dogsmilk wrote:
Mike wrote:
Government should be and inevitably will be imo about planning and distributing resources according to need, this was the basis of Chinese civilization, and state regulated grain deposits for many centuries prior to the invention of Capitalism.
Self interest and the drive to fill the gaping void that arises from pure self interest has given rise to many forms of wealth, much abundance and prosperity, but the production of wealth in modern times is anarchistic, unplanned, largely unregulated, largely alienated from the people who need it, largely monopolised by those who profit from supply.
I can't say I know anything about Chinese history, but the notion of "t planning and distributing resources according to need" is a distinctly (left) anarchist idea. The idea being that with a federalist approach based on mutual co-operation resources are allocated purely on the basis of need because there is no central hierarchy that tends to breed the accumulation of power and wealth by a central clique.
Anarchism is often seen as utopian whereas I tend to see it as realistic because it recognises the human tendency to be corrupted by power.
To me Anarchism seems to overly associate "Power" with the state, in a lot of ways the State actually protects against some forms of Power, there are countless countries where regions are at war and ruled by Warlords, there is no guarantee that minus a state this wouldn't happen in the US or UK, the State has developed to mediate the private interests of private individuals, in many ways the state is the only protection against unrestrained private economic interests, so that is why I see Anarchism as Utopian, it acknowledges power within the state but not outside the state, in reality minus the state regulating/mediating economic interests power still exists, look at the Mafia in Naples, the Yakuza, Russian Mafia etc, they are examples of "power" that exists outside the state.
If a society is to distribute resources according to need, how is that government installed and how does it function in such a way that this happens without degenerating into a ruling elite manipulating the masses? In many ways our government does already do this - it allocates healthcare provision, subsidises agriculture, builds power stations etc. But it does this in such a way as to attempt attempt to balance the desire to accumulate enormous wealth for a tiny minority while maintaining order among the population by ostensibly catering for their needs.
You answer your own question really here, it must grow from people acting contrary to the private interests you describe, in your next paragraph you also highlight the positive aspects of the State, how it can be used for the Working classes and how it can be and more often is used by the Capitalist class:
In the current situation, the accumulation of wealth by the minority is being very heavily concentrated following a successful attack on organised labour that was won in the 1980s. This has led to an attempt to strip away as much of what the masses have as they can get away with. Should the masses become restless to a worrying extent, some reforms may be offered in an attempt to shut them up. And extensive propaganda extolling the virtues of capitalism will of course continue. How does one prevent a government from engaging in this kind of accumulation of power that leads to drives to keep the masses compliant and manipulate their opinions in the service of their interests? We currently have what is historically a very open and participatory democracy. And look where it's got us.
What do you mean by Participatory, I'd say fewer people participate in democracy or state planning etc than private accumulation, private planning etc, how does one influence government? By organizing/being part of popular resistance, building the revolutionary party etc.
