|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:17 pm
now, I am personally of the mind that Anarcho-Syndicalism is the best way for humans to live. I wouldn't ever seek to force that lifestyle on anyone, but I personally want to live in an Anarcho-Syndicalist Commune some day.
the only thing I find truely standing in the way of it working though (ya know, besides other nations saying "******** you" and wiping us out) is that this does in fact require every particpant to share the work and share the payoff of that work. those who do not, should be cut out of the Commune.
how would such a Commune enforce this rule, without trampling on the basic essence of Liberty and Equality that such a Commune stands for? how can an Autonomous Collective police itself without becoming dictatorial?
I have a few theoretical options I first wanna bounce off of you guys. feel free to shoot them down and/or come up with better ideas. that's exactly what this is for.
the first idea is that each local government would include a Judicial Council, who could be petitioned to hold committee on a slacker/hoarder etcetera, issue subpeonas, and the like. a monthly or bi-monthly election would cycle at least one of the seats on this Council to a new candidate (or possibly the incumbant, if voted for a second term).
this idea, worries me, because it reminds me alot of the U.S. government model, and I just hope that it could work in a system I am imagining. I don't want to find out that such a sysem could be abused and destroy the whole purpose of Anarcho-Communism.
the second idea I have, is that a provision be made in some form of Legislation or Law which states that Hoarding and Non-Working are both crimes against the Collective, akin to treason. a person could be referred to Court, and if they are found guilty, they would be banished or excorciated from the Commune.
this presents a few problems as well. 1st of all, it requires actual Law, or Legislation. Laws only matter if they are enforced, which means it would also require police. and police are something I would hope to avoid in a Commune, partly because it is easy to corrupt the police, and partly because the point of a Commune is to not need laws.
2ndly, it would require alot of "government" positions to be elected, and all for a sngle purpose; ensuring that everyone is contributing to the Collective. that is not at all a Libertarian thing. it is authoritarian, dictatorial.
I am getting realy very irritated about this. sad it looks as though it would have to be up to the people themselves to just decide to run the selfish leech out, and this could possibly spark a riot that would tear the Commune apart. there is no guaruntee of stability without taking authoritarian measures...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:58 pm
I'm no good at this sort of topic, though i do have something to say, but you can easily just ignore me and all if its stupid or useless.
I'd think that it's not so much as everyone sharing the workload and payoff but everyone doing one part of the whole, everyone has their own job they have to do that others depend on, and they themselves depend on everyone else. If you make it so that somehow sharing the work isn't only a law but manditory for them to be able to live well, they are more likely to do it than slack off and risk ruining their lives simply from not doing what they should. That way you'd need less of a strong hold on ensuring that everyone does what they should rather than constantly worrying about some leech. Though you probably should still have some people who go around and check things are still running smoothly, you can't leave everything up for the workers to maintain.
yeah...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:47 pm
hmm.. actualy, that is a very good point. maybe I am stressing too much over some minor not-even-problem... after all, the only reason such a thing would realy become a problem is the same reason such a person who caused it wouldn't stick around for it anyway... it's realy a self-correcting situation.
so, an oversight committee could easily be formed if nessesary, if the people start noticing something isn't right.
thanks, Mei. smile :hugs.:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:48 am
My issue was with the system is how do you expect people to do the tasks that people only do now because of the high payout... like who would volunteer to keep the sewage systems operating, or do the high risks jobs that need to be done, if there isn't something extra in it for them.
Then there is the issue of trying to determine what is equal contribution between different careers. Who is going to say that the people who are in research are truly contributing as much to society as those who are producers? No one is going to have the same idea about what they feel is fair distribution of contribution.
It isn't such a big thing in small communes, but if whole nations were to eventually adopt a similar system, it would be a major issue. confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:51 am
No problem Chieftain :" ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:17 pm
actually, that issue was brought up many times before in the past when talk about Anarcho-Syndicalism gets serious. Noam Chamsky explained his view of it during an interview on a radio show dedicated to discussing different forms of government or societal structures.
his solution was that if folks realy were hesitant to do that kind of work, then such a job would be shared collectively. that way, it gets done, and no single person or small group can complain that they are doing it alone.
this is all assuming they don't feel pride and accomplishment for doing such work.
other than that, there was also the argument that this would mean untrained or unskilled workers would be doing important work, and thereby lowering the quality or production of such work, but that was debated to the point of agreeing to disagree. xp it was an endless argument, realy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ScarletFrost Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:00 pm
I think a major key to maintaining the peace is making sure people have something more important to do than argue and politic. Like on the frontier in the Old West. People were more concerned with survival and came together as a community in order to survive. The villains of the era were few and far between, and it was actually a very SAFE time for women to travel alone. Even in modern times, communities seem to work best when they are focused on something OTHER than themselves. In the Bering Sea, competing fishermen will drop all fishing and rush to each others' aid in case of emergency. Australia has a low population density but the world's highest average quality-of-life, and it's probably because so many people are competing with the harsh environment instead of with each other.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:56 am
huh... that does make a strong point... but unless I manufacture some common threat, much the way fascist regimes have done in the past for political purposes, I pretty much have to wait for something to happen. I could conceivable control it, but that seems oppressive and corrupt..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ScarletFrost Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:06 am
You don't necessarily have to manufacture a threat. Threats can be very real--and will be even more numerous when formal government collapses. You could set up your commune in the far north, near a desert or wasteland, on an island--the point would be NOT to set it up where people get soft and dependent on civilization and capitalism. If you want a long-lasting commune, then the willing-to-work-together-against-all-odds mentality must be passed down from parents to children.
Like they say in real estate: location, location, location!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:24 am
Governance really isn't a huge issue if the society is on a very small scale, and even on a larger level I'd say it would make sense to have independent governing societies for a larger collective. It's a lot easier to reach a consensus if people can actually be involved on the level of communities and the scale is small.
In small societies, ridicule and ostracism seems to work pretty well to keep people in line. If someone is being seriously antisocial and ******** up, then the best move would be to get rid of them (the Inuit used had a creative way of dealing with this).
I don't think any particular laws make sense in this context because it's too absolute. Consensus is good and works case by case, but altogether the issue of laziness I don't see being the hardest to deal with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:36 pm
aye, all very true...
I have to admit, I've noticed that alot of the most well-structured and self-governed communities, which I have always admired and felt I would love to live in, have come from the harshest living conditions. Villages on the Amazon River, Pacific Boat-Gypsies, Tibetan Monasteries... beutiful people, beautiful cultures, difficult lives.
aye, the whole point of Anarcho-Communism and Libertarian Socialism is the small-scale Locally-Concerned Self-Governance module. smile I would never think that an autonomous collective that just so happens to spread across a larger territory should havesingular policies, or even jurisdicted ones. every individual community within the Commune should be essentially a Sovereign, with policies that work for that community, that individual town or village.
I would certainly hope that laws wouldn't be nessesary to keep things from getting ugly. once people start talking bad about someone, it's alredayat the point where someone could get hurt. I would ant the offending leech out as much as anyone else, but I wouldn't want it to come to violence if that could be helped. I'm worried about a community falling apart.
isolated cases are, of course, nothing to worry about. if anything, the might be healthy overall; a way to sorta cut out the cancerous parts, and self-correct. the thing I'm realy worried about, is full-on civil war, or rioting.
what did the Inuit do? o.o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:31 pm
People can sort of police themselves. It's not too likely to get out of hand unless you have no mediation at all, which probably just wouldn't be the case.
I like looking at smaller societies in general to see how they govern. At the very worst a group might fission into two, which does happen. It's not too likely on a very small scale just because people generally have an idea of what's good for them. Group solidarity seems to be easy to maintain on a small scale because of that, but it does depend on your definition. "Small community" is open for interpretation. A town could easily fission, a band not so much. But it's just a reality and as long as the products can function healthily afterward it shouldn't be a huge worry.
What we would call a psychopath they would call a "Kunlangeta," and they tended to be less tolerant of them, which is just dandy in my opinion. They would "push them off the ice when no one was looking." And I've heard of them floating them away on a bigger piece of ice too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:15 pm
oh my! ._. almost sounds kinda mobster-style.
curses my soft belly. >.> every practical bone in my body tells me that that's just for the better of the collective, but I just can't help feeling there should be a gentler way of handling it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:10 pm
Well there are people who just... don't function in that environment and who essentially only serve themselves (usually while making life miserable for the collective). In our society we glorify them, but I honestly don't really have a problem with disposing of the parasites. I think we'd have a much healthier society if we did the same. I know it sounds harsh but I also don't know of any gentler means of doing that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:43 pm
well, I've done some pretty dark things myself in the past... I suppose I could desensitize myself just a little more for the good of the People...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
