You think most people wouldn’t become homeless if they spent less time working?
The issue being disputed is the idea that provision for one’s basic needs is enough to stop one from desiring more
That is not the argument I was making. People can still desire more even under an Anarchist society, the difference is that anything more they want they either have to make themselves, make it collectively under a worker cooperative, or trade with another person with something they acquired by their own means or as the fruit of a cooperative effort.
You can still create computers, build fancy chairs, make a cooperative factory to produce a desired good, etc, but you just wouldn’t be able to hang food, housing, and healthcare over somebody else to effectively force them to do that stuff for you. Under an anarchist society, you could only convince someone to work with you on something if they felt it was a democratic endeavor where they had an equal say and an equal reward as you or anyone else who helps you gets.
That ensures that no one can effectively exploit anyone else, or create a power imbalance with a hierarchy. Everyone gets access to the same baseline for a happy life, and 9 months our of the year to do with as they please, whether that be to improve their house, make jewelry, paint, write, or spend time with their friends or family, they can personally decide what they want to spend that time doing, instead of laboring all year for just those basics.
You think most people wouldn’t become homeless if they spent less time working?
I did specify ‘housing crisis aside’, but yes. 40% of Americans own their own paid off home; most renting households still spend around 33% of income on rent. 67% of income, then, is spent on things other than not becoming homeless - do you want to speculate on what amount of that is actually necessary?
That is not the argument I was making. People can still desire more even under an Anarchist society, the difference is that anything more they want they either have to make themselves, make it collectively under a worker cooperative, or trade with another person with something they acquired by their own means or as the fruit of a cooperative effort.
But I never disputed any of that. The entire point originally raised was that people would still desire to do less work even if they had their needs fulfilled.
That ensures that no one can effectively exploit anyone else, or create a power imbalance with a hierarchy.
How does that follow? Some endeavors are more profitable than others. Hierarchies can be set up even without material differences (which, as we’ve established, certainly are not eradicated). Exploitation is often predicated not on material differences, but social manipulation, and result in material differences.
The entire point originally raised was that people would still desire to do less work even if they had their needs fulfilled.
Peter Kropotkin provides a good counter-argument to the idea that everyone would skimp out on doing needed work if all their basic needs were met in The Conquest of Bread, under Chapter 12: Objections.
My point is not that needed work would not be done. My point is that people will still desire to do less work, which means your original objection to my scenario, that the workers would not desire that extra hour of free time once they had ‘enough’ time off, is not realistic.
Perhaps reread Chapter 9 of The Conquest Of Bread.
To reiterate, your argument was that people in an anarchist society will, as a whole, not take on an ounce of extra work even if it means helping not poisoning their neighboring towns.
My argument was that there are social and material benefits to taking on that extra work of cleaning their waste water, and I believe most people would not feel good poisoning their neighbors unless they were extremely uneducated or sociopathic.
You believe that the only solution to that scenario is to have a hierarchical government with a big stick to force that group to clean their waste water.
I believe that most places under an Anarchist society would, on the whole, not need the stick. There may be some infrequent specific scenarios where even under Anarchism, that a settlement acts as you suggest. In those cases, especially if the harm was severe or could not be mitigated, the community(s) effected down river may opt to resort to other means to resolve that conflict, such as social shaming, or potentially even sabotage. Then that population would have to decide between the extra time and work that defense against them would require, or just clean the damn water.
Perhaps reread Chapter 9 of The Conquest Of Bread.
I don’t see how it conflicts with what I’ve been suggesting?
In short, the five or seven hours a day which each will have at his disposal, after having consecrated several hours to the production of necessities, will amply suffice to satisfy all longings for luxury however varied. Thousands of associations would undertake to supply them. What is now the privilege of an insignificant minority would be accessible to all. Luxury, ceasing to be a foolish and ostentatious display of the bourgeois class, would become an artistic pleasure.
Every one would be the happier for it. In collective work, performed with a light heart to attain a desired end, a book, a work of art, or an object of luxury, each will find an incentive, and the necessary relaxation that makes life pleasant.
In working to put an end to the division between master and slave we work for the happiness of both, for the happiness of humanity.
To reiterate, your argument was that people in an anarchist society will, as a whole, not take on an ounce of extra work even if it means helping not poisoning their neighboring towns.
No, my argument is that when an anarchist commune makes an anti-social decision based on very reasonable and universal human desires, you have no means of conflict resolution which can stop any intransigent community from acting selfishly at the expense of other communities without going back to the question of “Enforcement”.
My argument was that there are social and material benefits to taking on that extra work of cleaning their waste water, and I believe most people would not feel good poisoning their neighbors unless they were extremely uneducated or sociopathic.
Fuck’s sake, most of us poison our neighbors every fucking day we buy something we don’t fucking need. You feel good about that? Do you think about it, even?
… my point here isn’t to guilt you, fuck’s sake, I do it too. My point is that these are not rare problems we are discussing. People are very good at closing their eyes, or focusing on their little corner of the world, or offering innumerable justifications for their own behavior or why the burden should fall on someone else.
You believe that the only solution to that scenario is to have a hierarchical government with a big stick to force that group to clean their waste water.
If a community refuses to stop polluting, your only options are some form of enforcement, or letting it happen. Your only response here is “It wouldn’t happen often enough to consider”, which is utopian to the point of absurdity.
I believe that most places under an Anarchist society would, on the whole, not need the stick. There may be some infrequent specific scenarios where even under Anarchism, that a settlement acts as you suggest. In those cases, especially if the harm was severe or could not be mitigated, the community(s) effected down river may opt to resort to other means to resolve that conflict, such as social shaming, or potentially even sabotage.
Oh, social shaming has a good record on that, does it?
And sabotage? What happens when someone gets fucking shot for sneaking around in the middle of the night - and don’t fucking tell me “All anarchists will be completely calm and extremely disciplined gun owners who would never shoot anyone unless they were 100% sure that their life was immediately at risk :)” What if the sabotage creates much more damage than expected? What if the sabotage itself kills people? What if no one admits to the sabotage? Is the sabotage lawful by the downriver community’s decision? What’s the next step then?
It’s not enough for a society to be able to operate day-to-day. A society must be able to operate in crisis, or it will be replaced by a society which can - no matter how much more ugly it is, day-to-day.
Then that population would have to decide between the extra time and work that defense against them would require, or just clean the damn water.
Considering how people tend to band closer together when they feel under attack by ‘outsiders’, even to their own material detriment? And especially within an ideology, or rather a very specific interpretation of anarchism, that rejects the notion that outsiders have the right to tell them what to do?
By insisting on no violence, you set the stage for mass violence. Endemic warfare. These are the exact fucking conditions that arise in pre-modern societies; these are the exact fucking conditions which predominant in international affairs.
I don’t see how it conflicts with what I’ve been suggesting?
Even to-day we see men and women denying themselves necessaries to acquire mere trifles, to obtain some particular gratification, or some intellectual or material enjoyment.
After bread has been secured, leisure is the supreme aim.
You think most people wouldn’t become homeless if they spent less time working?
That is not the argument I was making. People can still desire more even under an Anarchist society, the difference is that anything more they want they either have to make themselves, make it collectively under a worker cooperative, or trade with another person with something they acquired by their own means or as the fruit of a cooperative effort.
You can still create computers, build fancy chairs, make a cooperative factory to produce a desired good, etc, but you just wouldn’t be able to hang food, housing, and healthcare over somebody else to effectively force them to do that stuff for you. Under an anarchist society, you could only convince someone to work with you on something if they felt it was a democratic endeavor where they had an equal say and an equal reward as you or anyone else who helps you gets.
That ensures that no one can effectively exploit anyone else, or create a power imbalance with a hierarchy. Everyone gets access to the same baseline for a happy life, and 9 months our of the year to do with as they please, whether that be to improve their house, make jewelry, paint, write, or spend time with their friends or family, they can personally decide what they want to spend that time doing, instead of laboring all year for just those basics.
I did specify ‘housing crisis aside’, but yes. 40% of Americans own their own paid off home; most renting households still spend around 33% of income on rent. 67% of income, then, is spent on things other than not becoming homeless - do you want to speculate on what amount of that is actually necessary?
But I never disputed any of that. The entire point originally raised was that people would still desire to do less work even if they had their needs fulfilled.
How does that follow? Some endeavors are more profitable than others. Hierarchies can be set up even without material differences (which, as we’ve established, certainly are not eradicated). Exploitation is often predicated not on material differences, but social manipulation, and result in material differences.
Peter Kropotkin provides a good counter-argument to the idea that everyone would skimp out on doing needed work if all their basic needs were met in The Conquest of Bread, under Chapter 12: Objections.
My point is not that needed work would not be done. My point is that people will still desire to do less work, which means your original objection to my scenario, that the workers would not desire that extra hour of free time once they had ‘enough’ time off, is not realistic.
Perhaps reread Chapter 9 of The Conquest Of Bread.
To reiterate, your argument was that people in an anarchist society will, as a whole, not take on an ounce of extra work even if it means helping not poisoning their neighboring towns.
My argument was that there are social and material benefits to taking on that extra work of cleaning their waste water, and I believe most people would not feel good poisoning their neighbors unless they were extremely uneducated or sociopathic.
You believe that the only solution to that scenario is to have a hierarchical government with a big stick to force that group to clean their waste water.
I believe that most places under an Anarchist society would, on the whole, not need the stick. There may be some infrequent specific scenarios where even under Anarchism, that a settlement acts as you suggest. In those cases, especially if the harm was severe or could not be mitigated, the community(s) effected down river may opt to resort to other means to resolve that conflict, such as social shaming, or potentially even sabotage. Then that population would have to decide between the extra time and work that defense against them would require, or just clean the damn water.
I don’t see how it conflicts with what I’ve been suggesting?
No, my argument is that when an anarchist commune makes an anti-social decision based on very reasonable and universal human desires, you have no means of conflict resolution which can stop any intransigent community from acting selfishly at the expense of other communities without going back to the question of “Enforcement”.
Fuck’s sake, most of us poison our neighbors every fucking day we buy something we don’t fucking need. You feel good about that? Do you think about it, even?
… my point here isn’t to guilt you, fuck’s sake, I do it too. My point is that these are not rare problems we are discussing. People are very good at closing their eyes, or focusing on their little corner of the world, or offering innumerable justifications for their own behavior or why the burden should fall on someone else.
If a community refuses to stop polluting, your only options are some form of enforcement, or letting it happen. Your only response here is “It wouldn’t happen often enough to consider”, which is utopian to the point of absurdity.
Oh, social shaming has a good record on that, does it?
And sabotage? What happens when someone gets fucking shot for sneaking around in the middle of the night - and don’t fucking tell me “All anarchists will be completely calm and extremely disciplined gun owners who would never shoot anyone unless they were 100% sure that their life was immediately at risk :)” What if the sabotage creates much more damage than expected? What if the sabotage itself kills people? What if no one admits to the sabotage? Is the sabotage lawful by the downriver community’s decision? What’s the next step then?
It’s not enough for a society to be able to operate day-to-day. A society must be able to operate in crisis, or it will be replaced by a society which can - no matter how much more ugly it is, day-to-day.
Considering how people tend to band closer together when they feel under attack by ‘outsiders’, even to their own material detriment? And especially within an ideology, or rather a very specific interpretation of anarchism, that rejects the notion that outsiders have the right to tell them what to do?
By insisting on no violence, you set the stage for mass violence. Endemic warfare. These are the exact fucking conditions that arise in pre-modern societies; these are the exact fucking conditions which predominant in international affairs.