My playstyle? I use all the cheats I can so that my families never have to work. My goal is a beautiful home and a happy family... Wow... that sounds like what I wish for in real life. lol
I'm pretty much in agreement. I find RL advertising painful enough, and if it started to impinge (more explicitly than at present, at least) on my games I would be enormously irritated. Even ads pretty or interesting enough to be art - these do exist, I think, though are *very* rare - are brutalised and banalised by the fact that they advertise. Though the vehicles for consumerism may be beautiful, and may even, in exceptionally rare cases, make a comment beyond 'this commodity will give you a better life', they are still essentially the invasive cheerleaders of a convoluted economic mass production system which promotes misery and poverty (of every sort). Though the Sims is in no way free of these memes (Sims obviously live in an American capitalist society), it would be extremely sad if Maxis took this aspect of the game to its logical conclusion.
Even though this is OOT, I can't resist saying : Well said! I often think of that. We are so far from the lives of our ancestors, the environment that shaped us. I truely don't know where we are going and how long it can continue. People are exhorted to consume more and more, in total disregard of the impact this has. Have you ever read the story of the Easter Island? Fascinating story. Anyway, sorry for this OOT insert
But it is on topic! All this is relevant to the Sims - you just have to be a bit imaginative . Yes, and this makes us very anxious - evey part of our lives is governed by surperstructures which we have no control over and which we are completely alienated from, and yet in which we are expected to participate and ultimately preserve - when we go to work to earn money to buy things and when we vote for Mr. Red or Mr. Blue (when 'red' and 'blue' are actually two almost completely indistinct shades of mauve). Depression has gone up terrifyingly in the past century. The poverty in America, the richest and most powerful, truly capitalist country in the world, the country which epitomises the ideologies which are copied by, and exported (often by force) to the rest of the world, is enormous. Our governments create wars and enemies in order to give our lives meaning and to justify their existence. Our lives are directed and controlled by a system which funtions soley to make the handful of rich richer, at the expense of the mass of the poor, which is an overwhelming majority of the world's population. And when this is objected to, people point at the spectre of Communism as the olny alternative - the sum of human policitcal capability as fully expressible as a binary opposition capitalism and communism, freedom and oppression, white and black, good and evil. It doesn't make any sense; none of this is necessary. And of course it can't go on like this. It isn't controversial that how we live is unsustainable. It isn't controversial that enormous changes need to be made to the way we live our lives in order for us to carry on being able to live our lives at all. The enormous environmental impact we are having alone will force this. And the impact the current way of living has on people seems likely to provoke some change. People are not as apathetic as voting statistics make them out to be. It's just that fewer and fewer people see Messrs. Red and Blue as having any relevance to their lives whatsoever. And this is relevant in any context, including the one being discussed on these boards. It's not off-topic to discuss the socio-political context of the game. The Sims, like anything, is awash with references to the culture it sprang from. Sims live in a capitalist democracy and are socially organised according to Western standards of living, broadly speaking. The Sims is a recreation of the culture which it is a product of, and is made even more so as it is used by many players as a means of reproducing the world they see around them - people they know, places they know, ways of social organisation they are aware of. People talk about having rich and poor sides of town, about recreating strip malls with carparks, about making garages even though they can't be filled with cars. It would be very limiting to ignore the cultural references, both already-present in the game and creatable in-game, and refuse to discuss them.
All good points, Zooty and Angelyne. The thread is running slightly away from the general tenor suggested by the title but that's OK by me. It is interesting to think about these aspects of life vs imitation. I especially liked the Easter Island analogy, Angelyne. I think though that the problems of consumerism are a lot more complex. For the most part the developed world has pulled off an illusion worthy of David Blaine or Copperfield. Our economies have outgrown mere metal and paper ... money now moves from "hand" to "hand" so fast that it can be (and often actually is) counted as an asset by several entities at the same time. All wealth is illusory so isn't it much more fitting to have an economic wealth that is a complete fiction? At least no one is fooling themselves? Of course the long term unsustainability of the growth in global economic activity depends on the limited capacity of the planet to supply the energy needs of industry and the domestic populations that service it ... and even more importantly, the capacity of the planet to absorb the pollutants and greenhouse emissions. But those issues are function of economic activity not the whole equation. Industrialists, economists and politicians could easily solve that problem if they wished to. That is the real issue; not the befuddling little pecksniffian peeve about advertising. Get this straight: Advertising Works Period
A valid point, but when I referred to the problems of comsumerism I wasn't worrying about people's wealth being illusiory due to the high-paced rate of its transfer from one entity to another. I was talking about the society with capitalism, of which consumerism is just an inevitable symptom, creates, and how it does not work to the advantage of anyone, not even the few who get rich and powerful as a result of it (i.e. us, really, and especially those who rule us directly (companies and the state, that is)) - this is of course not to mention the countless millions who live in abject, miserable poverty because of it, and the countless millions who die as a direct result of it, either by starvation or the wars which it entails. Yes, the environmental, not just direct human, costs of the system we live and partake in are enough to condemn it outright. But they can't wish to, because that is counter to the entire ideology by which they function. Industrialists' only motive is to make money, and politicians' only motive is to gain and retain power. (Obviously these motives often overlap, hence the virtual control of the US government by business (I use the US as an example because it is the most coherant and unadulterated expression of the ideologies which (increasingly) every country adheres, more or less, to)). Absolutely: advertising is just a symptom of the entire system of misery, as is consumerism. But that doesn't detract from it's obnoxiousness, and therefore the worthiness of the fight against it. The fact that it "works period" to increase the profits of the companies which employ it does not justify it; on the contrary, it can be seen to be an argument against it, if you accept the idea that profit must always be at the expense of someone, who almost always can't afford it. (I'm not talking about the economic expense of the person who directly puts their money into the company profits in excange for a commodity. I'm talking about the exploitation which will have necessarily been involved in the production of the commodity, which will always be present even in the unlikely event that the company allows a decent level of workers' rights). Please understand me: though this a Marxist interpretation of society, this does not entail the proposition of a Marxist society. Marxism, in its Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist form, was bloody and oppressive - the dictatorship of the proletariat was no less horrible than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. When people and organisations get power, they become corrupted, no matter how high and pure their previous ideals. This is seen in its most extreme form in the genocides committed by the dictators of the twentieth century, but can also be seen in the actions of the powerful in today's so-called liberal democracies. The powerful are still corrupt, and their need for the expansion and retention of their power is still soaked in blood, though it is mainly the blood of the foreigners they wage their wars against, rather than that of the domsetic population (though this is still spilt - the most obvious example of this is the executions which still take place in America today, of which the number has escalated hugely in the last couple of hundered years, even when the figures are adjusted for population growth).
I can't disagree with anything you say, Zooty. However I feel sure that wealth (real or the imaginary stuff of cyber accounting) is the only commodity on the planet that is inexhaustible. Also it isn't the wealth that melts the ice or poisons the coral. As for poverty. Pah! There is only one kind of poverty I know of. Lack of education is real poverty. The mugwumpish warlords from Checnnya to Kabul and from Eritrea to Zimbabwe have cynically marginalised their indigenous peoples over decades and centuries by propagandizing negatively against western culture and democratic law (for, of and by the people) by making sure that they have no chance to learn any better and judge for themselves. And what happens when we in the west go and force it (law and democracy) down the throats of the oppressed? The warlords leap up and say: "didn't we tell you they were wicked?" I'm feeling cynical of a Friday arvo ...
See, this is why I have opted for survivalism. Move to the middle of nowhere, live off the land, and have enough weapons to put very large holes in anyone who tries to bother you. That's the life. People are depressed because they convince themselves they're depressed. It's only a problem if you make it a problem. It's only poverty when you can't afford what you need, and people are under the odd delusion that they need a lot of useless junk. Life is war. Without enemies, life is meaningless and boring. What's the point of living when there is nothing to challenge you? Life is conflict: To live is to fight. This is why people are depressed. In an age where the the outward teachings are peace and cooperation, there is no conflict, no struggle that gives life meaning. What happened to crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women? And this is why the right thing to do is to stockpile as many weapons and supplies as possible. The end will come. Be sure you're ready for it when it does. When the world returns to the way it was meant to be, people struggling for survival, locked in mortal combat with each other for the basic necessities of life once again, you want to be one of the winners, not the losers. And what, may I ask, is wrong with executions? Anything worth imprisoning someone for is worth executing someone for. The problem with executions nowadays is that they're no longer the public spectacle they're meant to be. An execution is meant to serve as an object warning to others. When people are executed in private, unseen by the populace, the impact of an execution is lost. Executions need to be performed the old fashioned way: A public hanging, firing squad, guillotining, or even a man in a black hood with an axe. Preferrably on TV. Hell, I'd totally watch that. All executions, all the time. Actually, there are several other commodities on the planet which are also inexhaustible: Stupidity, and whining. If stupidity could be harnessed as an energy source, we would never need oil again. Whining alone could power a small city. Whoever manages to invent a way to harness stupidity and whining as an energy source will be a very rich man. People also seem to be a rather inexhaustible energy source. They're pests, like roaches. No matter how hard you try to exterminate them, they always grow back. No attempt to-date to utterly exterminate any group of people has ever really succeeded. Which only goes to prove that humans are vermin, and like vermin, they're nearly impossible to exterminate. I'm told that ads are of much greater quality in foreign countries, where, in fact, advertisement is set to occur at specific times in the day, rather than interrupting your regular programming, and people will actually watch it despite the fact that the entire block of time is dedicated to advertisement, simply because the ads are funny. Nonetheless, people who buy all this crap are idiots and should be shot.
All these people in poverty in this country I see as less a function of capitalism (hardly evil, certainly less so in my mind than socialism) than as a function of degradation of our social mores. After all, statistically speaking, there are three simple things any single person can do in this country to be almost certain of not living in poverty: 1. graduate high school 2. hold down a job, any job 3. not have children until married Among people who have achieved the three above, poverty levels are in the single digits.
Good points, aharris. The point about western democracies that so many miss (while trumpeting its obvious benefits) is that 'freedom' extends to poverty being as valid a choice as any other. Getting out of poverty in the west is not impossible, nor even especially difficult ... though it might involve some tough decisions. Free western style democracies have all come into being as a result of tumultous social upheaval brought about by the will of the common people to have more say in how their lives are ruled. People do not tip over the status quo until they accept that anarchy and blood and bullets are a better transitionary option than continued acceptance that change is impossible (or even just too hard) to attain.
Not directly, no, but it's the system which creates wealth which also creates the motivation for people to act in a way which destroys the world around them - when people's only motivation is the expansion of their wealth, it's hardly surprising that the planet gets desecrated in the process. I would've thought that being too poor to eat would be real poverty, too. Oooo-kay. Each example of warlordism you cite is in a country which has been desecrated by a long and bloody history of crushing imperialism. Warlordism is a symptom of this, but honestly, if you want to explain the lack of a western liberal capitalist democracy with accompanying state education systen (which, incidentally, is an exceptionally bad way of enabling people to "learn any better and judge for themselves"), then please look closely at western culture, with its overwhelming tendency towards imperialism, and look at the chaos it has wrecked and continues to wreck across the world, and see how its greed and arrogance has destroyed the social, political, economic and cultural infrastructure of country after country. We in the countries which have enormously economically benefited from the desecration of others have more freedom than those in countries run by military juntas (which we in the west are likely to have installed, incidentally), but this can't be blamed on the anti-western propaganda of mugwumpish warlords, I'm afraid. The usual giggles at Mr. Pescado . Within capitalism, economics plays an important ideological role. Economics has been used to construct a theory from which exploitation and oppression are excluded, by definition. Capitalism , I would argue, is deeply exploitative. In many ways economics plays the role within that capitalism that religion played in the Middle Ages, namely to provide justification for the dominant social system and hierarchies. Like religion, its basis in science is usually lacking and its theories more based upon "leaps of faith" than empirical fact. Indeed, the weakness of economics is even acknowledged by a few within the profession itself. According to Paul Ormerod, "orthodox economics is in many ways an empty box. Its understanding of the world is similar to that of the physical sciences in the Middle Ages. A few insights have been obtained which stand the test of time, but they are very few indeed, and the whole basis of conventional economics is deeply flawed." Moreover, he notes the "overwhelming empirical evidence against the validity of its theories." [The Death of Economics, p. ix, p. 67] It is rare to see an economist be so honest. The majority of economists seem happy to go on with their theories, trying to squeeze life into the Procrustean bed of their models. And, like the priests of old, make it hard for non-academics to question their dogmas. As Ormerod notes, "economics is often intimidating. Its practitioners. . . have erected around the discipline a barrier of jargon and mathematics which makes the subject difficult to penetrate for the non-initiated." As an example of the expolitation an oppression entailed by capitalism, let us take a workers wage. For most capitalist economics, a given wage is supposed to be equal to the "marginal contribution" that an individual makes to a given company. Are we really expected to believe this? Common sense (and empirical evidence) suggests otherwise. Consider Mr. Rand Araskog, the CEO of ITT, who in 1990 was paid a salary of $7 million. Is it conceivable that an ITT accountant calculated that, all else being the same, ITT's $20.4 billion in revenues that year would have been $7 million less without Mr. Araskog -- hence determining his marginal contribution to be $7 million? In 1979 the average CEO in the US received 29 times more income than the average manufacturing worker; by 1985 the ratio had risen to 40 times more, and by 1988 it had risen to 93 times more. By 1990 the average American CEO was earning about 100 times more than the average factory worker. Yet during the same period, workers' real wages remained flat. Are we to believe that during the 1980s, the marginal contribution of CEOs more than tripled whereas workers' marginal contributions remained stagnant? Taking another example, if workers create only the equivalent of what they are paid, how can that explain why, in a recent ACM study of wages in the computer fields, it was found that black workers get paid less (on average) than white ones doing the same job (even in the same workplace)? Does having white skin increase a worker's creative ability when producing the same goods? And it seems a strange coincidence that the people with power in a company, when working out who contributes most to a product, decide it's themselves! So what is the reason for this extreme wage difference? Simply put, it's due to the totalitarian nature of capitalist firms. Those at the bottom of the company have no say in what happens within it; so as long as the share-owners are happy, wage differentials will rise and rise (particularly when top management own large amounts of shares!). A good manager is one who reduces the power of the company's employees, allowing an increased share of the wealth produced by those employees to go to those on top. Yet without the creativity and energy of the engineers, the shop floor workers, the administrative staff, etc., the company would have literally nothing to sell. It is capitalist property relations that allow this monopolisation of wealth by those who own (or boss) but do not produce. The workers do not get the full value of what they produce, nor do they have a say in how the surplus value produced by their labour gets used (e.g. investment decisions). Others have monopolised both the wealth produced by workers and the decision-making power within the company. This is a private form of taxation without representation, just as the company is a private form of statism. Of course, it could be argued that the owning class provide the capital without which the worker could not produce. But where does capital come from? From profits, which represent the unpaid labour of past generations. And before that? From the tribute of serfs to their feudal masters. And before that? The right of conquest which imposed feudalism on the peasants. And before that? Well, the point is made. Every generation of property owners gets a "free lunch" due to the obvious fact that we inherit the ideas and constructions of past generations, such as our current notion of property rights. Capitalism places the dead hand of the past on living generations, strangling the individuality of the many for the privilege of the few. Whether we break free of this burden and take a new direction depends on the individuals who are alive now. Do you think it's a coincidence that the people who meet the criteria you outline are overwhelmingly from one specific socio-economic background? I think I agree with the spirit of what you say. But I would disagree that "blood and bullets" are necessary tools of freedom; on the contrary, blood and bullets I have found to overwhelmingly be used by people who curtail freedom. Words, arguments, tears, speeches, thought, books, discussion and emotion are far more effective revolutionary tools than blood and bullets, and tend to establish far more habitable societies. Also, I'd argue that anarchy would be the goal, rather than a tool of transition, though it would obviously be that too. From the context in which you use it, though, I think we may have different definitions of anarchy. Anarchism, for me, is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign" (Proudhon). In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a ccapitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary. In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown: "While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 106] However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or "without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos and a return to the "laws of the jungle." This, I suspect, may be the definition you are using. Well bully of the west, the inhabitants of which are privilaged enough to be able to choose their economic situation. Yet bear in mind this is at the expense of the rest of the world, which must necessarily live in abject poverty, without the choice of wealth, in order for us to live our opulent lives. But if this choice exists for the west's poor, how do you explain the phenomenon of the working poor - individuals who maintain full-time jobs but remain in poverty? The undeniable existence of this sizable proportion of wealthy western liberal capitalist democracies surely belies the claim that a strong work ethic can rescue people from poverty into middle class comfort. The working poor rarely have adequate health coverage, and are frequently poorly educated. Many of them dropped out of secondary education, and though this in some occasions is due to individual choice, at 16, in many poor western families, the child is expected to work full-time in order to support the family, and this makes it difficult, if not impossible, to complete high school. It cannot be denied that some proportion of the working poor are in their given situations as a result of poor decisions, but once an individual falls into this class, it is difficult to escape. Even with a strong work ethic and fiscal prudence, many people in this class are not just unable to improve their economic situation, they cannot maintain it. Which free western style democracies are you talking about? America? Their 'revolution' was no more than a transfer of sovereignty from one government to another, with the only difference between them being the nationalities of the politicians. The high democratic principles of the constitution were quickly betrayed, and continue to be to this day. America is not a democracy. The circus every few years to choose between two upper-class millionaires with political beliefs which are indistinguishable from one another's does not mean the government is controlled by the people. Britian? There was no tumultuous social upheval here, and we're as democratic as America. France? Their 'revolution' was a bloody bourgeois coup which concluded perfectly with the autocratic warmongering imperialism of Napoleon. Slightly more democratic than the US and UK because of the more representitive voting system, but the 'will of the people' doesn't control the government. This may well be because 'the people' doesn't exist - there are people, individuals, but they don't clump together in one lump of political consciousness to develop a 'will' according to which 'the people''s individual constituents (people) can be ruled.
Here, here, Zooty. Spoken like a good little angry socialist. I will not claim that capitalism is perfect. No system is perfect, but I do think that capitalism more than any other system allows individuals the opportunities to reach their full potential given one simple fact: that they are willing to work hard and sacrifice to do so. I do not want to live in a society where my government provides everything to everyone. Somehow, I think you'll find that there's problem with a system like that. In socialist systems, there is no way to differentiate between those that are genuinely working to improve their lot and will put the help to good use eventually improving their status to where it would not be needed and those who are simply sitting back and waiting for their monthly dole of free goods and services. When, for example, the Democrats tell you that they will ensure health care for all, they neglect to point out that the state of Tennessee implemented Hillary Clinton's health care plan on a statewide basis after it was rejected at the national level. Today, the health care system of Tennessee eats up one third of the states total yearly budget by itself. There is no realistic way we could expect such programs to be implemented at a national level without increases in our tax rates. Look at Canada. Everyone talks about how great their cheap drugs are. What no one realizes is that rich Canadians frequently fly to the US for treatment because the wait to see specialists and have surguries done in Canada is often as long as six months. If you've ever had a problem requiring surgery, you know you didn't want to wait that long to have it done. No wonder Canada has a lower mortality rate in surgery. High risk patients likely die while waiting to get a spot. Or look at Germany. My husband's company is based in Germany and several German nationals rotate through his plant. The tax rate in Germany is roughly 40-50% of what you make. Germans may receive free higher education, but the quality of that education is questionable according to things he has heard directly from the Germans themselves. In addition, he has gone to conferences in which European companies participating demonstrated a definite lack in competitive spirit. You see the human animal is a competitive creature by nature. All of nature is competitive really. If you take away the drive to earn and compete, you see whole countries, economies, and people get stagnant and complacent. Now, my mother taught me one simple thing growing up that is very true, you appreciate more the things you truly earn in life.
What? I'm having fun I find this offensive: 1) You are infantalising me because I am a woman and I disagree with you, you MCP. 2) I am not a socialist - if you'd taken the time to read what you are responding to, you'd find that I'm an anarchist. It'd really help you to understand my reply to your reply if you read what your reply was to. Good, I agree. I'd argue the same way for anarchism, given one simple fact:, instead of having to be , in an anarchist society, people would be able to reach their potentials because it's simply the most enjoyable thing to do with your time - do the things you're good at, which will be the things you enjoy doing. In a capitalist society, I'd argue, people aren't able to do this, because they are too busy prostituting themselves in order to have money to eat (if they're poor) or buy useless commodities (if they're rich). Even if you're lucky enough to be doing a job which truly plays you your abilities, and very very few people are, you are still using them as a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves. What you're saying only makes sense if by 'reach their full potential' you mean 'get rich', which, as I think we have sufficinetly covered already, is a flawed argument. Oh God, me neither. It'd be impossible for a start, and deeply oppressive and unpleasant. Hence anarchist, the definition of which I have given you, if you'd deign to read my post. You can say the same about capitalist systems, and I have. Please read my post. I'm not interested in the Democrats - they are right-wing quasi-fascist greedy lying warmongers, just like the Republicans. Though the Democrats, interestingly, have actually managed to kill more people over the years. So you're right not to like them. But I don't think you can be angry with them for being socialists, because they're not. Clinton, for exmaple, was more rightwing than many Republican presidents have been. Look at what he did in Indonesia, Kosovo, Iraq and East Timor. He also managed to brutally slash the benefits being given to poor black single mothers. Yeah, it's the same in England. The NHS is horribly underfunded. It's a horrbily inefficiant, stupid system, and would be far better done if we didn't bother with a state or money. But given the choice between the NHS and a privitized heath system, I'd pick the NHS any day. Ugh, imagine lying there with a broken leg and an ambulance driving past you because you're with a different company. Or having to make your entire family work incredibly hard to keep you alive through your chronic illness, like the mother of my American exchange partner's boyfriend did. For high earners, yes. It's the same in England. It should be higher, that way the NHS'd be better, and the school system would too. Either that or not bother with government and money at all, like I said. Compared to the US quasi-Third World education system? Are you joking? Okay. You cannot attribute behaviour of this kind to human nature. The way people smile, or walk, or even learn language, can be ascribed to it. But it is impossible to argue that competitivenss is inherant in human nature. You said it yourself: it's a purely cultural thing - "European companies participating demonstrated a definite lack in competitive spirit" compared to US ones. There are numerous cultures in the world where competition doesn't exist. How can you say the way the humans in your society behave is the way all humans should, and do 'by nature', behave? Really? I'd love to see your evidence for this, because I have never come across this phenomenon before. I'm sure your mother's right, but that doesn't mean it's necessary to base and entire global system on greed, IMHO .
I've never understood what it is about anarchy that so-called anarchists feel positive about. Most--if not all--anarchistic rhetoric implies some degree of direction or guidance, some kind of structure, some sort of goal, and (most oxymoronically) some type of "rule book". Under any sort of anarchy the strongest and loudest will always rise to the top of the pot and thereby enslave the meek. This, of course, happens under any system; the benefit of free democratic capitalism is that there is always an escape from exploitation ... even if it is only a lottery ticket.
How is direction, structure and goals inconsistent with anarchism? Anarchists aim to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies - 'an-archy' simply means 'no rulers'. Anarchism is simply the theoretical expression of our capacity to organise ourselves and run society without bosses or politicians. Anarchists think that far from creating authority, organisation is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of us will take an active and conscious part in collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders. Anarchists aren't opposed to structure; we simply want to abolish hierarchical structure. Organisations that would build in accountability, diffusion of power among the maximum number of persons, task rotation, skill-sharing, and the spread of information and resources are based on good social anarchist principles of organisation! Furthermore, there is no doubt that society needs to be better organised, because presently most of its wealth and power gets distributed to a small, elite handful at the top of the social pyramid, causing deprivation and suffering for the rest, particularly for those at the bottom. Yet because this elite controls the means of coercion through its control of the state, it is able to suppress the majority and ignore its suffering - a phenomenon that occurs on a smaller scale within all hierarchies. Anarchist organisation is based on direct democracy (or self-management) and federalism (or confederation). Direct (or participatory) democracy is essential because liberty and equality imply the need for forums within which people can discuss and debate as equals and which allow for the free exercise of the creative role of dissent. Federalism is necessary to ensure that common interests are discussed and joint activity organised in a way which reflects the wishes of all those affected by them. Decisions flow from the bottom up rather than being imposed from the top down by a few rulers. What causes you to believe that ? Are you speaking about 'human nature'? Individuals are certainly capable of enslavement, violence, even genocide. But individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has myriads of ways of realising itself. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and commitments, we're going to have a society based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that, say, solidarity, support, and empathy become dominant. Then different aspects of human nature and personality will reveal themselves. This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each individual born a tabula rasa (blank slate) waiting to be formed by "society" (which in practice means those who run it). I don't want to enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not "innate." All I will say is that human beings have an innate ability to think and learn - that much is obvious - and that humans are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to prosper. These features, I think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state is denying some innate needs within us. So who can tell whether anarchism is against "human nature"? Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations bring out the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the oppressed are negatively affected by the authoritarian relationships so produced. And while the privileged become corrupted by power, the powerless (in general) become servile in heart and mind. As such, it seems strange for anarchists to hear non-anarchists justify hierarchy in terms of the (distorted) "human nature" it produces.
Oh, and here are some factoids which go a way to dispersing the myth that in our society, all one needs to do to get rich is to work: The number of people in work is at "record levels" according to the UK government. Meanwhile, official UK figures show 22% of people living in poverty, compared to 13% in 1979. 47% of employees have wages that, on their own, are insufficient to avoid poverty. 42% of employees rely on means other than their own wages to avoid poverty. In the 1970s and 1980s, around 4% of low-paid employees lived in poverty. Currently, 14% of low-paid employees live in poverty. 5% of all employees now live in poverty. Since the early 1970s GDP has doubled, but in real terms (i.e. allowing for inflation) the bottom 10% of jobs pay less now than in 1970. The minimum wage would have to be around 6.50 per hour to bring low-pay up to the 1970 level. :(
This facile statement only establishes that you do not yet accept the point. The point being an anarchy has to have at least one 'rule': cue the Monty Python philosophers Rule #1. There are no rules!. By this means all anarchies are automatically doomed to fail from the outset. The pity is that each generation throws up a new crop of would-be anarchists who all trip over the same risible trap.
