NationStates Jolt Archive

I figured, why not? Everyone else has a thread like this.

I thought they were locking these on sight.

I guess not.

I thought they were locking these on sight.

I guess not.

They were, but they are not.

You could change the title to, "Ask Two Anarchists".

:)

Ok, here we go... How long have you been an anarchist?

ya, you guys are doing a good job with the 'ask a' threads. although i wont touch it...

so...

can you give me a brief layout on how you believe the ideal form of government would be?

and can you tell me your views on human morality, social contract to the state (or lack of), and the duties and benefits of living in your anarchist state (or lack of) over the modern US government?

I figured, why not? Everyone else has a thread like this.

Do you believe the world should reach anarchy gradually and carefully, or would a revolution be better?

Do you believe the world should reach anarchy gradually and carefully, or would a revolution be better?

Gradually would be best as that would result in the least violence, but I fear there isn't much time left. At the current rate, hierarchy and many forms of technology could well do us in.

can you give me a brief layout on how you believe the ideal form of government would be?

None at all.

and can you tell me your views on human morality, social contract to the state (or lack of), and the duties and benefits of living in your anarchist state (or lack of) over the modern US government?

Humans have no inherent nature other than free will. Taking away freedom is essentially taking away humanity and is thus in a sense murder. The social contract is false as none of us can remember signing anything like it. We must obey the laws even if we don't agree with them.

The advantages of anarchy over the status quo would include more freedom both in and out of the workplace, direct democratic control of the economy, a more psychologically healthy family structure, and much less motivation to commit crime.

How do you propose that people living far from farms, etc. should get food with all the companies that produced and delivered food gone. Also, what about water and electricity supply?

Ok, my question wasn't good, but you didn't need to ignore me Letila! Well, here it goes again: Do you think anarchism really can be socialist or capitalist, or is there only one way it can function?

ya, you guys are doing a good job with the 'ask a' threads. although i wont touch it...

so...

can you give me a brief layout on how you believe the ideal form of government would be?

and can you tell me your views on human morality, social contract to the state (or lack of), and the duties and benefits of living in your anarchist state (or lack of) over the modern US government?


The words "anarch/y/ism/ist" where all created by anarchists from two Greek words ("an" and "archos" to mean "no" "authority/state/hierarchy") to describe their beliefs.

De-centralized, horizontal (as opposed to "vertical" or hierarchal), voluntary organization(s) and associations would be the starting point for politcal organization. Communities/collectives/communes would be self-governing, and could, if their inhabitants so desired, form regional associations or federations for mutual aid and co-operation.

Money/an equivalent versus no money (not necessarily no value, only some items requiring more effort and/or time and/or materials to produce and their availability being a reflection of those facts) plays a large role as to how things work out, as well as which model of anarchism one is a proponent of...


http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html

Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)

Gradually would be best as that would result in the least violence, but I fear there isn't much time left. At the current rate, hierarchy and many forms of technology could well do us in.



None at all.



Humans have no inherent nature other than free will. Taking away freedom is essentially taking away humanity and is thus in a sense murder. The social contract is false as none of us can remember signing anything like it. We must obey the laws even if we don't agree with them.

The advantages of anarchy over the status quo would include more freedom both in and out of the workplace, direct democratic control of the economy, a more psychologically healthy family structure, and much less motivation to commit crime.

So... do you dont believe that humans are inherently self-interested? let me get this straight...

you believe that all humans have autonomy, and that any form of state that gives benefits for duties infringes on that autonomy and is therefore illegitimate?

do you believe that all humans are self-legislative and can create their own morality?

do you believe that the prescriptive state is possible?

Do you believe the world should reach anarchy gradually and carefully, or would a revolution be better?

I would agree with Letila that a nonviolent, persuasive, and democratic approach would be best, yet I disagree that violence would be a good idea (it's hypocrtical, IMO).

How do you propose that people living far from farms, etc. should get food with all the companies that produced and delivered food gone. Also, what about water and electricity supply?
Free Market

How do you propose that people living far from farms, etc. should get food with all the companies that produced and delivered food gone. Also, what about water and electricity supply?

The existance of voluntary federations and associations between communities (including rural/urban, etc.) would cover the distribution of food, among other things, in some forms of anarchism.

As for water and electricity, there are quite a few technologies that are portable, viable, sustainable, and non-polluting. One such possiblity is called "zero point energy" or "space energy". Google it (or whatever search engine you prefer), and while finding out about it for yourself, other possibilites are almost certainly going to be on the websites within the search results.

I would agree with Letila that a nonviolent, persuasive, and democratic approach would be best, yet I disagree that violence would be a good idea (it's hypocrtical, IMO).

I'm opposed to all violence, actually. For that reason, I don't like the idea of a sudden revolution.

So... do you dont believe that humans are inherently self-interested? let me get this straight...

People aren't inherently anything. They choose who they are and oftentimes, they choose to be selfish.

you believe that all humans have autonomy, and that any form of state that gives benefits for duties infringes on that autonomy and is therefore illegitimate?

Yes.

do you believe that all humans are self-legislative and can create their own morality?

Yes.

Ok, my question wasn't good, but you didn't need to ignore me Letila! Well, here it goes again: Do you think anarchism really can be socialist or capitalist, or is there only one way it can function?

Anarchy would be socialist or non-industrial, never capitalist.

How do you propose that people living far from farms, etc. should get food with all the companies that produced and delivered food gone. Also, what about water and electricity supply?

There would be a confederation and membership to the confederation would be based on an agreement to share.

Ok, my question wasn't good, but you didn't need to ignore me Letila! Well, here it goes again: Do you think anarchism really can be socialist or capitalist, or is there only one way it can function?

Historically and etymologically speaking, anarchism is "libertarian socialist", however there are those who refer to themselves and their ideas as "anarcho-capitalist". This uses the popular definition, and while technically incorrect (and a headache for left-anarchists (and irrelevant for "individualist" anarchists)), it is not technically anarchism and neither myself nor Letila are propenents of it, anarcho-capitalism is irrelevant except to say that we (left-anarchists and right-anarchists) agree on some aspects as much as "we" (libertarian socialists (anarchists in the historical sense) and statist socialists) agree on some issues. I would also point out, that as stated in the first link, market or semi-market economies do not have to be capitalist (mutualism, and possibly PARECON (don't know enough about ParEcon at this point to say much about it, though)).

There would be a confederation and membership to the confederation would be based on an agreement to share.

I think you mean a confederacy.

Anarchy would be socialist or non-industrial, never capitalist.


Why not? If everyone consented to each transaction made in a laissez-faire system, it wouldn't be infringing on anyone's personal autonomy. That said, it all depends what your view on property is.

Not that I advocate anarcho-capitalism ;)

Also - the possibility of establishing a non-hierarchical, socialist confedarcy would certainly raise some dissenting voices from the upper classes. Wouldn't they put up a fight? A violent revolution may become a necessity at that point. Perhaps a cultural revolution (in the non-maoist sense) would be more in order for a natural shift towards social anarchism.

So... do you dont believe that humans are inherently self-interested? let me get this straight...

No. Anthropology and evolution say otherwise, however, humans are influenced by their environment (including cultural institutions and beliefs).

you believe that all humans have autonomy, and that any form of state that gives benefits for duties infringes on that autonomy and is therefore illegitimate?

Those two points are not connected - you are taking them out of context.

do you believe that all humans are self-legislative and can create their own morality?

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. If individuals ("humans") don't create their own moral compasses (influenced by their environment), then who does?

do you believe that the prescriptive state is possible?

I'm not sure what you mean by "prescriptive state".

i thought you were against all forms of organization and/or government - membership to a 'confederation' sounds like infringement on my autonomy.

ok... so humans are self-legislative in their views of morality. Let me give you a scenario -

there are three people. you, a small boy with a sandwich, and another man. you are all anarchists, therefore you've all legislated your morals to your own way. You believe that stealing is wrong, that is your moral perspective. but the other man believes that stealing is morally right, and he is very hungry and tired. He goes and smacks the child over the head and steals the sandwich. what do you do?

this is a dilemma because if you defend the child and tackle the man, your are going against your anarchist ideals of autonomy and infringing on his right to be a self-legislative individual. but if you dont, you are going againt your self-legislated morality and therefore going against your anarchist ideals of self-legislation (represented that theft is wrong).

whats your solution?

there are three people. you, a small boy with a sandwich, and another man. you are all anarchists, therefore you've all legislated your morals to your own way. You believe that stealing is wrong, that is your moral perspective. but the other man believes that stealing is morally right, and he is very hungry and tired. He goes and smacks the child over the head and steals the sandwich. what do you do?

this is a dilemma because if you defend the child and tackle the man, your are going against your anarchist ideals of autonomy and infringing on his right to be a self-legislative individual. but if you dont, you are going againt your self-legislated morality and therefore going against your anarchist ideals of self-legislation (represented that theft is wrong).

whats your solution?

I'm not an anarchist so, I'm not sure this is correct... but: Anarchism is against government ("State"), not society ("Nation")... sooo... the solution would be gather all the people that thinks stealing is wrong and kick the shit out of the thief. ;)

Why not? If everyone consented to each transaction made in a laissez-faire system, it wouldn't be infringing on anyone's personal autonomy. That said, it all depends what your view on property is.

Your last sentence is correct. It's subjective. See below for more.

Also - the possibility of establishing a non-hierarchical, socialist confedarcy would certainly raise some dissenting voices from the upper classes. Wouldn't they put up a fight? A violent revolution may become a necessity at that point. Perhaps a cultural revolution (in the non-maoist sense) would be more in order for a natural shift towards social anarchism.

Nothing says the upper classes (or that anyone, for that matter) must participate. Naturally, many people are not going to want to be a part of an anarchist society. Naturally, many people are not going to want to be a part of a minarchist/anarcho-capitalist society. No one is making them do it, and I am not concerned about "social ostracization"/bandwagon - it would be completely undemocratic and completely coercive to make someone or some group of people live in an anarchist society without their permission.

i thought you were against all forms of organization and/or government - membership to a 'confederation' sounds like infringement on my autonomy.

Anarchism doesn't actually oppose organization.

ok... so humans are self-legislative in their views of morality. Let me give you a scenario -

there are three people. you, a small boy with a sandwich, and another man. you are all anarchists, therefore you've all legislated your morals to your own way. You believe that stealing is wrong, that is your moral perspective. but the other man believes that stealing is morally right, and he is very hungry and tired. He goes and smacks the child over the head and steals the sandwich. what do you do?

this is a dilemma because if you defend the child and tackle the man, your are going against your anarchist ideals of autonomy and infringing on his right to be a self-legislative individual. but if you dont, you are going againt your self-legislated morality and therefore going against your anarchist ideals of self-legislation (represented that theft is wrong).

whats your solution?

Why did he try to steal the sandwich? If there is enough to eat, there would be no reason to steal. It isn't a contradiction to stop him if he infringes on other's automony.

Perhaps a cultural revolution (in the non-maoist sense) would be more in order for a natural shift towards social anarchism.

My thoughts exactly. Most Americans have too much authoritarianism imbued in them right now.

Why did he try to steal the sandwich? If there is enough to eat, there would be no reason to steal. It isn't a contradiction to stop him if he infringes on other's automony.

"After the revolution, there will be sandwiches for everyone!"

'No. Anthropology and evolution say otherwise, however, humans are influenced by their environment (including cultural institutions and beliefs).'

'I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. If individuals ("humans") don't create their own moral compasses (influenced by their environment), then who does?'

no actually, i believe that humans are inherently self-interested and that there is a moral compass based on virtue that is above law, government, and society. That humans do wrong because the 'believe' that they are acting in their self-interest, but are in fact not: because all humans (mentally balanced adults ofcourse) strive to live a better life (self-interest) and such. but we arnt talking about my world view, we are talking about the anarchist world view.

I'm not sure what you mean by "prescriptive state".

there are 2 forms of state (stated by 'In defense of Anarchism' Wolff). The descriptive state and the prescriptive state. Wolff believes that the descriptive state infringes on moral autonomy and the prescriptive state doesnt. there has never been a prescriptive state to date, and i believe its morally impossible.

These have to be the least cogent arguments for anarchism I've ever seen. :headbang:

i thought you were against all forms of organization and/or government - membership to a 'confederation' sounds like infringement on my autonomy.

ok... so humans are self-legislative in their views of morality. Let me give you a scenario -

there are three people. you, a small boy with a sandwich, and another man. you are all anarchists, therefore you've all legislated your morals to your own way. You believe that stealing is wrong, that is your moral perspective. but the other man believes that stealing is morally right, and he is very hungry and tired. He goes and smacks the child over the head and steals the sandwich. what do you do?

this is a dilemma because if you defend the child and tackle the man, your are going against your anarchist ideals of autonomy and infringing on his right to be a self-legislative individual. but if you dont, you are going againt your self-legislated morality and therefore going against your anarchist ideals of self-legislation (represented that theft is wrong).

whats your solution?

That's not what was meant by "autonomy"! Your definitions and examples would be relevant to an INDIVIDUALIST anarchist, or someone of your political persuasion (or of that political persuasion which you defending).

Also, your situation is irrelevant. Why would we three be together* in the first place? Give a different example or explain in some other way.

*Specifically, an anarchist and the man who believes stealing is "morally right" - that is further irrelevant. No one is going to believe that stealing is "the right thing to do". They see it as irrelevant and are concerned with the survival of those they consider important (usually and specifically in this instance, themselves).

"After the revolution, there will be sandwiches for everyone!"

There would be. There is enough food for everyone live, why else would there be obesity? It just needs to be distributed better.

Anarchism doesn't actually oppose organization.



Why did he try to steal the sandwich? If there is enough to eat, there would be no reason to steal. It isn't a contradiction to stop him if he infringes on other's automony.
Maybe he isnt hungry, maybe he is well-fed. maybe he just wanted the sandwich because it looked appealing to him. and its in his moral code to steal, and that stealing isnt an infringement of autonomy, so he steals.

to him, Stealing is RIGHT. its the RIGHT thing to do. you cant blame him, because he is just adhereing to his moral code and therefore living a 'good' anarchist life. who are you to tell him what to do? who are you to tell him that he CANT??? you dont have that authority? your authority is illigitamate in his eyes, not to mention yours.

'No. Anthropology and evolution say otherwise, however, humans are influenced by their environment (including cultural institutions and beliefs).'

'I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. If individuals ("humans") don't create their own moral compasses (influenced by their environment), then who does?'

no actually, i believe that humans are inherently self-interested and that there is a moral compass based on virtue that is above law, government, and society. That humans do wrong because the 'believe' that they are acting in their self-interest, but are in fact not: because all humans (mentally balanced adults ofcourse) strive to live a better life (self-interest) and such. but we arnt talking about my world view, we are talking about the anarchist world view.

What proof do you have for your beliefs? The "common sense" (no dispresect intended) of your cultural or individual worldview? Laws are *supposed* to be extensions of the collective moral compass that a majority (of society) can agree on, with the government being it's enforcement entity and sometimes the law creation entity (as in dictatorial or oligarchal governments).

Maybe he isnt hungry, maybe he is well-fed. maybe he just wanted the sandwich because it looked appealing to him. and its in his moral code to steal, and that stealing isnt an infringement of autonomy, so he steals.

Why would anyone steal just for the sake of stealing? More importantly, what if they were a government official? Wouldn't they abuse their power?

to him, Stealing is RIGHT. its the RIGHT thing to do. you cant blame him, because he is just adhereing to his moral code and therefore living a 'good' anarchist life. who are you to tell him what to do? who are you to tell him that he CANT??? you dont have that authority? your authority is illigitamate in his eyes, not to mention yours.

If he is stealing, he infringes on another's autonomy and they are justified in stopping him from stealing.

"Maybe he isnt hungry, maybe he is well-fed. maybe he just wanted the sandwich because it looked appealing to him. and its in his moral code to steal, and that stealing isnt an infringement of autonomy, so he steals. "

This goes back to morals being socially constructed.

"to him, Stealing is RIGHT. its the RIGHT thing to do. you cant blame him, because he is just adhereing to his moral code and therefore living a 'good' anarchist life. who are you to tell him what to do? who are you to tell him that he CANT??? you dont have that authority? your authority is illigitamate in his eyes, not to mention yours."

Once again, stealing is "right" because he has be has been socialized to believe that behavior like this is required.

Ok, time for a slightly different question.

Given that the world began in anarchy, and that government was subsequently created, it could be said by some that government is inevitable unless actively prevented.

How would you (an anarchist) go about this prevention?

These have to be the least cogent arguments for anarchism I've ever seen. :headbang:

You mean as to why one would prefer to live in an anarchist society as opposed to another? For a better world. Political and civil equality, relative economic equality, while you do what it is you enjoy (generally speaking as long as it fits under the notion of "Your rights end where others' begin").

and its in his moral code to steal, and that stealing isnt an infringement of autonomy, so he steals.

to him, Stealing is RIGHT. its the RIGHT thing to do. you cant blame him, because he is just adhereing to his moral code and therefore living a 'good' anarchist life. who are you to tell him what to do? who are you to tell him that he CANT??? you dont have that authority? your authority is illigitamate in his eyes, not to mention yours.

Again, stealing is exteremely unlikely to be part of his moral code. Stealing IS an infringement of autonomy - again, the phrase "Your rights end where others' begin" comes into play to provide a better example of what it means to a NON-INDIVIDUALIST anarchist.

He is living a "good" anarchist life only if he is an INDIVIDUALIST, which I am not and which, historically speaking, the term "anarchism" does not represent.

How would you (an anarchist) go about this prevention?

Remind people of the harmful effects of government. The saying "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." comes to mind.

What proof do you have for your beliefs? The "common sense" (no dispresect intended) of your cultural or individual worldview? Laws are *supposed* to be extensions of the collective moral compass that a majority (of society) can agree on, with the government being it's enforcement entity and sometimes the law creation entity (as in dictatorial or oligarchal governments).
im not saying that any government is perfect, on the countrary most governments are evil. but, i believe that non-government would be almost as bad as too much government.

My proof for my beliefs? whats your proof?

I cant really say that I have 'hard' proof, just my belief (in looking at human nature and the development of society) that humans are inherently self-intereseted. That humans are animals, and the only distinction is that we do have free will. But not to the extent to where we create our own morality. We have free will to find out what is good, and choose correctly. evil is a human that thinks hes choosing correctly but isnt, therefore by finding out what is good- he will automatically do good because its in his self-interest.

im talking socrates' ideal of good over the anarchist ideal of self-legislative morality. What if my morality dictates that rape is good? that i will be an all-around better person if I rape a young women? or even a less dramatic example, what if my morality dictates that killing pandas and eating them is RIGHT? If I wanted to kill and eat all the pandas, do you or any individual have the RIGHT and/or AUTHORITY to infringe on my autonomy and stop me from killing and eating an extinct species, just because its part of my moral compass?

"Maybe he isnt hungry, maybe he is well-fed. maybe he just wanted the sandwich because it looked appealing to him. and its in his moral code to steal, and that stealing isnt an infringement of autonomy, so he steals. "

This goes back to morals being socially constructed.

"to him, Stealing is RIGHT. its the RIGHT thing to do. you cant blame him, because he is just adhereing to his moral code and therefore living a 'good' anarchist life. who are you to tell him what to do? who are you to tell him that he CANT??? you dont have that authority? your authority is illigitamate in his eyes, not to mention yours."

Once again, stealing is "right" because he has be has been socialized to believe that behavior like this is required.

...

This is an irrelevant and poor example of hypothetical social behavior. Come up with a better example or explanation.

Ok, time for a slightly different question.

Given that the world began in anarchy, and that government was subsequently created, it could be said by some that government is inevitable unless actively prevented.

How would you (an anarchist) go about this prevention?

Please read every post. This one is relevant.

The words "anarch/y/ism/ist" where all created by anarchists from two Greek words ("an" and "archos" to mean "no" "authority/state/hierarchy") to describe their beliefs.

The world did not start in anarchy. You are using the popular definition. We are not. We are using the historically correct term created by/for anarchists to describe their ideas of "libertarian socialism".

Here is the rest of the post, in case you didn't read it.

De-centralized, horizontal (as opposed to "vertical" or hierarchal), voluntary organization(s) and associations would be the starting point for politcal organization. Communities/collectives/communes would be self-governing, and could, if their inhabitants so desired, form regional associations or federations for mutual aid and co-operation.

Money/an equivalent versus no money (not necessarily no value, only some items requiring more effort and/or time and/or materials to produce and their availability being a reflection of those facts) plays a large role as to how things work out, as well as which model of anarchism one is a proponent of...


http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html

Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)

i gotta go and mow the lawn now (damn parents infringing on my personal autonomy, but then again they will probably pay for my cell phone
<---consumer whore! so i give up my autonomy willingly to get the benefits).

ill try to percieve your world view later, after im done. good thread! :D

It should also be mentioned that example would lend itself strongly to anti-social personality disorder.

It should also be mentioned that example would lend itself strongly to anti-social personality disorder.
the panda eating example?

I've got a good one. Since corporations are voluntary organizations in the sense that you only join them if you want, and only buy their products if you want, wouldn't the disestablishment of government, and the removal of associated regulations on business encourage corporations, and help them to grow?

I've got a good one. Since corporations are voluntary organizations in the sense that you only join them if you want, and only buy their products if you want, wouldn't the disestablishment of government, and the removal of associated regulations on business encourage corporations, and help them to grow?

Actually, they aren't voluntary. If they were, there wouldn't be many workers in them as they take away a lot of freedom. Who would volunteer to take orders 8 hours a day?

I've got a good one. Since corporations are voluntary organizations in the sense that you only join them if you want, and only buy their products if you want, wouldn't the disestablishment of government, and the removal of associated regulations on business encourage corporations, and help them to grow?

I think anarchism would actaully help guilds grow. Can you imagine a corporation of today in an anarchist world, how would they impose their products if there was no government to influence the masses?

Actually, they aren't voluntary. If they were, there wouldn't be many workers in them as they take away a lot of freedom. Who would volunteer to take orders 8 hours a day?

Well I've worked in shops (run by companies), and I did that out of my own choice. Had I decided I didn't like the way they did things, I would have left. As it turned out, I thought that our trade - my work for their money, was satisfactory, and I continued working their for as long as it was convenient.

Maybe he isnt hungry, maybe he is well-fed. maybe he just wanted the sandwich because it looked appealing to him. and its in his moral code to steal, and that stealing isnt an infringement of autonomy, so he steals.

to him, Stealing is RIGHT. its the RIGHT thing to do. you cant blame him, because he is just adhereing to his moral code and therefore living a 'good' anarchist life. who are you to tell him what to do? who are you to tell him that he CANT??? you dont have that authority? your authority is illigitamate in his eyes, not to mention yours.
Give the kid a sandwhich and make sure he is allright. Then, talk to the third man. If he derives so much enjoyment from stealing a sandwhich, let him have it. He will just give it back, why would he keep it? IF that doesnt work tell the kid to ask for it back. Unless he likes to deprive kids of food he would probably give it back.

Well I've worked in shops (run by companies), and I did that out of my own choice. Had I decided I didn't like the way they did things, I would have left. As it turned out, I thought that our trade - my work for their money, was satisfactory, and I continued working their for as long as it was convenient.

If you don't work, you can't afford the means of life. Thus, you don't really agree to work, but do so to avoid worse alternatives.

im not saying that any government is perfect, on the countrary most governments are evil. but, i believe that non-government would be almost as bad as too much government.

We do not believe in having government inasmuch as we believe that a political organization specifically designed to prevent the potential abuse of power while still fulfilling those roles of co-ordination while doing so in the most democratic and non-hierarchal way is better.

My proof for my beliefs? whats your proof?

Anthropological and biological support for co-operation and mutual aid within a species (not just humans) all/almost all the time. Within the human species, this can be subject to at least two different variations. A) Co-operation most likely during situations of plentiful resources for all (social reasons to live together/work isn't relatively all that hard) B) Co-operation during times of scarcity - 1. It may be a situation (specific name for this in Game theory) where if any one participant works for their own interest, all parties involved lose 2. Working together, more can potentially be achieved.

I cant really say that I have 'hard' proof, just my belief (in looking at human nature and the development of society) that humans are inherently self-intereseted. That humans are animals, and the only distinction is that we do have free will. But not to the extent to where we create our own morality. We have free will to find out what is good, and choose correctly. evil is a human that thinks hes choosing correctly but isnt, therefore by finding out what is good- he will automatically do good because its in his self-interest.

What do you mean, "we have free will but not to the extent to create our own morality"? Please clarify your concept/definition of morality and how it relates to free will - absoulte definitions of good/evil? What?

im talking socrates' ideal of good over the anarchist ideal of self-legislative morality. What if my morality dictates that rape is good? that i will be an all-around better person if I rape a young women?

...

Another irrelevant example. Again, see points about "Your rights end where others' begin" and individualist anarchism being irrelevant.

or even a less dramatic example, what if my morality dictates that killing pandas and eating them is RIGHT? If I wanted to kill and eat all the pandas, do you or any individual have the RIGHT and/or AUTHORITY to infringe on my autonomy and stop me from killing and eating an extinct species, just because its part of my moral compass?

A better example...

Do I have the "right" or "authority" to do so? Irrelevant/wrong vocabulary. Do I have the responsibility to: 1) be an advocate for those who can't advocate for themselves (environment)? Yes, to a point (to see if there is some compromise that can be worked out between what I am assuming to be a cultural issue/tradition and an itegral part of the ecosystem). 2) Protect the environment because, ultimately, I am protecting you, me, and everyone else.

If you don't work, you can't afford the means of life. Thus, you don't really agree to work, but do so to avoid worse alternatives.

That is true whether there are corporations or not. If you buy your food, or farm it yourself, it still takes work.

I may not have agreed freely to work, but I did agree freely to work at those shops.

I've got a good one. Since corporations are voluntary organizations in the sense that you only join them if you want, and only buy their products if you want, wouldn't the disestablishment of government, and the removal of associated regulations on business encourage corporations, and help them to grow?

Actually, they aren't voluntary. If they were, there wouldn't be many workers in them as they take away a lot of freedom. Who would volunteer to take orders 8 hours a day?

...

Are they voluntary? Yes and no. Yes in an obvious way not worth explaining. No because of societal expectations and economic survival.

That is true whether there are corporations or not. If you buy your food, or farm it yourself, it still takes work.

I may not have agreed freely to work, but I did agree freely to work at those shops.

Now we get into subjective property/money arguments.

Any system is going to fail if people are against it. Dictatorship wont work if the police and army dont want to fight. Capitalism wont work if people dont want to provide the best to the consumer and instead want to cheat them. Communism wont work if people are greedy or want to do their own thing. Anarchism wont work if people want a government to take care of their responsabilities.

Lets now say that everyone IS for a certain government. If they all like it then its the best government possible. I as a dictator love my people and do everything they need. I love helping them and they love me fro what I've done. Whats wrong with dictatorship then?


BUT on to the question to the Anarchists. Taking the info from above, wouldnt you say that you should have multiple forms of government, and an anarchist society, so that people who like capitalism can live under a capitalist government?

OK, here's another question:

Do you vote?

That is true whether there are corporations or not. If you buy your food, or farm it yourself, it still takes work.

I may not have agreed freely to work, but I did agree freely to work at those shops.

True, but when you work at the shops, you take orders.

Taking the info from above, wouldnt you say that you should have multiple forms of government, and an anarchist society, so that people who like capitalism can live under a capitalist government?

Exactly. That is the most democratic way to go about it. And, technically, may I remind you, that capitalism is not a form of government, but that there are huge differences between statist-capitalism and minarchist- or anarcho-capitalism.

BUT on to the question to the Anarchists. Taking the info from above, wouldnt you say that you should have multiple forms of government, and an anarchist society, so that people who like capitalism can live under a capitalist government?

I suppose they could.

OK, here's another question:

Do you vote?

Usually only at local/county levels, sometimes state levels - your federal vote doesn't matter either technically or in reality, IMO, yet I do not necessarily care or expect you to believe as I do.

True, but when you work at the shops, you take orders.

I took orders from supervisors. They had worked at the shop longer and knew how to do things. By coordinating the cashiers' efforts, they made the shop run more efficiently.

I took orders from supervisors. They had worked at the shop longer and knew how to do things. By coordinating the cashiers' efforts, they made the shop run more efficiently.

You are correct, and I would say that there was nothing wrong with working for the shop. Mutualism (a *possible* economic aspect of anarchism) is not in conflict with this and would be based around either a craftsman/apprentice type business organization or that of a co-operative.

Sorry for firing questions so quickly, but I have some more:

What is your stance on education?

1. How would schooling be done in anarchy?

2. Would children be given the right to be truant, and to disobey their teachers?

Also, should children be free from the authority of their parents?

Then comes another question. Should these "societies" accept people who have different opinions or direct them to the closest society. Lets say I am for nudity and I walk into a community that is against nudity. Should they allow me into the community, or give me a map to the nearest nudist colony. In the sense, should communities accept those of a different opinion?

On principle, I would say you would be allowed to do as you wish as long as you kept in mind "Your rights end....". In actuality, I am sure that there are those who would be bothered by it, but as long as you weren't going nude just to provoke them (an infringement upon them), they would socially not want to associate with you and you would likely stand out, but some/many would stick with principle in this situation and be tactfully respectful of your choice to go nude. As far as your last sentence, could you be more specific?

Sorry for firing questions so quickly, but I have some more:

What is your stance on education?

1. How would schooling be done in anarchy?

2. Would children be given the right to be truant, and to disobey their teachers?

Also, should children be free from the authority of their parents?

Those are still very open and very...controversial...issues.

However, a *possible* example of how a school might be would be the Summerhill school...

Summerhill School Website (http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/pages/index.html)

Alas, lunch and a friend. I'll prolly return in a few hours, possibly tomorrow.

Sorry for firing questions so quickly, but I have some more:

What is your stance on education?

Currently, it is more a form of brainwashing than anything else.

1. How would schooling be done in anarchy?

In a freer manner than now. Children would have much more of a say in how things are run.

2. Would children be given the right to be truant, and to disobey their teachers?

Yes.

Also, should children be free from the authority of their parents?

It depends on how you mean it. They probably should listen to the advice of their parents, but the parents have no right to force children to obey them unquestioningly.

I took orders from supervisors. They had worked at the shop longer and knew how to do things. By coordinating the cashiers' efforts, they made the shop run more efficiently.

But how does that give them the right to deny your freedom?

time to add another anarchist to the mix.

What is your stance on education?

1. How would schooling be done in anarchy?

2. Would children be given the right to be truant, and to disobey their teachers?

Also, should children be free from the authority of their parents?

all societies must educate their children in some form so that the society may continue to function. anarchists have typically come down to the general opinion that an anarchist education must be much more 'free' and strive to develop autonomy and critical thinking among all people. in effect, most people take this to mean a radical overhaul of the entire educational system - the modern form of which was developed in order to train people to submit to authority, follow orders, and learn by rote memorization so that they would fit into the pre-determined mold of society. for the best and brightest there was some movement away from this as they got older, since they would most likely become the authority figures themselves, but only within the carefully defined limits of the field they chose.

the basic premise of an anarchist education must be one of egalitarianism; that students are not the subjects of the teachers, but partners in learning. the task of a teacher is to facilitate (in institutional or informal form) the natural curiousity of children and to help them focus it. since education would be more egalitarian, i see no way to force people to attend lessons. but in the experience of the various free schools this has never been much of an issue, in the same way that it is rarely an issue in college - you go because it interests you or because you realize that you need this before you can get to something else that does. and if it doesn't interest you, there is always something else you could do instead. people also have a limited right to disobey their teachers; limited by the rights of other's to not have their educational experience interrupted by someone who just wants to throw a fit.

as for the authority of parents over their children, and the broader question of any authority over children, it seems to me that we have to recognize children as a special case. they are free individuals, but physically and psychologically are not adults. this doesn't mean that they must be treated as possessions or slaves, but that we must strive to help make them ready for freedom and autonomy by teaching them responsibility and by allowing them a growing amount of say over the decisions that affect their lives. again in the experience of the various free and new schools, this seems to work out quite well with children at a much younger age than we typically believe in our culture. in them, the students often have full say in the making of most of the various rules. and while this sometimes leads to initial excesses, these quickly calm down as people discover what actually works for them. it seems that responsibility develops best in a condition of freedom and equality (but not license. people often confuse the two, but freedom does not mean getting and doing everything you want all the time).

at its most basic, parenting and education both must stop revolving around 'because i say so', which is the ultimate justification of all authoritarian actions across all levels of society. if you are going to exercise authority over children, do so in a way where you explain your reasoning and why you didn't trust them to make the right decision initially - you don't have to let them touch the hot stove or get hit by the truck. but doing things in a less authoritarian manner means that you can show them the reasons why things should be done or not done, and teaches them to make decisions like that on their own in the future on the basis of similar lines of reasoning.

[Free Soviets #67]
time to add another anarchist to the mix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clonetopia
What is your stance on education?

1. How would schooling be done in anarchy?

2. Would children be given the right to be truant, and to disobey their teachers?

Also, should children be free from the authority of their parents?

all societies must educate their children in some form so that the society may continue to function. anarchists have typically come down to the general opinion that an anarchist education must be much more 'free' and strive to develop autonomy and critical thinking among all people. in effect, most people take this to mean a radical overhaul of the entire educational system - the modern form of which was developed in order to train people to submit to authority, follow orders, and learn by rote memorization so that they would fit into the pre-determined mold of society. for the best and brightest there was some movement away from this as they got older, since they would most likely become the authority figures themselves, but only within the carefully defined limits of the field they chose.

the basic premise of an anarchist education must be one of egalitarianism; that students are not the subjects of the teachers, but partners in learning. the task of a teacher is to facilitate (in institutional or informal form) the natural curiousity of children and to help them focus it. since education would be more egalitarian, i see no way to force people to attend lessons. but in the experience of the various free schools this has never been much of an issue, in the same way that it is rarely an issue in college - you go because it interests you or because you realize that you need this before you can get to something else that does. and if it doesn't interest you, there is always something else you could do instead. people also have a limited right to disobey their teachers; limited by the rights of other's to not have their educational experience interrupted by someone who just wants to throw a fit.

as for the authority of parents over their children, and the broader question of any authority over children, it seems to me that we have to recognize children as a special case. they are free individuals, but physically and psychologically are not adults. this doesn't mean that they must be treated as possessions or slaves, but that we must strive to help make them ready for freedom and autonomy by teaching them responsibility and by allowing them a growing amount of say over the decisions that affect their lives. again in the experience of the various free and new schools, this seems to work out quite well with children at a much younger age than we typically believe in our culture. in them, the students often have full say in the making of most of the various rules. and while this sometimes leads to initial excesses, these quickly calm down as people discover what actually works for them. it seems that responsibility develops best in a condition of freedom and equality (but not license. people often confuse the two, but freedom does not mean getting and doing everything you want all the time).

at its most basic, parenting and education both must stop revolving around 'because i say so', which is the ultimate justification of all authoritarian actions across all levels of society. if you are going to exercise authority over children, do so in a way where you explain your reasoning and why you didn't trust them to make the right decision initially - you don't have to let them touch the hot stove or get hit by the truck. but doing things in a less authoritarian manner means that you can show them the reasons why things should be done or not done, and teaches them to make decisions like that on their own in the future on the basis of similar lines of reasoning.

I simply will not listen to the rantings of anyone who refuses to use the shift key.

This is taking the whole "egalitarian" thing entirely too far.

Learn to use the language, and you might be worth listening to.

:D

How does God fit in? Would people have the ability to have personal religion?

Have you ever burned your pubes while dancing around a fire naked?

I've got a good one. Since corporations are voluntary organizations in the sense that you only join them if you want, and only buy their products if you want, wouldn't the disestablishment of government, and the removal of associated regulations on business encourage corporations, and help them to grow?

corporations are actually a product of the government. they need the government to exist - to grant them the privileges of incorporation and to subsidize their costs and inefficiencies. now i would also like to see all existing workplaces taken over by their workers, but lately i have been leaning towards the mutualist argument that without government coercion to back them up, capitalist commercial organizations - particularly multinational corporations - would be grossly uncompetitive.

How does God fit in? Would people have the ability to have personal religion?

undoubtedly. there have actually been a number of christian anarchists. they recently had a conference on it in new york.
http://www.jesusradicals.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

and i know of a group of people in north africa who are working on reconciling islam with anarchism - which probably isn't as hard as it first appears, given the well known ability of religions change their interpretations and emphasis of their various teachings when it suits them. and islam was a rather egalitarian religion compared to its competition back in the day.

the one thing all of the various religious anarchists have had in common was a rejection or dramatic down-playing of the 'official' church and its institutionalized hierarchy.

Have you ever burned your pubes while dancing around a fire naked?

HEH HE HE HE HE HE HE...!!!!

:D

No,... but I've heard that many "fire leapers" (aka leftists) actually LIKE the "toasty testes" and "lava labium" effect.

Be honest,.. it DOES sound intriguing,.. doesn't it..!?

Free Market

hey, did you see the new book, 'studies in mutualist political economy' by kevin carson?
http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html

available for your readin' enjoyment in both e and dead tree form

Not strictly on topic, but how old is letila?

undoubtedly. there have actually been a number of christian anarchists.
Leo Tolstoj for example.

Now to the question that made me abandon Sterner (liberal anarchist, don't ask me for comments ppl, it is their thread) for fascism (pre Mussolini): How do you raise individuals? If you are a christian anarchist or belive in tradition like the cossacks of Tolstoj the answer is simple. But if you are nihilist? And who are taking care for the children (once again I suppose that you are nihilists like me)?

"We are nihilists, we believe in nothing, Lebowski"

Anarchy is impossible to maintain, the perfect society is communal, total government

Now to the question that made me abandon Sterner (liberal anarchist, don't ask me for comments ppl, it is their thread) for fascism (pre Mussolini): How do you raise individuals? If you are a christian anarchist or belive in tradition like the cossacks of Tolstoj the answer is simple. But if you are nihilist? And who are taking care for the children (once again I suppose that you are nihilists like me)?

Simple, in a more egalitarian manner. Instead of demanding obedience, give children some space.

Anarchy is impossible to maintain, the perfect society is communal, total government

Which is what anarchy basically is.

corporations are actually a product of the government. they need the government to exist

How so?

No they don't



now i would also like to see all existing workplaces taken over by their workers,



Like stock options? Co-ops are struggling to compete with purely capitalist companies.


but lately i have been leaning towards the mutualist argument that without government coercion to back them up, capitalist commercial organizations - particularly multinational corporations - would be grossly uncompetitive.

Nonsense

How so?

Government violence keeps people off corporate property if they don't agree to do what the corporation tells them to do.

Government violence keeps people off corporate property if they don't agree to do what the corporation tells them to do.

Why can't a private security force do that? You need an access card to get into my building.


Who's going to stop me from taking your ham sandwich?

How so?
...
Co-ops are struggling to compete with purely capitalist companies.

in order to become a corporation you must get a charter from the government, which grants certain legal privileges to the corporation that do not otherwise exist, and that i certainly do not get. on top of this, the huge sprawling masses of multinational corporations use the various states of the world all the time to subsidize their activities - build them infrastructure, steal people's land for them, give them sweetheart deal government contracts, just hand them cash, do the r&d for them, bail them out when things go bad, etc.

so yeah, co-ops and collectives very often struggle in the face of capitalist competition. but this is a struggle between the privileged and the dispossessed, and of course the dispossessed will not win easily. but get rid of privilege and we'll see who comes out on top.

in order to become a corporation you must get a charter from the government, which grants certain legal privileges to the corporation that do not otherwise exist, and that i certainly do not get.

Right, and cars would not exist if the DMV wasn't around to issue a vehicle registration.

You mean like raising capital through a public stock offering and limited liability?

How does God fit in? Would people have the ability to have personal religion?

What makes you think they wouldn't have the ability to have a personal religon or however else they choose to pursue spirtuality or meaning?

Leo Tolstoj for example.

Now to the question that made me abandon Sterner (liberal anarchist, don't ask me for comments ppl, it is their thread) for fascism (pre Mussolini): How do you raise individuals? If you are a christian anarchist or belive in tradition like the cossacks of Tolstoj the answer is simple. But if you are nihilist? And who are taking care for the children (once again I suppose that you are nihilists like me)?

No, please read the rest of the thread or at least enough of it to get the gist of it, including the historical definitions and ideas behind the terms "anarch/y/ist/ism".

"We are nihilists, we believe in nothing, Lebowski"

Anarchy is impossible to maintain, the perfect society is communal, total government

...

Read the rest of the thread, please, or make a separate thread attacking nihilism as either a means (violent revolution to achieve an ideology), an end, or both.

How so?

No they don't





Like stock options? Co-ops are struggling to compete with purely capitalist companies.



Nonsense

...

Offer evidence to support your own ideas if you are going to ask for more evidence for ours.

Free Market

o right ... because that works and all

Right, and cars would not exist if the DMV wasn't around to issue a vehicle registration.

no. more like dmv issued driver's licenses would not exist if there was no dmv to issue them.

Humans have no inherent nature other than free will.


Hello, I have studied some anarchism, as with as many other social developements as I can, and have read over countless arguments attacking anarchism that are just reputed by anarchists. What I feel it comes down to is the view of authority in anarchy compared to other social developments.
In your definition of anarchy the base of it is "no authority" or as some see it no order. But will that not be inherent in a social development. For a social group to progress through life, one must learn. Whether this be how to grow crops, or take care of one's self. Lion cubs are not born knowing how to hunt, they must be taught. Then a teacher(s) is needed, and this gives some form of authority to that individual. However small the example in real time things are on a grander scale, because for any social development to survive complex interactions must take place. Leaders must develope in order to have some type of structure, cause structure will always form in a social development. A social development without structure is destined to fail (imho). Going back to lions, a supreme and omega male lion who is the strongest will end up leading. Offering protection as well as order to the pride. In this way the group can hunt together, live together and breed together which will further the existence of that pride. However, if there was no omega lion then the lions would be one for themselves, and without the stucture of hunting that lions use in prides, they would never eat. For they would never be able to catch prey one on one.
Also humans are born with different abilties, inherent to them individually. Some learn faster, some learn by different means. Many people think differently and in that way they can build different objects that combined with a different persons inherent ability they can create something beneficial to the social group. Of course if they work in total unison and without constraint, this is an example of anarchy at its best. When two people can work unrestricted, only by themselves, and create something truly amazing. However this applies to social thoughts. Some people are better at analyzing social issues than others, and know how to handle them better than some. Does this not give them a social status within the group. A type of authority to dictate over how to solve social or other issues, and even as to what would be an afteraffect or consequence of those issues.
I do not see how without some type of social structure new frontiers would arise. How a growing industry would survive. Ideas might come up, and things may arise, but never at the rate at which a structured social development would produce, and they might not even arise at all. But be lost to causes such as violence. But violence is a touchy issue with anarchism, because it might be the worst argument against anarchy. In any social development there will be violence, its just how that social group deals with it.
But as far as humans are just born with inherent free will. That may be true, but as the human mind progresses it learns many different things. Violence, love, hatred, compassion, greed, lust, and a whole list of different things. And each mind reacts differently with each emotion, which can be inherent in them. Some will go up to be greedy, and some will grow up to be jealous and do different things based on their inherent nature of what to do with those emotions.

I might have gotten off track, but basically what i'm trying to say is that while anarchy might work, i humbly think it would be useless. Social groups would inevitably form, and each social group would have a different developement, whether it be democratic, totalitarion, or countless others. Because for any progress to form leaders will have to rise, direction will have to be given and organization will develope. While humans may be inherent with free will, they are also inherent with how they react to certain emotions, and therefore may become inherently evil. People will then seek for a form of protection from others, and again social groups will arise out of necessity and social development will take different courses depending on the individuals forming the group.

There done. I did not go back and edit if you would please disregard any menial grammar errors thank you. I would appreciate any and all feedback. Again i have only studied a little on the subject of anarchy, and if any of this is consistent with anarchist ideals, or just has no relevance at all, for i might have gone too far on the authority view, then feel free to flame. Thank you!

...

Offer evidence to support your own ideas if you are going to ask for more evidence for ours.

Yeah that makes sense.

You made a statement. I am questioning it. You lose.

no. more like dmv issued driver's licenses would not exist if there was no dmv to issue them.

My point exactly

A government entity does not have to exist in order for there to be corporations. I could easily issue stock without a government.

Free Marketo right ... because that works and all
Let me guess.

You are confusing the Free Market with Capitalism?

And to Free Spviets, thanks for the link, unfortunately I don't really have time to read it at the moment.

And to Free Spviets, thanks for the link, unfortunately I don't really have time to read it at the moment.

no problem.

Yeah that makes sense.

You made a statement. I am questioning it. You lose.

...

You made a question to my statement, without any proof that the question was valid or correct. If you showed a little more respect and maturity, it would lend weight to your arguments.

...

You made a question to my statement, without any proof that the question was valid or correct. If you showed a little more respect and maturity, it would lend weight to your arguments.

Look, if you can't defend your position, just say so. You made blanket accusations about coporations. I am questioning them. You've yet to give me an answer. Let's hear some specifics.

[Anarchist Communities #50]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kis4razu
im not saying that any government is perfect, on the countrary most governments are evil. but, i believe that non-government would be almost as bad as too much government.

We do not believe in having government inasmuch as we believe that a political organization specifically designed to prevent the potential abuse of power while still fulfilling those roles of co-ordination while doing so in the most democratic and non-hierarchal way is better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kis4razu
My proof for my beliefs? whats your proof?

Anthropological and biological support for co-operation and mutual aid within a species (not just humans) all/almost all the time. Within the human species, this can be subject to at least two different variations. A) Co-operation most likely during situations of plentiful resources for all (social reasons to live together/work isn't relatively all that hard) B) Co-operation during times of scarcity - 1. It may be a situation (specific name for this in Game theory) where if any one participant works for their own interest, all parties involved lose 2. Working together, more can potentially be achieved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kis4razu
I cant really say that I have 'hard' proof, just my belief (in looking at human nature and the development of society) that humans are inherently self-intereseted. That humans are animals, and the only distinction is that we do have free will. But not to the extent to where we create our own morality. We have free will to find out what is good, and choose correctly. evil is a human that thinks hes choosing correctly but isnt, therefore by finding out what is good- he will automatically do good because its in his self-interest.

What do you mean, "we have free will but not to the extent to create our own morality"? Please clarify your concept/definition of morality and how it relates to free will - absoulte definitions of good/evil? What?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kis4razu
im talking socrates' ideal of good over the anarchist ideal of self-legislative morality. What if my morality dictates that rape is good? that i will be an all-around better person if I rape a young women?

..

Another irrelevant example. Again, see points about "Your rights end where others' begin" and individualist anarchism being irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kis4razu
or even a less dramatic example, what if my morality dictates that killing pandas and eating them is RIGHT? If I wanted to kill and eat all the pandas, do you or any individual have the RIGHT and/or AUTHORITY to infringe on my autonomy and stop me from killing and eating an extinct species, just because its part of my moral compass?

A better example...

Do I have the "right" or "authority" to do so? Irrelevant/wrong vocabulary. Do I have the responsibility to: 1) be an advocate for those who can't advocate for themselves (environment)? Yes, to a point (to see if there is some compromise that can be worked out between what I am assuming to be a cultural issue/tradition and an itegral part of the ecosystem). 2) Protect the environment because, ultimately, I am protecting you, me, and everyone else.

Anarchism is a juvenile idealistic hyper-intellectual argument put forth by the would-be-meglomaniacal to entice the young into stunned servitude.

It is the left's equivalent of "follow me for I am the prophet of the greatest wisdom".

Anarchists will always be ignored by non-adolescents, because of their being recognized for the charlatans they are.

anyone with, you know, an actual question they want answered?

Look, if you can't defend your position, just say so. You made blanket accusations about coporations. I am questioning them. You've yet to give me an answer. Let's hear some specifics.

*I* did not make blanket statements about corporations. I am not familiar with enough information to make any lengthy or good argument one way or another - pay attention to who posts what.

Anarchists will always be ignored by non-adolescents, because of their being recognized for the charlatans they are.

As though Peter Kropotkin, Alexander Berkman, and Emma Goldman were an adolescent. :rolleyes:

Anarchism is a juvenile idealistic hyper-intellectual argument put forth by the would-be-meglomaniacal to entice the young into stunned servitude.

It is the left's equivalent of "follow me for I am the prophet of the greatest wisdom".

Anarchists will always be ignored by non-adolescents, because of their being recognized for the charlatans they are.

Wonder bread is more healthy than any other grain product because I said so.

...

Give some examples and clarify or your argument is as unsupported and not worth debating as the example at the beginning of my post.

[Free Soviets #98]
anyone with, you know, an actual question they want answered?

Touche..!

Heh he he he he he he.... :D

As though Peter Kropotkin, Alexander Berkman, and Emma Goldman were adolescents. :rolleyes:

Or Noam Chomsky or Murray Brookchin, to name two more recent examples.

[Letila #100]
As though Peter Kropotkin, Alexander Berkman, and Emma Goldman were an adolescent. :rolleyes:

And where are they now,.. and what lasting "thing" have they left the world with..?

(( I truly don't know, as I'm not a political science type person,.. obviously. :) ))

[Anarchist Communities #101]
Wonder bread is more healthy than any other grain product because I said so.

...

Give some examples and clarify or your argument is as unsupported and not worth debating as the example at the beginning of my post.

Debate..?

Why the fixation on "debate"..?

This forum is not a "debate".

What of simple statement of opinion? What of statement of viewpoint?

Do you find my statements "objectionable" in some way.

If you have a comment on my statements, you are free to proffer it.

I'd be interested in your views on my statements.

:)

[Anarchist Communities #103]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Letila
As though Peter Kropotkin, Alexander Berkman, and Emma Goldman were adolescents.

Or Noam Chomsky or Murray Brookchin, to name two more recent examples.

Same question: And where are they now,.. and what lasting "thing" have they left the world with..?

I wanted to make by country a anarchy state but the corporations took over. What went wrong?

And where are they now,.. and what lasting "thing" have they left the world with..?

in addition to his contributions to anarchism and socialism in general, kropotkin was a key figure in bringing about the re-interpretation of darwin away from the social darwinist 'red in tooth and claw' idea, and towards recognition of the evolutionary benefits of mutual aid that explain social species and group behavior. additionally he was an important geologist and geographer in russia - he even has a volcano named after him. and then there is the city of kropotkin (pop 77,200) in krasnodar, russia, also named after him.

as for emma, pbs just recently showed a new documentary on her life. and she has been considered a hero of the women's movement for decades. not to mention the slogan attributed to her - 'if i can't dance i don't want to be part of your revolution'.

even alex gets remembered, but mostly for his failed attempt to shoot henry clay frisk (who was behind a particularly brutal and violent strike-busting action, involving machine guns and cannons). he certainly got a brief mention in my high school history class. which is more than you can say for 80% of the deified 'founding fathers'.

I wanted to make by country a anarchy state but the corporations took over. What went wrong?

in this game? or hypothetically?

in addition to his contributions to anarchism and socialism in general, kropotkin was a key figure in bringing about the re-interpretation of darwin away from the social darwinist 'red in tooth and claw' idea, and towards recognition of the evolutionary benefits of mutual aid that explain social species and group behavior. additionally he was an important geologist and geographer in russia - he even has a volcano named after him. and then there is the city of kropotkin (pop 77,200) in krasnodar, russia, also named after him.

as for emma, pbs just recently showed a new documentary on her life. and she has been considered a hero of the women's movement for decades. not to mention the slogan attributed to her - 'if i can't dance i don't want to be part of your revolution'.

even alex gets remembered, but mostly for his failed attempt to shoot henry clay frisk (who was behind a particularly brutal and violent strike-busting action, involving machine guns and cannons). he certainly got a brief mention in my high school history class. which is more than you can say for 80% of the deified 'founding fathers'.

Thanks, FS. I was just about to say that.

*I* did not make blanket statements about corporations. I am not familiar with enough information to make any lengthy or good argument one way or another - pay attention to who posts what.

Ah, that's right, I just noticed I started out talking to Free Soviets. Looks like you answered for him. You guys all look the same to me.

Why do you encourage violence, and a lack of social services? You anarchists are no better than the repbulicans(except you not warpigs)

Why do you encourage violence, and a lack of social services? You anarchists are no better than the repbulicans(except you not warpigs)

Last time I checked, I was not a nihilist nor was I encouraging nihilism.

Why do you encourage violence, and a lack of social services? You anarchists are no better than the repbulicans(except you not warpigs)

I'm actually strongly opposed to violence and anarcho-communism is all about providing for people's needs.

A government is needed to provide for the people. Corporations are needed, government funds are needed. Anarch-communism is the ultimate form of Capitalism, and you should know that.

Why do you encourage violence, and a lack of social services? You anarchists are no better than the repbulicans(except you not warpigs)

we don't encourage violence. in fact, we have used far less violence in our entire history than your average president orders in a single term. the claim that anarchists encourage violence is a 130+ year old smear based on a silly double standard - when the state attacks people (or even when the capitalists hire people outside the state to do the attacking) this is written off as necessary and even just and proper and good, but when an anarchist defends himself or the lives of others or tries to take back that which has been stolen from them that is violence and terrorism. we have rarely, if ever, fired the first shot. but those of us who are not pacifists will not give up our inherent right to self defense just because those attacking us have the permission of some illegitimate ruler and a spiffy uniform.

and we don't want to get rid of social services per se. we merely think that: 1) the state is illegitimate and unjust (based, as it is, on coercion and theft) and all services coming from an unjust institution are themselves tainted with its various crimes and 2) the state is not the proper agent to handle the running and distribution of those social services anyway - there are other sorts of institutions that could do it better. state-run social services are a double edged sword, and the ruling class is holding the non-pointy end. for example, gaining access to state-run social services means that you have to submit to various forms of government monitoring and agree to abide by rules that you wouldn't otherwise consent to. it makes you dependent and isolated, as well as further destroying the remaining bonds of social responsibility. we don't need to look out for ourselves and each other because the state will do it for us. and, of course, the state goes out of its way to make the entire system as complicated and annoying and time-consuming as possible. additionally, these services (and the welfare state in general) were created by the ruling class to secure their own position within the system - often to undercut the possibility for radical change engendered by the state's earlier crass use of force to further the ends of the ultra-rich through a system of appeasement. when the ruling class feels secure again they immediately begin to dismantle these compromises to again get back to unhindered exploitation.

in addition to his contributions to anarchism and socialism in general, kropotkin was a key figure in bringing about the re-interpretation of darwin away from the social darwinist 'red in tooth and claw' idea, and towards recognition of the evolutionary benefits of mutual aid that explain social species and group behavior. additionally he was an important geologist and geographer in russia - he even has a volcano named after him. and then there is the city of kropotkin (pop 77,200) in krasnodar, russia, also named after him.

as for emma, pbs just recently showed a new documentary on her life. and she has been considered a hero of the women's movement for decades. not to mention the slogan attributed to her - 'if i can't dance i don't want to be part of your revolution'.

even alex gets remembered, but mostly for his failed attempt to shoot henry clay frisk (who was behind a particularly brutal and violent strike-busting action, involving machine guns and cannons). he certainly got a brief mention in my high school history class. which is more than you can say for 80% of the deified 'founding fathers'.


OH BOY! I can't wait to see Iakeokeo's answer to this, or will he act stupid and look the other way? hehe :D There's no rethoric BS that will get him out of this one, so I think the second choice will be his. :p

OH BOY! I can't wait to see Iakeokeo's answer to this, or will he act stupid and look the other way? hehe :D There's no rethoric BS that will get him out of this one, so I think the second choice will be his. :p

someday, it would be nice to be as forgotten as the big name anarchists.

"Anarchism" is to political theory what astrology is to science.

Anarchists are essentially political astrologers, their banter isnt based in reality but rather in fantasy. They make no practical or relevent contribution to anything.

"Anarchism" is to political theory what astrology is to science.

Anarchists are essentially political astrologers, their banter isnt based in reality but rather in fantasy. They make no practical or relevent contribution to anything.

hooray for argument by assertion. care to actually participate in the thread?

Let's play along with him Free Soviets:

"Anarchism" is to political theory what astrology is to science.

Anarchists are essentially political astrologers, their banter isnt based in reality but rather in fantasy. They make no practical or relevent contribution to anything.

Mmmh... 'based on reality'? Do you actually believe that because someone cannot prove their beliefs by the means of 'science', that means it's useless? I'm guessing you're an agnostic, otherwise you are a 'religious astrologer'. :D

You have examples of 'anarchist' societies in history that have thrived?


You have some examples of regions in the world where people do not seek to subjugate one another by force of arms?

Let's play along with him Free Soviets:



Mmmh... 'based on reality'? Do you actually believe that because someone cannot prove their beliefs by the means of 'science', that means it's useless? I'm guessing you're an agnostic, otherwise you are a 'religious astrologer'. :D


Yup agnostic thats me.

But as that is beside the point, what I meant is the fact that anarchism isnt based on a realistic model of how people behave.

In the anarchist fantasyland, people have the innate compulsion to live peacefully as equals in a cooperative society.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as human history proves with a thousand examples.

But as that is beside the point, what I meant is the fact that anarchism isnt based on a realistic model of how people behave.

In the anarchist fantasyland, people have the innate compulsion to live peacefully as equals in a cooperative society.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as human history proves with a thousand examples.

cooperation through enlightened self-interest is an evolutionarily stable strategy. this has been fairly conclusively shown - check out pretty much anything on the evolution of cooperation. it is not the only strategy that works, but it does work. what matters most is that you have systems that allow for trust and communication and are capable of dealing with defectors.

human history since the rise of classes and states has been the story of a tiny elite dominating others and fighting amongst the various other states for further dominance and access to resources. this strategy has sort of worked for them - it works for the winners at least. but this strategy only works only as long as a tiny elite is able to maintain its dominance over the vast majority of people, because otherwise the payoff of all this violence is vastly outweighed by the cost of it. yes, people have always fought, but it takes the state or state-like systems to really get down to the business of organized slaughter.

in an anarchist society that actively opposes concentrated payoffs to a tiny elite with the costs borne by others, it seems to me that relatively peaceful cooperation would be the only strategy that makes sense. its not as if we don't plan to organize to collectively deal with defectors and defend against would-be elites.

You have examples of 'anarchist' societies in history that have thrived?

modern anarchist or stateless?

What about traffic regulations, lights, stop signs etc?

What about traffic regulations, lights, stop signs etc?

in so far as they serve a legitimate and useful function, i cannot imagine a free society not coming to some voluntary agreement about traffic regulations. we don't really object to rules per se but rather to rulers and the way rules are currently made. of course, there is an absolutely enormous amount of utterly awful/unjust/ridiculous/etc rules that we fight to do away with and that we often do not currently recognize in practice.

we merely think that: 1) the state is illegitimate and unjust (based, as it is, on coercion and theft) and all services coming from an unjust institution are themselves tainted with its various crimes

There I disagree. While that generalization may have been/was valid in the 19th century world of kleptocracy/the gilded age, it is less valid today. When asked why they chose the career they did, the typical law enforcement officer will reply that he wanted to help people, etc. I don't think that the state is illegitimate so much as it creates the (too frequently excercised) potential for a gross abuse of power, as well as other comparitvely better aspects of a non-statist system.

2) the state is not the proper agent to handle the running and distribution of those social services anyway[...]we don't need to look out for ourselves and each other because the state will do it for us.

Nice clincher...gotta write that down...

these services (and the welfare state in general) were created by the ruling class to secure their own position within the system - often to undercut the possibility for radical change engendered by the state's earlier crass use of force to further the ends of the ultra-rich through a system of appeasement. when the ruling class feels secure again they immediately begin to dismantle these compromises to again get back to unhindered exploitation.

Comes across as paranoid conspiracy theory. Difficult to conclusively prove and from my point of view, not necessary to an argument for anarchist society.

My problem with the US state is mostly that it is based on deception and bad faith. Most people in the US wholeheartedly support the government and its authoritarian rules. The problem is the culture itself that is authoritarian. The US government does use plenty of force, though.

Comes across as paranoid conspiracy theory. Difficult to conclusively prove and from my point of view, not necessary to an argument for anarchist society.

certainly not an essential argument. but it does fit the facts on the ground very nicely.

"Relief [i.e. welfare] arrangements are ancillary to economic arrangements. Their chief function is to regulate labor, and they do that in two general ways. First, when mass unemployment leads to outbreaks of turmoil, relief programs are ordinarily initiated or expanded to absorb and control enough of the unemployed to restore order; then, as turbulence subsides, the relief system contracts, expelling those who are needed to populate the labor market. Relief also performs a labor-regulating function in this shrunken state, however. Some of the aged, the disabled, the insane, and others who are of no use as workers are left on the relief rolls, and their treatment is so degrading and punitive as to instill in the laboring masses a fear of the fate that awaits them should they relax into beggary and pauperism. To demean and punish those who do not work is to exalt by contrast even the meanest labor at the meanest wages. These regulative functions of relief, and their periodic expansion and contraction, are made necessary by several strains toward instability inherent in capitalist economies."

- Chapter 1, paragraph 2, from the classic book "Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare," by Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward. 1971

(as quoted at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/issues/nn94.html)

cooperation through enlightened self-interest is an evolutionarily stable strategy. this has been fairly conclusively shown - check out pretty much anything on the evolution of cooperation. it is not the only strategy that works, but it does work. what matters most is that you have systems that allow for trust and communication and are capable of dealing with defectors.

human history since the rise of classes and states has been the story of a tiny elite dominating others and fighting amongst the various other states for further dominance and access to resources. this strategy has sort of worked for them - it works for the winners at least. but this strategy only works only as long as a tiny elite is able to maintain its dominance over the vast majority of people, because otherwise the payoff of all this violence is vastly outweighed by the cost of it. yes, people have always fought, but it takes the state or state-like systems to really get down to the business of organized slaughter.

in an anarchist society that actively opposes concentrated payoffs to a tiny elite with the costs borne by others, it seems to me that relatively peaceful cooperation would be the only strategy that makes sense. its not as if we don't plan to organize to collectively deal with defectors and defend against would-be elites.


And can you propose a sensible model of an organization to "collectively deal with defectors and defend agaisnt would-be elitists?"
Sounds a bit like a modified Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and we allll know how that turned out (MVD, NKVD, Stalin).

Also, do you have an example of a society which practiced "cooperation through enlightened self-interest" and thrived.

I contend that the "enlightened self-interest" you predicate your 'anarchist' society upon is purely fanciful.
Much like astrology.

And can you propose a sensible model of an organization to "collectively deal with defectors and defend agaisnt would-be elitists?"
Sounds a bit like a modified Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and we allll know how that turned out (MVD, NKVD, Stalin).

Also, do you have an example of a society which practiced "cooperation through enlightened self-interest" and thrived.

I contend that the "enlightened self-interest" you predicate your 'anarchist' society upon is purely fanciful.
Much like astrology.

elites, not elitists. and sure. to deal with defectors (and i'm using this in the game theory sense) you merely have to keep track of people who consistently don't cooperate/break their promises/whatever and then don't invite them to participate in cooperative activities anymore - "there's some nice looking land over there, have a nice life". the nuts and bolts of keeping track may differ (from simply knowing the people you live and work with to free-market reputation rating agencies), but really this is no different than the basic idea behind all cooperative activities that have ever been done.

as for would-be elites, we just need to be vigilant for people who try to dominate others and stop them using social pressure - hunter-gatherer groups like the !kung were particularly skilled at this. of course, sometimes this won't work and we'll have to stop them using physical pressure through either individual or collective self defense - possibly through the use of some form of egalitarian mutual defense organization. christopher boehm calls this sort of thing the assertion of "reverse hierarchies" (hierarchies where the would-be subordinates take collective action to dominate would-be dominators), though he was talking about human behavior in already existing egalitarian groups such as the above-mentioned !kung and the way we believe our prehistoric ancestors lived.

all human society is based at least partly on enlightened self-interest. without it, no social organization or activity would be possible. if you knew everyone was going to cheat you all the time (acting under naive self-interest), you would never attempt to do anything with anyone, because you'd be better off on your own than risk doing all the work for somebody else's gain. however, the pay-off from cooperation is much better for each of us individually than the payoff from mutual non-cooperation. and it is only among a population that generally cooperates that defecting makes sense at all in - only then does cheating actually get you anything. so we develop strategies to enable ourselves to work with each other and deal with the occassional defector.

Anarchists have said in this thread that if government were removed:
- society would lean naturally to socialism rather than capitalism
- food would continue to be produced at the rate at which it is currently produced
- food distribution would improve

why would any of these things happen?

My problem with the US state is mostly that it is based on deception and bad faith. Most people in the US wholeheartedly support the government and its authoritarian rules. The problem is the culture itself that is authoritarian. The US government does use plenty of force, though.

It is clearly bollocks that most people in the US wholeheartedly support the government.

It is unclear whether a majority of US citizens even support the existence of the government.

imo culture is authoritarian because people don't want to spend 75% of their worktime defendng themselves.

"Relief [i.e. welfare] arrangements are ancillary to economic arrangements. Their chief function is to regulate labor, and they do that in two general ways. First, when mass unemployment leads to outbreaks of turmoil, relief programs are ordinarily initiated or expanded to absorb and control enough of the unemployed to restore order; then, as turbulence subsides, the relief system contracts, expelling those who are needed to populate the labor market. Relief also performs a labor-regulating function in this shrunken state, however. Some of the aged, the disabled, the insane, and others who are of no use as workers are left on the relief rolls, and their treatment is so degrading and punitive as to instill in the laboring masses a fear of the fate that awaits them should they relax into beggary and pauperism. To demean and punish those who do not work is to exalt by contrast even the meanest labor at the meanest wages. These regulative functions of relief, and their periodic expansion and contraction, are made necessary by several strains toward instability inherent in capitalist economies."

- Chapter 1, paragraph 2, from the classic book "Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare," by Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward. 1971

(as quoted at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/issues/nn94.html)


So relief programs increase in times of economic difficulty and decrease when there is a lot of work to go around? I'm not sure that the authors have got the cause and effect right there.

Leaving the infirm on the dole is a warning to the firm to make sure they get jobs? I suppose we should let them starve then. Furthermore, stigma doesn't really discourage a not insignificant section of society at least in the UK from subsisting on dole.

It is clearly bollocks that most people in the US wholeheartedly support the government.

It is unclear whether a majority of US citizens even support the existence of the government.

In my experience they do.

imo culture is authoritarian because people don't want to spend 75% of their worktime defendng themselves.

From what? Bears? Will serial killers suddenly up the rating of killing because they're facing anarchists rather than police? Government doesn't stop serial killers that effectively. John Wayne Gacy killed 33 people before he was caught.

At the same time, government has killed more people than a million John Wayne Gacies would have. WWII alone killed around 60 million people and I've heard estimates as high as 80 million. Authoritarian socialism and capitalism probably killed around 100 million people each.

Anarchists have said in this thread that if government were removed:
- society would lean naturally to socialism rather than capitalism
- food would continue to be produced at the rate at which it is currently produced
- food distribution would improve

why would any of these things happen?

If people stopped supporting government, they would probably come to see other forms of hierarchy as unjustified as well, hense leaning toward socialism.

Capitalism distributes food based on profitability, so if a capitalist firm can make more money by selling tobacco to rich people rather than wheat to poor people, it will do so. If markets are replaced by communism, that won't happen.

possibly through the use of some form of egalitarian mutual defense organization. christopher boehm calls this sort of thing the assertion of "reverse hierarchies" (hierarchies where the would-be subordinates take collective action to dominate would-be dominators), though he was talking about human behavior in already existing egalitarian groups such as the above-mentioned !kung and the way we believe our prehistoric ancestors lived.

To have an "egalitarian mutual defense organization" sounds fraught with all sorts of the same risks of either 1) a semi-organized mob (which can be taken advantage of by a charismatic leader or a demagogue) or 2) a police/enforcement institution...At least one of which is hypocritical in an anarchist society and the other possibly leading to its dissolution.

Anarchists have said in this thread that if government were removed:
- society would lean naturally to socialism rather than capitalism

This was NOT said. Voluntary participation and defectors WERE mentioned.

- food would continue to be produced at the rate at which it is currently produced

Not necessarily.

- food distribution would improve

Yes and no. A major factor upon which "improved" food distribution would depend would be which economic system of anarchism an anarchist society uses - one with or without money (collectivist, mutualist vs. communist/gift economy (dunno about ParEcon)), with or without coordinated resource distribution within voluntary associations/federations of communities, etc.

Furthermore, stigma doesn't really discourage a not insignificant section of society at least in the UK from subsisting on dole.

That fact is dependent on at least two relevant variables: the size of the dole (relative to the cost of living at whatever level, other sources of economic income or survival, etc, etc.), and cultural standards.

In my experience they do.

Define the length and depth (examples) of "your experience". Give specific examples of ideas that you and many other people consider accepted by most Americans, and that, according to your supplemented interpretation, prove or lend support to the argument that US society is authoritarian, etc.

From what? Bears? Will serial killers suddenly up the rating of killing because they're facing anarchists rather than police? Government doesn't stop serial killers that effectively. John Wayne Gacy killed 33 people before he was caught.

Is John Wayne Gacy representative of most serial killers in the US (which has one of the "best" law enforcement apparatus in the world)? Is he representative of most serial killers globally?

At the same time, government has killed more people than a million John Wayne Gacies would have. WWII alone killed around 60 million people and I've heard estimates as high as 80 million. Authoritarian socialism and capitalism probably killed around 100 million people each.

True that war and other forms of "state-sanctioned murder" have killed lots of people (to paraphrase from "The Anarchist Thread" of the old boards, the State has killed millions, if not billions more than all those calling themselves an "anarchist" (whether or not they are representative of libertarian socialists or not) combined, and that for any bomb thrown or used by someone calling themself or their ideas "anarchist" , millions have been dropped or used by governments throughout the world and history), but could you be more specific about where you got that figure and what kinds of death that figure includes?



If people stopped supporting government, they would probably come to see other forms of hierarchy as unjustified as well, hense leaning toward socialism.

I doubt both of those ideas. Without anyone to present ideas to them, why should they be naturally inclined towards one or another.

Capitalism distributes food based on profitability, so if a capitalist firm can make more money by selling tobacco to rich people rather than wheat to poor people, it will do so. If markets are replaced by communism, that won't happen.

I think your last statement is an overgeneralization. Distribution of food and other resources through a voluntary federation of communities based on need and without any monetary value would be more efficient (less waste of resources since profit not required) and more equal. As far as effectiveness (how well or not well goal is achieved), that is an outcome of the organization of the distribution system and the amount of resources available.