Anarchist economics is no economics at all in that the anarchist is anti economics within the traditional meaning of the word.
In other threads recently I have outlined my perception of how government is largely illusory and purely monetary based by financial institutions that have all the real power that puppet masquarading governments do not have. What you will find in monetaryism is that financial institutions shape public destiny where the illusion of government is nothing more than a dysfunct tool of theirs. These same financial institutions of course use money to enslave where people tend to enslave each other through it which speaks volumes of the absolute brilliance of the entrapment.
In the absence of monetary economics the anarchist perception of existence instead is independent autonomous resource based economics or barter.
I challenge everybody here to study what resource based economics is.
Post scarcity economics by Jacque Fresco and others is great start at reading on the subject.
You’re really not well-read enough on anarchist philosophies to make these kinds of sweeping generalizations. When you do, you end up wrong more often than right. If you want to talk about why bartering is better than currency, talk about it for yourself, don’t talk about it like you’re representing the beliefs and opinions of everybody else who calls themselves an anarchist. You truly don’t know that much about it. Just speak for yourself.
I don’t know it all, which is why I don’t speak for everyone. You should follow suit brother – speak for yourself and what you know. You may know a lot about a specific flavor of anarchism, so talk about that flavor instead of about anarchism as a whole. You’ll put your foot in your mouth far less often that way.
Reminds me of someone I know in another thread James, lol
Honestly, what a hypocrite
Filmsnob - Why do you rely upon “trust” when watching documentaries? Are you not an objective thinker?
@James L Walker… one question - please for once give me a straight answer without ‘analyzing’ me… Do you think utopianism is pathetic, and if so please explain your reasoning?
Also if you have time James, what would you say to the idea that the very act of ruling out utopian thought is counter-productive to philosophy as it accepts limitations of what we can and cannot do which are by no means factual?
In other words, one would need to be defeatist to a certain degree to believe a utopian society is beyond the realm of current & future human grasp. Your thoughts please, sir?
My apologies for detracting from the thread. It is that James was faced with a coherent and valid reply and chose to approach it like that using a condemning tone rather than address precisely what was said to him.
Apologies again though, and hypocrite was a harsh and irrelevant word to use here.
Thanks James, good answer. Of course we cannot achieve the unachieveable - perfection. A utopian society doesn’t have to reach true perfection, as it is not possible; but having an ideal in mind when trying to change things for the better is not a bad thing. If we collectively shunned defeatism we would be closer to the ideal than we’ve ever been. Many things do not or will not change because people accept rather than fight against certain things. If they believe it can be changed they fight - if not they do not. Who is to say what could be achieved if we accepted perfection is not possible but attempted it anyway?
I understand this issue is contentious and there is no correct answer here, but personally I have always found talk of idealism/utopianism to sound a lot like defeatism. I am a proud idealist, and I do not believe I am crazy (lol); simply that I understand that perfection is not possible. I tend to think of the way things should be, then assess the opbstacles, in that order.
So when people are evaluating an idea in their head and think to themselves “Well yes in an ideal world, however…” they are allowing a practical issue or two to influence their thinking before it can reach the conclusion. For example, if the obstacle is money:
“Well there’s no point in pushing for this because it won’t happen because there is no profit in making it and things today do not get done unless there is money to be made”
translates as…
“Well this is what needs to be pushed so that people can see first-hand that the only thing in the way is the monetary system” - my thinking would be that if enough people knew of the specifics of the system and its cause-and-effect relationship to crime, poverty etc… then in time more and more people would be against the concept of money. That is all a person in this age can do. Philosophers of the next age could hammer home any important message such as this even further and take the mantle.
If the world is one way today, who says it will be tomorrow. Should we try to work within the confines of what people think is necessary, or instead should we at least make some effort to teach them it doesn’t have to be necessary?
Good reply though James, thanks
Edit: one thing though… what does being presumptous have anything to do with it? You say “…cannot be constructed…by the presumptous.” - what does this mean in particular? Thanks
I do think utopianism is pathetic. There is no way so many competing self interests or egos can be contained and neutralized in order to facillitate a world absent of conflict.
You cannot neuter or be rid of conflict for it is a eternal constant.
When there are those who come out saying they can fix everything and put away all conflict I immediately become distrustful or suspicious of them having some ulterior motive.
Thank you for an honest answer James. It was quite revealing.
I find you almost interesting - it seems we both like the ideas of Jacques Fresco - we both have similar views about the decay of society; you and I should be on the same page, at least on paper.
I’d be interested to hear further from you regarding my question here about societal evolution and technological progress: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=178769
Anytime someone brings up the issue of how things “should be”, you can right away be 100% sure its some bullshit ploy to get you to behave in a way that is in some way beneficial towards themselves.
This is simply because people who have a true grasp on how life should be lived have no inclination to convince others out of pretentiousness and arrogance.
This is precisely why fields like politics, government and economics has always been the haven of pretentious pricks and [“crusaders”].
