Be a Supporter!

Anarchist Federation

  • 4,575 Views
  • 177 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 12th, 2011 @ 04:53 PM Reply

At 8/12/11 12:35 PM, Confucianism wrote:
At 8/12/11 12:06 PM, djack wrote: Without government there are no rule makers, without rule makers there are no rules, without rules there is nothing dictating what people can or can't do and therefore people have absolute power over their own actions and will eventually be corrupted just like any leader.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of corruption. It doesnt work like that.

Corruption is a willingness to abuse power to benefit yourself at the detriment to others (or if you prefer a dictionary definition: moral perversion; depravity, the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt, perversion of integrity, or corrupt or dishonest proceedings non of which are specific to government). If you have absolute power over your own actions without any laws telling you what not to do then there is nothing preventing you from abusing that power by taking advantage of other people.

MultiCanimefan
MultiCanimefan
  • Member since: Dec. 19, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 12th, 2011 @ 05:20 PM Reply

Confucianism can you honestly stop making yourself, me, Anarchy and real anarchists as a whole look bad?

camobch0
camobch0
  • Member since: Jan. 10, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Gamer
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 12th, 2011 @ 05:21 PM Reply

You guys should just give up, it's like arguing with a small child or glen beck. In fact, you may be arguing with a small child or glen beck (they're essentially the same mentally.)

No matter how idiotically incorrect his ideas are in every way, he ain't gonna drop them.


A vagina is really just a hat for a penis.

BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 12th, 2011 @ 09:17 PM Reply

At 8/12/11 05:20 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Confucianism can you honestly stop making yourself, me, Anarchy and real anarchists as a whole look bad?

what is this Marxist paradise bs? I WANNA BREAK THINGS!

serious time: i think once the population becomes too big, things become a little bit hard to hold together. if i could chose any system of government, i would chose DIRECT democracy. (this system is only still used in Switzerland, it was first used by Greeks and then again by the Vikings.) and look at Switzerland as an example of this, they are a very small country with little space to develop and yet they are rolling in cash. They refuse to go to wars, maintain a very powerful DEFENSIVE military. (all this without having direct access to the ocean either.)

how direct democracy works is people as individuals have a say in what happens. It does not go by regional representation and you don't have to elect people to speak for you. In this day and age, even for Switzerland it would be a challenge so I'm sure they made some compromises but it works great. they hold a lot of referendums for any sort of large change such as joining the UN.

my second choice is anarchy as it has occurred in nature with everything being in balance. what we have now is 100% going to crash and burn at some point.


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

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 12th, 2011 @ 09:30 PM Reply

At 8/12/11 09:17 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: serious time: i think once the population becomes too big, things become a little bit hard to hold together. if i could chose any system of government, i would chose DIRECT democracy. (this system is only still used in Switzerland, it was first used by Greeks and then again by the Vikings.) and look at Switzerland as an example of this, they are a very small country with little space to develop and yet they are rolling in cash. They refuse to go to wars, maintain a very powerful DEFENSIVE military. (all this without having direct access to the ocean either.)

how direct democracy works is people as individuals have a say in what happens. It does not go by regional representation and you don't have to elect people to speak for you. In this day and age, even for Switzerland it would be a challenge so I'm sure they made some compromises but it works great. they hold a lot of referendums for any sort of large change such as joining the UN.

my second choice is anarchy as it has occurred in nature with everything being in balance. what we have now is 100% going to crash and burn at some point.

It helps that the people of Switzerland are surrounded by passes (much like the one the Greeks defended at Thermopylae) and never needed to go to war until the development of aerial combat. That's a very large advantage that no other nation on the planet has had and is the sole reason the Swiss are in a position to remain neutral in the world.

Also, where is this natural anarchy? Every creature in nature that lives in groups has some form of hierarchy that would constitute a government society. Apes even have methods of capitalist currency using service barters to pay for the things they want/need. If you know of some group of animals that does have a true anarchy don't hold back.

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 13th, 2011 @ 03:00 AM Reply

At 8/12/11 09:30 PM, djack wrote:
At 8/12/11 09:17 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: serious time: i think once the population becomes too big, things become a little bit hard to hold together. if i could chose any system of government, i would chose DIRECT democracy. (this system is only still used in Switzerland, it was first used by Greeks and then again by the Vikings.) and look at Switzerland as an example of this, they are a very small country with little space to develop and yet they are rolling in cash. They refuse to go to wars, maintain a very powerful DEFENSIVE military. (all this without having direct access to the ocean either.)

how direct democracy works is people as individuals have a say in what happens. It does not go by regional representation and you don't have to elect people to speak for you. In this day and age, even for Switzerland it would be a challenge so I'm sure they made some compromises but it works great. they hold a lot of referendums for any sort of large change such as joining the UN.

my second choice is anarchy as it has occurred in nature with everything being in balance. what we have now is 100% going to crash and burn at some point.
It helps that the people of Switzerland are surrounded by passes (much like the one the Greeks defended at Thermopylae) and never needed to go to war until the development of aerial combat. That's a very large advantage that no other nation on the planet has had and is the sole reason the Swiss are in a position to remain neutral in the world.

Also, where is this natural anarchy? Every creature in nature that lives in groups has some form of hierarchy that would constitute a government society. Apes even have methods of capitalist currency using service barters to pay for the things they want/need. If you know of some group of animals that does have a true anarchy don't hold back.

for one, i have already linked to the humbolt squid, heck there are a few animals that behave in the same way it does where it just runs around eating everything in sight including its own species. Sharks attack eachother too, but thats not the point, its more of just reverting to how humans behaved before we had to worry about sucking up all of the earth's resources. not so much "anarchy" as it is more like "the good old days when all you had to fear was starvation and maybe an aggressive tribe or two." instead of having to fear bankruptcy, terrorists, corrupt politicians and the distinct possibility of nuclear annihilation.

and the part where of Switzerland is highly defensible does contribute to their ability to remain neutral but only from aggression, they have referendums over big changes in foreign policy. If America did this I highly doubt the US would be in Iraq right now. there's a good chance you wouldn't be in Libya either. I like that they can't just go to war against the will of their own people on a whim, staying neutral has also avoided raising the ire of terrorist groups in the same way american interventionism did. (although Russia, Britain and France are pretty guilty of this as well.)

but the main part that appeals to me is that your vote always counts and you have a say in what your government does at all times. only possible in small nations but that's why i don't like this world of big nations with .


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

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 13th, 2011 @ 10:31 AM Reply

At 8/13/11 03:00 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: for one, i have already linked to the humbolt squid, heck there are a few animals that behave in the same way it does where it just runs around eating everything in sight including its own species. Sharks attack eachother too, but thats not the point, its more of just reverting to how humans behaved before we had to worry about sucking up all of the earth's resources. not so much "anarchy" as it is more like "the good old days when all you had to fear was starvation and maybe an aggressive tribe or two." instead of having to fear bankruptcy, terrorists, corrupt politicians and the distinct possibility of nuclear annihilation.

Even in "the good old days" there were leaders. The creatures you've mentioned as being anarchist live alone except when they are trying to mate or eat each other in which case they do the deed and run away. Humans can't live alone, we're pack animal by nature and need companionship. All animals that live in groups have a leader it's the inevitable result of multiple individuals living and working together for the benefit of the group.

and the part where of Switzerland is highly defensible does contribute to their ability to remain neutral but only from aggression, they have referendums over big changes in foreign policy. If America did this I highly doubt the US would be in Iraq right now. there's a good chance you wouldn't be in Libya either. I like that they can't just go to war against the will of their own people on a whim, staying neutral has also avoided raising the ire of terrorist groups in the same way american interventionism did. (although Russia, Britain and France are pretty guilty of this as well.)

If Switzerland wasn't so easily defensible they never would have had the opportunity to be neutral. Most nations in the world have to spend their time anticipating potential threats and then doing what is necessary to stop those threats from attacking. In case you've forgotten Hussein didn't exactly discourage the U.S. from believing he had nuclear weapons and he did have biological and chemical weapons which he had been testing on his own people, besides the fact that the Iraqi people haven't been the ones opposing U.S. troops but instead it was terrorists entering Iraq for the sole purpose of attacking us. Terrorists create conflict where it isn't necessary to attack the nations that they see as evil for having the freedoms that they aren't permitted in their own nations. If you really believe that our presence in the Middle East is the only reason the U.S. is attacked by terrorists then you are deluding yourself.

but the main part that appeals to me is that your vote always counts and you have a say in what your government does at all times. only possible in small nations but that's why i don't like this world of big nations with .

Small nations grow. The only way to prevent that is to enact severe birth control laws that most people would see as a violation of their rights and in your idea of a perfect nation would quickly be voted away by the people.

surfingthechaos
surfingthechaos
  • Member since: Mar. 3, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 15th, 2011 @ 03:12 AM Reply

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.

Just to point out one huge logical fallacy. It was implied that since there had been no major anarchist societies in the past it was in fact impossible for an anarchist society to exist. I believe this would fall under the category of fallacy of converse accident or hasty generalization. Even if we assume for argument's sake that all the OP's examples weren't good enough, it still does not follow that anarchy is inherently unsustainable.

In fact the whole underlying motivation behind anarchism is the idea that our modern day civilization is doing almost everything wrong, so it would follow there wouldn't be many examples of societies doing things right, and that it something everyone should be able to agree on. If you look at the world and cannot see that things need to change then well what the hell are you arguing for anyway? Just go out and enjoy your perfect fantasy world.

Now the difference between anarchists and non-anarchist is the non-anarchist will make an appeal to the concept of a "necessary evil". So no matter how self-destructive our culture becomes, the non-anarchist simply views it as a fact of life. You all should be able to make the connection with the story about the frog in the boiling water.

Also there's the whole self-fulfilling prophecy thing. The non-anarchist always obsesses about how there would be just one person who would throw everything into chaos. Well you know who that one person is? It's not some bloodthirsty monster. There's no one like that out there in the real world. Almost everyone has some sort of perceived justification for there own actions, just like you have a perceived justification for the excesses and depravity of the state. So what are you truly afraid of? The answer is you are afraid of yourself.

One final thing. In response to the idea that anarchy conflicts with human nature, well so does the system we are currently under. Just look at how much grueling effort you have wasted in this thread trying to discredit the philosophy of anarchy. Just who is it you are trying to convince? Let's just say for the moment that true anarchy is somehow "impossible". Then shouldn't the idea be to use the concept of anarchy as a reference to put our efforts towards getting as close to it as we possibly can? 99.999% of the speed of light is still a lot faster than 65 miles per hour. Ya get my drift?

Confucianism
Confucianism
  • Member since: Jul. 19, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Audiophile
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 15th, 2011 @ 08:45 AM 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 Aug. 25th, 2011 @ 12:28 PM 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 Aug. 25th, 2011 @ 02:14 PM 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 Aug. 25th, 2011 @ 02:18 PM 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 Aug. 25th, 2011 @ 02:37 PM 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 Aug. 25th, 2011 @ 02:42 PM 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 Aug. 25th, 2011 @ 02:53 PM 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 Aug. 25th, 2011 @ 03:27 PM 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
simple-but-sandy
simple-but-sandy
  • Member since: Nov. 1, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 25th, 2011 @ 03:42 PM Reply

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.

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.

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".

Anarchist societies such as the Free Territory, Catalonia, Paris Commune etc didn't descend into chaos.

They don't anymore though. Funny that.

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.

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.

Bastards
Always
Win.


Good morrow to you, Magistrate!

BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 25th, 2011 @ 04:48 PM 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
simple-but-sandy
simple-but-sandy
  • Member since: Nov. 1, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 26th, 2011 @ 03:13 PM Reply

At 8/25/11 04:48 PM, BritZombie wrote: All these years? How far back are we going?

Depends on when you can say we first started to prosper. It came quicker to some than it did to others.

So would it make sense to be against Monarchies because they were around for many more centuries?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I was responding to the comment that people are unable to control themselves, pointing out I disbelieve in it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't know what you mean by juggernaut, but some form of military or defense sure.

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.

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.

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.

So now you want TOTAL state control?

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.

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.

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.

They'll be more prevalent in societies where ruthlessness, greed and hoarding are more beneficial to people, like now.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.


Good morrow to you, Magistrate!

BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 27th, 2011 @ 11:11 AM 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 Aug. 27th, 2011 @ 08:44 PM 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 Aug. 27th, 2011 @ 08:53 PM 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 Aug. 27th, 2011 @ 09:40 PM 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
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 27th, 2011 @ 10:16 PM 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!


BBS Signature
elcriz000
elcriz000
  • Member since: Mar. 3, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 28th, 2011 @ 06:18 AM 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 Aug. 28th, 2011 @ 08:37 AM 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 Aug. 28th, 2011 @ 08:45 AM 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 Aug. 28th, 2011 @ 08:50 AM 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 Aug. 28th, 2011 @ 11:32 AM 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 Aug. 28th, 2011 @ 11:41 AM 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