posted
Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations.
In real life application of the collectivist projects were quite successful, sources during the Spanish Revolution noted that in the Catalan region, "In distribution the collectives' co-operatives eliminated middlemen, small merchants, wholesalers, and profiteers, thus greatly reducing consumer prices. The collectives eliminated most of the parasitic elements from rural life, and would have wiped them out altogether if they were not protected by corrupt officials and by the political parties. Non-collectivised areas benefited indirectly from the lower prices as well as from free services often rendered by the collectives (laundries, cinemas, schools, barber and beauty parlours, etc.)"
Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Historically there have been stateless societies("acephal" they have been called) and collectivist types of social organisations.
But strict "anarchy" would lead to social chaos which would quickly lead to forms of control. But the old question of "quis custodes custodiet?(Who will watch the watchmen?)remains.
Humans are social animals so most humans prefer to live with other humans, so the question is what is the optimal way this can be done?
Given that no society is perfect the practical thing to do is to examine those societies where the income gap between the income earners is minimal, most people have jobs, and society arranges things so that the vagaries of birth are minimised through social safety and opportunity nets especially in health, education, and general welfare.
But 2 things are required here, which may not obtain in many societies because the maturity level of its citizens is very low. These 2 things are i) social empathy, and ii) small-group direct democracy.
The former ensures that individuals respect each other as humans with equal rights thereby ensuring social harmony and well-being. The latter ensures that managers of the social collectivity--in the implementation of social goods--can be easily recalled and replaced.
Places like Iceland, Finland, Norway, and other such nations are closer to these ideals than others.
For Africa, the solution should start with the right pro-Africa education for all. Countries where such was implemented witnessed a mark change in social attitudes in a short space of time. Places like Ghana when Nkrumah was President, and Burkina Faso when Sankara was President.
But there will always be outside forces from the West that will always seek to destabilise such ventures. Hence a "tight ship" may be necessary. Note that Nkrumah was overthrown in a CIA engineered coup and Sankara was murdered by Blaise Campoare on urgings by the French DGSE[like the CIA and MI6).
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's a given that a transition come mock Democracy to this form of cooperative isn't to be taken lightly. For African nations to embrace this form of collective, it would have to a part of some other motivator that succeeds in nurturing xenophobic attitudes within it's members, as well as offer some for of religious component appealing to the weak minded Christian and Islamic members. Some form of Superset of the Armish or Quaker movements of the US which succeeded in isolating themselves from mainstream Democracy for hundreds of years.
-------------------- Selenium gives real life and true reality Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic