Paint pixies plant provoking phrase

I wish I'd been up to see it.

Whos going to give food and shelter to all the people who are unable or don't work?
Currently, the only one doing that is "the system" ?

Not taking the piss. Just don't get what you want.

no text

Thanks paint pixies - couldn't have said it better. It's not about how we choose who has power over us, it's about asking whether anybody should have power over us in the first place.

@Texxa
It's "the system" that mean that people in our rich nation don't have food and shelter in the first place. (e.g. on food see In court charged with theft by finding, the woman who took food from a Tesco bin  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357741/In-court-charged-theft-finding-woman-took-food-Tesco-bin.html (from the Daily Mail no less), and on shelter search for yourself about how people are evicted from empty homes, and how homeless charities are having their funding decimated). This is what "the system" does.

@shopper
Read the article - it's not very long. It says that the words were there, and then were removed, so the picture is 'photoshopped.'

> It's "the system" that mean that people in our rich nation don't have food and shelter in the first place. (e.g. on food see In court charged with theft by finding, the woman who took food from a Tesco bin  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357741/In-court-charged-theft-finding-woman-took-food-Tesco-bin.html (from the Daily Mail no less), and on shelter search for yourself about how people are evicted from empty homes, and how homeless charities are having their funding decimated). This is what "the system" does.

Ok, i grant you about the tesco food in the bin. Although i can understand why tesco wouldn't want people going through their bins. I know i wouldn't want anyone going through mine what with identify theft nowadays.

People evicted from empty homes. I guess it comes down to who pays for that home?
Quite hard to find someone with some spare money to pay for someone else home.

funding decimated. Without this system, there wouldn't be any funding in the first place?

You may not like the system, but its the only place where all this money you get comes from.
Don't think the public like giving money. We have to be threatened with imprisonment to force us to pay these taxes. Without the system, i think you will find a much larger lack of funding.

> Although i can understand why tesco wouldn't want people going through their bins.
> I know I wouldn't want anyone going through mine what with identify theft nowadays.
But your bins are yours as an individual. This does not compare to Tesco's bins - do you really think somebody could steal Tesco's identity by going through their bins as the women in the article did?

> I guess it comes down to who pays for that home?
> Quite hard to find someone with some spare money to pay for someone else home.
I would suggest looking at the people who can afford to keep a home empty in the first place. They, by definition, can afford the home.

> You may not like the system, but its the only place where all this money you get comes from.
At the moment - but can we not imagine and create something different. It wasn't always like this, so it doesn't always have to be like this.

Good to know that the council can put resources into removing slogans on walls, but not pay for youth services. -  http://oxfordsos.org.uk/?p=875

Am I the only one that thinks they've got their priorities wrong?

We don't need crony capitalism, phony politics or a corrupt state system.

What we do need is to take back the land that has been stolen from the people, so that we can build natural organic communities.

More people everyday are beginning to see the sense behind these ideas, because they are increasingly aware that they cannot succeed in a system that is controlled by criminals.

Brought this to mind from Crass:

If there was no government, wouldn't there be chaos
Everybody running round, setting petrol bombs off?
And if there was no police force, tell me what you'd do
If thirty thousand rioters came running after you?
And who would clean the sewers? Who'd mend my television?
Wouldn't people lay about without some supervision?
Who'd drive the fire engines? Who'd fix my video?
If there were no prisons, well, where would robbers go?

And what if I told you to Fuck Off?

What if there's no army to stop a big invasion?
Who'd clean the bogs and sweep the floors? We'd have all immigration.
Who'd pull the pint at the local pub? Where'd I get my fags?
Who'd empty out my dustbins? Would I still get plastic bags?
If there were no hospitals, and no doctors too,
If I'd broken both my legs, where would I run to?
If there's no medication, if there were no nurses,
Wouldn't people die a lot? And who would drive the hearses?

And what if I told you to Fuck Off?

If there were no butchers shops, what would people eat?
You'd have everybody starving if they didn't get their meat.
If there was no water, what would people drink?
Who'd flush away the you-know-what? But of course MINE never stink.
What about the children? Who'd teach them in the schools?
Who'd make the beggers keep in line? Learn them all the rules?
Who's tell us whitewash windows? When to take down doors?
Tell us make a flask of tea and survive the holocaust?

If you told me to fuck off, i wouldn't really case because you do really do much for me anyway.
In fact, I'd stop funding your lifestyle

Houston, we have a troll.

@ Texx:
Since there probably wouldn't be money in a non-capitalist system, the question of "who pays for" or "who funds" is obsolete. A house is empty - people take it. In addition, the system itself doesn't make any of these things - it coerces workers into making them, or expropriates them from nature. The way the questions are framed, it sounds like you think people are naturally individualists and keep what's "theirs", and any distributive claims are necessarily systemic - a view instantly falsified by any knowledge of anthropology.

If we rephrase these bogus questions in concrete terms, they come down to questions of how particular needs might be met, or social problems addressed, without a state / capitalism / coercion (how to stay healthy, grow/gather enough food for everyone, manage conflicts, defend against hostile enemies, etc). These concrete questions have been addressed many times. In particular I'd suggest:
Anarchy in Action by Colin Ward
Anarchy Works! by Peter Gelderloos
and Objections to Anarchism by George Barrett.

There are five basic sources for alternative ways of doing things: indigenous groups, revolutionary periods (Paris Commune, Spanish Revolution etc), single-issue movements (e.g. libertarian education), autonomous zones/sites (in the South as well as the North), and .

For support of people who can't or don't work, a few options include: disconnect consumption from production (e.g. Guarani are forbidden to eat what they hunt), establish customary obligations by degrees of affinity (e.g. giving surplus food to extended family), establish rituals in which people obtain status or the excitement of participation, in return for generosity (potlatch), distribute surpluses via warehouses from which anyone can take for free (e.g. Morris's News from Nowhere), establish communally-managed schemes similar to state welfare provision but accountable to a collective assembly (Spanish Revolution), establish a basic income provided by the collective (Hardt and Negri), establish religious or ethical obligations to distribute a portion of wealth to the worse-off (Islamic zakat), tolerate theft in conditions of unmet needs or a right to raid others for resources when obligations of support are not met (Papuans, Somalis), distribute land in parcels to all people and allow them to either work it or let it for income (various peasant societies, e.g. rural Malaysia), take over unused resources from neighbouring societies (freegans, squatting, etc), provide a 'solidarity wage' through trade union fees (various leftist movements), etc.

Enough with the "troll" label lefty boy. If thats a piece of your argument, then you really stuck for ammunition arn't you. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't make anyone a troll. Otherwise, it would mean you are a troll.

I'm really struggling to work out if your comment is actually just a joke to wind me up.
But, for academic sakes, I'm going to take it seriously.

>> Since there probably wouldn't be money in a non-capitalist system, the question of "who pays for" or "who funds" is obsolete

Ok, heres a few things for you:
1a. Who put you in charge of telling the 60million in the UK how they are going to live?
1b. What makes you seriously think anyone would voluntarily subscribe to this system? (considering so few are drawn to it already)? Ie. What is the primary incentive?
1c. "who pays for" or "who funds" is obsolete....... so are you just going to plunk a gallon of petrol for your car from the tree then if you can't pay for it? Or do we all live on ration cards?

>> A house is empty - people take it.
Sounds wayyyyyy to simple.
2a. And who exactly is authorising them to take it?
2b. What if the person who lives in it comes back and sees that 2 squatters are inside and have taken it over? Who is in the right? Does that mean we can't leave our houses for more than 10 minutes?
2c. What if houses are in short supply (bound to be if they are free), and 2 people are arguing over their claim? (as people do EVERY DAY!). Would this mean the biggest and strongest get the house because they were there first, and the frail old lady will never be able to get to it first.


3. If anarchism is so great, why do so many people not give it time of day?


4. The rest of the examples appear to be things that have died out through evolution or clearly aren't really beneficial:

Spanish Revolution... didn't last / not a pleasant time in history

establish religious or ethical obligations to distribute a portion of wealth to the worse-off (Islamic zakat), ..... can't imagine many people subscribing to the idea of giving their wealth away. We have to send people to prison if they don't pay their taxes to feed the poor.

tolerate theft in conditions of unmet needs or a right to raid others for resources when obligations of support are not met (Papuans, Somalis)
Somalia!?!?! Er.... i don't think anyone in the UK wants to live in a place thats run like somalia. It also begs the question:
---> If somalia is so great, why do a lot of them move to the UK, and yet, no-one from the UK moves to somalia


Ok. I'll keep it at that. I realise you will probably not be able to logically refute much of that and so am fully expecting you to have to resort to the old "troll" argument. Or perhaps you will just point out the mistakes in my spelling and grammar.

To Texx

You have been directed to many sources where your questions have been answered. You clearly haven't refereed to them, which you would have done if you were interested in finding answers.

I can only assume that you are not really interested in finding the answers to you questions - so why bother asking them?

>> You have been directed to many sources where your questions have been answered. You clearly haven't refereed to them, which you would have done if you were interested in finding answers.

That is such a lazy, lazy, answer and a blatant lie.
1. I have not been directed anywhere.
2. There are 2 links to the dailymail and one to save oxford services.

Which makes you a liar. Care to respond to my accusation?

>> I can only assume that you are not really interested in finding the answers to you questions - so why bother asking them?

I can only assume that you are not really capable of answering any intelligent questions asked of you because your logic if fundamentally flawed once anyway digs under the shiny surface.

> 1. I have not been directed anywhere.
...
> Which makes you a liar. Care to respond to my accusation?

Yes.

The post titled 'troll, prepare to get pwned' in this thread clearly gives these three resources:
Anarchy in Action by Colin Ward
Anarchy Works! by Peter Gelderloos
and Objections to Anarchism by George Barrett.

In what way am I lying? Care to retract that (i.e. that you have not been directed anywhere)?


> I can only assume that you are not really capable of answering any intelligent questions asked of you because your logic if fundamentally flawed once anyway digs under the shiny surface.

Why are you insulting me when you do not know my views, or have any idea about who I am and what I think? It sounds like trolling behaviour to me.

Dunno why I'm bothering to do this but...

The Spanish Revolution didn't last because of communist state supression and eventually victory by the fascists- possibly the "pleasant time in history" was Franco's rule, but who knows?

As for "I have not been directed anywhere"- the sources he referred to were:

Anarchy in Action by Colin Ward
Anarchy Works! by Peter Gelderloos
and Objections to Anarchism by George Barrett

Fuck off and read them.

Ah yes, you are correct. I missed those
I apologise, i did call you a liar which was incorrect.
However, technically, the resources do not answer my questions so my point still stands

I've read this one:
Objections to Anarchism by George Barrett
I have to admit, its making absolutely no logical sense.

I pick an extract at random........................

>> To-day machinery is introduced to replace, as far as possible, the highly paid man. It can only do this very partially, but it is obvious that since machinery is to save the cost of production it will be applied to those things where the cost is considerable. In those branches where labour is very cheap there is not the same incentive to supersede it by machines.

Err no..........
This statement seems to assume that making a machine is an easy task of equal weight to doing the work. For example, if it takes 200,000 manhours to perfect a machine to do a task such as cleaning a drain effectively, then I think you will find most people will continue to clean it by hand.

Furthermore, a drain cleaner will have the correct tools, knowledge, training and experience to do the task quickly, safely and with minimum of fuss. Your average person does that have these skills and so would consider it easier just to "hire" a draincleaner to do the job for them.

Thirdly, if a machine was made to replace the drain cleaner (or candle stick maker or whatever), then wouldn't the national union of drain cleaner be up in arms as their place in society is under threat? In fact, wouldn't they go on strike and start direct-action protests?



>> Now things are so strangely organised at present that it is just the dirty and disagreeable work that men will do cheaply, and consequently there is no great rush to invent machines to take their place. In a free society, on the other hand, it is clear that the disagreeable work will be one of the first things that machinery will be called upon to eliminate. It is quite fair to argue, therefore, that the disagreeable work will, to a large extent, disappear in a state of anarchism.

I had to stop myself laughing with that last bit.
That is such a huge assumption - that all disagreeable work would disappear.
ALL work is disagreeable, otherwise they wouldn't pay us to do it. I have better things to do with my time than do work. So if machines could replace it all that would be fantastic.
But building the machines will in itself be disagreeable work. From the mining of minerals, the smelting of steel, the production lines, the code writing, the testing. Non of it is exciting. That is why many of these people are paid a lot of money to turn up to work, because they wouldn't bother if they weren't.,


>> This, however, leaves the question only partially answered. Some time ago, during a strike at Leeds, the roadmen and scavengers refused to do their work. The respectable inhabitants of Leeds recognised the danger of this state of affairs, and organised themselves to do the dirty work. University students were sweeping the streets and carrying boxes of refuse. They answered the question better than I can. They have taught us that a free people would recognise the necessity of such work being done, and would one way or another organise to do it.

A one off that can equally be argued by me remembering bin strikes where there was rubbish left on the streets and people were complaining of rats. I notice he says "university students", rather than "everyone". The other aspect is: how long would the students do this for. Would they do it for 5+ years in a consistent manner. I think not, I think they would quickly get bored of doing unpaid work.


So there we go. I pretty much could argue any point in this literature that you choose.
An enormous part of the problem seems to be that the author is talking about a utopia world - with idealist intentions. Idealist ideas are good on paper - but not in the real world outside of academia.

Previous reply didn't make it up, presumably because of some choice names I called the troll.

Basically, she's a troll because:
1) she's hijacking the thread
2) she's waaaaay out of her usual community
3) she's unnecessarily using aggressive/personal language designed to produce flames (e.g. implying we're layabouts, name-calling, using overly emotive arguments).

Rebuttals:

1a. Who gave the UK the right to tell me how to live? Anarchists oppose nationalism. You want to live in a voluntarily authoritarian group, by all means do it, but don't force it on the rest of us.

1b. Incentives are for stockbrokers. Anarchists don't like stockbrokers. The primary motive for me to support anarchism is I'm sick of being oppressed. The primary motives for not supporting anarchism are 1) you benefit from oppressing others, or 2) you have a slave morality (you've learnt to enjoy being oppressed or to fear questioning your oppression).

1c. Many anarchists oppose car use as ecologically unsustainable and built on resource wars and the killing of innocent Iraqis. Minus the unnecessary provocativeness, this question seems to come down to, "how could services be organised without a state". Again, see the three sources suggested.

2a. Anarchists oppose authority. No need for authorisation.

2b. Squatters occupy *empty* buildings. Someone who grabbed an occupied house the moment the occupier nipped to the shops would be held in very low regard by the squatters' movement. Again, minus the invective, what you seem to be asking is: "how could conflict resolution or transformation occur without a state". Again, see the three sources.

2c. Play on generational divisions noted. Anarchists are in favour of distribution by need, so someone who tried to seize more by being bigger/stronger would be fought off by other people who support an anarchist ethic. On the other hand, in a state regime, old ladies often get driven out of their homes to make way for capitalist developments (c.f. Margaret Jaconelli). You also seem unaware that capitalism produces artificial scarcity. - again the root question seems to be "how could conflict resolution or transformation occur without a state". Again, see the three sources.

3. Privilege, and slave moralities.

4a. 'died out through evolution' - I think the terms you're looking for are 'colonialism' and 'genocide'. 'not beneficial' - for whom? I know plenty of people capitalism isn't beneficial for.

4b. Spanish Revolution - main problem with it was due to fascists trying to smash it.

4c. Zakat - 1 billion Muslims already subscribe to this idea. Hence not at all implausible.

4d. Somalia - the fact that Somalia has/had an effective conflict resolution system has nothing to do with whether it is better/worse by other criteria. In discussing why Somalia is fucked-up in certain ways, you'd need to look at the history of colonialism, western interventions, and attempts to create an utterly unsustainable state there. Somalia was described by anthropologist Ioan Lewis as 'the safest place in Africa until the 1980s'.

4e. Reasons for migration - most migrants move from poor countries to poor countries. For instance, Somalia absorbed large numbers of Ethiopian refugees (and showed a lot more hospitality than Britain would) in the 1980s. Some move from poor countries to rich countries. In asking why this is the case, you need to look at the historical reasons why some countries are rich and some countries are poor - colonialism, plunder, imperialist wars, genocides, resource grabs, structural adjustment, debt repayment. You also have to ask about the reasons why some countries are safer than others (imperialist wars, proxy wars, resource wars), and why some people feel a strong attachment to other countries which are usually the former colonial powers (colonial education systems, TV propaganda, language skills, existing ties through earlier wages of migration, etc). Modern state societies tend to carry out imperialist invasions and plunders, whereas anarchistic and stateless societies tend not to carry out invasions and plunders (with a few exceptions). Therefore: 1) in a world of state societies, the worst will be the richest; 2) anarchist societies are superior to modern state societies - especially those enriched by plunder.

4f. Out of eleven counterexamples, troll picks three and raises irrelevant objections (all premised on the entire society concerned, not its distribution mechanism specifically). The troll claimed that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to provide an income to people who can't or don't work without a state taxation system. The eleven counterexamples decisively prove that IT IS POSSIBLE to provide an income or subsistence to people who don't work, without the existence of a state. This rebuts the original objection, regardless of whether the societies in question are 'ideal' in whatever other ways the troll imagines.

Note that anarchists are rather unfairly positioned in such discussions, because, in the absence of a current large-scale anarchist society, counterexamples either come from small-scale or historic societies (which can be dismissed as "outdated" or "not relevant"), from brief, unsuccessful attempts to build large-scale anarchist societies (which can be dismissed as "bad times in history"), from single issue movements ("still depend on a state") or from theory ("not practical, idealist"). This isn't really a logical way to proceed, because it premises the impossibility of a large-scale anarchist society on the nonexistence of a large-scale anarchist society (nonexistence -> only "unattractive" counterexamples available -> impossible). The same argument would have "proven" states impossible in 10,000bc, liberal democracies impossible in 1750, communism impossible in 1910, and fascism impossible in 1920.

Message to troll:
Ultimately your problem seems to be that you don't understand the situatedness of the social forms you're used to, and don't understand that societies can and do operate in a wide variety of other ways without grinding to a standstill. You really need a wider sense of what goes on in the world and how the current system has come into being.

"ALL work is disagreeable, otherwise they wouldn't pay us to do it"

Wow.

Nobody has ever enjoyed spending time with children, gardening, doing DIY, painting, reading, modding their car or bike, teaching someone else a skill, playing or editing music, putting on a party, cooking, putting things in order, gathering fruit, etc?

>> "ALL work is disagreeable, otherwise they wouldn't pay us to do it"
>> Wow.
>> Nobody has ever enjoyed spending time with children, gardening, doing DIY, painting, reading, modding their car or bike, teaching someone else a skill, playing or editing music, putting on a party, cooking, putting things in order, gathering fruit, etc?

Hmmmm... quote mining eh?
To put into the original context rather than your shortened version.
Basically, you are saying that you want machines to replace all of your "recreational" pursuits?!!!
You are an idiot.

And none of those things are really work anyway:

1. spending time with children -- thats not work. Its an recreational activity.
2. gardening - recreational activity
3. doing DIY - yes thats work....... but most people end up complaining bitterly about it after spending all the evenings in a weeks trying to tile their bathroom. So my point stands.
4. painting - for most people, its a recreational activity. I doubt you could replace this one with machines anyway, so I don't really see your point.
5. reading - proof reading? or recreational reading? People are paid to do proof reading because they wouldn't be able to find any willing people otherwise.
6. modding their car or bike - recreational activity
7. teaching someone else a new skill. Yes, thats work. But considering the government had to hand out big incentives to get people to become teachers (remember the "6 grand" scheme?), it just proves my point that it is "disagreeable work" in that they have to bribe people to do it with a big pile of cash.
8. putting on a party - I'm really not going to answer that one! recreational activity
9. cooking - we do it because the alternative is to starve. Hence, theres the incentive.
Anything more is a recreational activity. If cooking was a pure pleasure then a chef's salary would = £0
10. putting things in order - thats "house work" not work. We all do it because we have to (except scutters)
11. gathering fruit. I'd term that as a recreational actiivty. Again, if it was a pure pleasure, then they wouldn't need to pay fruit pickers anything.

Might i say that if these are your definitions of "work", then you havn't really done any before.
Fancy trying some more quote mining?

Thankyou to the other replier for their reply (although not sure i like being slandered with a troll label) - but thankyou all the same. Not sure if I like all the personal insults either.
I'll reply if i feel like it, but i have read your reply.

“Basically, you are saying that you want machines to replace all of your "recreational" pursuits?!!!”

Not sure if you're stupid or just trolling, but let's play along: this poster didn't say anything about machines replacing work. George Barrett says machines could replace undesirable work (he obviously didn't mean ALL work, he meant things like assembly-line work). You said this is wrong because all work is undesirable. This is falsified by showing how many work activities are identical to activities which are done for 'recreation' or as non-work.

Point of the response: THERE IS NO CLEAR DIVIDE between work and recreational activity. ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES LISTED can be paid work in some circumstances. These jobs could in principle be done by people doing 'recreational activity'.

1. nanny / nursery / childcare / childminder
2. farmer / landscaper / park keeper
3. painter and decorator / plumber / builder
4. painter and decorator / graphic designer / artist / advertising
5. researcher / editor / book reviewer / report compiler
6. mechanic / car repair / car manufacturer
7. teacher / academic / skill tutor
8. hospitality management / tour guide / holiday industry
9. fast food outlets / chef / preparing food products
10. hired cleaner / post office sorter / administrative file organiser
11. fruit picker / forager / farmer

These are not uncommon or irregular jobs. Fast food, cleaner, farm labourer, childcare are some of the most common starter jobs. We'd have to change how we organise things so that people would do them for free, but it's completely possible for a great many activities. For instance, nobody would work at a nightclub for free, but plenty of people would put on raves. Since the rave meets the same social need as the nightclub, it could basically replace it, meeting the same need without work.

They often need to pay people things that they would in principle do for enjoyment, because the current social system is organised around a work-or-starve blackmail which forces most people to work. Otherwise they would have the free time to do any/all of these things without pay.

Incidentally – no-one cooks because they would starve otherwise. It is often cheaper to buy ready-meals, bread or snacks than to prepare a meal from scratch. It is certainly cheaper if time spent cooking is considered an opportunity-cost in relation to paid work (that's why fast food is profitable). In any case, people can eat many kinds of raw food.

You also most likely wouldn't die if you didn't do “housework”. Why you FEEL you have to do it is not clear from your response, except perhaps that it is so you don't think you're a “scutter”. Which would come down to: You do it because it's socially accepted that you should do it, and you think you'd be a bad person if you didn't. In other words, you do it because of your values, not because of any incentive. If this is enough to make you do housework, it would be enough to make you pay zakat or sweep the streets or whatever else it was socially conventional to do – all that would be needed to achieve this, would be a sufficiently thorough alteration of conventional values.

Incidentally, you'll also find anarchists disagree on which strategies they prefer in order to replace things. Some anarchists are all for replacing work with machines, some anarchists are very hostile to machines. Some anarchists would like to see social pressure used instead of economic 'incentives', some see this as authoritarian. So you can't just read-off my comments, George Barrett's, and the earlier poster's, as if they express an identical position. A previous poster gave you about a dozen responses on ways to organise social welfare without a state. It would be just the same with work. If we get rid of forced work, then we still have the options of doing things with machines, defining them as valued activities, doing them for enjoyment, turning them into games and so on. In any case, MOST of what counts as 'work' today, we could very well do without, and would be better off without (e.g. call-centres, advertising, financial speculation, arms manufacture, etc). So if you asked five anarchists how they'd organise rubbish collection, one of them would say “we'd design machines to do it”, one of them would say “we'd set up a working group of people who really want it done, who'd do it voluntarily”, one of them would say “we'd set up a rota for people to do it”, one of them would say “we'd turn it into a game, whoever collects the biggest pile wins a prize”, and one of them would say “we don't really need to do it, we should consume less and live in the forest”.