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

[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.