NationStates Jolt Archive

I had a insight a couple hours ago, in the shower, and would've written earlier, except I've got pink eye. Even now, writing is slightly difficult. But I'm partially writing this, so I won't forget it in the morning. Along with my Critique of Human Authority, I'm going to add this to a list of political essays I need to write.

Anarchism: The Ideal Government.

It is accepted, reasonably, among scientists and philosophers I've learned about, that man is inherently selfish. "Evil", so far, has been shown to be a relative term. In one culture, human sacrifice and cannibalism is outright devilish. But in other, it's common practice. But in either case, we are driven towards pleasure and away from pain, regardless of our perceptions of what those are. There is proof of this in psychology, but to give you a theological example, almost all religions speak of moderation. The Greeks spoke of the Golden Mean, Buddha speaks of the Middle path, Christ speaks of the dangers (or arguably, inherent evil) of wealth, and there's identical concepts in Hinduism, Islam, and Ba'hai. The philsopher, Epircurus, noted that pleasure, when focused upon, disappears. And pain, when focused upon, is made stronger. So, the ideal life is one with moderate focus on pleasure, to where it won't get out of control. In other words, undeniably, we are all selfish, to some extent. The word "selfish" has a very negative connotation, but selfish, by its definition, means valuing the self more than others. There are many people starving to death right now, and there are very, very few human beings who would starve to let another eat, or even share the burden. This isn't evil. It's humanity.

But because of Comte's influence on science, influencing us to believe that only the hard sciences are of value, metascience has been wholly ignored. This is rather silly, though, because in many cases, metascience is just unproven truth. Accupuncture has been used for thousands of years, but only in 2004, does modern science "prove" that it relieves pain. The same principle applies to hypnosis, meditation, and various medicinal herbs, including marijuana. True, that many groups have designed false "cure-alls", to con ignorant people out of money. But when it's rather clear that they are used, produced and distributed not just by merchants, but by regular citizens, it needs to be investigated. Worse more, science has totally ignored ethics. The following is a highly speculative essay, but just as with these previous ideas, it is not meant to be an odd chance left ignored, but a relevant possibility challenged and reviewed.

Corporations are growing at an immense rate. Corporations grow, unless they are limited by the government (as we'd seen from the Industrial Revolution). There are no restrictions on international monopolies. Thus, there will, one day, through globalization, be international monopolies. The area does not matter. A store can hold a monopoly within a village, a company can hold a monopoly within a nation, and an international corporation can hold a monopoly over the world-if left unrestricted. The land, whether it be a town, a district, a city, a county, a region, or a planet, it does not matter. Because of this, international monopolies will occur, and in many ways, they already have. This is the "big business" that Liberals fear.

Money is power. It is wealth which inevitably dominates governments, not the consent of the people. It is through wealth that soldiers are armed and trained. It is through wealth that information is delivered and controlled. It is through wealth that a great deal of societal oversight can occur. Politicians are given a great deal of secrecy, because it is required for their field. But given the secrecy which they are allowed, in addition to the majority of the population being ignorant of the law and bills passed, every Congress and Parliament is a corporation in and of itself, seeking to gain what it can, and prevent loss, to grow in power, just for its own benefit. This is the "big government" that Conservatives fear.

I fear both.

Because banks are always a secret practice. Political contributions can still be done with relative secrecy. Advances in technology will improve the ability to "wipe clean" any trace of illegal activity. This is where big government meets big business, and society collapses. We will, once again, be faced with a second industrial revolution. I suppose you could call it the Neo Industrial Revolution. Because we will face huge advancements in technology that make political crime far easier. Someone might ask, "But that will also make it easier to stop political crime, wouldn't it?" No. Because the government officials committing the crimes are the ones that write the law. We base our judgements on false promises and beauty, while the swine sneak bills in which allow electronic voting machines and eliminate the cap on campaign finances. I guarantee you that there is not just one Bill Clinton, or one Tom DeLay. There are plenty more. We just haven't caught them.

When society reaches this critical point, where there are two groups: the oppressors and the oppressed, Marx's Communist Revolution, is possible and, with great certainty, will happen. Because Marxist's ideal, as it seems to me, ignored the fact that it must be a singular revolution, with no trace of capitalism left. He unknowingly viewed it with such a singular view, assuming all will become Communist in a single moment, the domino effect, one after the other. But that cannot be true. Because when there's at least one relatively stable capitalist government, the citizens under communism, themselves, must be oppressed, being envious of capitalism, while their own political leaders claim to be communist but enjoy lives of avarice. However, when there is one global corporation, an uprising will occur.

That uprising will lead to Anarchy, similar in most respects to Communism, except it is Communist voluntarily, not through an oppressive government. And Anarchy, by itself, is not chaos. If implemented now or any moment before now, it would be. But theoretically, it is not.

There are three things required for a utopia:
Technology
Freedom
Happiness
If you have at least two, the third automatically follows.

America was once a society of great freedom and happiness, and look at the technological advancements we've made. And when the world collapses, there will be practically unlimited technology and freedom, so citizens' truly ultimate happiness will follow. That happiness, coupled with the access to knowledge, will eliminate the ignorance that breeds immorality, and we will live in the world that Marx, Ayn Rand, and many others dreamed of, where no one's rights are ever infringed upon, by dictators, by tyrrany of the majority, by governments, by business, and all of are truly free.

we will live in the world that Marx, Ayn Rand, and many others dreamed of, where no one's rights are ever infringed upon, by dictators, by tyrrany of the majority, by governments, by business, and all of are truly free.
Anarchy is a wonderful ideal, until you realize that people are far too selfish for it to ever work.

People crave power, and this type of situation you describe is ripe for someone to seize power. People are too blinded by pride, they fear others over the slightest differences, they get into conflicts that stretch on for so long that nobody remembers what they're fighting for, but they hate "the enemy". This creates tensions between groups, and the larger would oppress the smaller.

If only people weren't such selfish bastards, if only something like that could work...

Anarchy is a wonderful ideal, until you realize that people are far too selfish for it to ever work.

People crave power, and this type of situation you describe is ripe for someone to seize power. People are too blinded by pride, they fear others over the slightest differences, they get into conflicts that stretch on for so long that nobody remembers what they're fighting for, but they hate "the enemy". This creates tensions between groups, and the larger would oppress the smaller.

If only people weren't such selfish bastards, if only something like that could work...
Adam and Eve were immoral until they ate from the tree of knowledge. Technology is the tree of life that will return Adam and Eve to Godliness.

You stated the flaw in Communism, which I agree is true. But when we are extremely oppressed, there would be no pride, no greed. In psychology, it is taught that the #1 way to get people to unite is to have a common goal. After 9\11, Americans were somewhat united for about 6 months. I believe crime went down, and you saw flags everywhere. The same happened during WWII, and the depression. So, when this global, World War II, between the bourgoisie, the fat, lazy elite running global monopolies, and the proletariat, the masses of worldwide slaves, humanity will be united in a way as never seen before.

Marx's revolution is either all or none. Any attempts now would fail, as we saw from the USSR and as we're seeing from China (although Cuba seems to be doing alright, but Castro's methods are questionable).

An Utopia of anarchism would last but a few days, weeks at the most, before replapsing into an even more tyrannical form of government such as despotism. At least that is my theory.

I think that people need as much freedom as possible. Not too much, of course, but just enough that allows them to do whatever they want whenever they want provided such things do not infringe on the rights of others. Also, there should be no government, just a group of citizens who enforce laws and collect taxes (I know, I know, they're the same thing). Decisions should be made by the community.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

so you think that dialectical materialism leads to communism and that that communism is anarchy?

im very leery of predictions of the future. i dont see there being a way to keep people from acting in their own understanding of their own self interest. interests that are inherently in conflict.

I think that people need as much freedom as possible. Not too much, of course, but just enough that allows them to do whatever they want whenever they want provided such things do not infringe on the rights of others. Also, there should be no government, just a group of citizens who enforce laws and collect taxes (I know, I know, they're the same thing). Decisions should be made by the community.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
Authority, by definition, corrupts liberty. That's another debate, though. Got a long essay to work on about it.

Authority, by definition, corrupts liberty. That's another debate, though. Got a long essay to work on about it.
In theory anarchy would work, but in reality it wouldn't last.

good on paper. not good in real life.

so you think that dialectical materialism leads to communism and that that communism is anarchy?
I guess that's an okay way of summing it up. Except Communism's not Anarchy. I need to actually read the difference between Marxism and Communism, because I've heard that we've totally bastardized the term. When I say communism, I mean "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", by force. But with Anarchism, that would either be the voluntary rule, or even unnecessary if resources are accumulated properly.

In theory anarchy would work, but in reality it wouldn't last.
good on paper. not good in real life.
Right now.

I'm impressed.

mostly in the bath I just sing and/or read the communist manifesto, various socialist books, the works of lenin and various fiction books. nothing as complicated as working out political theory.

so far i agee with everything you said. the only way to eliminate need and want is to eliminate the corrupt bourgeoisie who claim more than they can ever possibly hope to use while the working classes etc. starve. we need to elminate capitalist corrupt corporation because only buy doing this can we eliminate the sweatshops where people work for long hours in poor if not dangerous conditions.

as far as I'm concerned anarchism is a logical progession from a communist/socialist society.

I guess that's an okay way of summing it up. Except Communism's not Anarchy. I need to actually read the difference between Marxism and Communism, because I've heard that we've totally bastardized the term. When I say communism, I mean "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", by force. But with Anarchism, that would either be the voluntary rule, or even unnecessary if resources are accumulated properly.



Right now.
Unless there is a radical change in the human mind, I doubt it. Your paper is well-written though. What of private property?

It is accepted, reasonably, among scientists and philosophers I've learned about, that man is inherently selfish. "Evil", so far, has been shown to be a relative term. In one culture, human sacrifice and cannibalism is outright devilish. But in other, it's common practice. But in either case, we are driven towards pleasure and away from pain, regardless of our perceptions of what those are. There is proof of this in psychology, but to give you a theological example, almost all religions speak of moderation. The Greeks spoke of the Golden Mean, Buddha speaks of the Middle path, Christ speaks of the dangers (or arguably, inherent evil) of wealth, and there's identical concepts in Hinduism, Islam, and Ba'hai. The philsopher, Epircurus, noted that pleasure, when focused upon, disappears. And pain, when focused upon, is made stronger. So, the ideal life is one with moderate focus on pleasure, to where it won't get out of control. In other words, undeniably, we are all selfish, to some extent. The word "selfish" has a very negative connotation, but selfish, by its definition, means valuing the self more than others. There are many people starving to death right now, and there are very, very few human beings who would starve to let another eat, or even share the burden. This isn't evil. It's humanity.
This actually isn't true.

I'd suggest reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau or any of the Utopian Socialists of the early 19th century, such as Christian Fourier. These thinkers (Rousseau being considered one of the most significant modern philosophers) all believed that people were inherently good (rather than selfish), and that it was society that corrupted individuals.

It's hardly a consensus that people are inherently selfish (even though I tend to agree with that position).

Also, if "man" is inherently evil, what's woman?

Anarchism: The Ideal Government.

It is accepted, reasonably, among scientists and philosophers I've learned about, that man is inherently selfish. "Evil", so far, has been shown to be a relative term. In one culture, human sacrifice and cannibalism is outright devilish. But in other, it's common practice. But in either case, we are driven towards pleasure and away from pain, regardless of our perceptions of what those are. There is proof of this in psychology, but to give you a theological example, almost all religions speak of moderation. The Greeks spoke of the Golden Mean, Buddha speaks of the Middle path, Christ speaks of the dangers (or arguably, inherent evil) of wealth, and there's identical concepts in Hinduism, Islam, and Ba'hai. The philsopher, Epircurus, noted that pleasure, when focused upon, disappears. And pain, when focused upon, is made stronger. So, the ideal life is one with moderate focus on pleasure, to where it won't get out of control. In other words, undeniably, we are all selfish, to some extent. The word "selfish" has a very negative connotation, but selfish, by its definition, means valuing the self more than others. There are many people starving to death right now, and there are very, very few human beings who would starve to let another eat, or even share the burden. This isn't evil. It's humanity.

I haven't read through the whole thread, but I am unwavering in my conclusion that anarchy cannot exist. Anarchy would last a few days before a natural leader took a stand and others followed. Even without that, everyone is accountable to their own social contructions; conscience, religion. Some of us do without the two cages, but I find that most of us turn towards Satanism or crime.
This brings me to my next point, modern day Epicureanism. Satanism is just that. Everything that you brought up, down to your definition of selfish and its link to humanity, is the common ideal of Satanism. What you wish for is not anarchy, but a government following Lavey's 'bible.'

Because banks are always a secret practice. Political contributions can still be done with relative secrecy. Advances in technology will improve the ability to "wipe clean" any trace of illegal activity. This is where big government meets big business, and society collapses. We will, once again, be faced with a second industrial revolution. I suppose you could call it the Neo Industrial Revolution. Because we will face huge advancements in technology that make political crime far easier. Someone might ask, "But that will also make it easier to stop political crime, wouldn't it?" No. Because the government officials committing the crimes are the ones that write the law. We base our judgements on false promises and beauty, while the swine sneak bills in which allow electronic voting machines and eliminate the cap on campaign finances. I guarantee you that there is not just one Bill Clinton, or one Tom DeLay. There are plenty more. We just haven't caught them.

When society reaches this critical point, where there are two groups: the oppressors and the oppressed, Marx's Communist Revolution, is possible and, with great certainty, will happen. Because Marxist's ideal, as it seems to me, ignored the fact that it must be a singular revolution, with no trace of capitalism left. He unknowingly viewed it with such a singular view, assuming all will become Communist in a single moment, the domino effect, one after the other. But that cannot be true. Because when there's at least one relatively stable capitalist government, the citizens under communism, themselves, must be oppressed, being envious of capitalism, while their own political leaders claim to be communist but enjoy lives of avarice. However, when there is one global corporation, an uprising will occur.

I can't say I agree with most of this.

Your essay ignores one of the most potent forces in world history - nationalism. While there may be a tendency toward internationalizing business, people are still strongly motivated by a feeling of debt and love for their country. This force will prevent the borderless capitalist world you describe because people are afraid of their nation and ethnic group's subordination to any sort of multinational organization.

Additionally, in your technological future, the government still controls the police. The police, therefore, would be instructed not to investigate the government with their technology (invariably more powerful than that of the "political criminals" given resource distribution) and thus would be able to stifle dissent, assuming the rest of your post is true.

But I don't think it is. I think that a change in the American political scene is inevitable (just to focus on the hegemon for a bit). The endemic pseudo-corruption is causing enormous resentment of the political system by the majority of the populace. One spark could set off an enormous movement for change. This change would not be a call for anarchy; that would be antithetical to the American belief in the essential structure and force of the Constitution. This change will be a mass movement in the polls, a call to take back the political from those who abuse it. It will not dismantle the American political scene - it will simply make the current government more progressive.

Not only that, but people are too leary of communism given the Soviet Union for any Marxist revolution to break out. People are too concerned with the way it has been misused to accept its use in the future.

People are also probably too selfish for any sort of utopian community such as this one to break out anyway.

An Utopia of anarchism would last but a few days, weeks at the most, before replapsing into an even more tyrannical form of government such as despotism. At least that is my theory.


Or worse, Democracy. Or orderly anarchy requires a gentleman's agreement between individuals. When individuals dispute the meaning of this agreement then this invites majority rule.

Unless there is a radical change in the human mind, I doubt it.
The human mind is created by our DNA and our experiences. Both are controllable.

Your paper is well-written though. What of private property?
Completely voluntary. I can't claim to know what principles they'd live by, except:
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need, unless it's voluntary consented to."

This actually isn't true.

I'd suggest reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau or any of the Utopian Socialists of the early 19th century, such as Christian Fourier. These thinkers (Rousseau being considered one of the most significant modern philosophers) all believed that people were inherently good (rather than selfish), and that it was society that corrupted individuals.

It's hardly a consensus that people are inherently selfish (even though I tend to agree with that position).

Also, if "man" is inherently evil, what's woman?
Look into psychology.

The Actor\Observer Effect is a perfect example of man's inherent hypocrisy, within society. You slip on the ice, but I percieve that you're clumsy and fell. Then I slip on the ice, but I percieve that I'm human and accidentally slipped.

Those philosophers' theories about mankind's inherent goodness are disproven, both philosophically and scientifically. Philosophically, if mankind was inherently good, why would he build a corrupt society? He wouldn't. Unless, of course, he was inherently good, but ignorance led him to create a society which was corrupt, which later made him immoral. That, I would agree with.

This brings me to my next point, modern day Epicureanism. Satanism is just that. Everything that you brought up, down to your definition of selfish and its link to humanity, is the common ideal of Satanism. What you wish for is not anarchy, but a government following Lavey's 'bible.'
Selfishness as a virtue? "The Protestant Ethic" is a common ideal of Satanism. And furthermore, that's irrelevant. You just dropped a huge ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) fallacy on me. And you misunderstood me. The major problem with society, the reason for this collapse is selfishness, or at least its consequences. I don't believe in Objectivism, but I merely dropped Rand's name, because I share some of the same principles, in terms of liberty (classical liberalism), and how the best society is one where we are unrestricted, with simply voluntary unions.

And furthermore, you misunderstand Epicureanism. It was Hedonist, yes, but Epicurus refined Hedonism, with reason, separating pleasures worth moving towards (intellectual, long-term, non-harmful) and pleasures to avoid (short-term, harmful).

I can't say I agree with most of this.

Your essay ignores one of the most potent forces in world history - nationalism. While there may be a tendency toward internationalizing business, people are still strongly motivated by a feeling of debt and love for their country. This force will prevent the borderless capitalist world you describe because people are afraid of their nation and ethnic group's subordination to any sort of multinational organization.
I suggest you take a look at some of the recent papers on globalization. Globalization is inevitable, that's undeniable. In the past, students from India came to the U.S. for their education. Now, their computer science and engineering schools outrank ours. 2001, India graduated more than a million students from college than the U.S. Economically, yes, people might respond with Nationalism. But in Britain, they aren't Isolationist (I mean, jesus, you have the Euro). In America, Isolationism has never been a Democratic stance. Among Republicans, it seems like it's not as popular anymore, because while globalization will cause tremendous damage to the middle class and our social programs, Republicans want the excuse to cut social welfare, as well as the fact that globalization will be a huge benefit to the upper-class. So, now, in Congress, you've got politicians on both sides, freaking out, saying, "WE NEED TO STOP GLOBALIZATION!!!" without really offering a plan. Bush provided a nice diversion with Iraq, though.

But really, Isolationism wouldn't work. A nation can raise taxes on imports, but then that'd increase inflation, damage our foreign relations, and other countries would raise tarriffs on our exports. So, no, it ain't gonna work. Globalization is definitely coming.

Or worse, Democracy. Or orderly anarchy requires a gentleman's agreement between individuals. When individuals dispute the meaning of this agreement then this invites majority rule.
That's a possibilitity. But within this context, there might not even need to be majority rule.

If the human race was even remotely unselfish and empathic enough to survive in an anarchy, there wouldn't be any wars.

Maybe it can change, but it would take many, many generations.

But in Britain, they aren't Isolationist (I mean, jesus, you have the Euro).

Just a small quibble, because I don't have time to formulate a real response, but we don't have the Euro in Britain. In Ireland, yes. But not in Britain. There's actually a very strong anti-Euro movement here - if there was to be a referendum, I highly doubt that it would come out as a Yes, or, if it did, it would be a very close call.

I guess that's an okay way of summing it up. Except Communism's not Anarchy. I need to actually read the difference between Marxism and Communism, because I've heard that we've totally bastardized the term. When I say communism, I mean "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", by force. But with Anarchism, that would either be the voluntary rule, or even unnecessary if resources are accumulated properly.


Yeah: what Marx is describing as the final communist state is basically an anarchist society: one shouldn't mistake the state apparatus under the dictatorship of the proletariat for his actual aim. It is his belief/intention that the state should eventually just 'wither away'.

Marx is quite cagey about describing the actual final communist society, as he is aware that in any attempt to describe it he is laying down conditions for it and so limiting the freedom of those who may finally achieve it. He probably comes closest to describing it in a section from The German Ideology which I have already posted up here far too many times.

Authority, by definition, corrupts liberty. That's another debate, though. Got a long essay to work on about it.
I'd like to see more on this point, but I have a thought to bring.

What if authority is essential to liberty, rather than a corrupter of it?

Just about any structured social system has in-built methods to prevent the selfish (i.e., us) from doing whatever they like without any consideration for others in the society. Whether that authority is vested in an individual (like a king or dictator) or a group of individuals (like a Senate or Parliament), it can never be given to all members of human society equally, as there will always be those who cannot or should not be given political power (e.g. toddlers, people with incurable psychotic conditions, those suffering from Alzheimer's). Therefore there is an inevitable hierarchy in society (those with power over those without).

America was once a society of great freedom and happiness, and look at the technological advancements we've made. And when the world collapses, there will be practically unlimited technology and freedom, so citizens' truly ultimate happiness will follow. That happiness, coupled with the access to knowledge, will eliminate the ignorance that breeds immorality, and we will live in the world that Marx, Ayn Rand, and many others dreamed of, where no one's rights are ever infringed upon, by dictators, by tyrrany of the majority, by governments, by business, and all of are truly free.

a few things wrong with your entire post. if there is ever complete anarchy, it immediatly becomes a fascist system, because the strongest will rule. also, people who are in a bad situation, such as starving, deserve to be in that situation. if they're poor then it means they can't or won't work. anyone can get money. anyone can grow food or hunt(even in a desert, look at the native peoples of africa!). rid the society of the weak and feeble minded, and it would go allot smoother. and you seem to think the same mistake about a totalitarian direct democracy. most people seem to think it will always be the same group voting to benifit their group only, but people will vote differently on different issues, so it's actually a different group for each referendum, and the population each has some privledges that are better for them than for others and some restrictions.

's a rather typical view that people seem to think of "liberty" as a universal absolute; that everyone can be free to do whatever they like. To implement this idea globally requires an incredible naivety on the part of the policy makers. It inherently assumes that those subjected to it will not use this liberty to restrict the rights of those around them, which is precisely what the circumstances prior to this sudden liberalisation will drive certain groups and individuals to do. In order for everyone to be free, the people must all make a conscious decision to not restrict the liberty of others. Since you can't enforce this without it being a restriction itself, it's just not going to happen. You'll get a 1984-esque "Freedom is Slavery" thing going on if you try without emotionally reforming the entire human population, which would in itself require the Thought Police making an unwelcome appearence.

Anarchism is the purest form of Communism.

Communism as a whole is seen as everything being state controlled and administered for the people, this is alright, until you get a traitorous bastard like Stalin, who seizes the opportunity to take power for his power hungry ends, and reverses communism into the people working for the government as opposed to the government working for the people's representation.

State Control then, is as bad as Capitalism, because State Control as we saw in the USSR, was State Capitalism, and in both cases, people are shat upon by a great height.

Indeed, any challenge to it's unfairness was brandished as 'counter-revolutionary' and would see you sent to the Gulag for a very long time.

Unfortunatly, now too, the most famous Capitalist country's establishment, that being of America, is now also using this trick to stifle any challenges of unfairness by branding it 'unpatriotic' and 'treachery'.

Corporate Capitalist Control or State Control I am both wary of. People centralised into a group ruling unchecked over millions, possibly billions.

Anarchism would be the primitive communism, of people working in groups, each in their own communities, where skills would be exchanged for skills, favours exchanged for favours, but on a voluntary basis. Not just for the working person as symbolised by Marx, but for everybody, caring for those who are elderly, disabled and sick who need it.

It would abolish the silly notion of countries, instead forming communities that would co-operate with each other voluntarily, with no corporate or State Controlling Government.

Some might say this leans towards capitalism, but if it is, it's actually capitalising on each others good will, exploiting it for each other's gain and the community's gain individually and co-operatively, and would be voluntary.

Can it work? Well, why don't we try. We've tried everything else.

Corporations are growing at an immense rate. Corporations grow, unless they are limited by the government (as we'd seen from the Industrial Revolution). There are no restrictions on international monopolies. Thus, there will, one day, through globalization, be international monopolies. The area does not matter. A store can hold a monopoly within a village, a company can hold a monopoly within a nation, and an international corporation can hold a monopoly over the world-if left unrestricted.

Not all corporations are growing, for one thing, and the cases of true monopolies - i.e, DeBeers and diamonds - result usually BECAUSE of, not in spite of, restrictions by government.


Because banks are always a secret practice. Political contributions can still be done with relative secrecy. Advances in technology will improve the ability to "wipe clean" any trace of illegal activity. This is where big government meets big business, and society collapses. We will, once again, be faced with a second industrial revolution. I suppose you could call it the Neo Industrial Revolution. Because we will face huge advancements in technology that make political crime far easier. Someone might ask, "But that will also make it easier to stop political crime, wouldn't it?" No. Because the government officials committing the crimes are the ones that write the law. We base our judgements on false promises and beauty, while the swine sneak bills in which allow electronic voting machines and eliminate the cap on campaign finances. I guarantee you that there is not just one Bill Clinton, or one Tom DeLay. There are plenty more. We just haven't caught them.

How does any of the mean there's going to be a "second industrial revolution?" You're describing a pretty common fear of fascist control rising through technology here, but you have yet to make a case for "society collapsing."

When society reaches this critical point, where there are two groups: the oppressors and the oppressed, Marx's Communist Revolution, is possible and, with great certainty, will happen.

Anyone anytime can artificially distinguish between "two" in anything. Plenty of people say there are two groups, the oppressed and oppressors, even now without a second industrial revolution or 'critical point' or "societal collapse."

I too can also say there are two types of people in the world, those who like Elvis and those who like the Beatles. But this is a vast oversimplification, of the kind Marxists seems to just love to death. To a Marxist, I must be either/or: either an oppressor or an oppressed. It's rather like how in Bush's rhetoric you're either anti-terrorist or anti-USA. It's stupid. It ignores reality.

However, when there is one global corporation, an uprising will occur.

Now you're sounding like Nostradamus. Anyone can make vague predictions. There are uprisings around the world today, no need for a "global corporation" which just wouldn't work. I predict that when there is one global corporation, an uprising WON'T occur. Who's right? We're talking silly hypotheticals, so it's easy to make unfounded statements that cannot be challenged, and this gets us nowhere to do so.

That uprising will lead to Anarchy, similar in most respects to Communism, except it is Communist voluntarily, not through an oppressive government. And Anarchy, by itself, is not chaos. If implemented now or any moment before now, it would be. But theoretically, it is not.

Ah yes - the mythical time and situation in which, apparently, the entire world voluntarily commits itself as one to one single idealogy. An idealogy which is unsurprisingly favored by the one describing said mythical time. But what if I'm alive then, and what if I don't "voluntarily" choose your anarcho-communist idealogy? Are you saying I would even if I think I wouldn't? Or would you in fact, have to oppress me to get me to consent to this so-called "anarchist" rule?


There are three things required for a utopia:
Technology
Freedom
Happiness
If you have at least two, the third automatically follows.

Sounds nice in theory, but there is no reason at all for that to be true. I could dope everyone up to make them happy, and control them via technology, would they be free? Again, this is an instance with such vague hypotheticals anyone can make statements about it.

Frankly, I'd disagree with your concept of utopia in the first place, and most people would. This is part of that major problem where people have their own opinions and don't all go marching off into the soviet sunset and parading around your pet idealogy.

America was once a society of great freedom and happiness, and look at the technological advancements we've made. And when the world collapses, there will be practically unlimited technology and freedom, so citizens' truly ultimate happiness will follow. That happiness, coupled with the access to knowledge, will eliminate the ignorance that breeds immorality, and we will live in the world that Marx, Ayn Rand, and many others dreamed of, where no one's rights are ever infringed upon, by dictators, by tyrrany of the majority, by governments, by business, and all of are truly free.

The world will "collapse" in a few billion years when the sun starts running out of energy. I don't think we can make statements concerning humanity at that time with any degree of accuracy. But you are still referring to your hoped-for "uprising" after the "critical point," all of which sounds nice in theory but then again, so do all vague blueprints for utopian futures.

Utopia, by definition, is not going to exist as long as people are people. You're going to eliminate governments and business - otherwise there is no method for protecting rights, yes? - well I wouldn't consider that utopia, I'd consider that a communist hell that's trying hard to emphasize civil liberties. It's all dependent on the entire population of the world agreeing, where no one is ignorant (I guess everyone becomes omniscient), where everyone decides that business and government are bad. I might as well invent a future where everyone agrees with ME, where *MY* politics rules voluntarily, where *MY* decisions eliminate all the problems of mankind and make everything hunky-dorey.

Does that help anything? Not one bit. Same with your version.

Heya, Im Scale, long time reader, first time poster.

First of all I would like to raise an interesting point.

The interesting point) Isn't it (what adjective should I use here) "interesting" how just about everytime there is a debate over the credibility of anarchy, that the debate eventually turns into communist propaganda.
Now is this a coincidence? Or are all us anarchists secretly just longing for an end to (and I love this cliche' overused by E.G) "class struggle".

Second of all I'd like to have a gripe or two.

Gripe 1) ANARCHY IS NOT THE PUREST FORM OF COMMUNISM. I mean really. How can you even make that comparison. How can complete state ownership of industry and commerce EVER be compared to anarchy?
Gripe 2) Why is it every time I hear a good, mature discussion about about anarchy do I hear nonsense about co-operative groups? The basest form of anarchy is the individual taking what they bloody-well want, and those who cannot defend themselves are bred out. What happened to the "blood and glory" anarchy I have come to love?
Gripe 3) Why do people assume anarchy will have to be accepted by all? It doesn't have to be. I like anarchy. When anarchy eventually comes (and that will be when thre US invades north korea in 2008, beleive me, it will happen, you yankees are nuts) I will enjoy every damn second of it. But guess what? You dont vote for anarchy. If you dont like it, well damn, your stuck with it. IT WILL NOT DISSOLVE BECAUSE IT IS UNPOPULAR.


GOODNIGHT! :sniper:

If anarchy is perfect, why is 'anarchy' always linked with 'chaos'? Is chaos perfect? While the most of us don't like the bulk of power lying in somebody else's hand, we are too incompetent, too lazy or too poor to participate. We NEED governments. We NEED people ruling over us. But at the same time we want to participate. Therefore, a balance between democracy and totalitarianism should be the best, though never perfect, form of government.

People here have claimed Anarchism is Communism, that it's Fascism, and also argued against creating Anarchy now, which makes me wonder how many of you are actually the slighest bit knowledgeable of what Anarchism is.

I'll reply to the posts here to tomorrow, but it'll take some work. Being slammed with a wall of ignorance is annoying, though I'm sure several of you brought up legitimate points I'll have to address.

As for everyone else...

If you aren't going to fully read a thread before replying to it, or your reply is greater than the amount of text you actually did read, don't reply.

Anarchism is the purest form of Communism.

Communism as a whole is seen as everything being state controlled and administered for the people, this is alright, until you get a traitorous bastard like Stalin, who seizes the opportunity to take power for his power hungry ends, and reverses communism into the people working for the government as opposed to the government working for the people's representation.

State Control then, is as bad as Capitalism, because State Control as we saw in the USSR, was State Capitalism, and in both cases, people are shat upon by a great height.

Indeed, any challenge to it's unfairness was brandished as 'counter-revolutionary' and would see you sent to the Gulag for a very long time.

Unfortunatly, now too, the most famous Capitalist country's establishment, that being of America, is now also using this trick to stifle any challenges of unfairness by branding it 'unpatriotic' and 'treachery'.

Corporate Capitalist Control or State Control I am both wary of. People centralised into a group ruling unchecked over millions, possibly billions.

Anarchism would be the primitive communism, of people working in groups, each in their own communities, where skills would be exchanged for skills, favours exchanged for favours, but on a voluntary basis. Not just for the working person as symbolised by Marx, but for everybody, caring for those who are elderly, disabled and sick who need it.

It would abolish the silly notion of countries, instead forming communities that would co-operate with each other voluntarily, with no corporate or State Controlling Government.

Some might say this leans towards capitalism, but if it is, it's actually capitalising on each others good will, exploiting it for each other's gain and the community's gain individually and co-operatively, and would be voluntary.

Can it work? Well, why don't we try. We've tried everything else.

woudlnt it take some kind of global cataclysm that would knock the human population back to well below 1billion people before we could possibly form small anarchic communities?

i dont see it as a possibility in the big cities of the world where everything had to be mediated by the government to prevent wholesale exploitation of one kind or another.


would you think of the (in general) organization of american indian tribes to be a kind of anarchy?

woudlnt it take some kind of global cataclysm that would knock the human population back to well below 1billion people before we could possibly form small anarchic communities?

i dont see it as a possibility in the big cities of the world where everything had to be mediated by the government to prevent wholesale exploitation of one kind or another.

IIRC in "Uses of Disorder" Richard Sennett went about showing hoe a city could be 'run' on anarchistic principles.

Unfortunately it has been a while since I read it and I only have a handful of books with me (fiction or books for revision) so I cannot help anymore than that :(

There are three things required for a utopia:
Technology
Freedom
Happiness
If you have at least two, the third automatically follows.



Marcuse, eat your heart out.

Gripe 1) ANARCHY IS NOT THE PUREST FORM OF COMMUNISM. I mean really. How can you even make that comparison. How can complete state ownership of industry and commerce EVER be compared to anarchy?



Because the origin of the word Communism comes from the phrase 'Commune'.


Pure Communism originally in itself is anarchism, or to be precise, of what I speak of in my previous post, Anarcho-communism.

Communism originally advocated the pratice of co-operative of workers in the management of their own affairs in the workplace, be it rural or urban, and that all were equal.

When state control was formed, it quickly turned from government working for the people to people working for the government, and it became State Capitalism, and state oppression of the worker, just like Capitalism is.

Anarco-communism however, advocates no government.


Gripe 2) Why is it every time I hear a good, mature discussion about about anarchy do I hear nonsense about co-operative groups? The basest form of anarchy is the individual taking what they bloody-well want, and those who cannot defend themselves are bred out. What happened to the "blood and glory" anarchy I have come to love?


The anarchism you talk of is what is happening now, although underneath a captalist government, and is exactly what Capitalism in it's most purest form.

The individial can take what he wants if he is able, fuck everybody else who is not.


Those who cannot defend themselves are bred out? Do you mean the sick, elderly and disabled? That is Anarcho-Neo-Individualist Capitalism.

bred out? Extermination? Killing them? The sick and the vulnerable left to go fuck themselves because they can not be helped. Let them starve! I'm all right Jack!

That is no worse than capitalism as it exists today, and advocating that is as bad as capitalism, nazism and fascism and Stalinism.

I had a insight a couple hours ago, in the shower, and would've written earlier, except I've got pink eye. Even now, writing is slightly difficult. But I'm partially writing this, so I won't forget it in the morning. Along with my Critique of Human Authority, I'm going to add this to a list of political essays I need to write.

Anarchism: The Ideal Government.

It is accepted, reasonably, among scientists and philosophers I've learned about, that man is inherently selfish. "Evil", so far, has been shown to be a relative term. In one culture, human sacrifice and cannibalism is outright devilish. But in other, it's common practice. But in either case, we are driven towards pleasure and away from pain, regardless of our perceptions of what those are. There is proof of this in psychology, but to give you a theological example, almost all religions speak of moderation. The Greeks spoke of the Golden Mean, Buddha speaks of the Middle path, Christ speaks of the dangers (or arguably, inherent evil) of wealth, and there's identical concepts in Hinduism, Islam, and Ba'hai. The philsopher, Epircurus, noted that pleasure, when focused upon, disappears. And pain, when focused upon, is made stronger. So, the ideal life is one with moderate focus on pleasure, to where it won't get out of control. In other words, undeniably, we are all selfish, to some extent. The word "selfish" has a very negative connotation, but selfish, by its definition, means valuing the self more than others. There are many people starving to death right now, and there are very, very few human beings who would starve to let another eat, or even share the burden. This isn't evil. It's humanity.

But because of Comte's influence on science, influencing us to believe that only the hard sciences are of value, metascience has been wholly ignored. This is rather silly, though, because in many cases, metascience is just unproven truth. Accupuncture has been used for thousands of years, but only in 2004, does modern science "prove" that it relieves pain. The same principle applies to hypnosis, meditation, and various medicinal herbs, including marijuana. True, that many groups have designed false "cure-alls", to con ignorant people out of money. But when it's rather clear that they are used, produced and distributed not just by merchants, but by regular citizens, it needs to be investigated. Worse more, science has totally ignored ethics. The following is a highly speculative essay, but just as with these previous ideas, it is not meant to be an odd chance left ignored, but a relevant possibility challenged and reviewed.

Corporations are growing at an immense rate. Corporations grow, unless they are limited by the government (as we'd seen from the Industrial Revolution). There are no restrictions on international monopolies. Thus, there will, one day, through globalization, be international monopolies. The area does not matter. A store can hold a monopoly within a village, a company can hold a monopoly within a nation, and an international corporation can hold a monopoly over the world-if left unrestricted. The land, whether it be a town, a district, a city, a county, a region, or a planet, it does not matter. Because of this, international monopolies will occur, and in many ways, they already have. This is the "big business" that Liberals fear.

Money is power. It is wealth which inevitably dominates governments, not the consent of the people. It is through wealth that soldiers are armed and trained. It is through wealth that information is delivered and controlled. It is through wealth that a great deal of societal oversight can occur. Politicians are given a great deal of secrecy, because it is required for their field. But given the secrecy which they are allowed, in addition to the majority of the population being ignorant of the law and bills passed, every Congress and Parliament is a corporation in and of itself, seeking to gain what it can, and prevent loss, to grow in power, just for its own benefit. This is the "big government" that Conservatives fear.

I fear both.

Because banks are always a secret practice. Political contributions can still be done with relative secrecy. Advances in technology will improve the ability to "wipe clean" any trace of illegal activity. This is where big government meets big business, and society collapses. We will, once again, be faced with a second industrial revolution. I suppose you could call it the Neo Industrial Revolution. Because we will face huge advancements in technology that make political crime far easier. Someone might ask, "But that will also make it easier to stop political crime, wouldn't it?" No. Because the government officials committing the crimes are the ones that write the law. We base our judgements on false promises and beauty, while the swine sneak bills in which allow electronic voting machines and eliminate the cap on campaign finances. I guarantee you that there is not just one Bill Clinton, or one Tom DeLay. There are plenty more. We just haven't caught them.

When society reaches this critical point, where there are two groups: the oppressors and the oppressed, Marx's Communist Revolution, is possible and, with great certainty, will happen. Because Marxist's ideal, as it seems to me, ignored the fact that it must be a singular revolution, with no trace of capitalism left. He unknowingly viewed it with such a singular view, assuming all will become Communist in a single moment, the domino effect, one after the other. But that cannot be true. Because when there's at least one relatively stable capitalist government, the citizens under communism, themselves, must be oppressed, being envious of capitalism, while their own political leaders claim to be communist but enjoy lives of avarice. However, when there is one global corporation, an uprising will occur.

That uprising will lead to Anarchy, similar in most respects to Communism, except it is Communist voluntarily, not through an oppressive government. And Anarchy, by itself, is not chaos. If implemented now or any moment before now, it would be. But theoretically, it is not.

There are three things required for a utopia:
Technology
Freedom
Happiness
If you have at least two, the third automatically follows.

America was once a society of great freedom and happiness, and look at the technological advancements we've made. And when the world collapses, there will be practically unlimited technology and freedom, so citizens' truly ultimate happiness will follow. That happiness, coupled with the access to knowledge, will eliminate the ignorance that breeds immorality, and we will live in the world that Marx, Ayn Rand, and many others dreamed of, where no one's rights are ever infringed upon, by dictators, by tyrrany of the majority, by governments, by business, and all of are truly free.


hmmm, science isnt concerned with ethics. It seeks to explain the behaviour of phenomena in reality. Its a method not an ideology or philosophy. Metascience is unreliable. Anarchism as you describe it is the best system to adopt. I dont think anyone can justify the inequalities that result from capitalism although many do. An anarchist society functioned quite well in the Kibbutz in Israel for centuries. It is a workable system. Technological development is determined by market forces in capitalism so anarchism is better for this purpose as it allows free reign to ideas.

woudlnt it take some kind of global cataclysm that would knock the human population back to well below 1billion people before we could possibly form small anarchic communities?


The global cataclysm has already started with globalisation, which exploits peope in their billions, that and countries at each others throats.

That is the type of global oppression that can lead to people like myself to advocate the abolition of government, which are all corrupt, and too powerful over the people.


i dont see it as a possibility in the big cities of the world where everything had to be mediated by the government to prevent wholesale exploitation of one kind or another.


Again, I don't advocate Government, but the people.


would you think of the (in general) organization of american indian tribes to be a kind of anarchy?


Yes, this is indeed a near Anarcho-Commune concept, although having a tribal leader or a leader of any kind is not something that I advocate, but yes, it is near enough.

Anarchy seems to be seen as people just running around blowing things up and rampaging.

While there is that form of Anarchy, there is also Individualist Anarchy which is a 'I'm taking what I want, fuck everybody else' which is comparable to rabid consumerism, and then there is Anarcho-communism, which is what I advocate.

I disagree with you that "technology" is necessary for utopia. Actually I don't disagree with that, I just think that technology is a ridiculously vague, overused and ambiguous word that is just as relative as evil for example. In the iron age, swords made from (you guessed it) iron were the height of technology; in the 19th cetury steam engines were; and today we're used to mobile telephones and personal computers. But I don't think there will ever come a time where technology has reached its zenith and so therefore it's impossible to talk about a necessary level of technology.

Also I don't think that if a society is happy and free then technology follows on, indeed I believe more the opposite that 'necessity is the mother of invention' for what need is there of increased technology if you are happy. During the Second World War many scientific advances were made on both sides that had practical uses in peacetime for example the first electronic computer was used at Bletchley Park to crack the German enigma code.

Finally is your essay based on what you think will happen, or what you would like to happen? Because I don't think international monopolies exist without a good deal of brand loyalty or government interference (which may be for the better e.g. the post office) and if people feel oppressed they are hardly going to feel loyal. However, correct me if I'm wrong on this last point because I'm no economist.

btw I think your ideas would make a good novel or film so keep working on them.

The global cataclysm has already started with globalisation, which exploits peope in their billions, that and countries at each others throats.

That is the type of global oppression that can lead to people like myself to advocate the abolition of government, which are all corrupt, and too powerful over the people.


im not in love with globalization. i just dont see how you could expect extremely large populations to cooperate without some form of government to enforce "playing nice"


Yes, this is indeed a near Anarcho-Commune concept, although having a tribal leader or a leader of any kind is not something that I advocate, but yes, it is near enough.
i asked that because tribal chiefs werent monarchs, they were men and women who lead through example and personal prestige. no one was required to do what they said, they either saw the wisdom of doing so or they went their own way. no ending up "in jail" for disobedience.


Anarchy seems to be seen as people just running around blowing things up and rampaging.
thats ony because anarchist have a history of blowing things up.


While there is that form of Anarchy, there is also Individualist Anarchy which is a 'I'm taking what I want, fuck everybody else' which is comparable to rabid consumerism, and then there is Anarcho-communism, which is what I advocate.
isnt it folly to rely on people behaving well? they never have before why would they start now?

I wouldn't say anarchy would be a utopia, nor that utopia is necessarily a good thing.

thats ony because anarchist have a history of blowing things up.

Yes, I forgot that it was anarchists that created and used the atom bomb.

I wouldn't say anarchy would be a utopia, nor that utopia is necessarily a good thing.



Yes, I forgot that it was anarchists that created and used the atom bomb.
so anything less than a nuke is just fine?

thats ony because anarchist have a history of blowing things up.


Not as many things have been blown up in the name of the nation state

If the human race was even remotely unselfish and empathic enough to survive in an anarchy, there wouldn't be any wars.

Maybe it can change, but it would take many, many generations.
(I may be taking this out of context, but...)

"The good of man must be the end of the science of politics.”
-Aristotle

Just a small quibble, because I don't have time to formulate a real response, but we don't have the Euro in Britain. In Ireland, yes. But not in Britain. There's actually a very strong anti-Euro movement here - if there was to be a referendum, I highly doubt that it would come out as a Yes, or, if it did, it would be a very close call.
Really? That's interesting. I didn't know that. So, I guess you're a lot more like America than I thought.

I'd like to see more on this point, but I have a thought to bring.

What if authority is essential to liberty, rather than a corrupter of it?
To give you on idea put through in my essay on human authority:
Authority, by definition, corrupts liberty. Because all of mankind being equal in terms of selfishness, giving one power over another, they inevitably use it for their own selfishness.

To give a few good examples:
1. When I was in 10th grade, I had a harsh teacher who only let us go to the bathroom twice every nine weeks. One day, I'd already used up my two times, but I really had to go. She said no. I told her it was an emergency, but she still said no. Initially, I thought I should just run, but still-she was the authority. Either way, I was screwed. Because even if I'd run, while it was the right thing to do, I'd have gotten in trouble. So, I obeyed "authority" and crapped my pants, while fortunately hiding it from everyone, until I got home. Since then, I've found it sometimes necessary to challenge authority, through satirical role-reversal, rather than crap my pants, philosophically.

2. Work at Wal-Mart, the managers tend to not really know (or care, really) about their employees. You can deny this, but there was a 78-year-old man pushing carts, who I repeatedly ask the managers to transfer inside, but they refused. Well, I found it amusing that the managers pretend to know you by name by looking at your nametag. So, one day, I saw a manager and said, "I've got a good joke for you." Then I said, "Hi!", looking down at his nametag, "Uh... John!" And he said it wasn't funny at all.

3. I was at the library, with my ethics class's team to debate on the PATRIOT Act. A librarian came over and told us to be quiet, because people were complaining. Several days later, I was in the library, and saw another librarian talking rather noisily, in a casual conversation on the phone. The hypocrisy was complete when the same librarian that chastised me came over and started talking with the other librarian.

In psychology, there is the Actor\Observer Effect. When you do something good, you give yourself credit for it. But when you do something bad, it's "not your fault." But when you see others do something good, you attribute it to outside causes. And when you see others do something bad, it's "their fault." (This ties in with the theory of "Belief in a Just World.")

a few things wrong with your entire post. if there is ever complete anarchy, it immediatly becomes a fascist system

*snip*
Read the first post in this thread again.

's a rather typical view that people seem to think of "liberty" as a universal absolute; that everyone can be free to do whatever they like. To implement this idea globally requires an incredible naivety on the part of the policy makers.

*snip*
Read the first post in this thread again.

Not all corporations are growing, for one thing, and the cases of true monopolies - i.e, DeBeers and diamonds - result usually BECAUSE of, not in spite of, restrictions by government.
No, with DeBeers, they'd exist, regardless of goverment intervention or not. DeBeers, to my knowledge, wanted to buy the African "blood diamonds" (diamonds sold by corrupt, militant, "terrorist" regimes in Africa) for profit. So, the government said they wouldn't support it. Instead, DeBeers continues to buy the diamonds and just slips them into America through mostly Israel.

How does any of the mean there's going to be a "second industrial revolution?" You're describing a pretty common fear of fascist control rising through technology here, but you have yet to make a case for "society collapsing."
Think WWII. A war between the working class and a global corporation. After it ends (assuming we're all still alive), how could there be any stability, in past norms and values?


Anyone anytime can artificially distinguish between "two" in anything. Plenty of people say there are two groups, the oppressed and oppressors, even now without a second industrial revolution or 'critical point' or "societal collapse."


I too can also say there are two types of people in the world, those who like Elvis and those who like the Beatles. But this is a vast oversimplification, of the kind Marxists seems to just love to death.[/quote]
It's general trends. Economics is based upon it. True, every oppressor is usually oppressed by a greater oppressor. In my opinion, this leads to a trend of singular and centralized political control. When the global corporation takes over, there will be clear "oppressors" and "oppressed", because they'll simply be the CEOs.

I mean, I could take your same analogy and apply it to the Holocaust. Was a Nazi soldier oppressed, as well? Certainly. Are they still responsible? You bet your ass, they are. It's simplification, but can be easily applied to specific societal constructs.


To a Marxist, I must be either/or: either an oppressor or an oppressed. It's rather like how in Bush's rhetoric you're either anti-terrorist or anti-USA. It's stupid. It ignores reality.
I think it's a bit more dynamic than that.


Now you're sounding like Nostradamus. Anyone can make vague predictions. There are uprisings around the world today, no need for a "global corporation" which just wouldn't work. I predict that when there is one global corporation, an uprising WON'T occur. Who's right? We're talking silly hypotheticals, so it's easy to make unfounded statements that cannot be challenged, and this gets us nowhere to do so.
Okay.

You say that a global monopoly would be good for mankind, and that we wouldn't rebel. What's your basis for that? Because you can challenge my statements, through it's largely rational thought, rather than empirical. I'd also like to see support. Your argument thus far, seems, "I can't prove what you're saying with empirical certainty, so it's irrelevant."

Stephen Hawking plays with "silly hypotheticals" for a living.


Ah yes - the mythical time and situation in which, apparently, the entire world voluntarily commits itself as one to one single idealogy. An idealogy which is unsurprisingly favored by the one describing said mythical time. But what if I'm alive then, and what if I don't "voluntarily" choose your anarcho-communist idealogy? Are you saying I would even if I think I wouldn't? Or would you in fact, have to oppress me to get me to consent to this so-called "anarchist" rule?
No, not "one specific idealogy", that I handpicked. An anarcho-communist society will occur, because a corpocracy\communofascist society is inevitable and the anti-thesis which will counter it will be anarcho-communism. Because when people are oppressed and overthrow the oppressors, their beliefs are a reaction to the immoral beliefs of their oppressors. Years ago, we had slavery. The reaction is "reverse-racism." Secularism becomes more popular in America, so the Evangelicals react by being all the more radical. In Philosophical history, this principle goes without saying.


Sounds nice in theory, but there is no reason at all for that to be true. I could dope everyone up to make them happy, and control them via technology, would they be free? Again, this is an instance with such vague hypotheticals anyone can make statements about it.
Apparent freedom is all that matters.

If a person is in the Matrix, living their life apparently free, are they genuinely free? No. But for all I know, I am in the Matrix right now. So, it matters only in principle, not in consequence, or the actual feeling. And it is how we feel that matters most. Because it's better to be apparently free and happy than genuinely free and miserable. Ignorance is bliss. Do you disagree?


Frankly, I'd disagree with your concept of utopia in the first place, and most people would. This is part of that major problem where people have their own opinions and don't all go marching off into the soviet sunset and parading around your pet idealogy.
There's an ad-populum and an ad-hominem fallacy here.


The world will "collapse" in a few billion years when the sun starts running out of energy. I don't think we can make statements concerning humanity at that time with any degree of accuracy.
No, society will not collapse, because in a few billion years, there are other options. We may colonize space or develop a renewable energy source better than the sun.

Metaphysics deals with possibilities and it is from where all proven scientific theories laws come from. For, without a hypothesis, an experiment can never occur.

I've put forth a possibility. Granted, there are other possibilities. In my other essay on "Mortalism" (a collection of essays I'm putting together on Anarchism), I assert that if this revolution doesn't take place, the only thing that could stop it are the extinction of mankind, a miraculous breakthrough in the science of ethics, or artificial intelligence ruling mankind. I don't feel the need to mention these, though, because all three, are fairly unlikely for lengthy reasons I don't feel the need to explain here (seeing how I'm sure you'll agree). However, if you have alternative possibilities, as to whether or not this global monopoly will occur and how we'll react, please, go on.


Utopia, by definition, is not going to exist as long as people are people. You're going to eliminate governments and business - otherwise there is no method for protecting rights, yes? - well I wouldn't consider that utopia, I'd consider that a communist hell that's trying hard to emphasize civil liberties. It's all dependent on the entire population of the world agreeing, where no one is ignorant (I guess everyone becomes omniscient), where everyone decides that business and government are bad. I might as well invent a future where everyone agrees with ME, where *MY* politics rules voluntarily, where *MY* decisions eliminate all the problems of mankind and make everything hunky-dorey.
Fallacy of Equivocation here. "People are people."

I explained how people (meaning individuals) will not be "people" (meaning "unethical individuals") if this revolution occurs. What you stated is a reason why I'd never support an Anarchist revolution now, but that doesn't make it a grand ideal and something to prepare for, for the future.


woudlnt it take some kind of global cataclysm that would knock the human population back to well below 1billion people before we could possibly form small anarchic communities?
The revolution, except you seem to be thinking of primitivism. Anarchy can be futuristic and technological, as well.


would you think of the (in general) organization of american indian tribes to be a kind of anarchy?
Maybe. But most had leaders and they made alliances of authority ("Sioux nation") in order to make war. That's not anarchy, really. They made alliances based on trust, for economic and political benefit. It's more like feudalism.

Marcuse, eat your heart out.
Eh?


Anarco-communism however, advocates no government.
That term is in dispute. One friend of mine who claims to be a "Libertarian Socialist" (another term sometimes used for "Anarcho-Communist") believes in an extremely limited, but most voluntary federation. He's anti-statist, but he still accepts the need, somewhat, for a political construct, if that's what you mean by "government."

I disagree with you that "technology" is necessary for utopia. Actually I don't disagree with that, I just think that technology is a ridiculously vague, overused and ambiguous word that is just as relative as evil for example. In the iron age, swords made from (you guessed it) iron were the height of technology; in the 19th cetury steam engines were; and today we're used to mobile telephones and personal computers. But I don't think there will ever come a time where technology has reached its zenith and so therefore it's impossible to talk about a necessary level of technology.
There doesn't need to be a "maximum" for there to be a range.

Technology, like material wealth, is a spectrum between zero and infinity.


thats ony because anarchist have a history of blowing things up.
THAT'S TOTALLY UNTRUE!

Yes, Anarchists have a "history" if blowing things up, but so do non-Anarchists. In the past, Anarchists have been highlighted by the government for immoral deeds, whether true or not, because the government feared their influence. This was true in the Soviet Union, for example. Throughout history, governments have highlighted the psychotic anarchists and portray them as being that way as a result of their ideals. That is not the case. Look into Anarchism and you'll find an overwhelming majority of Anarchists which advocated peace. While the distinct quality inherent in all Anarchists is rebelliousness, they do not inherently advocate violence. In fact, one Anarchist, Leo Tolstoy, might appeal to Christians. For he believed that society should be formed based upon Christian ideals, and that if we were a Christian society, with Christian morals, government would be unnecessary. So, the goal should be to make society more Christian, while weakening the strength of the government and dissenting for conscientious reasons, even if it means imprisonment.

There are three things required for a utopia:
Technology
Freedom
Happiness
If you have at least two, the third automatically follows.

Nonsense. Technology and freedom do not happiness make. Freedom and happiness do not technology produce.

Moreover, no government, no economic or social system can possibly produce and perpetuate happiness, because happiness by it's very nature is not meant to last.

Have you ever read George Orwell's "Why Socialists don't believe in fun"?

All efforts to describe permanent happiness... have been failures. Utopias (incidentally the coined word Utopia doesn't mean ‘a good place’, it means merely a ‘non-existent place’) have been common in literature of the past three or four hundred years but the ‘favourable’ ones are invariably unappetising, and usually lacking in vitality as well.

...All ‘favourable’ Utopias seem to be alike in postulating perfection while being unable to suggest happiness.

...Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache. They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary... Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness. This is the case even with a great writer like Swift, who can flay a bishop or a politician so neatly, but who, when he tries to create a superman, merely leaves one with the impression the very last he can have intended that the stinking Yahoos had in them more possibility of development than the enlightened Houyhnhnms.

so anything less than a nuke is just fine?

No, but you can't claim anarchists are bomb-throwing nuts when the US is the one that created and used nukes. How many examples of anarchists going on bomb-throwing rampages can you actually name?

No, but you can't claim anarchists are bomb-throwing nuts when the US is the one that created and used nukes. How many examples of anarchists going on bomb-throwing rampages can you actually name?
Plenty. It was just about the main occupation of the Russian anarchists in the late 19 century. They also, btw, were the first to suggest carrying out a terrorist attack by crashing planes into buildings. They wanted to assassinate the Russian Tsar this way, and even ordered a design of a suitably high speed airplane from a group of German engineers, but the project turned out to be technologically impossible at that point in time. I believe Boris Savinkov was in charge of that project.

Plenty. It was just about the main occupation of the Russian anarchists in the late 19 century. They also, btw, were the first to suggest carrying out a terrorist attack by crashing planes into buildings. They wanted to assassinate the Russian Tsar this way, and even ordered a design of a suitably high speed airplane from a group of German engineers, but the project turned out to be technologically impossible at that point in time. I believe Boris Savinkov was in charge of that project.

Do you have any sources to back that up? I have been an anarchist for a while and I have never heard of them considering the use of airplanes crashing into buildings.

Do you have any sources to back that up? I have been an anarchist for a while and I have never heard of them considering the use of airplanes crashing into buildings.

Ever read "The Anarchist's Cookbook" ?

I'm surprised noone has done this yet, lets start by defining anarchy and communism. Acording to Websters's Contemporary Dictionary anarchy is defined as "Absence of government" and communism is defined as "A social system wich there is no classes and no brivate ownership of the means of production."
With that out of the way let me begin. I think anarchists and communists are "working backward" in their ideas of their society. Let me explain.
Lets go back to the dawn of Mankind. We can truthfully state that people were living in an anarchist state at that time. No formal govt. no tribal leaders, in fact there were no tribes. But eventualy as the human spiecies began to mate and produce offspring familys became large and formed clans. Boom! the begining of government, though many people dont think a tribal clan is hardly a govt. at all, and its not, it was the begining of the state, people banding together to increase their chance for survival. It was in fact a good idea, instead of 1 person hunting for food, 5 people hunt for food and one finds shelter, but alas it brought an early end for anarchy in the game of survival.
Some time has passed by now and our clan has gotten much bigger. The Best hunters are now becoming idolized by the young of the clan, and they begin to pass on their traditions to the young. After some time the best of the clan compete over who is the best hunter and the one who emerges will soon beocome the clan leader, our first real government. After a few thousand years the struggle for survival is now over and food is becoming scarse, neibouring tribes compete over hunting grounds and fishing holes. This is the begining of wars. Now that hunting is common the best warriors are idolized and become the tribal leaders.
Some thousands of years pass now and formal religion has been born. Priests are regarded highly in the tribal society because of their closesness to their gods. This soon begins the first class, nobility, mostly made up of priests and warriors. The priests begin to take power as tribal leaders, this brings the begining of "Smart people can control the ignorant because they dont know any better" a more modern term is "Propaganda".
Most of us know what happens next, villages become cities then emmpires, kings emperors dictators etc. But we eventualy we learn that dictators are bad and all that power tends to make people crazy (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini).
And we all know what happened to our friends Atolf, Joe, and Benito. So we set up a demoracy to "cure" ourselves of harsh dictators (king george). And of course we all know demoracy sucks, but it's the best thing we've come up with so far.
So when i say anarchists are "Working backwards" they are undoing thousands of years of progress tward the "perfect" form of government.
Now i want to point out a flaw in your essay President Shrub. You state globalization is evil. You also state three things you need for a "utopia", technology, happyness, freedom. you also state that when two of these requirments are met an uprising will accur and overthrow the "global monoply".
Here's the flaw, Technology is the FEUL for globalization, but it is also a key factor in your anarchist utopia. technology throughout history brings about two things, an easyer way to do things (mainly kill other people), and a way to make the world smaller.
The technology that makes the world smaller is the feul for globalization. Think back to 1850, most people didn't travel 50 miles from their home in thier lives, today people travel that everyday to work. Through technology communications have increased and world travel has become much more efficent, promoting globalization. This same technology is the bases for your anarchist "utopia". This technology also promotes monoplies.
If people are total "free" then noone can be happy. Even in America the "land of the free" people arn't truely free. If people could do what ever they wanted there would be total chaos, you cant really argue with that, People are selfish and will help themselves before others. People would rather eat and let another starve then starve and let another eat (Religion trys to fix that problem). And if you've noticed thoughout history technology tends to emerige out of the civilized nations not the chaotic ones. I believe if you mix technology, anarchy (or communism), and happyness you'll most likely get somthing that resembles Lois Lowry's "The Giver"
The point of this post is that anarchy and utopia's fail. "Pure communism" is the latest atempt to create a utopia. "Pure communism" states that there are no classes and all of the land belongs to all of the people. If there are no clases then there would be no leadership or govt., wich Marx does state. So what you have is a bunch of people standing around doing nothing. When somone suggests they do somting (such as sow crops), a leader emirges, wich creates social clases and the immediate end of "Pure communism"
Utopia's fail and will always fail because man is not perfect therefore everything man try's to create will not be perfect either. In my opinion demerocy is the best type of government we have even though it is very flawed. And anarchy has been tryed before in the past and it also has failed, it was just replaced with dictatorships. Another thing I've noticed thoughout history is people do not like to make their own decisions, they'd rather have somone smarter do it for them, hence another reason why anarchy fails, most people want to be led wether they want to admit it or not.

ha ur funny anarchy can never work because people will all want power and society will break down and the strongest/best armed people will take power and start commanding small armies against each in a fuedal system so the world would be effectively brought back into the middle ages except without the influence of any goverments and with a lot more powerful weapons

I'm surprised noone has done this yet, lets start by defining anarchy and communism. Acording to Websters's Contemporary Dictionary anarchy is defined as "Absence of government" and communism is defined as "A social system wich there is no classes and no brivate ownership of the means of production."
With that out of the way let me begin. I think anarchists and communists are "working backward" in their ideas of their society. Let me explain.
Lets go back to the dawn of Mankind. We can truthfully state that people were living in an anarchist state at that time. No formal govt. no tribal leaders, in fact there were no tribes. But eventualy as the human spiecies began to mate and produce offspring familys became large and formed clans. Boom! the begining of government, though many people dont think a tribal clan is hardly a govt. at all, and its not, it was the begining of the state, people banding together to increase their chance for survival. It was in fact a good idea, instead of 1 person hunting for food, 5 people hunt for food and one finds shelter, but alas it brought an early end for anarchy in the game of survival.
Some time has passed by now and our clan has gotten much bigger. The Best hunters are now becoming idolized by the young of the clan, and they begin to pass on their traditions to the young. After some time the best of the clan compete over who is the best hunter and the one who emerges will soon beocome the clan leader, our first real government. After a few thousand years the struggle for survival is now over and food is becoming scarse, neibouring tribes compete over hunting grounds and fishing holes. This is the begining of wars. Now that hunting is common the best warriors are idolized and become the tribal leaders.
Some thousands of years pass now and formal religion has been born. Priests are regarded highly in the tribal society because of their closesness to their gods. This soon begins the first class, nobility, mostly made up of priests and warriors. The priests begin to take power as tribal leaders, this brings the begining of "Smart people can control the ignorant because they dont know any better" a more modern term is "Propaganda".
Most of us know what happens next, villages become cities then emmpires, kings emperors dictators etc. But we eventualy we learn that dictators are bad and all that power tends to make people crazy (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini).
And we all know what happened to our friends Atolf, Joe, and Benito. So we set up a demoracy to "cure" ourselves of harsh dictators (king george). And of course we all know demoracy sucks, but it's the best thing we've come up with so far.
So when i say anarchists are "Working backwards" they are undoing thousands of years of progress tward the "perfect" form of government.
Now i want to point out a flaw in your essay President Shrub. You state globalization is evil. You also state three things you need for a "utopia", technology, happyness, freedom. you also state that when two of these requirments are met an uprising will accur and overthrow the "global monoply".
Here's the flaw, Technology is the FEUL for globalization, but it is also a key factor in your anarchist utopia. technology throughout history brings about two things, an easyer way to do things (mainly kill other people), and a way to make the world smaller.
The technology that makes the world smaller is the feul for globalization. Think back to 1850, most people didn't travel 50 miles from their home in thier lives, today people travel that everyday to work. Through technology communications have increased and world travel has become much more efficent, promoting globalization. This same technology is the bases for your anarchist "utopia". This technology also promotes monoplies.
If people are total "free" then noone can be happy. Even in America the "land of the free" people arn't truely free. If people could do what ever they wanted there would be total chaos, you cant really argue with that, People are selfish and will help themselves before others. People would rather eat and let another starve then starve and let another eat (Religion trys to fix that problem). And if you've noticed thoughout history technology tends to emerige out of the civilized nations not the chaotic ones. I believe if you mix technology, anarchy (or communism), and happyness you'll most likely get somthing that resembles Lois Lowry's "The Giver"
The point of this post is that anarchy and utopia's fail. "Pure communism" is the latest atempt to create a utopia. "Pure communism" states that there are no classes and all of the land belongs to all of the people. If there are no clases then there would be no leadership or govt., wich Marx does state. So what you have is a bunch of people standing around doing nothing. When somone suggests they do somting (such as sow crops), a leader emirges, wich creates social clases and the immediate end of "Pure communism"
Utopia's fail and will always fail because man is not perfect therefore everything man try's to create will not be perfect either. In my opinion demerocy is the best type of government we have even though it is very flawed. And anarchy has been tryed before in the past and it also has failed, it was just replaced with dictatorships. Another thing I've noticed thoughout history is people do not like to make their own decisions, they'd rather have somone smarter do it for them, hence another reason why anarchy fails, most people want to be led wether they want to admit it or not.

Paragraphs would be nice, please...

edit: but you've got some good ideas

edit: and you spelled 'fuel' wrong ;)

Do you have any sources to back that up? I have been an anarchist for a while and I have never heard of them considering the use of airplanes crashing into buildings.
It's a little known episode, I am not sure if it can be confirmed from English language online sources. I'll look it up . But in the meanwhile, here (http://www.answers.com/topic/anarchist-terrorism') is a fine summary of the anarchist terrorism record:

The heyday of anarchist terrorism was from the 1870s to the 1920s. Several heads of state were assassinated, including King Umberto I of Italy (July 29, 1900) and President of the United States William McKinley (September 14, 1901). The justification of Anarchist terrorism was that such acts would make anarchist ideas famous. This policy was known as "propaganda by the deed." However, there were also many terrorists and criminals who called themselves "anarchists" but had little in common with philosophical anarchists and often rejected any association with these individuals.

Today, some anarchists are found participating with the more "violent" elements of demonstrations, such as the anti-capitalist protests in the 1990s and 2000s (see: WTO Meeting of 1999). This is usually confined to specific acts of property destruction, which is mostly considered to be a form of nonviolent direct action by those who commit it. There are significant sections of the anarchist movement that do not support these actions, including many organizations and individuals that advocate pacifism or others who simply question the effectiveness of property destruction as a tool of change.

Some (including the FBI) would consider anarchist inspired groups like the Earth Liberation Front, who have taken part in large scale property destruction, to be "terrorist" organizations.

Nonsense. Technology and freedom do not happiness make. Freedom and happiness do not technology produce.

Moreover, no government, no economic or social system can possibly produce and perpetuate happiness, because happiness by it's very nature is not meant to last.
Your sole premise is, "Happiness is not meant to last", and your conclusion is, "Therefore, a world where happiness is meant to last (utopia) is impossible."

Your premise relies upon assuming the conclusion is true! That's a circular argument and yet another logical fallacy.

History and science, up to this point, have shown that mankind is inherently selfish. As such, it is a "dog-eat-dog" world, where, not only do we have to fend off against others, but we must fend off against ourselves, when we are driven towards lives of excess pleasure, that ultimately create unhappiness.

But what if we didn't live in a world such as that? That's the question I'm asking, and why I've said, repeatedly, that this is rather speculatory, and rationalist, not empirical.


Have you ever read George Orwell's "Why Socialists don't believe in fun"?

All efforts to describe permanent happiness... have been failures. Utopias (incidentally the coined word Utopia doesn't mean ‘a good place’, it means merely a ‘non-existent place’) have been common in literature of the past three or four hundred years but the ‘favourable’ ones are invariably unappetising, and usually lacking in vitality as well.

...All ‘favourable’ Utopias seem to be alike in postulating perfection while being unable to suggest happiness.

...Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache. They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary... Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness. This is the case even with a great writer like Swift, who can flay a bishop or a politician so neatly, but who, when he tries to create a superman, merely leaves one with the impression the very last he can have intended that the stinking Yahoos had in them more possibility of development than the enlightened Houyhnhnms.
#1. George Orwell says, "nearly" all to refute the ideals of all believers in a utopian society. That's fallacious.
#2. He uses Swift, as anecdotal evidence, which is another fallacy.

But in response to his actual point: Is freedom in the United States or Britain only valuable because it's temporary? Obviously not. Why is freedom of value? Because it's good and it brings happiness. Therefore, some things which are good and bring happiness are not only valuable because they are temporary.

And happiness, itself, is not of value because it is temporary. In the world we currently live in, yes, that's certainly true. Yet if happiness was only of value because it's temporary than so many of the western religions would not seek a "permanent" paradise. Such a permanent paradise is like the speed of light, impossible to reach because it's relative to our current circumstances. But that doesn't mean we can't come extremely close. Furthermore, there are varying degrees of happiness, which can be relatively stable. It is not black-and-white, where, some days, you're happy, other days, you're not. But rather, contentment and the broad spectrum of joy needs to be taken into account. A utopian society is not one where people are perfectly happy, as if they were doped up on drugs constantly, that never wore off. No, the varying degrees of emotion remains. The difference lies, though, in that unhappiness is severely limited or even practically eliminated, replaced by contentment, where happiness must still be sought by choice.

Your sole premise is, "Happiness is not meant to last", and your conclusion is, "Therefore, a world where happiness is meant to last (utopia) is impossible."

Your premise relies upon assuming the conclusion is true! That's a circular argument and yet another logical fallacy.

It's not, unless you can demonstrate that the nature of happiness is different from what I am suggesting. And I am suggesting, just like Orwell did, that happiness arises from contrast. Using Orwell's example, a hungry man becomes happy the moment he is fed. However, once he is fed, his state of mind is no longer defined by the contents of his stomach, but rather by his inability to acquire the next thing he wants, whatever it may be. Having nothing more to wish for does not bring happiness, but boredom and unrest.


History and science, up to this point, have shown that mankind is inherently selfish. As such, it is a "dog-eat-dog" world, where, not only do we have to fend off against others, but we must fend off against ourselves, when we are driven towards lives of excess pleasure, that ultimately create unhappiness.

But what if we didn't live in a world such as that? That's the question I'm asking, and why I've said, repeatedly, that this is rather speculatory, and rationalist, not empirical.
We all know the answer. It would be a melancholic, stagnant, pointless existence, in which happiness would be by far more rare than it is today. It would be a world that would drive you insane with boredom until you rebelled against it. It would be just as bleak and lacking in vitality as every single Utopia ever conceieved.


#1. George Orwell says, "nearly" all to refute the ideals of all believers in a utopian society. That's fallacious.
It's not. He is, in my opinion, referring to the fact that some Utopian concepts do not deal with the pursuit of happiness in the first place, having different objectives to pursue. Consider, for example, the Nazi fantasy of racial purity, which is clearly not founded on the pursuit of happiness or elimination of conflict.


#2. He uses Swift, as anecdotal evidence, which is another fallacy.
He uses all the best known Utopias (Wells, Rabelais, pagan and Christian concepts of Heaven, News From Nowhere, Breughel's picture The Land of the Sluggard) to illustrate failures of even the best of writers to suggest the concept of a happy society. There is no fallacy in it. I suggest you read the whole of the essay so you could understand my point better:

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/socialists/english/e_fun

But in response to his actual point: Is freedom in the United States or Britain only valuable because it's temporary? Obviously not.

Why is freedom of value? Because it's good and it brings happiness. Therefore, some things which are good and bring happiness are not only valuable because they are temporary.
But happiness brought by them IS temporary, and once achieved, it quickly fades away. The United States is a free society- but is it a happy society?


And happiness, itself, is not of value because it is temporary. In the world we currently live in, yes, that's certainly true. Yet if happiness was only of value because it's temporary than so many of the western religions would not seek a "permanent" paradise.
This is a non-sequitur. Religions seek what reality by definition can't give, that's why they have to rely on faith rather than observation and theory.


Such a permanent paradise is like the speed of light, impossible to reach because it's relative to our current circumstances. But that doesn't mean we can't come extremely close.
Close to what? What concept of paradise could you suggest that would not be drop dead boring to live in? What manner of living can be perpetuated endlessly without you getting fed up with it eventually?


Furthermore, there are varying degrees of happiness, which can be relatively stable. It is not black-and-white, where, some days, you're happy, other days, you're not. But rather, contentment and the broad spectrum of joy needs to be taken into account. A utopian society is not one where people are perfectly happy, as if they were doped up on drugs constantly, that never wore off. No, the varying degrees of emotion remains. The difference lies, though, in that unhappiness is severely limited or even practically eliminated, replaced by contentment, where happiness must still be sought by choice.
Since unhappiness has just as broad a spectrum as does happiness, it can be neither limited nor eliminated. Moreover, defining happiness as loosely as you do in your post, one can easily make a case that we already live in a society that provides us with a certain degree of happiness and limits the unhappiness to tolerable limits. If an Utopia cannot suggest us anything more than a partial happiness- something we already possess- it simply does not justify the effort.

It's not, unless you can demonstrate that the nature of happiness is different from what I am suggesting.
"Demonstrate."

Can you demonstrate God's existence? Can you demonstrate the past, or the future? Certainly not. Does that automatically mean they don't exist? No. It's what I call the "Empiricist's fallacy."


And I am suggesting, just like Orwell did, that happiness arises from contrast. Using Orwell's example, a hungry man becomes happy the moment he is fed. However, once he is fed, his state of mind is no longer defined by the contents of his stomach, but rather by his inability to acquire the next thing he wants, whatever it may be. Having nothing more to wish for does not bring happiness, but boredom and unrest.
I agree with that completely, but Orwell wasn't the first. In the 4th century BC, the Hedonist, Epicurus said that man would live happier on bread and water than on a fine feast. True, there needs to be some level of relativity. But the utopian society I'm suggesting is where people still hunger, but no one goes hungry.

As I said, though, it's not black and white. Happiness does not arise from contrast, because there are varying degrees of happiness, and in real-world examples, in places of suffering such as Africa and the Middle East, there is no significant happiness except for the elite few who live lives of limitless luxury. If happiness were gained by contrast, when Saddam Hussein was in power, he would've been less happy than the people he oppressed. Obviously, that's not the case. You also have to take into account "emotional scarring."


We all know the answer. It would be a melancholic, stagnant, pointless existence, in which happiness would be by far more rare than it is today. It would be a world that would drive you insane with boredom until you rebelled against it. It would be just as bleak and lacking in vitality as every single Utopia ever conceieved.
Suffering would still exist, to some mild extent. You're suggesting a world devoid of suffering. That's apparently impossible. But the "perfect" society is the "best" society, and what I'm suggesting is the best.


It's not. He is, in my opinion, referring to the fact that some Utopian concepts do not deal with the pursuit of happiness in the first place, having different objectives to pursue. Consider, for example, the Nazi fantasy of racial purity, which is clearly not founded on the pursuit of happiness or elimination of conflict.
Well, their goal is a "perfect society." Anyone who claims that's racial purity or economic superiority is a fool. Instead, the Utilitarian Ethic applies here, but when implemented properly, the minority discriminated against faces practically little or no trouble.


He uses all the best known Utopias (Wells, Rabelais, pagan and Christian concepts of Heaven, News From Nowhere, Breughel's picture The Land of the Sluggard) to illustrate failures of even the best of writers to suggest the concept of a happy society. There is no fallacy in it. I suggest you read the whole of the essay so you could understand my point better:

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/socialists/english/e_fun
I haven't slept yet, but it's intriguing that he "disproved" heaven. :D


But happiness brought by them IS temporary, and once achieved, it quickly fades away.
There is a difference between what is and what theoretically can be. I'd like to thank you for this conversation because you've given me another idea for an essay to write: The Empiricist's Fallacy. We live in a strongly Empirical society which goes so far to often doesn't do scientific studies on an idea, unless there are past studies to support the hypothesis.

Reading through a list of logical fallacies, I tried to see if this fallacy was listed. It wasn't. Reification, its polar opposite, the Rationalist's fallacy, was listed, but the Empiricist's Fallacy wasn't.

There is a difference between "what is" and "what can be."

Simply because you cannot observe a Utopia, God, objective ethics, or objective truth does not mean you can say they do not exist. Just because something is unobservable does not mean it is inconcievable. Therefore, disproving heaven is as illogical as claiming it exists.


The United States is a free society- but is it a happy society?
No, part of that has to do with technology. The rest has to do with the fact that while we are relatively free, we aren't free enough.


This is a non-sequitur. Religions seek what reality by definition can't give, that's why they have to rely on faith rather than observation and theory.
Not entirely true. Buddhists and other eastern religions seem fairly in touch with reality. And also, I believe our definitions of "value" differ. By value, I mean, the principle, the ideal. John Stuart Mill explained the utility of religion (as did Pascal, with his wager), and basically, whether or not it's true, we should believe in a utopian afterlife, regardless. But anyway, you once again assert that their beliefs are not "reality." There's no proof of that, because many of their beliefs transcend reality. Keeping with the law of non-contradiction, you could simply say that their beliefs, while seemingly contradictory, weave together in grand paradox that is unobservable, but not inconcievable.


Close to what? What concept of paradise could you suggest that would not be drop dead boring to live in? What manner of living can be perpetuated endlessly without you getting fed up with it eventually?
What I've been saying the whole time.

Since unhappiness has just as broad a spectrum as does happiness, it can be neither limited nor eliminated. Moreover, defining happiness as loosely as you do in your post, one can easily make a case that we already live in a society that provides us with a certain degree of happiness and limits the unhappiness to tolerable limits. If an Utopia cannot suggest us anything more than a partial happiness- something we already possess- it simply does not justify the effort.
We do. But we aren't entirely as happy as we could be, so we should bolster it with greater freedom and greater technology.