Be a Supporter!

Anarchist Federation

  • 4,795 Views
  • 162 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Confucianism
Confucianism
  • Member since: Jul. 19, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Audiophile
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-15 08:45:09 Reply

At 8/15/11 03:12 AM, surfingthechaos wrote: Well I don't agree with the OP's condemnation of capitalism. It would have been nice to seen an intelligent discussion about the tenets of capitalism, but these so-called "arguments" against anarchy are just embarrassing.

Nice first post.


BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-25 12:28:33 Reply

It's pretty sad to see such silly arguments against Anarchy, I rarely get to debate with anyone who has read more than the first wiki paragraph on Anarchism.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
animehater
animehater
  • Member since: Feb. 28, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-25 14:14:03 Reply

At 8/25/11 12:28 PM, BritZombie wrote: It's pretty sad to see such silly arguments against Anarchy, I rarely get to debate with anyone who has read more than the first wiki paragraph on Anarchism.

Then why don't you try enlightening us young man?


"Communism is the very definition of failure." - Liberty Prime.

BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-25 14:18:30 Reply

At 8/25/11 02:14 PM, animehater wrote:
At 8/25/11 12:28 PM, BritZombie wrote: It's pretty sad to see such silly arguments against Anarchy, I rarely get to debate with anyone who has read more than the first wiki paragraph on Anarchism.
Then why don't you try enlightening us young man?

Ok, ask away.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-25 14:37:49 Reply

At 8/25/11 02:18 PM, BritZombie wrote:
At 8/25/11 02:14 PM, animehater wrote:
At 8/25/11 12:28 PM, BritZombie wrote: It's pretty sad to see such silly arguments against Anarchy, I rarely get to debate with anyone who has read more than the first wiki paragraph on Anarchism.
Then why don't you try enlightening us young man?
Ok, ask away.

What makes the arguments in this thread against anarchy so "silly"?

BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-25 14:42:52 Reply

At 8/25/11 02:37 PM, djack wrote:
At 8/25/11 02:18 PM, BritZombie wrote:

Ok, ask away.
What makes the arguments in this thread against anarchy so "silly"?

Well, firstly most here, that I've read don't have a very good idea on Anarchist theory and I doubt have read any books on the subject. The idea seems to come from anarchy being used as an adjective to describe chaos; their may be a few extreme individualist anarchists somewhere who want disorder and chaos who not no major school has emphasised lack of order or organisation in a society.

That's not to say all opponents of Anarchism are inherently wrong of course, but a quick google search right now can dispell most of the popular (but nonsensical) 'anarchy = do what you want' notions.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-25 14:53:22 Reply

At 8/25/11 02:42 PM, BritZombie wrote:
At 8/25/11 02:37 PM, djack wrote:
At 8/25/11 02:18 PM, BritZombie wrote:

Ok, ask away.
What makes the arguments in this thread against anarchy so "silly"?
Well, firstly most here, that I've read don't have a very good idea on Anarchist theory and I doubt have read any books on the subject. The idea seems to come from anarchy being used as an adjective to describe chaos; their may be a few extreme individualist anarchists somewhere who want disorder and chaos who not no major school has emphasised lack of order or organisation in a society.

That's not to say all opponents of Anarchism are inherently wrong of course, but a quick google search right now can dispell most of the popular (but nonsensical) 'anarchy = do what you want' notions.

As I understand it anarchy is the idea that people do not need government and that if people were to eliminate government everyone would be truly free and capable of governing themselves as they see fit. Given that anarchy is defined as "a society without government or law" that doesn't seem to be an incorrect understanding of anarchy. However, the existence of government is based on a single universal fact. People cannot govern themselves. The average person is incapable of controlling themself and any anarchist society would eventually crumble into chaos which is the source of the belief that anarchy and chaos are synonymous. Even among animal communities anarchy does not exist, all groups require leaders.

BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-25 15:27:02 Reply

At 8/25/11 02:53 PM, djack wrote:
As I understand it anarchy is the idea that people do not need government and that if people were to eliminate government everyone would be truly free and capable of governing themselves as they see fit. Given that anarchy is defined as "a society without government or law" that doesn't seem to be an incorrect understanding of anarchy. However, the existence of government is based on a single universal fact. People cannot govern themselves. The average person is incapable of controlling themself and any anarchist society would eventually crumble into chaos which is the source of the belief that anarchy and chaos are synonymous. Even among animal communities anarchy does not exist, all groups require leaders.

You're right in that it states people don't need governance, but not that elimianting governance would lead to a free society, that's what anti-statism is. Most anarchists (the word has become convoluted I agree) advocate the equal access to the means of production, and a society without a separate ruling class (capitalist or communist) who controls it.

Anarchy isn't really defined as a society without governance or law, any more than contemporary America can be described as merely a society 'with governance and law'; it's infinitely more complicated than that.

My biggest objection is the idea people can't 'control themselves' and I really don't understand what you mean here. i can live without a master. Could you go into more? Anarchist societies such as the Free Territory, Catalonia, Paris Commune etc didn't descend into chaos. I can control myself. If you mean certain people are psychopaths, an anarchist society would certainly protect itself against that, I can go into it if you want.

Well although I think I don't aim to live like an animal, but any hierarchy in the animal world isn't the same as a forced hierarchy within a state. Politicians aren't the smartest, strongest, most adaptable people in our society, that would be a technocratic state which we don't currently live in. Also, if you believe human beings are inherently evil and greedy, a system which expects certain members of it to not only govern themselves, but others also, is way too utopian.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-25 16:48:17 Reply

At 8/25/11 03:42 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:
At 8/25/11 03:27 PM, BritZombie wrote: My biggest objection is the idea people can't 'control themselves' and I really don't understand what you mean here.
Destroy the system of order that we've had for all these years (IE, remove the police that protect us) and you are left with a free-for-all. Whilst there will always be those who band together anyways (the people who actually value society) there will be those who want what others have and will take it by force.

All these years? How far back are we going? State Capitalism has been around a few hundred years, Fuedalism before it and so on. So would it make sense to be against Monarchies because they were around for many more centuries? I agree that it's utopian to expect every human being to be nice and friendly, but this is irrelevant to almost all theories on a anarchist society and you don't have to take my word on this.

Before you mention, I'm aware that this already exists in the from of war, but it (essentially) doesn't exist domestically. Laws exist to stop that sort of thing happening.

Well, I'd say it does. Both Capitalism and 'Communism' (the two biggest systems of government in recent times) rely on their being inequalities in status, and have members of said societies who can have authority and exploit it to everyone else's misfortune, can commit certain crimes more easily and have a stronger legal team through status/wealth, can make somebody's life a misery in which they are higher than that person in a hierarchy, and so on. Laws are also inherently suited to benefit whoever the rulers of a certain society are to varying degrees, this is inescapable.

i can live without a master.
Congratulations. Lots of people can. Those who can't will form the minority and they will actively go around ruining this supposed "Utopia".

I wasn't stating that to try and be impressive, I was responding to the comment that people are unable to control themselves, pointing out I disbelieve in it. When did i say an anarchist society wouldn't be against protecting itself? Again, my point about not understanding anarchist theory. Honestly, a quick wiki search could even help.


They don't anymore though. Funny that.

OK, look at why. Most were during times of civil war, revolution and yet still functioned for years. My point was that an anarchist society functions perfectly fine with the majority of people having a better quality of life. At no point did such societies break down into chaos. Again, don't take my word for it, you can look it up.

If you mean certain people are psychopaths, an anarchist society would certainly protect itself against that.
Really? Why is it no anarchistic societies exist today? Is it because to truely halt an aggressive advance from people who wish to undermine it you need a military juggernaut- a thing that can only exist under total state control.

I don't know what you mean by juggernaut, but some form of military or defense sure.
I'm not saying conflict won't exist, but it didn't take more than a few decades to stop loyalists to the previous ideology trying to overtake Capitalism. We don't see die-hard feudalists still trying to stage a coup. So now you want TOTAL state control? And also, it's hard to judge a system of society on how it's done it wars where it had smaller numbers, and even then defeat wasn't instant at all. If Communism was the dominant force would you support that? Do all those countries that fell to it, stand as evidence that it is superior to Capitalism.

Also, if you believe human beings are inherently evil and greedy,
Human beings are inherently evil and greedy. It was another one of those things that helped us when we had to deal with mammoths.

I disagree. There aspects of human 'nature' sure, but not dominant ones. They'll be more prevalent in societies where ruthlessness, greed and hoarding are more beneficial to people, like now. But even now by now means are all social interactions based on being evil to any level. Also, like I said, if we believe humans are all just out to fuck each other over, why do you want those fallible, evil humans controlling so many aspects of your life?

Bastards
Always
Win.

Yeah I see where you're coming from. But giving them power and a medal doesn't stop that. History has shown it makes it worse.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-27 11:11:55 Reply

At 8/26/11 03:13 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:

I never argued against governing systems that have existed for long periods of ime. We only had monarchies becausethey suited us then, we only have capitalism because it's suits us now. We will NEVER have anarchy because it will NEVER suit us.

Monarchies suited very few people then, apart from the actual Monarchs and noblemen. People had terrible lives, in fact, despite all the medicinal, technological, lingustic progress etc, the average life span of a 14th century Englishmen was the same as one of the Iron Age. To say Monarchies suited people a few hundred years ago is almost comical to me. Again, what's is 'us'? The average person does not reap the full benefits of his own labour, let alone anything else.

I agree that it's utopian to expect every human being to be nice and friendly, but this is irrelevant to almost all theories on a anarchist society
How is it irrelevant? All it takes is one loud enough person to destroy all that's been worked towards. In a normal functioning society with law/order that one man can usually be stopped before he makes a situation out of himself.

Incorrect. All it takes is one loud enough person to rise to power, join the police etc, and make the rules (always geared towards benefiting themseves) and this has happened repeatedly. You can't be asserting that a society which gives people power over others will make them the highest beacons of morality. But this is all hypothetical anyway, without wishing to sound arrogant you genuinely do know nothing about anarchist theory. I need to know why people living in an anarchist society would allow someone to cause chaos.


Hence the use of the qualifying term "essentially". We are all aware it does happen but it is on a much smaller scale than would exist in a society completely devoid of law/order.

Again, saying something does not make it so. Also, 'law' (or customs) and order are essential to anarchist beliefs, name me a major anarchist thinker who has said otherwise? Because you would have an equal say in the laws of your confederation (direct democracy) and you would have a greater control over your workplace without what's termed wage slavery (worker-managed associations) has no correlation to violence.

In the current society, if someone wanted something of mine and they respected the laws, they would go through many tedious weeks of suing probably with little success. In anarchy they would only need to stab me and there would be nothing I could do about it. I'd rather have some major corporate entity that I would never meet buying out another company than have to fear being killed every day for my car.

It depends. Privately owned means of production is theft, bankers can loose our money and lose no wages or even bonuses, my own family has been scammed out of thousands by a larger company because they can manipulate legalities. I think the problem here is you equate anarchism with the concept of lawlessness, which if you actually read even a small amount on the subject, you find is provably untrue. Back to my old examples. Don't you find it funny those anarchist communities didn't descend into mass killings and theft? Is it because a massive free for all would prevent killings and robberies? Of course not, it's because social anarchism doesn't operate nor condone those actions and never has, which is why such ridiculous predictions never occurred.

Some people can control themselves. Many people cannot. Humans are one of the few species whose collective intelligence plummets when in a group since we're very susceptible to mob influences, so it only takes one turd in the punchbowl to ruin the party for everyone.

I disagree we're one of the few species who act in that way, evidence suggests otherwise but pack mentality or 'group-think' is an issue. But this one 'turd' would not be allowed to stab a man, no society would allow people to act in such a way. And don't forget forced hierarchy has a terrible effects on humans. There's a reason why more centralisations of power in history has lead to all citizens behaving barbarically. Nazi Germany, Victorian England, Feudal and slave societies all had strict authoritarian order and top-down discipline and had varying degrees of sadism and brutality to people. The Japanese in WW2 had a very strict regime, and beatings were common for all ranks. These beatings often continued down the ranks, with the prisoners suffering the worst at the bottom of the pile. Ordering everyone to unconditionally be part of a society, governed by the ruling classes causes such behaivour and a brief look at history will show the less power is concentrated, the less people act brutally. This is a side-point however, anarchist do not and have not allowed people to harm people at will, because being allowed to hurt without reason is not part of being liberated. Rather, it is Statists who advocate harm to be caused to other people to be legitimate, to keep people in line.

When did i say an anarchist society wouldn't be against protecting itself?
I never said they wouldn't protect themselves. Any society with domestic troubles (that will inevitably happen without written rules because we all have different ideas of whats right/wrong) will not be able to deal with external threats and halt them.

People will have different ideas of right and wrong, like we do, and yes Anarchism will not allow certain people to dictate what is morally correct like Statists do. But moral relatvisim is no issue, socieites will protect themselves against unfavorable behaivour (whether it's a beating from a street thug or from a corrupt officer) and have done in all my examples.

My point is they don't exist anymore. Who cares if they collapsed because of chaos, ennui or outside influences? THEY STILL COLLAPSED.
If something no longer exists it's usually a good indication that it doesn't suit us.

Nah, the world is no where near as black and white as that. All I can say to you is read. Read how Catalonia operated, and read how it was run after by Franco, and came to your own conclusion about how better people lived in both systems. A totalitarian dictator taking over doesn't mean the people weren't happier living freely.

Yes, they will need some form of defence. If anarchists did exist in these small "communes" like everyone here seems to be saying, they will not be able to field a large enough military to repel threats from anyone who has enough followers who wish to destroy it. Hence the juggernaut.

No, multiple worker syndicates will make up a confederation. There will be multiple confederations co-operating with one another, and the same statistic (or even more) of people would be willing to protect their safety and way of life. Small communes are indeed unfavourable.

No, becuase that was an inferior method of rule and everyone now admits it. Anarchy is an inferior method to what we have now, so if it does take over we will ALWAYS see loyalists fighting against it.

Everyone agrees, BECAUSE we go rid of it. Millions of people, even serfs, thought that Monarchism was an unfortunate neccesity of life because that is what they (and their parents, etc) were told. Again, I need more proof that an actual anarchist society would be inferior, without silly statements on 'no organisation' or whatever.

Fine, you got me. I advocate total state control. I want to destroy the concept of indivduality within a country. I want the powers to be to dictate what everyone should be doing 24 hours a day.

I wasn't being facetious, those were your exact words, which surprised me.

If Communism was the dominant force would you support that? Do all those countries that fell to it, stand as evidence that it is superior to Capitalism.

Character limit is running out so I'll contine on another post.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
elcriz000
elcriz000
  • Member since: Mar. 3, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-27 20:44:00 Reply

anarcho-socialist reporting in, any other people politically stand where i do? or am i the only one? and where do other people stand on the scale of left and right?


Iron man is a superhero
Iron woman is a command

BBS Signature
elcriz000
elcriz000
  • Member since: Mar. 3, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-27 20:53:37 Reply

for all those who say anarchy doesn't work, let me prove you wrong with some realworld examples:

what about the dark ages, before kings and queens, that worked didn't it. they grew and managed themselves didn't they? was that not anarchy?
how about the native americans, before Europe discovered America, the native Americans had different tribes with different rules and laws, wasn't that anarchy as well?


Iron man is a superhero
Iron woman is a command

BBS Signature
Daddy-L-Jackson
Daddy-L-Jackson
  • Member since: May. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-27 21:40:12 Reply

At 8/27/11 08:53 PM, elcriz000 wrote: for all those who say anarchy doesn't work, let me prove you wrong with some realworld examples:

what about the dark ages, before kings and queens, that worked didn't it. they grew and managed themselves didn't they? was that not anarchy?
how about the native americans, before Europe discovered America, the native Americans had different tribes with different rules and laws, wasn't that anarchy as well?

1. It's called The Dark Ages... a period notorious for both blind following of the bible and barbarianism. Does that sound like a good world to you?

2. Tribes had a hierarchy. Like you said, there were laws and rules, people didn't just govern themselves, there were tribe leaders and other people in power to keep everyone in line.

Go back to school. You clearly don't have a real grasp on anarchy and it's sub-sects. For fucks sake, earlier you said capitalism didn't belong with anarchy. Umm, ever heard of Anarcho-Capitalism?

Sorry if that's been pointed out earlier.
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-27 22:16:09 Reply

At 8/27/11 08:44 PM, elcriz000 wrote: anarcho-socialist reporting in, any other people politically stand where i do? or am i the only one? and where do other people stand on the scale of left and right?

Yeah! Down with the state!

Oh by the way the state should tax a whole bunch of people nd do a whole bunch of other things. FUck yeah, anarchy!


At 8/16/14 11:58 PM, Feoric wrote:
Remember: he was shot in the back 35 feet away from the police cruiser. That's not up for debate.

BBS Signature
elcriz000
elcriz000
  • Member since: Mar. 3, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-28 06:18:13 Reply

At 8/27/11 09:40 PM, Daddy-L-Jackson wrote:
1. It's called The Dark Ages... a period notorious for both blind following of the bible and barbarianism. Does that sound like a good world to you?

you didn't answer my question, It worked didn't it we grew, evolved and adapted didn't we? Of course we did, otherwise we wouldn't be here now.


2. Tribes had a hierarchy. Like you said, there were laws and rules, people didn't just govern themselves, there were tribe leaders and other people in power to keep everyone in line.

of course there was leaders, but unlike the government, they didn't just make laws, everyone who was in the tribe had a say in what laws were enforced, there was no person in charge of all the tribes was there?

:For fucks sake, earlier you said capitalism didn't belong with anarchy.

I never said anything like that.

Umm, ever heard of Anarcho-Capitalism?

yes. as well as anarcho-communism, anarcho-socialism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-liberalism, anarcho-fascism(i kid)


Iron man is a superhero
Iron woman is a command

BBS Signature
Confucianism
Confucianism
  • Member since: Jul. 19, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Audiophile
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-28 08:37:54 Reply

At 8/28/11 06:18 AM, elcriz000 wrote: you didn't answer my question, It worked didn't it we grew, evolved and adapted didn't we? Of course we did, otherwise we wouldn't be here now.

Your point is invalid and useless.

of course there was leaders, but unlike the government, they didn't just make laws, everyone who was in the tribe had a say in what laws were enforced, there was no person in charge of all the tribes was there

Its still had no links to anarchism. Yes they certainly had more freedoms than most societies have ever had.

You should realy look back through the posts and see where time and again I have had to point out where and at what time anarchist societies have worked. Over the past 200 years.

For fucks sake, earlier you said capitalism didn't belong with anarchy.

It doesnt. Those who say it is are not actual anarchists.

Umm, ever heard of Anarcho-Capitalism?

Sure it has the linkage in the name but anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism and should not be related to it.

:anarcho-socialist you say. Also has nothing to do with anarchism. We are two completely different groups of people. People need to stop thinking that we are somehow rthe same. It causes to many confusions.


BBS Signature
psycho-squirrel
psycho-squirrel
  • Member since: Apr. 30, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-28 08:45:34 Reply

If anarchists want to form their own land out in the ocean on some remote island, be my guest. There are some anarchists that say "bring down the governments!" and they act surprised when people say "no!"


BBS Signature
Confucianism
Confucianism
  • Member since: Jul. 19, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Audiophile
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-28 08:50:47 Reply

At 8/28/11 08:45 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: If anarchists want to form their own land out in the ocean on some remote island, be my guest. There are some anarchists that say "bring down the governments!" and they act surprised when people say "no!"

Places around South America have already started groups and small communes that hold similar traits to anarchism. So as you can see there are those that agree. Yes its mainly in places where the government are not doing a good job and in a sense, screwing up that country. If people are surprised when people say no then they realy dont understand the other sied of things. The idea though of having a remote island for anarchists is quite profoundly dumb.
He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-28 11:32:49 Reply

At 8/28/11 08:50 AM, Confucianism wrote: Places around South America have already started groups and small communes that hold similar traits to anarchism.

You seem to be confusing small tribalistic governments as anarchy. They are not. These small groups have governmental structure, even the agalitarian ones.

Confucianism
Confucianism
  • Member since: Jul. 19, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Audiophile
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-28 11:41:01 Reply

At 8/28/11 11:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You seem to be confusing small tribalistic governments as anarchy. They are not. These small groups have governmental structure, even the agalitarian ones.

You know, you have just left out the bit where I have said they hold traits of anarchism. Not that they are anarchists.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-28 11:53:49 Reply

At 8/28/11 11:41 AM, Confucianism wrote: You know, you have just left out the bit where I have said they hold traits of anarchism. Not that they are anarchists.

OK, I'll bite. What are these 'traits' of anarchsim?

SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-28 12:11:15 Reply

At 8/28/11 11:53 AM, Camarohusky wrote: OK, I'll bite. What are these 'traits' of anarchsim?

they have no archons?

what about dark archons?

VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
Daddy-L-Jackson
Daddy-L-Jackson
  • Member since: May. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-28 15:42:20 Reply

At 8/28/11 06:18 AM, elcriz000 wrote:
At 8/27/11 09:40 PM, Daddy-L-Jackson wrote:
1. It's called The Dark Ages... a period notorious for both blind following of the bible and barbarianism. Does that sound like a good world to you?
you didn't answer my question, It worked didn't it we grew, evolved and adapted didn't we? Of course we did, otherwise we wouldn't be here now.

Yes... when we accepted leaders and evolved out of anarchy. The fact is, if there even were to be an anarchist nation or state or even city, that was entirely independent, they would suffer and fall behind in terms of technology and would not progress as a society. Any anarchist states or sects that still exist will either evolve out of it or deteriorate into chaos. Anarchy does work, on a very small basis, in small groups of intelligent people. But most people don't function like that, it's in our human nature and our DNA to strive for power and to better ourselves, and in a situation with no one there to enforce and keep everyone in line, who's going to stop them from taking what they want?

To put faith in anarchy is to put trust in other people, which, just like any type of society, doesn't work, as exemplified by communism and even democracy. Anarchy is likely to fail in the same areas as any other form of society would, amplified more so by the lack of regulation.

BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-28 21:13:52 Reply

At 8/28/11 03:42 PM, Daddy-L-Jackson wrote:

Yes... when we accepted leaders and evolved out of anarchy.

The fact is, if there even were to be an anarchist nation or state or even city, that was entirely independent, they would suffer and fall behind in terms of technology and would not progress as a society. Any anarchist states or sects that still exist will either evolve out of it or deteriorate into chaos. Anarchy does work, on a very small basis, in small groups of intelligent people. But most people don't function like that, it's in our human nature and our DNA to strive for power and to better ourselves, and in a situation with no one there to enforce and keep everyone in line, who's going to stop them from taking what they want?

Well there could never be an anarchist state or nation state, and I would like to know why technology would suffer? Would worker owned firms, who can better control their workplace and decide upon what to do with the product of their work make them less productive? Wage slavery gets the minimum out of people, no where near the maximum. Your statement about anarchy only working in small groups is incorrect. I also contest that 'DNA' makes us strive for power, and indeed we so all wish to better ourselves, that is the point of life. It is also my philosophy, and statism curbs such opportunities. Who's going to? Well it depends on what type of anarchism you believe in, by the co-operative syndacties/communes/societies etc would police themselves. What is this childish belief that unless we have big men in uniforms paid by the ruling classes to do the work of protection, huge societies will just crumple when one man gets a shotgun?

To put faith in anarchy is to put trust in other people, which, just like any type of society, doesn't work, as exemplified by communism and even democracy. Anarchy is likely to fail in the same areas as any other form of society would, amplified more so by the lack of regulation.

Sigh. To put faith in statism is to put trust in other people. No matter how morally reprehensible, no matter how many people have suffered because of them, no matter how illegitimate their power may be, you will follow them or face violence. I'm aware what people do when they have other people's life as mere property, and it's rarely beneficial to both parties if not downright tyrannical. If you don't trust human beings, don't let them control your life, we can't escape human beings' decisions no matter what we do, because they have authority doesn't mean they are separated from your view of people as greedy, corruptible creatures.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-28 21:32:35 Reply

At 8/26/11 03:13 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:
No. See my post above saying that since they don't exist anymore they're no good. And I would probably support communism if it was the dominant force. I do have some socialist leanings right now.

So called communist states still do exist though? Plenty of countries are still state socialist, although I agree they're no good. But we're not at the end point of human progress are we, Capitalism is no good for many reasons and a new system will replace it eventually, whether it is anarchy or not. That's how our society goes, we don't have the same economic systems for millenia without change, so I hope you agree we're not the final product of human societal development. And anarchism is socialist anyway, the socialised means of production. It is just that anarchists don't call for a central committee to tyranise the workers.


So... they'll be more prevalent in an anarchistic society.

Certainly not. Any mutual aid society does not enable the most power hungry and ruthless to gain power, not by an conscious effort even, but by mere organisation of that society.

I'll admit it. Most politicians alive today are out to make themselves great at the expense of others. Think carreer politicians. Time was people went into politics wanting to help others as opposed to themselves. It will happen again, and I'll gladly swear my loyality and swear away my free will when one of them returns. Most humans are too stupid to rule themselves as we don't know whats good for us.

There was never really a golden age of selfless, helpful politcians, maybe there were more around the mid-20th century but not after and certainly not before. Basing everything on having a nice friendly chap in office is certainly not for me, you can wish away your own free will by all means, but everyone elses' goes down with you. You may not want to deal with the intrincities of business and inner-workings of your confederation, and you won't be forced to, but just because you're weak of character is no argument for me and the rest of society to be subjected to the same fate.

Or, you could just remove all restraints on them. That will turn them into flower planting, free-love preaching, examples of perfection.

That, or it will make them much worse than they are now.

Come on now. What do you understand by removing restraints? Allowing a worker to democratically decide on the worth of each worker to the company and stop himself being used as an expendable cog in a machine whilst a less hard-working CEO reaps the lion's share does not equate to some terrible beast being allowed to rape and kill freely, that's just nonsense.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-28 22:39:20 Reply

At 8/28/11 03:42 PM, Daddy-L-Jackson wrote: Yes... when we accepted leaders and evolved out of anarchy.


you have no idea about state formation


At 8/16/14 11:58 PM, Feoric wrote:
Remember: he was shot in the back 35 feet away from the police cruiser. That's not up for debate.

BBS Signature
SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-29 12:48:00 Reply

At 8/28/11 10:39 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
At 8/28/11 03:42 PM, Daddy-L-Jackson wrote: Yes... when we accepted leaders and evolved out of anarchy.
you have no idea about state formation

i do like how he attributes a lack of scientists describing our early states of being as anarchy because our scientists are state-funded.


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-29 22:27:54 Reply

At 8/29/11 03:22 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:

I'd say they did. Education was practically non-existant back then, so asking a bunch of morons to rule themselves was just asking for trouble. By keeping power limited to as few people as possible those rulers could make decisions (not necessarily good ones) without fear of it blowing up in their face.

That sounds awesome and all until they start repressing education further so that they could never be challenged and progress would halt to a stand still.


That life span would have been much lower if you expected everyone to rule themselves.

Actually, they would have been able to move around more, initially yes, they would have lower life spans but they would eventually start smaller, cleaner settlements, meaning less disease. Topping that they would have freedom of speech and not have to worry about inquisitions or witch hunters.


Us, humanity, the state, whatever you want to call it. The collective sample of society you want to make as glorious as possible.

for the very few who DO benefit.


So you're saying that a society which gives no-one power won't end that way?
All it requires is for someone to figure out that he can better himselves at the expense of others to round up a few like-minded indivduals to strong arm everyone into submission. With no centralised law system there will be nothing to stop him whatsoever. Sure there are no beacons of morality in our conventional hierarchy, but there will be even less in a world where the biggest jerk wins.
I'm not saying they would allow chaos to happen, I'm just saying they would be powerless to stop it.

His power structure would be much more fragile. He wouldn't be able to get control over as many people and the more powerful he would get, the more people he would scare. The more you scare people in a world with no police, the more likely you are to have an accident. Further more, it would be a more even fight because gorilla war would be much easier. Another exalted individual could rally people against this war lord just by using his own misdeeds against him.


Yes, but with no government no-one would be able to agree on what is good for the state. Thats why we try to have as few politicians as possible. Anymore and it would be several thousand people shouting to get their point across with no real progress.

this is why smaller groups of people function so much better. people learn to compromise faster.


Then you get a bunch of idiots who think they know whats good for them trying to be policy makers. Which usually never works.

get a bunch of geniuses to do it for them on their behalf and it will work out even worse.


I see, it all boils down to "The man is out to get me."

a legitimate problem should not be shot down that easily, you would be on the same train if you had been so ripped off by the system.


No, I equate it with de-centralisation, and without centralisation there are no effective ways of enforcing laws. It's a symptom yes but not the main thing.

with no centralization there are no effective ways of manipulating them either. and once again, it would be a more even fight if you were to enforce it yourself.


Yet I'm going to go with the point I've used so far: Those societies don't exist anymore. If they don't exist they are not good for us.

Every single civilization has and will fall at some point. non existence = not good for us is way too over generalized.


It may not condone it, but it will still make it much easier to happen.

and I won't be thrown in jail for defending my own property/ family.


What if he has a lot of followers and everyone is unable to stop him?

there is no way he could get enough coordination to spread very far before collapsing. Plus it would be easier for people to just leave the area. and that is in the worst case scenario.


Heirarchy is what got us out of the caves and into the cities. Without leaders we would be nothing.

Yet individualism got us off the farms, if we weren't defiant we would still be surfs.


Did you just say Victorian England, the centre of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, was a bad thing? Sure the citizens suffered, because they didn't know that it was good for them.
Also, Nazi Germany, Feudal and Slave societies all rose out of periods of anarchy... intredasting.

well then we will never know "what is good for us" and therefor will never stop suffering. And those periods of anarchy rose from periods of authoritarianism and misuse of power.


Still, some sort of agreement has got to be reached, and that will involve someones views being stomped on. Wait, so some people will have their views suppressed? This doesn't sound like the "everyone is equal" utopia you have been preaching thus far...

every belief has that extremist branch that believes in Utopia. All of those beliefs are strangely the same in almost every aspect. You shouldn't group the Leninists with the Marxists (examples only.)


Happiness is relative. In a few decades they'll be happy that they aren't suffering power outages and starving to death when they have a government who has their back.

instead they will be starving ALMOST to death and enduring genocides. topping that we used to be able to hunt just fine, we would run after what ever wild bovine we could find until it died of heat stoke due to the fact that we had sweat glands and it did not (they can't pant while they are running).

Small communes, no matter how many of them band together, cannot stop the war machine of a centralised state.

a long gorilla war can though.


Once again, they don't exist. That's usually perfect proof of somethings inferiority.

None of the text book ideologies exist either. Communism, Capitalism, neither has been truly implemented, and both are seriously flawed anyways. Dictatorships are dropping like flies nowadays (completely removing the ability to say they have stability now) and monarchies are almost a myth now. most monarchs don't even have any real power anymore anyways. if none of the systems made by man have worked, then that sort of sets an even playing field now doesn't it?


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
brainiac3397
brainiac3397
  • Member since: Aug. 29, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-29 23:29:58 Reply

My Anarchism is a very complex case. It's kind of like Anarchist against anything that does not fit into my views of an ideal government. So I'm not necessarily an Anarchist but concurrently I am an Anarchist.

Interesting indeed when i think about it.


De Nihilo Nihil Fit

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Anarchist Federation 2011-08-30 00:29:54 Reply

At 8/29/11 10:27 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: That sounds awesome and all until they start repressing education further so that they could never be challenged and progress would halt to a stand still.

Education was expensive back then. Paper was difficult to make and every book had to be hand written. Education didn't get repressed by the monarchs it was repressed because people simply couldn't afford to learn. The people also couldn't afford the weapons or armor that would be necessary to defend themselves from an invading army and had to depend upon the wealth of the monarchs if they didn't want to be massacred by the invading army.

Actually, they would have been able to move around more, initially yes, they would have lower life spans but they would eventually start smaller, cleaner settlements, meaning less disease. Topping that they would have freedom of speech and not have to worry about inquisitions or witch hunters.

The human population is too large for small clean settlements to exist. The population of the American continents before European colonization was only 100 million (sounds big except the current U.S. pop is over 300 million and that's one nation versus two continents) and they still wound up fighting for territory when the groups got too large.

for the very few who DO benefit.

While some people do benefit more than others with all forms of government, everyone does still get some benefit from a centralized society. Government wouldn't exist if there really was a way for everyone to benefit from anarchy.

His power structure would be much more fragile. He wouldn't be able to get control over as many people and the more powerful he would get, the more people he would scare. The more you scare people in a world with no police, the more likely you are to have an accident. Further more, it would be a more even fight because gorilla war would be much easier. Another exalted individual could rally people against this war lord just by using his own misdeeds against him.

People are very easily swayed, it isn't difficult to get a large following to be willing to do horrible things. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was in prison for leading a revolt, this was before he was Fuhrer. Of course even a small group can do a lot of damage. Two children in Burma were able to do so well fighting against an army with nothing more than a couple of AK-47s that they gained their own army which was still only about 300 people.

this is why smaller groups of people function so much better. people learn to compromise faster.

People also go insane easier. You blamed large communities earlier for the witch hunts but really it was the smaller communities that took part in witch hunts. Large communities didn't worry about it but in small communities you can't afford to have conflict so people stay quiet until tensions rise and eventually someone snaps and then entire community gets dragged into chaos with them.

get a bunch of geniuses to do it for them on their behalf and it will work out even worse.

When have geniuses ever been policy makers? I suppose you could call Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus tactical geniuses but under them Rome thrived. It was only under the rule of idiots and lunatics that Rome started to fall as an empire.

a legitimate problem should not be shot down that easily, you would be on the same train if you had been so ripped off by the system.

It's not a legitimate problem, it's a paranoid delusion. I've been screwed over by plenty of government systems but that doesn't mean that the entire government has some personal vendetta against me. And I'm extremely paranoid myself, if I don't sleep my paranoia can cause hallucinations so if I'm the one calling you delusional it's a good bet you are.

with no centralization there are no effective ways of manipulating them either. and once again, it would be a more even fight if you were to enforce it yourself.

How is it an even fight? Does every individual need to be armed to the teeth to protect themselves? The police have a large armament not to mention high quality body armor that the average person doesn't have access to which they need to fight the crime we already have with all the regulations we already have that keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals. What happens when some criminal element is or finds a person smart enough to build and ICBM or a nuclear weapon? Without a centralized government people can't fight that.

Every single civilization has and will fall at some point. non existence = not good for us is way too over generalized.

Not necessarily. Governments that work well and please the people stick around and evolve whereas those that don't die off. There's a reason our government still uses pieces of the Athenian republic and the Magna Carta.

and I won't be thrown in jail for defending my own property/ family.

Neither are people in our society. It's called self defense and so long as you can show that you have a real reason to defend yourself you won't go to prison.

there is no way he could get enough coordination to spread very far before collapsing. Plus it would be easier for people to just leave the area. and that is in the worst case scenario.

Actually there is a way because it has been done before. Like I said, people are easily swayed and if people just walk away they give up land which can be used to recruit more followers.

Yet individualism got us off the farms, if we weren't defiant we would still be surfs.

Individualism is not the same thing as defiance. Individualism was supported by the education of the monarchs and nobles who were the only ones at the time who could afford an education which lead to invention which eventually allowed education to be spread to those who weren't wealthy.

well then we will never know "what is good for us" and therefor will never stop suffering. And those periods of anarchy rose from periods of authoritarianism and misuse of power.

That doesn't make anarchy good it just means that people will try anything when desperate enough.

instead they will be starving ALMOST to death and enduring genocides. topping that we used to be able to hunt just fine, we would run after what ever wild bovine we could find until it died of heat stoke due to the fact that we had sweat glands and it did not (they can't pant while they are running).

First, hunting can't support a large society. Second, not everyone was able to hunt successfully and those who couldn't starved to death. Third, even when people were hunting to survive they had government.

a long gorilla war can though.

No it can't.

None of the text book ideologies exist either. Communism, Capitalism, neither has been truly implemented, and both are seriously flawed anyways. Dictatorships are dropping like flies nowadays (completely removing the ability to say they have stability now) and monarchies are almost a myth now. most monarchs don't even have any real power anymore anyways. if none of the systems made by man have worked, then that sort of sets an even playing field now doesn't it?

No it doesn't. Government is still developing and improving but it still is and always will be government. It is only with government that we have had the quality and expectancy of life increase as much as it has. Over 60% of the families in the U.S. that qualify as poor can still afford to regularly pay for cable TV. The average American has a life expectancy of over 70 years while the tribal culture which you frequently call anarchy despite it's government system only has an average life expectancy of 30 years.