Idk about you but this sounds like a spook.Basically you end up with this left-wing tradition which is centred almost entirely on individual liberty; you have all the same issues but they all boil down to individuals, not collective groups. The fundamental difference they had with other socialists was that they rejected this idea of compulsory participation in the community.
It would resolve what I consider to be the fundamental failure of communism, which is that has no answer to what will and must happen after the state has withered away. This left-wing tradition which is based on individualist anarchism as opposed to Marxism would have that answer: the community itself must wither away and leave only individual people, free to associate with one another if they wish, but free to live their lives as they please.
You see, as long as any sort of community exists which has shared values which are enforced by and within that community, then oppression is inevitable. The entire concept of a "community" is inherently oppressive because it inherently prioritises the desires of groups ahead of the needs of people. In that regard, if you want to improve the American constitution you should change "without the consent of the governed" to "without the unanimous consent of the governed" because that's the only way to be sure. All communities are by their nature oppressive.
I mean, he's right to an extent, except we trade the minor oppression community life brings for little things like...Idk about you but this sounds like a spook.
I don't know what this means.Idk about you but this sounds like a spook.
I mean, he's right to an extent, except we trade the minor oppression community life brings for little things like...
And that's just basic social contract theory going all the way back to Hobbes.
I've been pondering this in my absence from the site and I believe I've found a PoD for you: in 1882, there was some big international meeting of socialists in the Hague. Marx was able to dominate it because he was the biggest personality there. However, he was going to be opposed at this meeting by Mikhail Bakunin, who wasn't able to make travel arrangements in time and missed the meeting. As a consequence, Bakunin's followers were discredited in his absence and Marx carried not only the meeting, but the next century. Now, nobody knows whoPersonally, without either Marx or Lenin, revolutionary/radical emphasis would remain on individual autonomy more anarchist strains of radicalism, rather than the emphasis on state socialism we saw after 1917.
First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice.
Marx, its founder, concluded that the only way to abolish the class monopolies was to centralize and consolidate all industrial and commercial interests, all productive and distributive agencies, in one vast monopoly in the hands of the State. The government must become banker, manufacturer, farmer, carrier, and merchant, and in these capacities must suffer no competition. Land, tools, and all instruments of production must be wrested from individual hands, and made the property of the collectivity. To the individual can belong only the products to be consumed, not the means of producing them. A man may own his clothes and his food, but not the sewing-machine which makes his shirts or the spade which digs his potatoes. Product and capital are essentially different things; the former belongs to individuals, the latter to society. Society must seize the capital which belongs to it, by the ballot if it can, by revolution if it must. Once in possession of it, it must administer it on the majority principle, though its organ, the State, utilize it in production and distribution, fix all prices by the amount of labor involved, and employ the whole people in its workshops, farms, stores, etc. The nation must be transformed into a vast bureaucracy, and every individual into a State official. Everything must be done on the cost principle, the people having no motive to make a profit out of themselves. Individuals not being allowed to own capital, no one can employ another, or even himself. Every man will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage-payer. He who will not work for the State must starve, or, more likely, go to prison. All freedom of trade must disappear. Competition must be utterly wiped out. All industrial and commercial activity must be centered in one vast, enormous, all-inclusive monopoly. The remedy for monopolies is monopoly.
This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished.
When Warren and Proudhon, in prosecuting their search for justice to labor, came face to face with the obstacle of class monopolies, they saw that these monopolies rested upon Authority, and concluded that the thing to be done was, not to strengthen this Authority and thus make monopoly universal, but to utterly uproot Authority and give full sway to the opposite principle, Liberty, by making competition, the antithesis of monopoly, universal. They saw in competition the great leveler of prices to the labor cost of production. In this they agreed with the political economists. They query then naturally presented itself why all prices do not fall to labor cost; where there is any room for incomes acquired otherwise than by labor; in a word, why the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent, and profit, exists. The answer was found in the present one-sidedness of competition. It was discovered that capital had so manipulated legislation that unlimited competition is allowed in supplying productive labor, thus keeping wages down to the starvation point, or as near it as practicable; that a great deal of competition is allowed in supplying distributive labor, or the labor of the mercantile classes, thus keeping, not the prices of goods, but the merchants’ actual profits on them down to a point somewhat approximating equitable wages for the merchants’ work; but that almost no competition at all is allowed in supplying capital, upon the aid of which both productive and distributive labor are dependent for their power of achievement, thus keeping the rate of interest on money and of house-rent and ground-rent at as high a point as the necessities of the people will bear.