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 societyHow 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.