Atheism & Hope

[joreth]

"Atheism and anarchist theory were the first things that gave me any hope in this world. They were the things that said we had the power within us to make things better. Everything else said we were either evil or helpless to fate."
~Unknown

From http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/09/atheism-and-hope.html

This reminds me of tacit 's post http://tacit.livejournal.com/205515.html Why I'm An Optimist

(I'm not an anarchist, but that's part of the quote)

Comments

[aclaro.livejournal.com]

Forgive me if you already know all this.. but I wouldn't have identified as an anarchist 6 months ago because I didn't realize how the rest of the world uses the word. As far as I can tell, anarchists do not believe that people need an "elite class" to rule them.. ie, having a *boss* isn't necessary, the workers still know how to make the factory run. Anarchists believe that people can organize and run their own society. Catalonia was an example of anarcho-syndicalism where people organized in groups according to specialties and ran business democratically. It was still an organized society with law and structure, it just lacked an elite body tasked with making decisions for the people who were affected. My guess is the quote referred to this kind of anarchism.. the power of the people to control their own lives and working conditions, NOT a system of total chaos (sometimes I think the redefining of this word in America is not accidental).

just some links - catalonia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia

anarcho-syndicalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

off my soap box now :).

[joreth]

Thanks for the links!

Yes, I did know that about anarchy but, much like Communism, I think that system really only has any hope of working on a small scale, if at all. Considering that the majority of US Citizens think the earth is 6,000 years old, I'm a little more inclined nowadays to think we really do need an "elite" class of people to make decisions "for" us. Unfortunately, I don't think the US has it quite right and I have not come up with a better solution because I just haven't spent that much time thinking about it.

[(Anonymous)]

Sam
I'm an atheist and an authoritarian- I think people simply are drawn to anarchism and communism because they are utopian. That is great, but they are utopian because they ignore the flaws of people! It drives me nuts people don't think about that.

Anarcho-syndicalism is an interesting and concievable idea, but it tends to fall apart in practice- why would workers fire themselves? It is the equivalent of making each employe a shareholder- it doesn't work well in industries that are very unstable. In ones that have a consistant future it will work fine.

As for the stupidity of the American public... it only is 30% that is really fargone. It wouldn't be a problem... except that they can convince alot of the rest of the population with adds and the like.

Obviously expertise is something you need in rulers- broad based competance at the least, with specialists taking up other position (generally cabinent). You shouldn't have them as a "class"- just unsure that education is deep and common enough and that they get experience in previous government positions. They also tend to show their true colors, so it gives you an idea into their sanity.

Unless you are talking about what the Turks do, where if the government gets to crazy the military takes over for a few weeks. They have done that about five times- it is a tradition know, with the military steeping down soon after and the next government knowing what not to do. It is the reason that Turkey is as secular as it is (just barely).

[joreth]

Yeah, it's the "flaws" of people that makes me not approve of these kinds of philosophies on a grand scale. In, say, a household or small intentional community, I could see it working because the people chosen to participate would have been pre-selected for their compatibility in those areas necessary for the structure of the group.

As I said, though, I don't really have any suggestions for a better system, I think quite a few Western governments have some pretty good ideas with a few not-so-good ones mixed in and I haven't made a study of each separate nation to give an educated opinion on the subject. When I said "we really do need an 'elite' class of people", I was speaking broadly and perhaps "class" is too strong of a word.

I don't know that I'd hold up Turkey as an ideal, though. For all our flaws, we are one of the leading nations in economics and technology (although how much of a lead is debatable thanks to our most recent government), so I'm more inclined to go with something a little more democratic and a little less militant than the Turks.

Although the debate on anarchy is interesting, and I don't intend to cut it off, the quote was primarily to emphasize my atheist beliefs in a short, soundbite-type phrase. I tend towards the verbose, so I like to copy and paste other people's much more succinct and eloquent phrasing when I find it.

And, who's Sam?

[aclaro.livejournal.com]

replying to both the anon poster and you..

I think any system that is radically different than the one we are in now is subject to the "utopian" criticism. That's because when we try to imagine something quite different, we tend to throw in a lot of extra stuff, because why not? as long as we're dreaming.

However it's really a straw man argument in my opinion. My imaginings of anarcho-syndicalism are pretty damn messy. I think the important question is, what political system best accounts for the real flaws of human beings? Capitalism brings out desperation and hopelessness, neo-conservatism brings out frenzied mob mentality, anarchism I imagine, would bring out constant in-fighting. However, if you *expect* that people will disagree and fight, and create systems to deal with that, then you end up with a system where people can take pride in their work because it actually means something. In any case, anarchism is very difficult to imagine because you have to back away from a lot of capitalist assumptions before it makes any kind of sense.

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here as I'm more in favor of social democracy, which works quite well in many European countries, while still *gasp* providing universal healthcare and a comprehensive welfare system. But I do like anarchist theory as it is very empowering on an individual level. The elite vs. common people system was a lot more soothing to me until I realized I wasn't in the elite class - that I was just one more of the desperate working poor, and my accumulating debt and choice of professions meant I was never going to escape my status.

[joreth]

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I think "true democracy" is a bit utopian too. I lean towards a mix of social democracy/republic because, like science, I think it's the best we've come up with so far. I like capitalism and I like individual choice and I like universal health care. What can I say, I want it all!

Seriously, though, when discussing governmental systems, I think, in practice, some systems work better than others and accomodate those "personal flaws" better than others, and my very brief look at anarchy and communism has shown me that, in practice, neither seems to work very well, which mean that they're too "utopian" and not practical. Even on smaller scales, those communistic communities that have sprung up over the years seem to fail pretty dismally. I think there's a lot to be said about systems that reward personal achievement, but there needs to be a safety net to ensure a basic quality of life.

And, in my uninformed opinion, anarchy and communism just don't cut it. None of them do, really, but social democracy has come closest and been sustained the longest.

[aclaro.livejournal.com]

"anarchy and communism has shown me that, in practice, neither seems to work very well"

Well, countries who call (or have called) themselves communist, typically aren't. It's like saying the "democratic people's republic of north korea," is a democracy, or the nazi party is socialist (which they claimed to be). China, Russia etc. are/were closer to "state capitalism". In any case, I don't think communism looks good on paper or in practice, so I'm not arguing with you there. I also don't think it has much to do with anarchism.

Catalonia was working just fine until it was crushed militarily, so I guess for now we really don't know if it would have worked in the long run or not as it's the only real example of anarcho-syndicalism.

However, I will say I'm incredibly grateful to those who embrace anarchist philosophy. Nearly all the movers and shakers of the labor movement around the turn of the century were anarchists. Anarchism.. that is.. the idea that *labor* has the value (and therefore the workers), beyond wages that provide only for a desperate survival, that gave people the strength to rise up and demand fair treatment.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm Sam- don't have an account so that is how I identify myself when I am posting anon... well, if I don't forget.

Turkey isn't a good model to follow- it is an example of an elite keeping the people from doing something stupid. You have another case of that in the Dominican Republic... of course, most dictatorships are nothing like that so it tends to be a poor model.

aclaro... I think that socialistic democratic countries have the highest standards of living on Earth. Sweden and Japan are at the top. Of course, exactly what is capitalism and what is socialism is hard to tell- but countries tend to lean more towards capitalism when they are undergoing change.

Of course, capitalism that is a winner takes all works as well as... well, take a look at the US. One of the richest nations on Earth... with a huge amount of internal problems. You can make loads of money treating your workers like tissue paper, but it is (not surprisingly) unstable.

The reason anarchy and communism don't work is they ignore major problems- anarchy ignores that the government IS better at certain things than the market and communism ignores the opposite.

Small scale communist experiments have problems with adapting to change and motivating people to work. Under 200 people you can use the tribe to motivate, but more than that and you get slackers.

Direct Democracy is effectively impossible due to size problems, although Virtual Democracy might be feasible. It is worth noting the primary benefit democracy over other systems is that it means that the government appears more legitamate (so less take over attempts) and that the government does pander entirely to those who are the king makers and towards a larger segment of the population instead.

Of course, distribution of power is also important- the more dispersed, the clunkier, but the less likely you get a Ceaser style president who uses their popularity to cause massive changes.

As for "true communism"... Lenin actually tried that shortly after the revolution. However, it almost brought down the economy so he instituted the NEP.

Communist countries have had to borrow heavily from capitalism, but manage to get their own flaws- and benefits. They tend to be inefficient, but quick to industrialize. Depending on the country they can be feudal or... like this
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=122510

Nazi Germany was socialistic... well, depending on your definition of socialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi#Anti-capitalist_rhetoric
Take it for what it is worth- Nazism was not a coherant ideology.

As for Catalonia and other socialist experiments... I think the failure of them to be able to defend themselves is a big stroke against them- is that not the test of an ideology? Survival.

Uh... which anarchism are we talking about? Anarchism in the 19th century was the boggie man (like Islam today)- the US lost a president to an Anarchist assasin.