Savings and retirement

[Francois Tremblay]

The ideas of communists trouble me as regards to retirement. More specifically, the claim that saving up resources is immoral (hoarding). If saving money is immoral, then this necessarily implies that saving for one's retirement is also immoral. This seems like a rather bizarre conclusion. Do you want people to keep working until they die, or do you propose a different solution?

[Anarchia]

An anarchist-communist society is a moneyless economy. A gift economy. Hence, no need to save for retirement.

[Francois Tremblay]

Your answer is very glib, but answers nothing. I am also very suspicious of systems which don't seem to take into account the free rider problem.

[Anarchia]

It answered your question - in a gift economy, there would be no need to hoard items for retirement, as once you had reached an age where you were no longer able to actively contribute, you would be taken care of by the very same community you were involved in while you were still contributing.

And there is a more-than-reasonable amount of writing on "free loaders" around if you have a look - don't forget that free association (a core tenet of anarchism) also encompasses free disassociation. I, for one, would have no problem excluding someone who was able to contribute but consistantly refused from any community I was a part of.

[ambi]

i can see why it might be hard to understand if one is steeped in the status quo. in 'western culture' there is an individualist tenet that basically says "you're on your own!" there is also a declining economy in which current generations have less buying-power-producing ability than previous ones.

thus, parents don't usually expect their children to take care of them in old age. they are often put into "homes" where strangers are paid to care for them. the nuclear family is another example - parents are "on their own" without the guidance from previous generations - leading to increased reliance on the state and other institutions. (The new yuppie mother who gets upset when her mother tells her that eating black beans will make your baby irritable when he/she breastfeeds, but has two shelves of baby-raising books, none of which mention black beans...)

there are still cultures on this planet in which elders are given respect for having gone through this thing called life and making it as far as they have. it's recognized that they bring value in terms of experience and knowledge, and they aren't simply tossed aside like used toilet paper.

and if that exists in some places already, it is not unreasonable to think it could exist in an anarchist world as well.

[Francois Tremblay]

Actually, for all the berating you guys do against individualism all the time, the "you're on your own!" attitude seems to be on the communist side, not the individualist side. If you take away someone's planning abilities and force him to rely on others, you are leaving them basically powerless. If people decide not to help a certain old person because they are not "pulling their weight" any more, then they certainly would be "on their own," now wouldn't they? Certainly people in general do not want to hurt the elderly, but I can see people making the pragmatic decision of cutting off troublemakers who refuse to go along with the program, whatever their age.

I agree with the general idea of ostracism and disassociation, but not when someone's complete livelihood is concerned. That's not any kind of system I'd want to live in, and if you were unable or too old to work, I'm sure you'd feel the same way.

[ambi]

i would totally agree with you if we were talking about state communism. but, as we've discussed before, state-anything-ism is just statism, which is of course what we all oppose.

If you take away someone's planning abilities and force him to rely on others,

take away? force? doesn't sound like anarchism to me.

If people decide not to help a certain old person because they are not "pulling their weight"

that's not what Anarchia said, which was:

once you had reached an age where you were no longer able to actively contribute, you would be taken care of by the very same community you were involved in while you were still contributing.

I agree with the general idea of ostracism and disassociation, but not when someone's complete livelihood is concerned.

it's an issue, i agree. i wouldnt want to live in a society where i have to step over people in the street...like i do now...oh, wait...

[Marja]

Well, relying on the charity of the community limits one's freedom.

If someone is disabled, by age, disease, or accident, and cannot support themselves, either they can find another way to contribute, or they can rely on past savings or they must depend on the charity of the community.

In the first two cases, they may be able to opt out and trade as a non-member. In the third case, they will have trouble opting out, and will have to deal with whatever the rest of the community expects of its members.

She might be able to create enough crap for herself, without taking crap from the rest of the collective.

[Francois Tremblay]

If you take away someone's planning abilities and force him to rely on others,

take away? force? doesn't sound like anarchism to me.

Well, isn't that what the communists want? To take away one's planning abilities as regards to resources, and to force him to rely on pooling systems of some kind?

once you had reached an age where you were no longer able to actively contribute, you would be taken care of by the very same community you were involved in while you were still contributing.

So? Because of the free rider problem, a pooling system must have some means by which people can be kicked out of the pool if they fail to contribute or toe the "party line." Is it not so inconceivable that such a community will desire, in times of economic trouble, to cut off some "parasitic" people who cannot or will not work, including old people? If not, why do you think people would not do this?

it's an issue, i agree. i wouldnt want to live in a society where i have to step over people in the street...like i do now...oh, wait...

[/quote]

All systems will have people left out, I think we all agree on that point. The issue is, which system is based on the most sound principles. And mutualism to me seems more sound in regards to the retirement problem than communism.

[birthday pony]

I feel like Anarchists spend WAAAAY too much time discussing specifics like this instead of organizing and whatnot. Freeloading is a problem in all societies, not just anarchist societies. Mentally or physically disabled people have trouble getting by in all communities, not just Anarchist communities. If we talk about problems, we should be talking about things specific to capitalism that we can fix and then start fixing them, not creating hypothetical worlds and try fixing hypothetical problems.

But that just might be me.

[ambi]

see anarquismo sin adjetivos...

[Francois Tremblay]

Yes, I agree, that's a fair statement: but when someone proposes a system which specifically discriminates AGAINST old people (such as any system where you can't save resources), I find that to be a problem.

[birthday pony]

Yes, I agree, that's a fair statement: but when someone proposes a system which specifically discriminates AGAINST old people (such as any system where you can't save resources), I find that to be a problem.

Like others on here, I'd say you've misunderstood communist anarchism as it relates to the elderly. I missed the part about screwing old people over.

[Francois Tremblay]

By not allowing them to save for their retirement, leaving them at the mercy of public opinion.

[birthday pony]

By not allowing them to save for their retirement, leaving them at the mercy of public opinion.

No one is not allowing anything. If you have a house with a bunch of shit in it and you're living there no one is going to come and snatch it from you.