Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
the 'it' in bullshit
Log In to post a reply

122 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Dog 3000
Dog 3000
4611 posts

Re: the 'it' in bullshit
Sep 20, 2003, 04:59
Maybe I wasn't referring to what you said . . . this isn't the most user friendly forum, so it's hard to remember who said what and I don't want to dig around every thread sorting it out.

(As I recall) SOMEONE calling themselves an anarchist insisted that all the so-called communist systems were really "state capitalist" systems in disguise. That really muddles the whole notion of what "capitalism" is, doesn't it?

As far as anarchy being the antidote for cap vs. com, I'll repeat my view on the whole shamolian again:

Imagine an axis running from one pole X which represents "complete individual freedom in personal & economic matters" to another pole T which is "complete state direction of all personal & economic matters."

All "systems" that have existed in nations throughout history can be placed along this axis relative to each other -- though there has never been a system that reached either extreme. In other words, every specific "system" from the US to USSR to UK to China is a HYBRID OF X AND Y. They are differentiated by how much X and how much Y. Today North Korea is probably the most state-directed society. They are what has traditionally been called "communist". Countries like the US and UK are much closer to the "individual freedom" pole, they are what you like to call "capitalist" though democracy is another crucial element that is rarely discussed around here. In the middle are countries like France and Sweden, which you might call "social democracies" (or "soft socialist" or something.)

Dictatorships and theocracies base their legitimacy on things other than "rational economic science" (or whatever is supposed to be the source of the "capitalist" and "communist" ideologies.) For example: personal charisma, family/tribal allegiances, religion. But still you can place them on the axis in terms of state vs. individual control.

So where does "anarchy" fit in? I think it's the ideal "X" position -- complete and total individual liberty to the point where there isn't any state at all. Such a thing has never existed in the history of "civilized humanity" (meaning after we stopped being nomadic hunter-gatherers and settled down in villages and so on.)

Personally, I think it's a nice ideal but I don't see how it could work in practice. Human beings are capable of too much nasty evil crap, you need "something" to enforce some level of good behavior. Arguing that for some reason without a state or laws "people will be nice and share with each other" just doesn't convince me.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index