Collectivism and Individualism: Can't have one w/out the other.

Have only read some of this, but it shows very clearly the problem with "Communism":

http://libcom.org/library/social-anarchism--lifestyle-anarchism-murray-bookchin

Probably because the only consistent Communists were Jesus Christ, William Godwin and possibly Mahatma Gandhi.Of course, they were also Individualists in their own way which I think
shows that the one is dependent on the other.

It is ridiculous to have one's physical needs met without having one's emotional needs met. This is maybe why Emma Goldman campaigned for free love as well as birth control.

Communism implies a plan. I'm all, more or less, in favour of something of a planned economy but arguments such as Bookchin's (or Marx's) make you realise what's wrong with the left is often both a lack of a sense of humour and a lack of spontaneity.
This can appear to stifle individuality in favour of the "plan".

Despite the author of the following's terrorist convictions, I will mostly comment on his comments.


http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm


Kacyncski's admittedly pretty vanguardist Primitivism does reveal a consistent individualism, criticising both leftist and pro-market ideologies as being techie command economies,
but it does so on very much its own terms (just like Socialists do in their own way) substituting technology for class.


For example isn't a Shaman or Witch Doctor a kind of Technocrat?

Plus, with regards to small-scale technologies
a)Bookchin and others have made this argument quite convincingly
without having to abandon agriculture and more simply
b) can't washing machines DVD players etc be made self-reparable or easier to recycle?

Where 'Ted' and 'the Dean' are right is that the system as it stands will result in the extinction of our species if the state is not overthrown. What they don't consider is the colonisation of space and other planets
(Mars could be doable in a couple of centuries and many not-so-green technologies such as hi-cap batteries or nuclear fission are much more viable in a vacuum)

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34409.html

Still, a class-only attitude and analysis doesn't entirely counter certain arguments

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman33.html

regarding planned societies, and eugenics may be a direct synthesis of technology and planning besides the cult of the state.

Still, surely some technologies (we hope) would be eliminated in an anarchist society, like GM research (who needs a five-arsed monkey?), without abolishing technology entirely,
and I can see no real reason for human beings to be so armed to the teeth:
Get rid of fucking guns for Christ's sake.

In a free society, who would bother to keep weapons and ammunition factories running?
Surely this can be achieved without sacrificing the ability to survive serious illness or injury?

The whole argument against technology could be used against Men: they rape, glorify violence etc, why not enslave, drug, castrate, keep frozen and thaw when needed , dumped on an island or the next hemisphere etc.

Short return to Individualism: working with/for some drugged up/ thicko/ Nazi for 8 hours a day, in other words having a significant portion of your day dictated to by someone who could be outwitted by a pocket calculator isn't very Individualistic,
but we all rely on the labour of others(unless we lived in the wilderness or stole) in some way.

Co-operation is the only way and most of our daily needs could be met by non-hierarchical collectives of low enough number that everyone knows each other. People could be members of a variety of different collectives say 12, each numbering say 120.
This would connect one individual with 1439 others, approaching the numbers of a Phalanstere (Fourier).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanst%C3%A8re

Easily done in an urban area!

I suppose you could ask why someone who was admitted to Harvard at 16 and has an IQ past 150 would blow people up? But why are so many terrorists of all ideologies both very educated and very middle class? Probably because they are wedded to the system (they've done very well out of it) which is so dependent on violence for its existence that its only logical that they would try and emulate it!