reply to post by TheJourney
What am I projecting?
My anarcho-communist vision would be totally voluntary.
Like the Kibbutzim? Its funny. Two epidemiologists who've studied the Kibbutz over 20 years discovered some pretty startling things about it.
First, the Kibbutz worked from the premise of forming a non-hierachal society. So, no families, no gender distinct, equal distribution of the work and
profits. What they discovered was that women didn't want to do the jobs usually associated with men, choosing instead to work with children, as
teachers, educators, whereas the men stuck to the factory and farm work. Despite the Kibbutzniks efforts to forcibly change women to make them like
their vanilla male standard, women rebelled, or rather, unconsciously inclined towards those areas they have a natural, biologically evolved
connection with i.e. parenting, nurturing. This is the beauty of women, something feminism has insidiously derided.
Thank God though. It was important for women to liberate themselves from the shackles of religious bigotry. But today, it's even more important that
they liberate themselves from the radical feminism that tries to make women more like men.
My point? Communism, and leftists in general, are absolutely wrong about the interchangeability of the sexes.. We are different. I know it dampers
their theory of people being identical in structure, the external or internal being of little practical importance. Jung somewhat inspired this new
age proclivity of seeing people as externally one sex and habit, but the process of if individuation requires the conscious integration of the shadow
side, the anima for man and the animus for women. When that happens, all people become androgynous. This is all pseudo-psychology, to put it bluntly.
Even if men have a typically female aspect and women a typically men aspect, these are SMALLER than the predominant trait embedded in the genes of
their physical organism. To imagine otherwise is to dabble in mythology.
Hierarchy, difference, is as much a part of the fabric of existence as biology is integral in forming our likes and dislikes. Of course, it's only
partial, since free will and the person make up another half. Hardcore rationalists and radical leftists both go too far in their assumptions of human
nature and existence; the former looks only at the biological, and forgets the person, while the latter looks only at the metaphysical, and forgets
It would arise out of anarcho-capitalism. I have no idea where you're getting the idea of violence. With no state, people could voluntarily group
together to form such a society, and anyone who didn't want to participate would not be forced to. They could simply go somewhere else.
You've been sorta sparse on the details. In any case, this idea was thought up long ago. Such a system fails in attracting people, unfortunately.
edit on 3-1-2013 by dontreally because: (no reason given)