Now, lets get this topic back to what it was all about: Kropotkin and his ideas on the effectiveness of Anarchy. I am still hoping for Only Humean to disprove Kropotkin’s arguments, but ofcourse I welcome anyone to put in a cent or two on the matter; or just give an opinion as to the original question:
“The reason why he argues in favor of anarchism, is because (according to him and I am inclined to agree) humans, human progression and humanity takes steps forward and prosper in the absence of the dominance of something like a state. In my opinion a good example might be the difference between capitalism and the controlled market economy of communism. I think everyone in the world knows the benefits of capitalism as compared to a controlled situation. Is capitailsm, from this perspective not a form of anarchy? And is it not proof of the very claim Kropotkin makes (that the absence of a state is beneficial to individuals, as well as humanity)?”
Now, lets get this topic back to what it was all about: Kropotkin and his ideas on the effectiveness of Anarchy. I am still hoping for Only Humean to disprove Kropotkin’s arguments, but ofcourse I welcome anyone to put in a cent or two on the matter; or just give an opinion as to the original question:
“The reason why he argues in favor of anarchism, is because (according to him and I am inclined to agree) humans, human progression and humanity takes steps forward and prosper in the absence of the dominance of something like a state. In my opinion a good example might be the difference between capitalism and the controlled market economy of communism. I think everyone in the world knows the benefits of capitalism as compared to a controlled situation. Is capitailsm, from this perspective not a form of anarchy? And is it not proof of the very claim Kropotkin makes (that the absence of a state is beneficial to individuals, as well as humanity)?”
That is not how definitions work. If I write a sentence using the term “work”, it would be unusual for you to respond by “yeah? Show me that “work” means what you say it does.”
You might want to begin by formulating some sort of argument sustaining this claim, before you insist that others disprove it.
That’s an incredibly radical and bizarre claim. Show me your sources, or prove it.
No. It’s just you saying “I think everyone one knows what I think is true”. Even if you could prove that to be true (obviously you can not) it would not be an an argument for it actually being true.
Hi Fixed Cross, it seems that I had you confused with Flannel Jezus. I had more or less thought of your remarks as comments about that website. ‘The idea is to have an…’ seemed to address your first sentence about the site being prescriptive. I decided to go check out the site again on a quiet evening and get back to you at that time; seeing as I thought it to be outside of the topic-scope. Apologies for the confusions on my part here.
Although I believe your last post emotional and not very cognitive, I will address your remarks briefly:
It is a statement and I was (and am) not looking for a discussion on it. To inform you, the reason (in Kropotkins reasoning) is simply because every living thing prospers easier without hindrance.
It is not a claim, it is the thing which is in dispute and on which I was (and am) looking for opinions.
It is (again) a statement and I was (and am) not looking for a discussion on it. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that the capitalistic ‘system’ is considered to be better than the plannend economic system of communism. So, as opposed to that planned system, it is a much freer form (if not completely free); which is well stated in the formulation. Hence, the comparisson between anarchism and the control of a state; as explained. But again, it is a statement, not a claim. it purpose is to limit the scope of the replies to closer to what I am looking for.
I imagine all this is perfectly obvious to everyone. If not, please let me know in a message outside of this topic, so that I can learn from any pointers.
Now for your more serious reply:
I notice I am having a lot of difficulty reading it; I assumed it to be because I did not know the website. Now I think all of your comments are your own comparissons and as such, are in need of your private definitions to comprehend more fully. However, I think I can subsume the following three points (per alinea):
A comporisson between humans and chemical structures. The statement that atoms do not change (called growth, but I am assuming to take this as a specific form of change), while molecules do.
Change (again named as growth) is named as a measure of survival. I enjoy the Darwinian perspective. In fact, Kropotkin reacted to Darwin in no small way. Self-preservation is supposed to lead to, or to come from Self-valuation.
Value ontology, I assume to mean an axiology of sorts, is supposed to come from Nietzsche’s Wille zur Macht. This, subsequently is supposed to lead to a thought concerning independence as co-sustenance (I will call this ‘mutual aid’), while partial independence is called rule.
A nice way to look at things and to come to a certain conclusion concerning independence and anarchy. I enjoyed the plays on Nietzsche and Darwin. However, it does not address the question at hand. I am happy to have inspired this response though. If I may, I would especially recommend Schopenhauer’s ‘Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung’, on which Nietzsche bases himself. But perhaps you have read it already? Finally I would like to recommend a bundle of Kropotkin’s revolutionary writings simply called ‘Anarchism’. I bet you would enjoy it.
Will and Representation has been a strong influence. I find its only lack is that the author does not realize the magnificence of what he had disclosed and mistakes it for something depressing. Schopenhauer remained a pessimist, just as Nietzsche remained a physically unhealthy man. Neither of them could attain to the manifestation of their ethics, which makes it all the more admirable that they gave their life to flesh out what they were not. Idealists in the truest sense.
The underlying unanswered question here is whether or not organization is necessary at all. All will agree that it is to some extent necessary to organize as units of workers, people subjected to a task. Responsibility within a group of functionaries. We can’t get around that. If all agree to this, the question becomes whether or not hierarchy is required to allow for organization in specialized fields.
I think all who sympathize with Anarchism can agree that the main problem of a state is its enforcing arm. In a perfect anarchy, no man can be fully justified in having the authority to kill or imprison another man.
Capitalism is based on private property, which, absent the state, entails the unlimited rights of the owner to enforce his will on his own premises.
The question of anarchy is if/how “habeas corpus” can be guaranteed. But then, neither has any kind of state ever truly guaranteed it.
The question that does need to be answered, to address the OP, is: what is Kropotkins notion of justice, both as an idea (what is just) and as something to practically apply to a system of co-existent self-determining agents.
The universe balances Hierarchy with Anarchy to favor the minimum order.
And although the universe allows for considerable argumentation, guess who always wins in the end.
Promoting sheer anarchy merely makes the current hierarchy stronger.
And if you don’t promote it, the hierarchy will do it for you and in your name.
No: by threat of death(/pain/imprisonment). Slaves aren’t a by-product of government, they are a by-product of power. Do you think there are fewer slaves in Somalia than in Sweden, given the relative sizes of the governments?
Or wealthy enough to have a private army, and to emply people to propagandise on his behalf.
The point being, power tends to accumulate. It simply does. One of the inefficient benefits of an ideal democracy is that it has a mechanism for keeping power moving at the top. An ideal anarchy has no such mechanisms, and is an unstable state. Someone will take the reins, on a scale large enough that others suffer.
Perhaps you should read what he says; they are not the problem, they are the means by which the “free market” is able to operate.