Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

I HATE THE RICH

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Anxiety69, Mar 23, 2010.

  1. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    6

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 44 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    I just read people saying they hate rich people, and rich people cause oppression of others simply by being rich, etc. so I have some questions I can't seem to understand.

    Hypothetically, Is it ok for someone like a doctor to make more money then others? After all they have to work hard, go through medical school, etc. It's not easy to become a doctor, and the work they have to do is very hard.

    In an anarcho society, should a doctor earn the same wage as a garbageman or fast food employee?

    If So, Why would anyone want to become a doctor or something that takes so much effort to get nothing out of it?

    What would keep everyone from wanting to do as little work as possible to earn a same wage as those who do less then them?

    As an anarchist, do you really feel you have the right to take away someone's money, and tell them how to spend it? hypothetically even if they earned it with out exploiting or oppressing anyone?

    If You answered yes to the above, how could you not expect a revolution again? or would it be ok for them to do their own thing in a different society from anarchists?

    If there was anarchy, would you be expected to enforce it globally or locally?

    Doesn't the whole idea of telling people how to live, and spend their money seem governmental in nature, and thus hypocritical to the idea of anarchy?

    Would eating meat still be allowed? If not what would be the penalty? And if eating meat was outlawed, would that mean forcing all other carnivores to go veggie?

    If eating meat was outlawed, what would be the penalty for those who violate it? how would it be enforced?

    In fact, how would anything be enforced?

    I am not asking these questions to be a dick, I am seriously wanting to hear your answers, because I am having trouble putting this all into perspective. I don't think yes or no for all those questions, but they are things I wonder about, and how they would come about. Granted i haven't read or studied as much on anarchism as others here have, so I would like some perspective, maybe even some recommended reading also.

    I've shared what I would like from anarchy in other posts, basically the right to go live alone somewhere off the land and pretty much away from everyone else. Is that the wrong thing to hope for or expect from anarchism?

    Thanks for taking the time to read these questions. I look forward to reading your responses.
     

  2. Ring Of Truth

    Ring Of TruthExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    201

    0

    4

    Dec 28, 2009
     
    I guess, the question is would money be necessary in an anarchist society? I think about doctors, first and foremost if you are a doctor for any reason other to help people, then find a different job. Being a doctor should not be about money, and it didn't used to be that way. I do think doctors deserve a higher compensation for their time than say a fast food worker, because doctors do have to go through all of the schooling and all, and more importantly because they put in long hours, and do a great service to the people. However should doctors live in mansions and drive a BMW?

    [/quote]In an anarcho society, should a doctor earn the same wage as a garbageman or fast food employee?

    If So, Why would anyone want to become a doctor or something that takes so much effort to get nothing out of it?

    What would keep everyone from wanting to do as little work as possible to earn a same wage as those who do less then them?[/quote]

    Ahh the age old questions... but these are really questions from a capitalist point of view... especially American. We are so over worked and under paid, and so thoroughly convinced that we only do things for the money. Well a good doctor will do it because they want to help people, same thing with a good teacher, a good mechanic will fix cars because they enjoy it, people will make things and do things they they desire, not having to worry about financial gain or loss if money no longer was necessary. There will still be people to take out the trash (someone does at your house right?, so why wouldn't people choose to do it for the city as well?). I think at first there might be a lot of people who would take time and rest after having to work all their lives... but reality will set in, and people will work by choice to help to build a better world.

    [/quote]As an anarchist, do you really feel you have the right to take away someone's money, and tell them how to spend it? hypothetically even if they earned it with out exploiting or oppressing anyone?

    If You answered yes to the above, how could you not expect a revolution again? or would it be ok for them to do their own thing in a different society from anarchists?[/quote]

    Great question, because if we did that there would definitely be a revolt. However for anarchism to truly work we would need to rid ourselves of the monetary system all together and go to a free trade system. If money becomes unnecessary, then all of the cash is nothing more than pieces of paper not worth a thing... our abilities would be of value, and we are all capable and willing to do a trade of some sort.

    [/quote]If there was anarchy, would you be expected to enforce it globally or locally?[/quote]

    I believe for anarchism to work, it would be more of a tribal basis rather than giant nations of billions of people. It would be more of a world filled with communites, and communities would share and communicate freely with one another, and each community may vary in opinions and ideals, and that would be fine, as lone as no one tries to usurp power and try to dominate over anyone else, then communities would bind together to work for the commonwealth of all, and not just their own selfish gains.

    [/quote]Doesn't the whole idea of telling people how to live, and spend their money seem governmental in nature, and thus hypocritical to the idea of anarchy?[/quote]

    Yes I agree totally, which is why I believe in evolution, not revolution. I think we need to take time to educate people, and shift peoples ideals and mindsets towards the idea of anarchism, the global community would need to break free from the deep rooted mindset of capitalism and domination being the only way to live. Yes this is something that would take many generations, but is definitely worth work towards. Any time you take control over people, and tell those people how to live it is just another fascist system, which is why we need the majority of people to understand the benefits and choose to do it on their own and not be forced to do it.

    [/quote]Would eating meat still be allowed? If not what would be the penalty? And if eating meat was outlawed, would that mean forcing all other carnivores to go veggie?

    [/quote]If eating meat was outlawed, what would be the penalty for those who violate it? how would it be enforced?[/quote]

    Although the benefits of not eating meat are immense... I don't think it would be something that would have to be enforced, if people wanted to hunt and fish for food, or even to raise animals, I think that would be their choice, and it would be likely that communities of vegans might develop and communities of meat eaters would develop, there really is no reason for them to hate eachother as long as the meat eaters are respectful and responsible in their habit, and as long as the vegans respected the meat eaters and their decision. I would love to see a world of vegans... but in reality, unless we do something to bring back the natural preditors which man has decimated over the years, there would be some major issues with over population and disease.

    [/quote]In fact, how would anything be enforced?[/quote]

    I think that the communities would enforce things by getting together and deciding on the individual basis. The punishment must fit the crime, and it must always be fore the commonwealth of all. And all rules would be negotiated, so that there aren't a bunch of laws that people feel are restricting their freedoms.

    [/quote]I am not asking these questions to be a dick, I am seriously wanting to hear your answers, because I am having trouble putting this all into perspective. I don't think yes or no for all those questions, but they are things I wonder about, and how they would come about. Granted i haven't read or studied as much on anarchism as others here have, so I would like some perspective, maybe even some recommended reading also.[/quote]

    I recommend "Days of War Nights of Love" by Crimethinc

    [/quote]I've shared what I would like from anarchy in other posts, basically the right to go live alone somewhere off the land and pretty much away from everyone else. Is that the wrong thing to hope for or expect from anarchism?

    Thanks for taking the time to read these questions. I look forward to reading your responses.[/quote]

    I think that if that is something that you would like to do, I see no reason why you couldn't do that... I mean you could join a community, you could move to a place in the country and fend for yourself.... really your life is yours and no one would have the right to tell you how and where you should live that life, as long as you aren't exploiting others, or hurting anyone else... I mean obviously if you went out in the hills formed a religious cult that threatened peoples safety that would be a different story all together.

    I don't know this is just some of my thoughts on your questions.
     
  3. Ivanovich

    IvanovichExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    2

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    Sorry, I don''t accept that a doctor works harder than a coal miner, there are the same number of hours in a day, whoever you are.

    Money, I thought that would be abolished in anarchist society, it's just a method of quantifying personal power.
     
  4. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    6

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 44 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    If you are talking physical labor you are probably right, however a doctor does need years of training and preparation, and is generally on call 24 - 7 where a coal miner can be trained on the spot and once their shift is up, they probably don't have to think about mining coal for the rest of the day, whereas a doctor will constantly have to be thinking about life and death decisions.

    Anyways I was just using a doctor as an example of a high paid profession that has some sort of noble qualities to it. (yes i am referring to non corrupt people in the medical field, i have been told they do exist...)

    and thanks Timmy for taking the time to read and answer my questions. I appreciate your input.
     
  5. manvsmaritoni

    manvsmaritoniActive Member Forum Member


    37

    0

    0

    Mar 12, 2010
     
    great topic. great questions. any self respecting person (especially anarchist) should ask themselves these questions. and once again i am in perhaps total agreement with ring of truth. killer answers, well thought out, well put!

    the thing about money (representing resources) is that there is only so much out there. when a limited quantity is being horded by small groups of people, the majority is left without a fair chance to make their slice of the pie. this is simple cause and effect. because billionairs have billions, a great deal of the global population is left with little to nothing.

    SO I ASK THIS: if the direct result of some people having so much is that more people have so little, how are those who have so much not directly responsible for the others' suffering? if i see some one who has a huge garage full of expensive sports cares do you know what i see? piles of tortured dead babies. yeah ive got a problem with the rich.

    i do believe incentive should have a large role in what and why you do something, but it is true, being a doctor or working hard labor is far more demanding than something like typing documents in a comfortable office. if money is to be used, i believe you should make more for working harder but not so much more other people starve because of you.

    the rich would naturally complain about this. well tough shit. no one can earn a billion dollars. that is fucking stupid.
     
  6. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,339

    70

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    We were taking about the bourgeoiserie, the difference between a bourgeoi and a working class people is WAY smaller than the difference between a doctor (who's still working class) and another worked with a more "common" job

    First, there would be no money in an anarchist society.

    But this is still a hard question, and anarchists have different approach and views for this problem

    First peoples like Pierre Joseph Proudhon (whom many consider as the father of anarchism) is a mutuellism, which means that YES some peoples can have more than others out of their work. This could be a solution for a society in lack of doctors.

    Then there are other peoples like Bakunin who are collectivist, and anarcho-communists like Kropotkin who think everything and everyone should be equal, period...

    My personnal opinion is that some things can't be redistributed totally equally. Let's take the logement and homes issue. There are small shitty appartement, and there are big houses. How to redistribute everything equally ? With money, it's easy because it's numbers... But what about the houses ? We can't destroy big houses just because it's not equal with a small appartement, so we could keep the bigger houses for peoples who really deserve it (and multiples peoples could live in the same house)

    Of course. There is no revolution without FORCING the rich to redistribute their money, that's the only way and if we don't it then no anarchism.

    This apply as well for small paysans and such, everything must be collectivised

    Eh, you mean a COUNTER-REVOLUTION.
    Yes there will be one, just like there was a reactionary counter-revolution in the spanish revolution. The bourgeoisie won't let their wealth go away so easily, yes they will fight and yes they will want to make a counter-revolution.

    Anarchists says "act locally, think globally", but don't expect that every communes will be the exact same, the decision will be taken locally so communes would be different from each others

    Each communities would be independent of each others, but all would be linked using anarcho-federalism, a horizontal hierarchy of the society

    No it's not. It's direct democracy in it's purest form. We're not talking about a minority ruling on a majority like the current system we live in, we are talking about a majority of oppressed peoples fighting against their oppressors, a minority.

    The working class peoples are the majority, and the bourgeoisie and ruling class is a minority. In anarchism, all decision would be taken by the peoples themselves, i really don't see where you see hypocrisy.

    If you're not ready to fight for what you believe then you are not an anarchist..

    Some vegetarians are stupid and too radical, forcing others to be vegetarians would be fucking stupid. The main problem with the whole meat issue is the society of consumption.

    But this doesn't exclude that a commune could decide to disallow meat if a majority of peoples want it, but i seriously doubt this would ever happen on a global level.

    That's like cigarettes and tobacco. Anarchists are strongly against the tobacco industry, and there is no serious reason why we should support cigarettes. But will we force everyone to stop smoking ? Of course, no.

    Enforce what ? What laws ?

    Start by a text by Errico Malatesta (one awesome anarchist) called "At the cafe", it is a very good place to start, i recommand this text frequently as it answers most of the questions against anarchism





    If you ever answer yes to this question, then never call your society an "anarchist" society...
     
  7. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    who will pay you for your work if there would be no state or government ? I mean ok you are a garbageman and its a cool job..you will work I dont know 3-4 hours per day (becouse if there would be anarchy I think people would pollute less then today) and who will pay you for that? small organizations ? isnt that the "government"..i dont know..maybe if a city would be a big organization in which everyone have something to do and at the and of the mount everyone come to the center of the city and share the money ?..

    geez this anarchy is sooo fuc.kin complicated!..my Mums a doctor and when she comes from work she is "dead" so I think yeah..doctors arent paid enough today and so arent the garbagemans. I mean...the perfect anarhy is one without money but..its hard to get rid of the money...if we could get rid of it, it would be nice but...
    so i think you have to be paid for your knowledge - if doctor has comleted a college its ok if hes better paid then a garbage man who hasnt comleted high school. but the garbage man shouldnt be paid as half as doctor. he should be fairly.
    I think in anarcho-society there would be people who are richer then others. but also I think in anarcho society people would be better and not selfish capitalst bastards. and yeah people would be free :rock:
    no one has the right to enforce you to do something so if you want to eat meat it it. And i dont think we have to enforce people to be good and to realize anarchy is the best way of life. i mean those people dont even have to be anarchists..they can accept our way of life. so i think everyones free.
    i have this strange feeling that every human on this earth even terrorist can be good persons but they are tought to kill and only thing they know is to rob and kill.
     
  8. DrunkSquid

    DrunkSquidExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    167

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    in my anarcho society doctors would be paid considerably more than a garbageman, both jobs are vital yet the garbageman is not responsible for saving lives. medicine is uniquely different compared to other high demand/high paying professions for that reason.

    no i am not one to tell people what to do with their money or take it from them, however anyone like a physician who makes a lot of money can very easily afford to be taxed at a much higher rate than those who are considerably poorer. tax the rich.
     
  9. Lunadimae

    LunadimaeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    229

    0

    1

    Mar 1, 2010
     
    Giving a certain person a 'bigger' portion of something like a house would ruin anything close to equality, that house, a villa for example would be divided and multiple families could stay on the different floors. You can't stay in a big house while an old widow lies on the streets, a portion of that big empty house must be shared.

    The abolition of money would solve most issues concerning our society, like theft, classes, and inequality. So, forcing the rich into 'redistributing' their money would then mean that there would still be money. Everyone knows that money is made with PROFIT, and profit is made when an individual gains money while another loses money, thus creating two classes, inequality among those two people, rich and poor.

    A counter-revolution would surely occur, be it interference from a foreign country, the brainwashed Army, or gangs that refuse the change of the corrupt system but it would be pretty much repelled since we all know the rich class are a minority, the army is a minority and most of whom are of the lower class (they would probably join the revolutionaries like in the case of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956). So all in all, they wouldn't stand a chance unless they get foreign help, which is possible by deception on the media's part.


    It would start locally, like country X revolts for example, seeing that country X has revolted, the spirits of country Y (Or the USA in particular) would have its hopes raised and attempt to revolt. And so the chain goes on and on.

    Abolish the monetary system, problem solved. I don't really know much about the difference between Direct Democracy and Consensus Decision-Making (except that one oppresses while another looks for a medium ground for both sides or something), but the latter seems to appeal to both sides while not oppressing them minority that rejected that decision.

    That's stupid, if a majority (700 people for example) wants to disallow meat, while a minority (400-500) wants to eat meat then the minority would be disallowed from eating meat? That's plain authoritarian, would it hurt the vegans if someone likes to eat fish for example? We're not talking about mass commercial slaughterhouses here, we're talking about small farms, hunting, pond/lake fishing etc...

    Consensus Decision-Making, try to find something that appeals both parties first, if not try to appease the minority.
     
  10. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    well what can the rich do if their "slaves" disobey them. I mean..we dont have to forc rich-ones to do anything we can just stop obeying them. what can they do if the police, their people wont listen to them? what will they do if they come to market and the market wont sell them milk or something to eat? nothing. they will accept us and they will get rid of their money. I know its forcing in one way but..ist easier I think.

    how could we get rid of the money? its almost imposible and of course I dont have to talk about all the riots which will come by the sides of the capitalists. We cant expect them to just sit and wait. they will defence themselves.
     
  11. Lunadimae

    LunadimaeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    229

    0

    1

    Mar 1, 2010
     
    Abolition of money would come AFTER a revolution occurs, money could be burnt, used as toilet paper, and just buried. It would be a generally accepted idea that money brings power, and after a bloody revolution, people will get tired of power. Those capitalists who would want to riot would have had their property shared among the poor, after all they are a minority and mostly sit on their lazy asses while the majority works, so their riots wouldn't be considerable nor effective.

    They would have tried defending themselves and their property during the revolution, which that defense would have failed if the revolution was successful. And by failing, many of them would have ran away or got killed.
     
  12. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    Doctors are still working class as it has been mentioned. Yes, their would probably not be total equality, but the idea is, that no one exploits your work trough a more value of what your work is actually worth, since no one is there to take parts of your money (as the capitalists do).

    But, if all were to benefit from a society - i think many people would work to keep it.

    In an anarchist society equality would be in, that the society as a whole decide who gets what - decides that the doctors should get those good houses for example. Thereby, no one is being exploited
     
  13. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    6

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 44 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    Would there be TAXES in an anarcho society? I like to think not, as paying taxes is something i would like to see abolished.
     
  14. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    Anxiety69:
    That depends. If the majority want's taxes, then maybe - but without money, i doubt there would be taxes.

    The Anarcho-Syndicalist's believe that trough syndicates, organisations lead by worker for workers, the resources should be handed out.
     
  15. SurgeryXdisaster

    SurgeryXdisasterExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    977

    1

    4

    Oct 8, 2009
     
    I've heard Garbagemen actually get paid a fairly good amount.

    but in an anarcho society would there even be any sort of school for a doctor to go to?
    I would think they would learn from books and through trial and error haha.
    but apparently utopia has learning institutions
     
  16. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    SurgeryxDisaster:
    In an anarchist society it's the "natural hierachy" i would think. The ones that knows how to build a house will learn the ones that want to learn. Just the same with doctors - people will still work, also with teaching
     
  17. Saering

    SaeringExperienced Member Experienced member


    96

    0

    0

    Dec 18, 2009
     
    Only thing i want to know is what the hell are we going to do with all the massive city's lying around? As for the point of doctor's pay, paying them anything at all is asking for trouble. Time is invaluable i don't appreciate having it or my life being priced and sold.
     
  18. Spider

    SpiderExperienced Member Experienced member


    90

    1

    0

    Sep 3, 2009
     
    Garbage men are paid by the government to drive around collecting all of the corporate packaging, rotiing foodstuffs and assorted other non essential items to living. I respect them, but in an anarcho society would they be necessary? is landfill a responsible idea? I think things like compost will effectively take care of rotting foodstuffs in a sustainable manner and considering every square cm of space in the world (including the packaging for our food etc.) will no longer need to be plastered with advertising the non-biodegradable rubbish will be drastically reduced. One would use their personal compost as they needed, and hang on to whatever else, If you needed more, you would ask around your community for any extra people might have. Also seeing as money will no longer be an issue i imagine, at least in my society, that companies that manufacture things like computers, amplifiers etc. will collect and re-use non-biodegradable refuse in producing these things.

    Doctors are important but so are every profession (except people in the finance/advertising/legal sector. And Government.) If you didn't have factory workers, the doctors would have no tools to work with, no builders they would have no hospital, no scientists their medicine would not be discovered and produced.
     
  19. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    question :who would pay them in anarcho society if not the state ?
     
  20. statuliber

    statuliberExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    113

    0

    0

    Sep 13, 2009
     
    I think you got the idea wrong... nobody pays in Anarchy (at least in my concept of it, of course there are others), because there would be no money... They would be living in a commune, a tribe however you call it which would provide everything they need for living
     
Loading...