alright

( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 14:47, archived)

alright Doc P, whassup?

( Mr. Tea 'ulmmm'/'mmneurgh', Thu 31 Jan 2013, 14:49, archived)

alright Dr P
I missed your politilols thread the other day but I think I'm some kind of Anarcho Collectivist.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 14:57, archived)

Pull yourself together, woman!

( Mr. Tea 'ulmmm'/'mmneurgh', Thu 31 Jan 2013, 15:01, archived)

Sorry, wrong joke.

( Mr. Tea 'ulmmm'/'mmneurgh', Thu 31 Jan 2013, 15:01, archived)

How would that differ from an anarcho syndicalist?

( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 15:05, archived)

in the spelling and pronounciation, at the very least

( manolith hooray for me, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 15:07, archived)

a syndicate is centred around a particular trade,
whereas a collective may contain a diverse array of trades in a relatively self-contained community.

I might be wrong about the terminology, I haven't read enough about it. But I imagine the collective as more like a family than an industry.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 15:14, archived)

syndicalism, with its emphasis on trade unions,
seems to presuppose an underlying monolithic industrialism whose exploitative activity it is necessary to counteract; or in other words, the necessity of the steel workers to unite against the evil steel conglomerate presupposes the necessity of the evil steel conglomerate.

Could be wrong though, I dunno.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 15:22, archived)

I fear syndicalism would naturally tend towards the formation of regional monopolies,
creating an imbalance of power between syndicates.

Preferably, the basic social unit should be like a microcosm of the wider economy.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 15:39, archived)

I like eggs.

( drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 15:42, archived)

that's what I like about this place,
you're all such fucking intellectuals.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 15:47, archived)

yeah, but whoever lands on mayfair first usually wins.

( The Doveston haunted by the memory of his own amnesia, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 15:49, archived)

But economists are always saying politicians get it disastrously wrong
when they make assumptions based on the fallacy that the economy of a nation is basically a much larger version of the economy of a household...
( Mr. Tea 'ulmmm'/'mmneurgh', Thu 31 Jan 2013, 16:05, archived)

It isn't, of course,
we have to make it that way, hence "ideology". When economics leads politics, where does it go? Economics is full of fallacies of its own.

Besides, what currently constitutes "a household"? A single couple plus 2.x children can hardly be a microcosm of very much.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 16:17, archived)

What would be the advantage of making a national economy more like a domestic one?

( Mr. Tea 'ulmmm'/'mmneurgh', Thu 31 Jan 2013, 16:19, archived)

none
what I propose is making a domestic economy like a national one.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 16:19, archived)

You mean, based primarily on debt?
Doesn't sound too great to me.
( Mr. Tea 'ulmmm'/'mmneurgh', Thu 31 Jan 2013, 16:20, archived)

no I mean by having a diversity of economic interests

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 16:26, archived)

Such as two or more people who do different jobs? Or one person who does more than one job?
A lot of households have that already...or what do you mean exactly?
( Mr. Tea 'ulmmm'/'mmneurgh', Thu 31 Jan 2013, 16:27, archived)

a hundred or so people who primarily work for each other rather than for somebody else.
when the basic social unit is so small as the nuclear family, everyone is in a relationship of dependence on external institutions, and exploitative arrangements are accepted out of individual necessity.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 16:33, archived)

Oh OK, I get what you mean.
So you mean like a hamlet or a miniature clan or something, rather than a nuclear family.
( Mr. Tea 'ulmmm'/'mmneurgh', Thu 31 Jan 2013, 16:38, archived)

yeah,
like that. We used to have extended families (which they still do in some places, like India), now suddenly nuclear families are "traditional"? What nonsense!

Although I don't expect people to group purely by biological relationship anymore, but there's nothing unprecedented about it, and sharing resources is far more economically efficient.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 16:44, archived)

Yeah, I reckon you're right.
It's far easier to get people to work for the common good if 'the common good' extends to a group of people you personally know, which I guess is limited to maybe a couple of hundred.
( Mr. Tea 'ulmmm'/'mmneurgh', Thu 31 Jan 2013, 16:50, archived)

If I were in charge,
I'd just have the police raze your hippy communes, and crack your skulls open. I'm pretty sure I'd have the backing of the public.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 16:59, archived)

sadly this is probably true.

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 17:02, archived)

I think she's wrong, and I'm very sympathetic to anarchism.
I think it appeals to primitive right wing thinking by limiting your sense of society to tribal proportions (i.e. the sense of common good applies only to me, my family and my friends at the expense/indifference of everyone else).
( brb Monkhouse Stampede, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 17:01, archived)

better than the no sense of common good at all,
as promoted by individualistic consumerism. But it wouldn't necessarily stop there. "Tribes" (if you want to use that word) can still form even larger groups, and if tribe membership is dynamic (rather than purely hereditary as it was in the past) there should be plenty of inter-tribe empathy.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 17:12, archived)

But there would still be competition for resources, power, prestige and that.
I'm as utopian as the next cunt, but I don't think true anarchy can be arranged, it has to evolve from utility, if you see what I mean.
( brb Monkhouse Stampede, Thu 31 Jan 2013, 21:27, archived)

That's not a rhetorical question, btw.
Maybe it would be better, I dunno.
( Mr. Tea 'ulmmm'/'mmneurgh', Thu 31 Jan 2013, 16:20, archived)