[DubiousDan]

I'm way out of my element with this topic. It seems like there are a lot of rules and conventions with the various flavors of anarchy that I wouldn't have expected. If someone had told me before this that Anarchism had complex rules as to what actions were allowed or not, I'd be like, ?

A wolf pack doesn’t have a state nor a government, but they have rules. The rules come from the nature of wolves.

Humans are social animals, before there were states or governments, Humans had rules. The rules came from the nature of Humans.

The rules of the civilized state are derived from the nature of the state, not the nature of Humans. The civilized state is the result of a pathological culture which grows by destroying, displacing, and enslaving Feral humans. This has become a cancer of the biosphere. Since the civilized state is demonstrably pathological, it follows that the rules are pathological.

[Suska]

In CRD representation is directly based on member population. If you live in a high member population area, you will get more representation because you will have more members. While the majority don’t rule directly, they will pick more Deks. So CRD would be more concerned with the problems of Los Angeles than it would be with El Centro. I’m not entirely happy about that, but that’s certainly democratic. It would change the power structure of the United States, because under the present system, states like South Dakota have political power out of proportion to their size. Yes, and state's rights would be flushed under CRD.

I'm trying to imagine the permutations of this effect. It seems to me that given a territorial dispute the winner would be as obvious as the sizes of the communities, but then the everyday workings of society would always be something that could be meddled with, I mean you would still want some Republican style laws in effect regulating what can and cannot be regulated; a constitution. On the other hand given a radical enough dispute I can definitely see where this effect might result in a tyranny.

[DubiousDan]

I'm trying to imagine the permutations of this effect. It seems to me that given a territorial dispute the winner would be as obvious as the sizes of the communities, but then the everyday workings of society would always be something that could be meddled with, I mean you would still want some Republican style laws in effect regulating what can and cannot be regulated; a constitution. On the other hand given a radical enough dispute I can definitely see where this effect might result in a tyranny.

You have to change your way of thinking with CRD from the present system. I wrote several unpublished novels using CRD so I have a little feel for it. However, in your fiction, everything works because the real world is held at bay. So I’m sure there will be problems that I haven’t thought of yet, hopefully not as bad as the one with the net worth tax. Still, I’m sure there’s a screw up or two in the system.
Militaries more less use the same system as CRD when the power flows down hill. You don’t go from the joint chiefs to the soldiers in their foxholes. You break it down. The big difference between the militaries and CRD is this. In CRD the people carrying the power down hill were put uphill by the people they are giving orders to. Not only that, but the people they are giving orders to can pull them down at their next meeting. It’s as if the captain was elected by his men, and faces reelection in the future.
Think about that a bit before you use the word tyranny. However, you may be using tyrannical in another sense. The power of the ultimate ten. There is no constitution. No rules. What they say shall be done, well, it shall be done. The exception is that which defines CRD as CRD. The can’t change the structure, or the way Deks are selected, that sort of thing, but apart from structure, it’s pretty much their ball game. Of course, until the next elections are held. That can be at the next scheduled meeting. At any meeting, a Dek can be removed. Once removed, his replacement has to go up the levels, and he might not get very far, that could involve a bit of shuffling. So the ultimate ten have power, but they don’t have permanent power.
The absence of a constitution is my version of CRD. You can have CRD and a constitution, but it won’t be my flavor of CRD. I want it verbal. That’s to allow total communication. You can’t do total communications on a sheet of paper, that’s not the way Human speech works. The final rules are in the unvoiced, not on a sheet of paper. The unvoiced of the ultimate ten. Which will be the distillation of the unvoiced of all the levels below.
That’s why at every level each cell meets on a regular bases, to talk together. That’s to allow for the unvoiced to be moved up the levels.
OK, I’m getting a little groggy. If things aren’t too clear, ask questions.

[KlassWar]

Personally I'd say 15 or 16 for everything, and up to the parents before that.

-Dr House

I do not think parental authority should survive an anarchist revolution: The family is a deeply hierarchical institution serving to inject (like a toxin) hierarchical values and reactionary prejudices. In my opinion, the family should be abolished and kids raised communally: That way religious doctrine and conservative, traditional values can be purged out of the human species in a single generation.

The community as a whole raising all the damn kids together looks quite practical, too.

[Sungazer]

Wow. This thread makes me feel nostalgic.

Problem with your argument, KW, is that it disregards maternal instincts and the like. It's certainly possible to raise kids communally; but subtracting parental influence in its entirety might do more damage than good simply for biological/psychological reason.

[KlassWar]

subtracting parental influence in its entirety might do more damage than good simply for biological/psychological reason.

You don't need to eliminate it: You just need to limit it. Make sure parents can see their kids, kids can see their parents... But *also* make sure the kid lives and studies along with the other kids (thus free of any sort of class difference), and receives education from the commune at large. Emotional bonds are not severed, they're just made a tad more distant.

Then you just need to prevent people with socially conservative views from becoming educators and infecting our children with their pernicious nonsense.

[Suska]

That's absurd. Like your solution is so hateful and ruinous I can't even imagine what problem you're trying to solve.

[Eran]

The idea has been tried in Israeli Kibbutzim. Over time, as the ideological zeal subsided, they all abandoned the practice. I am not aware of any studies showing either particular benefits or damage from the experience.

[Suska]

Kibbutz created new family dynamics, it didn't aim to eliminate family sentiment.

[KlassWar]

The idea has been tried in Israeli Kibbutzim.

I know. It was a good idea back then, and it's still a good idea now. For example,

although kibbutzim comprise only 5% of the Israeli population, surprisingly large numbers of kibbutzniks become teachers, lawyers, doctors, and political leaders.

It ain't like communal child-rearing traumatizes kids for life, not when it's done with respect for the children's human dignity. And it's a much better child-rearing model for a society in a process of radical collectivist transformation: The sooner we get rid of Old Morals and Old Prejudices, the better.

I am specifically not arguing for breaking emotional bonds within families, that's impossible and counter-productive. What I'm arguing about is that children primarily socialize among a peer group. That the fulfillment of their needs depends on the community, not on their kowtowing to the rules of their relatives. It's not about abolishing kinship or love, it's about abolishing the hierarchical model of the family, which pretty much perpetuates everything that's nasty in culture.

[Eran]

To be clear, you don't have a problem with hierarchy as such, right? You are merely suggesting substituting one hierarchy (that of the community) for another (that of the family in this context).

The children will still have to obey authority, become indoctrinated, and tow the line. The only difference is that you want "the community" (whatever that might exactly mean) to be the ruling authority.

[Suska]

I wouldn't emphasize hierarchy or obedience, cooperation was the idea, is the idea - it leads to merit and innovation. I'm pretty sure they weren't ripping children from their mothers either.

[KlassWar]

I wouldn't emphasize hierarchy or obedience, cooperation was the idea, is the idea - it leads to merit and innovation. I'm pretty sure they weren't ripping children from their mothers either.

I was arguing basically for what the Kibbutzniks did, not tearing kids away from their parents. Communal childrearing does not equal brainwashing. I'm sure it would be possible for kids to transition smoothly from family life in infancy to communal life in adolescence: That way you'd make sure that homophobic parents couldn't go all vindictive on queer teens (or drag'em kicking and screaming to anti-gay churches), fundie parents couldn't prevent their children from receiving adequate sex ed, or harass their daughters into having / not having an abortion... Among other goodies. The parent-child bond is still there, but family puritanism is not able to make youths miserable.

There are advantages to communally raised youths, and a sensibly implemented model could be humane and practical.

(It would also enable anarchist education to be dominant and thus anarchism could perpetuate itself as hegemonic ideology... But that's just a nice side-effect.)

[Eran]

Communal childrearing does not equal brainwashing.

That way religious doctrine and conservative, traditional values can be purged out of the human species in a single generation.

Obviously, children need to learn some values. If those nasty traditional values are to be purged, they will be replaced by more progressive values, right? Those that you and your cadres prefer?

The big difference between your solution and that of the Kibbutz is that membership in the latter was voluntary. The parents chose to live in that community, and, consequently, there was relative harmony between the values of the parents and those of the community.

It seems clear to me (am I wrong?) that KlassWar wouldn't leave this question to the discretion of parents.

[KlassWar]

Obviously, children need to learn some values. If those nasty traditional values are to be purged, they will be replaced by more progressive values, right? Those that you and your cadres prefer?

The big difference between your solution and that of the Kibbutz is that membership in the latter was voluntary. The parents chose to live in that community, and, consequently, there was relative harmony between the values of the parents and those of the community.

It seems clear to me (am I wrong?) that KlassWar wouldn't leave this question to the discretion of parents.

Yes, the whole point is to replace traditional, bourgeois-capitalist values with progressive values. HOWEVER, his can be done without brainwashing the kids "The Party is Always Right"-style.

Imagine that all teens have equal resources at their disposal: There is no such thing as 'class' anymore. Imagine that all kids in the commune are subject to the same, quite loose rules, rather than fundies being able to oppress their kids. That way kids could spend their crucial formative years in an environment where they're subject to the minimal coercion possible. Instead of individualism and competition, they could learn to cooperate and solve problems as a group. The commonality of most resources would make us able to raise kids without a notion of private property.

They may or may not receive some political education: Them getting some would be good, but shouldn't be considered a priority (think nuking Civics and replacing it with Anarchist Political Education, rather than focusing the curricula on political brainwashing ).

As for the discretion of parents, kids are (young) members of the commune, not their parents' personal property. Of course their discretion doesn't count!

[Eran]

How do you feel about private (non-productive) property? Would you allow it? If so, how do you feel about bartering in private (non-productive) property?

[KlassWar]

I'm in favor people having personal posessions. People need stuff to do other stuff, and if we had to stand in line to get the tools we need to do whatever we plan to do each and every time, nothing would ever get done. Clothes, computers and so on are things you'd probably better off owning rather than sharing.

I'm not opposed to barter of personal stuff either, though in a community where things are no longer status symbols but kept for their aesthetic/use value... The border between gifts, leases and barters is bound to grow ever more diffuse... And eventually disappear outright when we achieve a functionally post-scarcity society.

'S long as land and the means of production are held in common, there's little damage done if people own most other stuff privately, although I suppose we could benefit from, say, communal car pools where you just grab a car when you need one (same goes for many general-purpose utility goods).

[Eran]

Would you allow, for example, a privately-run eBay to help facilitate barter of privately-owned property?

Experience has shown how middle-men can grow rich doing nothing more than facilitating trade. This is true for adults, but can also hold for children.

Also, would you prohibit parents from presenting their children with gifts?

Where I am going with this is that without ongoing and deep restrictions on human activity, it is impossible to maintain equality of possessions, even if you prohibit private ownership of means of production.

A neat summary of the principle is the statement: "Free men are not equal and equal men are not free!" (which I like so much I am going to adopt as my signature).

[mikema63]

And eventually disappear outright when we achieve a functionally post-scarcity society.

this is the line that stopped me, how on earth can you manage to create a post scarcity society in a universe of scarce resources and energy

[Eran]

The answer, mike, is to ignore people's ongoing desire to continue to improve their situation.

If you fixed your views on human wants based on a survey of Victorian society, for example, you could easily satisfy those wants for virtually everybody in our society today, with relatively little effort.

Unfortunately for Marxists (and fortunately for the rest of us), human wants and desires are not stationary. People today want, and virtually all (in developed societies) have access to much more than anything Victorians could even dream of.

But progress is not part of the Marxist agenda, as their entire world-view is static, ignoring forward drivers like entrepreneurship and innovation.