NationStates Jolt Archive

1. Anti-Authoritarianism - Anarchists are extremely skeptical about the need for any kind of authority. At minimum all anarchists believe that hierarchy should be abolished and some take this further and oppose other forms of authority. Instead of hierarchy, everyone should have control over their own life and an equal say in group decisions.

2. Free Association - Everyone should be allowed to associate freely with those they choose and to disassociate themselves when they choose. Individuals should not be forced into social relations against their will. Society should be based upon free agreement, rather than coercion.

3. Mutual Aid - Instead of attempting to dominate each other social relations should be based on solidarity and voluntary cooperation. When individuals come together to help each other they can accomplish more than when they work against each other.

4. Freedom - Freedom means the ability to control one's own life instead of being controlled by others, as is the case with hierarchy. This is sometimes called liberty or autonomy. Controlling other people's lives is not freedom but a restriction of freedom.

5. Self-Management - In groups decisions should be made in a manner so that everyone has an equal say. People should govern themselves, rather than dividing people into some who give orders and some who obey as in hierarchical organizations.

6. Radical Egalitarianism - Anarchists believe in an egalitarian society. This does not mean some totalitarian society where everyone is identical or lives identical lives. It does not mean denying individual diversity or uniqueness. Rather anarchists believe in equality of both wealth and power - a natural consequence of the abolition of hierarchy.

7. Feminism - Anarchists favor social, economic and political equality for men and women. The domination of men over women should be abolished and all people given control of their own lives.

Down with the nation state!

Edited blank

Two, three, four, five and six contradict each other.

Hi, I'm Roania. I'm the local anti-anarchist. I'm running a special today.

1. Anti-Authoritarianism - Anarchists are extremely skeptical about the need for any kind of authority. At minimum all anarchists believe that hierarchy should be abolished and some take this further and oppose other forms of authority. Instead of hierarchy, everyone should have control over their own life and an equal say in group decisions.

I see. And... without external authority, people would keep from killing eachother...how?

See, that's one of the major problems with anarchism. You think people are inherently good. Well, I have 4000 years of history which say otherwise.

2. Free Association - Everyone should be allowed to associate freely with those they choose and to disassociate themselves when they choose. Individuals should not be forced into social relations against their will. Society should be based upon free agreement, rather than coercion.

You mean like...what there is everywhere in Western Civilisation? Or is this the free love type of free association, which leads to a breakdown of society and disease?

3. Mutual Aid - Instead of attempting to dominate each other social relations should be based on solidarity and voluntary cooperation. When individuals come together to help each other they can accomplish more than when they work against each other.

Again, they can do this within the bounds of the nation...indeed, a nation is the best way to provide people with motivation to do so.

4. Freedom - Freedom means the ability to control one's own life instead of being controlled by others, as is the case with hierarchy. This is sometimes called liberty or autonomy. Controlling other people's lives is not freedom but a restriction of freedom.

...mob rule? Sorry, rule by sociopath.

5. Self-Management - In groups decisions should be made in a manner so that everyone has an equal say. People should govern themselves, rather than dividing people into some who give orders and some who obey as in hierarchical organizations.

But the people who give orders are in such a position because they are skilled at what they do. Thus, they should be over those who aren't as skilled.

6. Radical Egalitarianism - Anarchists believe in an egalitarian society. This does not mean some totalitarian society where everyone is identical or lives identical lives. It does not mean denying individual diversity or uniqueness. Rather anarchists believe in equality of both wealth and power - a natural consequence of the abolition of hierarchy.

And thus, you abolish incentive to do well. Nice.

7. Feminism - Anarchists favor social, economic and political equality for men and women. The domination of men over women should be abolished and all people given control of their own lives.

...Oh, dear god...I agree. I must be ill.

Wouldn't anarchy be without principles?

Definition of Anarchy:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or
purpose.

(Source: http://www.dictionary.com)

Exactly how does mutual aid fit with the rest of those?

Anarchism would never work for three reasons:

- Most people's nature are to follow a strong leader. A leader figure will always crystallize from a society without authority, ultimately leading to dictatorship.

- Most people are lazy. They won't work if they don't have to. Everything would fall into disrepair.

- Most people are bastards, who would take the opportunity to kill, rape, and pillage if there were no authorities to stop them. It would turn out to be an heirarchy with survival of the strongest. See first point above.

Anarchism would never work for three reasons:

- Most people's nature are to follow a strong leader. A leader figure will always crystallize from a society without authority, ultimately leading to dictatorship.

- Most people are lazy. They won't work if they don't have to. Everything would fall into disrepair.

- Most people are bastards, who would take the opportunity to kill, rape, and pillage if there were no authorities to stop them. It would turn out to be an heirarchy with survival of the strongest. See first point above.

but then it would be like mad max!

Anarchism would never work for three reasons:

- Most people's nature are to follow a strong leader. A leader figure will always crystallize from a society without authority, ultimately leading to dictatorship.

- Most people are lazy. They won't work if they don't have to. Everything would fall into disrepair.

- Most people are bastards, who would take the opportunity to kill, rape, and pillage if there were no authorities to stop them. It would turn out to be an heirarchy with survival of the strongest. See first point above.

but then it would be like mad max!

Why didn't you say so?! To the Thunderdome!!! :D

Anarchism would never work for three reasons:

- Most people's nature are to follow a strong leader. A leader figure will always crystallize from a society without authority, ultimately leading to dictatorship.

- Most people are lazy. They won't work if they don't have to. Everything would fall into disrepair.

- Most people are bastards, who would take the opportunity to kill, rape, and pillage if there were no authorities to stop them. It would turn out to be an heirarchy with survival of the strongest. See first point above.

but then it would be like mad max!

Why didn't you say so?! To the Thunderdome!!! :D

*changes name to master blaster*

Wouldn't anarchy be without principles?

Definition of Anarchy:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or
purpose.

(Source: http://www.dictionary.com)

Try 'Anarchism.'

Or try an encyclopedia.

Oh where, oh where has little Letila gone? Oh where, oh where could he be?

Wouldn't anarchy be without principles?

Definition of Anarchy:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or
purpose.

(Source: http://www.dictionary.com)

Try 'Anarchism.'

Or try an encyclopedia.

Anarchism:

1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).

Anarchism would never work for three reasons:

- Most people's nature are to follow a strong leader. A leader figure will always crystallize from a society without authority, ultimately leading to dictatorship.

Read Malatesta. If people realise that they are capable of running their own lives properly, why would they need a leader.

- Most people are lazy. They won't work if they don't have to. Everything would fall into disrepair.

I haven't read anything by an Anarchist that says humans will not have to work in an Anarcic society

- Most people are bastards, who would take the opportunity to kill, rape, and pillage if there were no authorities to stop them. It would turn out to be an heirarchy with survival of the strongest. See first point above.

Just because there are no authorities doesn't mean that we will have rule by bastards. It isn't as if present systems stop this happening.

Wouldn't anarchy be without principles?

Definition of Anarchy:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or
purpose.

(Source: http://www.dictionary.com)

Try 'Anarchism.'

Or try an encyclopedia.

Anarchism:

1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).

Try here:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/idx?idxid=22753&alphakey=a&seq=15036
http://www.britannica.com/eb/idx?idxid=578407&alphakey=a&seq=15041
http://www.britannica.com/eb/idx?idxid=22768&alphakey=a&seq=15040
http://www.britannica.com/eb/idx?idxid=22766&alphakey=a&seq=15039 (this one is probably the best)
http://www.britannica.com/eb/idx?idxid=766042&alphakey=a&seq=15034

1. Anti-Authoritarianism - Anarchists are extremely skeptical about the need for any kind of authority. At minimum all anarchists believe that hierarchy should be abolished and some take this further and oppose other forms of authority. Instead of hierarchy, everyone should have control over their own life and an equal say in group decisions.

2. Free Association - Everyone should be allowed to associate freely with those they choose and to disassociate themselves when they choose. Individuals should not be forced into social relations against their will. Society should be based upon free agreement, rather than coercion.

3. Mutual Aid - Instead of attempting to dominate each other social relations should be based on solidarity and voluntary cooperation. When individuals come together to help each other they can accomplish more than when they work against each other.

4. Freedom - Freedom means the ability to control one's own life instead of being controlled by others, as is the case with hierarchy. This is sometimes called liberty or autonomy. Controlling other people's lives is not freedom but a restriction of freedom.

5. Self-Management - In groups decisions should be made in a manner so that everyone has an equal say. People should govern themselves, rather than dividing people into some who give orders and some who obey as in hierarchical organizations.

6. Radical Egalitarianism - Anarchists believe in an egalitarian society. This does not mean some totalitarian society where everyone is identical or lives identical lives. It does not mean denying individual diversity or uniqueness. Rather anarchists believe in equality of both wealth and power - a natural consequence of the abolition of hierarchy.

7. Feminism - Anarchists favor social, economic and political equality for men and women. The domination of men over women should be abolished and all people given control of their own lives.

Down with the nation state!
This is utterly untrue. Stop polluting Anarchism with your communist idiocy. The basis of Anarchism is human rights. The right to do with your body AND your property whatever you like so long as you don't violate the rights of others to do the same. The state is incompatible with human rights because it at the very least relies on agressively imposed taxation and in practice many other forms of agression too such as anti-drug laws and regulation of TV for example.

Edit: Double Post.

&$*^*&* server! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Try here:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/idx?idxid=22753&alphakey=a&seq=15036
http://www.britannica.com/eb/idx?idxid=578407&alphakey=a&seq=15041
http://www.britannica.com/eb/idx?idxid=22768&alphakey=a&seq=15040
http://www.britannica.com/eb/idx?idxid=22766&alphakey=a&seq=15039 (this one is probably the best)
http://www.britannica.com/eb/idx?idxid=766042&alphakey=a&seq=15034

Thank you for the information.

Anarchism would never work for three reasons:

- Most people's nature are to follow a strong leader. A leader figure will always crystallize from a society without authority, ultimately leading to dictatorship.

Read Malatesta. If people realise that they are capable of running their own lives properly, why would they need a leader.

Because many people are weak-willed and lost without an authorative figure to follow. Millions of years of evolutionary flock behaviour is difficult to erase with just an ideology.


- Most people are lazy. They won't work if they don't have to. Everything would fall into disrepair.

I haven't read anything by an Anarchist that says humans will not have to work in an Anarcic society

And since an anarchist hasn't written it, it isn't true? The principle of anarchy is no authority. So who's going to force people to work if they don't want to?


- Most people are bastards, who would take the opportunity to kill, rape, and pillage if there were no authorities to stop them. It would turn out to be an heirarchy with survival of the strongest. See first point above.

Just because there are no authorities doesn't mean that we will have rule by bastards. It isn't as if present systems stop this happening.

Yes, they do. At least to some extent. If all people could do what they wanted without fear of ramifications, all hell would break loose. Again, human nature, survival of the fittest, etc. Especially women would be in harm's way. Odd that you would call anarchy feministic.

1. If your getting your information from an acclaimed Anarchist, aren't you just following his leadership? If he tells you how to do something, when to do it, where to do it, how to achieve your goals, he is your leader. You pretty much are back to square 1.

2. How do you plan on living comfortably? I'm guessing you don't plan on ever driving a car, or in fact using anything, as most things in this world are made from Oil, and I'd love to see a bunch of jobless bums that have no money due to a collapses economy. Just because your nation decends into anarchy, doesn't mean everyone else will. You can use the current supplies that you have, but that will create violence, and murders and the such. Good luck with that. Plus, you could only live on what we have right now for a short period of time. You'd be effectively screwing yourselves over and without commiting to some form of governement you'll never get your act together to get some money, produce more items like food, and things to put the food in, and etc. You will effectivly become cave men. yay.

3. Anarchy is stupid. Simple as that, most of the kids that love it, don't seem to realize that they may be the first ones killed during the first monumental struggle for supplies.

1. Anti-Authoritarianism - Anarchists are extremely skeptical about the need for any kind of authority. At minimum all anarchists believe that hierarchy should be abolished and some take this further and oppose other forms of authority. Instead of hierarchy, everyone should have control over their own life and an equal say in group decisions.

2. Free Association - Everyone should be allowed to associate freely with those they choose and to disassociate themselves when they choose. Individuals should not be forced into social relations against their will. Society should be based upon free agreement, rather than coercion.

3. Mutual Aid - Instead of attempting to dominate each other social relations should be based on solidarity and voluntary cooperation. When individuals come together to help each other they can accomplish more than when they work against each other.

4. Freedom - Freedom means the ability to control one's own life instead of being controlled by others, as is the case with hierarchy. This is sometimes called liberty or autonomy. Controlling other people's lives is not freedom but a restriction of freedom.

5. Self-Management - In groups decisions should be made in a manner so that everyone has an equal say. People should govern themselves, rather than dividing people into some who give orders and some who obey as in hierarchical organizations.

6. Radical Egalitarianism - Anarchists believe in an egalitarian society. This does not mean some totalitarian society where everyone is identical or lives identical lives. It does not mean denying individual diversity or uniqueness. Rather anarchists believe in equality of both wealth and power - a natural consequence of the abolition of hierarchy.

7. Feminism - Anarchists favor social, economic and political equality for men and women. The domination of men over women should be abolished and all people given control of their own lives.

Down with the nation state!
This is utterly untrue. Stop polluting Anarchism with your communist idiocy. The basis of Anarchism is human rights. The right to do with your body AND your property whatever you like so long as you don't violate the rights of others to do the same. The state is incompatible with human rights because it at the very least relies on agressively imposed taxation and in practice many other forms of agression too such as anti-drug laws and regulation of TV for example.

But human rights cannot be protected unless you have a government to protect such rights.

I think an anarchy is probably the perfect form of society. I completely agree with all that you say in principle, but the problem is, that kind of perfect society is impossible in such an imperfect world. People would take advantage of the system, and instead of ending up with utopia I think you would end up with a dictatorship where the strongest and cruelest took control. Humans unfortunately aren't designed for this kind of society. Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

But human rights cannot be protected unless you have a government to protect such rights.

Excellent point! :D

The basis of Anarchism is human rights.

From whence come these 'human rights' and what is their ontological status?

But human rights cannot be protected unless you have a government to protect such rights.

Excellent point! :D

Or if you have individuals protecting what they believe to be their human rights themselves...

But human rights cannot be protected unless you have a government to protect such rights.

Excellent point! :D

Or if you have individuals protecting what they believe to be their human rights themselves...

hm... i'm already building my fortress city in the montana widerness to prepare for the rise of anarchy

But human rights cannot be protected unless you have a government to protect such rights.
What makes you say that? Do you have any evidence? I can give many examples of societies where rights have been protected without state enforcement. In fact they protected them better than the state did and without violating anyone's rights in the process (except purely by accident as any system will). You can't argue against historical fact. Your statement is a common but egregious error.

http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

From whence come these 'human rights' and what is their ontological status?

They are a tool for interpreting and refining moral feelings. They don't "exist" in any metaphysical sense. Most people behave in accordance with these rules 99.99% of the time but don't apply the same standards to bureaucrats with shiny badges.

Generally speaking one insists that each person owns themselves (who else could?) and thus may do anything he/she likes with their own body and thus by extension their labour and thus the product of their labour i.e. property. One may also trade one's labour or property for cash/bananas/sex/reputation etc as a corollary of being able to do whatever you like with it.

Edit: Corrected schoolboy grammatical error.
Edit again: Corrected quote and added last paragraph.

Most people are bastards, who would take the opportunity to kill, rape, and pillage if there were no authorities to stop them. It would turn out to be an heirarchy with survival of the strongest. See first point above.

Except for the people in government who happen to be incorruptable. :roll:

This is utterly untrue. Stop polluting Anarchism with your communist idiocy. The basis of Anarchism is human rights. The right to do with your body AND your property whatever you like so long as you don't violate the rights of others to do the same. The state is incompatible with human rights because it at the very least relies on agressively imposed taxation and in practice many other forms of agression too such as anti-drug laws and regulation of TV for example.

Communism is not idiocy. The basis of anarchism is freedom. Property is a tool for denying freedom and gaining wealth at the expense of others.

Yes, they do. At least to some extent. If all people could do what they wanted without fear of ramifications, all hell would break loose. Again, human nature, survival of the fittest, etc. Especially women would be in harm's way. Odd that you would call anarchy feministic.

Anarchism is organization without hierarchy. There's nothing in there about chaos.

If your getting your information from an acclaimed Anarchist, aren't you just following his leadership? If he tells you how to do something, when to do it, where to do it, how to achieve your goals, he is your leader. You pretty much are back to square 1.

Only if it's backed up by force. That's what anarchism opposes.

But human rights cannot be protected unless you have a government to protect such rights.

The government is the biggest breaker of human rights. How many genocides have occured without government?

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

*sigh* So your automatically assuming that everybody in the nation, once it desends into Anarchy, is magically going to follow these set down rules? Isn't the idea behind Anarchy not to follow rules, therefor if they want to, they can use force to achieve what they wish? Could they also not just rape and pillage to their hearts content, because there are no rules against it? Personally, I'd rob the lot of ya!

Just the problem with anarchy...

There's a key split in the ideology between social anarchists, who believe in social order through majority and mass expression (but crucially, right wingers, no police and no opression and no regulated attemps at doctrinating people) and individual anarchsists, who believe (as do social anarchists) that people are essentially good, just corrupted by our rotten societies and that people should be allowed free reign as this must be better than the states control.

Let me ask you this, anti-anarchists. DO the police make you feel safe? When you see a policeman, do you feel reassured? That chill feeling is the knowledge that these people are being payed to spy and opress you. Do they stop murders? burglaries? rapes? Usually not, in Britain at least all they do is stop speeding motorists doing 32 in a 30 mph zone and act like starsky and hutch. Do prisons reform and change? In a word, no.

The biggest single killer in the world is not harold shipman or jeffrey dahmer, its a body of people we've selected to push us around, doctrinate us, order us, control us, the state. Vietnam anyone? Korea anyone? Iraq anyone? Remember those wars?

DO the police make you feel safe? When you see a policeman, do you feel reassured?

No. They worry me.

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Noone can garantee to provide a perfect world; Those rediculing anarchism seem to forget, that there is not one single government in the real world (or here) that has been able to create a perfect world. No government can garantee your safety, your rights. All they do is give you the illussion that they better the world, but they really can't.

All the reasons said about why anarchism would not work (people are bad, you must have a government to guide them) are exactly the reason why governments (anti-anarchism) aren't working either; There is not one government, in which the poison of more power and influence has NOT influenced the behaviour of those in that government.

Ronald Reagan was not the best of politicians, but he made one very true remark:

The government doesn't solve the problem, the government is the problem.

I believe that anarchy works; It doesn't create a perfect world, but no government has done better than that.
It's not only about creating a perfect world. What IS a perfect world? By whos standards is it perfect?

I strongly believe, that the most basic right of all is the individuals freedom of choice. This freedom ends when it invades another individuals freedom.

No government will fully respect that. They will hide behind democracy to claim that their power is given to them by the people; Democracy is simply not always right. It allows the majority to tell the minority what to do and that is an invasion of freedom of choice.

Churchill recognised that already by saying: democracy is the best we 've got, but that doesn't make it perfect.

3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).

you know, i always found that russell quote in dictionary.com's definition a bit strange. i don't actually know where its from, and i assume he did actually write it, but betrand russell came down as an anarchist-leaning libertarian socialist in proposed roads to freedom (http://www.zpub.com/notes/rfree10.html) - and he certainly understood the term there.

1. If your getting your information from an acclaimed Anarchist, aren't you just following his leadership? If he tells you how to do something, when to do it, where to do it, how to achieve your goals, he is your leader. You pretty much are back to square 1.

There is a difference between having authority on a subject and have authority over people etc.

When agreeing with (or not agreeing with) an authority (on a subject), the individual has the right to accept or reject them. Nothing is forcing them to believe them

I am not following any anarchists leadership because:
a) I'm not an Anarchist.
b) Ones I refer to are dead.

I only mentioned the mojor Anarchist thinkers because it is easier to do than grouping all anarchists into one pile. It also looks like I know what they all think. Also because they tend to better at communicating than me (as you can probably tell).

2. How do you plan on living comfortably? I'm guessing you don't plan on ever driving a car, or in fact using anything, as most things in this world are made from Oil, and I'd love to see a bunch of jobless bums that have no money due to a collapses economy. Just because your nation decends into anarchy, doesn't mean everyone else will. You can use the current supplies that you have, but that will create violence, and murders and the such. Good luck with that. Plus, you could only live on what we have right now for a short period of time. You'd be effectively screwing yourselves over and without commiting to some form of governement you'll never get your act together to get some money, produce more items like food, and things to put the food in, and etc. You will effectivly become cave men. yay.

I fail to understand how this relates to Anarchism, unless you are talking about primitavism. Which not all concider an Anarchist thought.

3. Anarchy is stupid. Simple as that, most of the kids that love it, don't seem to realize that they may be the first ones killed during the first monumental struggle for supplies.

Right because no one would think to work right. :roll:

Because many people are weak-willed and lost without an authorative figure to follow. Millions of years of evolutionary flock behaviour is difficult to erase with just an ideology.

Humans have flock behaviour?
Some are only weak willed because of society, which has lowered their perception of their potential. And that we have be forced to learn that we need government and the violence that comes with it to survive.

Although, I tend to agree with the evolutionary Anarchists. That we are simply not ready for Anarchy yet (on a large scale).

- Most people are lazy. They won't work if they don't have to. Everything would fall into disrepair.

I haven't read anything by an Anarchist that says humans will not have to work in an Anarcic society

And since an anarchist hasn't written it, it isn't true? The principle of anarchy is no authority. So who's going to force people to work if they don't want to?

Because we would rather starve then work right?


- Most people are bastards, who would take the opportunity to kill, rape, and pillage if there were no authorities to stop them. It would turn out to be an heirarchy with survival of the strongest. See first point above.

Just because there are no authorities doesn't mean that we will have rule by bastards. It isn't as if present systems stop this happening.

Yes, they do. At least to some extent. If all people could do what they wanted without fear of ramifications, all hell would break loose. Again, human nature, survival of the fittest, etc. Especially women would be in harm's way. Odd that you would call anarchy feministic.

Again I will sat that Human nature, or rather society need to change.

What is this human nature? It seems to be vague term used to justify the state.

And since an anarchist hasn't written it, it isn't true? The principle of anarchy is no authority. So who's going to force people to work if they don't want to?

If we had some control over our work, then it would be a lot less unpleasant. It wouldn't be necessary to force peope to work.

What is this human nature? It seems to be vague term used to justify the state.

Exactly, Conceptualists. In some cultures, fatness was considered attractive.

I'm not an Anarchist.

Then what are you, Conceptualists?

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

See, that's one of the major problems with anarchism. You think people are inherently good. Well, I have 4000 years of history which say otherwise.

And I have 4000 years of government and/or religion telling people what to do in a hiearchy.

Quote:
2. Free Association - Everyone should be allowed to associate freely with those they choose and to disassociate themselves when they choose. Individuals should not be forced into social relations against their will. Society should be based upon free agreement, rather than coercion.


You mean like...what there is everywhere in Western Civilisation? Or is this the free love type of free association, which leads to a breakdown of society and disease?

What are you talking about? If you are going to argue a point you could at least try to use something more creative than a straw man fallacy.

But assuming your 'agrument' here is valid: People aren't allowed to associate freely with who they choose.. well in theory most are. Last I checked, most countries still do not allow gay marraiges. I read in advice articles all the time about how so-in-so's parents are going to disown them is they keep dating/marry someone out of the race/religion/ethincity. Discrmination and prejudice thinking is still rampant in western civilization.

Quote:
3. Mutual Aid - Instead of attempting to dominate each other social relations should be based on solidarity and voluntary cooperation. When individuals come together to help each other they can accomplish more than when they work against each other.


Again, they can do this within the bounds of the nation...indeed, a nation is the best way to provide people with motivation to do so.

If that is so than why are there still so many special interests groups regularly fighting against each other instead of working together.

Quote:
4. Freedom - Freedom means the ability to control one's own life instead of being controlled by others, as is the case with hierarchy. This is sometimes called liberty or autonomy. Controlling other people's lives is not freedom but a restriction of freedom.


...mob rule? Sorry, rule by sociopath.

Mob rule? Where do you get that? As I understood it to mena is that we have a right to do what we please to ourselves and proprerty. Similar to Western Civilization where they say "your personal rights stop right at the end of your nose" except this is more broader . . e.g. if I want to smoke pot every day I can. If I want to have an abortion, I can. If I want to kill myself, I can. If I want to burn down my house. I can.

Quote:
5. Self-Management - In groups decisions should be made in a manner so that everyone has an equal say. People should govern themselves, rather than dividing people into some who give orders and some who obey as in hierarchical organizations.


But the people who give orders are in such a position because they are skilled at what they do. Thus, they should be over those who aren't as skilled.


I am surprise that you actually believe "the people who give orders are in such a position because they are skilled at what they do." Though this may be partially true, those people are in their positions more likely because they knew someone who got them there, or ran with the right crowd, or had the money to finance themselves. Just because someone is skilled for the position doesn't mean that others are not. It also doesn't mean that they are qualified either. There might be many people out there who are just as qualifed, but aren't in that position.

In self-Management, no where does it say the skilled folks can't express their opinion. No where does it say that everyone must stay ignorant on the subject at hand. Even though everyone will have equal say, it is human nature to believe in authority, but in this case it would just be authority of knowledge and whether or not eveyone can believe or disagree with what is said.

Quote:
6. Radical Egalitarianism - Anarchists believe in an egalitarian society. This does not mean some totalitarian society where everyone is identical or lives identical lives. It does not mean denying individual diversity or uniqueness. Rather anarchists believe in equality of both wealth and power - a natural consequence of the abolition of hierarchy.


And thus, you abolish incentive to do well. Nice.

Now this one is tricky. Its states that its not like communism, but .. yet it is? My best example to try to understand this would be my current job. In an office of eight people, we are all given equal power to implement new projects and we pretty much all do the same kinda stuff. Yet, my title is "lower" than everyone else --meaning in the board of directors eyes (who have never been in the office), even though I am equal in contribution, I should get paid less. I used to contribute alot, but after awhile I felt what is the point? I get paid less, so why would I even bother? Doing more work won't get me a raise because the board don't care, I'm just a name on a piece of paper. My moral here is, if I got paid the same as everyone else, I wouldn't be resentful and probably spend less time reading this message board and more time actually doing work.

Quote:
7. Feminism - Anarchists favor social, economic and political equality for men and women. The domination of men over women should be abolished and all people given control of their own lives.


...Oh, dear god...I agree. I must be ill.

I agree!

I'm not an Anarchist.

Then what are you, Conceptualists?


I would be an Anarchist, but I am to firmly rooted in the present to be one.

We here at The Department of Homeland Counter-Insurgency of The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Überpower™ of course hate Anarchism and Anarchy.

Clearly, the vast majority of people need us to tell them what to do, because we have effectively trained them to need us. We have so effectively crippled their capacity for independent thought and action in our schools, our churches, our workplaces, and our jails, that without us they would starve and kill each other. This training has been ongoing for at least 4000 years - the entire history of authoritarian civilizations. Throughout that time we have effectively crushed all free, indigenous societies and crushed all efforts to create new and more egalitarian and democratic societies, with increasingly sophisticated propaganda and applied violence.

We do all the starving and killing around here. That's what the State is - a monopoly of violence. Courts, jails, police, and a military. Without them, you have no government.

As for those who ridiculously claim that Anarchism or Anarchy is not Communist, this is one of the most laughable propositions ever put forward. Without a government (courts, jails, police, and a military), who would enforce property rights? Quite simply, without a government, no one would. Anyone who needed anything would take what they wanted. If there was any coercive force to prevent this (courts, jails, police...) it would consitute a State.

Also, not all Anarchists believe people are inherently good. In fact, if anything they are more cynical than any other political tradition, because they trust no one to rule them.

Nor are Anarchists all utopian. They have at times mounted serious challenges to structures of authority and power, especially in periods of revolution such as the late 1800s internationally, 1917-21 in Russia, 1936-39 in Spain, and many other times and places including a recent international upsurge in places as disparate as Europe, the US, Mexico, and Argentina. The FBI has for years listed an anarchist group, the Earth Liberation Front, as its most serious domestic terrorist threat. Anarchists have managed to create social institutions in many places, at many times, that function in many ways more efficiently than our own (policing, taxation, accounting of debts, advertising, security, propaganda - all these things are a drain on our economies, but necessary in order to maintain centralized power). In fact, we have adopted many measures of decentralization in our economic, military, political and other systems in order to increase efficiency, such as factory quality-control groups and certain aspects of private enterprise, but when harnessing the power and efficiency of such decentralization we must always keep a careful eye on these measures to ensure they do not escape our control. Do not underestimate Anarchy or Anarchists, both can do a great deal.

We in the Government of The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Überpower™ like things just how they are. We hold the monopoly of violent force, and we intend to keep things that way, through the most effective mix of propaganda and violence. We unleash chaos and decentralization only in ways that we feel we can safely control, in the economy and warfare alike.

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

2. Free Association - Everyone should be allowed to associate freely with those they choose and to disassociate themselves when they choose. Individuals should not be forced into social relations against their will. Society should be based upon free agreement, rather than coercion.

So I guess that would make me a social anarchist. People are always pretending to be my "friend," however I dont take jack sh*t from them.

5. Self-Management - In groups decisions should be made in a manner so that everyone has an equal say. People should govern themselves, rather than dividing people into some who give orders and some who obey as in hierarchical organizations.

Yep - I love being self-reliant

Definition of Anarchy:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or
purpose.

The word itself gives meaning. Anarchy - from the greek. An - meaning without, void of. Archos - meaning ruler, leader, control.

2 and 3 are based on the negative connotation of the word. Another good example of a bastardized word is Discrimination, but I will leave that for you to look at.

3. Mutual Aid - Instead of attempting to dominate each other social relations should be based on solidarity and voluntary cooperation. When individuals come together to help each other they can accomplish more than when they work against each other.

Again, they can do this within the bounds of the nation...indeed, a nation is the best way to provide people with motivation to do so.

Why are we so concerned with the motivation for people to work? Could it perhaps be because of the dominant paradigm of our society? Ever wonder why you have a car? Why you pay for petrol? Why you buy the things that you do? Ever wandered down the grocery isle and just wondered, why are we all walking around with carts like mice gaining their food from a tube after running on the wheel of wage labour? Ever walked into a Walmart and almost cried because of the sheer amount of cargo that is being sold by men and women making less than those who profit off their labour? Ever been to a professional sporting event and realized that it is a spectacle no different than roman gladatorial games? Have you ever seen an add on T.V that relentlessly bombarded you with one phrase over and over again? Pavlonian training through a box sitting on your coffee table. Words and images determining what YOU as an individual believe. Making a concious choice frees one from the control of the modern spectacle, by determining that what is being given to you by the elite, is wrong. By recognizing that the thought paradigms presented to you by those who continue to quest for control, are just that, thought paradigms of CONTROL. So when your casualties, YOUR casulties, from the war of the rich against the poor come in, you will be alright with it because you are allowed to survive and gain occasional pleasures.

You don't need that car, or that grill, or the shiney new Sharper Image product. You are a consumer. But our society has processed that information to an extreme. Because of avarice and greed, of both money and power.

How do you plan on living comfortably? I'm guessing you don't plan on ever driving a car, or in fact using anything, as most things in this world are made from Oil, and I'd love to see a bunch of jobless bums that have no money due to a collapses economy. Just because your nation decends into anarchy, doesn't mean everyone else will. You can use the current supplies that you have, but that will create violence, and murders and the such. Good luck with that. Plus, you could only live on what we have right now for a short period of time. You'd be effectively screwing yourselves over and without commiting to some form of governement you'll never get your act together to get some money, produce more items like food, and things to put the food in, and etc. You will effectivly become cave men.

How do you plan on living comfortably? I'm guessing that you plan on driving your car, and buying cheap plastic junk payed for with the blood of human beings. I'd dislike to see a bunch of mindless consumers live in a world without an economy of slave labour. You are using the current supplies that the earth has with such reckless abandon that there is not enough for everyone, not to mention your children's children. Assuming you know how to take care of yourself without Walmart and Krogers I'm sure you will do fine.

So your automatically assuming that everybody in the nation, once it desends into Anarchy, is magically going to follow these set down rules? Isn't the idea behind Anarchy not to follow rules, therefor if they want to, they can use force to achieve what they wish? Could they also not just rape and pillage to their hearts content, because there are no rules against it? Personally, I'd rob the lot of ya!

You are assuming that everyone in the nation once it descends into Fascism or Democracy or Communism, is magically going to follow the rules. In all class societies, the ruling class can maintain control through violence and/or ideology. If the majority can be persuaded that the rule of the ruling class is legitimate then it can be maintained with less violence. Examples of ideologies that serve this function include the divine right of kings, social Darwinism and Marxism-Leninism. All of them acted to legitimize the rule of specific elites in certain societies and helped those elites maintain power. Some hierarchical societies rely more on violence, others rely more on ideology. The United States relies more on ideology, although a certain degree of force is used.

Ever heard of what happens to rapists and robbers when they act alone? They lose, thats why they band together into gangs. "Democracy" is the front for the gang that is currently in control, and know that nothing lasts forever.

What my friend Ex Nihlio has so effortlessly expressed is something Marx described as the 5th stage of economic evolution. Simply put Marx theorized that capitalism wouldn't be able to sustain itself indefinitely as it can only thrive on the existance of new markets. And since nothing is infinite or even close to infinite there is no possible way for a capitalist society to exist forever. This is completely apparent as it is expressed by the urge for nations to find markets in foriegn developing nations. What happens when the entire planet has been marketed?

After a certain amount of time, the class movement becomes stagnate due to the circular nature of wealth. Thus the syllogism: Money makes money; No money make no money thus those with money make more and those without make none. The people that make none aren't lazy they merely have to pay out of pocket to survive day to day with very little resources to accrue capital in which to grow a large enough profit.

Most families considered middle class are actually subsisting with a very small bank account that protects them from true poverty. In fact, many middle class families are only afloat because they incure huge debt. Debt being one of the many ways wealth circulates upward. Just for emotional appeal: Read a contract on a house or car. The contract warns the debt buyer that they may pay 5 or 6 times the actual cost of the vehicle before it is paid off.

The major ideology of as Ex Nihlio puts it in the United States works on the premise: we "need" things to be complete. We need to own cars. We need to have a house. We need to own a dog. We need to have a white picket fence. These things are all capital according to the buisness of creating wealth. Yet we become attached to these things and in the end game of the financial world most of the things drain our funds or causes to be eternally indebted to a large corporation. Very few people actually turn a profit. Here is the flaw while few people turn a profit most people turn a deficit.

Here is a wild and pretty uneducated intuition. The middle class cannot continue to support its debt to the upper class. When the debt reaches critical mass the middle class will see it's finances implode and create a massive population of lower class citizens dominated by a small upper class. What does this create?

1. Uneffective or No health care
2. Hunger
3. Insufficient shelter
4. Poor or minor technical education

What does any rational being do when they find themselves in this situation? I venture a guess and say become Angry. Anger is funnelled into revolution and the redistribution of a nation's wealth; I grossly simplify this process of course.

Marx thought it possible to create a Utopian society with the help of benevolent dictatorship at the crux of this upheavel to guide the people to cooperative form of government that amazingly enough sounds a lot like pure Democracy. His idealism I think came from the belief that given the best balance of comfort and wealth Humanity would actually grow intellectually beyond the need to surround itself with material objects. Instead, we would surround ourselves with the greatness of our accomplishments as contributors to the same society.


Of course nobody has to agree with me. But if you haven't read Marx read: Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto. Marx was an economist and idealist, but no one can say he wasn't aware of the reality of world economics.