Anarchy, It doesn't sound like what I'm told.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

This, to others, is not to say that the ideal community is three people.


I don't want a shit-ton of threads responding with, "OMGZ 3 PPL COMUNITEEES? SRSLY? LOLZZ!!!1!1!!1"

It's depressing that such foresight is necessary.

[HumanePain]

I am intrigued by Raptor's implementation question. So taking it a little further into reality (for the sake of planning of course) in terms of changing a developed nation like the United States into the ideal collective:

The collective sends representatives into East Los Angeles and says,
"Hey have you heard? So here is how things are going to change..."

BLAM! Gang-banger shoots the collective reps dead and steals their watches. So then what?

What if the gang-bangers say "We start working together? Who is WE?" and the Bloods and the Crips and the Mexican Mafia start stealing the collective's cars and raiding the farms and ****** the women...so what happens then?

[Raptor]

Thanks JCC.

So esentially running a city that way wouldn't be possible? Having to divide everything equally, and decide what jobs everyone will do by everyone voting etc.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

I am intrigued by Raptor's implementation question. So taking it a little further into reality (for the sake of planning of course) in terms of changing a developed nation like the United States into the ideal collective:

The collective sends representatives into East Los Angeles and says,
"Hey have you heard? So here is how things are going to change..."

BLAM! Gang-banger shoots the collective reps dead and steals their watches. So then what?

Why would people want two of the exact same watch? Crime syndicates become irrelevant when money's gone.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Thanks JCC.

So esentially running a city that way wouldn't be possible? Having to divide everything equally, and decide what jobs everyone will do by everyone voting etc.

It's possible, but it would be a large undertaking, probably end up riddled with flaws and I can't see the appeal of it.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by JCC

Why would people want two of the exact same watch? Crime syndicates become irrelevant when money's gone.

I think he meant outside criminals raiding the anarchist group.

But along those lines, I guess someone might decide it was easier to steal stuff rather than doing their fair share of work and collecting their allocated resources. Though again that would be easier to manage in small communities.

Also would it actually be feasible for the cooperation between communities? Some things would need to be brought in from outside (the power station fuel for example), and trade would generally require a communication system, and a transport route. So now you need comms, and something like roads. Those would be big projects (for small communities) but they would also be beneficial to two or more communities so the logical method would be for them to work together. But now you need each community to decide if they want to take part in a project, and then the ones that want to have to contact, or meet up with the other community(s) so that everyone can have a say in the method. That seems like it would be a nightmare to sort out.

[Godslayer Jillian]

That's why I'm an anarchosyndicalist rather than an anarchocommunist. A trade federation in which power relies mainly in the producers really eases cooperation a lot.
The CNT and the FAI had such an elegant system of syndication (elegant because of its simplicity) that rarely did any community go in want.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That's why I'm an anarchosyndicalist rather than an anarchocommunist. A trade federation in which power relies mainly in the producers really eases cooperation a lot.

Yeah, it eases cooperation because it's giving somebody power.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Power does not ease cooperation. It's the just giving of the just amount of power that does.
The producers produce a product (pardon the redundancy), and it is only natural and proper that they should be the ones with the freedom to do with their labor what they decide to do.
As the workers do not create means of production (e.g. land and energy) but only use them, then the means of production remain collectively owned, and as there is no form of capital that can be conserved, the worker can only benefit from the immediate rewards of his contribution to society and from the more lasting benefits of the community created by the thousands of little immediate contributions of each individual.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Power does not ease cooperation. It's the just giving of the just amount of power that does.
The producers produce a product (pardon the redundancy), and it is only natural and proper that they should be the ones with the freedom to do with their labor what they decide to do.
As the workers do not create means of production (e.g. land and energy) but only use them, then the means of production remain collectively owned, and as there is no form of capital that can be conserved, the worker can only benefit from the immediate rewards of his contribution to society and from the more lasting benefits of the community created by the thousands of little immediate contributions of each individual.

True, or the producer can be a jackass and hold his products over other people's heads, especially if he does something important. If a group of people regulating the supply of water decide to get greedy, they can grab the community by the balls. THAT is what worries me about your Anarchofederalism idea.

[Godslayer Jillian]

That merely goes back to the argument of coercion.
In an egalitarian system, there's no chance that an inside unit (whether one person or one group) could be more powerful than the rest of the community.
If a man toils hard to build a dam to prohibit water from a river anyone could access before, there's no reason anyone should respect that labor; it is counterproductive to all of them.
Just as well, there's no way for a producer to hold his products to his own advantage. No one can legitimately have the exclusive rights to any means of production, therefore no one is actually needed, only appreciated.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That merely goes back to the argument of coercion.
In an egalitarian system, there's no chance that an inside unit (whether one person or one group) could be more powerful than the rest of the community.
If a man toils hard to build a dam to prohibit water from a river anyone could access before, there's no reason anyone should respect that labor; it is counterproductive to all of them.
Just as well, there's no way for a producer to hold his products to his own advantage. No one can legitimately have the exclusive rights to any means of production, therefore no one is actually needed, only appreciated.

Which are similar principles to what Kropotkin discussed while defending Anarcho-Communism. So the only major difference between Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-syndicalism is who get's first say on distribution?

[Raptor]

How do you go from cities to communities small enough for anarchy to work? If a government suddenly got brought down, then in order for anarchy to work you'd need a mass exodus from cities right, so aren't you going to end up with everyone trying to go to the same place(s) because they think it would be somewhere good to live (putting too many people together for it to work) or you need someone to tell you where to go (not anarchy).

Not to mention that in some countries it might be difficult just to find enough land for everyone where they can live comfortably and in a large number of small groups.

[Draco_Sanguine]

I dont know im a little bit of an anarchist because i dont think such large masses should be governed my a single organization i think smaller tribal like culture would be better for the planet. True anarchy is only accomplishable if humans were not the dominant species on the planet. In other words if humans were out of the picture and nature ran itself such as in the prehistoric periods where dinosaurs ruled the world its the only form of true anarchy. As long as there are people there will be desire to rule over another. Thats to the original post i didnt want to read 10 pages of posting *sigh*

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Power does not ease cooperation. It's the just giving of the just amount of power that does.
The producers produce a product (pardon the redundancy), and it is only natural and proper that they should be the ones with the freedom to do with their labor what they decide to do.
As the workers do not create means of production (e.g. land and energy) but only use them, then the means of production remain collectively owned, and as there is no form of capital that can be conserved, the worker can only benefit from the immediate rewards of his contribution to society and from the more lasting benefits of the community created by the thousands of little immediate contributions of each individual.

A community has to decide what it wants. Workers are not just workers, they are members of a community. Workers work for the community, because they are a part of it, the community does not defer authority regarding production to workers.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Draco_Sanguine

I dont know im a little bit of an anarchist because i dont think such large masses should be governed my a single organization i think smaller tribal like culture would be better for the planet. True anarchy is only accomplishable if humans were not the dominant species on the planet. In other words if humans were out of the picture and nature ran itself such as in the prehistoric periods where dinosaurs ruled the world its the only form of true anarchy. As long as there are people there will be desire to rule over another. Thats to the original post i didnt want to read 10 pages of posting *sigh*

Just don't talk and try not to hurt yourself keeping up with the intelligent discussions around you.

[Draco_Sanguine]

Suck my dick

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by JCC

A community has to decide what it wants. Workers are not just workers, they are members of a community. Workers work for the community, because they are a part of it, the community does not defer authority regarding production to workers.

Agreed.

As for raptor's question:

Well, no, we wouldn't be telling everyone to fuck off into smaller cities. What it means is that they wouldn't be running as a whole. Take NYC for example. It wouldn't be the whole city running together, it would be small communities within each of the 5 Burroughs.


As for Draco:

Suck it? I can barely see it.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Well, no, we wouldn't be telling everyone to fuck off into smaller cities. What it means is that they wouldn't be running as a whole. Take NYC for example. It wouldn't be the whole city running together, it would be small communities within each of the 5 Burroughs.

Yeah, that's what I meant, maybe I didn't express it well enough.
Man it's good to have someone pick up the slack.
@Draco: it sounds like anarcho-primitivism mixed with lame misanthropy. Both ideas are shit.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

As for raptor's question:

Well, no, we wouldn't be telling everyone to fuck off into smaller cities. What it means is that they wouldn't be running as a whole. Take NYC for example. It wouldn't be the whole city running together, it would be small communities within each of the 5 Burroughs.

So how do you organise the size of each community? Each area would have to get set up pretty quickly if they need allocate resources and jobs, so wouldn't breaking a city down into new communities quickly be very hard? Plus most communities are likely to be lacking in stuff like power stations and water purification plants or whatever you call them. So then they'd be relying on other people to keep getting that stuff to them?

This might sound like my earlier questions about infrastructure, but this is specifically during a transition phase where communities are being created.

Also thanks for the answers guys.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Raptor

So how do you organise the size of each community? Each area would have to get set up pretty quickly if they need allocate resources and jobs, so wouldn't breaking a city down into new communities quickly be very hard? Plus most communities are likely to be lacking in stuff like power stations and water purification plants or whatever you call them. So then they'd be relying on other people to keep getting that stuff to them?

This might sound like my earlier questions about infrastructure, but this is specifically during a transition phase where communities are being created.

Also thanks for the answers guys.

Yes, the transition would be hard. Anyone telling you otherwise is a fool. Would you abstain from all difficult things, regardless of their worth? As for the power plants, knowing that this, if it will ever occur, will not be in the next few years, we can safely count on solar power of all things to be more developed. If this is the case, all that would need to be done for electricity is to cover each house's roof with solar panels. They would generate enough electricity to power the houses. I also read somewhere that they've made a form of solar panel that looks like a tinted window and can be seen through, so those pretentious high rise buildings that I see so often could have their windows generate enough energy to run them.

As for the size of each community, I suppose that would be up to the persons. They would break off into groups they feel comfortable with. If lets say a community has a group of two hundred people, they would be like that. Each city is naturally divided up anyway, so it wouldn't be all that difficult. As for major power sources yes, I suppose people would work together to supply power over large areas.

[JCC]

I don't see why people couldn't plan ahead before the revolution. I mean, shit would still be difficult to restructure, especially on the ideal global scale, but anarchy is order and post-revolution action should reflect that. Plans plans plans!

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by JCC

I don't see why people couldn't plan ahead before the revolution. I mean, shit would still be difficult to restructure, especially on the ideal global scale, but anarchy is order and post-revolution action should reflect that. Plans plans plans!

The most carefully laid plans often go astray, JCC. You could plan until your fingers fell off, it would still be difficult.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Yes, the transition would be hard. Anyone telling you otherwise is a fool. Would you abstain from all difficult things, regardless of their worth?

No I wouldn't, but I'd weigh up the difficulty and the worth beforehand. And I'm pretty sure plenty of people disagree with anarchy (justified or not) on a basis of practically.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

As for the power plants, knowing that this, if it will ever occur, will not be in the next few years, we can safely count on solar power of all things to be more developed. If this is the case, all that would need to be done for electricity is to cover each house's roof with solar panels. They would generate enough electricity to power the houses. I also read somewhere that they've made a form of solar panel that looks like a tinted window and can be seen through, so those pretentious high rise buildings that I see so often could have their windows generate enough energy to run them.

Solar power is limited by the amount of energy falling in an area, which is around 1.3kW per square metre, so even if at 100% efficiency (not going to happen), the maximum amount of power per square metre of land (or roof) is 1.3kW. Heating and cooking use shit loads of energy so that's not going to give you enough power to run the sort of high rise buildings in cities. Houses maybe, but not a block of flats or whatever. Gas can do heating and cooking but then thats another product to pipe in. As is water.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

As for the size of each community, I suppose that would be up to the persons. They would break off into groups they feel comfortable with. If lets say a community has a group of two hundred people, they would be like that. Each city is naturally divided up anyway, so it wouldn't be all that difficult. As for major power sources yes, I suppose people would work together to supply power over large areas.

This is what would have to happen for it to work I think. So JCC is right, it would need the planning beforehand. I don't see how it would work without.

[JCC]

Solar panels are enormously inefficient for how much resources they use to produce.