nice thoughts. I want most of those things too. I am just curious I got a question, who's responsibility will it be to keep the roads safe to travel on during winter or take care of old bridges? just curious.
 

There are several answers Jenny,

The anarcho-syndicalist/libertarian-communist ideal you're going to find labor divided among syndicates or workers councils. These communes would be federated among one another, within and beyond the immediate community.
I think we would likely find that those with an interest and talent in construction, architecture, and so on would create their own syndicates, federate with the various other councils within their community, and preform up-keep such as the type you mentioned.

This is a question all societies face regardless of their socio-economic systems, or method of organization. The answer in past societies has often been slavery, in others (such as our own) it has been exploitation of the working class and disenfranchised - who have less social manueverability and are thus forced into dangerous, dirty, or "un-exciting" jobs such as construction, garbage retrieval etc.

The Anarchist solution to the question of how the neccessary, yet dangerous/non-exciting work would get done rejects either slavery, or exploitation. And accepts only mutualism and free-associations. Within this paradigm there are options with how a syndicate or community would seek to handle these types of jobs if no labor syndicate is willing or capable to devote themselves to it. (although I think that construction, architecture etc are fields people have an inate interest in...)
Ideally there would be a syndicate who's function would be to tally and then disseminate information about which "dirty jobs" had to be done, and what they entailed. One idea about community response is that on a pre-scheduled day(s) people would be asked to stop their non-essential tasks and work together to complete the 'non-exciting' work which had to be done. In this way the burden would fall to the whole of society equally - mutually...and take the stresses of the task off of the shoulders of just one segment of society ipso facto making the burden per-capita very small.

Another idea would be to entice people to take time off an volunteer for these jobs, by an unspecified reward system which could be developed at a syndicate or communities discretion.

Others would simply ask that as members of a collective, one has to agree to partake in these dirty tasks regularaly or else their membership within a syndicate is threatened.

Anarchism is often intentionally non-doctrinal with regards to specifics such as these, as a primary motive behind anarchism is the idea that social experimentation should be attempted. There is a diligent recognition of the individual characteristics and wants which exist from one community to the next...and as such anarchism rejects a rigidly specific "one-size-fits-all" program. The religious adherence to socio-political ideology is percieved as being equally threatening and corrosive as fanatical adherence to religion.

Any of the ideas I posted above could be tried on their own - or complied and mix-matched -- more still could be invented by communities fit to taylor their particular wants and needs ---> so long as they arrived at that arrangmenet through free-associations, and without authoritarian-heirarchy..they will have experimented within the parameters of anarchism.

Does that answer your question?
 

We would have to form together collectively and those willing and able would be responsible. An individual alone cannot obtain anything without the help of someone else. A writer for example, would not be able to write if not for the worker who cuts down trees and makes the paper.

Everything in an anarchist society is done based upon a collective responsibility.
 

Anarchism is interesting. It is often described as a system of government and yet it is probably more appropriately described as hypothetical ideology.
Fundamentally, Anarchism seems to be based on a desire to create the most freedom possible by eliminating the possibility of being a victim. So if Anarchists believe in the elimination of oppression, they first need to find ways they are being oppressed. Unfortunately this gets us into a trap. We will continue to seek out oppression to infinity, never being able to fully appreciate or experience "freedom" because our focus (at least behind the scenes) will always be on finding another oppressor.
 

Anarchism is a system of co-habiation, which rejects the idea of government entirely - along with all other forms of authoritarian-heirarchy. Anarchism advocates organization along the lines of free-associations, democracy, mutualism, and fraternity. Authoritarian constructs are percieved by anarchists to be solely the product of violence...as institutions which retain no higher a moral standard than 'might makes right' - which is the underlying conceptual base behind any authoritarian philosophy or institution.

The anarchist ideal of "freedom" is a particular one, which is that individuals have the human right to pursue their destiny and exercise their free will so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. Anarchists promote the right to food, clothing, shelter, education, medicine, and work - which are percieved more-or-less uniformly as inate human rights, and the responsibility of the community at large to provide these to each member of society regardless of their attitudes, work-ethic, and so on.

The anarchist ideal of freedom often revolves around the idea that human beings are inately creative beings...and that our talents and creativity cannot fully be expressed until our human rights and survival needs are met. Once met, we are able to contribute to society to a greater degree...and it is this freedom and the inevetable cooperation it would yeild will be the driving forces behind human advancement..as opposed to greed, and exploitation of labor vis a vis taking advantage of the working-classes survival needs.

So rather than built upon an abstract notion of freedom..and it's perpetual pursuit. The anarchist ideals of freedom are all but cut-and-dry. Freedom is the absence of coercion, freedom is the ability to create and control ones own destiny without the threat of life diminishing or life-threatening consequences.
 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I have a hard time seeing food, shelter, medicine, and clothing as innate human rights. I agree they are essential to survival, and people are definitely more productive members of society when they have them or are motivated to work to get them. But I see human rights as things that are allowed, not things that are provided.
For example, I think humans have an innate right to self-expression. That means if someone beats me because I dance and sing (which amazingly hasn't happened yet), my rights have been infringed upon. It doesn't mean someone is required to teach me to dance or sing well.
I don't think you can say someone has a 'right to food' and that means someone else is required to give them food.

And saying the anarchist ideal of 'freedom' is a particular one, then using words like 'destiny' and 'free will' to define it is ambiguous.

/ my 2¢.
 

Rights are inherently metaphysical - they're subjective and philosophical - intangible ideas related to personal value judgements about inter-personal conduct. Even if people disagree about what "human rights" ought to entail, those with like-minds within anarchism will act accordingly..and provide what they feel are survival neccessities. Those who disagree have the ability to abstain from particpation without violent confrontation or moving physically - an attribute unique to anarchism is that it doesn't demand that you participating - you voluntarally participate.

A principle central to all schools of socialism, not just anarchism (libertarian-socialism/stateless-socialism) is that the resources of the community - and to a larger respect the world - are collectivley owned by the community/humanity. They operate by that ethic, and see not just communal ownership of labor/resources - but also recognize the neccessity of cooperation towards production endeavors.
That is to say, a baker recognizes the contribution of the mill worker who produced the flour used in the baker...and also the farmer who supplied the grain...the mason who built the mill...the tractor mechanic who built the farmers tractor...the metal-smith who made the mill builders tools and supplied the parts to the tractor manufacturer...each of whom used the bakers bread for sustainence...and so on...and so on.

Anarchists don't believe that there is any rational method of quantifying the value of labor, because in order to do that one would have to attempt to put finite ratios on human physical and psychological effort...on the quality of time...on the very essence of human life itself. To say that one job is more important than the next...more difficult...less worthy...is to attempt the impossible task of objectivley measuring the subjective.

Additionally, we have coupled with this philophy of communal ownership of resources and labor...the application of the priniciples of mutualism and universality. Which advocate the recognition of equality on the basis of existence...rather than skill, talents, appearances etc. - which demand that what I demand for myself, I must also demand for others. So that if I view food and education, shelter, access to health care etc as things which are neccessary for my survival and things which I am entitled to when in need of them...so to, I will recognize that others who need these things should have them.

So, anarchist views on human rights are fortified by two non-conflicting philosophies. Communalism, and Universalism. The crux of the idea being I would neither like to starve...nor do I have the right to withold bread from someone. In that way - what becomes neccessary for survival is granted - thereby freeing individuals from the burdens of labor for survival..and granted them more time for labor towards creativity - and the application of their unimpeded free will (i.e. "control of destiny")
 

This is much easier when I'm not drunk :)
 

oh snap!