Social Individualism
An individualist government, by definition, must operate with the consent of all its citizens. This immediately creates two logical situations. The first is that, even assuming adults are entirely reasoning beings that are capable of agreeing on a consensus, this leaves out children. This creates a situation where the rules of adults only apply to children, who would be considered too irrational to vote and unable to change the application of education. A situation could arise whereby a child would spend their formative years learning how to deal with adult life and at eighteen expected to fend for themselves. In a “Consensus State”, adults could only accept rules and laws voluntarily as any state violence would negate both their individuality and their rationality. The problem with this is: where does adult life begin and childhood end? Also, if children were always treated as such, when would they ever grow up?
The second situation creates a “selfish state”, where, through a perverted and contradictory form of collectivism, individuals are taught only to think of themselves. Charity is more than a weakness; it becomes a “moral cannibalism”. Besides being a proponent of the late (thank fuck!) Ayn Rand, this was also how Stalinism operated; by actually atomising the working classes into complete dependence on the regime, and independence from each other, the State attained ultimate supremacy. This also happens in parliamentary democracy, where a minority, usually the weak, are sacrificed for the majority.
What about love and honour? How is an individual’s religious faith to be considered, or even his humanity? How can a rational individualist be any kind of “Patriot to King and Country”?
An individualist “government” would never remove choices from mankind. For the individual to be heard and known, the social realm must be radically devolved. Mutual affinity groups of 80 to 150 individuals, no more than 200, including children, would be adequate to regulate the social sphere. Disputes would be resolved by consensus, and disagreements with other groups (MAGs) to be resolved by a third party. Any kind of defence or policing would be arranged by a regional conference of concerned individuals.
Social organising does not guarantee full liberty. Human beings have material and extra-emotional needs. Non-hierarchical associations like a “union of egoists” or feminist self-help groups are also conceivable. Elementary education could be administered by community parent’s co-operatives.
The main organisational force in the economy would be the anarchist trade unions or (revolutionary) syndicates. These would directly run industry, hospitals and schools, and administer the transport infrastructure.
The economy is not a need-based one or a market-based one. Unemployment would become an unknown concept, something children would learn with horror about in school. There would be little point in money and the large-scale supply of addictive narcotics would be unprofitable.
All goods and services supplied by the syndicates would be free at the point of use. The “cost” would be the number of individuals willing to work to supply them. Bearing in mind there is quite a large list of products and services that are in everyday use, the supply of workers for mass-consumer industries would not be short.
This kind of economic situation would be more likely to encourage a greater use of small-scale food production and be better for the environment. People wouldn’t waste their time in advertising industries. Heroin addicts wouldn’t have to resort to prostitution, they would have a supply that is tightly controlled and organised to wean them off drugs.
Large landowners would be unable to rely on the police in the case of large-scale squatting and would soon lose their aristocratic privileges.
The arms industry would be completely redundant and a new age of pacifism and voluntarism would be born.
Freedom for the masses! Destroy the system!
Critics could contend that Revolutionary Syndicalism is “anti-Libertarian”. I would contend that freedom from the threat of poverty is more important than easy access to hard drugs or pornography. The more an economy is suited to the market, the more inefficient it becomes, with several people doing the work of one in a profitable luxury industry, and one person doing the work of several in an un-sexy one.
An individualist government, by definition, must operate with the consent of all its citizens. This immediately creates two logical situations. The first is that, even assuming adults are entirely reasoning beings that are capable of agreeing on a consensus, this leaves out children. This creates a situation where the rules of adults only apply to children, who would be considered too irrational to vote and unable to change the application of education. A situation could arise whereby a child would spend their formative years learning how to deal with adult life and at eighteen expected to fend for themselves. In a “Consensus State”, adults could only accept rules and laws voluntarily as any state violence would negate both their individuality and their rationality. The problem with this is: where does adult life begin and childhood end? Also, if children were always treated as such, when would they ever grow up?
The second situation creates a “selfish state”, where, through a perverted and contradictory form of collectivism, individuals are taught only to think of themselves. Charity is more than a weakness; it becomes a “moral cannibalism”. Besides being a proponent of the late (thank fuck!) Ayn Rand, this was also how Stalinism operated; by actually atomising the working classes into complete dependence on the regime, and independence from each other, the State attained ultimate supremacy. This also happens in parliamentary democracy, where a minority, usually the weak, are sacrificed for the majority.
What about love and honour? How is an individual’s religious faith to be considered, or even his humanity? How can a rational individualist be any kind of “Patriot to King and Country”?
An individualist “government” would never remove choices from mankind. For the individual to be heard and known, the social realm must be radically devolved. Mutual affinity groups of 80 to 150 individuals, no more than 200, including children, would be adequate to regulate the social sphere. Disputes would be resolved by consensus, and disagreements with other groups (MAGs) to be resolved by a third party. Any kind of defence or policing would be arranged by a regional conference of concerned individuals.
Social organising does not guarantee full liberty. Human beings have material and extra-emotional needs. Non-hierarchical associations like a “union of egoists” or feminist self-help groups are also conceivable. Elementary education could be administered by community parent’s co-operatives.
The main organisational force in the economy would be the anarchist trade unions or (revolutionary) syndicates. These would directly run industry, hospitals and schools, and administer the transport infrastructure.
The economy is not a need-based one or a market-based one. Unemployment would become an unknown concept, something children would learn with horror about in school. There would be little point in money and the large-scale supply of addictive narcotics would be unprofitable.
All goods and services supplied by the syndicates would be free at the point of use. The “cost” would be the number of individuals willing to work to supply them. Bearing in mind there is quite a large list of products and services that are in everyday use, the supply of workers for mass-consumer industries would not be short.
This kind of economic situation would be more likely to encourage a greater use of small-scale food production and be better for the environment. People wouldn’t waste their time in advertising industries. Heroin addicts wouldn’t have to resort to prostitution, they would have a supply that is tightly controlled and organised to wean them off drugs.
Large landowners would be unable to rely on the police in the case of large-scale squatting and would soon lose their aristocratic privileges.
The arms industry would be completely redundant and a new age of pacifism and voluntarism would be born.
Freedom for the masses! Destroy the system!
Critics could contend that Revolutionary Syndicalism is “anti-Libertarian”. I would contend that freedom from the threat of poverty is more important than easy access to hard drugs or pornography. The more an economy is suited to the market, the more inefficient it becomes, with several people doing the work of one in a profitable luxury industry, and one person doing the work of several in an un-sexy one.
posted by Legal Smeagol at 7:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home