Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Why Anarchism?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,671
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Why Anarchism?

    Why Anarchism?
    Richard Hunt


    In an interview with Troy Southgate during the mid-1990s I tried to show how government caused the poverty of the periphery by removing the crops by force and then by taxation, creating the wealth at the core; how its taxation on trade, to increase its power, caused a high cost of living, therefore high wages, high labour costs and labour-saving technology to reduce those labour costs. It is this industrialisation which is causing terrible damage to the high population of the developed world.

    The killer argument against industrialisation is that it means harder work. American workers work the longest hours (except for Japan, which I don't know about). What I didn't talk about was the damage done by government to the small, rooted community, the tribe. The community had three functions: defence, the sanction for good behaviour and welfare.

    The first form of government is a local bully and his mates, a 'hero' and his companions, who force the local population to hand over the results of their hunting and gathering. To forestal any objection, most of them are disarmed. This is the first nail in the coffin of the community - it has lost its function of defence. The ruler, with the fiat of religion, then makes its laws to protect his position, including laws governing his subjects' behaviour. These are administered by 'justice'. This is the second nail in the coffin of the small community. It is no longer the sanction for good behaviour. Amongst groups, without leaders and an imposed system of 'justice', unacceptable behaviour is discouraged by shame, ridicule and, ultimately, exile. Crime is not so much punished as made amends for. If someone kills someone, his whole extended family has to give 50 cattle to the extended family of the victim. This is a strong sanction against killing people on potential murderers by their own family. In today's judicial system a crime is punished but no attempt is made to make amends. A fine is imposed, but it goes to the State, not to the victim.

    The final nail in the coffin of the small community came relatively recently. Mobility of labour and thus the provision of welfare by the State. The State now gets half its income and therefore power from indirect taxes, taxe on trade. The more goods are traded, the more taxes the government receives, the more powerful it is. This is justified by the nonsense theory of conventional economics that trade creates wealth which trickles down to the poorest. So the poor are forced to hand over their crops which are consumed by the core. All that's left to trickle back tothe periphery is soot, sewage, scrap and second-hand clothes. To increase traded crops even more, the poor are driven off their land by Acts of Enclosure and into the cities. This is called Mobility of Labour. Cut off from their communities, they can no longer rely on help in times of trouble. To avoid revolution, governments have to provide State welfare instead. Thus a community now has little use. The State has hijacked all its functions: defence, justice and welfare.

    But the State's take-over of the sanction for good behaviour doesn't work. On the one hand we are no longer constrained by the opinions of our grandparents. We are no longer ashamed because they don't know; they are so far away. And the State doesn't admit that the community provides any useful sanction for good behaviour; indeed, it forbids it. But on the other hand its police don't care if we beat our wives or husbands; they don't care whether schoolboy bullies are 'faxing' their peers, or staff mistreating orphans or old people. They're not bothered if the poor are mugging each other. Their function is to protect the property of the rich and their middle classes. While we are no longer constrained by the opinions of our relatives who are far away, nor are we constrained by the police. So we get a soaring crime rate and the breakdown of social life.

    As individuals we no longer need the community. The State provides defence, some justice and welfare. So we don't need to put up with the constraints of the community, the interference of our neighbours and relatives. We are free! We can make as many babies as we like. We can tear down the restrictions of conventional behaviour. We can be ourselves! We can deride the old and their old-fashioned standards, and the traditions that held the community together. It makes a certain sense. We no longer need the community. The State does the community's job. The fact that social life hasn't completely broken down is because most of us still behave because of what our parents, friends and relatives would think. But more and more people try to forget this cnstraint, behave unacceptably and make social life impossible.

    So government, by destroying the small community by hijacking its functions, is the cause of increasing social breakdown. It is also destroying the traditional knowledge gained over the millennia and handed down from generation to generation to generation in the community. Nowadays they even have to teach parenting skills to young mothers because their mothers, aunts and grandmothers aren't close by to help and hand down hard-won traditional knowledge and skills. Dysfunctional families are not a modern phenomenon. But previously, if it was seen that a family was not coping with its children, aunts, sisters and parents would have stepped in and suggested that a child stay with them for a while. A child was not, then, a product of a nuclear family, but a tribe, all contributing. There's an American saying: 'You need a village to bring up a child.' Today the villages and tribes and extended families have been destroyed by government actions. A child of a dysfunctional family has no escape. So he is abused and grows up an abuser. Blood relationship is obviously the basis of the extended family and community. But it is not essential. Every community is able to incorporate a number of unrelated individuals.

    So government is the cause of poverty and social breakdown. How do we get rid of government? By cutting its lifeblood, taxation. Without taxation government can't even hire a hall to meet in, let alone employ police to enforce its laws. At the same time we have to cut the size of the political unit, until progressively, we reach the autonomous, self-sufficient, armed village. Clearly there is not room for many of those, so at the same time we have to cut the population by at least three-quarters. And that still doesn't leave any room for the animals. Should animals have any space? Some think that Anarchism is impractical, that we have to have rulers. But for hundreds of thousands of years humans have lived and thrived without them. All over the world anthropologists have found that nearly all hunter-gatherer societies don't have rulers. Anarchism is very practical. It stops poverty. It stops social breakdown and is painlessly achieved by cutting taxes, the population and the size of the political unit.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Oskorei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 14th, 2008 @ 05:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Tydal/Litorid/Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Location
    Gothenburrah
    Gender
    Politics
    Identitär
    Religion
    Indo-europeisk Traditionalist
    Posts
    2,172
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Why Anarchism?

    Small-scale hunter-gatherers were wiped out by agrarian neighbours with States before.

    Why would we be the exception if we suddenly became anarcho-primitivists?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,671
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Why Anarchism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oskorei
    Small-scale hunter-gatherers were wiped out by agrarian neighbours with States before.

    Why would we be the exception if we suddenly became anarcho-primitivists?

    We wouldn't I occassionally post articles to try to get a discussion going, not necessarily because I fully agree with their content
    I'm not an anarcho-primitivist, but I do believe excessive centralisation of political and economic power leads to alienation and apathy among the folk, thus creating the Mass Man, an abomination. Ideally, local folk-communities retain a high degree of initiative within a larger body.
    Last edited by Siegfried; Thursday, July 15th, 2004 at 04:58 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Scoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, April 1st, 2005 @ 09:39 AM
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Inside the Box
    Gender
    Politics
    Posthuman
    Posts
    836
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Re: Why Anarchism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Siegfried Augustus
    We wouldn't I occassionally post articles to try to get a discussion going, not necessarily because I fully agree with their content
    I'm not an anarcho-primitivist, but I do believe excessive centralisation of political and economic power leads to alienation and apathy among the folk, thus creating the Mass Man, an abomination. Ideally, local folk-communities retain a high degree of initiative within a larger body.
    I think part of the problem is that the human brain can conceptualize/"handle" only around 20-100 (my guess) individuals as friends, allies, enemies, etc. And maybe 500 peripheral people. That's why the old ethnic neighborhoods in the USA, where people dealt with small numbers like this, worked pretty well.

    There was an excellent article posted here on Skadi about time humans spent talking is equivalent to the time other primates spend grooming - and that this chat manages social networks.

    So big societies have big problems with "discourse". They end up with people forming smaller more familiar groups (social classes, professional classes, races) that are more mentally manageable IMO.
    "Whatever is done from love always occurs beyond good and evil." - F. Nietzsche

Similar Threads

  1. What is National-Anarchism?
    By Magi in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: Monday, August 18th, 2008, 06:09 PM
  2. Green Anarchism
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 07:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •