by Anthony » Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:25 pm
It is difficult to define exactly what "human nature" is. Human nature could be as general as saying that it encompasses everything that humans do. It can also be as complex as trying to define the natural tendencies of humans. In either case, humans are capable of very evil things, but also the exact opposite.
"When we hear men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and women] much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?" [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83]
I would assume that if EVERYTHING fell apart in an instant, there would be a huge struggle for resources. People would (initially) think for themselves and their families because that is what our friend Capitalism has lead us to believe is the key to survival. People staying in the capitalism mindset would continue on this same road of self-preservation while those who have embraced the anarchist idea that people are social will freely group together to survive. That is why, as Vaguelyhumanoid mentioned, society must be built in the shell of the old one. A sudden change would lead to widespread chaos and a rebirth of capitalism and oppression within many societies.
As for the pillagers being more powerful than anarchist societies, this is difficult to say. In my opinion, a society that helps each other produce and share is much stronger than a nomadic society that feeds on weaker ones.
It is difficult to define exactly what "human nature" is. Human nature could be as general as saying that it encompasses everything that humans do. It can also be as complex as trying to define the natural tendencies of humans. In either case, humans are capable of very evil things, but also the exact opposite.
"When we hear men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and women] much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?" [Peter Kropotkin, [i]Act for Yourselves[/i], p. 83]
I would assume that if EVERYTHING fell apart in an instant, there would be a huge struggle for resources. People would (initially) think for themselves and their families because that is what our friend Capitalism has lead us to believe is the key to survival. People staying in the capitalism mindset would continue on this same road of self-preservation while those who have embraced the anarchist idea that people are social will freely group together to survive. That is why, as Vaguelyhumanoid mentioned, society must be built in the shell of the old one. A sudden change would lead to widespread chaos and a rebirth of capitalism and oppression within many societies.
As for the pillagers being more powerful than anarchist societies, this is difficult to say. In my opinion, a society that helps each other produce and share is much stronger than a nomadic society that feeds on weaker ones.