NationStates Jolt Archive

Most people would scoff at the idea that anarchism is moral, let alone sustainable. Here, I will present the moral case for anarchism and show why an anarchist society will encourage highly esteemed virtues such as responsibility, mutual aid, and the golden rule. It is hierarchy that lacks these values, not anarchy.

Pacifism
Government is not a peaceful institution. It regularly fights wars that kill thousands or even millions of people. World War II killed around 60 million people and showed off the mass murdering capabilities of gas chambers and nuclear weapons. Overall, government has probably killed at least 150 million people in the 20th century, not counting things that can be traced to government action.

Anarchism, by contrast, doesn't have military and police. Instead, the conditions that encourage crime (such as poverty). Relationships based on power (ie, force and 'might makes right') are nonexistant. Social relationships are based on voluntary choice rather than force. Police don't arrest you for not paying taxes in anarchy, for example.

Equality
Hierarchy carries with it the not-so-subtle implication that the average person is too stupid to live without the guidance of benevolent élites. It is élitist to the extreme. Whether in the form of government, capitalism, sexism, or racism, it treats many people as inferior and even subhuman while exalting others.

Anarchy, by contrast, means that people are not lumped into groups that have differing levels of power. Everyone is free and no one takes orders from others. There is no poverty or other social classes in anarchism. Everyone is given equal opportunity rather than white privilege or millions of dollars of inheritence.

Responsibility
As it stands, the government seems to think it has the right to decide what we can and can't do with our bodies. Since smoking marijuana or watching uncensored Gundam SEED are apparently offensive to God, the government as seen fit to make the decision for us and use force to prevent us from choosing otherwise.

If gay marriage or drug use are wrong, that is not a good enough reason to ban them. True morality means doing things because you choose not to do them, not because the government will arrest you for doing them. To do so because of the latter is merely acting out of self-interest, not a value that conservatives are supposed to be for.

In addition, anarchism differs from the views of government supporters in that it doesn't claim we are bound by a human nature to kill and steal unless restrained. Instead, anarchists believe that while current society promotes crime in many ways, there is nothing inherent in us that makes us anti-social. To believe otherwise is to deny responsibility for crime.

Mutual aid
In the US, if you break your leg or get a serious illness but are poor and have no health insurance, you're SOL. There is no socialized healthcare. In the US, living is a privilege, not a right. The rich, by contrast, seem to have a God-given privilege to top-of-the-line healthcare and stupid mansions and yachts even when there are people struggling to survive.

In anarcho-communism, mutual aid is one of the core values. Voluntary coöperation between equals will result in a better society, one where all who do their share will be able to receive what they need to live. Well-being for all is the goal, not privilege for the few. Mutual aid will improve everyone's chances of survival.

In short, if you believe these values are important, anarchism, not government and capitalism, is based on them. Anarchism, not government, promotes peace. Anarchism, not capitalism, promotes equality. Anarchism, not hierarchy, promotes responsibility.

Yet the one big problem is that without massive government conditioning people will seek gangs, gangs will take control and then you have gang wars until one wins and becomes a world dictator. These gangs would become police, tax collectors etc. It will go from an anarchy to a despot very quickly.

Without government conditioning, people will still hate other people, even if there is no government to force it. There will still be elitism, still be inequality, still be theft without something to condition them not to.

Without government conditioning, people won't make the choices that are best for them. They will do whatever they can to make themselves better and become an 'elite'. There is a requirement of an elite to tell people what to do to keep them safe, until it is so well indoctrined that they will do what is best.

When I say government conditioning I refer to anything with a power over the people. That can be religion or government. Anarcho-Communism is possible, but one must admit to themselves that a massive totalitarian regime is required first that would opress everything until people knew what was good and what was bad.

How do anarchists plan to deal with human greed?

It seems all your explanations are woefully naive and don't take into concideration the baser human emotions.

How can anarchy make the "conditions" that encourage crime be non existant? Humans will always be greedy, and lazy. One man who is stronger than his neighbor will want to take from his neighbor. Anarchy won't stop that.

Of course there will be poverty in anarchy. And there will always be someone who wants to take advantage of others.

In anarchy, what is to prevent someone from frying their brains on drugs? After they fry their brains (since they do it all the time, even when it's illegal... it will just happen more when it's legal) what do anarchists plan to do with the person? Let them rot? Let them die, just wasting away?

In your last paragraph, you seem to show a little of a baser emotion yourself. Jealousy. You talk about the rich and "their stupid mansions and their yachts". How does the fact that someone owns something affect your life? Im not sure what you're after. You just want to take from the have's and give to the have not's. How is that different from a stronger man taking from the weaker man?

Most people would scoff at the idea that anarchism is moral, let alone sustainable

Well, I can only wonder as to why they would scoff at that idea . . . .

</sarcasm>

Most people would scoff at the idea that anarchism is moral, let alone sustainable. Here, I will present the moral case for anarchism and show why an anarchist society will encourage highly esteemed virtues such as responsibility, mutual aid, and the golden rule. It is hierarchy that lacks these values, not anarchy.

Pacifism
Government is not a peaceful institution. It regularly fights wars that kill thousands or even millions of people. World War II killed around 60 million people and showed off the mass murdering capabilities of gas chambers and nuclear weapons. Overall, government has probably killed at least 150 million people in the 20th century, not counting things that can be traced to government action.

Anarchism, by contrast, doesn't have military and police. Instead, the conditions that encourage crime (such as poverty). Relationships based on power (ie, force and 'might makes right') are nonexistant. Social relationships are based on voluntary choice rather than force. Police don't arrest you for not paying taxes in anarchy, for example.

Equality
Hierarchy carries with it the not-so-subtle implication that the average person is too stupid to live without the guidance of benevolent élites. It is élitist to the extreme. Whether in the form of government, capitalism, sexism, or racism, it treats many people as inferior and even subhuman while exalting others.

Anarchy, by contrast, means that people are not lumped into groups that have differing levels of power. Everyone is free and no one takes orders from others. There is no poverty or other social classes in anarchism. Everyone is given equal opportunity rather than white privilege or millions of dollars of inheritence.

Responsibility
As it stands, the government seems to think it has the right to decide what we can and can't do with our bodies. Since smoking marijuana or watching uncensored Gundam SEED are apparently offensive to God, the government as seen fit to make the decision for us and use force to prevent us from choosing otherwise.

If gay marriage or drug use are wrong, that is not a good enough reason to ban them. True morality means doing things because you choose not to do them, not because the government will arrest you for doing them. To do so because of the latter is merely acting out of self-interest, not a value that conservatives are supposed to be for.

In addition, anarchism differs from the views of government supporters in that it doesn't claim we are bound by a human nature to kill and steal unless restrained. Instead, anarchists believe that while current society promotes crime in many ways, there is nothing inherent in us that makes us anti-social. To believe otherwise is to deny responsibility for crime.

Mutual aid
In the US, if you break your leg or get a serious illness but are poor and have no health insurance, you're SOL. There is no socialized healthcare. In the US, living is a privilege, not a right. The rich, by contrast, seem to have a God-given privilege to top-of-the-line healthcare and stupid mansions and yachts even when there are people struggling to survive.

In anarcho-communism, mutual aid is one of the core values. Voluntary coöperation between equals will result in a better society, one where all who do their share will be able to receive what they need to live. Well-being for all is the goal, not privilege for the few. Mutual aid will improve everyone's chances of survival.

In short, if you believe these values are important, anarchism, not government and capitalism, is based on them. Anarchism, not government, promotes peace. Anarchism, not capitalism, promotes equality. Anarchism, not hierarchy, promotes responsibility.

That would indeed be the ideal world, however, in my opinion, human nature, sadly, makes it highly unlikely.

That would indeed be the ideal world, however, in my opinion, human nature, sadly, makes it highly unlikely.
Not unlikely, impossible.

That would indeed be the ideal world, however, in my opinion, human nature, sadly, makes it highly unlikely.

Question: is human nature fixed or is it mutable?

Question: is human nature the same today as it was 2,000 years ago?

Question: is human nature the same today as it was 150,000 years ago?

Yet the one big problem is that without massive government conditioning people will seek gangs, gangs will take control and then you have gang wars until one wins and becomes a world dictator. These gangs would become police, tax collectors etc. It will go from an anarchy to a despot very quickly.

Without government conditioning, people will still hate other people, even if there is no government to force it. There will still be elitism, still be inequality, still be theft without something to condition them not to.

Without government conditioning, people won't make the choices that are best for them. They will do whatever they can to make themselves better and become an 'elite'. There is a requirement of an elite to tell people what to do to keep them safe, until it is so well indoctrined that they will do what is best.

When I say government conditioning I refer to anything with a power over the people. That can be religion or government. Anarcho-Communism is possible, but one must admit to themselves that a massive totalitarian regime is required first that would opress everything until people knew what was good and what was bad.

How do anarchists plan to deal with human greed?

It seems all your explanations are woefully naive and don't take into concideration the baser human emotions.

How can anarchy make the "conditions" that encourage crime be non existant? Humans will always be greedy, and lazy. One man who is stronger than his neighbor will want to take from his neighbor. Anarchy won't stop that.

Of course there will be poverty in anarchy. And there will always be someone who wants to take advantage of others.

In anarchy, what is to prevent someone from frying their brains on drugs? After they fry their brains (since they do it all the time, even when it's illegal... it will just happen more when it's legal) what do anarchists plan to do with the person? Let them rot? Let them die, just wasting away?

In your last paragraph, you seem to show a little of a baser emotion yourself. Jealousy. You talk about the rich and "their stupid mansions and their yachts". How does the fact that someone owns something affect your life? Im not sure what you're after. You just want to take from the have's and give to the have not's. How is that different from a stronger man taking from the weaker man?

That would indeed be the ideal world, however, in my opinion, human nature, sadly, makes it highly unlikely.

That's a debate for another thread, suffice to say, I don't believe people are born believing hierarchy is a good thing. The point was that anarchism is morally good.

Question: is human nature fixed or is it mutable?

Question: is human nature the same today as it was 2,000 years ago?

Question: is human nature the same today as it was 150,000 years ago?

Yes.
(
Eat.
Sleep.
Have Sex.
Seek methods of making the above three easier
)

Yes

Yes

The gas chambers were in place before the war, I am afraid... and the sustainability of anarchy was an idea you introduced in your first post. I believe there are some good points in your outline of the position, and just as good in the points people are making about the unlikelihood of it working in anything other than a microcosm.

hieararchy is inherent in human nature and is eventually formed without thought, thus no longer being an anarchy. THAT is why anarachy does not and will not ever exist. it is easily overcome by the want and need for humans to form together into groups led by a single party

Yet the one big problem is that without massive government conditioning people will seek gangs, gangs will take control and then you have gang wars until one wins and becomes a world dictator. These gangs would become police, tax collectors etc. It will go from an anarchy to a despot very quickly.

Without government conditioning, people will still hate other people, even if there is no government to force it. There will still be elitism, still be inequality, still be theft without something to condition them not to.

Without government conditioning, people won't make the choices that are best for them. They will do whatever they can to make themselves better and become an 'elite'. There is a requirement of an elite to tell people what to do to keep them safe, until it is so well indoctrined that they will do what is best.

When I say government conditioning I refer to anything with a power over the people. That can be religion or government. Anarcho-Communism is possible, but one must admit to themselves that a massive totalitarian regime is required first that would opress everything until people knew what was good and what was bad.

exactly.

hieararchy is inherent in human nature and is eventually formed without thought, thus no longer being an anarchy. THAT is why anarachy does not and will not ever exist. it is easily overcome by the want and need for humans to form together into groups led by a single party

You don't have to cover your room with posters of existentialist thinkers, but would it kill you to get over your determinism? Take responsibility for your actions instead of attributing them to "human nature".

The gas chambers were in place before the war, I am afraid... and the sustainability of anarchy was an idea you introduced in your first post.

True, but this thread is really about the moral benefits of anarchy.

Yes.
(
Eat.
Sleep.
Have Sex.
Seek methods of making the above three easier
)

"Yes" what? Fixed or mutable?

Yes
I'll let that one pass for the moment.

Yes
Evidence?

Letila, have you ever read Death by Government? If not, it's highly recommended.

That's a debate for another thread, suffice to say, I don't believe people are born believing hierarchy is a good thing. The point was that anarchism is morally good.
If it is morally decent but it doesn't work it doesn't matter. I can make an Eudaimonia, if it isn't feasable it's a Utopia and it was pointless for me to think of it.

Without government conditioning, people won't make the choices that are best for them.

And just what makes "the government" (the people invested with political authority) smarter or wiser than anyone else? They're human, too.

You don't have to cover your room with posters of existentialist thinkers, but would it kill you to get over your determinism? Take responsibility for your actions instead of attributing them to "human nature".



True, but this thread is really about the moral benefits of anarchy.
humans form groups and pick out leaders.

there are moral benefits to anarchy until you take into account the problems with it, like people getting into other peoples stuff and etc etc

The point was that anarchism is morally good.

No, in order to do that you would first have to show that pacifism, responsibility, mutual aid, and equality were morally good. What you did was say "if you believe X, Y &Z are morally good, then anarchism as a facilitator of these is morally good".

And just what makes "the government" (the people invested with political authority) smarter or wiser than anyone else? They're human, too.
Note that when I say make the right choices for us I am being very obtuse and scientific. Smoking kills you faster and puts a strain on health care for example. Every law should have scientific evidence behind it. The government is simply the body of people who use scientific data to make informed choices that keep people from harm.

The government is simply the body of people who use scientific data to make informed choices that keep people from harm.

So, prior to the invention of science there was no such thing as government?

No, in order to do that you would first have to show that pacifism, responsibility, mutual aid, and equality were mutually good. What you did was say "if you believe X, Y &Z are morally good, then anarchism as a facilitator of these is morally good".

Since most people here hold those values, I was targeting them. You really need to stop analyzing everything I say to death.

So, prior to the invention of science there was no such thing as government?
At that time science was interchangeable with religion. A governing body makes decisions based on the best they knew. Perhaps these would be later discredited, perhaps not. Science is constantly changing, in this day and age it is the physical proof of something, back then 'science' was folk lore and myths. There was no moment that science was invented, it has always existed.

At that time science was interchangeable with religion. A governing body makes decisions based on the best they knew. Perhaps these would be later discredited, perhaps not. Science is constantly changing, in this day and age it is the physical proof of something, back then 'science' was folk lore and myths.

At what point did 'science' change from being concerned with the spiritual to the physical?

There was no moment that science was invented, it has always existed.

Well, thats just patently untrue.

At what point did 'science' change from being concerned with the spiritual to the physical?
Well, thats just patently untrue.
It has evolved and changed slowly over time. It becomes more and more physical when each new thing can be proven without religious backdrops. Eventually people will discover the truth that the spiritual is physical, everyone just don't have the knowledge of it yet, only the few that will listen.

Making better tools is science. Thus we have been using science since we first became homo sapiens and well before, I guess that is when you could say we invented science. Or you can say that everything was already there, we are just only now beginning to see it for the first time. Perhaps not the finished product, but the elements and theory has always existed, we just need to find it.

How can anarchy make the "conditions" that encourage crime be non existant?

Definitions are always a good place to start...

The words "anarch/y/ist/ism" were all created by people to describe themselves and their ideas from two Greek words ("an" and "archos") to mean "no" "ruler/state/authority/hierarchy". That would be the historical definition. The popular definition is one of "no rules" or chaos, disorganization, etc.

With that in mind, I think that to say crime would be non-existant in "anarchy" (I think a better, more specific, and more defensible term would be "anarchist society") would be a gross exageration. I am not worried about crime in an anarchist society because, one that is voluntary and is *usually* based around smaller, often agricultural communities is much less likely to have criminals or criminal behavior. The other position on the issue of crime is that in a society where a socially friendly environment and readily available material goods exist, people's motive for most crime is eliminated. As for the anti-social behavior that is left, ad-hoc groups of relevant and concerned parties would probably be responsible for dealing with it. Why ad-hoc groups? A permanent enforcement institution, while it would almost certainly be more effective (dedicated time, training, etc.), it carries a risk that anarchists do not want to take - the abuse of power (and where weapons are concerned, this is certainly legitimate).

Humans will always be greedy, and lazy. One man who is stronger than his neighbor will want to take from his neighbor. Anarchy won't stop that.

Again, the connotation of the word "anarchy" comes into mind...

Put your example into the context of an anarchist society.

#1 The stronger neighbor has chosen to live in an anarchist society, understanding the ideals that it entails - he would be philosophically opposed to coercing someone else plus whatever it was his neighbor had that he wanted could almost certainly be had freely from another (relevant, nearby) source.

#2 Assuming the neighbor has chosen to live in an anarchist society to take advantage of its inhabitants, the other neighbors would recognize his hostility to them, their ideas, and their way of life and either try to persuade him to change his ideas, persuade him to leave, physically remove him, or something different due to the specifics of the situation

Of course there will be poverty in anarchy. And there will always be someone who wants to take advantage of others.

Poverty is a term that implies opulence - in an anarchist society (again, I think connotation plays a part in your misunderstanding), distribution, co-operation, and some interdependence between communities and within a federation of communities would share resources as they are needed. If we both voluntarily live in an anarchist society (hypothetically), my community is low on food resources, and so is yours, and all the other communities within the federation are low, then we all starve together, at least until relief comes from some outside source or when drought, natural disaster, etc. lessens. It works the other way, also. We live in relative economic equality.

You just want to take from the have's and give to the have not's. How is that different from a stronger man taking from the weaker man?

Not necessarily right (in my case, at least, you are dead wrong). Participation in an anarchist society would be voluntary. Resources (or the lack thereof) would come from our own resourcefulness (or lack thereof) or from whatever voluntary outside aid we may recieve (however that may be possible).

Eventually people will discover the truth that the spiritual is physical, everyone just don't have the knowledge of it yet, only the few that will listen.

Am I to take it that you have the proof that the spiritual is physical? If so please share it with me.

humans form groups and pick out leaders.

there are moral benefits to anarchy until you take into account the problems with it, like people getting into other peoples stuff and etc etc

Not if property (but not possesions) was held in common.

One simple response to all that, an excellent quote from Federalist Paper 51.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
Thank you, and have a nice day.





*Naive little anarchist 12 year old*

The government is simply the body of people who use scientific data to make informed choices that keep people from harm.

No, the government is supposed to be the body of people who use scientific data to make informed choices that keep people from harm.

If everyone's perception was that government was "the body..." then the case for an anarchist society would be either totally irrelevant or partially irrelevant and only possibly better in some ways.

No, the government is supposed to be the body of people who use scientific data to make informed choices that keep people from harm.

Where does this idea that governments are 'supposed' to use scientific data come from?

Since most people here hold those values, I was targeting them. You really need to stop analyzing everything I say to death.

The analyzation helps you, if nothing else, to test the internal strength of your arguments and help you understand argument structure in general.

One simple response to all that, an excellent quote from Federalist Paper 51.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
Thank you, and have a nice day.





*Naive little anarchist 12 year old*

Again...connotation vs. definitions...

Am I to take it that you have the proof that the spiritual is physical? If so please share it with me.
I can say from experience, there are things which cannot currently be explained, but aren't something supernatural. The real key is experiencing it.

The gas chambers were in place before the war, I am afraid...

They sure were not. Where do you get this from?

Pacifism


Anarchism, by contrast, doesn't have military and police. Instead, the conditions that encourage crime (such as poverty). Relationships based on power (ie, force and 'might makes right') are nonexistant. Social relationships are based on voluntary choice rather than force. Police don't arrest you for not paying taxes in anarchy, for example.

.

This idea is patently wrong and palpably idiotic.

I ask only one example of a sustained 'anarchist' society in humanity's entire recorded history.

Anarchy is simply the state in which people live who have not yet been subjugated by force of arms.

An 'anarchist' society in which every individual is armed is an invitation and open door to ruinous civil war.

In all cases historically, human beings have shown a propensity to desire power over one another. In order for 'anarchism' to work in the sense that anarchists claim it would, this fact of human nature would need to change.

I ask only one example of a sustained 'anarchist' society in humanity's entire recorded history.

Many hunter-gatherer societies are or were pretty close to anarchy.

In all cases historically, human beings have shown a propensity to desire power over one another. In order for 'anarchism' to work in the sense that anarchists claim it would, this fact of human nature would need to change.

Yes, if they were raised in a hierarchial society and didn't know what anarchism was.

I ask only one example of a sustained 'anarchist' society in humanity's entire recorded history.

A libertarian socialist or mutualist or ParEcon or anarcho-collectivist? The kibbutzim are somewhat close examples of anarcho-collectivist society on a local and regional co-operative scale, there are lots of intentional communes/collectives on an individual community scale, but those aren't really Western "societes". "Quasi-anarchic" societies can be found throughout human history in various indigenous cultures.

Anarchy is simply the state in which people live who have not yet been subjugated by force of arms.

An 'anarchist' society in which every individual is armed is an invitation and open door to ruinous civil war.

In all cases historically, human beings have shown a propensity to desire power over one another. In order for 'anarchism' to work in the sense that anarchists claim it would, this fact of human nature would need to change.

Please go through at least page 2 or both pages 2 and 3 and find the definition of anarch/y/ism/ist.

Again...connotation vs. definitions...
Eh?
Sorry, but that made no sense. You see, I don't think you understand the very real problems with real world application of a system like anarchy (interesting, perhpas I should say lack of a system), which are very similar to that of Communism, or Socialism in general. In fact, in the real world men are assholes and cannot be counted to help and support one another if there is nothing to prevent them from doing what they want. Without laws or regulations, people would be driving 120 mp/h down the road everywhere. There could be no international trade because there would be no organization to regulate or monitor trade, or to facilitate in its actuation. There must be trade or there can be no development. Even the the extremists from either side of the equation still encourage development. Anarchy would lead to an immediate and massive breakdown of society, violent retaliation against enemies, and general disorder and destruction. Your theories are very nice, but based on a Utopian society, and one that has been proven not to exist numerous times, especially through American private experiments in Utopian communities. Come back to the real world. Most of the Communists already did. Neither works.

I can say from experience, there are things which cannot currently be explained, but aren't something supernatural. The real key is experiencing it.

And this, to you, classifies as science?

Ah, don't you love a true, die hard cynic like Bodies? I bet you never manage to stay married... ;) :sniper:

There could be no international trade because there would be no organization to regulate or monitor trade, or to facilitate in its actuation.

International trade pre-exists organisations that regualte or monitor trading, or facilitate its actuation.

There must be trade or there can be no development.

This is based on the assumption that any group must trade with an outside group in order to develop. If we move to a global scale we see that no interplanetary trade exists (obviously) and thus, following from your assumption, the planet Earth cannot develop.

Even the the extremists from either side of the equation still encourage development.


Nope, the anarcho-primitivist argue for a return to historical or prehistorical modes of living.

Many hunter-gatherer societies are or were pretty close to anarchy.

We live in a sedantary society. The world population is much bigger now.

Ah, don't you love a true, die hard cynic like Bodies?

When I am being told that private (presumably mystical) experiences, mythology and religion are all part of science I believe my cynicism is justified.

Eh?
Sorry, but that made no sense.

It would/should if you had/did read the historical definition definitely on p. 2 and possibly on p. 3.

You see, I don't think you understand the very real problems with real world application of a system like anarchy (interesting, perhpas I should say lack of a system)

Anarchism does not imply a lack of organization. Either myself or others need to convince you that what is/would be there is what would be called organization, or you need to read a bit more of the thread.

in the real world men are assholes and cannot be counted to help and support one another if there is nothing to prevent them from doing what they want.

You don't have much experience with groups of people whose lives depend on each other, and/or those who are driven.

Without laws or regulations, people would be driving 120 mp/h down the road everywhere. There could be no international trade because there would be no organization to regulate or monitor trade, or to facilitate in its actuation. There must be trade or there can be no development. Even the the extremists from either side of the equation still encourage development.

Again, if you have read the defintion, you should know that "anarchy" doesn't mean "no rules". And as for international trade, you are making a gross exaggeration. Trade exists because two interested parties have something the other needs or wants, not because the WTO (or some other entity) tells them how, when, or whether not they can trade.

Anarchy would lead to an immediate and massive breakdown of society, violent retaliation against enemies, and general disorder and destruction. Your theories are very nice, but based on a Utopian society, and one that has been proven not to exist numerous times, especially through American private experiments in Utopian communities. Come back to the real world. Most of the Communists already did. Neither works.

You appear to have read the historical defintion and ideas at this point, yet I don't see how you bridge those to the end of civilization.

A libertarian socialist or mutualist or ParEcon or anarcho-collectivist? The kibbutzim are somewhat close examples of anarcho-collectivist society on a local and regional co-operative scale, there are lots of intentional communes/collectives on an individual community scale, but those aren't really Western "societes". "Quasi-anarchic" societies can be found throughout human history in various indigenous cultures.

Who were eventually overtaken by brutal organizations, whether that be another, more powerful "tribe" or group or what have you, or a government. Rome, Greece, England, France, America, etc.

Using human nature as an argument against anarchy isn't a determinist knee-jerk reaction, its scientific. Humanity has shown itself consistently to lord itself over its fellow man. Its as simple as one corrupt man with a lot of guns to convince people to join under him in exchange for food and safety and whatever else they can think up. Does that mean he isn't responsible for his actions, because its part of his nature? Absolutely not. Kill or detain the bastard before he hurts more people. But from a general standpoint, anarchy won't except in small societies.

1. International trade pre-exists organisations that regualte or monitor trading, or facilitate its actuation.



2. This is based on the assumption that any group must trade with an outside group in order to develop. If we move to a global scale we see that no interplanetary trade exists (obviously) and thus, following from your assumption, the planet Earth cannot develop.


1. Really? International Trade before there was any organization to effect trade? Name one example.

2. Wrong. You see, Earth as a whole has the resources we need to develop, for the moment. However, at some point it logically follows that we will need new sources of resources, but most likely by this point we will gotten much further into Inter-Planetary Colonization. Thus, Earth can develop, because it possesses a much larger territory than, say, America. America is not provided with every resource it needs, it must get some from outside sources. Earth, however, comprises a larger source/amount of resources and raw materials, and thus the supply is less limited. However, our development as a planet is still limited.

Pwnt

Using human nature as an argument against anarchy isn't a determinist knee-jerk reaction, its scientific.

In order for it to be scientific you would need a scientific theory of politics and a scientific definition of human nature. I believe Marx was that last one that claimed that his theory of political operation was scientific, and it was a laughable claim then.

We live in a sedantary society. The world population is much bigger now.

Nomadic society vs. sedantary society is irrelevant to the idea, as is population. He (New Grenada) asked for at least one example from any point in human history.

Also remember that these anarchist hunter-gatherer societies were NOT the utopias Letila has been preaching about.

1. Really? International Trade before there was any organization to effect trade? Name one example.

Off the top of my head ...Phoenican traders exchanging goods with the Cornish tin miners in the fifth and sixth century BC. If you reject that on the basis that the traders themselves qualified as an "organization to effect trade", then I can argue that as a small scale group of people with a shared interest they are exactly the kind of organization that would come together in an anarchist society. Also, the existence of barter exchanges between different peoples may fit your criterion - specific examples of such taking place are, I assume, lost in the mists of time.

2. Wrong. You see, Earth as a whole has the resources we need to develop, for the moment. However, at some point it logically follows that we will need new sources of resources, but most likely by this point we will gotten much further into Inter-Planetary Colonization. Thus, Earth can develop, because it possesses a much larger territory than, say, America. America is not provided with every resource it needs, it must get some from outside sources. Earth, however, comprises a larger source/amount of resources and raw materials, and thus the supply is less limited. However, our development as a planet is still limited.

Ah, but you claimed "there must be trade or there can be no development", which is a very different thing from the scenario you outline above. For example, the US could instead of trading with other countries for their resources seize them by cunning and guile or brute force, and thus use those resources to fuel its development. Similarly we see with extra-planetary resources as, to the best of our knowledge, they are not owned by anyone, and thus there is no need to trade for them - it is just a case of going out and getting them.

Who were eventually overtaken by brutal organizations, whether that be another, more powerful "tribe" or group or what have you, or a government. Rome, Greece, England, France, America, etc.

Using human nature as an argument against anarchy isn't a determinist knee-jerk reaction, its scientific. Humanity has shown itself consistently to lord itself over its fellow man. Its as simple as one corrupt man with a lot of guns to convince people to join under him in exchange for food and safety and whatever else they can think up. Does that mean he isn't responsible for his actions, because its part of his nature? Absolutely not. Kill or detain the bastard before he hurts more people. But from a general standpoint, anarchy won't except in small societies.

Actually, it would work...it just would be less likey to survive - for an anarchist society to exist now or sometime in the future, it would either have to be 1) Global (very unlikely) 2) Inside a country, under that country's protection, and not subject to some, most or all of its laws (again, unlikely - why would said country give land and protection for a group of people with whom it politically disagrees?) or 3) On unclaimed space in some as yet unidentifiable place - space, another planet, etc.

Anarchy as in no ruler/ruling class may work for a short while. The moment one person becomes "unequal", whether by acquiring a new weapon or having a plentiful harvest, it'll fall about, unless that person happens to be Jesus Christ.

As everyone in this thread has discussed a million times already, anarchism as in no rules will never work.

In the US, living is a privilege, not a right.

Tell me please, what right does a drowning man in the middle of the ocean have to life?

Personally, I would say living is a responsibilty.

Personally, I would say living is a responsibilty.

Possibly, but the Declaration of Independence declares that it is a right.

Tell me please, what right does a drowning man in the middle of the ocean have to life?

Personally, I would say living is a responsibilty.

Accidents happen. If you break your leg or get sick, you didn't necessarily do something stupid to do so.

Accidents happen. If you break your leg or get sick, you didn't necessarily do something stupid to do so.

What pray tell does that sentence have to do with my question?

Does a drowning man have a "right to life" and if so, does the ocean really care?

Many hunter-gatherer societies are or were pretty close to anarchy.



Yes, if they were raised in a hierarchial society and didn't know what anarchism was.


1) Hunter-gatherer societies were perhaps "pretty close to anarchy" until they came into contact with other hunter-gatherers or, worse yet, agrarian societies and the tools of hunting became the tools of war and opression by force of arms.

2) Maybe if magical space angels zapped everyone in the brain with a peace beam people would be peaceful!

1) Hunter-gatherer societies were perhaps "pretty close to anarchy" until they came into contact with other hunter-gatherers or, worse yet, agrarian societies and the tools of hunting became the tools of war and opression by force of arms.

There is actually a contrary theory put forward by Pierre Claestres in his book Archeology of Violence which argues that when the hunter-gatherer societies encountered agrarian societies and the city-states that they were beginning to evolve into, the hunter-gatherer societies reaffirmed their commitment to their own tribal structures in opposition to the strictly heirarchical structures which existed in the agrarian pror-city-state societies. Thus instead of growing closer to the new social forms of organisation they reacted against them and differentiated themselves against the other. Deleuze and Guattari then take this idea and run with it.

Anarchy doesn't work. It never has worked. It never will work. Will all you anarchists super-hippies pull your heads out of the clouds and answer one thing for me: If I lived in an anarchist "Utopia" and I didn't like my neighbor, whats to stop me from killing him, raping his wife, and making slaves of his kids?

If I lived in an anarchist "Utopia" and I didn't like my neighbor, whats to stop me from killing him, raping his wife, and making slaves of his kids?

Your other neighbours.

Your other neighbours.


And what is to stop me from offering one of my neighbors half the proceeds of the murder/rape/pillage if he helps me?

Anarchy doesn't work. It never has worked. It never will work. Will all you anarchists super-hippies pull your heads out of the clouds and answer one thing for me: If I lived in an anarchist "Utopia" and I didn't like my neighbor, whats to stop me from killing him, raping his wife, and making slaves of his kids?

Then the other neighbors will kill you, rape your wife, and then make slaves of your kids.

Then the other neighbors will kill you, rape your wife, and then make slaves of your kids.


Precisely, and then somone who was your friend will get revenge, and peaceful anarchy will be gone.

There is a reason "anarchy" has a connotation other than "absence of government authority."

And what is to stop me from offering one of my neighbors half the proceeds of the murder/rape/pillage if he helps me?

His neighbours.

And what is to stop me from offering one of HIS neighbors half the proceeds of the murder/rape/pillage if he helps me?

His neighbours.

And what is to stop me from offering one of HIS neighbors half the proceeds of the murder/rape/pillage if he helps me?

Which leads to the entire city being in on the deal.

Why couldn't this happen in a non-anarchist state? If there are enough people determined to carry out such an act then the police and the army are unable to stop them.

If I lived in an anarchist "Utopia" and I didn't like my neighbor, whats to stop me from killing him, raping his wife, and making slaves of his kids?

So, basically your argument against anarchism is that the existence of a heirarchical state is the only thing that prevents you killing, raping and enslaving?

So, basically your argument against anarchism is that the existence of a heirarchical state is the only thing that prevents you killing, raping and enslaving?


Indeed, and my only argument against deep sea diving without equipment is that it kills you.

No ammount of armchair intellectual pontificating will change the fact that it will kill you.

You know what I never could understand in any sort of Anarchical system, is how people would raise children. How can Parent raise a child w/o using some sort of reconized hierarchy? In my opinion, that's impossible thus, in this hypothetical scenario of all of a sudden having no hierarchy, somebody will start to establish rule of one person or another either A) a child will be taught to live under an hierarchy for some duration of time and then realize, that it would be to there advantage to establish themselves as leaders over other humans or B) A parent could try to raise a child w/o establishing themselves as being in charge, so to speak, and thus, the children would run wild and eventually, organize themselves into gangs, even if they're parents don't.

The gas chambers were in place before the war, I am afraid... and the sustainability of anarchy was an idea you introduced in your first post. I believe there are some good points in your outline of the position, and just as good in the points people are making about the unlikelihood of it working in anything other than a microcosm.

Eh? No they weren't. At least not if your talking about Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany had concentration camps from its inception but did not begin experimenting with Zykon B and other gasses until 1941 at Auschwitz I, block 11. 600 soviet pow and 250 poles were murdered in that first test.

Why couldn't this happen in a non-anarchist state? If there are enough people determined to carry out such an act then the police and the army are unable to stop them.

and indeed this does happen in the real world, which has always been what confuses me about this argument.

plus, at least half the time those doing the murder/rape/pillaging are the police and army.

Anarchy as in no ruler/ruling class may work for a short while. The moment one person becomes "unequal", whether by acquiring a new weapon or having a plentiful harvest,

A new weapon so advanced that counter-measures are hard or nearly impossible to come by? Perhaps, but by definition, breakthroughs are rare and infrequent events.

As for the comment regarding surplus or deficit resources, you are incorrect. Co-operation between communities within a voluntary association or federation would distribute resources as needed if there is enough to do so, or distribute them as close to needed as possible when resources would be low (you starve together when times are bad and vice versa when times are good).

As everyone in this thread has discussed a million times already, anarchism as in no rules will never work.

To avoid confusion, is there a specific, more correct term for such a state of affiars than "nihilism" or "nihilistic 'anarchism'"?

2) Maybe if magical space angels zapped everyone in the brain with a peace beam people would be peaceful!

War/conflict isn't there just because. List the motivations and causes of conflict - then it's YOUR perspective, and I or FS or Letila, etc. can compare/add/subtract, etc. from OUR perspective and that is the crux of the disagreement.

Archeology of Violence argues that when the hunter-gatherer societies encountered agrarian societies and the city-states that they were beginning to evolve into, the hunter-gatherer societies reaffirmed their commitment to their own tribal structures in opposition to the strictly heirarchical structures which existed in the agrarian pror-city-state societies. Thus instead of growing closer to the new social forms of organisation they reacted against them and differentiated themselves against the other. Deleuze and Guattari then take this idea and run with it.

Another possible motivation might've been awe/jealousy of/over the technological accomplishments of an non-sustenance agrarian society.

However, I would like to point out that these were "quasi-anarchic" societies, not being totally comparable to anarchist ideas. Also, these societies were not the inspiration for anarchist ideas, so they are neither totally analogous to the ideas being discussed, nor could the point be made that we are making (faulty) inductive reasoning.

Anarchy doesn't work. It never has worked. It never will work. Will all you anarchists super-hippies pull your heads out of the clouds and answer one thing for me: If I lived in an anarchist "Utopia" and I didn't like my neighbor, whats to stop me from killing him, raping his wife, and making slaves of his kids?

Again, connotation/actual definitions....

The fact that the sort of "anarchist" society that these anarchists envision has zero possibility of ever coming to exist makes their banter completely irrelevent to the real world.

"Anarchism" is the astrology of political theory, its founding assumptions about human behavior are rooted in fantasy rather than fact.

"Anarchism" is so deeply based in the imaginary that most anarchist hypothesis are non falsifiable.

The fact that the sort of "anarchist" society that these anarchists envision has zero possibility of ever coming to exist makes their banter completely irrelevent to the real world.

"Anarchism" is the astrology of political theory, its founding assumptions about human behavior are rooted in fantasy rather than fact.

"Anarchism" is so deeply based in the imaginary that most anarchist hypothesis are non falsifiable.

...

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

The fact that the sort of "anarchist" society that these anarchists envision has zero possibility of ever coming to exist makes their banter completely irrelevent to the real world.

"Anarchism" is the astrology of political theory, its founding assumptions about human behavior are rooted in fantasy rather than fact.

"Anarchism" is so deeply based in the imaginary that most anarchist hypothesis are non falsifiable.

holy copying-and-pasting from another thread, batman!

...


Learn please to read what has been written in the thread.

holy copying-and-pasting from another thread, batman!


Doesnt look like a copy-paste to me, but then again I know what I typed in the other thread...


Some reason I cant make the same point in two different threads about the same topic?

And as for Monsieur Le Copier, I have participated extensively in the discussion.

Somewhat. Too many of your posts make statements without any proof or evidence whatsoever. The only thing those posts contribute to is a negative aspect of your reputation.

Some reason I cant make the same point in two different threads about the same topic?

well, it would look a little less odd if you had replied to my response to your point in the other thread instead of merely restating you point elsewhere.

well, it would look a little less odd if you had replied to my response to your point in the other thread instead of merely restating you point elsewhere.


I only look at threads on page 1, and I do not believe the one I had posted in was on page 1 when I posted a similar point in this one.

Why, pray tell, has no response been made to the point that anarchism is as fanciful as astrology?

I was quite specific about the reasoning, and you've not disputed it.

*chough* Somolia *chough*

Anarchy can work in a small group of people, who absolutly need each other to survive, but then it becomes Communism, because they share the spoils of labor amongst each other for the community as a whole. A person that doesn't have friends in a world that offers no protection is a person that's going to die very quickly.

Why, pray tell, has no response been made to the point that anarchism is as fanciful as astrology?

because in so far as it is meaningful it could quite equally be applied to every single political ideology around; and the rest of it is entirely based around your unstated assumptions that seem wildly at odds with my understanding of both anarchism and the world at large, as well as your unfounded and unargued opinions masquerading as 'facts'.

give us something real to deal with and we will. so far your argument boils down to the human nature argument. but that won't get you very far because there is no particular conception of human nature that one can point to as being 'true' and eternal - there is no consensus on what exactly human nature is except in its broadest strokes. nor does anarchism really rely on any one of the various conceptions of it.

so exactly which hypotheses does anarchism have to hold as a political theory that are unfalsifiable? and then which ones does it have to hold that are false?

*chough* Somolia *chough*

*cough* rival warlords fighting to control territory and people is civil war, not anarchism *cough*

we don't intend to merely do away with the state and leave it at that, you know.

Your other neighbours.

And if the neighbors partake in the murder?

What's going to stop people from re-organizing? Brainwashing?

And if the neighbors partake in the murder?


That was exactly the point I was making: what is there to stop you forming a pact with your neighbours, and they with theirs to hold off the forces of law and order in a standard statist-heirarchical society, and allow you to set up your own little rape and enslavement and murder business. The state may be able to deal with one or two Wacos happening at the same time, but could it deal with a thousand?

Responsibility
As it stands, the government seems to think it has the right to decide what we can and can't do with our bodies. Since smoking marijuana or watching uncensored Gundam SEED are apparently offensive to God, the government as seen fit to make the decision for us and use force to prevent us from choosing otherwise.

If gay marriage or drug use are wrong, that is not a good enough reason to ban them. True morality means doing things because you choose not to do them, not because the government will arrest you for doing them. To do so because of the latter is merely acting out of self-interest, not a value that conservatives are supposed to be for.

I am a hardline advocate of personal responsibility

People don't need the government to tell them right from wrong. They have to make their own mistakes - if they smoke marijuana, they're taking their own risk; it's your own fault and nobody else's if you get addicted and potentially ruing your life, and the government shouldn't waste time rehabilitating them.

People should stop being oversensitive to things like TV content - DONT RESORT TO CENSORSHIP!!! 1st it's the government keeping "questionable" material off the air, next it's state-controlled media!

The FCC can't even censor SEED 100% tho - remember, the last episode eluded their grasp! (The cursing! *sarcasm*OH NO! And Cagalli aiming a gun while wearing nothing but a tight undershirt and panties! I was traumatized! *sarcasm*)

The FCC can't even censor SEED 100% tho - remember, the last episode eluded their grasp! (The cursing! *sarcasm*OH NO! And Cagalli aiming a gun while wearing nothing but a tight undershirt and panties! I was traumatized! *sarcasm*)

You mean people actually thought Zala swearing and Cagalli wearing relatively little clothing were offensive. Please tell me you're joking.

You mean people actually thought Zala swearing and Cagalli wearing relatively little clothing were offensive. Please tell me you're joking.
Did you see my *sarcasm* remarks?

Did you see my *sarcasm* remarks?

Good point. Do you really think there are people out there that really were offended?

give us something real to deal with and we will. so far your argument boils down to the human nature argument. but that won't get you very far because there is no particular conception of human nature that one can point to as being 'true' and eternal - there is no consensus on what exactly human nature is except in its broadest strokes.



Something *real* eh...
Easter Islanders were in a state of perpetual war.
The Nguni fought constantly.
In South America, the natives did genocide upon one another.
The people of the great eurasian steppe did massive, bloody warfare of conquest.
Greece had both internecine and international wars.
Rome was a war power.
North American natives did death upon eachother's tribes.
The Empire of Spain
The Empire of Britain
The Empire of Rome
The Empire of Greece
The Empire of Japan
The Empire of China
The Empire of America
The Empire of Russia
The Empire of Persia
The Holy Roman Empire
The Third Reich
The Soviet Union
The Vikings
The Franks

The concentration of power by force of arms into the hands of:
Kings, Dukes, Chiefs, Emperors, Earls, Viscounts, Caliphs, Mullahs, Emirs, Sultans, Daimyo, Sherrifs, Warlords.

Slaving in Africa, Asia, North America, South America, Europe, The Middle East, The Near East.

Coups d'etat in Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Chile, Colombia.

The American Revolution, The French Revolution, The Chinese Revolution, The Russian Revolution, The Cuban Revolution.
The Rise of Political Elites in the Soviet Union, Japan, China, North Korea.
The Rise of Wealthy Elites in Europe, Russia, the United States.


---

The fact that a comprehensive, all-encompassing general theory of "human nature" has not yet been formulated does not imply that general assumptions about human nature cannot be considered factual.

One of these assumptions is that humans tend to will to have power over other humans, even if it means hurting them.
If there is one constant in the social behavior or human beings, this is it.

the fact that people often kill each other is an argument for allowing a tiny number of people to control the most organized means to do that killing? funny, it looks to me like a very good reason to do what we can to avoid letting some people have massive amounts of power over others. as your own examples point out, social organizations with rulers and ruled have not exactly been innocent of engaging in mass slaughter. in fact, they have been the chief agents of it.

or is your argument that domination is inevitable, because it keeps happening? and if that is the case, would you argue that all inevitable things should just be accepted or even defined as good?

and while there may be some sort of generalized will to dominate (i don't know if i would call it more than a tendency, and even that only among a certain percentage of people), there are also impulses to not be dominated - almost nobody actively seeks to be at the bottom of the heap. given the proper social conditions and tools i see no reason why the desire of many individuals to not be dominated could not be used to successfully resist the desire of any particular individual to do the dominating.

in fact, something very much like this occured in various hunter-gatherer cultures around the world, probably for tens of thousands of years. in them, hierarchy was kept to an absolute minimum (i.e. almost none at all). granted, their social conditions were very different from those that we face today. but they do show that domination is not absolutely inevitable. which means we are just at an empirical question about whether there are any tools that will allow people to resist domination under the social conditions of today. all we have now are a few inconclusive tests (the spanish anarchists were more effective than the actual government during the opening stage of the civil war, but faltered when the stalinsts decided that it would be better if the fascists won than for them not to control spain - let's see how well anybody does when facing enemies on two sides, one backed by hitler and mussolini, the other by stalin).

What's going to stop people from re-organizing? Brainwashing?

Re-organizing into what?

Into a statist and/or capitalist society? Nothing (voluntary participation has been mentioned in AT LEAST three, possibly five or six posts) - they'd have the opportunity and freedom to participate in an anarchist society - or not. It's up to the individual.

(A)the fact that people often kill each other is an argument for allowing a tiny number of people to control the most organized means to do that killing?

(B)or is your argument that domination is inevitable, because it keeps happening? and if that is the case, would you argue that all inevitable things should just be accepted or even defined as good?





A)
It is an absolute necessity to vest great power over life and death into the hands of a relative few. Anyone with the capacity to kill somone else is in the position to grant life and death to whomever it is they have the ability to kill.

The way to dissuade people from killing others (or doing them other harm) is to structure your society such that the negative consequences of hurting somone outweight the benefits gained from it.

A little bit of violent, armed oppression in just the right places can prevent a whole lot of it later on.

Ex, if the government uses its armed police to prevent citizens from getting military weapons, they will never be able to use military weapons to commit crimes.


B)
No moral judgement can be made about the human organism's drive to dominate others, it is a force as inevitable and immutable as gravity or magnetism. It isnt good, it isnt bad.
It is just life.

No moral judgement can be made about the human organism's drive to dominate others, it is a force as inevitable and immutable as gravity or magnetism. It isnt good, it isnt bad.
It is just life.

Domination would be a means to an end (more resources by taking resources from others or by forcing them to get resources for you), to biologically justify it, however, to say that domination is the default and/or only "setting" is completely wrongheaded. People work together routinely out of recognition that mutual aid in which pecking order is sacrificed for the sake of efficiency (or simply a non-issue) is more beneficial in most circumstances and with most other people - it's the one most conducive to "progress".

*chough* Somolia *chough*

Anarchy can work in a small group of people, who absolutly need each other to survive, but then it becomes Communism, because they share the spoils of labor amongst each other for the community as a whole. A person that doesn't have friends in a world that offers no protection is a person that's going to die very quickly.

So what you are saying is that if we make sure everyone in this world lives in small groups (collectives) everyone is happy and free. That is good to hear really. Lets put that in practice :)

So what you are saying is that if we make sure everyone in this world lives in small groups (collectives) everyone is happy and free. That is good to hear really. Lets put that in practice :)

Stalin tried to collectivize the farms in the soviet union, it ended up killing millions of people.

Stalin [...]

:rolleyes: how about posting something constructive which somehow correlates to what i said for a change? If you could do that, you'd certainly raise some respect in my regard. Right now, you just come over as Yet Another Troll (tm) and will be threated accordingly. Better yet, the next Yet Another Troll (tm) from you is Instant Ignore List (tm). (r).

On a second note, Stalin continued to support the exact opposite of what i'm proposing.

Stalin tried to collectivize the farms in the soviet union, it ended up killing millions of people.

this is equivocation. nobody is talking about stalin or the totalitarian ussr.

this is equivocation. nobody is talking about stalin or the totalitarian ussr.


I belive the offending poster's words were "lets put that into practice."

Something at which stalin excelled.

I belive the offending poster's words were "lets put that into practice."

Something at which stalin excelled.

so now any time anyone puts anything into practice under any method they have committed the equivalent stalinist purges and forced relocation and theft?

so now any time anyone puts anything into practice under any method they have committed the equivalent stalinist purges and forced relocation and theft?

How about you ignore the stupid troll already?

Basically we have a problem. Enough peoople who check this thread but they generally agree with each other. Once in a while one who firmly disagrees pops up, but according to at least my observation (i've been here before, too) those just aren't constructive -- most of the time. Which sucks.

Its like saying as collective: we have this dicussion then and then, feel free to come and pop in, we welcome your feedback! Then, only 1 person pops up, a nazi. While i'm not generalizing him/her as stupid, he/she does firmly disagree which means the discussion just ain't constructive. Useless discussion. Both parties are better off by working for their own ideals instead.

but playing with trolls can be fun

I don't think anarcho-communism will fly for the same reasons communism didn't, syndicalism won't work because of division of labour problems but anarcho-capitalism will work because capitalism has been proven to work in every nation that allows the free market to operate.

I sure as hell don't want to share my property with hippies who claim a case to share the load and then just freeload off my hard work. I believe that people should be truely free to their own rewards for work.

Putting resources into the collective has never been any good for incentives to use resources efficiently, just look at the sturgeon cavier in the former soviet union, they are getting wiped out because there is no conservation incentive.

Putting resources into the collective has never been any good for incentives to use resources efficiently, just look at
modern multinational corporations.

anarcho-capitalism will work because capitalism has been proven to work in every nation that allows the free market to operate.

I .


You forget though that once you declare anarchy the nation either becomes a warzone or gets occupied.

Only business you'd be able to conduct in an anarchist land is that of a mercenary.

Putting resources into the collective has never been any good for incentives to use resources efficiently

Why not? If its of use, and you want to share it, you can always communicate on who's gonna do what. You have more under your command of usage and you can create subgroups of using these, appointments, etc. The only demand is that you're not a selfish bastard who doesn't think about others, or who shuts up when consensus is being made but ignores that. Luckily that kind of people are quite rare in the world of autonomy (according to my experience, that is).

I'm a member of various collectives and communities, and one of these has far too much resources actually. Strange. Must be some weirdo thing, something impossible, right? We do give away our resources to starting collectives who have a similar target as we have. I'd say also say the BSDL and GPL is proof it does work to take and give back. Finally, the current status quo ideology of take, take, take is contradicting with the Kantian ethics.

modern multinational corporations.

It's mostly because there is no private ownership of sturgeon fish that the eggs are harvested with no regard to replacement stocks.

Letila makes me laugh and weep thusly.

Why not? If its of use, and you want to share it, you can always communicate on who's gonna do what. You have more under your command of usage and you can create subgroups of using these, appointments, etc. The only demand is that you're not a selfish bastard who doesn't think about others, or who shuts up when consensus is being made but ignores that. Luckily that kind of people are quite rare in the world of autonomy (according to my experience, that is).

I'm a member of various collectives and communities, and one of these has far too much resources actually. Strange. Must be some weirdo thing, something impossible, right? We do give away our resources to starting collectives who have a similar target as we have. I'd say also say the BSDL and GPL is proof it does work to take and give back. Finally, the current status quo ideology of take, take, take is contradicting with the Kantian ethics.

Information is the only thing that you can share and still use because you merely make a copy of information. With resources, you have to deal with a finite amount of material to supply the demand. Information can fill demand with a near infinite amount of nearly free supply of information.
I feel that there is always a moral case to buy information that is useful and that you use in other words, when there is a true need.
I would not feel such a strong motive to buy services such as online radio, anime or webserver space when I have similar items myself or no need for them.

I prefer the BSD license to GPL mainly because quality control isn't such a high priority in the GPL projects. I want stuff that works, not stuff that's cool for nerds who have a socialist ideology instead of a profit motive.

Finally, I would have to say that having no private responsibility for resources makes no incentives for preserving resources for future use or efficient use.

I prefer the BSD license to GPL mainly because quality control isn't such a high priority in the GPL projects. I want stuff that works, not stuff that's cool for nerds who have a socialist ideology instead of a profit motive.

I can get enough of people thinking that because someone does something without a profitable motive it's worst than the rest. HAHAHAHA and HA!

Information is the only thing that you can share and still use because you merely make a copy of information. [...]

In theory, yes. Although i'd speak of 'data'. Also, some data can be spread but not used because of cryptography.

I prefer the BSD license to GPL mainly because quality control isn't such a high priority in the GPL projects. I want stuff that works, not stuff that's cool for nerds who have a socialist ideology instead of a profit motive.

LMAO. Completely laughable. I didn't intend to start some discussion on nitpicking, but where do i have to start now...
1) Do you program yourself, for profit? There is a very little # of people who program for profit and distribute it via the BSD license.
2) "I want stuff that works, not stuff that's cool for nerds who have a socialist ideology instead of a profit motive." Now think Novell, think IBM, think RedHat, think Sun. Obviously, they agree, and they put their sources under the BSD license. (Not.)
3) No, what they programmed under the GPL is obviously a bunch of crap. (Not.) You see, neither Linux 2.4 based distribution nor FreeBSD 4.x have had major problems the past years, but arguably Linux 2.6 and FreeBSD 5.x have.
4) The GPL is not anti commercial go read gnu.org even Stallman and his gang admit that with their manifestos et al.
5) You are ofcourse among those who just don't get it why Sun won't release Solaris under the BSD license... no, Sun wants control and quality whereas BSD and GPL licenses both allow forking.

In any case, i'm rather pragmetic on the GPL vs BSD license discussion as i think it differs per situation, target, etc. Its zealots in both camps (as well as other licenses, and the proprietary / BSD shill camp) which upset the peace and harmony.

Finally, I would have to say that having no private responsibility for resources makes no incentives for preserving resources for future use or efficient use.

Well, there is a potential for such incentives. Its just the way you look at material and resources which you have to adust in order to understand it. If you live with a small group of people you know these resources are lying there. If they were useless, they'd be trashed. So why would you destroy them, use them inefficiently? The point is that you need to think and talk before you act and that is a bit problematic [for some].

It's mostly because there is no private ownership of sturgeon fish that the eggs are harvested with no regard to replacement stocks.

It's capitalism that creates the motivation to deplete the eggs in the first place. They harvest so many because it's profitable. While privatization might work in this case, it definately won't work in all, as it is not always profitable in the short run to preserve the environment.

It's capitalism that creates the motivation to deplete the eggs in the first place. They harvest so many because it's profitable. While privatization might work in this case, it definately won't work in all, as it is not always profitable in the short run to preserve the environment.

It is always profitable to reserve a part of your resources. I never said the fault was capitalism, I said the problem was lack of ownership.

In theory, yes. Although i'd speak of 'data'. Also, some data can be spread but not used because of cryptography.



LMAO. Completely laughable. I didn't intend to start some discussion on nitpicking, but where do i have to start now...
1) Do you program yourself, for profit? There is a very little # of people who program for profit and distribute it via the BSD license.
2) "I want stuff that works, not stuff that's cool for nerds who have a socialist ideology instead of a profit motive." Now think Novell, think IBM, think RedHat, think Sun. Obviously, they agree, and they put their sources under the BSD license. (Not.)
3) No, what they programmed under the GPL is obviously a bunch of crap. (Not.) You see, neither Linux 2.4 based distribution nor FreeBSD 4.x have had major problems the past years, but arguably Linux 2.6 and FreeBSD 5.x have.
4) The GPL is not anti commercial go read gnu.org even Stallman and his gang admit that with their manifestos et al.
5) You are ofcourse among those who just don't get it why Sun won't release Solaris under the BSD license... no, Sun wants control and quality whereas BSD and GPL licenses both allow forking.

In any case, i'm rather pragmetic on the GPL vs BSD license discussion as i think it differs per situation, target, etc. Its zealots in both camps (as well as other licenses, and the proprietary / BSD shill camp) which upset the peace and harmony.



Well, there is a potential for such incentives. Its just the way you look at material and resources which you have to adust in order to understand it. If you live with a small group of people you know these resources are lying there. If they were useless, they'd be trashed. So why would you destroy them, use them inefficiently? The point is that you need to think and talk before you act and that is a bit problematic [for some].

1 Yes, I program for profit. I would rather distribute some of my software under BSD than GPL. I prefer to actually retain control over my profitable stuff so I wouldn't even trust it to others.
2 I'd only use java software from sun and IBM, the others are useless to me.
3 I've tried to use linux and it sucked majorly, even MS windows was better in terms of user experience. fortunately I use mac os X at home.
4 I am not interested in licenses which aren't commercially beneficial to my software. I have invested many thousands of dollars, I would like to profit from my investment as best as I can.
5 I also wouldn't release stuff under BSD because I don't want those things to fork. I have no desire to give up control on certain technology I have devised, especially in the area of cryptography software.

I am merely stating that resources are better managed when someone is responsible for owning that resource. As in sturgeon fish and caviar eggs.

so now any time anyone puts anything into practice under any method they have committed the equivalent stalinist purges and forced relocation and theft?


I was under the impression what we were talking about was "putting collectivization into practice."


I really dont comprehend how you could so badly misunderstand what I had said :)

----

What is your (or any anarchist's) plan for bringing about an 'anarchist' land?

Step by step, how do you start, what do you do.

No magic tricks like "make the government dissapear" or "make everyone nice to eachother" ~!

I am merely stating that resources are better managed when someone is responsible for owning that resource. As in sturgeon fish and caviar eggs.


It would be best if the concerned governments formed a cartel and used their militaries to discourage poaching of the sturgeon. Then they would have total control over the supply and the ability to ensure that enough stock remained to reproduce and continue the industry in perpetuity.

Also, their monopoly would allow them to get more for the caviar, which would offset the revenue decrease that owed to the decrease in the quanity they sold.

I was under the impression what we were talking about was "putting collectivization into practice."

I really dont comprehend how you could so badly misunderstand what I had said :)

well as i said before, you have equivocated between anarchist collectivism and stalinism. they are not the same. in pretty much any way imaginable.

What is your (or any anarchist's) plan for bringing about an 'anarchist' land?

Step by step, how do you start, what do you do.

No magic tricks like "make the government dissapear" or "make everyone nice to eachother" ~!

step one, organize.

step two through n, create alternative voluntary systems to handle the necessary functions of government currently run by the state, and alternative power structures - this is sometimes called 'dual power'. organize into bottom-up revolutionary labor unions to fight the capitalists, while also pushing the state to roll back the special protections and powers is grants the capitalists. also, keep pressure on the state to push it out of more and more of society, etc.

you might want to take a look at section j of an anarchist faq - what do anarchists do? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJcon.html) and the final chapter of kevin carson's "studies in mutualist political economy" (http://mutualist.org/id105.html).

those are the short versions of the various plans, i can give you more if you like.

step one, organize.

step two through n, create alternative voluntary systems to handle the necessary functions of government currently run by the state, and alternative power structures - this is sometimes called 'dual power'. organize into bottom-up revolutionary labor unions to fight the capitalists, while also pushing the state to roll back the special protections and powers is grants the capitalists. also, keep pressure on the state to push it out of more and more of society, etc.




Thats sounds shockingly like a "state run by the proletariat."

That 'voluntary system to handle the necessary functions of government' when combined with 'revolutionary labor unions' who fight capitalists is called the "dictatorship of the proletariat" by communists.


Now do not get me wrong, for I am an ardent socialist and believe strongly that society should serve the common good to a large extent, but revolutionary socialism has only ever resulted in totalitarianism.

I suppose my followup question is this:

What is to prevent the first and most influential organisers and architects of this new order of unions and 'volunatry systems' from doing the exact same thing the leaders of the russian revolution did.

We might as well do away with our brains while we're at it. They take up too much precious space and resources in our body, and just spend all their time regulating the other organs. As if the heart wants to be told when to beat and the lungs when to inhale and exhale.

If there's anything more stupid than an anarchist, science hasn't discovered it yet.

We already live in a state of anarchy. For some reason it resembles order :P.

Thats sounds shockingly like a "state run by the proletariat."

That 'voluntary system to handle the necessary functions of government' when combined with 'revolutionary labor unions' who fight capitalists is called the "dictatorship of the proletariat" by communists.

only the anti-authoritarian marxists use the term to mean anything at all like that. you are again blurring clear and obvious lines between bottom-up democratic voluntary organizations and leninism/stalinism.

only the anti-authoritarian marxists use the term to mean anything at all like that. you are again blurring clear and obvious lines between bottom-up democratic voluntary organizations and leninism/stalinism.


Not at all, you need to explain what the difference in outcomes between bottom up democratic voluntary organizations and bottom up communist revolution is.

I am simply saying that if the events you desire were to actually transpire, the end result would be just like leninism or stalinism.

You explicitly said that an integral part of your 'anarchist' revolution would be revolutionary workers unions which fought capitalists.

This is really *identical* to what happens in a communist revolution - workers unite to overthrow the capitalists.

In both cases there is a power vacuum, and I see no reason why the leaders (architects, strategists, evangelists, organisers) of the anarchist revolution would not find themselves in the same position as the leaders of the communist revolution did.

Revolution is not the only possibility. There were and are many intentional communes and collectives throughout the world, but they almost all operate alone. If, and/or, when new land or living space under no one's jurisdiction (land claimed by no nation or soverignty) were to open up, the opportunity for an anarchist society (two or more collectives or communities working together, at least in the beginning) to establish itself peacefully through voluntary new comers and participators would present itself. Such unclaimed space could be in space, under the oceans, the moon, Mars, etc.

Revolution is not the only possibility. There were and are many intentional communes and collectives throughout the world, but they almost all operate alone. If, and/or, when new land or living space under no one's jurisdiction (land claimed by no nation or soverignty) were to open up, the opportunity for an anarchist society (two or more collectives or communities working together, at least in the beginning) to establish itself peacefully through voluntary new comers and participators would present itself. Such unclaimed space could be in space, under the oceans, the moon, Mars, etc.


Also though, such 'unused space' could be desired by an armed power.

That could spell a quick end to any sort of peaceful anarchy.

Also, when you have more than one group of people (collectives or communities) the tendency observed for the last six thousand years is for conflicts to arise between them.

Not at all, you need to explain what the difference in outcomes between bottom up democratic voluntary organizations and bottom up communist revolution is.

I am simply saying that if the events you desire were to actually transpire, the end result would be just like leninism or stalinism.

You explicitly said that an integral part of your 'anarchist' revolution would be revolutionary workers unions which fought capitalists.

This is really *identical* to what happens in a communist revolution - workers unite to overthrow the capitalists.

In both cases there is a power vacuum, and I see no reason why the leaders (architects, strategists, evangelists, organisers) of the anarchist revolution would not find themselves in the same position as the leaders of the communist revolution did.

of course it is nearly identical to the theory of marxist communist revolution. we share many similarities with them in theory. our objection lies in their reliance on top-down imposed organization and the empowerment of the party over the people, as well as their love of centralization and a tendency towards authoritarianism visible as early as the first international.

it seems to me that you are misrepresenting the actual history of, for example, the russian revolution. the rise of the bolsheviks to power doesn't resemble what i have laid out as two possible courses except in a few of the most general aspects, and even there only at the first glance. there was no power vacuum and the bolsheviks didn't merely happen to find themselves in power by default. power rested in the soviets. these were then systematically undermined and subjugated by the bolsheviks through a variety of tactics aimed at centralizing their control. the bolsheviks did not rely at all on voluntary bottom-up organizations. in fact, they sought to undermine and control nearly every such organization to fit into their hierarchal plan of centralism and "reform from above". and as far as i know, prior to the revolution, explicitly bolshevik revolutionary unions were non-existent.

we don't face the question of what do we do when we face a power vacuum, but rather how do we stop wannabe dictators from centralizing power away from the new power bases. and the answer will involve not letting them control the army and the secret police, not letting anyone outlaw rival political factions, not allowing political hostage-taking and random detentions, not letting anyone ban all media except their own, not letting anyone freely execute people merely for holding different political views and the wrong membership card, etc.

Ah, Letila... how I've missed you... :fluffle: Big hug! Now, to business! But first, a little reintroduction might be in order.

I am known by many names. Generally, people call me Ro, though. You may all feel free to do the same. My politics can best be described as 'pragmatic'.

As in, I support Capital Punishment and abortion in the case of rapes and when the mother's life is in danger. When it comes to government-size, I have one big policy... Democratic Absolutism. None of this 'small-government' conservatism. I'm a real conservative, an Absolutist of the old-school. The people should elect their governments, and then just watch from a distance without interfering or complaining.

Now, let's review, shall we?

Most people would scoff at the idea that anarchism is moral, let alone sustainable. Here, I will present the moral case for anarchism and show why an anarchist society will encourage highly esteemed virtues such as responsibility, mutual aid, and the golden rule. It is hierarchy that lacks these values, not anarchy.

Hrmm... I could go through a big argument here, with facts and points and so on.

Or, I could just make my two main points and move on. Firstly, Social Democrat Countries, which have fairly large governments, also take care of such things for their citizens. On a much better level than an anarchistic commune could ever manage.

Also, in... what was it... Catalonia, right... the Anarchists violently forced the Valencians into their communes. That's right, violently. As for the Green army in the Ukraine... pogroms, anyone? Not to mention the deaths of the Intelligentsia across the board before the Germans and Soviets managed to restore order.

Pacifism
Government is not a peaceful institution. It regularly fights wars that kill thousands or even millions of people. World War II killed around 60 million people and showed off the mass murdering capabilities of gas chambers and nuclear weapons. Overall, government has probably killed at least 150 million people in the 20th century, not counting things that can be traced to government action.

Anarchism, by contrast, doesn't have military and police. Instead, the conditions that encourage crime (such as poverty). Relationships based on power (ie, force and 'might makes right') are nonexistant. Social relationships are based on voluntary choice rather than force. Police don't arrest you for not paying taxes in anarchy, for example.

And Anarchism contributed a great deal to murders in the nineteenth century. The liberalism of Russia was set back decades by the assassination of Alexander. Did you forget that? Russia might have become a liberal democracy, instead of descending deeper into pseudo-democratic muck which required two revolutions to finally eliminate. Anarchism is to blame for the deaths of the hundreds of thousands who Alexander's successor had executed.

I'm not arguing that heirarchy is perfect. But our current system of Liberal Democracy has *not* in and of itself killed hundreds. Anarchy becomes, as I think I've pointed out, either 'organic democracy' or, even worse, 'rule by force', where every town's a fortress and all eyes are looking out. Like the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century. Or whenever.

Equality
Hierarchy carries with it the not-so-subtle implication that the average person is too stupid to live without the guidance of benevolent élites. It is élitist to the extreme. Whether in the form of government, capitalism, sexism, or racism, it treats many people as inferior and even subhuman while exalting others.

Anarchy, by contrast, means that people are not lumped into groups that have differing levels of power. Everyone is free and no one takes orders from others. There is no poverty or other social classes in anarchism. Everyone is given equal opportunity rather than white privilege or millions of dollars of inheritence.

Amazingly, I almost agree with you up in the first paragraph. Except from the concealed implication the average person is intelligent. Check the average IQ scores across the globe, and I think we'll be lucky to get 100 world-wide. Of course, in a democracy this balances out. In an Anarchistic system, I'm willing to bet the first order of the day would be 'kill everyone wearing spectacles.'

Responsibility
As it stands, the government seems to think it has the right to decide what we can and can't do with our bodies. Since smoking marijuana or watching uncensored Gundam SEED are apparently offensive to God, the government as seen fit to make the decision for us and use force to prevent us from choosing otherwise.

If gay marriage or drug use are wrong, that is not a good enough reason to ban them. True morality means doing things because you choose not to do them, not because the government will arrest you for doing them. To do so because of the latter is merely acting out of self-interest, not a value that conservatives are supposed to be for.

You're right. I fully support letting people smoke as much hard drugs as they want. But that's because I'm a Social Darwinist and I don't want these people to breed.

As for gay marriage, the problem here is that I *do* want these people to breed. Many of humanity's finest minds were bisexual or displayed homosexual tendencies (Alexander the Great, anyone?), and these are traits which we should be encouraging anyway possible. I don't think that it should be illegal, but I also don't think it should matter too much to the homosexuals. Instead of allowing them to marry, government should just extend the same benefits of marriage to them. Hell, if people in de-facto relationships can adopt children, there's no earthly reason why homosexuals can't.

And somehow, I think that if God really cared, the 'death by heavenly act' statistic would be sky-high.

In addition, anarchism differs from the views of government supporters in that it doesn't claim we are bound by a human nature to kill and steal unless restrained. Instead, anarchists believe that while current society promotes crime in many ways, there is nothing inherent in us that makes us anti-social. To believe otherwise is to deny responsibility for crime.

I'm not even going to start with what's wrong with that. But it reminds me of the Soviet Government claiming that genetics was a pack of capitalist lies.

Mutual aid
In the US, if you break your leg or get a serious illness but are poor and have no health insurance, you're SOL. There is no socialized healthcare. In the US, living is a privilege, not a right. The rich, by contrast, seem to have a God-given privilege to top-of-the-line healthcare and stupid mansions and yachts even when there are people struggling to survive.

In anarcho-communism, mutual aid is one of the core values. Voluntary coöperation between equals will result in a better society, one where all who do their share will be able to receive what they need to live. Well-being for all is the goal, not privilege for the few. Mutual aid will improve everyone's chances of survival.

Well... I don't know about the States, but in most Western Countries now (such as mine, Australia), there is some sort of health benefit scheme, public insurance, welfare assistance... even Singapore, that most Capitalist of countries, has some checks on the power of business. By the government owning everything and considering most people to be its employees. And employees must be treated well.

System works. Don't change it. I've never been to a place where more people were happier than Singaporeans. Except the Thai.

In short, if you believe these values are important, anarchism, not government and capitalism, is based on them. Anarchism, not government, promotes peace. Anarchism, not capitalism, promotes equality. Anarchism, not hierarchy, promotes responsibility.

A) Capitalism is an economic system.

B) You're confusing capitalism with Liberal Democracy.

C) If I say that Anarchism, not Liberal Democracy, promotes equality in a public space, they'd commit me.

I think you got it wrong, threadstarter. But anarchy is what happens after the previous power has been toppled and before the next one is installed. the reason why anarchy is so uncommon is that it, being highly unstable, it allows people who are more politically keen to take advantage of those who are naturally more of a push over, and so it starts again. anarchy is more substantial as a sense of youthful invincibility and groundless freedom than as a political system.

Given that "anarchy" is the default state of things and it's sort of how things started: Why wouldn't we end up here again anyway ?

My ideas on anarchy:

My ideal living situation would be similar to the American fronteir during the early 19th century: A self sufficient farm, with niegbors some distance away (I, like all other humans, have an instinctive need for socialization), where I and my family, and my niegbors will defend ourselves, provide for ourselves, and from each according to his ability, to each according to his need *yes I know thats a quote, I just don't remember where I picked it up*

In my family (and this includes anyone that I consider friend) things are held in a very communistic manner.

Finally, the one thing about anarchy that attracts me the most, is its emphasis on personal responsibily. Government, or indeed any power structure, has no right, beyond force of arms, to tell me that I am wrong, in ANY way. Nor do they have to. I will decide whats right or wrong for myself, moment to moment, and I will accept any consequences or benefits thereof.

*Nods to Letila: Thank you for the education*

What strikes me most of all about 'anarchism' is its basic reliance on a patently false premise:

Human beings are naturally good, cooperative and interested in the common good.


The entire history of the human race is evidence agaisnt that idea.
There has never been a time when two groups of people consented to peacefully share something.

Savages untouched by the western, modern world fight over resources just the same as world superpowers do.

"Human nature" is made a red herring by anarchists and attacked, because they refuse to acknowledge that the fact that we do not yet have a general theory of human behavior does not imply that we cannot make accurate generalizations about certain aspects of it.

People tend to try to control others, and the desire for power seems to be as strong and consuming as the desire for sex.

Given that "anarchy" is the default state of things and it's sort of how things started: Why wouldn't we end up here again anyway ?

Yes, anarchy (well, actually 'chaos') is the ground state of being.

However, anarchism is a semi-political ideology which advocates the abolition of all heirarchal systems and the formation of a system of egalitarian, linked, communes.

Barring the fact that it relies too much on humans being decent chaps despite it all, it's a good belief system.

Reminds me a bit of that song, though... you know? The one that goes 'Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice'? Something like that.

What strikes me most of all about 'anarchism' is its basic reliance on a patently false premise:

Human beings are naturally good, cooperative and interested in the common good. *humans are not naturally any different from any other animal*


The entire history of the human race is evidence agaisnt that idea.
There has never been a time when two groups of people consented to peacefully share something. *I share with my own*

Savages untouched by the western, modern world fight over resources just the same as world superpowers do.

"Human nature" is made a red herring by anarchists and attacked, because they refuse to acknowledge that the fact that we do not yet have a general theory of human behavior does not imply that we cannot make accurate generalizations about certain aspects of it.

People tend to try to control others, and the desire for power seems to be as strong and consuming as the desire for sex.

It is the same desire.

Watch yourself and how you react to others around you. It will be an education.

Look and you will see.
Think and you will see.

Firstly, Social Democrat Countries, which have fairly large governments, also take care of such things for their citizens. On a much better level than an anarchistic commune could ever manage.

and i suppose we should just take your word for that? sounds like an empirical question to me.

Also, in... what was it... Catalonia, right... the Anarchists violently forced the Valencians into their communes. That's right, violently. As for the Green army in the Ukraine... pogroms, anyone? Not to mention the deaths of the Intelligentsia across the board before the Germans and Soviets managed to restore order.

1. and yet 30% of the population of aragon decided not to collectivize, and were not forced to. while there were certainly a few instances of coerced collectives, these were in no way typical, and were completely against cnt policy.

2. of course, makhno's anarchist army was seperate from the various nationalist green army forces. it was known as the black army, actually. and makhno's army was the least likely to commit pogroms out of any of the armies in the ukraine at the time, and anyone found to have engaged in any form of overt anti-semitism was dealt with rather severely by makhno. the story that they were responsible for pogroms originates with the bolsheviks, as part of their propoaganda effort to turn a former hero of the revolution into a class traitor and counter-revolutionary.

What strikes me most of all about 'anarchism' is its basic reliance on a patently false premise:

Human beings are naturally good, cooperative and interested in the common good.

that would be a problem...if i accepted that as a basic premise. but i don't. hooray for me!

that would be a problem...if i accepted that as a basic premise. but i don't. hooray for me!


That's palpably false.

An anarchist collective community like the one you have expounded rests on the decisions of its members to give up striving to rule over one another and instead work towards a common good that *does not give them a comparative advantage* over their comrades.

Free Soviets.


Unless you are willing to answer all of my points, or concede the others, don't even try to answer two. Now, anyone seen Letila?

What strikes me most of all about 'anarchism' is its basic reliance on a patently false premise:

Human beings are naturally good, cooperative and interested in the common good.

Really?

Godwin argued that humans are neighther naturally good nor evil. Bakunin, felt that humans were born as "ferocious beasts" but that reason help one develope into a social being. Stirner saw humans as irredeemably egoistical and self interested. IIRC Emma Goldman had little faith in the masses

All these classical anarchists, none of whom felt that humans nature was perfect but corrupted.

The closest to your stereotype of Anarachists is Kropotkin, but I think he didn't think of it as an intrinsic quality, but that it has evolved in the form of a moral sense in the co-operation is a good survival trait.

Peter Marshall semi-argued in "Defending the impossible" that as a whole, Anarchists are more pessimistic on human nature then others. Due to the fact that they realise the corruptable quality of power on the human spirit and the danger of power being concentrated on too few a hands.[/quote]

The entire history of the human race is evidence agaisnt that idea.
There has never been a time when two groups of people consented to peacefully share something.


Just as history up to the 18th century disproved capitalism could work.

Since most people here hold those values, I was targeting them. You really need to stop analyzing everything I say to death.

Do you really think most people are pacifists?

Really?

Godwin argued that humans are neighther naturally good nor evil. Bakunin, felt that humans were born as "ferocious beasts" but that reason help one develope into a social being. Stirner saw humans as irredeemably egoistical and self interested. IIRC Emma Goldman had little faith in the masses

All these classical anarchists, none of whom felt that humans nature was perfect but corrupted.

The closest to your stereotype of Anarachists is Kropotkin, but I think he didn't think of it as an intrinsic quality, but that it has evolved in the form of a moral sense in the co-operation is a good survival trait.

Peter Marshall semi-argued in "Defending the impossible" that as a whole, Anarchists are more pessimistic on human nature then others. Due to the fact that they realise the corruptable quality of power on the human spirit and the danger of power being concentrated on too few a hands.




Just as history up to the 18th century disproved capitalism could work.[/QUOTE]


The mechanisms of capitalism have been with us as long as we have recorded history, your point on that matter simply isnt based in reality.

And you miss the point completely about anarchism resting on humans being good natured.

An anarchist collective community stands on the idea that people will work together for the common good and not for comparative advantage over their peers.

When have people ever done this?
It is contrary to the entire human experience.

The mechanisms of capitalism have been with us as long as we have recorded history, your point on that matter simply isnt based in reality.

And you miss the point completely about anarchism resting on humans being good natured.

An anarchist collective community stands on the idea that people will work together for the common good and not for comparative advantage over their peers.

When have people ever done this?
It is contrary to the entire human experience.

For one thing, people aren't simply robots responding to programmed instinct. Given the immense variety of opinion and behavior in existance, I'd say that there isn't much that is inherent to all humans. I personally believe we have free will and would argue that a life worth living must be free.

As for the mechanisms of capitalism, I certainly never heard about them existing for all time. Did factories exist in ancient times? Did money always exist? No, they didn't. These basic things that are at the core of capitalism didn't always exist.

The mechanisms of capitalism have been with us as long as we have recorded history, your point on that matter simply isnt based in reality.

And you miss the point completely about anarchism resting on humans being good natured.

An anarchist collective community stands on the idea that people will work together for the common good and not for comparative advantage over their peers.

When have people ever done this?
It is contrary to the entire human experience.
You make the mistake in thinking that all anarchists are anarcho-communists.

Unless you are willing to answer all of my points, or concede the others, don't even try to answer two.

-1 argument of authority
in a discussion you don't set the rules alone...
quite difficult for some ppl.. even for commies...
:rolleyes:

anarchy encourge to use power for surviving. people make groups and the cities will be full at mafias wars.
radical groups will take control and maybe take over the army and his nucler bombs.
the weakers will die and very fast the goverment changed to crime lords union.
that union take more taxes in more violent ways and he will dont think on the weakers. he form new laws and less morality ones. the police will be controlled by the criminals.
their no equality because it will be crime hirarchy.
and you can forget the free health insurance, because the few doctors who will survive with the mafia defence, will serve only the mafia.
than all the weaks try to escape from that evil land, and murdered in thousands because the mafia don't let her cheap human rescue go, and tell the world about her crimes.
the lucky few who will sucseed to get out tell the world about that terror region, and how evil the anarchy is.

this is your anarchy otopia, man.
I think that if you want that parameters you should go to social europen countrey. not to anarchy

anarchy encourge to use power for surviving. people make groups and the cities will be full at mafias wars.
radical groups will take control and maybe take over the army and his nucler bombs.
the weakers will die and very fast the goverment changed to crime lords union.
that union take more taxes in more violent ways and he will dont think on the weakers. he form new laws and less morality ones. the police will be controlled by the criminals.
their no equality because it will be crime hirarchy.
and you can forget the free health insurance, because the few doctors who will survive with the mafia defence, will serve only the mafia.
than all the weaks try to escape from that evil land, and murdered in thousands because the mafia don't let her cheap human rescue go, and tell the world about her crimes.
the lucky few who will sucseed to get out tell the world about that terror region, and how evil the anarchy is.

this is your anarchy otopia, man.
I think that if you want that parameters you should go to social europen countrey. not to anarchy

Wrong. It's government that is based on "might makes right".

Do you really think most people are pacifists?

If you take away all of the social factors which encourage or leave violence as a resort, sure...why not?

For one thing, people aren't simply robots responding to programmed instinct. Given the immense variety of opinion and behavior in existance, I'd say that there isn't much that is inherent to all humans. I personally believe we have free will and would argue that a life worth living must be free.

As for the mechanisms of capitalism, I certainly never heard about them existing for all time. Did factories exist in ancient times? Did money always exist? No, they didn't. These basic things that are at the core of capitalism didn't always exist.

As long as there has been a merchant class there has been capitalism. You are confusing capitalism with industrialism.


Also, that fact that we do not yet have a general theory of human behavior does not imply that we cannot make accurate generalizations about certain aspects of human behavior.

Denying that humans have an overwhelming tendency to seek power and personal advantage is like denying that humans have an overwhelming tendency to desire sex.

You make the mistake in thinking that all anarchists are anarcho-communists.


Am I forgetting the "smash the government do whatever I want" sort of anarchists? the ones who just want there to be chaos because they are stupid?

If so, i honestly dont care.

Free Soviets.


Unless you are willing to answer all of my points, or concede the others, don't even try to answer two. Now, anyone seen Letila?

yes, because we all have infinite amounts of time to respond to posts on the internet...

on a quick glance at your post i saw some things that i knew off the top of my head to be factual inaccuracies - and an argument by assertion - in the first bit. so i pointed these out. you want more?

let's see...

i'm fairly sure that narodnaya volya - which carried out the assassination of tsar alexander was not an anarchist group, but a state-socialist one.

the rest of it barely makes an argument at all, other than merely restating your premise of "anarchism bad" or doesn't interest me enough to argue it because it doesn't have much to do with an argument i would make.

happy?

Am I forgetting the "smash the government do whatever I want" sort of anarchists? the ones who just want there to be chaos because they are stupid?

If so, i honestly dont care.

no. he's talking about mutualists and individualists and anarchists-without adjectives, etc.

btw, did you take a look at those links i gave you? one of them is from a socialist free-market anarchist.

As long as there has been a merchant class there has been capitalism. You are confusing capitalism with industrialism.


Also, that fact that we do not yet have a general theory of human behavior does not imply that we cannot make accurate generalizations about certain aspects of human behavior.

Denying that humans have an overwhelming tendency to seek power and personal advantage is like denying that humans have an overwhelming tendency to desire sex.

1. capitalism is not the same as trade. capitalism is a specific kind of way for a class society to be organized with a certain collection of institutions and class/power dynamics.

2. claiming that humans have an overwhelming tendency to seek power and personal advantage looks like a hasty generalization to me. human behavior is far too variable for that sort of statement. but even if it were true, i see no reason to think that a society could not be arranged in such a way as to make these conflicting drives to power and personal gain cancel each other out. isn't this pretty much standard enlightenment democratic theory, merely taken a step or two further?

As for the mechanisms of capitalism, I certainly never heard about them existing for all time. Did factories exist in ancient times? Did money always exist? No, they didn't. These basic things that are at the core of capitalism didn't always exist.

Capitalism, at it's most fundamental level, is nothing more than a respect for property rights. It certainly doesn't require factories or even money.

If you take away all of the social factors which encourage or leave violence as a resort, sure...why not?

What does that even mean? I am not a pacifist. Do you really think you can change that by "taking away social factors"?

Capitalism, at it's most fundamental level, is nothing more than a respect for property rights. It certainly doesn't require factories or even money.

so then feudalism was capitalism, and stalinism was capitalism, and a true communist system would be capitalism.

every system will have some protected method of dealing with use and access rights to land and resources. what you really mean by "property rights" is "the capitalist conception of property rights and privileges, backed up by capitalist institutions that create and enforce those rights and privileges".

2. claiming that humans have an overwhelming tendency to seek power and personal advantage looks like a hasty generalization to me. human behavior is far too variable for that sort of statement. but even if it were true, i see no reason to think that a society could not be arranged in such a way as to make these conflicting drives to power and personal gain cancel each other out. isn't this pretty much standard enlightenment democratic theory, merely taken a step or two further?



You're starting to honestly lose your grounding in reality Free Soviets.

The principal activity of groups of people for the past four thousand years has been the imposing of power over others.

How do you plan to "arrange a society in such a way as to make the conflicting drives of power and personal gain cancel out?"

Power IS personal gain, person gain IS power, they are synonymous.

Society cannot be 'arranged' with a magical wand that idealizes the world.

It has been proven in all cases that the events idealists believe will lead to enlightened socialism actually lead only to despotism.

Proletariat revolution = proven failure.

You're starting to honestly lose your grounding in reality Free Soviets.

The principal activity of groups of people for the past four thousand years has been the imposing of power over others.

How do you plan to "arrange a society in such a way as to make the conflicting drives of power and personal gain cancel out?"

Power IS personal gain, person gain IS power, they are synonymous.

Society cannot be 'arranged' with a magical wand that idealizes the world.

It has been proven in all cases that the events idealists believe will lead to enlightened socialism actually lead only to despotism.

Proletariat revolution = proven failure.

I don't have any desire to have power over others. While what you say has been true for the past 4,000 years, that doesn't make it inherent to human nature. I'm told that many hunter-gatherer tribes, such as the !Kung San had very little real hierarchy.

I don't have any desire to have power over others. While what you say has been true for the past 4,000 years, that doesn't make it inherent to human nature. I'm told that many hunter-gatherer tribes, such as the !Kung San had very little real hierarchy.


Some people like to kill their mothers. It isnt portion large enough to be significant in terms of what people in general do, but some people like it.


If you were unaware, the world is not filled with hunter-gatherer tribes. Their idyllic supposed "un heirarchical" society perished from the earth.


Also, our thoughts are a physiological function of our brains. Our brains work in certain ways. It isnt coincidence that the same motifs of behavior are observed in every single society ever observed.

Some people like to kill their mothers. It isnt portion large enough to be significant in terms of what people in general do, but some people like it.


If you were unaware, the world is not filled with hunter-gatherer tribes. Their idyllic supposed "un heirarchical" society perished from the earth.


Also, our thoughts are a physiological function of our brains. Our brains work in certain ways. It isnt coincidence that the same motifs of behavior are observed in every single society ever observed.

I don't believe in materialism as it leads to determinism and thus to a lack of freedom. You have already fallen prey to determinism and just as I predicted, it has lead you to not care about human suffering.

I don't believe in materialism as it leads to determinism and thus to a lack of freedom. You have already fallen prey to determinism and just as I predicted, it has lead you to not care about human suffering.


On the contrary, I only oppose 'anarchism' because it would lead, as did revolutionary socialism, to extreme, massive, and widespread human suffering.

A peaceable socialist state such as those in northern europe *today* is the best way to run a land. Idealized systems might be better in theory, but the fact remains that they are unrealistic and have a track record of unmatched suffering and death.

Every ounce of efford expended to promote some ludicrous utopia is one robbed from the true fight in which progressive humanity is engaged - that against wicked corrupt governments and for humane enlightened ones.

These humane enlightened governments are real, they are spreading across europe. They are neither an ideal nor a utopia, but a current reality and a fact.

These humane enlightened governments are real, they are spreading across europe.

Please name them. All of them. Specifically. At your option, with arguments / proof.

They are neither an ideal nor a utopia, but a current reality and a fact.

One man's perception is another man's deception ;)

1)Please name them. All of them. Specifically. At your option, with arguments / proof.



2)One man's perception is another man's deception ;)




1) Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Germany


2) Howwwww Proooffffouuuuuuuunnnnnd

1) Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Germany


2) Howwwww Proooffffouuuuuuuunnnnnd

Haha. I happen to be from one of those countries. We have big brother awards. No joke, good points are raised. So have other countries. Laws are being implemented because of 'terrorist threats'. I know we're not the only one on that either. For example, the police may now use material from the secret service in their cases. The problem is, the secret service has ridiculous powers. Under the name of 'anti-terrorism'. But not only against al-qaida or whatever. No. They see 'animal right activists' as terrorists too. Okay well then count me as a terrorist supporter but i don't opress animals. I don't eat animals nor their products.

Whole EU is centralized more and more. Guess what'll happen to the small countries? Don't you understand why they're 'sooo' against Turkey joining the EU? We as EU get EUCD, patent laws, etc. The EU has the sole function of economic powerhouse; quite apparent the people of EU aren't as happy with the EU as the politicans are, huh? Politicians, once elected, are free to do what they want for 4 years. They're almost dictators, at least near to. I got intimidated by the police the other day. Mind you, doing nothing wrong by law, but the police simply didn't likened what i did hence they ordered me to stop me. Based on nothing.

'Humane enlightened'? Only if you behave like they want you to, that still counts, like it did long before. The 'humane enlightened' have always been a small number of individuals, not even those current socialist group getting more authorian are among them. Some terrorized, murdered, being laughed at. Yet, their work was used years later when humanity saw seeing the use and truth in it. If you want to find out who the 'humane enlightened' were in the past 500 years, check out inventors, philosophers, and all the other prominents in those years (e.g. Age of Enlightenment, Golden Century). Who knows who it'll be in 50 years ago, it might be the person(s) who invented cryptographic ciphers and algorithms for they ensured privacy on the Internet.

Go ahead. Argue against anarchy. I don't believe it'll happen the next years either. But something like this is the future, i'm quite certain of that. Meanwhile, i will not give up fighting against the opression from the so-called 'socially democratic' hierarchies which are in the end nothing but a power vacuum. Especially not if people like you claim to be this is the paradise, well, its not and apparently you're not aware of how opression works here...

...oh and i'll never forget how Hitler came to power: democratically by apathy. Raise awareness before its too late!

For one, check out A call for a different and better election model (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=366379) (aka "Condorcet: A Better Election Method")

That text applies to all democracies i'm aware of including those in the EU. though there might be more democratic democracies than US/EU_ones_im_aware_of which all use the plurality model.

'Humane enlightened'? Only if you behave like they want you to, that still counts, like it did long before. The 'humane enlightened' have always been a small number of individuals, not even those current socialist group getting more authorian are among them. Some terrorized, murdered, being laughed at. Yet, their work was used years later when humanity saw seeing the use and truth in it. If you want to find out who the 'humane enlightened' were in the past 500 years, check out inventors, philosophers, and all the other prominents in those years (e.g. Age of Enlightenment, Golden Century). Who knows who it'll be in 50 years ago, it might be the person(s) who invented cryptographic ciphers and algorithms for they ensured privacy on the Internet.

Go ahead. Argue against anarchy. I don't believe it'll happen the next years either. But something like this is the future, i'm quite certain of that. Meanwhile, i will not give up fighting against the opression from the so-called 'socially democratic' hierarchies which are in the end nothing but a power vacuum. Especially not if people like you claim to be this is the paradise, well, its not and apparently you're not aware of how opression works here...

...oh and i'll never forget how Hitler came to power: democratically by apathy. Raise awareness before its too late!

As a cryptographer, I'd like to think we help anarchy and other civil rights causes get advanced by keeping info secret from big brother state. I am just as opposed to socialist economic ideals as I am to Right wing social ideals.
All hierarchy is about keeping power from those who deserve it, the people.
Enlightened people have always been those who dare to stand out and reject established notions. Time always proves the less bureacracy, the better the state.

Anarchy is one of those things where the means justify the ends.

\Naive
\Optional democracy by 2056

You're starting to honestly lose your grounding in reality Free Soviets.

The principal activity of groups of people for the past four thousand years has been the imposing of power over others.

one of the activities of certain groups of people has been imposing their will on others. another activity has been fighting to stop the aforementioned imposition. another activity has been working to make a living. another has been holding parties and festivals and such. unless you have numerical breakdowns on the actual division of time for every human being who has lived for the past couple thousand years, i stand by my claim of "hasty generalization"

How do you plan to "arrange a society in such a way as to make the conflicting drives of power and personal gain cancel out?"

Power IS personal gain, person gain IS power, they are synonymous.

a drive towards obtaining power is not a guarantee of getting it. the positions of power that exist in any society are largely products of the underlying system in place within it. if the institutions of a society are constructed so that power is divided among various different bodies it becomes more difficult for any one body (or any one person) to gather too much power to themselves - assuming that the people of that society are interested in maintaining those institutions.

so it seems possible that we could have a set of institutions where anyone interested in gaining power for themselves will essentially be limited by both everyone else who doesn't want to be dominated and by the nature of the multiple divided institutitions themselves. add the prinicple of free association to the mix and any drives towards personal power and gain at the expense of others can be effectively neutralized - if anybody becomes too powerful or even just power-hungry, and nothing else has stopped them, you can always leave the organization.

Society cannot be 'arranged' with a magical wand that idealizes the world.

It has been proven in all cases that the events idealists believe will lead to enlightened socialism actually lead only to despotism.

Proletariat revolution = proven failure.

so i take it you haven't read the links i provided yet. nobody is 'assuming a can opener', and equating what we propose with leninist-marxist or stalinist methods is silly. you are talking to the group that predicted the outcome of state-communist ideas with remarkable accuracy decades before anyone else did - and long before it was ever even attempted.

one of the activities of certain groups of people has been imposing their will on others. another activity has been fighting to stop the aforementioned imposition. another activity has been working to make a living. another has been holding parties and festivals and such. unless you have numerical breakdowns on the actual division of time for every human being who has lived for the past couple thousand years, i stand by my claim of "hasty generalization"





a drive towards obtaining power is not a guarantee of getting it. the positions of power that exist in any society are largely products of the underlying system in place within it. if the institutions of a society are constructed so that power is divided among various different bodies it becomes more difficult for any one body (or any one person) to gather too much power to themselves - assuming that the people of that society are interested in maintaining those institutions.

so it seems possible that we could have a set of institutions where anyone interested in gaining power for themselves will essentially be limited by both everyone else who doesn't want to be dominated and by the nature of the multiple divided institutitions themselves. add the prinicple of free association to the mix and any drives towards personal power and gain at the expense of others can be effectively neutralized - if anybody becomes too powerful or even just power-hungry, and nothing else has stopped them, you can always leave the organization.



so i take it you haven't read the links i provided yet. nobody is 'assuming a can opener', and equating what we propose with leninist-marxist or stalinist methods is silly. you are talking to the group that predicted the outcome of state-communist ideas with remarkable accuracy decades before anyone else did - and long before it was ever even attempted.


I'm sorry that you still refuse to acknowledge that people are not naturally good to one another.

And it might be "possible" to create such an organization, if you lived in a world populated by good-natured idealists. You dont.

Also, something called "slavery" and "opression by force of arms" might prevent you from leaving a group that had decided it wanted to control you.

Kudos on figuring out that stalinism would achieve the peaceful and idyllic rule of the proletariat.

Maybe I'm the first person to realize that anarchism doesnt work. "long before it was even ever attempted."

Nah... people have known that for millenia :)

I'm sorry that you still refuse to acknowledge that people are not naturally good to one another.
And I'm sorry you fail to acknowledge that he believes that no one is good or bad by "nature".

Also, something called "slavery" and "opression by force of arms" might prevent you from leaving a group that had decided it wanted to control you.
No shit, really? And what you think they think are fighting against?

Kudos on figuring out that stalinism would achieve the peaceful and idyllic rule of the proletariat.
WHAT?! Can even read man? He wrote
you are talking to the group that predicted the outcome of state-communist ideas with remarkable accuracy decades before anyone else did - and long before it was ever even attempted.
In case you were being sarcastic, be a little clearer next time. It's only logical to assume that he means the dissaster that come from it, because they realized that communism managed by the state (specially a totalitarian one) had no chances of success. Before you say that it was obvious I say "no way". In case you didn't know, up until the beginning of WW2, no one and I mean NO ONE in the governments of the USA, the United Kingdom and the rest of the nations of the time had ANY idea of what was going to happen over there (much like 45 years later the CIA had no freaking idea that the wall was coming down).