Thursday, November 29, 2007

Anarcho - Racists





We had the anarcho-capitalists , now we have this new and invidious development National Anarchism , part of what is being called the New Right .

Already accused by The Green Anarchist magazine of advocating "... a decentralized economic and political system which features ethnically-pure villages which are defined by racial separatism, anti-semitism and homophobia..."

They themselves claim that "National Anarchism places no special emphasis on race but on the identity of who people are, culturally and ethnically." - that certainly sounds like a sub-text to me for white nationalism and anti-immigration .


And from the website Folk and Faith we read :-
" We are believers in National Revolution, Social Justice, Ecological Preservation, and Cultural Identity...Yet, we acknowlege the effects unbridled immigration has had on our planet and are staunchly opposed to continuation of this... We are defenders of our noble European ancestry and of the orthodox Christian faith. We are neither left nor right-wing...We aim to build a homogenous society where our peoples' cultural identity, our sacred Christian faith (as it was originally taught, not the Judeo'ized antithesis taught today)...we are advocates of a folk-centered agrarian society...etc etc etc "

It is simple rightist populism masquerading under the black flag . Nor is it particularly a new development ( see the National Bolshevism of pre-Nazi Germany ) .

For more on these so-called anarchists see WIKI

24 comments:

Duncan Money said...

You're right that National Anarchism isn't a particularly new concept but modern National Anarchism seems to have been entirely the creation of veteran nutter Troy Southgate who has now wandered off into more obscure politics.

It's only really interesting in terms of the stupidity of fascists who think it's possible to combine anarchism and nationalism.

Anonymous said...

Free advertising is still advertising.

To Duncan: there's no 'nationalism' to be found in N-A, since the concept of a 'nation' to begin with is anathema.

Anonymous said...

Yet more simplistic, binary thinking from a leftist windbag. National-Anarchism is based around the principle of "live and let live" - communities accepting of gays would be formed, as well as communities not accepting. Every shade of ethnic and racial seperation could be accomodated - Jewish white nationalists, anti-semitic white nationalists, Hispanic nationalists, anti-nationalist multiculturalists. The most basic tenet is of voluntary association - N-As have no desire to force their beliefs on others, unlike fascists and lefto-totalitarians like our friend who writes this feeble blog.

ajohnstone said...

Anonymous Number Two ,
Please refer me to any statement made on this "feeble" blog ( selected as the 299th best political UK blog btw )that shows that i condone totalitarian ideas .

An adherent of totalitarian principles or totalitarian government
Characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control
Of or relating to the principles of totalitarianism according to which the state regulates every realm of life

Dictionary meaning if you don't happen to know its definition and can only use the word as a epithet .

Gordo said...

National Anarchism is an umbrella term encompassing many different groups, the Christianity of ‘Folk and Faith’ for example, is not universal. It is not homophobic or anti-Jewish, and is totally against nation-states, racism and capitalism. As well as New Right, it can also be labelled New Left, anarcho-primitvist, post-left anarchist, National Left, etc. If list shows anything, it the contempt for labels felt by the up and coming National Anarchists The left-right spectrum, as used by the ruling bourgeois and it’s pawns on the left, is obsolete and divisive for the working class.

However, quite right that National Anarchism is not new, it is closer to the communitarian and federalist ideas of Proudun, Bakunin and Kroptokin than the left-liberal psuedo-Marxism of today’s '(non)anarchists'. Internationalism is the flip side of Globalisation so please remember that reactionary Trotskyism is the grandparent of Neo-Con ideology.

Anonymous said...

i like how they linked to your blog from their listserve and are now peddling lies about their beliefs in order to softsell them. read what they say about the "Holohoax (in Troy Southgate's own words) and their continued obsession with Jews (not just "zionism"). As for queer people - well, 'they are disgusting but they we will stick them in a separate village' (will this be one village for black gay men, one village for black lesbians, one village for white gay men, etc etc? what will they do with biexuals - do they get their own villages?). Tell me - how many jewish or queer National Anarchists are there?

ajohnstone said...

Somehow ,anonymous 3, i just see the likes of Kropotkin , the author of Mutual Aid ( "...a gradual extension of the mutual-aid principles from the tribe to always larger and larger agglomerations, so as to finally embrace one day the whole of mankind, without respect to its divers creeds, languages, and races....") , rolling in his grave at the thought of being associated with such bastardised ideas as N-A that excludes people and retard co-operation of peoples .

" By proclaiming ourselves anarchists, we proclaim before-
hand that we disavow any way of treating others in which
we should not like them to treat us; that we will no longer
tolerate the inequality that has allowed some among us to
use their strength, their cunning or their ability after a
fashion in which it would annoy us to have such qualities
used against ourselves. Equality in all things..." - "Anarchist Morality"

And Bakunin's inclusive approach to the world can be seen in this quote :-

"...no tree ever brings forth two leaves that are exactly identical. How much more will this be true of men, men being much more complicated creatures than leaves. But such diversity, far from constituting an affliction is, as the German philosopher Feuerbach has forcefully noted, one of the assets of mankind. Thanks to it, the human race is a collective whole wherein each human being complements the rest and has need of them; so that this infinite variation in human beings is the very cause and chief basis of their solidarity - an important argument in favour of equality."


Whereas the use of Proudhon by the French fascist Right has been well documented .

I wonder if N-A is all just an evolution of the beliefs of the anti-Fed , anti-tax gun-toting survivalists .

Alex said...

Your use of the NA symbol is actually the squatters symbol; it's not a National Anarchist symbol.

Secondly, I did a quick post about National Anarchists you might want to read.

http://anarchydownunder.blogspot.com/2007/11/national-or-notional-anarchists.html

I wrote this because I found there to be quite a lot of hostility between ANSOC and ANCAP. Seeing as they have their own flags - they can be considered "nations" of anarchy. I think conceptually, the idea of communities based on similar values has premise especially considering the dislike between the an-caps and an-socs.

Keith Preston said...

I'm not all that big on labels, but I supposed I could be classified a left-libertarian, right-populist, anarcho-nationalist.

For some reading on this, see
http://www.attackthesystem.com/race.html

http://www.attackthesystem.com/economy.html

http://www.attackthesystem.com/nationalanarchism.html

As a very general idea, I'm for dissolving modern nation-states into regional federations of city-states, using classical anarchist economic models like those of the syndicalists and mutualists within a broader pluralistic framework, and with different cultural groups being sovereign within their own enclaves.

For instance, in a mostly European community, local culture, institutions, education, public events, holidays, etc. would be European in orientation (for example, Colombus Day). In a mostly African community, Kwanza, or Emancipation Proclamation Day or MLK day might be the big events. In a Hispanic community, it might be Cinco de Mayo.

Generally conservative communities would have conservative policies (like not recognizing gay marriage) while generally liberal communities might do the opposite.

Cosmopolitan leftist communities might given special recognition tp transgendered persons while conservative towns might might be centers of patriotic celebrations.

The anti-Fed, pro-gun, anti-tax populist radicals of small town America have much of value to say.

It's time to move past the left/right dichotomy. It's also time for the left to move past the "fascist under every bed" hysteria just as it's time for the right to get over the "Marxist homosexuals under every bed" hysteria.

Mupetblast said...

An anarchist who insists on diversity and integration may as well be a statist. After all states, and especially empires, force everyone to be together with its "cult of association". Left wing careerist academics can't imagine decentralization because - gasp! - everyone would be doing their own little ugly and illiberal thing in a primitive backwoods dystopia (except for Berkeley)! Hardly.

In a society consisting of only voluntary association there's absolutely no guarantee that people wouldn't isolate themselves based on bullshit criteria like race, ethnicity and religion(though culture...is that always bullshit?). Let them be alone and choke on the results of their self imposed island if they want. What would be the result? The Amish? As we all know the Amish represent a mortal fascist danger...

ajohnstone said...

Alex ,

Seems that the lightening bolt/arrow is just another hijacked symbol by NA added to the A to make it their own . Squatters dropped the A .There are other symbols used by NA .

Keith , i am reminded of so called "liberal whites" in South Africa who argued for apartheid policies under the "progressive" slogan of separate development .

...And i am minded of enclaves being Ghettoes of the Warsaw sort

The basis for socialism and anarchism and communism ( they are all interchangeable terms for the same thing ) is economical - changing the way and manner society has of producing wealth to provide the requisite food clothing and shelter for society . From the system of the production and distribution of these necessities , societies arise and cultures , nations and states arise . Unless you desire a form of autarky , the needs of people are and will be based upon local , regional and world organisation and this leads to the increased interaction and intermingling of peoples and cultures - the "mongrelisation of the world" - and not at all a bad state of affairs INMHO .Every person has abilities and qualities that differentiate them from others, but we are all equal in our humanity. We all have strengths and weaknesses. What we need is a society that allows us to use our strengths, and that accepts and accommodates our weaknesses.

The example of the Amish is one of a hounded and harassed religious group seeking isolationism and an insular lifestyle for self-preservation . A defence mechanism when faced with persecution . An unlikely scenario for a socialist future .

for socialist analysis of Religion Race and Class go read
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/religion_racism_and_class.php

download racism pamphlet at
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/rac.pdf

For the anarchist reply to NA go to http://flag.blackened.net/antinat/

Keith Preston said...

ajohnstone,

As an student/bohemian/drifter anarchist in the 1980s, I participated in the anti-apartheid movement. They may have called that system "separate development" but there was no real self-determination for blacks, "coloreds", Indians (or whites, for that matter). That particular system was simply another state-capitalist regime with a racial/ethnic caste system. In fact, they still have the same system, only without the apartheid laws. There were no more political changes in South Africa than there were following the "civil rights movement" in the US.

My idea of self-determination is more similar to the Swiss canton system than apartheid. In fact, there were two South Africans who won a Nobel Prize in political literature with their outline of such a system for a post-apartheid S. Africa. I suggest you research the work of Frances Kendall and Leon Leow.

If you cannot distinguish between anarchism and communism/socialism, then I would say you have much learning in the field of political theory and political history to do. Communism is the mortal enemy of anarchism, and social democracy is a statist sham.

One of the reasons I am in favor of decentralized pluralistic particularism is that with such a system it would be more feasible for outcast social groups to achieve self-determination for themselves (with their own Andorra or Liechtenstein). An analogy to the Warsaw ghetto is absurd. That was a prison camp (like the present day West Bank).

As a curiosity, how is your version of Communism actually going to work?

ajohnstone said...

Keith ,

Thank you for bringing Kendall and Leow to my attention , who i had not previously heard of .
Quick google search resulted in discovering that they were not Nobel Prize WINNERS but NOMINEES( sorry for being pedantic ;-p

They seem to be proponents of the Free Market - the anarcho-capitalists i mentioned in passing in the original post
For more on those see http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secFcon.html

Surely discussion of a future anarchist/socialist/communist society should be about the fundamental re-organisation of production and distribution and the manner and different ways that decisions are made about these , rather than re-designing political structures to administer capitalist relations .


I was actually going back to the 19th century tradition of communism socialism and anarchism before it necessitated all those hyphens required these days and they were all part and parcel of the same workers movement . Briefly ,
Lenin to give theoretical justification for being unable to achieve socialism/communism re-defined the meanings of those words , state-socialist reformists who arose in the latter half of 19th C the required the likes of Kropotkin to emphasise that they were anarcho-communist . All very confusing , granted , but my point was as i now have said is to show their common root.

How do i envisage socialism communism anarchism working , you ask ?

i can refer you to a feeble attempt of mine to create a web-site collating various articles from others for you to browse through .

http://www.freewebs.com/socialistcommonwealth/

Peter Bjørn Perlsø said...

"It is simple rightist populism masquerading under the black flag ."

Childishness. If you can't offer a sound critique of an ideology your don't like, you can always use the "rightist" epithet as if it meant anything.

Also, because your blog may have been voted as the 299th best (woot! only 298 spaces to go before your can claim to have the ultimate correct opinion, eh?) doesn't mean jack shit about the validity of your opinions and claims. You are still silly and appealing to petty emotion by calling N-A "anarcho racism".

Try thinking for a change. Those of us who are are sick to the stomach about the useless verbiage spewing from you and your likes who would rather smear opponents than build bridges.

ajohnstone said...

My , oh , my , Peter , aren't you the one to be endeavouring to build bridges ....Childishness... silly ... useless verbiage spewing from you and your likes...

Whereas i have tried to reply civilly to indivuals .

When it comes to race NA seem determined to emphasise that racial types exist - The fact of the matter is that we are all members of the same pool of genes, all related very closely to one another no matter what part of the globe we hail from. We are the surviving descendants of some less than 20,000 early humanoids. We share a common genetic trait, traceable back through the ages to just one female, many thousands of years ago.

There is only one race - the human race , and i think i can describe an ideology that endeavours to declare otherwise as racist based .

There is a well-documented effect of hostage situations, called "The Stockholm Syndrome" in which hostages under duress began to identify with their kidnappers, and believe in their cause. Nationalism works in much the same way. It is the Stockholm Syndrome on a grand scale.
The Polish nationalist Pilsudski, observed that "It is the state that makes the nation, not the nation the state."

The only way to define national identity is to define it in terms of what (who) it is not, i.e. negatively. Thus nationalism sets itself as being against other countries, striving to define a uniqueness of national culture so as to once and for all set its country apart from others, to know itself by what is un-like it. At one extreme this can include myths about race and blood, trying to attach the national abstraction to some supposed trait of genetics . Since people have a strong desire to retain their own perceived identity, and to have a good opinion of themselves, often the creeds based on such identities function in a highly irrational, and ultimately, defensive way.


Good luck with your unique approach to creating bridges , Peter .

Keith Preston said...

Testing. A previous post failed.

Keith Preston said...

Yes, You're right about Leow and Kendall. I stand corrected. And, yes, many of their suggestions were heavily influenced by "anarcho-capitalism". However, I would differentiate sharply between anarcho-capitalism and state-capitalism, just as I would make a similar distinction between theocracy and voluntary religious institutions. I do not believe the gargantuan corporatist arrangements we see today would be possible without state support for capitalism. There is a very interesting radical economist named Kevin Carson who has written extensively on this. You may want to check him out:

http://www.mutualist.org

I started out as an anarcho-syndicalist (like the Spanish CNT or the American IWW), then I started moving towards anarcho-capitalism. Now I'm more or less a pluralist (like Voltarine de Cleyre). I think the best possible economy would be a mixture of productinve arrangements. I do think a market is necessary for an efficient allocation of resources. Generally, I'm for the co-existence of private business firms, anarcho-syndicalist unions, anarcho-communist communes (like the Israeli kibbutzim), workers' coops (like Mondragon), Georgist land trusts, mutual banks, non-state social services, "back to the land" agrarian settlements, et. al.

I agree with you about the difference between classical socialism and Leninism/social democracy. Larry Gambone gathered a collecton of research on that you may find interesting:

Google gambone myth socialism statism and you'll find his work on this.

I don't think a planned economy is possible without centralization and centralization is impossible without authoritarianism. I think Robert Michels and Vilifredo Pareto had it right on that. This is my principal disagreement with orthodox socialism.

Keith Preston said...

I'm not certain that the prevailing liberal view that there are no differences among races other than outward physical appearance and a few odd diseases like sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs syndrome is correct. Indeed, I think it is likely this view will eventually be demonstrated to be false scientifically (like, for instance, the Lamarckian rendition of evolution).

The genetic and chromosomal patterns of humans and the higher primates are quite similar as well, yet no one denies that there are differences between humans and apes. The differences between different racial/ethnic groups obviously isn't nearly as profound, but that doesn't mean there are none at all. Nor does it mean that incivil or tyrannical behavior by one race towards another is acceptable. I, for one, think individuals should be evaluated on their own merit. But I would not deny that differences among racial/ethnic groups can be found that are often quite significant.

I would also agree with you that psychological factors similar to "Stockholm Syndrome" do a great deal to explain the otherwise inexplicable attachment that citizens have to "their" state. Some other writers in the field of social psychology that you may want to check out are Stanley Milgram, Milton Mayer, Arthur Koestler, Hannah Arendt and Philip Zimbardo. I think the experiments, observations and insights of these people go along way to explain the "psychology of statism".

However, I do not think nationalism (or, for that matter, racialism) are necessarily synonymous with statism. One can be a "nationalist" in a sense of affirming the land, history, people, culture, language and traditions of a particular nation, while opposing whatever gang of criminals rules over it as the particular moment. You might want to read some Gustav Landauer for a better understanding of anarcho-nationalism.

I'll grant you there are some people who value nationalism or racialism or some other particularist attachment simply because they think being "American", "White", "European" or whatever makes them less of a loser than they actually are. But this need not be the basis of an authentic particularist identitarianism. I disagree that it is necessary to negate other cultures, races, religions, etc. in order to affirm one's own.

One can love one's own family without feuding with other families. One can love one's own wife without holding a malicious attitude towards other women. I know of know reason why nationalism, racialism, cultural conservatism, traditionalism, ethno-centrism, etc. cannot operate in a similar manner.

ajohnstone said...

Keith ,

I will take Landauer's "For Socialism" from the bookshelf and re-read . No doubt i will also re-read Rudolf Rocker's "Nationalism and Culture" who commented that "race theory is only the cult of power"

Yes , i am aware of Larry Gambone's work on syndicalism .In fact , he has written of the the "Impossiblists" , the Socialist Party of Canada , a part of the World Socialist Movement (shown in the links) and the One Big Union , as well as the philosophy of Dietzgen , whose ideas are also to be found on my blog

Indeed , Amos Oz , the Israeli novelist and Peace Now activist , has written of the Middle East situation that you don't need to love your neighbours , but simply get on with them .

By “socialism” or “communism” or "anarchism", we mean a society without markets, money, wage labour or a State. All wealth would be produced on a strictly voluntary basis. Goods and services would be provided directly for self determined need and not for sale on a market; they would be made freely available for individuals to take without requiring these individuals to offer something in direct exchange.

This free access to goods and services follows directly from socialism’s common ownership of the means of production and the abolition of wages slavery ( where you have economic exchange you must logically have private or sectional ownership of those means of production.)

It is this free access to goods and services that denies to any group or individuals the political leverage with which to dominate others.

No matter how you re-design or re-structure capitalism and its governance such as through the village , city , district , region or world bodies only the guarantee in the words of Kropotkin "pris au tas", literally "taking from the pile" or, colloquially, "help yourself, take what you need" protects the individual ( or any group ).

We are for the abolition of wage slavery , not for the futile attempts to "democratise" or "humanise" capitalism .

"The slave-holder with a craftiness peculiar to themselves, by encouraging the enmity of the poor, labouring white men against the blacks, succeeds in making the said white men almost as much a slave as the black slave himself. The difference between the white slave, and the black slave, is this: the latter belongs to ONE slave-holder, and the former belongs to ALL the slave-holders, collectively. The white slave has taken from his, by indirection, what the black slave had taken from him, directly, and without ceremony. Both are plundered, and by the same plunderers"
Frederick Douglas, a former slave ,1855.

Chattel slavery has more or less be done away , with , now it is the turn of wage slavery to be maee history .

Keith Preston said...

A few questions:

1) Without a market of any kind, how will consumer demand be determined?

2) If reciprocity in terms of labor or payment is not required for the receiving of consumer items, why will workers show up for work to produce these items in the first place?

3) If the process of production is to be operated as a collection of workers' assemblies organized on a national and even international basis, how would this be any different from a global state? I suppose one could say such a system might be "democratic", but democracies tend to function as de facto oligarchies (again, see Pareto and Michels). There is also the problem of mobocracy.

Again, this is why I reject orthodox socialism. In practice, it would likely produce (at best) a global state organized as a massive international bureaucracy with an extremely wasteful and inefficient economy. Eventually, rationing of essential and even non-essential goods would have to be implemented in order to compensate for the excess of demand over supply. This would require some kind of authoritarian state mechanism and coercive methods of enforcement (particularly when a black market in rationed goods began to develop).

The absence of labor discipline would likewise require that it be implemented by authoritarian methods, like compulsory labor or withholding basic goods or services from intransigent workers.

Virtually all "actually existing socialism" has turned out this way, and not merely by accident or incompetence or malevolence on the part of leaders. This is a problem that is fundamental to socialism.

I do share many of your criticisms of orthodox capitalism, though I think the problems you cite are more the result of the alliance of state and capital, as opposed to markets, property, exchange values, etc. themselves. An economic system liberated from this alliance would be much different from what we have at present. For instance, the bargaining power of workers' would substantially increase to the point that labor essentially directed capital rather than vice versa. I explain some of that here:

http://www.attackthesystem.com/capitalism.html

Keith Preston said...

Btw, I agree that the modern struggle for separation of economy and state is as important and significant as the historic struggle for separation of church and state and the abolition of slavery.

ajohnstone said...

1.
Your question is one that is often asked with its roots in Von Mises Economic Allocation Argument and is one of the supposed rejection of the Marxist and Anarcho-communist maxim , from each according to abilities to each according to needs .

I have earlier referred you to a website that goes into detail so briefly ,

Allocation calculations in socialism will not be economic but technical . In socialism calculations will be done directly in physical quantities of real things [calculation in kind , ie tons of cement , kilowatts of energy etc] in use-values , without any general equivalent unit of calculation ie money and prices .

Cost benefit analysis is an elaborate skill in capitalism and could be a neutral tool based on a “points system” ( no inherent necessity to use $ or £ values)to evaluate a range of different projects facing society.

Not all resources are available in sufficient supply to meet all uses for them. Land is an obvious case in point: a piece of land cannot be used at the same time for housing and for farming . Some criteria will indeed have to be developed for deciding what use to put them to .Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” , perhaps . Needs that were most pressing and upon which the satisfaction of others needs were contingent, would take priority over those other needs, high priority end goals would take precedence over low priority end goals where resources common to both are revealed to be in short supply .

Then , of course , even capitalism has developed for its distribution systems supermarkets etc a self-regulating system of stock control "Just in Time" signals , a whole science of Logistics and Warehousing that can be decentralised and polycentric . The key to good stock management is the stock turnover rate – how rapidly stock is removed from the shelves – and the point at which it may need to be re-ordered. This will also be affected by considerations such as lead times – how long it takes for fresh stock to arrive – and the need to anticipate possible changes in demand. These are considerations that do not depend on the existence of a market economy at all.The whole process is, to a large extent, automatic – or self regulating – being driven by dispersed information signals from producers and consumers concerning the supply and demand for goods.

Imagine a situation where human needs were in balance with the resources needed to satisfy them. Such a society would already have decided, according to its own criteria and through its own decision-making processes, on the most appropriate way to allocate resources to meet the needs of its members. This having been done, it would only need to go on repeating this continuously from production period to production period. Production would not be ever-increasing but would be stabilized at the level required to satisfy needs. All that would be produced would be products for consumption and the products needed to replace and repair the raw materials and instruments of production used up in producing these consumer goods. This has been called by some economists a 'steady-state economy'. Socialism will eventually become such a 'Steady-state economy'

2,i think you are touching on what is tended to be the human nature objection to Socialism , that men and women are naturally lazy and will only work if they are forced to by economic or other means. But all the evidence is that healthy human beings are normally active and creative and don't relish sitting around doing nothing for any length of time. In fact studies show that people do their best work when they find it fun or enjoy doing it in the company of others. Socialism isn't based upon altruism . Socialism will be a society in which satisfying an individual's self interest is the result of satisfying everyone's needs. It is enlightened self-interest that will work for the majority.
Work is part of human life.. It is the nature of employment that makes it "work" instead of pleasure. Work needn't be a part of the day that we wish would end.
People enjoy creating useful things. Instead of producing junk that people only buy because they can't afford quality, every worker will be able to produce quality products for themselves and others, and know that other workers will be doing the same.
The workday will be shortened. Many jobs (such as those dealing with money, or war, or poverty) will not be required at all. The people doing those jobs now, will perform work that actually produces goods and services that people want.
People will gain respect for doing jobs that others might find unpleasant, or the unpleasant jobs might be shared around. Many of the unpleasant jobs could be made more pleasant and some could be done away with.

And what shall we do with social parasitism if it does arise ? Absolutely nothing . Once socialism has been established social conditions will have changed, most notably in two respects. First, individual humans will no longer have any problem of material provision. Everybody will have free access to the things they need to live and enjoy life, such as food, clothing, housing, health care, transport and entertainment.The coming of socialism will not require great changes in the way we behave, essentially only the accentuation of some of the behaviours which people exhibit today (friendliness, helpfulness, cooperation) at the expense of others which capitalism encourages. Capitalism has an all-pervading culture of violence, competitiveness and acquisitiveness, and people are under pressure to adapt their behaviour to this. In socialism this culture will disappear and people’s behaviour will no longer be shaped by it.

We will still be concerned primarily with ourselves, with satisfying our needs, our need to be well considered by others as well as our material and sexual needs. No doubt too, we will want to "possess" our toothbrush, our clothes and other things of personal use, and to feel secure in our physical occupation of the house Such "selfish" behaviour will still exist in socialism but the acquisitiveness encouraged by capitalism will no longer exist. Under capitalism we have to seek to accumulate money since the more money you have the better you can satisfy your material needs .Socialism won’t be an "acquisitive society" and won’t need to be, as everybody will be able to satisfy their material requirements as of right and without needing to pay money.

Because people could always be sure that the stores will always be stocked with the things they need, there would be no incentive to grab and hoard; that would be an irrational and pointless behaviour in the new social conditions.

3. I think you quite rightly fear "central planning" and those who can use knowledge and decision making to control others . The problem with a centrally-planned model of socialism is its inability to cope with change. It lacks any kind of feedback mechanism which allows for mutual adjustments between the different actors in such an economy. It is completely inflexible in this regard. A decentralised or polycentric version of socialism described earlier , on the other hand, overcomes these difficulties. It facilitates the generation of information concerning the supply and demand for production and consumption goods through the economy via a largely computerised network. This will work to ensure that a socialist society is run on the basis of democratic consensus. Decisions will be made at different levels of organisation: global, regional and local with the bulk of decision-making being made at the local level .
There is no need for an unnecessary bureaucracy .

To sum up , a scenario of production in Socialist society would be would be assume a distribution store stocks a tins of baked beans. From past experience it knows that it will need to re-order approximately 1000 tins from its suppliers at the start of every month or, by the end of the month, supplies will be low. Assume that, for whatever reason, the rate of stock turnover increases sharply to say 2000 tins per month. This will require either more frequent deliveries or, alternatively, larger deliveries. Possibly the capacity of the distribution point may not be large enough to accommodate the extra quantity of tins required in which case it will have to opt for more frequent deliveries. It could also add to its storage capacity but this would probably take a bit more time. In any event, this information will be communicated to its suppliers. These suppliers, in turn, may require additional tin plate (steel sheet coated with tin), to make cans or beans to be processed and this information can similarly be communicated in the form of new orders to suppliers of those items further down the production chain. And so on and so forth. The whole process is, to a large extent, automatic – or self regulating – being driven by dispersed information signals from producers and consumers concerning the supply and demand for goods and, as such, is far removed from a centrally planned economy.

The sense of mutual obligations and the realisation of universal interdependency arising from this would influence people’s perceptions and influence their behaviour in such a society. Socialist society is built around a moral economy and a system of generalised reciprocity.

Peter Bjørn Perlsø said...

"My , oh , my , Peter , aren't you the one to be endeavouring to build bridges"

There can be no building of bridget to those of your like who cannot think, but intead insist on falling back on mindless stereotyping, which your reply to my post quite clearly shows.

" ....Childishness... silly ... useless verbiage spewing from you and your likes..."



"Whereas i have tried to reply civilly to indivuals ."

Your initial post may appear civil but is in fact poisonous garbage based on your own brand of ideological racism. You are fooling nobody.

#When it comes to race NA seem determined to emphasise that racial types exist - The fact of the matter is that we are all members of the same pool of genes,"

Your are relying on the, for your political "wing", usually very naive and politically slanted reading of the word "race".

" all related very closely to one another no matter what part of the globe we hail from. We are the surviving descendants of some less than 20,000 early humanoids. We share a common genetic trait, traceable back through the ages to just one female, many thousands of years ago."

Irrelevant.

"There is only one race - the human race"

No, there is only one (sub) species, which is homo sapiens sapiens, whereas there are several races, which are subdivisions of the subspeciels layer.

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of species classification while trying to excuse your policially correct bs. You are embarrasing yourself better than I would ever be able to.

" , and i think i can describe an ideology that endeavours to declare otherwise as racist based ."

You are unsurprisingly choosing to read far mor into the race factor than most N-A'ers would do themselves. This reveals more about your and your perceptions of N-A that of N-A itself, which is far more diverse and composited than your bigoted initial blog post would indicate.

"There is a well-documented effect of hostage situations, called "The Stockholm Syndrome" in which hostages under duress began to identify with their kidnappers, and believe in their cause. Nationalism works in much the same way. It is the Stockholm Syndrome on a grand scale.
The Polish nationalist Pilsudski, observed that "It is the state that makes the nation, not the nation the state.""

Irrelevant.

"The only way to define national identity is to define it in terms of what (who) it is not, i.e. negatively. Thus nationalism sets itself as being against other countries, striving to define a uniqueness of national culture so as to once and for all set its country apart from others, to know itself by what is un-like it. At one extreme this can include myths about race and blood, trying to attach the national abstraction to some supposed trait of genetics ."

ANd N-A and its proponents are not confined to such abstractions.

" Since people have a strong desire to retain their own perceived identity, and to have a good opinion of themselves, often the creeds based on such identities function in a highly irrational, and ultimately, defensive way."

Relevance?


"Good luck with your unique approach to creating bridges , Peter ."


You must have misunderstood something, kiddo. I'm not trying to build a bridge to you. Your mindless stereotyping of those you've in advance decided you don't like before a thorough analysis of their ideas is performed, plus spurious generalizations of the same, makes it impossible for any person of more than average mental capability to either reach to you and try to plant seeds of understanding, or at all want to associate with you.

No, Ajohnstone, I'll be content to expose you for what you are - a policial hack with more in his mouth (or in this case, keyboard) than between his ears. Of course, you are not unique - you are a good example of the unthinking idiocy that pervades political life today, on what you would think of as "both wings" (of course, you are caugh in your "left-right" box - some of us have achieve at least a semblance of understanding of the foolishness of such generalization and gone beyond such a primitive model of the political totality).

Good luck with achieving sapience. The human race (oops!) is counting on you.

ajohnstone said...

To reply to Peter ,

For more on the current state of scientific understanding and debate of classification and species and sub-species - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)

Also useful reading would be the American Association of Physical Anthropolgists Statement on the Biologicl Aspects of Race

http://www.physanth.org/positions/race.html

There appears to be no established agreement on any scientific definition of race. What we do find though, is the general belief among the scientific community that race has no biological or natural basis and that the "race" related physical variations found in humans have no real significance except for the social/cultural importance put on them by people. Race is a cultural term to describe what a person's ancestry is

For a more specific account that i came across on the net of what some call post-modern neo-fascism which AN seems to be a strand see

http://www.marxmyths.org/audio/neo-fascism.htm