Socialism v capitalism

[ahinton]

Indeed. But whichever way you look at it, the etymology of the word is ἀν- plus ἀρχός, ie. "without a ruler", so when scottycelt says "a system without bosses equals anarchy" he is completely correct, in a tautological kind of way. Since he asks, he is also completely correct in surmising that I have never been involved in running a company, but not in surmising that I have little or no experience of working on the shopfloor of one. For what it's worth.

Well, one doesn't necessarily have to have had experience of running a company in order to develop an understanding of how one should run and anyone who has experience of working as you have done will at least have had ample opportunity to witness this at close quarters.

As to anarchy as being broadly defined by an absence of governmental leadership (as distinct from merely inadequate and ineffectual ditto), I cannot help but note that the many months during which Belgium was effectively without a government not so long ago did not - at least in my hearing - lead to that time being described as one of anarchy in that country; I wonder what, if anything, that might signify about how the phenomenon of anarchy is perceived...

[heliocentric]

perhaps RM is correct, and the world would be a better place if we could all just honestly admit we are driven by envy...

The choice seems to be between being envious and being in denial about being envious... but isn't being in denial about your envy quite similar to not actually having the envy? What would it mean, for example, if MrGG were "really" envious of the Royal Family even though he believes himself not to be?

[teamsaint]

The choice seems to be between being envious and being in denial about being envious... but isn't being in denial about your envy quite similar to not actually having the envy? What would it mean, for example, if MrGG were "really" envious of the Royal Family even though he believes himself not to be?

Don't know, but I 'm not testing the thesis on him....

[scottycelt]

Indeed. But whichever way you look at it, the etymology of the word is ἀν- plus ἀρχός, ie. "without a ruler", so when scottycelt says "a system without bosses equals anarchy" he is completely correct, in a tautological kind of way. Since he asks, he is also completely correct in surmising that I have never been involved in running a company, but not in surmising that I have little or no experience of working on the shopfloor of one. For what it's worth.

I'm delighted we now agree even if it was by way of a rather timely tautological fluke ...

I also completely agree that your actual business experience is of little consequence in the great scheme of things just as surmising that I've managed to go through life and somehow never quite managed to come across any anarchists ... I have, though I could never claim we were ever particularly close.

[heliocentric]

the many months during which Belgium was effectively without a government not so long ago

Of course, during the whole of that time Belgium had fully-functioning police forces, provincial governments, judiciary and all the other appurtenances of a hierarchically-organised nation state apart from a central legislature, so to call the resulting situation "anarchy" in any sense would be silly.

[heliocentric]

surmising that I've managed to go through life and somehow never quite managed to come across any anarchists ... I have, though I could never claim we were ever particularly close.

I didn't of course actually say that, I suggested that either you didn't know any or that you hadn't listened to them, since you were explicitly equating (in a political discussion) anarchy with chaos, which with all due respect is a bit clueless.

[ahinton]

Since RM reminds us in a sign-off of Zappa's assertion that "communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff", I am inclined to say that, even under a communist or other socialist régime, someone has to and indeed does "own stuff"; it's abit like so-called "social housing" (as if housing could of itself be "social", rather as that dreadful expression "working days" - whose purpose appears to be to convey an impression of how little work gets done - is meaningless in that I've never seen a day doing any work). "Social housing" is that which is rented out by local authorities who own it and, when they sell it, all that happens is a change of ownership. My own local authority still retains some housing stock but I have no feeling that, as a council taxpayer, I "own" any share in it whatsoever because I neither derive benefit from, nor have responsibilities or liabilities in respect of, any of it; that's always been my view of what is termed "state ownership" in that, far from meaning that a large number of people each have a small stake in the property so owned, that property is literally owned by "the state" (i.e. the powers that be who run the state) and, as such, it's no different to any other ownership as understood under and defined by capitalist principles of property ownership. I don't "own" a slice of the NHS and I certainly don't "own" a part of the defence industry; if I did, I'd flog the latter off to the highest bidder (assuming that I could find a bidder at all) immediately and be mercifully rid of it!

Of course, Zappa's statement can only go as far as the manner in which it is expressed permits, which isn't very far because there's clearly a whole lot more to the principles of communist statehood than the question of whether or not those expected to live under it want to "own stuff".

As someone said to me a while ago, "I work in the public sector and could, if I chose, do almost identical work in the private sector but, unless I help my employer to generate a profit, I cannot realistically consider myself to be a 'public servant'". It seems to me to matter rather less who actually "owns" stuff - be that stuff a state industry, a private corporation, an SME, a house, a Bösendorfer 290 (yes, please!) - that it matters what they do with it, which is why the frequently exercised arguments about the principles of who owns what are all too often as unenlightening and pointless as those about wealth envy which were referred to upthread.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Perhaps a Proudhonian differentiation needs to be made clear between property (land, factories, raw materials - the stuff that creates profits) and possessions (objects for personal use and/or pleasure? "Property is theft" means that because people are (literally) alienated from the sources of profit, they have to become dependent on those who "own" these sources of wealth and power. Possessions are a matter of individual choice; owning a particularly fine piano cannot be put in the same category as owning a private corporation.

(Under a society influenced by Proudhon's ideas, there would be no such thing as "State Ownership" because Proudhon recognized what ahinton identifies as "the powers that be who run the state".)

[scottycelt]

I didn't of course actually say that, I suggested that either you didn't know any or that you hadn't listened to them, since you were explicitly equating (in a political discussion) anarchy with chaos, which with all due respect is a bit clueless.

In my experience those who use the rather patronising term 'with all due respect' can often display a distinct lack of it, evidenced by your final remark.

I never actually used the word 'chaos' but let's not get too hung up about that.

I used the word 'anarchy' to describe the likely consequence of a group of workers without a leader, a boss if you like.

Nothing you have posted here leads me to believe that I am wrong, especially when backed by authoritative English dictionaries.

You insist you are arguing with me when you are really arguing with the dictionaries.

Please don't involve me, it's really none of my business!

[teamsaint]

In my experience those who use the rather patronising term 'with all due respect' can often display a distinct lack of it, evidenced by your final remark.

I never actually used the word 'chaos' but let's not get too hung up about that.

I used the word 'anarchy' to describe the likely consequence of a group of workers without a leader, a boss if you like.

Nothing you have posted here leads me to believe that I am wrong, especially when backed by authoritative English dictionaries.

You insist you are arguing with me when you are really arguing with the dictionaries.

Please don't involve me, it's really none of my business!

most of the places I have worked seem pretty anarchical(in your terms) and they all had bosses...

[heliocentric]

In my experience those who use the rather patronising term 'with all due respect' can often display a distinct lack of it, evidenced by your final remark.

I thought you'd say that.

With regard to definitions, "anarchy" is not the "likely" consequence of having no leader, it is simply the condition of having no leader. The consequence might be chaos, as you clearly imply is your opinion.

Nothing you have posted here leads me to believe that I am wrong

From what I've seen, nothing anyone ever posts here ever leads you to believe that you're wrong about anything, so nothing new there.

Proudhon: that's a name you don't hear too often. I don't know much at all about his ideas and achievements, knowing them only through Marx's commentaries, which range quite widely between approval and disapproval, but there's obviously much of interest to investigate.

[scottycelt]

I thought you'd say that.

With regard to definitions, "anarchy" is not the "likely" consequence of having no leader, it is simply the condition of having no leader. The consequence might be chaos, as you clearly imply is your opinion.

From what I've seen, nothing anyone ever posts here ever leads you to believe that you're wrong about anything, so nothing new there.

Proudhon: that's a name you don't hear too often. I don't know much at all about his ideas and achievements, knowing them only through Marx's commentaries, which range quite widely between approval and disapproval, but there's obviously much of interest to investigate.

So the 'explicit' has now changed to "implicit". I agree that 'anarchy' is the 'condition' of a group without a leader ... so it must also be the 'consequence' ... my use of 'likely' was meant to be "ironic".

Oh yes I can certainly be wrong, but I am most unlikely to concede that in this particular case!

[MrGongGong]

So how about a string quartet ?

It's a dodgy area when one starts to think that ALL situations demand "leaders"
some do
some don't

[Serial_Apologist]

So how about a string quartet ?

It's a dodgy area when one starts to think that ALL situations demand "leaders"
some do
some don't

I remember reading somewhere (but cant presently remember where) that Prokofiev visited the young Soviet Union and rehearsed (at least) two of his own works with a conductorless orchestra. From what I recall the resultant performace was judged OK by Prokofiev, apart from a few problems with rallentandi, athough it had taken about twice as long to rehearse.

[heliocentric]

I remember reading somewhere (but cant presently remember where) that Prokofiev visited the young Soviet Union and rehearsed (at least) two of his own works with a conductorless orchestra. From what I recall the resultant performace was judged OK by Prokofiev, apart from a few problems with rallentandi, athough it had taken about twice as long to rehearse.

Yes, I thought I'd heard something along those lines. (Rehearsing for twice as long certainly isn't going to catch on in the present climate though.) And there's the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra which always plays without a conductor and has performed and recorded Stravinsky and some other relatively difficult music. And most of John Cage's orchestral pieces are intended to be played without a conductor. (Of course they're also supposed to sound "anarchic" which won't please everyone. )

(edit) Oh, and of course there's the Prague Chamber Orchestra which was founded in 1951, and the Australian Chamber Orchestra too. Wikipedia has this:

After the Russian revolution in the early twentieth century the Pervïy Simfonicheskiy Ansambl′ bez Dirizhyora (Russian for ‘First Conductorless Symphony Ensemble’), or Persimfans formed in the Soviet Union. The purpose for the conductorless state of this orchestra did not stem from musical ideals alone, but encapsulated the political and philosophical ideals of the time. Persimfans built itself upon egalitarian concepts and functioned by committee. They sat in a large circle while they performed and took cues across the circle.