Mambani's failure to advocate egalitarian revolution and a consistent class framework makes him a sitting duck for an onslaught of pro-capitalism propaganda
Any form of government that is created by the delegation of individial responsibilities seems always to end up oppressing the majority of citizens as governments inevitably work for the rich. This argues in favour of personal autonomy exercised in collaboration with equals to the exclusion of external authority under whatever guise.
Hi John. I have read the article referred to and agree that in the event a breach of the Golden Rule, then some unified action must be considered amongst Egalitarians to redress or prevent a further wrong. In this respect I note from James C. Scott's Two Cheers for Anarchism (to which you have previously referred) that the adoption of what he calls "Irish Democracy" may hold the key. Rather than formalising protest against anti-egalitarian behaviour by passing laws or demanding punishment, the egalitarians simply exclude or marginlise the trangressors from daily life by refusing to co-operate or engage with them entirely. If the Golden Rule is embraced whole-heartedly and universally then this snub of exclusion should have a profound effect on them. Just my thoughts John but once collective representative organisations are placed above people then the susceptibilty to corruption seems inevitable.
I greatly admired James C. Scott's book, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, for which reason I provide a link to it on my website. I have not read his TwoCheers for Anarchism and will do so now. :)
My view about government is that egalitarians should do, and have every right to do, whatever is required to prevent anti-egalitarians from oppressing people. If what is required is merely for egalitarians to exclude or marginalize those who seek to oppress others, then fine. But what if that is not sufficient? Keep in mind that the anti-egalitarians of the world today are vicious and they believe their oppression of people is the morally right thing, as I discuss at https://www.pdrboston.org/from-the-horse-s-mouth .
I think that egalitarians should know they have the right--even the moral duty--to use whatever amount of force (collectively organized if necessary) to prevent people from oppressing people. Yes, doing this in a collective manner (by, say, deciding what to do at the Local Assembly of Egalitarians) amounts to, to use your words, having "collective representative organisations are placed above people." Yes, the egalitarians, collectively, are placed above the anti-egalitarians who wish to oppress people. Why is that wrong?
While any organized activity of egalitarians is, as you note, susceptible to corruption, that corruption is not inevitable. You say that it seems inevitable. Why? As I write in "Here's how to eliminate most corruption" (at https://johnspritzler.substack.com/p/heres-how-to-eliminate-most-corruption?r=1iggn ) the antidote to corruption is widespread knowledge of egalitarian principles and a determination to oppose whatever violates them. Why must this fail, as you seem to believe it must?
Here's the problem. If, in order to prevent vicious and determined anti-egalitarians (that exist today for sure!) from oppressing people, it requires organized collective efforts by egalitarians, and if egalitarians believe that it is WRONG to use organized collective efforts for this purpose (because it would be 'placing them above people'), then what follows from this is that the anti-egalitarians will make society oppressive again. Nothing would stop them. Right?
Thanks John, for such a comprehensive response. I have no doubt the level of viciousness against egalitarianism is a real and persistent threat that must be countered. I entertain a hope that the sheer force of belief in the Golden Rule would be so engrained that exclusion from society would be the most effective remedy. If this fails, then, like all breaches of enshrined beliefs, they can ultimately only be remedied by violence. One hopes this exercise of authority does not develop further into a taste for power.
Any form of government that is created by the delegation of individial responsibilities seems always to end up oppressing the majority of citizens as governments inevitably work for the rich. This argues in favour of personal autonomy exercised in collaboration with equals to the exclusion of external authority under whatever guise.
JAS, what is your take on my article, "Should There Be Any Government At All?" at https://www.pdrboston.org/yes-we-need-a-good-government ?
Hi John. I have read the article referred to and agree that in the event a breach of the Golden Rule, then some unified action must be considered amongst Egalitarians to redress or prevent a further wrong. In this respect I note from James C. Scott's Two Cheers for Anarchism (to which you have previously referred) that the adoption of what he calls "Irish Democracy" may hold the key. Rather than formalising protest against anti-egalitarian behaviour by passing laws or demanding punishment, the egalitarians simply exclude or marginlise the trangressors from daily life by refusing to co-operate or engage with them entirely. If the Golden Rule is embraced whole-heartedly and universally then this snub of exclusion should have a profound effect on them. Just my thoughts John but once collective representative organisations are placed above people then the susceptibilty to corruption seems inevitable.
Hi JAS,
I greatly admired James C. Scott's book, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, for which reason I provide a link to it on my website. I have not read his TwoCheers for Anarchism and will do so now. :)
My view about government is that egalitarians should do, and have every right to do, whatever is required to prevent anti-egalitarians from oppressing people. If what is required is merely for egalitarians to exclude or marginalize those who seek to oppress others, then fine. But what if that is not sufficient? Keep in mind that the anti-egalitarians of the world today are vicious and they believe their oppression of people is the morally right thing, as I discuss at https://www.pdrboston.org/from-the-horse-s-mouth .
I think that egalitarians should know they have the right--even the moral duty--to use whatever amount of force (collectively organized if necessary) to prevent people from oppressing people. Yes, doing this in a collective manner (by, say, deciding what to do at the Local Assembly of Egalitarians) amounts to, to use your words, having "collective representative organisations are placed above people." Yes, the egalitarians, collectively, are placed above the anti-egalitarians who wish to oppress people. Why is that wrong?
While any organized activity of egalitarians is, as you note, susceptible to corruption, that corruption is not inevitable. You say that it seems inevitable. Why? As I write in "Here's how to eliminate most corruption" (at https://johnspritzler.substack.com/p/heres-how-to-eliminate-most-corruption?r=1iggn ) the antidote to corruption is widespread knowledge of egalitarian principles and a determination to oppose whatever violates them. Why must this fail, as you seem to believe it must?
Here's the problem. If, in order to prevent vicious and determined anti-egalitarians (that exist today for sure!) from oppressing people, it requires organized collective efforts by egalitarians, and if egalitarians believe that it is WRONG to use organized collective efforts for this purpose (because it would be 'placing them above people'), then what follows from this is that the anti-egalitarians will make society oppressive again. Nothing would stop them. Right?
Thanks John, for such a comprehensive response. I have no doubt the level of viciousness against egalitarianism is a real and persistent threat that must be countered. I entertain a hope that the sheer force of belief in the Golden Rule would be so engrained that exclusion from society would be the most effective remedy. If this fails, then, like all breaches of enshrined beliefs, they can ultimately only be remedied by violence. One hopes this exercise of authority does not develop further into a taste for power.