4 ms·

I've been reading a bit of the anarchist literature on the topic. The traditional answer to unfair power structures is revolution and replacement of the power

I've been reading a bit of the anarchist literature on the topic. The traditional answer to unfair power structures is revolution and replacement of the power structures by something else. However, revolutionaries always seem to end up building similar power structures in one form or another. The abuses of Marxism against the general population were obvious, although it can be claimed that the Marxists did little more than establish a form of state capitalism, with a single "company" running a country (and preferably the world). Only the anarchist tradition is in favour of abandoning power structures completely, using direct democracy in each community to make decisions. Each person is supposed to have equal power but be subservient to the community (although anarchists vary in the details). Basic income, like social democracy, is basically a way to alleviate some of the worst aspects of capitalism (for the poor) so that the system can continue with less chance of revolution. Social democracy lost influence as the Soviet threat diminished, so that capitalists felt less threatened by revolution and were able to impose a harsher form of capitalism. Capitalism has had the advantage that basically everybody with a decent income ends up supporting this idea of personal wealth and lower taxes. However, the harsher (purer) forms of capitalism are more likely to concentrate wealth (power) in the hands of a few over time, bringing back to the threat of revolution.

danaris 6y ago
I don't personally espouse anarchist principles, and frankly I think that they seek an impossible goal—I believe that it is human nature to organize into what are effectively governments. I think the extent to which I believe "capitalism" is a viable system for the long run depends on just how you define "capitalism," since I've seen several different definitions that describe rather widely varying levels of inherent inequality and oppression. At the very basic level of "creating some form of market in which currency can be exchanged for goods and services", I believe it is absolutely a valuable part of any healthy socioeconomic system (and, indeed, a fairly natural and inevitable emergent behaviour). I think that to a significant extent, the introduction of basic income could be accurately described as a revolution, even though it would (hopefully) not be one in the more literal, bloody, sense. Personally, I care deeply about the value of human life, so I believe that if there is a way to achieve whatever utopian ends we seek without having to resort to violent conflict, they should at least be explored thoroughly. I believe that, given time and protected from reactionaries and from serious corruption, a basic income would lead to radical changes in our society that benefit the many and reduce the ability of the few to control or otherwise oppress them. As far as "Marxism" goes, while I admit that I haven't done any in-depth research on the topic myself, my understanding is that the countries that have declared themselves Communist and attempted to follow through, to whatever extent, on his manifesto, have never gone all the way through the process, and have by and large not been at all the type of economy he described as being viable candidates for a shift to Communism (largely agrarian economies, where Marx described primarily industrial ones). I don't know if Marxism can work at scale (though I have my doubts, related to my first point in this post), but I firmly believe that it has never been tried with any meaningful degree of faithfulness to his methods. In short, I think one should treat any self-proclaimed "Communist" country with at least the same degree of skepticism that one applies to self-applied system names such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and actually analyze the practices there to determine their form of government and economy.
- incompatible 6y ago
  I think anarchism with like-minded people is the only system that would really suit me at all. I don't like giving or taking orders, and have no desire to accumulate property beyond what I'm personally using. It's unfortunate that we are forced into systems that we have no interest in, but that's the nature of power and those that wield it.

danaris 6y ago

I don't personally espouse anarchist principles, and frankly I think that they seek an impossible goal—I believe that it is human nature to organize into what are effectively governments. I think the extent to which I believe "capitalism" is a viable system for the long run depends on just how you define "capitalism," since I've seen several different definitions that describe rather widely varying levels of inherent inequality and oppression. At the very basic level of "creating some form of market in which currency can be exchanged for goods and services", I believe it is absolutely a valuable part of any healthy socioeconomic system (and, indeed, a fairly natural and inevitable emergent behaviour). I think that to a significant extent, the introduction of basic income could be accurately described as a revolution, even though it would (hopefully) not be one in the more literal, bloody, sense. Personally, I care deeply about the value of human life, so I believe that if there is a way to achieve whatever utopian ends we seek without having to resort to violent conflict, they should at least be explored thoroughly. I believe that, given time and protected from reactionaries and from serious corruption, a basic income would lead to radical changes in our society that benefit the many and reduce the ability of the few to control or otherwise oppress them. As far as "Marxism" goes, while I admit that I haven't done any in-depth research on the topic myself, my understanding is that the countries that have declared themselves Communist and attempted to follow through, to whatever extent, on his manifesto, have never gone all the way through the process, and have by and large not been at all the type of economy he described as being viable candidates for a shift to Communism (largely agrarian economies, where Marx described primarily industrial ones). I don't know if Marxism can work at scale (though I have my doubts, related to my first point in this post), but I firmly believe that it has never been tried with any meaningful degree of faithfulness to his methods. In short, I think one should treat any self-proclaimed "Communist" country with at least the same degree of skepticism that one applies to self-applied system names such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and actually analyze the practices there to determine their form of government and economy.

incompatible 6y ago
I think anarchism with like-minded people is the only system that would really suit me at all. I don't like giving or taking orders, and have no desire to accumulate property beyond what I'm personally using. It's unfortunate that we are forced into systems that we have no interest in, but that's the nature of power and those that wield it.