy would be better spent trying to improve the existing system" Broosh, I could never see the existing system being something I could work with unless a true minarchist party such as UK Libertarian were elected and begins to respect freedom. The State has put itself into a position of conflict with me. Tax resistence, civil disobedience and education are the only tools I could use in good conscience. I would never break the law but I can put myself into a tax neutral position (as far as possible) by reducing my hours and wages so tax contribution is less than tax credits. I don't drink, drive or smoke and buy as many goods as possible second hand. If I disapprove of SATS testing, I would simply pull my child out either of the tests or the second half of year 6. I disapprove of restrictive planning which stokes house price bubbles so I will resist taking a large mortgage and continue to live in a council house. jude

I am in denial and a zealot? And what is more my eyes are shut? Don't tell me how my time would be better spent and do not presume to call me a utopian. Perhaps you cannot believe that I have considered and reconsidered my beliefs a thousand times. You are not to know where I have been, or what I have read or what I have experienced. You were not to know that I am a rationalist, a devotee of observation and questioning. And where does my questioning begin almost every day of my life? With me and what I hold to be the best path to lead. Does any of this mean that I must be right? No, I may be wrong. Can you admit the same? As for you WillSimpson, you have no idea whether I have already woken up old. 38 is not my age. Perhaps it was the year of my birth. You have no idea. And no, things will not turn out well. Whatever else happens things will not turn out well. Your attitude to human nature, by the way, is simplistic and insulting to your fellow human beings; it verges on the worst excesses of conservative socio-biology. Right, thanks for the chat poetjude, I would love to continue it sometime, but not here, and not in this company. And, no, of course I did not vote!

Just because the situation in the developing world is so bad, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for a better life here or fight against the forces that prevent it. The thing about Suzie and Colin is that it doesn't have to be like that. There is plenty of land for housing but vested interests have conspired to keep house prices high to benefit property spivs, buy-to-let landlords and mortgage lenders. As soon as property started to correct to a sane level, the state bailed out overstetched borrowers with low interest rates and QE which totally decimated the money saved for a deposit by the likes of Colin and Suzie. I would beg to differ that they have nothing to complain about. If you have done well here, I'm glad, and if you have had a modest family home with a small garden then I am also happy for you but I don't think Suzie and Colin in their rabbit hutch apartment in a cruddy area which sucks two thirds of their income are going to feel particularly receptive to your moralising. jude

... or to the bucket of water either!!! Thanks Kropotkin, an interesting discussion. I must apologise for being a bit hostile in former years; I just bristled and balked at the 'communism'. In fact your position is palatable and not completely at odds with my stance because as you say, there must be space for diversity.

No worries broosh. The internet is a great place for a meeting of minds, so long as it doesn't get personal or fall foul of logical fallacy. Grumpiness is absolutely fine and dandy if presented logically! On some other forums I frequent, I despair at the Guardian rhetoric vs Daily Mail rhetoric flip flopping around, loaded with personal insult and nobody sees how pre-conditioned they are. I am very pleased at how wrong I was about so many things when I first posted here ten years ago. Because it means I have changed and learned stuff and grown a little less arrogant I hope. These days, I try to discuss stuff and say, "I don't understand your position on X because of Y, can you explain it to me please?" If you get a robust response, the discussion is worth having. If you just get personal criticism or insult, you know the person is on a weak back-foot!!!