Revolution Is Useless. Revolution Is Hopeless.

[SavagePostModern]

I figured my version of anarchistic philosophy would be put in the opposing ideologies right away, being that I don't see socialism or communism as a form of human salvation, like many here seem to believe.

So I decided to put my threads in the opposing ideologies section of this website in order to bring about some sort of convenience for the moderators here, so that they wouldn't have to, later on knowing that what I have to say probably won't be well liked here. Your welcome.


Now to what I have to say when it concerns this thread............................


Revolution is merely where one dictator or authoritarianship comes to be replaced by a newer one.

Revolution is merely where the oppressed overthrow their oppressors only to become the new oppressors themselves.

Revolution is only useful to the party or faction that assumes power.

Politics is merely where individual people come out promising other people various things in order to get into office where once they are in office they never fulfill what they originally said and then go on to fill their pockets with other people's wealth.

Politics are only useful to politicians.

This is my rudimentary definition of revolution and politics and why I view them being useless or hopeless endeavors.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So your alternative is... ?

[bellyscratch]

Revolution is not necessarily where on dictator is replaced by another one. This may be true of more authoritarian versions of communism, but not of a more libertarian communist view of revolution. In the more libertarian version, the working class people will organise themselves to take power so everyone can have equal political and economic power, ie there won't be one class of people above another in society, and no ruling elite that is supposed to guide the revolution for the working class.

[SavagePostModern]

So your alternative is... ?

Genuine anarchy. Where anything and everything goes.

Total independence to whatever people want and will.

[Kronos]

I'm going to doctor up this enormous run-on sentence for you, SPM. Edit your opening statement to this, and you'll go places:

I figured my version of anarchistic philosophy would be put in the opposing ideologies right away, being that I don't see socialism or communism as a form of human salvation, like many here seem to believe.

So I decided to put my threads in the opposing ideologies section of this website in order to bring about some sort of convenience for the moderators here, so that they wouldn't have to, later on knowing that what I have to say probably won't be well liked here. Your welcome.

[ scratches chin ]

Yeah, that reads better.

[SavagePostModern]

Revolution is not necessarily where on dictator is replaced by another one. This may be true of more authoritarian versions of communism, but not of a more libertarian communist view of revolution. In the more libertarian version, the working class people will organise themselves to take power so everyone can have equal political and economic power, ie there won't be one class of people above another in society, and no ruling elite that is supposed to guide the revolution for the working class.


Revolution is not necessarily where on dictator is replaced by another one.

It isn't? Then tell me what it is.


This may be true of more authoritarian versions of communism, but not of a more libertarian communist view of revolution.

Well I wouldn't know because I haven't seen any historical examples of libertarian communism playing out in history.

My beef with communism is that it is so naively utopian.

My expiriences of life with my sense of realism is that human beings are cruel and will do whatever it takes to survive even when it concerns enslaving other human beings.


In the more libertarian version, the working class people will organise themselves to take power so everyone can have equal political and economic power,

Where they will become the newer dictators.



ie there won't be one class of people above another in society, and no ruling elite that is supposed to guide the revolution for the working class.

There is always a hierarchy somewhere. Don't tell me about some fantastical future where there is a absence of hierarchy because I'm simply not buying it.

[RGacky3]

Revolution is merely where one dictator or authoritarianship comes to be replaced by a newer one.

Revolution is merely where the oppressed overthrow their oppressors only to become the new oppressors themselves.

Revolution is only useful to the party or faction that assumes power.

Politics is merely where individual people come out promising other people various things in order to get into office where once they are in office they never fulfill what they originally said and then go on to fill their pockets with other people's wealth.

Politics are only useful to politicians.

This is my rudimentary definition of revolution and politics and why I view them being useless or hopeless endeavors.

Revolution, is waht has given workers the rights they have today, in both europe and the United States.

Revolution is not only, a political party taking state power.

[Muzk]

Total independence to whatever people want and will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AzpByR3MvI

[SavagePostModern]

I'm going to doctor up this enormous run-on sentence for you, SPM. Edit your opening statement to this, and you'll go places:

I figured my version of anarchistic philosophy would be put in the opposing ideologies right away, being that I don't see socialism or communism as a form of human salvation, like many here seem to believe.

So I decided to put my threads in the opposing ideologies section of this website in order to bring about some sort of convenience for the moderators here, so that they wouldn't have to, later on knowing that what I have to say probably won't be well liked here. Your welcome.

[ scratches chin ]

Yeah, that reads better.

Thanks. :)

[RGacky3]

I'll repost this for all you "buuhuuu, it has'nt happend yet" pussies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR7dNntU5oI

[SavagePostModern]

3AzpByR3MvI

Hilarious video but I fail to see what it has to do with the current topic being spoke about in this thread.

( Nice form of humor you got there.)

[SavagePostModern]

Revolution, is waht has given workers the rights they have today, in both europe and the United States.

Revolution is not only, a political party taking state power.

What rights are you speaking about?

The right to be under the boot heel of the ruling class?

Disenfranchisement, exploitation, and social inequality exists everywhere still.

Spare me your rosy viewed rhetoric and your naive idealism.



Revolution is not only, a political party taking state power.


Yeah it is. It's always about power. Social power is what drives social dynamics.

[bellyscratch]

It isn't? Then tell me what it is.

Well I wouldn't know because I haven't seen any historical examples of libertarian communism playing out in history.

My beef with communism is that it is so naively utopian.

My expiriences of life with my sense of realism is that human beings are cruel and will do whatever it takes to survive even when it concerns enslaving other human beings.

Where they will become the newer dictators.

There is always a hierarchy somewhere. Don't tell me about some fantastical future where there is a absence of hierarchy because I'm simply not buying it.

I thin the best historical example is from the Spanish Civil war with what the CNT-FAI attempted do, with eventual failure, but definitely showed what the possibilities are. I suggest looking more into that anyway.

But if through the revolution you are setting up full directly democratic institutions in the work place and and communities, then you have more horizontal networks, where you won't have anyone ruling over another person. I think it can degenerate into being undemocratic if mistakes are made, but I think its possible to do so.

But, I don't see your alternative really...

[Muzk]

Do what you want cuz a pirate is free, you are a pirate!

Yarr harr rape pillage plunder, being an anarchist is alright to be! Do what you want cuz a pirate is free, you are a pirate!

[SavagePostModern]

I'll repost this for all you "buuhuuu, it has'nt happend yet" pussies.

LR7dNntU5oI

I'm not buying it. :)

If it hasn't happened in two thousand somthing years it's not going to happen now.

You social utopics with your social idealism centering around social engineering and some fantastic social equilibrium equally centered around an ideal are amusing to me.

You are no different than Plato when he was writing his Republic on the ideal state of human beings several thousands of years ago.

( And we all know how well his writings and ideals took off..........) ( Laughs.)

[SavagePostModern]

Do what you want cuz a pirate is free, you are a pirate!

Yarr harr rape pillage plunder, being an anarchist is alright to be! Do what you want cuz a pirate is free, you are a pirate!

So are you going to present a actual argument or are you just going to jest around in crude mockery?

Of course I could care less what you do in that whatever you choose to do only reveals what you are all the more clearly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Genuine anarchy. Where anything and everything goes.

Total independence to whatever people want and will.

That's not what we have now, so how do you think we should achieve it?

In any case, I fear you are being too broad. A society where "anything and everything" goes sounds like a society doomed to collapse.

[SavagePostModern]

I thin the best historical example is from the Spanish Civil war with what the CNT-FAI attempted do, with eventual failure, but definitely showed what the possibilities are. I suggest looking more into that anyway.

But if through the revolution you are setting up full directly democratic institutions in the work place and and communities, then you have more horizontal networks, where you won't have anyone ruling over another person. I think it can degenerate into being undemocratic if mistakes are made, but I think its possible to do so.

But, I don't see your alternative really...


I thin the best historical example is from the Spanish Civil war with what the CNT-FAI attempted do, with eventual failure, but definitely showed what the possibilities are.

Going to that historical piece of history, what failed them?:)

I'm somewhat knowledgeable on the subject.


But if through the revolution you are setting up full directly democratic institutions in the work place and and communities, then you have more horizontal networks, where you won't have anyone ruling over another person.

Because we all know that tyranny by the majority through democracy is so much better........:laugh:

[SavagePostModern]

That's not what we have now, so how do you think we should achieve it?

In any case, I fear you are being too broad. A society where "anything and everything" goes sounds like a society doomed to collapse.

How would it be achieved?

With the destruction of global society and civilization.

I don't view civilization as being necessary to human survival.

Civilization is merely a tabernacle of ideals, wants, and desires controlled by the ruling class.

There is no reason why civilization must exist.



A society where "anything and everything" goes sounds like a society doomed to collapse.


Societies collapse all the time. And?

You seem to think civilization is necessary to humanity's existence. I don't.

[RGacky3]

What rights are you speaking about?

The right to be under the boot heel of the ruling class?

Disenfranchisement, exploitation, and social inequality exists everywhere still.

Spare me your rosy viewed rhetoric and your naive idealism.

I suppose workers struggles hav'nt achieved anything have they.

In many parts of the world working conditiosn have gone up, workers have more say over their lives, Capitalists cannot do whatever they want anymore, BECAUSE of workers struggles.

Have things reached perfect utopia? No, but to scrape off decades of workers struggles is rediculous.

So Capitalism has'nt been overthrown yet, How long did it take for Monarchies to be overthrown?


Yeah it is. It's always about power. Social power is what drives social dynamics.

Thats not what I said, I said a POLITICAL PARTY taking STATE POWER. Which is all some people like you seam to think it is.

Not ALL power is from who is the president, or what party is in parliment or congress.


You social utopics with your social idealism centering around social engineering and some fantastic social equilibrium equally centered around an ideal are amusing to me.

What? social equilibrium? Social engineering? What the hell are you talking about?

YOu don't even know what your arguing against do you. Is democracy a fantasy?

[SavagePostModern]

I suppose workers struggles hav'nt achieved anything have they.

In many parts of the world working conditiosn have gone up, workers have more say over their lives, Capitalists cannot do whatever they want anymore, BECAUSE of workers struggles.

Have things reached perfect utopia? No, but to scrape off decades of workers struggles is rediculous.

So Capitalism has'nt been overthrown yet, How long did it take for Monarchies to be overthrown?



Thats not what I said, I said a POLITICAL PARTY taking STATE POWER. Which is all some people like you seam to think it is.

Not ALL power is from who is the president, or what party is in parliment or congress.



What? social equilibrium? Social engineering? What the hell are you talking about?

YOu don't even know what your arguing against do you. Is democracy a fantasy?


I suppose workers struggles hav'nt achieved anything have they.

The illusion of compassion maybe.

( Effective PR propaganda campaigns too.)

It changes nothing of the fact this world comprises of two distinct types of people.

Those with power and those without it.


In many parts of the world working conditiosn have gone up, workers have more say over their lives,

Such as?



Capitalists cannot do whatever they want anymore, BECAUSE of workers struggles.


We live under corporate government authoritarianships. Of course they do whatever they want.


Have things reached perfect utopia? No,

Congratulations you know that it hasn't. Now ask yourself why and reflect.


but to scrape off decades of workers struggles is rediculous.

I'm still waiting for you to describe these benefits you keep speaking of.



So Capitalism has'nt been overthrown yet, How long did it take for Monarchies to be overthrown?



Capitalism will never be overthrown so long as any form of government or representational authority exists.

Even modern so called socialist and communist governments are dominated by corporations.

This is why anarchists have a more effective insight versus socialists or communists because they know that the root of human social inequality lies in government in that the inequality found in representational economics known as capitalism that communists and socialists always complain about merely is a manifestation of governments and the ruling class.

Capitalism is merely a manifestation of government and human social hierarchy.

As soon as you understand this the sooner it will save some debate between us.



Thats not what I said, I said a POLITICAL PARTY taking STATE POWER. Which is all some people like you seam to think it is.

Not ALL power is from who is the president, or what party is in parliment or congress.


Of course it is. What other type of power is there?


What? social equilibrium? Social engineering? What the hell are you talking about?

The main tenets of communism and socialism.


YOu don't even know what your arguing against do you.

Of course I do but I'm not so sure about you however.............



Is democracy a fantasy?


A democracy is tyranny by the majority.

[RGacky3]

What rights are you speaking about?

The right to be under the boot heel of the ruling class?

Disenfranchisement, exploitation, and social inequality exists everywhere still.

Spare me your rosy viewed rhetoric and your naive idealism.

I suppose workers struggles hav'nt achieved anything have they.

In many parts of the world working conditiosn have gone up, workers have more say over their lives, Capitalists cannot do whatever they want anymore, BECAUSE of workers struggles.

Have things reached perfect utopia? No, but to scrape off decades of workers struggles is rediculous.

So Capitalism has'nt been overthrown yet, How long did it take for Monarchies to be overthrown?


Yeah it is. It's always about power. Social power is what drives social dynamics.

Thats not what I said, I said a POLITICAL PARTY taking STATE POWER. Which is all some people like you seam to think it is.

Not ALL power is from who is the president, or what party is in parliment or congress.


You social utopics with your social idealism centering around social engineering and some fantastic social equilibrium equally centered around an ideal are amusing to me.

What? social equilibrium? Social engineering? What the hell are you talking about?

YOu don't even know what your arguing against do you. Is democracy a fantasy?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

With the destruction of global society and civilization.

I don't view civilization as being necessary to human survival.

Really? Because it is vitally necessary, as it happens. Even if we manage to avoid blowing ourselves up, the thoughtless natural universe will certainly snuff us out if we do nothing to prevent it.

For those unlucky enough to survive a hypothetical collapse of civilisation, they'll have all the freedom in the world to do what they want - except that they won't, because they'll be too busy concentrating on surviving or dying.


Civilization is merely a tabernacle of ideals, wants, and desires controlled by the ruling class.

If that was all civilisation was then I would agree with you. But it is so much more than that.


There is no reason why civilization must exist.

Aside from the continued survival of the human species.

[red cat]

Genuine anarchy. Where anything and everything goes.

Total independence to whatever people want and will.

And how exactly will this society be achieved?

[SavagePostModern]

And how exactly will this society be achieved?

With a slow momentum building over time of lower classes, workers, and other disenfranchised individuals coming together in rebellion.

( Through guerilla warfare.)

In the future assuming humanity and this planet lives long enough before the rest of the universe destroys us along with everything else that exists I imagine all conflicts will be between a global state or government and those that oppose it.

( Just a crude guess of mine.)

I imagine a future being ruled by a global technocratic authoritarian so called progressive dictatorship revolving around a absurd twisted form of transhumanism.

[bellyscratch]

With a slow momentum of the lower classes, workers, and other disenfranchised individuals coming together.

In the future assuming humanity and this planet lives long enough before the rest of the universe destroys us along with everything that exists all conflicts will be between a global state or government and those that oppose it.

( Just a crude guess of mine.)

But eventually won't that state try split this up and therefore provoke a reaction and show the need for a revolution to overthrow the system?

[SavagePostModern]

Really? Because it is vitally necessary, as it happens. Even if we manage to avoid blowing ourselves up, the thoughtless natural universe will certainly snuff us out if we do nothing to prevent it.

For those unlucky enough to survive a hypothetical collapse of civilisation, they'll have all the freedom in the world to do what they want - except that they won't, because they'll be too busy concentrating on surviving or dying.



If that was all civilisation was then I would agree with you. But it is so much more than that.



Aside from the continued survival of the human species.


Really? Because it is vitally necessary, as it happens.

How?




Even if we manage to avoid blowing ourselves up, the thoughtless natural universe will certainly snuff us out if we do nothing to prevent it.


Cosmological entropy is a *****. There is no escaping it however.


For those unlucky enough to survive a hypothetical collapse of civilisation, they'll have all the freedom in the world to do what they want - except that they won't, because they'll be too busy concentrating on surviving or dying.

Adapt or die. And?


If that was all civilisation was then I would agree with you. But it is so much more than that.

You believe it is more. I do not hold such sentiments or emotions.

Explain yourself.



Aside from the continued survival of the human species.


Humanity's purpose like everything else is annihilation and extinguishment.

We are not immortals. We will not live forever. Our future is not that of immortal technological gods.

[red cat]

With a slow momentum building over time of lower classes, workers, and other disenfranchised individuals coming together in rebellion.

( Through guerilla warfare.)

In the future assuming humanity and this planet lives long enough before the rest of the universe destroys us along with everything else that exists all conflicts will be between a global state or government and those that oppose it.

( Just a crude guess of mine.)

I imagine a future being ruled by a global technocratic authoritarian so called progressive dictatorship revolving around a absurd twisted form of transhumanism.

What are the aspects of your plan that differ with all the revolutions so far? In details please.

[Muzk]

The op is even worse than anarchists, he wants a state where crime can go unpunished and women used as sex objects, we should leave this!

[SavagePostModern]

But eventually won't that state try split this up and therefore provoke a reaction and show the need for a revolution to overthrow the system?

Of course they'll try. I'm no oracle.

I cannot predict the future anymore any one else can.

It's just a crude prediction or guess of mine.

[SavagePostModern]

The op is even worse than anarchists, he wants a state where crime can go unpunished and women used as sex objects, we should leave this!

Do I make you nervous? Am I frightening to you?

I suppose now you are going hide behind a bastion of belief which you call morality, ethics, and rights.

( Childish.)

( Please tell me about these so called universal entitlements that you believe yourself and others to have.)

Perhaps you should leave if you cannot engage me. Save yourself now and leave.



"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime"


-Max Stirner

[SavagePostModern]

What are the aspects of your plan that differ with all the revolutions so far? In details please.

Plan? I have no plan. I could care less about others and what they do. I'm only concerned about me.

As far as I'm concerned it's every man, woman, and child for themselves.

What I spoke about is just a future I imagine. I'm merely expressing an opinion.

I have no grand plan. It's up to individuals to save themselves.

I will say that violence is the only effective means of rebellion which might seperate me from alot of mainstream people. ( Laughs.)

[Muzk]

Do I make you nervous? Am I frightening to you?

I suppose now you are going hide behind a bastion of belief which you call morality, ethics, and rights.

( Childish.)



Yes it's totally childish you cool gangsta homie! Liek, humans have no rights at all, weak people shall die in a society where there are no rules! Hell yes! Women are only objects to men, fuck them!

[SavagePostModern]

Yes it's totally childish you cool gangsta homie! Liek, humans have no rights at all, weak people shall die in a society where there are no rules! Hell yes! Women are only objects to men, fuck them!

Your a funny character. ( Amusing.)

Evolution is where a variety of organisms devour each other in the attempt of their own survival and self interests.



Perhaps your just too much of a cupcake to see that.

Existence is not some playground where everybody holds hands and gets along singing around a camp fire.

Are you a pacifist? Naively unrealistic. Is this the best you got? It's clearly not enough.

[Muzk]

Ok you're fucked up. You're fascist scum!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How?

Allow me to explain:


Cosmological entropy is a *****. There is no escaping it however.

The heat death of the universe is quite a big problem, but thankfully we have a lot of time to investigate it. In the meantime, there are plenty of other natural problems that we will encounter, such as asteroid impacts, ice ages, supervolcano eruptions, the progression of the Sun into the red giant stage, the death of all stars (which will happen long before heat death), and so on and so forth.

It is thanks to civilisation that we are even aware of such problems and thus have a chance to do something about them.


Adapt or die. And?

Civilisation is one of the ways we adapted instead of dying. Considering there are 6.5 billion and counting humans spread over all continents, I'd say it's a massively successful strategy.


You believe it is more. I do not hold such sentiments or emotions.

Explain yourself.

Civilisation has created a vast wealth of scientific knowledge and technology as well as throwing open the doors of human imagination and tearing down some of the walls between human cultures. The implementation is not perfect, but now that we know such things are possible our task is to ensure that every member of the human race has the opportunity to benefit, which they currently do not.


Humanity's purpose like everything else is annihilation and extinguishment.

Purpose is a human construct, therefore our purpose as a species is whatever we want it to be.


We are not immortals. We will not live forever.

There's no biological reason why we couldn't.


Our future is not that of immortal technological gods.

If it is not, it should be.

[Ele'ill]

Hey I don't know how much of this was already weeded out but I'm going to reply to all of it because the original thread maker deserves everyone's opinion. :)






Revolution is merely where one dictator or authoritarianship comes to be replaced by a newer one.


There will always be someone(s) or someone(s) ideas ruling or governing how people live even if it comes in the form of some anarchistic collective understanding of how things should be. Replacing an atrocious system governed by horrible people with a better system with better people is the goal.


Revolution is merely where the oppressed overthrow their oppressors only to become the new oppressors themselves.


Its important to note that being well off but pissed off at a system doesn't mean you're oppressed.




Revolution is only useful to the party or faction that assumes power.

Unless as you just said- The oppressed rise up and free themselves.

What if these newly liberated people want nothing to do with that old government? Their revolutionary intent was never to overthrow a government but simply to get free. They move to an island somewhere and live as anarchists.




Politics is merely where individual people come out promising other people various things in order to get into office where once they are in office they never fulfill what they originally said and then go on to fill their pockets with other people's wealth.

You are correct- although in current politics - people rise to power to get other people rich.




This is my rudimentary definition of revolution and politics and why I view them being useless or hopeless endeavors.

What do you think of reform?

What do you think of the civil rights movement?

[SavagePostModern]

Ok you're fucked up. You're fascist scum!

And so without having anything to say in return of intellect our local amusing jester comes out with insults and defamations because they perceive a threat in their midst.

Absolutely riveting.:laugh:

Keep it up. I've needed a good laugh all day now. You just might be my entertainment for this afternoon.

[SavagePostModern]

Allow me to explain:



The heat death of the universe is quite a big problem, but thankfully we have a lot of time to investigate it. In the meantime, there are plenty of other natural problems that we will encounter, such as asteroid impacts, ice ages, supervolcano eruptions, the progression of the Sun into the red giant stage, the death of all stars (which will happen long before heat death), and so on and so forth.

It is thanks to civilisation that we are even aware of such problems and thus have a chance to do something about them.



Civilisation is one of the ways we adapted instead of dying. Considering there are 6.5 billion and counting humans spread over all continents, I'd say it's a massively successful strategy.



Civilisation has created a vast wealth of scientific knowledge and technology as well as throwing open the doors of human imagination and tearing down some of the walls between human cultures. The implementation is not perfect, but now that we know such things are possible our task is to ensure that every member of the human race has the opportunity to benefit, which they currently do not.



Purpose is a human construct, therefore our purpose as a species is whatever we want it to be.



There's no biological reason why we couldn't.



If it is not, it should be.



The heat death of the universe is quite a big problem,

There is no problem. It is only a natural cycle just as it is the natural cycle that we all must die.



but thankfully we have a lot of time to investigate it.

Not really. This little planet of ours can be destroyed at any minute for the universe is a giant shooting gallery.

I'm not at all optimistic which you seem to be stemming from.


In the meantime, there are plenty of other natural problems that we will encounter, such as asteroid impacts, ice ages, supervolcano eruptions, the progression of the Sun into the red giant stage, the death of all stars (which will happen long before heat death), and so on and so forth.

Indeed. It seems that the universe has no intentions of keeping us alive for very long.


It is thanks to civilisation that we are even aware of such problems and thus have a chance to do something about them.

Nothing will be done. You seem to think human beings will somehow manipulate and transform the universe like some mystical god where there is some switch that needs to pulled where everything will be ok afterwards.

I'm just not seeing it.


Civilisation is one of the ways we adapted instead of dying.

Civilization is not benefited equally to everyone.

Only specific groups of people benefit from civilization while many just toil and labor under it.


Considering there are 6.5 billion and counting humans spread over all continents, I'd say it's a massively successful strategy.

And with the destruction of our natural enviroment we are sure doing a bang up job, aren't we?

( Not to mention the many forms of human suffering within the confines of civilization.)

Are we still optimistic? Wow............


Civilisation has created a vast wealth of scientific knowledge and technology as well as throwing open the doors of human imagination and tearing down some of the walls between human cultures.

Yes the vast wealth of scientific knowledge and technology is owed to the existence of civilization but with that both have come with a terrible price or hardship when it concerns our specie.

The fact of the matter is that civilization thrives on human suffering and inequality where I see no change from that.



The implementation is not perfect,

Definately not.



but now that we know such things are possible our task is to ensure that every member of the human race has the opportunity to benefit, which they currently do not.



You will never have a system that ends up in the totality of equality for everybody.


Purpose is a human construct, therefore our purpose as a species is whatever we want it to be.

You seem to think limitations don't exist. Have fun Icarus.




There's no biological reason why we couldn't.


Having dreams of fancy where everybody lives as immortals?

Tell me, have you ever watched the movie Zardoz? Go watch that movie and get back to me.



If it is not, it should be.


The absurd "ought" dichotomy.

[Havet]

I believe a revolution will indeed be necessary, but only when the State tries to unleash its final force, after being weakened through counter-economics:

http://pensarismo.blogspot.com/2009/08/geographic-counter-economics.html


When the State unleashes its final wave of suppression - and is successfully resisted - this is the definition of Revolution. Once realization has occurred that the State no longer can plunder and pay-of its parasitical class, the enforcers will switch sides to those better able to pay them and the State will rapidly implode into a series of pockets of Statism in backward area - if any.

[SavagePostModern]

Hey I don't know how much of this was already weeded out but I'm going to reply to all of it because the original thread maker deserves everyone's opinion. :)








There will always be someone(s) or someone(s) ideas ruling or governing how people live even if it comes in the form of some anarchistic collective understanding of how things should be. Replacing an atrocious system governed by horrible people with a better system with better people is the goal.




Its important to note that being well off but pissed off at a system doesn't mean you're oppressed.





Unless as you just said- The oppressed rise up and free themselves.

What if these newly liberated people want nothing to do with that old government? Their revolutionary intent was never to overthrow a government but simply to get free. They move to an island somewhere and live as anarchists.





You are correct- although in current politics - people rise to power to get other people rich.





What do you think of reform?

What do you think of the civil rights movement?




Hey I don't know how much of this was already weeded out but I'm going to reply to all of it because the original thread maker deserves everyone's opinion. :)


Weeded out? Am I a weed that needs rooting out?



There will always be someone(s) or someone(s) ideas ruling or governing how people live even if it comes in the form of some anarchistic collective understanding of how things should be. Replacing an atrocious system governed by horrible people with a better system with better people is the goal.


What is better? And if you are willing to admit that you must realize the goals and aims of socialism or communism then become impossible.




Its important to note that being well off but pissed off at a system doesn't mean you're oppressed.


What's that supposed to mean? Describe well off for me.


Unless as you just said- The oppressed rise up and free themselves.

Indeed however what history has shown us many times is that as soon as the oppressed gain power they become the newer oppressors where they will usually seek revenge and subjugation on those they view a threat.


What if these newly liberated people want nothing to do with that old government?

Such as?


Their revolutionary intent was never to overthrow a government but simply to get free. They move to an island somewhere and live as anarchists.

Eventually they will create a under class where the whole conflict and rebellion will start all over again.

Whenever a society, culture, or civilization becomes complex overtime they will always create a underclass for social inequality is in relation to technology and the growth of a civilization.


You are correct- although in current politics - people rise to power to get other people rich.

Indeed.


What do you think of reform?

It's pointless and never works.


What do you think of the civil rights movement?

I don't. I'm a moral nihilist, moral skeptic, and generally a amoralist.

I don't believe in morality, ethics, rights, or inherent universal entitlements.

I look at the subject much as I look at the belief of religion from a atheistic point of view.

You give a right to one and you take from another. It never works.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is no problem. It is only a natural cycle just as it is the natural cycle that we all must die.

It was once natural that one could contract malaria and die shivering of fever in a puddle of one's own vomit. Now we have anti-malarial drugs (among other things), and out of 350-500 million cases a year only 1-3 million die. So much for the cycle of nature.


Not really. This little planet of ours can be destroyed at any minute for the universe is a giant shooting gallery.

I'm not at all optimistic which you seem to be stemming from.

True, an asteroid could smack into Earth within a week and we'd be pretty fucked. But that's no excuse not to do anything about it.


Indeed. It seems that the universe has no intentions of keeping us alive for very long.

The universe has no intentions. It just is. We can either deal with it, and give ourselves a chance, or cower like frightened herbivores and die. I'm in favour of dealing with the problem, myself.


Nothing will be done. You seem to think human beings will somehow manipulate and transform the universe like some mystical god where there is some switch that needs to pulled where everything will be ok afterwards.

I'm just not seeing it.

The transformation of the universe into a form more favourable to humans (or in the long term, sapient beings) will be a long and intensive process, not a singular event. Godhood is something that is earned, not granted.

But we've made a start, at least. We cure diseases, harness lightning as our workhorse, and transfer knowledge in the blink of an eye. We have done much, but we can go further as well improving on what we already do.


Civilization is not benefited equally to everyone.

Only specific groups of people benefit from civilization while many just toil and labor under it.

So we change civilisation. It's changed for the better before.


And with the destruction of our natural enviroment we are sure doing a bang up job, aren't we?

( Not to mention the many forms of human suffering within the confines of civilization.)

Are we still optimistic?

Damn straight. The problems you mention are not insurmountable within the context of civilisation. Indeed, abandoning civilisation will make cleaning up our various messes even harder.

Another thing to consider is that humans are perfectly capable of wrecking the environment without the help of civilisation. Indeed, a small group of humans can strip an area bare and then move onto greener pastures, but as a global civilisation we don't have that option and thus we are forced to do something about it.

[SavagePostModern]

It was once natural that one could contract malaria and die shivering of fever in a puddle of one's own vomit. Now we have anti-malarial drugs (among other things), and out of 350-500 million cases a year only 1-3 million die. So much for the cycle of nature.



True, an asteroid could smack into Earth within a week and we'd be pretty fucked. But that's no excuse not to do anything about it.



The universe has no intentions. It just is. We can either deal with it, and give ourselves a chance, or cower like frightened herbivores and die. I'm in favour of dealing with the problem, myself.



The transformation of the universe into a form more favourable to humans (or in the long term, sapient beings) will be a long and intensive process, not a singular event. Godhood is something that is earned, not granted.

But we've made a start, at least. We cure diseases, harness lightning as our workhorse, and transfer knowledge in the blink of an eye. We have done much, but we can go further as well improving on what we already do.



So we change civilisation. It's changed for the better before.



Damn straight. The problems you mention are not insurmountable within the context of civilisation. Indeed, abandoning civilisation will make cleaning up our various messes even harder.

Another thing to consider is that humans are perfectly capable of wrecking the environment without the help of civilisation. Indeed, a small group of humans can strip an area bare and then move onto greener pastures, but as a global civilisation we don't have that option and thus we are forced to do something about it.



It was once natural that one could contract malaria and die shivering of fever in a puddle of one's own vomit. Now we have anti-malarial drugs (among other things), and out of 350-500 million cases a year only 1-3 million die. So much for the cycle of nature.


Now were just creating new diseases that stems from our present industrial form of living through mutation where since we have a global network of modern travel such newly created mutated diseases could kill us faster than ever before into extinction.

:rolleyes:

For every whimsical optimism you might think you have I have somthing for the contrary. You will find my skill with negation is exceedingly effective.


True, an asteroid could smack into Earth within a week and we'd be pretty fucked. But that's no excuse not to do anything about it.

Not everything has a solution or can be fixed. Why can't you or others understand that?

Instead you just float around pretending and wishing to yourselves that there is a fix or solution to everything.

It's nauseating for me to watch sometimes...........

But I don't think you are going to listen to me so believe whatever you want for you will anyways.


The universe has no intentions. It just is.

I know that. It was a figure of speech what I stated.


We can either deal with it, and give ourselves a chance, or cower like frightened herbivores and die.

Your chance as you call it I believe stems from unrealistic wishes..............




I'm in favour of dealing with the problem, myself.


Because it gives you security and a calm sense of mind............I however find no comfort in such things.


The transformation of the universe into a form more favourable to humans (or in the long term, sapient beings) will be a long and intensive process, not a singular event.

I'm sure if such a processed was achieved what a splendid living nightmare would be accomplished for your post-human envisionment of things. You should know that I despise humanism and transhumanism for that matter.



Godhood is something that is earned, not granted.



And what will such gods do after they accomplish their goals assuming they succeed?

I can just hear the chatter and worship of demagogues now...............

I'm afraid your star trek demi-god envisionment of the future will come crashing down. ( I certainly hope so.)



But we've made a start, at least. We cure diseases, harness lightning as our workhorse, and transfer knowledge in the blink of an eye. We have done much, but we can go further as well improving on what we already do.


With great power comes great destruction. I would never trust ultimate power in the hands of other human beings infact I would seek to destroy them just as a precaution.



So we change civilisation. It's changed for the better before.


How? Isn't that a annoying word? ( Laughs.)



It's changed for the better before.


When?


Damn straight. The problems you mention are not insurmountable within the context of civilisation. Indeed, abandoning civilisation will make cleaning up our various messes even harder.

As far as I'm concerned the chaos of having civilization versus not having it are equally messy.

I fail to see the seperation or comparison you are making.


Another thing to consider is that humans are perfectly capable of wrecking the environment without the help of civilisation.




Indeed, a small group of humans can strip an area bare and then move onto greener pastures,


Not as effectively as with modern technologies but I do understand that comparison.






but as a global civilisation we don't have that option and thus we are forced to do something about it.


Why don't we have that option? Explain yourself.

[Muzk]

I think he is right.. we should all kill ourselves now... since life is meaningless... and our problems will never be fixed!

http://mindyourowngoddamnbusiness.com/images/emo.jpg

[SavagePostModern]

And the jester comes out yet again...........but do we hear from it any grand intellectual argument? Nope.

Like a child it mocks that which it views threatening because it is incapable of anything else.

It won't be far long before it lunges itself to the nearest authority figure to come save itself from any scrutiny.

( Let's watch and find out.)

[RGacky3]

Your not giving any intelectual arguments either, your not giving any solutions any answers, any goals, any means, any observations.

Essencially all your saying is "Whatever dude, I give up."

His response was the most appropriate.

[SavagePostModern]

Your not giving any intelectual arguments either, your not giving any solutions any answers, any goals, any means, any observations.

Essencially all your saying is "Whatever dude, I give up."


I'm merely questioning the assumed dichotomy in this thread ( perhaps even this forum) that everything as a solution, cure, or fix.

It's not my fault that others here have not questioned their own ideals.

( I'm merely a mirror reflection of other people.)

[nuisance]

It's not my fault that others here have not questioned their own ideals.

( I'm merely a mirror reflection of other people.)
To much Stirner for you! Seriously, get over yourself and try to understand the ideologies you're dissing before chatting rubbish!
:laugh:

[Ele'ill]

Weeded out? Am I a weed that needs rooting out?

Oh come on- it was intentionally sarcastic.




What is better? And if you are willing to admit that you must realize the goals and aims of socialism or communism then become impossible.

I tried. I gave this an honest shot and I reread it about eight times. Is "the" supposed to be "then" or is there a period missing? :)




What's that supposed to mean? Describe well off for me.

The health care debate in the United States as an example. A lot of the people at the town hall meetings are angry because of misinformation. If the system was implemented and worked I am sure a lot of them would still be angry because of the stigma over 'socialism' or perhaps some people wouldn't like the idea simply because it was being announced by a 'black president'.

They're angry at the system but they are not oppressed by it.




Indeed however what history has shown us many times is that as soon as the oppressed gain power they become the newer oppressors where they will usually seek revenge and subjugation on those they view a threat.

Oh yeah. I am not denying this at all.

Its important to realize, conversely, that not all of time is a giant repeat. History does repeat itself although there are always new events unfolding. With these new events brings opportunity. Maybe even positive opportunity.




Such as?


Eventually they will create a under class where the whole conflict and rebellion will start all over again.

Whenever a society, culture, or civilization becomes complex overtime they will always create a underclass for social inequality is in relation to technology and the growth of a civilization.

Maybe they fought for the freedom to start over.






You give a right to one and you take from another. It never works.

Explain when you have the chance.

[gorillafuck]

Genuine anarchy. Where anything and everything goes.

Total independence to whatever people want and will.
What do you mean by "anything and everything goes"?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Now were just creating new diseases that stems from our present industrial form of living through mutation where since we have a global network of modern travel such newly created mutated diseases could kill us faster than ever before into extinction.

Sure, there are new vectors for disease such as air travel, but humans haven't exactly been laggardly in this particular biological arms race. Vaccines, medicines, procedures like hand-washing and quarantine, water purification, various methods of sterilisation, and so on are all an extra layer of defence. Before all that, our only defence against disease were our immune systems. If one's immune system was compromised or underdeveloped, one was completely fucked.


:rolleyes:

For every whimsical optimism you might think you have I have somthing for the contrary. You will find my skill with negation is exceedingly effective.

For someone who says we should go with the flow of nature, you're awfully hubristic. At least I have an excuse - what's yours?


Not everything has a solution or can be fixed. Why can't you or others understand that?

The problems you have mentioned so far, with the exception of universal heat death, are not unsolvable under our current understanding of the universe.


Instead you just float around pretending and wishing to yourselves that there is a fix or solution to everything.

I'm doing more than "float[ing] around" - I'm actually studying a subject that both interests me and has significant potential as well as a proven record in addressing human concerns. Can you guess what it is?


It's nauseating for me to watch sometimes...........

I find your terminal misanthropy perplexing, myself. If the human race is fucked with no chance of being saved, what are you doing here? Shouldn't you be getting drunk/high/whatever and having the time of your life until the apocalypse?


But I don't think you are going to listen to me so believe whatever you want for you will anyways.

I don't think I'm going to convince you either, but I try nonetheless. Besides, as this debate is public it is not just for the benefit of the participants - there is an audience to convince as well. Would you rather I insulted you and called you names?


I know that. It was a figure of speech what I stated.

OK, so the universe is inimical to life. I don't see that as a reason to give up, especially in light of the things we have done so far.


Your chance as you call it I believe stems from unrealistic wishes..............

What's unrealistic about diverting asteroids? Any decent engineer will be able to analyse the problem and tell you exactly what needs to be done in such an instance.

Colonising other planets? We'd need to develop self-sustaining ecologies, but we already have a working example here - Earth itself. Later on we could transform planets like Mars and Venus into Earthlike planets, and then we would be free to wander under unEarthly skies. Maybe on Mars we would still require breathing gear like mountaineers do, but it would sure beat wearing full-body pressure suits.

As for the stars, well once we have mastered colonising and shaping other planets to our needs, travel to them will simply be a matter of time and energy, of which we will have plenty.


Because it gives you security and a calm sense of mind............I however find no comfort in such things.

So what do you find comfort in? Do you find comfort in the idea of billions of humans dying excruciating deaths as they scream in terror and pain?

In any case it is a matter of preference, not comfort. I want the human race to expand throughout the universe, diversifying in form along the way, becoming and creating physical gods. But in order for that to happen, society first needs to change for the better.

[bellyscratch]

I think its pointless in trying to debate with someone who believes in nothing.

[Pirate Utopian]

With a slow momentum building over time of lower classes, workers, and other disenfranchised individuals coming together in rebellion.

( Through guerilla warfare.)

In the future assuming humanity and this planet lives long enough before the rest of the universe destroys us along with everything else that exists I imagine all conflicts will be between a global state or government and those that oppose it.
It's still a revolution, just not a socialist one.
There have been liberal and nationalist revolutions too, not all revolutions are socialist in nature.

Nice avatar by the way.

[KarlMarx1989]

I think that a revolution would do nothing. Especially in my situation, as I live in christian-America. I believe that you can't change the world around you; you can only change yourself to cope with the way the world is. However, that doesn't mean forget what you believe in. Do you think that the christians of America did that?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

So you're a moral nihilist. So if I give you the statement:

1. Murder is unethical.

Alright. So I think it is, and my friend the serial killer does not. The reason I think it is unethical, however, is not "real." Similarly, the relationship between 1+1=2, is not real. It's simply a method of describing the realities we can observe.

Similarly, we can observe interests of varying individuals. It my preference that people do not murder. Therefore, there "at least" seems to be a subjective moral code that amounts to the interests of "single individuals."

Remember, a rock doesn't exist independently as a rock. It exists as a rock once we label it as a rock. Before that, it was something we observed. What amoralism defines morality as, to me, must be very strange. I cannot conceive how you can deny the existance of something without first proclaiming what it is you are denying.

I would argue that as a rock exists as a "rock" when we label it, mathematical relationships exist once we observe them. Similarly, we observe the relationships between people. These are the interests of individual agents and the interactions between them.

Let's consider my interest in seeing innocent people live fulfilling lives. This is an interest, in my view, likely based on my intrinsic nature and socialization. It doesn't exist independent of people in some metaphysical world. It is simply an interest we can observe by asking me and considering my behavior.

Similarly, all people appear to have varying interests. We should seek to satisfy them to some degree. Why? Perhaps there is no rational reason. The reason is that we desire to satisfy them.

Perhaps you have no stake in matters? You could care less if you or others die or feel pain. With respect to the pain, that is unlikely. I have yet to meet or hear of a person with no interests. Therefore, it's clear that you desire to have these interests satisfy them.

If we wish to satisfy our own interests, which may include an interest in the welfare of others, we should cooperate. This is based on the rules of rationality. You can see in game theory with the Nash equilibrium. When a mutually advantageous solution is avaliable, as I see it, you are "morally obligated" to utilize it. This simply means you are obligated to be the being you are.

Who you are is a personal experience that is difficult to stumble upon. We rarely figure it out as we evolve as persons. I doubt you are a heartless person as I doubt you are uninterested in your own affairs and future.

Wouldn't it seem to reason that a solution that will benefit everyone, when avaliable, presents a moral obligation. And obligation to satisfy the demands of ourselves and others. Do humans not intrinsically seek out such solutions, with no need of external motivation? They seem to do so.

What motivation do the ethicists and moralists provide then, aside from metaphysical nonsense that discourages young and older minds alike from disregarding the possibility of ethical society. Very little, for the most part. However, if you conceptualize ethics from the perspective of satisfying demand, as William James did, you can conceptualize ethics as mathematical.

The debate them becomes a matter of observe the interests of people, observing the malleability of those interests, and analyzing the utilities involved in providing universally advatageous solutions. Surely the strong will seek to exploit others for their own interests. If they live naturally as an exploitative being, seeking primarily their own welfare, they will be corrupted by power.

This is precisely the reason I'm an anarchist rather than a Marxist. While I think a sufficiently altruistic group of people could accomplish a Marxist revolution, I think it is more prone to corrupt, as Bakunin did.

I share your worries that both revolutions and reforms are impractical. If you are intelligent, as I presume you are, you have a great burden you're well aware of. You will always know things before others. This is a constant frustration of being an intellectual. You will never see the ideal solution because you'll always discover new problems. That is why we need to see small gains and the satisfication of individual needs to be something of value.

If you conceptualize ethics with regards to the satisfaction of demand, in my view, it is quite evident society has become more progressive. Despite the widespread trend of unethical governments and violent wars, society still seems to be moving towards a growth in resources and availability of opportunities.

You can be pessmistic if you want. No person is so brilliant as to analyze all the variables and complexities of life, weigh them, and claim to know the future. If you choose to focus on the negatives, the possibility of hopelessness or disastor, you are entitled to do so. However, for every negative, you can list a positive. We would never complete the list to prove whether existence was primarily good or evil.

The evidence in science seems to suggest pessimism is unbeneficial to all people. I would encourage you to focus on the problems with respect to solutions. There is an enjoyment that comes with approaching difficult problems. I'm not completely satisfied by reformism, anarchism, or Marxism. Anarchism lacks analytics and concrete solutions. Marxism presents vague and dangerously flimsy solutions, and reformism relies on the honesty and altruism of those in power.

Surely if I wished to, as I have, I could join you in a pit of meaningless ideologies, nihilism, and hopelessness. The fact is that whether ethics exist in some "tangible form" or as mere "fictions" (though it's all semantics, as Wittgenstein and Carnap point out) it doesn't matter. We have interests we need to satisfy and we need to analyze the routes to satisfication with respect to others. Otherwise, complete non-cooperative anarchy, as you suggest, leaves us all worse of via a Hobbesian dystopia.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

So you're a teenager who just read Stirner for the first time, or what?

[Plagueround]

Haven't seen this version of the "Alien visitor"/"Enlighten Mystic" game played here in a while. How annoying.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

Wow,SPM you sound like the person my school's teachers used to have in mind when they were speaking about anarchy...you know this whole ''anarchy is survival of the fittest and destruction of civilisation propaganda thing''.... funny to know that such people exist.Anyway.

Genuine anarchy. Where anything and everything goes.

Total independence to whatever people want and will.
While anarchy in the dictionary is just described as a state of no leadership,what anarchism actually craves is not the destruction of organisation,in fact an anarchistic society is the one which requires the most organising since the individuals have to self-organise.It is NOT survival of the fittest,nor is it a place where you can do ''whatever you want'' literally,your freedom ends when someone's else starts.An anarchistic community is organised with many many human collaborations and consensus via direct democracy,granting each individual the maximum personal freedom possible.Your ''vision'' of anarchy is just a state of chaos where anyone can use his authority over other people and out of which someone will come out as a leader-it's only the flow of things.Anarchy is not Chaos,Anarchy is Order.

I'm not buying it.

If it hasn't happened in two thousand somthing years it's not going to happen now.

You social utopics with your social idealism centering around social engineering and some fantastic social equilibrium equally centered around an ideal are amusing to me.
Fail arguement,why something not happened by now equates it will never happen?Did we pass a lock or something that fixes humanity in the place it is today?You know one could say the same arguement for every social change in human's history as in the evolution from feudarchy.As for the social determinism, well it's only logical.From all the possible societies there can be,anarcho-communism is the only one that can organise fairly,respecting both the freedom and the equality of the individuals entwined.It is eventual that one day (maybe far away from now but still) people will realise this and fight for it,either that or humanity gets destroyed first.

I don't view civilization as being necessary to human survival.

oy oy oy

Civilization is merely a tabernacle of ideals, wants, and desires controlled by the ruling class.

There is no reason why civilization must exist.

No.Civilisation is everything the human existence has created (with the exception of The Jonas Brothers of course.)You can't tell me that art,science in all of its forms and social structures only serve the ruling class.It is true however that they do benefit more than the rest of us,and that's why we combat them.

Of course it is. What other type of power is there?

There is always a hierarchy somewhere. Don't tell me about some fantastical future where there is a absence of hierarchy because I'm simply not buying it.
Well,philosophically and practically speaking there will always be some authority,you just can't purge it's existence out of here since it rests in nature itself.But this simple realisation does not equate a non hierarchical structure utopistic.Let me ellaborate.Authority is met wherever there is difference of power between two individuals,so thus speaking even one of the most simple acts such as asking a direction as a foreigner in a town builds a temporary platform gap of authority between you and the one you asked,since he knows more and can therefore use his knowledge-power to send you somewhere completely off,therefore abusing you.Simple paradigm but you get what I'm saying I reckon,there will always be temporary relationships of authority since it is something build within the natural laws.Not to being so would have to mean that everyone is practically the exact SAME,something which is both unnatural,impossible and undesirable.From that point and after though,the aim of anarchism is to break down the various form's of central,exploitive and strong authority replacing them with a net of communes (or any other forms of organisations) that rule themselves with true democratic measures.Under such a society,consciousness and social justice is being totally and subtly preached into it's denizens so that when those temporary relationship's of authority arise,the power will be used responsibly and fairly.

I imagine a future being ruled by a global technocratic authoritarian so called progressive dictatorship revolving around a absurd twisted form of transhumanism.
You watch too many science fiction movies or read too many dystopian novels.Technology is far from the point it can do that yet fortunately and some of the things that are imagined in those visions can quite simply not exist.Now it is our aim and our hope that when technology rises into such an extent that it becomes too dangerous for human existence and justice/freedom the world will be responsible enough to know where to draw the line.Either that or they will rebel against it.But I don't believe in total control of technology,the human factor is far too strong to be wiped away,life will find it's way and always survive.

We are not immortals. We will not live forever. Our future is not that of immortal technological gods.

If it is not, it should be.
....The fuck?:confused:

Adapt or die. And?

We as humanity,adapted and grew up from the rest of this world's life simply because we joined together creating communities and therefore civilisation.It's quite simple to understand this I think,since both power in unity and combination of different individual talents make a foundation that is always stronger than any individual.Fair enough,civilisation introduced human authority together under the name of social organisation and ''the greater good'' but we are here to fix that :cool:
After all,a return in the ''genuine anarchy'' of survival of the fittest you propose is not possible,simply because we live in survival of the fittest.Authority and exploitation in society is a direct stem of it,since some people found that blinding,lying and manipulating others is much more practical and usefull than enforcing their brute strength in front of their eyes.

I don't. I'm a moral nihilist, moral skeptic, and generally a amoralist.

I don't believe in morality, ethics, rights, or inherent universal entitlements.
Morality and ethics are nothing more than human creations,agreed.They were created though to serve some purpose and it is therefore a 'duty' of any orthologist and any anarchist to constantly question them and criticise them under a non-delusional materialistic perspective in order to understand which of them are trully practical and fair (e.g which can serve humanity better) and wipe the rest of them away.

Finally,for the whole optimism - pessimism debate,there is truly no use or logic into being a pessimist,it can only bring bad things to you.Optimism,you have to realise is neither a delusional and utopic analysis of the truths that constitute our existence nor a idealistic and illogical belief that things will turn out better whatever happens,but rather a realisation of our current limits,the fact that by mourning over them we achieve nothing and the decision to try and change them with hope there is indeed chance they can turn for the better.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fuck, how did I miss the rest of that post?


I'm sure if such a processed was achieved what a splendid living nightmare would be accomplished for your post-human envisionment of things. You should know that I despise humanism and transhumanism for that matter.

Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. As for a posthuman existence being a living nightmare, you have yet to make your case.


And what will such gods do after they accomplish their goals assuming they succeed?

I can just hear the chatter and worship of demagogues now...............

I'm afraid your star trek demi-god envisionment of the future will come crashing down. ( I certainly hope so.)

There are lots of things we could do. It depends on what we find once we're out there.

You're certainly one to talk about demagoguery - what about your own fetishisation of the inherent purposelessness of existence?

If you think Star Trek is an accurate representation of my intended vision for humanity, you're suffering from a failure of imagination - the society represented in that fictional universe hasn't even undergone a Singularity! Never mind everything that follows from that...


With great power comes great destruction. I would never trust ultimate power in the hands of other human beings infact I would seek to destroy them just as a precaution.

Humans, or the power? If it's the latter, you would be waging a murderous campaign against AI researchers if you were at all serious.


How? Isn't that a annoying word? ( Laughs.)

Well for a start, religion no longer has the deathgrip it had on human society - it still clings tightly even so, but it is nonetheless slipping.


When?

The Age of Enlightenment was an important turning point, as well as the collapse of feudalism. The divine right of kings is quite rightly considered laughable by most in this day and age. Hopefully global capitalism and the age of scarcity will likewise be consigned to the history books.


As far as I'm concerned the chaos of having civilization versus not having it are equally messy.

So what difference does it make?


I fail to see the seperation or comparison you are making.

Well let's see, the collapse of civilisation is unlikely to be an environmentally friendly event. Once civilisation is gone, any environmental problems caused by the collapse of civilisation and whatever preceded it is not going to be fixed by the survivors, if any - they'll be too busy, and would lack the resources even if they wanted to.

However, if civilisation does not collapse, then the massive material and intellectual resources available to it can be turned, at least in part, towards the issue of fixing up our various mistakes and making sure we don't shit where we eat any further.


Not as effectively as with modern technologies but I do understand that comparison.

That's not the comparison I was making - in a world with few humans, environmental destruction can continue without us being forced to face the consquences of our wasteful and destructive ways. As a global civilisation we have the opportunity to learn some important lessons and clean up our act.


Why don't we have that option? Explain yourself.

A global civilisation with no easy access to space, like ours, cannot simply move on as resources are depleted and environments destroyed, because there's nowhere to go. Even if we were to immediately begin full-scale exploration and colonisation of other worlds within our Solar System, the Earth would still require our careful and forthright stewardship, because it would still contain the bulk of human civilisation for many decades, possibly centuries to come.

[ZeroNowhere]

Hm, this sounds fun.

I define 'anarchy' as a one-man dictatorship...

Anarchy is really the dictatorship of one man, you naive idealist!

Isn't that just laced with profundity? Though, as I have said, statements which seem injected with the highest levels of profundity are necessarily infected with emptiness, and thus one looking to be most profound should never state facts; rather, they should state psychology, or boast of their realism.


Whenever a society, culture, or civilization becomes complex overtime they will always create a underclass for social inequality is in relation to technology and the growth of a civilization.So is heavy metal, though, so it's worth the risk.

[danyboy27]

this thread should be called: your politics are boring has fuck: the revenge

[mykittyhasaboner]

I'm a moral nihilist
:lol::lol:

[Kronos]

We takes the money, Lebowski!

[AntifaAustralia]

Ok you're fucked up. You're fascist scum!
Ah hahaha Fucking true matey, with you all the way


I think its pointless in trying to debate with someone who believes in nothing.
Mate totally


this thread should be called: your politics are boring has fuck: the revenge
yes i know the primitivists, very suicidal

SavagePostModern= pessimistic suicidal ungrateful dickhead (possibly a Martian) against Humanity. :scared: :lol:

Why are you using a computer? why do you use the very language humanity has created? GO LIVE IN THE WOODS!!

You know you are a commie, you are acting like one trying to over power us, if you weren't so authoritarian-like, in the first place you wouldn't have come here!!!

Typical suicidal Confused fella that cannot do it and is seeking assistance from fellow Man for love.:crying: CUTE! I love you Savagepostmodern, fellow human. not so close ok..... back back, good boy, ok now:huh:

[Kronos]

http://neurologicalcorrelates.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/unabomber1.jpg

"I sent you a package in the mail, AntifaAustralia. Apparently you didn't get it."

[SavagePostModern]

yes i know the primitivists, very suicidal

I'm not even a primitivist although I do sympathize with some of their perspectives.

What makes you think I'm suicidal?


SavagePostModern= pessimistic suicidal ungrateful dickhead (possibly a Martian) against Humanity.

I'm not against humanity as I'm against it's folly.


Why are you using a computer?

I'm not anti technology although I do question some it's uses, practices, and implications.




You know you are a commie, you are acting like one trying to over power us, if you weren't so authoritarian-like, in the first place you wouldn't have come here!!!

What's that supposed to mean?


Typical suicidal Confused fella that cannot do it and is seeking assistance from fellow Man for love.CUTE! I love you Savagepostmodern, fellow human. not so close ok..... back back, good boy, ok no

Whatever.

[SavagePostModern]

I think that a revolution would do nothing. Especially in my situation, as I live in christian-America. I believe that you can't change the world around you; you can only change yourself to cope with the way the world is. However, that doesn't mean forget what you believe in. Do you think that the christians of America did that?



I believe that you can't change the world around you; you can only change yourself to cope with the way the world is.

Agreed.

[SavagePostModern]

Haven't seen this version of the "Alien visitor"/"Enlighten Mystic" game played here in a while. How annoying.

What's that supposed to mean?

[SavagePostModern]

What do you mean by "anything and everything goes"?

Exactly as it sounds.

My envisionment of anarchy is where everything and anything goes where existence is absent of barriers, restrictions, confines, or any form of authoritative interjection.

My envisionment of anarchy is chaos in that I embrace chaos and entropy as feasible parts of my own personal philosophy.

I embrace all that is counter order and disorder.

I believe that the only way all existing individuals will ever have complete total genuine independence for themselves simultaneously all at once is in a existence of chaos,entropy, or disorder.

My envisionment of anarchy is one without direction that is directionless and aimless.

[SavagePostModern]

To much Stirner for you! Seriously, get over yourself and try to understand the ideologies you're dissing before chatting rubbish!
:laugh:

If it helps you to know I have studied communism and socialism extensively.

Infact I even like a large majority of Karl Marx's perspectives on class conflict and class struggle.

( Even though I disagree simultaneously with what alot Marx also had to say.)

[SavagePostModern]

I think its pointless in trying to debate with someone who believes in nothing.

I believe in things. Even nihilists have to believe in somthing.

I believe in power, pleasure, self interest, and survival.

I just don't believe in the metaphysical.

[RGacky3]

I believe in things.

I believe in power, pleasure, and survival.

Ok, why are you here btw?

[Dimentio]

Genuine anarchy. Where anything and everything goes.

Total independence to whatever people want and will.

Oh great. You are an alshatist. :(

[SavagePostModern]

It's still a revolution, just not a socialist one.
There have been liberal and nationalist revolutions too, not all revolutions are socialist in nature.

Nice avatar by the way.

Revolution ultimately only benefits the party or faction doing the revolting.

I've never seen a historical revolution play out where all people benefit equally on any given issue.

Thanks for the comment on my avatar. I genuinely see humanity as a roving mass of zombies sometimes.

[SavagePostModern]

Ok, why are you here btw?

Entertainment and somthing to do. ( I get bored real easily.)

I gain pleasure from these conversations. I'm quite the hedonist.

[SavagePostModern]

Oh great. You are an alshatist. :(

I'm not familiar with that word.

Can you explain it?

[SavagePostModern]

So you're a teenager who just read Stirner for the first time, or what?

You wish. If you think I am that I feel like you will only be disappointed.

[SavagePostModern]

Oh come on- it was intentionally sarcastic.





I tried. I gave this an honest shot and I reread it about eight times. Is "the" supposed to be "then" or is there a period missing? :)





The health care debate in the United States as an example. A lot of the people at the town hall meetings are angry because of misinformation. If the system was implemented and worked I am sure a lot of them would still be angry because of the stigma over 'socialism' or perhaps some people wouldn't like the idea simply because it was being announced by a 'black president'.

They're angry at the system but they are not oppressed by it.





Oh yeah. I am not denying this at all.

Its important to realize, conversely, that not all of time is a giant repeat. History does repeat itself although there are always new events unfolding. With these new events brings opportunity. Maybe even positive opportunity.





Maybe they fought for the freedom to start over.






Explain when you have the chance.


Oh come on- it was intentionally sarcastic.

I couldn't tell. I've got nothing but the cold shoulder ever since joining this site.

My misunderstanding.




They're angry at the system but they are not oppressed by it.

Not sure where you are going at with that statement or why you have entered that into our conversation.


Its important to realize, conversely, that not all of time is a giant repeat.

For me it is. I believe in eternal reoccurence.


History does repeat itself

Yes it does and even if you don't believe in eternal reoccurence you cannot deny that many problems or conflicts humans find themselves facing repeat over and over again.


although there are always new events unfolding.

Yet some things always remain the same almost fixed in position.



With these new events brings opportunity.

For whom?



Maybe even positive opportunity.


For whom?



Maybe they fought for the freedom to start over.


Depends on the circumstances in which you are speaking of.



Explain when you have the chance.


I would explain more of my opinion on that subject but I fear it will only anger politically correct sensitivities here which would further create anger for the mob who already want to hang me here. ( Laughs.)

Should I take the chance anyways? I'm not sure how the thought police will react.

[SavagePostModern]

Alshatist. Amusing word and term. I assuming the person who first posted it in this thread was using it as a sort of joke on my behalf.

Funny..........

The only reference I could find to the word is below.



Alshatism [da Aylshaylatyah] [duh'aijl'shaijl'atij'uh], or "Path of the [Debt]Free" is the youngest major religion in Noviyaria (http://noviyaria.wikispaces.com/Noviyaria), founded as it was in year 7579 in the city of Adjharian in the Azghar Desert by Orth Awmnkha. No one knows how many adherents it have, but it's general support base is the desert cities, the Goblin Mountains, as well as the Goblin enclaves in the Core nations. It has little influence in the Lowlands, but it's influence is significant at the Dhorazae-Corazüne area. It is probably the majority religion of the Men of Shyoda, Thirzail and Badgihl today, and even holds much influence over Ghawwael. It is the dominant religion among the Goblins of Culerica. All estimations of the total number of adherents are qualified guessings, but it ranges between 25 to 40 million people.

The symbol of Alshatism is da'Oglathaiza, the Eye of Insight.
The colour of Alshatism is black.

Alshatism is considered a "hostile meme" and it is illegal to distribute Alshatist litterature or to try to convert citizens of the Union to Alshatism in Teledor (http://noviyaria.wikispaces.com/Teledor), Marcionia, Gherln (http://noviyaria.wikispaces.com/Gherln), Blaghes, Abauria and the Thinundor province.




Conceptions about Alshatism in the Noviyarian Union

Alshatism have traditionally been seen as a demonic cult built upon the denial of all heritage and customs, and a form of Goblin supremacist (and barbarian supremacist) radical ideology which is driven by the hate of those who lack cultural and aesthetical beauty against those who have it. The goal of Alshatism, according to this interpretation, is to split society into individual particles by denying metaphysics, traditions, family values and social customs, creating a world where all high culture have been abolished, where Eglale or Orth Awmnkha is worshipped as the only deity.

Another interpretation is that Alshatism in itself constitutes the worship of the great Demon, craving human sacrifices and perverted sexual rituals. That perception could have been created by the Second Eglale during the years of 7632-7648, and the reign of blood he introduced upon the Core lands.

Alshatism, along with ultra-monarchism, targonic fundamentalism and aristocracism, is accounted as a totalitarian ideology and is thus included in most anti-extremist laws of the Noviyarian Union (http://noviyaria.wikispaces.com/Noviyarian+Union).




The pillars of Alshatist Faith

Alshatism is different from nearly all other organised religions, and is considered by some scholars to rather be an ideology than a religion. Almost all other organised religions have hierarchic collectivist foundations and are aligned with the state establishment of their regions, putting faith in external deities, either many as in polytheism, or one as in monotheism.

Alshatism does not recognise gods, even though it admits that they may exist, their nature must be explainable, and if they are explainable, they are not almighty and thus nothing to be worshipped. Traditional Alshatists claim that worship in itself constitutes a resignation of the individual self-determination, and is not an act by free choice.

Since alshatism holds viewpoints over arts, philosophy, sexuality, drug abuse, linguistics, technology and nearly all aspects of life, we should structure up the main points of Alshatist Faith, using the Book of Truth (7765), as a source, we could draw the following conclusions.

On the individual:




The Individual is in itself free from constraints except those put up by nature.
The individual is sentient and is able to organise and structure all aspects of life together with other individuals.
Authority, in the form of involuntary relationships, hierarchies, traditions, property and religion, physically manifested as elites, constitutes a repression of the individual and must therefore be abolished.
Authority does not exist outside the sphere of words and belief, it holds no physical existence and is not a natural law.
Words are descriptions, but when words are used in complex language, they naturally develop into means of mind control.
Together, authority and words consist of an illusionary world which is put above the real world, the world of feelings, energy and movement.
They thus consist of illusions, which cease to exist when the individual stops believing in their existence.
Individuals who are living in the illusions are not living their life, they are only living the life of the illusions. They cease to be individuals and instead becomes building blocks for authority, and are thus repressed.
Animals also constitute individuals, albeit lesser progressed. They are walking on the path of evolution, and would one day evolve into more sentient individuals.
On life:




Life is incomprehensible, all attempts to comprehend it and reach the total knowledge constitutes an illusion.
That is because knowledge do not constitute understanding.
Understanding could only be reached through empathy.
To achieve total empathy, one individual must in itself consist of all life, thus losing it's individuality and become a wholity, creating a philosophical paradox.
Thus, life exists to be lived, and not to achieve knowledge about.
Understanding is superior to knowledge. Knowledge is words, understanding is flesh.
To understand another individual, or an action, the individual must be prepared to constantly challenge her prejudices, making the mind into a battlefield of ideas, and try out new things.
Sin does not exist, except individually. The only sin which exists is to resign and accept the moral codes which others are trying to pressure on the individual without testing to live on the other side.
The body which the individual possess is a gift. The individual should use the body as a tool to achieve self-realisation, and not scorn it.
Nature could be warred with, and nature could be enjoyed. What would the individual prefer?
On revolution:




The world is divided between those who are not allowed to control their minds, souls and bodies, and those who control everything.
Those who control everything are not free since their individuality is tied to a collective of oppression based on fear.
Thus, they must constraint themselves in fear of rebellion and thus fails to reach self-realisation, while preventing the majority of the population to reach self-realisation.
The rulers and the ruled are pillars of oppression, between which the individual is chained and unable to be free.
The solution is to make a revolution, not to change ruling class, but to eliminate all systems of control.
The revolution must begin within the individual. against his repression of himself.
The revolution must end with the liberation of the world. The liberation of the world successively means a world where all relations, all respect and all customs are built by cooperatives of free individuals, who are living according to understanding and experience life through their own individual paths.
Individuality is the beginning and the end of the revolution.
The revolution is a cycle.
The revolution does not exist if there is oppression, and oppression does not exist where it is a revolution.
On values:




Values consist of subjective thoughts, and all individuals are free to make their own judgements, but not to institute them on others.
Since values are subjective, there is no differences in the values of races, genders, age-groups or social classes. The only difference in value exists inside the head.
The state of Freedom from Debts is good not only because it is liberating the individuals, but also because individuals who are free from constraints naturally would reach a higher state of development, enriching the whole world with their understanding and their creations.
Even though it may be so, the individual should strive to make a revolution for his own sake, not striving to serve others or to make others serve him, or to make everyone serve an abstract ideal of words free from the physical existence.
Voluntary cooperation is beneficient, but should be pursued within an environment where no direct or indirect artificial constraints put up by authorities, words or misuse of power exists.
Individuals should be free to challenge each-others values and learn from each-other, but not in relations built on authority.
On economics:




Debts constitutes an infringement upon the individual autonomy.
Debts are means which how to deprive the individual from freedom.
Even though it may be so, it is up to no one to judge a voluntary deal between an indebtor and an indebted.
The individual should instead strive for autonomy and economic safety by cooperating with other individuals or reaching self-sufficiency.
This cooperation could take many forms, but should be based on voluntarity, equality and mutual self-respect.
Equality does not imply that everyone should have it equally bad, but that everyone should treat each-other with the same respect and give everyone of the great kinship of individuals equal opportunities to progress.
Slavery constitutes a system of debt and should be abolished.
If the slaves belongs to foreign merchants which are from countries not yet liberated, they should be seen as envoys and be treated with respect.
When the countries not yet liberated are liberated, slavery should be abolished there as well.
Trade should flow freely and voluntarily between the individuals, as long as everything is built upon the foundation of mutual self-respect.
Inventions are central to the economy, and in a civilisation built on freedom, inventors would be free to pursue whatever they may desire.
Inventions are raising the living standard of the individual, thus enhancing the individual's capabilities to reach self-realisation.
Inventions increase social instability and mobility.
Social instability and mobility is the state of the nature.
Nature represents the most successful civilisation of the Land.
A society which emulates the same system employed in nature would be successful and would on the long run benefit all individuals of that same system.
On Alshatism




Alshatism is not knowledge, but experience
As individuals mature and grows, so must alshatism do
Alshatism is a river, the individuals are the fishes. This means that the individuals should not strive to practice alshatism to the letter, but to live their life according to their dreams.
Alshatism does not exist outside of the individuals.
Alshatism is an anti-belief system.
Good and Evil does not exist. Everything that exists is nature and the individuals.
The relationships within the individual, between individuals, within nature and between individuals of nature are regulated by actions.
There are two kinds of actions, creative actions and destructive actions.
Creative actions could be destructive and destructive actions could be creative.
What decides whether an action is creative or not is two things. Purpose and result.
Creative actions benefit diversity and self-realisation. Destructive actions benefit monotonity and self-constraint.
Creative actions benefit life, destructive actions benefit death.
All actions are in som essence creative and destructive.
The instigator of an action is always an individual, whether a sentient being or a beast.
Events are actions caused by nature, they are not creative or destructive because they lack purpose. Their results could have an impact upon the individuals.
The twelwe virtues of Alshatism



Life
Belief in the self
Willpower
Curiosity
Will to learn
Will to change
Creativity
Rebelliousness
Truthfulness towards everyone, including the self
To see reality as it is
To not search for being a master or a slave
To not accept neither a slave or a master




Foundation and history

Early history

On the sixth day of the month of Blossom year 7579, the renegade shaman Orth Awmnkha together with 76 adherents (both Men and Goblins) occupied the main spring in the First Horn, the only freshwater source for the people of Adjharian, forcing the shamanistic aristocracy and their forces to put down their weapons in front of Awmnkha's feet, thus resigning the city to the small group. Orth Awmnkha used the vast riches of the caravan city to buy the support of clans and mercenaries from all around Goblinkind, mustering a large army and step by step subjugating the Ahavazian caravan routes, creating a vast desert empire during seven years. Awmnkha left the direct government of Adjharian to the citizens, by instituting a form of direct democracy, although the riches which the caravan routes bolstered directly benefitted the Alshatist movement.

In year 7584, the revolution in Adjharian was completed when the old shamanistic aristocracy tried to regain power, but were outmaneuvred by Awmnkha who made his first known atrocity by feeding the dogs of the city with the still living and twinkling bodies of the shamans, uttering the words, "flesh for flesh, dogs for dogs". Orth Awmnkha then declared his new age of "aylshaylat", which on Adjharish means "Free from Debts", declaring that the clan system was an illusion and that blood loyality as well as the traditional gods did not exist as entities without the people believing in them.This created a wave of revolutions inside several clans, as well as concessions from clan chieftains, breaking up the rigid Goblin caste society into more flexible and adaptable units, creating a social, cultural and technological renaissance for the Goblins.

It was during the years of 7579-7584, that Alshatism established itself as an egalitarian, ultra-individualist, revolutionary cult set at the liberation of the individual from the illusions of limits, force and government. On the sixth day of Blossom year 7586, seven years after the overtaking of Adjharian, Orth Awmnkha sent an envoy to the Union of Core Nations and declared to them that their states and all their titles, possessions and religious superstititions was false, that Orth Awmnkha had proved it, and that the rulers and kings of the feudal Core should accept it and leave their peoples to govern themselves. The Union, in the form of the king of Abauria, Shadlam VI (7558-7597), answered by imprisoning the envoys and harassing caravanists which were seen as foreign agents of the Alshatist Empire. Orth Awmnkha then started a private correspondence with Shadlam VI trying to persuading the king to renounce his throne and leave his order to deal with himself.

The war between the Alshatist Empire and the Core Nations

The king declared war on the Alshatist Empire in 7588, a war declaration which Orth Awmnkha reportedly turned into a paper bird and threw from the highest tower of Adjharian, declaring that it had never been a declaration of war, only excrement on a paper now turned into a bird. The citizens of Adjharian doubted that the city could take on the Abaurian kingdom, so Orth Awmnkha led a bull and a sack of ants up the 300 m high ziggurat, the Aylsha Ashera in the middle of the city, to show that thousands of individuals united were stronger than one head with only muscles (according to the appendix to the Book of Truth). Then he first threw out the ants down from the temple, who immeaditily crawled out from the sack uninjured. Then he cast down the bull, which reportedly did not have the same luck.

During the beginning year 7589, an Alshatist army of 30.000 Goblins were sent through the southern caravan route to the Gates of Gherln, and the Union of Core Nations started to mobilise, an endeavour which was complicated by the fact that no member state was allowed to simultaneouly be involved in another war. Crown prince Guilles due Carania, later on known as king Bladareth XII was forced to assume the leadership of the coalition and mobilised the 200.000 man army of Teledor (http://noviyaria.wikispaces.com/Teledor) and Gherln to be sent to the gates of Gherln, waiting for the Alshatist storm.

In the end of year 7591, an Alshatist army struck against Samuat, putting the city under siege and forcing the Abaurian army into a war in rugged terrain where it's infanterist formations where broken up. The Alshatists attacked and retreated in loose formations, making the Abaurian frontline very exposed and vulnerable. The Teledoranians sent another 100.000 Men to help the Abaurians, who in Spring 7592 were completely amazed when an Alshatist army of 60.000 Goblins, using a sand storm as coverage had put a bridge over Cevassenei and advanced 200 km;s inside the unprotected country, quickly razing Shevaum, Andathan and Iaphera, moving the refugees of the cities on their flanks thus stopping potential incursions from the Abaurian royal army protecting Abbaul. The royal army of 300.000 Men was drawn into a full battle inside and outside and around the city of Shirinem, where the Alshatist light artillery, which could fire 2 shots a minute, quickly won the day and secured the victory, as 25.000 Abaurians drowned in river Athaerihl. The city of Abbaul fell in late 7592, and in 7593, Shadlam VI signed a ceasefire, splitting the Union and leaving Bladareth XII to assemble the alliance on himself. The Union answered by invading and occupying the remnants of Abauria, and for three years, occasional Alshatist and Unionic Intrusions was combated.

In year 7596, Orth Awmnkha restarted the lightning warfare campaign, and this time, continued uniterruptedly, routing 400.000 soldiers from Teledor, Gherln, Alcionia and Marcionia at Jembaum, which was a sign to the clans in the Goblin Mountains to start supporting the Alshatists, by raiding western Teledor and Gherln. That allowed Awmnkha to cross high Ernirghil and surprisingly conquer Alcion in late 7596, and then move westwards towards Teledor, over the Shining Mountains. In Teledor, Orth Awmnkha started a ruthless guerilla campaign at the Cygeon Gorges, egging up the local nobility against the king, and the peasants against the nobility through a devious propaganda campaign, making Teledoranian peasants take up weapons against the Teledoranian army and the nobility behind the frontline. In the same time, the Alshatist army which had binded the Union Army at the Gates of Gherln appeared again, this time marching down the streams of the central Goblin Mountains, occupying the Ernirghil Delta together with 120.000 mountain Goblins. Even though the last battle in the war - at the gates of Elkor - was a Teledoranian victory, king Bladareth XII yielded and gave Awmnkha the title Suzerain of the Kingdom of Teledor and Gherln. The Acharene dynasty abdicated in year 7601, leaving the throne to the Sherandiones who ruled with Alshatist support.

Marcionia was conquered not by the Alshatists but by the Trolls of the Thaenads,who in 7598 had aligned themselves with the Alshatist Empire. The Core was now pacified, and immeaditily reformed. Power was de-centralised, the Temple faced persecutions, and the Guilds were declared non-existent after a from the beginning lenient attitude.

Consolidation and Purge

Awmnkha, now known as Eglale, or "Great Force", crushed the khanate of da'Khevith in year 7618, and the clans who had declared themselves loyal to him began a pursuit of spreading the revolution to the entire world, building a fleet which they used to paci the Lowlands, attacking Zetay in year 7633, and reaching the Othegar Ocean in year 7635, thus unifying all of Ernirghil under one system for the first time since Martaer in the 6th millennium.

Orth Awmnkha disappeared into the desert in year 7622, thus spawning the so-called Alshatist consolidation, where the Alshatist movement started to organise itself and collect tithes from the population, as well as starting missionary work and institute a violent rule over the population, centralising all power from Adjharian.

That period ended abruptly when the Second Eglale appeared in year 7632, and utilising the caravanists to kill off the hierarchy of the Alshatist Temple and declare the temple abolished. The Second Eglale claimed, and is claimed by alshatists, to have been the original Orth Awmnkha, and instituted himself as a god, declaring all authorities and bonds dissolved, and put up a reign of terror against indebtors, the nobility, knights and guilders. That period ended in year 7648 when the living god left his temple in Adjharian, pursuing the Truth. During the purge, at least 2 million people had been killed according to estimations, and over 3.000 buildings of historical or cultural significance had been levelled with the ground, celebrating the oncoming age of the individual.

Since that day, the Alshatist movement has been divided into two main parts, namely the students [da'thulcratiya] and the fatherkillers [da'ashadagariya], whereas the students look for truth in the Alshatist traditions of the Book of Truth and the historical-shamanistic appendix of that book, while the fatherkillers discarn all traditions and even claims that a student may only understand alshatism by not reading the Book of Truth without first finding himself.

Collapse of the Alshatist Empire

The Alshatist empire started to self-destroy, crumble and collapse already under the 7650;s. Drug abuse, criminality and violence were frequent, due to the anarchic state of the empire, and Goblin clans in the Core areas could cleanse comparably large swathes of territory and colonise them. The Alshatist Empire began dividing itself between an Alshatist cult mostly centered around Men, and a semi-anarchic clan-system mostly centered around Goblins, while the subjects continuously developed a higher level of organisation, and eventually managed to crush the Alshatist Empire in the Core.

It was during that time, in 7706, that the Third Eglale appeared in Goblin Culerica and mobilised an army of Men and Goblins outside the gates of the city in order to strike against of Culerica, but he was murdered, probably by the Alshatist elite of the city due to their fear of being purged. His army, consisting of 300.000 units, was sent away as mercenaries and Culerica sought for a cease-fire with the Noviyarian Union, thus ending the Liberation wars.

In the Core nations, where alshatist convertites were numerous in the city areas, purges were with-taken against them during Rafael Aeslan's supreme commandership. During the period of 7701-7703, a wave of murders were directed against alshatists living in Elkor, Ergherln, Blaghes, Belugine, Shiranda and the Abaurian cities, which all had a strong alshatist presence. In 7708-7710, an attempt on Aeslan's life resulted in an organised campaign against perceived alshatists, among other things leading to the famous ban on the Book of Truth. The third and last purge in 7713-7717 was directed against stash-dealers, but was also used against Guilders and nationalists, who themselves had organised campaigns both against alshatists and unionists. After the death of Aeslan, the purges were declared finished. Estimations about the amount of killed alshatists in the Core during the period of 7701-7717 ranges between 12.000 and 56.000. In any way, these campaigns led to the seeming erradication of alshatism in that region.

Goblin Culerica fell in year 7712 to a combined Zetayan-Union siege and a coup'd'etat of Culerica, made by the city's commander, the former Union general Eugene Vyllier, who became the first governor of Culerica. The Goblins remobilised a Eglaeduz but their counter-offensive was stalled during the Corazüne war of 7715-7717, which ended with Eglaeduz turning into a vassal state of the Union, and the official deconstruction of the Alshatist Empire.

When Sephiyat Orodai was established in year 7728, Eidvayz'da'Lukah used Alshatist propaganda against the traditionalist faction in Eglaeduz, and against the clans. But the Alshatism practised by Orodai during the years of 7728-7756 was different in the aspect that it regulated the lives of the Goblins through draconic laws in order to make the population accept the parliamentarian republican system of Orodai, thus spawning an underground Alshatist opposition which during the first years of the thirties used terrorism against the state.

Modern Alshatism

In the Noviyarian Union, alshatism became a major religion in the Goblin reservations, which in reality were concentration camps were Goblins were employed as forced labor, as a means of opposition, and gained a breakthrough there sometime during the 50;s. It had a paramount role in the Non-reaction movement led by the alshatist preacher Aahvil Awmnkha.

Aahvil also developed alshatism as a revolutionary movement, utilising it as a way for local communities to self-develop and for society as a whole to reach a state of "total democracy" where workers would control their factories just like peasants controls their land. That threatened to cast the Union into social chaos during the presidency of Rebecka Kurachau, which was only averted by the intervention of the military in 7768/69.

In Thirzail, the revolution of 7776 had a strong alshatist resemblance, and alshatists are also active within the insurgent army GFFO in Ghawwael against the Union troops stationed there. It is also growing in the membership states, both among workers and among intellectuals, becoming the major political extreme leftist force, inspiring strikes, direct activism and calls for justice.

The Book of Truth is rumoured to be distributed in secrecy in Teledor, Gherln, Abauria and Marcionia, as well as in Thinundor, and many progressive politicians are labelled as alshatists or alshatistic enablers by the conservative opposition. One example of such as politician is the populist Daman Villayn.

Various underground musical groups are rumoured to be alshatists, and alshatistic themes are very usual within vulgar culture.




Alshatistic rituals, festivities and customs

Developed Alshatistic cultural examples are known to have existed both in the city of Adjharian, which according to the Student faction is "holy". The most known examples of festivities is the Sixth Blossom, when alshatists celebrate the birth of their empire, as well as the Seventh of Sun, when they celebrate the perceived birth of their prophet Orth Awmnkha. During the festivities at Adjharian, which were voluntary, a symbolic sacrifice was presented into "the fires of awareness". The sacrifice consisted of statues made of salt, representing restraints, limitations, jealousy, vice and will to exert power over others. Thereafter, fireworks were sent into the sky, celebrating the new year of freedom.

The students use to gather around in groups, reciting chapters from the book of truth, focusing much on the mythology of Orth Awmnkha in the appendix [an appendix which were included during the 7670;s].

Alshatists preachers, which could be both male or female, are generally dressed in black robes, underneath which they wear very little clothes, seeing the body as unrestrained and beautiful as an expression of the individual will to exist.

The patricidal alshatists have not had any historical customs, seeing it as Awmnkha's true message to think for the self and not fall into the collectivist trap. Recently, there is some signs that the father-killers have made it into the underground scene.


http://noviyaria.wikispaces.com/Alshatism

[SavagePostModern]

Sure, there are new vectors for disease such as air travel, but humans haven't exactly been laggardly in this particular biological arms race. Vaccines, medicines, procedures like hand-washing and quarantine, water purification, various methods of sterilisation, and so on are all an extra layer of defence. Before all that, our only defence against disease were our immune systems. If one's immune system was compromised or underdeveloped, one was completely fucked.



For someone who says we should go with the flow of nature, you're awfully hubristic. At least I have an excuse - what's yours?



The problems you have mentioned so far, with the exception of universal heat death, are not unsolvable under our current understanding of the universe.



I'm doing more than "float[ing] around" - I'm actually studying a subject that both interests me and has significant potential as well as a proven record in addressing human concerns. Can you guess what it is?



I find your terminal misanthropy perplexing, myself. If the human race is fucked with no chance of being saved, what are you doing here? Shouldn't you be getting drunk/high/whatever and having the time of your life until the apocalypse?



I don't think I'm going to convince you either, but I try nonetheless. Besides, as this debate is public it is not just for the benefit of the participants - there is an audience to convince as well. Would you rather I insulted you and called you names?



OK, so the universe is inimical to life. I don't see that as a reason to give up, especially in light of the things we have done so far.



What's unrealistic about diverting asteroids? Any decent engineer will be able to analyse the problem and tell you exactly what needs to be done in such an instance.

Colonising other planets? We'd need to develop self-sustaining ecologies, but we already have a working example here - Earth itself. Later on we could transform planets like Mars and Venus into Earthlike planets, and then we would be free to wander under unEarthly skies. Maybe on Mars we would still require breathing gear like mountaineers do, but it would sure beat wearing full-body pressure suits.

As for the stars, well once we have mastered colonising and shaping other planets to our needs, travel to them will simply be a matter of time and energy, of which we will have plenty.



So what do you find comfort in? Do you find comfort in the idea of billions of humans dying excruciating deaths as they scream in terror and pain?

In any case it is a matter of preference, not comfort. I want the human race to expand throughout the universe, diversifying in form along the way, becoming and creating physical gods. But in order for that to happen, society first needs to change for the better.


Sure, there are new vectors for disease such as air travel, but humans haven't exactly been laggardly in this particular biological arms race. Vaccines, medicines, procedures like hand-washing and quarantine, water purification, various methods of sterilisation, and so on are all an extra layer of defence. Before all that, our only defence against disease were our immune systems. If one's immune system was compromised or underdeveloped, one was completely fucked.

Well aren't you just a person who relates life to a giant ongoing expiriment. Nifty.



For someone who says we should go with the flow of nature, you're awfully hubristic. At least I have an excuse - what's yours?



Do explain.



The problems you have mentioned so far, with the exception of universal heat death, are not unsolvable under our current understanding of the universe.


Atleast you seem to think so. Tell me all about your solutions............


I'm doing more than "float[ing] around" - I'm actually studying a subject that both interests me and has significant potential as well as a proven record in addressing human concerns.

Proven record? Such as?


Can you guess what it is?

Surprise me.


I find your terminal misanthropy perplexing, myself.

I find your faith in humanity along with your optimism equally perplexing. How about that?


If the human race is fucked with no chance of being saved, what are you doing here?

I'm just trying to enjoy this temporary existence in the seeking of pleasure. That's it. No big mystery involved.



Shouldn't you be getting drunk/high/whatever and having the time of your life until the apocalypse?

How do you know I'm not?



I don't think I'm going to convince you either, but I try nonetheless. Besides, as this debate is public it is not just for the benefit of the participants - there is an audience to convince as well.


*Waves at the audience*


Would you rather I insulted you and called you names?

I'm glad at this point we have had a cordial conversation of course if you did insult me it certainly wouldn't be the first instance of it happening here. ( Laughs.)


OK, so the universe is inimical to life. I don't see that as a reason to give up, especially in light of the things we have done so far.

In your perspective maybe.



What's unrealistic about diverting asteroids? Any decent engineer will be able to analyse the problem and tell you exactly what needs to be done in such an instance.


You might be lucky enough to divert asteroids assuming one doesn't destroy us first but tell me what are you going to do when there comes a day where there is only one dying star left in the universe that comes to be the last source of energy in existence where the last of the human race huddles beside it with the knowledge of their own impending extinction?

The difference between you and me is that I don't view there to be a solution for everything where as you do.

You believe every conflict and problem can be solved or salvaged where I do not.

I also believe nature and existence is perfect the way it is where it has no need of being modified.

Those that feel that they need to modify or tamper with the natural order of things I believe are those that create most of the problems in the world.

Those that feel that they need to modify the natural order of things exasperate things further.





Colonising other planets?


What's the point in colonising other planets beyond delaying our inevitable extinction?


We'd need to develop self-sustaining ecologies, but we already have a working example here - Earth itself. Later on we could transform planets like Mars and Venus into Earthlike planets, and then we would be free to wander under unEarthly skies. Maybe on Mars we would still require breathing gear like mountaineers do, but it would sure beat wearing full-body pressure suits.

Still chasing that dream where humanity becomes a technological god of existence...................Interesting.


As for the stars, well once we have mastered colonising and shaping other planets to our needs, travel to them will simply be a matter of time and energy, of which we will have plenty.

Assuming were not destroyed here on this planet first.


So what do you find comfort in?

Myself, independence, and pleasure.

( Curiosity in things too.)



Do you find comfort in the idea of billions of humans dying excruciating deaths as they scream in terror and pain?


No but I also understand there are things out of my control and out of the control of others irregardless of how I may wish existence to be.

It is that form of realism I have come to embrace and understand.

[Kronos]

Holy shit. Alshatism is awesome!

I am now an Nietzschean-Alshatist Fundamentalist Philosopher Mercenary.

I endorse a Spinozean ontology and metaphysics, a Nietzschean ethics, and a positivist epistemology.

Now I will answer any questions.

[ points ]

You there, in the back.....

[SavagePostModern]

Holy shit. Alshatism is awesome!

I am now an Nietzschean-Alshatist Fundamentalist Philosopher Mercenary.

I endorse a Spinozean ontology and metaphysics, a Nietzschean ethics, and a positivist epistemology.

Now I will answer any questions.

[ points ]

You there, in the back.....

Must be a inside joke I don't understand.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

yes i know the primitivists, very suicidal
Bah,I wouldn't call him primitivist, at least not anarcho-primitivist.I know some people who sympathize with anarcho primitivism IRL and their theses are quite different,at least their vision is a social community and not a chaotic survival of the fittest struggle even if they fail to realise that neither technology nor civilisation on themselves oppose it's existence.This guy just wants chaos:lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well aren't you just a person who relates life to a giant ongoing expiriment. Nifty.

In a broad sense, life is an experiment. Each of us comes into this world a blank slate in terms of knowledge and experience. The fact that civilisation allows knowledge to survive the death of individuals means that knowledge and experience can be passed down the generations - that is something we should treasure and embrace - because that means it is no longer just individuals who can learn, but the species as whole also.


Do explain.

What is there to explain? I asked the question of you.


Atleast you seem to think so. Tell me all about your solutions............

It's a long list, but I'll tell you about one; currently civilisation derives most of its electrical energy from fossil fuels, a limited and polluting resource. Switching over entirely to nuclear fuels (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html) and renewables will ensure that Earthly civilisation has energy to last for billions of years. Pretty neat, eh?


Proven record? Such as?

For a start, the computer you are using is based on physical principles that, while not completely understood, are nevertheless known to a large enough degree to achieve the technological wonder you're now sitting in front of. The germ theory of disease is part of what turned medicine from quackery into a functioning science.


Surprise me.

Physics. Sometimes called the Queen of Sciences, its principles underlie everything you see around you, and a lot of things that you cannot directly detect but affect you even so.


I find your faith in humanity along with your optimism equally perplexing. How about that?

It's not faith, but the realisation that enlightened self-interest is something that can be attained by all mentally sound individuals if they're given the chance. Part of my purpose here is to aid people in taking advantage of such an opportunity.


I'm just trying to enjoy this temporary existence in the seeking of pleasure. That's it. No big mystery involved.

I meant "here" as in this website. Do you enjoy visiting websites in order to preach doom, gloom and nihilism? That doesn't sound healthy - on the other hand, the pleasures of the flesh are legion and their benefits provide almost immediate succour - indeed, I do not shy from taking part in them myself. But I also have higher things in mind.


How do you know I'm not?

Because you seem quite sober, and rather miserable to boot. And misery, it appears, loves company.


*Waves at the audience*

Yeah, I'm sure they love you too.


I'm glad at this point we have had a cordial conversation of course if you did insult me it certainly wouldn't be the first instance of it happening here. ( Laughs.)

There's a certain challenge in letting my flamethrower rest in its sheath that I did not appreciate as much as I do nowadays.


In your perspective maybe.

"That's just like, your opinion man" - come on, you can do better than that.


You might be lucky enough to divert asteroids assuming one doesn't destroy us first but tell me what are you going to do when there comes a day where there is only one dying star left in the universe that comes to be the last source of energy in existence where the last of the human race huddles beside it with the knowledge of their own impending extinction?

When all the stars have exhausted their reserves of fusion fuel, there will still be objects such as brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, black holes and neutron stars, all potential sources of matter and energy for any civilisation still extant by that time. But of course, the story doesn't end there, for the universe at least.


The difference between you and me is that I don't view there to be a solution for everything where as you do.

You believe every conflict and problem can be solved or salvaged where I do not.

Utopia may or may not be achievable - we won't know until we try. If we don't try, that would be an insult not only to the giants whose shoulders we stand on, but also to those suffering and dying needlessly right now, as well as being an utterly criminal waste of human potential.


I also believe nature and existence is perfect the way it is where it has no need of being modified.

Those that feel that they need to modify or tamper with the natural order of things I believe are those that create most of the problems in the world.

Those that feel that they need to modify the natural order of things exasperate things further.

The truth is that the "natural order of things" fucking sucks! "Natural" is not the same as "good" or "desirable" or even "necessary".


What's the point in colonising other planets beyond delaying our inevitable extinction?

That is the point. Further, the more planets we colonise, the better our chances, since it is increasingly astronomically (heh) unlikely that a civilisation shattering disaster will strike two, three, more planets at once. Once we start colonising planets around other stars, we'll be sticking around for a very long time. Time enough for us as a species to prepare for the universal lights-out you mentioned earlier.


Still chasing that dream where humanity becomes a technological god of existence...................Interesting.

And why the hell not? Half-hearted half-measures never did anybody much good. I also used the plural.


Assuming were not destroyed here on this planet first.

Well, that's something we have to work on, isn't it? Your solution - destroy civilisation - is certain to cause the extinction of the human race. My solution, on the other hand, has a non-zero chance of success. Long odds beat certain failure every time.


Myself, independence, and pleasure.

( Curiosity in things too.)

[my emphasis]

You see, you have the spark in you, I knew it! Now use that spark to ignite a torch to light the way, rather than banging your shins in the darkness.


No but I also understand there are things out of my control and out of the control of others irregardless of how I may wish existence to be.

It is that form of realism I have come to embrace and understand.

That's not realism, that's fatalism. You seem to have resigned yourself to a powerless and meaningless existance where you stimulate your nerve endings with various distractions until you die and are forgotten.

Me? I intend to make my mark on the world, no matter how small, and hopefully for the better.

[SavagePostModern]

Noxion said:

In any case it is a matter of preference, not comfort. I want the human race to expand throughout the universe, diversifying in form along the way, becoming and creating physical gods. But in order for that to happen, society first needs to change for the better.


Well our preferences certainly are on opposite poles.

Everytime there have been leaders,pharoahs,kings, and imperators who thought of themselves as gods in the past there were always atrocities, mass murders, and hundreds of slaves at their disposal.

The humanity of the future you speak of becoming technological gods of the entire universe I imagine will be no different.

You might understand as to why your envisionment of technological gods of the future over the entire universe let alone the earth I find to be nothing short of absurd.

From my observation and expiriences no such better society shall ever exist because I have never known a moment both past or present that confine in me that the future will be without a upper class and it's slaves.

Everyone here is so ready to embrace an ideal of such a future but still haven't explained to me how such a state of existence is achievable.

[SavagePostModern]

So you're a moral nihilist. So if I give you the statement:

1. Murder is unethical.

Alright. So I think it is, and my friend the serial killer does not. The reason I think it is unethical, however, is not "real." Similarly, the relationship between 1+1=2, is not real. It's simply a method of describing the realities we can observe.

Similarly, we can observe interests of varying individuals. It my preference that people do not murder. Therefore, there "at least" seems to be a subjective moral code that amounts to the interests of "single individuals."

Remember, a rock doesn't exist independently as a rock. It exists as a rock once we label it as a rock. Before that, it was something we observed. What amoralism defines morality as, to me, must be very strange. I cannot conceive how you can deny the existance of something without first proclaiming what it is you are denying.

I would argue that as a rock exists as a "rock" when we label it, mathematical relationships exist once we observe them. Similarly, we observe the relationships between people. These are the interests of individual agents and the interactions between them.

Let's consider my interest in seeing innocent people live fulfilling lives. This is an interest, in my view, likely based on my intrinsic nature and socialization. It doesn't exist independent of people in some metaphysical world. It is simply an interest we can observe by asking me and considering my behavior.

Similarly, all people appear to have varying interests. We should seek to satisfy them to some degree. Why? Perhaps there is no rational reason. The reason is that we desire to satisfy them.

Perhaps you have no stake in matters? You could care less if you or others die or feel pain. With respect to the pain, that is unlikely. I have yet to meet or hear of a person with no interests. Therefore, it's clear that you desire to have these interests satisfy them.

If we wish to satisfy our own interests, which may include an interest in the welfare of others, we should cooperate. This is based on the rules of rationality. You can see in game theory with the Nash equilibrium. When a mutually advantageous solution is avaliable, as I see it, you are "morally obligated" to utilize it. This simply means you are obligated to be the being you are.

Who you are is a personal experience that is difficult to stumble upon. We rarely figure it out as we evolve as persons. I doubt you are a heartless person as I doubt you are uninterested in your own affairs and future.

Wouldn't it seem to reason that a solution that will benefit everyone, when avaliable, presents a moral obligation. And obligation to satisfy the demands of ourselves and others. Do humans not intrinsically seek out such solutions, with no need of external motivation? They seem to do so.

What motivation do the ethicists and moralists provide then, aside from metaphysical nonsense that discourages young and older minds alike from disregarding the possibility of ethical society. Very little, for the most part. However, if you conceptualize ethics from the perspective of satisfying demand, as William James did, you can conceptualize ethics as mathematical.

The debate them becomes a matter of observe the interests of people, observing the malleability of those interests, and analyzing the utilities involved in providing universally advatageous solutions. Surely the strong will seek to exploit others for their own interests. If they live naturally as an exploitative being, seeking primarily their own welfare, they will be corrupted by power.

This is precisely the reason I'm an anarchist rather than a Marxist. While I think a sufficiently altruistic group of people could accomplish a Marxist revolution, I think it is more prone to corrupt, as Bakunin did.

I share your worries that both revolutions and reforms are impractical. If you are intelligent, as I presume you are, you have a great burden you're well aware of. You will always know things before others. This is a constant frustration of being an intellectual. You will never see the ideal solution because you'll always discover new problems. That is why we need to see small gains and the satisfication of individual needs to be something of value.

If you conceptualize ethics with regards to the satisfaction of demand, in my view, it is quite evident society has become more progressive. Despite the widespread trend of unethical governments and violent wars, society still seems to be moving towards a growth in resources and availability of opportunities.

You can be pessmistic if you want. No person is so brilliant as to analyze all the variables and complexities of life, weigh them, and claim to know the future. If you choose to focus on the negatives, the possibility of hopelessness or disastor, you are entitled to do so. However, for every negative, you can list a positive. We would never complete the list to prove whether existence was primarily good or evil.

The evidence in science seems to suggest pessimism is unbeneficial to all people. I would encourage you to focus on the problems with respect to solutions. There is an enjoyment that comes with approaching difficult problems. I'm not completely satisfied by reformism, anarchism, or Marxism. Anarchism lacks analytics and concrete solutions. Marxism presents vague and dangerously flimsy solutions, and reformism relies on the honesty and altruism of those in power.

Surely if I wished to, as I have, I could join you in a pit of meaningless ideologies, nihilism, and hopelessness. The fact is that whether ethics exist in some "tangible form" or as mere "fictions" (though it's all semantics, as Wittgenstein and Carnap point out) it doesn't matter. We have interests we need to satisfy and we need to analyze the routes to satisfication with respect to others. Otherwise, complete non-cooperative anarchy, as you suggest, leaves us all worse of via a Hobbesian dystopia.




So you're a moral nihilist.


Yes. I see violence and conflict as a natural part of existence and a evolutionary adaptation to conflicting harsh competitive enviroments.



1. Murder is unethical.

Alright. So I think it is, and my friend the serial killer does not. The reason I think it is unethical, however, is not "real." Similarly, the relationship between 1+1=2, is not real. It's simply a method of describing the realities we can observe.


Thought up realities. Just because one thinks up somthing doesn't really matter much.

What you or others think up I and anyone else can deconstruct just as easily at will.



Similarly, we can observe interests of varying individuals. It my preference that people do not murder. Therefore, there "at least" seems to be a subjective moral code that amounts to the interests of "single individuals."


There is a difference between a moral and a preference as a moral tends more towards belief where a preference is more opinion.

Analogy:

Preference: My likes and dislikes are my own.

Moral: My likes and dislikes should be everybody elses likes and dislikes. My likes and dislikes should become law.

In subjectivism since whatever you say is subjective I can subjectively refuse and reject whenever I want to and vice versa.

But a more clearer way I reject all morality, ethics, and make believed rights is simple negation when it comes to hypocrisy or double standards.

Morality always becomes negated by hypocrisy making it all just seem like gibber gabber or mumbo jumbo from my perspective.

In my perspective everyone is a hypocrite including myself so if everybody is a hypocrite, how can anyone at all defer any sense of moral or ethical knowledge?

If a person claims to have moral or ethical knowledge exactly where does it come from?

I also look at the origins of morality and ethics being a religious one from ancient archaic religious terms of "pure" and "impure" or "clean" and "unclean" that has survived in our own era through many secular guises.

The religious concept "pure" transformed into what was deemed "good" where in secular society what was deemed good has transformed itself into what is deemed "right".

Likewise the religious concept "impure" transformed itself into what was deemed "evil" where later on in secular society what was deemed evil transformed itself into what is deemed "wrong".

All of these terms of course unprovable beyond the minds that believe in them.

Even though religion was completely obliterated in the 19th century where god became a dead inquiry the religious concepts of the sacred and the profane have survived in many social secular forms.

It seems that when society became secularized it could exist without a god but could not exist without the previous social mental warfare installed by that of morality or ethics as previous behavior modifications stemming from religious origins.



Remember, a rock doesn't exist independently as a rock. It exists as a rock once we label it as a rock. Before that, it was something we observed. What amoralism defines morality as, to me, must be very strange. I cannot conceive how you can deny the existance of something without first proclaiming what it is you are denying.


Exactly and if I want to call a tomato paella or somthing else even if others don't understand me I could if I wanted to.



I cannot conceive how you can deny the existance of something without first proclaiming what it is you are denying.


Atheists do it all the time. It's really not that hard.

One can compare moral nihilism, moral skepticism, and amoralism with atheism.

The connection:

Atheists reject the belief and existence of god.

Amoralists reject the belief and existence of morals or ethics.

Can you see the connection?


I would argue that as a rock exists as a "rock" when we label it, mathematical relationships exist once we observe them. Similarly, we observe the relationships between people. These are the interests of individual agents and the interactions between them.

Just because someone states somthing does not mean that another must acknowledge it.


Let's consider my interest in seeing innocent people live fulfilling lives.

Alright..............but of course you don't mean equally since nobody in this existence live fulfilling lives equally.

Many people are left to rot in suffering by the hand of others.

And because of such pain, humiliation,disenfranchisement, and alienation is the reason why individuals turn to violence against others.

( For every action there is a reaction.)

( Most human conflict is self created or self inflicted.)


This is an interest, in my view, likely based on my intrinsic nature and socialization.

I see nothing intrinsic or innate about morality and ethics. To me they are acquired beliefs like religion and nothing more.

If such items of inquiry were innate or biological one would think everyone would be acting a manner that is moral and ethical where any contrary form of behavior would be impossible to achieve.





It doesn't exist independent of people in some metaphysical world.

The belief stems from some imaginary independent metaphysical universe that people come to embrace in their convictions of such a belief.




It is simply an interest we can observe by asking me and considering my behavior


Interests are relative and subjective.


Similarly, all people appear to have varying interests. We should seek to satisfy them to some degree. Why? Perhaps there is no rational reason. The reason is that we desire to satisfy them.

Much of reason is merely an appeal to emotions, desires, and sentiments.



Perhaps you have no stake in matters?

Depends.


You could care less if you or others die or feel pain.

Preferably not for myself..............


I have yet to meet or hear of a person with no interests. Therefore, it's clear that you desire to have these interests satisfy them.

I have interests and I'm under the mind that I'll do whatever it takes to fulfill them.


If we wish to satisfy our own interests, which may include an interest in the welfare of others, we should cooperate.

I believe in cooperation only when it benefits me. If it is beneficial to me I will cooperate with others.

If I find cooperation with others to be unbeneficial to me I cease being cooperative.

If I view others to be a threat to my existence I'll do everything in my power to seek their ruin or downfall.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth.

If it is beneficial to me to neutralized another individual for my gain then I will neutralized them if I find it necessary.

These are my perspectives of social interaction. This is my amoral account of social interaction.

Respect begets respect. Disrespect begets disrespect and so on.

Nothing mystical about it.


This is based on the rules of rationality.

The only rationality I trust is my own.


You can see in game theory with the Nash equilibrium. When a mutually advantageous solution is avaliable, as I see it, you are "morally obligated" to utilize it. This simply means you are obligated to be the being you are.

I don't believe in obligation.




Who you are is a personal experience that is difficult to stumble upon. We rarely figure it out as we evolve as persons. I doubt you are a heartless person as I doubt you are uninterested in your own affairs and future.


Heartless........No. I'm no bleeding heart either.

I merely treat others the way they treat me and if they mistreat me they get what they get. ( Laughs.)



Wouldn't it seem to reason that a solution that will benefit everyone, when avaliable, presents a moral obligation. And obligation to satisfy the demands of ourselves and others. Do humans not intrinsically seek out such solutions, with no need of external motivation? They seem to do so.


As of yet I've seen nothing that benefits everybody equally.

It seems benefits only come to specific and chosen people when it comes to society or social interaction where everybody else is left in damnation.

The whole give and take relationship seems to benefit only those that are deemed profitable individuals centering around a collective ontological sense of individual worth where individuals that are deemed of little worth or value unto being considered worthless are left into a sort of existential damnation.

I don't like it compared to the next man but it is what it is.



Do humans not intrinsically seek out such solutions,


Humans seek to fulfill their own self interests and desires. Sometimes they are able to while other times they are not able.

Sometimes there are things in existence that have no solution but that doesn't stop people from wishing them into existence.


What motivation do the ethicists and moralists provide then, aside from metaphysical nonsense that discourages young and older minds alike from disregarding the possibility of ethical society. Very little, for the most part. However, if you conceptualize ethics from the perspective of satisfying demand, as William James did, you can conceptualize ethics as mathematical.


Explain.



The debate them becomes a matter of observe the interests of people, observing the malleability of those interests, and analyzing the utilities involved in providing universally advatageous solutions.

I don't believe in universalism.


Surely the strong will seek to exploit others for their own interests. If they live naturally as an exploitative being, seeking primarily their own welfare, they will be corrupted by power.

Is it corruption or is it somthing else?



I share your worries that both revolutions and reforms are impractical.

Nods.



If you are intelligent, as I presume you are, you have a great burden you're well aware of. You will always know things before others. This is a constant frustration of being an intellectual.

You will never see the ideal solution because you'll always discover new problems.


Nods.



That is why we need to see small gains and the satisfication of individual needs to be something of value.

Nobody makes gains equally.


If you conceptualize ethics with regards to the satisfaction of demand, in my view, it is quite evident society has become more progressive.

For whom? Because at this point such a venture is never equal.


Despite the widespread trend of unethical governments and violent wars, society still seems to be moving towards a growth in resources and availability of opportunities.

How so?


You can be pessmistic if you want. No person is so brilliant as to analyze all the variables and complexities of life, weigh them, and claim to know the future. If you choose to focus on the negatives, the possibility of hopelessness or disastor, you are entitled to do so.

I only do so because I see no other alternative to my perspective.

Everyday the world gives me a reason to be pessimistic.


However, for every negative, you can list a positive.

Not really.


We would never complete the list to prove whether existence was primarily good or evil

It is neither. It is indifferent.


The evidence in science seems to suggest pessimism is unbeneficial to all people.

Well as I said nothing benefits everybody equally.


I would encourage you to focus on the problems with respect to solutions.

I see none.




Surely if I wished to, as I have, I could join you in a pit of meaningless ideologies, nihilism, and hopelessness. The fact is that whether ethics exist in some "tangible form" or as mere "fictions" (though it's all semantics, as Wittgenstein and Carnap point out) it doesn't matter.

I think it does matter because many assumptions on existence have been build upon them.


We have interests we need to satisfy and we need to analyze the routes to satisfication with respect to others.

I don't give respect out freely. It is either earned or not given.



Otherwise, complete non-cooperative anarchy, as you suggest, leaves us all worse of via a Hobbesian dystopia.


I don't see the comparison.

[SavagePostModern]

Wow,SPM you sound like the person my school's teachers used to have in mind when they were speaking about anarchy...you know this whole ''anarchy is survival of the fittest and destruction of civilisation propaganda thing''.... funny to know that such people exist.Anyway.

While anarchy in the dictionary is just described as a state of no leadership,what anarchism actually craves is not the destruction of organisation,in fact an anarchistic society is the one which requires the most organising since the individuals have to self-organise.It is NOT survival of the fittest,nor is it a place where you can do ''whatever you want'' literally,your freedom ends when someone's else starts.An anarchistic community is organised with many many human collaborations and consensus via direct democracy,granting each individual the maximum personal freedom possible.Your ''vision'' of anarchy is just a state of chaos where anyone can use his authority over other people and out of which someone will come out as a leader-it's only the flow of things.Anarchy is not Chaos,Anarchy is Order.

Fail arguement,why something not happened by now equates it will never happen?Did we pass a lock or something that fixes humanity in the place it is today?You know one could say the same arguement for every social change in human's history as in the evolution from feudarchy.As for the social determinism, well it's only logical.From all the possible societies there can be,anarcho-communism is the only one that can organise fairly,respecting both the freedom and the equality of the individuals entwined.It is eventual that one day (maybe far away from now but still) people will realise this and fight for it,either that or humanity gets destroyed first.

oy oy oy

No.Civilisation is everything the human existence has created (with the exception of The Jonas Brothers of course.)You can't tell me that art,science in all of its forms and social structures only serve the ruling class.It is true however that they do benefit more than the rest of us,and that's why we combat them.


Well,philosophically and practically speaking there will always be some authority,you just can't purge it's existence out of here since it rests in nature itself.But this simple realisation does not equate a non hierarchical structure utopistic.Let me ellaborate.Authority is met wherever there is difference of power between two individuals,so thus speaking even one of the most simple acts such as asking a direction as a foreigner in a town builds a temporary platform gap of authority between you and the one you asked,since he knows more and can therefore use his knowledge-power to send you somewhere completely off,therefore abusing you.Simple paradigm but you get what I'm saying I reckon,there will always be temporary relationships of authority since it is something build within the natural laws.Not to being so would have to mean that everyone is practically the exact SAME,something which is both unnatural,impossible and undesirable.From that point and after though,the aim of anarchism is to break down the various form's of central,exploitive and strong authority replacing them with a net of communes (or any other forms of organisations) that rule themselves with true democratic measures.Under such a society,consciousness and social justice is being totally and subtly preached into it's denizens so that when those temporary relationship's of authority arise,the power will be used responsibly and fairly.

You watch too many science fiction movies or read too many dystopian novels.Technology is far from the point it can do that yet fortunately and some of the things that are imagined in those visions can quite simply not exist.Now it is our aim and our hope that when technology rises into such an extent that it becomes too dangerous for human existence and justice/freedom the world will be responsible enough to know where to draw the line.Either that or they will rebel against it.But I don't believe in total control of technology,the human factor is far too strong to be wiped away,life will find it's way and always survive.


....The fuck?:confused:

We as humanity,adapted and grew up from the rest of this world's life simply because we joined together creating communities and therefore civilisation.It's quite simple to understand this I think,since both power in unity and combination of different individual talents make a foundation that is always stronger than any individual.Fair enough,civilisation introduced human authority together under the name of social organisation and ''the greater good'' but we are here to fix that :cool:
After all,a return in the ''genuine anarchy'' of survival of the fittest you propose is not possible,simply because we live in survival of the fittest.Authority and exploitation in society is a direct stem of it,since some people found that blinding,lying and manipulating others is much more practical and usefull than enforcing their brute strength in front of their eyes.

Morality and ethics are nothing more than human creations,agreed.They were created though to serve some purpose and it is therefore a 'duty' of any orthologist and any anarchist to constantly question them and criticise them under a non-delusional materialistic perspective in order to understand which of them are trully practical and fair (e.g which can serve humanity better) and wipe the rest of them away.

Finally,for the whole optimism - pessimism debate,there is truly no use or logic into being a pessimist,it can only bring bad things to you.Optimism,you have to realise is neither a delusional and utopic analysis of the truths that constitute our existence nor a idealistic and illogical belief that things will turn out better whatever happens,but rather a realisation of our current limits,the fact that by mourning over them we achieve nothing and the decision to try and change them with hope there is indeed chance they can turn for the better.




Wow,SPM you sound like the person my school's teachers used to have in mind when they were speaking about anarchy...you know this whole ''anarchy is survival of the fittest and destruction of civilisation propaganda thing''.... funny to know that such people exist.Anyway.

In a state of anarchy where all individuals live in complete independence you have to be able to accept the violence of such an existence where people's interests conflict with one another.

Let's see if you can counter that.


While anarchy in the dictionary is just described as a state of no leadership,what anarchism actually craves is not the destruction of organisation,

I never said such. Infact my envisionment of anarchy would be somthing quite feudal where there would exist different clans and groups competing against each other without a centralized authority.



in fact an anarchistic society is the one which requires the most organising since the individuals have to self-organise.


Couldn't agree more.



It is NOT survival of the fittest,nor is it a place where you can do ''whatever you want'' literally,your freedom ends when someone's else starts.


In what way?



An anarchistic community is organised with many many human collaborations and consensus via direct democracy,granting each individual the maximum personal freedom possible.


That sounds like a democratic or libertarian government to me. ( Not anarchistic.)



Your ''vision'' of anarchy is just a state of chaos where anyone can use his authority over other people and out of which someone will come out as a leader-it's only the flow of things.


I like my version of anarchy in that I view it to be more individually liberating.



Anarchy is not Chaos,Anarchy is Order.



Order leads to government. Make up your mind.


Fail arguement,why something not happened by now equates it will never happen?

Your absolutely right. When the christians say the second coming of Jesus is coming we should just take their word for it and believe it so.




Did we pass a lock or something that fixes humanity in the place it is today?


Do you believe in determined limitations? I do. Gravity does too.


You know one could say the same arguement for every social change in human's history as in the evolution from feudarchy.As for the social determinism, well it's only logical.From all the possible societies there can be,anarcho-communism is the only one that can organise fairly,respecting both the freedom and the equality of the individuals entwined.It is eventual that one day (maybe far away from now but still) people will realise this and fight for it,either that or humanity gets destroyed first

I'm confused. Are you saying that you believe in social determinism in that social interactions are determined by independent sources that are out of our control?


From all the possible societies there can be,anarcho-communism is the only one that can organise fairly,respecting both the freedom and the equality of the individuals entwined.It is eventual that one day (maybe far away from now but still) people will realise this and fight for it,either that or humanity gets destroyed first.

Too bad it's only theoretical and ideal instead of being applicable.

One reason why I view anarchism to trump socialism or communism.


No.Civilisation is everything the human existence has created

Alright.................


(with the exception of The Jonas Brothers of course.)

Dam Walt Disney Robots...........


You can't tell me that art,science in all of its forms and social structures only serve the ruling class

Sure I can because the ruling class has complete hegemony over value and worth.



It is true however that they do benefit more than the rest of us,and that's why we combat them.



Nods.

[KarlMarx1989]

In a state of Anarchy, there wouldn't be anyone left. Everyone would die. Maybe a select few would remain, but only like 100 so you wouldn't be able to defend your country. So, you can say goodbye to your country and lose it to someone who really wants the land.

[Havet]

In a state of Anarchy, there wouldn't be anyone left. Everyone would die. Maybe a select few would remain, but only like 100 so you wouldn't be able to defend your country. So, you can say goodbye to your country and lose it to someone who really wants the land.

Huh?

Why would everyone die?

What do you define as anarchy?

[willdw79]

I figured my version of anarchistic philosophy would be put in the opposing ideologies right away, being that I don't see socialism or communism as a form of human salvation, like many here seem to believe.

So I decided to put my threads in the opposing ideologies section of this website in order to bring about some sort of convenience for the moderators here, so that they wouldn't have to, later on knowing that what I have to say probably won't be well liked here. Your welcome.


Now to what I have to say when it concerns this thread............................


Revolution is merely where one dictator or authoritarianship comes to be replaced by a newer one.

Revolution is merely where the oppressed overthrow their oppressors only to become the new oppressors themselves.

Revolution is only useful to the party or faction that assumes power.

Politics is merely where individual people come out promising other people various things in order to get into office where once they are in office they never fulfill what they originally said and then go on to fill their pockets with other people's wealth.

Politics are only useful to politicians.

This is my rudimentary definition of revolution and politics and why I view them being useless or hopeless endeavors.
You have redefined the English language, no contadiction. If you don't see the difference between Russia 1915 and Russia 1920, then you haven't looked hard enough. The same goes for China, Cuba, Algeria, etc.

These early socialist styled revolutions were not perfect, but all of them were progressive in some aspects.

If you really believe what you say, then why even trip off of revleft?

Why not do something that matters to you?

Or is it that you fear the revolution?

Do you stand to gain or lose from a revolution? Perhaps your mind will lose some chains.

[ls]

Genuine anarchy. Where anything and everything goes.

Total independence to whatever people want and will.

Somalia turned into armed gangs doing whatever they wanted too. :cool:

[SavagePostModern]

Somalia turned into armed gangs doing whatever they wanted too. :cool:

And those armed gangs are enjoying life I bet. :cool:

( They are probally raiding a French tourist luxory ocean cruiser as we speak.)

[willdw79]

And those armed gangs are enjoying life I bet. :cool:
What are you talking about? You should clarify your last comment because you will lose all of your credibility if you don't.

[SavagePostModern]

What are you talking about?

If you were a armed Somalian taking whatever you want through the social organization you were working for making a profit for yourself, wouldn't you be enjoying life?

( That guy below looks pretty happy and content.)

http://www.japanfocus.org/data/somalipirats.GIF

[Ele'ill]

Your absolutely right. When the christians say the second coming of Jesus is coming we should just take their word for it and believe it so.

I just noticed a logic error here.

We have no proof that a religious realm even exists. Its not part of our tangible universe.

We do have proof that many different governments and social dwellings have existed and we have proof that they continue to evolve.

[SavagePostModern]

I just noticed a logic error here.

We have no proof that a religious realm even exists. Its not part of our tangible universe.

We do have proof that many different governments and social dwellings have existed and we have proof that they continue to evolve.

It was a silly sarcastic comparison. Did you even read what he said?

[willdw79]

If you were a armed Somalian taking whatever you want through the social organization you were working for making a profit for yourself, wouldn't you be enjoying life?

( That guy below looks pretty happy and content.)

http://www.japanfocus.org/data/somalipirats.GIF
Looks may be deceiving you, however I don't believe that you are being genuine. I will also point out that he neither looks happy nor does he have any shoes. Furthermore, we are communists, not fucking utilitarians, I don't give a fuck if he is happy being a fucking predator against the working class. He is a class enemy.

[RGacky3]

Entertainment and somthing to do. ( I get bored real easily.)

I gain pleasure from these conversations. I'm quite the hedonist.

Really? So you go to a leftist website, even though your not interested in revolution or anything like that, your not a capitalist, your not trying to learn anything, you essencially think revolution, freedom and social justice are a waste of time?

You clearly don't know anything about socialism, your "point" is that we are all wasting our time working toward something because you think its pointless. Yet you took time time to write long long posts about how no one should care.

Your not a hedonist, wipe that smirk of your face, your just a looser, your not shocking anyone, your not provoking anyone, you just need to get out.

If your not here to contribute anything, your just dicking around and wasting time.

[willdw79]

I am being genuine actually.

( So what he doesn't have any shoes. Maybe he's comfortable that way over the ocean as he holds rich wealthy tourists at gun point.)

( Maybe it's a fashion statement. How do you know?)

:lol:
kick rocks

[SavagePostModern]

Looks may be deceiving you, however I don't believe that you are being genuine. I will also point out that he neither looks happy nor does he have any shoes. Furthermore, we are communists, not fucking utilitarians, I don't give a fuck if he is happy being a fucking predator against the working class. He is a class enemy.


I am being genuine actually.

( So what he doesn't have any shoes. Maybe he's comfortable that way over the ocean as he holds rich wealthy tourists at gun point.)

( Maybe it's a fashion statement. How do you know?)


Furthermore, we are communists, not fucking utilitarians, I don't give a fuck if he is happy being a fucking predator against the working class. He is a class enemy.

How big brother and governmental of you.


kick rocks

Awwwww.................. I like you too.

[SavagePostModern]

Really? So you go to a leftist website, even though your not interested in revolution or anything like that, your not a capitalist, your not trying to learn anything, you essencially think revolution, freedom and social justice are a waste of time?

You clearly don't know anything about socialism, your "point" is that we are all wasting our time working toward something because you think its pointless. Yet you took time time to write long long posts about how no one should care.

Your not a hedonist, wipe that smirk of your face, your just a looser, your not shocking anyone, your not provoking anyone, you just need to get out.

If your not here to contribute anything, your just dicking around and wasting time.

I am interested in rebellion just not the kind you guys have in mind.

Rebellion and independence is not a waste of time just the revolution part I think.

( I also don't believe in social justice since it is the upper classes that dictate social justice.)

( Social justice just amounts to a monopoly of interests controlled by the ruling party where it does nothing at all for the lower classes.)

( If the upper classes control social justice via their own interests where at the same time the lower classes are oppressed by the upper classes social justice amounts to a joke.)



Your not a hedonist, wipe that smirk of your face, your just a looser, your not shocking anyone, your not provoking anyone, you just need to get out.


I think you have a crush on me...........Don't deny it.



If your not here to contribute anything, your just dicking around and wasting time.


I feel like I have made some important contributions atleast from my perspective.

[SavagePostModern]

Well I'll be back tomorrow to answer and reply to the rest of the posts here in this thread.

Everybody have a wonderful evening. (I'm out.)

( Wonderful morning or afternoon if your in a different time zone.):)

[Patchd]

Yeah it is. It's always about power. Social power is what drives social dynamics.
Power is a secondary factor, it's about living free from oppression and exploitation, in order to be able to fulfil the potential of oneself, collective power is only a secondary reward as we would have to overthrow the power of those who are currently oppressing us in order to attain emancipation.


If you were a armed Somalian taking whatever you want through the social organization you were working for making a profit for yourself, wouldn't you be enjoying life?

( That guy below looks pretty happy and content.)
Do you know of the context of the Somali pirates? Many have been forced to take up piracy thanks to many foreign businesses and states dumping toxic waste into the Aden gulf, which as well as killing off a lot of their fish, a staple diet for Somalis living by the coast and further inland, it washed toxic waste onto their shores also. As a result, their own means of survival has been to take to piracy.

Why take when you can receive freely? Furthermore, in an abundant society taking what may be considered someone else's won't be as offensive or damaging, they can simply get another of that produce again, for free. He'd probably be more content and happy if he didn't have to pick up a gun in order to survive.

May I ask of your class background? Have you ever needed to work in order to feed yourself, or does mummy and daddy provide it all for you? Simple question. :cool:


Revolution is merely where one dictator or authoritarianship comes to be replaced by a newer one.
Well, fuck me sideways, who you trying to convince?

Of course revolution is about authoritarianship, one way or the other. Rather, I'd have collective authority where authority would be less limited to a single individual than 'chaos', where an individual can very easily take authority for themselves. In addition, I'd also like to keep my insides without someone just gutting me up because it's fun and they'd want to do it, and because in your picture perfect society everyone is allowed to do anything they like. Not saying that that would necessarily happen to me, but I at least want a guarantee that a collective of people will come to my aid if that ever happens.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm disappointed. You ignored my latest post and simply went back and quoted from an earlier one.


Well our preferences certainly are on opposite poles.

Everytime there have been leaders,pharoahs,kings, and imperators who thought of themselves as gods in the past there were always atrocities, mass murders, and hundreds of slaves at their disposal.

That's because "godhood" was reserved for an elite, and they weren't really anything even approaching gods in any case - they were just as human as you or I.

Besides, why do you care if people are killed or enslaved? I though you were a nihilist...


The humanity of the future you speak of becoming technological gods of the entire universe I imagine will be no different.

That's because your imagination has been stunted with misanthropic rubbish - you can't even concieve of an egalitarian technological society, so you summarily dismiss the possibility.


You might understand as to why your envisionment of technological gods of the future over the entire universe let alone the earth I find to be nothing short of absurd.

Again, that's your problem, not mine.


From my observation and expiriences no such better society shall ever exist because I have never known a moment both past or present that confine in me that the future will be without a upper class and it's slaves.

So? Just because something hasn't happened before, does not in itself mean it won't ever happen.


Everyone here is so ready to embrace an ideal of such a future but still haven't explained to me how such a state of existence is achievable.

You have to have a good idea of what you want before you can struggle for it. I have good reason to believe that comrades are struggling the world over in order to achieve that.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

In a state of anarchy where all individuals live in complete independence you have to be able to accept the violence of such an existence where people's interests conflict with one another. Let's see if you can counter that. Easy,first of all it's impossible for individuals to live in complete independence as you say because humans are social animals and even if you could self cater your own needs perfectly well, you would still desire interaction with other persons.Additionally,even the needs that don't directly contain social interaction are fulfilled better within a community than on their own.Now to the point of violence,in an anarchistically organised society the reasons violence is incited are tracked down and taken care of with the source of violence been preemptively cut down.People act violently for several reasons and the aim of a social society must always be to prevent those reasons rather than to punish the violators(That's like a man wanting to cut a ever-growing tree down and fighting with the branches instead of decapitating the root).Now I'm not saying that every last ounce of violence will be prevented,that's something awfully idealistic and naive,but still most(and certainly the more dangerous forms)would.As you said violence grows when people's interests conflict with each other but the point of such a society is that each's interest can be fulfilled without coming in conflict with their neighbour's ones.When a violent act takes place and during it's duration,the community will act to stop it in the most practical way,collaboratively and immediatly but without the use of a central ''guard'' squad but rather direct action from the citizen's themselves.(Sorta like a civilian militia)Finally,should the action be stopped,the community will try and find why and where it stemmed from and act so to prevent future incidents both from other people and the ones who did it,keeping in mind that vengeance,punishment and preemptive laws and rules serve no practical purpose other than satisfy the egotism and act as a detterent against resistance to authority,thus abstaining from them.

It is NOT survival of the fittest,nor is it a place where you can do ''whatever you want'' literally,your freedom ends when someone's else starts. In what way? Under what Kropotkin first baptised the anarchist consciousness or ''the one true moral'' which simply states "don't do unto others what you wouldn't want them to do to you and on the contrary act to them as you would like them to act upon you."And don't play the ''yes but everyone has different likings and limits so that's impossible'' card because yes,everything is relative but that doesn't mean that some things are not much more objective than the others,e.g you can be sure that acting against someone's will is something that he doesn't like and something you wouldn't like either.So the original statement must be read in it's more general context as in to ''act in such a way that you deal no pain or authority upon anyone but rather give pleasure and aid"
That sounds like a democratic or libertarian government to me. ( Not anarchistic.) Well anarchism is of course a kind of democracy in it's most extreme and direct form.The difference from a ''democratic libertarian'' community is of course that there is no authority and so no government in it's narrow definition but rather a state of self-governing.
Order leads to government. Make up your mind. Let's use these definitions: Chaos:a state of unpredictability and lack of sense where one cannot determine the rules or logic under which things flow /{used for human communities} a term used to describe lack of organisation and peace,where everyone is acting as they will according to their powers[survival of the fittest],a community lacking laws or order./-ic {used for humans} a person acting solely according to his instincts and impulses without following plans or using logic but rather subconsciously. Order:{In mathematics}a condition under which things follow a certain and predictable flow,underlined by some mathematic,logic law or rules as opposed to chaos/{In social studies,politics} A state in which actions are planned and followed strictly and thoroughly usually with the assistance of laws and some kind of authority,a state of peace and harmony. Two extremes if you want my opinion,none of which can always work or exist on it's own.Complete lack of organisation and logic leads to nothingness,to the Void, it simply cannot exist while even trying to completely plan down and track every action and detail is on it's own arrogant,impractical stupid and unnatural,that's why you can never ever have total control of something-there is always one thing you will not notice or prevent and that's why I don't believe in any determinism,be it scientific,social or theological.Authoritarian governments and communities try to totally repress and keep down resistance and what they label as wrong or evil,unaware of the fact they are failing while creating more of that which they tried to keep down.It's impractical and utopic to actually succeed in such away.Anarchism on the other hand,realises the innate chaos in nature,accepts the limits it gives us and tries to organise humanity in harmony and balance with it keeping the human existence as high as it can and granting the individuals freedom and satisfaction to their desires,to any extent this is possible.Therefore,as Proudhon said:Property is Theft,Anarchy is Order. All these I said until now are really basic stuff about anarchism man,have you ever sat and read one of the social anarchist's books on what does anarchy mean for us and what do we crave along with all these individual-anarchism crap you are reading from Stirner?I'd reccomend you read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid,Anarchy:It's Morals and Ideals and even The Conquest of Bread and you will find answers for all of these.
I'm confused. Are you saying that you believe in social determinism in that social interactions are determined by independent sources that are out of our control? As I said above I don't believe in determinism in the meaning that anyone can predict and strictly regulate the flow and path of future things,only make some logical assumptions.However I surely believe that from all possible human communities,one ruled anarchistically and regulated economically with communism is best there can ever be and when humanity reaches it,should it each it,it won't go back to anything else.(All that if we are not destroyed by some comet,an extra-enviromental disaster or allien invasion:lol:)
Sure I can because the ruling class has complete hegemony over value and worth. Do you not admire and feel art in any of its forms for entertainment?Do you deny that you are using the conquests of science every day,even now typing on a forum on a computer?
There is a difference between a moral and a preference as a moral tends more towards belief where a preference is more opinion. Analogy: Preference: My likes and dislikes are my own. Moral: My likes and dislikes should be everybody elses likes and dislikes. My likes and dislikes should become law. In subjectivism since whatever you say is subjective I can subjectively refuse and reject whenever I want to and vice versa. But a more clearer way I reject all morality, ethics, and make believed rights is simple negation when it comes to hypocrisy or double standards. Morality always becomes negated by hypocrisy making it all just seem like gibber gabber or mumbo jumbo from my perspective. In my perspective everyone is a hypocrite including myself so if everybody is a hypocrite, how can anyone at all defer any sense of moral or ethical knowledge? If a person claims to have moral or ethical knowledge exactly where does it come from? I also look at the origins of morality and ethics being a religious one from ancient archaic religious terms of "pure" and "impure" or "clean" and "unclean" that has survived in our own era through many secular guises. The religious concept "pure" transformed into what was deemed "good" where in secular society what was deemed good has transformed itself into what is deemed "right". Likewise the religious concept "impure" transformed itself into what was deemed "evil" where later on in secular society what was deemed evil transformed itself into what is deemed "wrong". All of these terms of course unprovable beyond the minds that believe in them. Even though religion was completely obliterated in the 19th century where god became a dead inquiry the religious concepts of the sacred and the profane have survived in many social secular forms. It seems that when society became secularized it could exist without a god but could not exist without the previous social mental warfare installed by that of morality or ethics as previous behavior modifications stemming from religious origins.
The connection: Atheists reject the belief and existence of god. Amoralists reject the belief and existence of morals or ethics. Surely,most of the morals religion had created to serve the authority of the ruling classes have survived in one way or another and we are constantly fighting against them,surely morals are human creations and not something solid.BUT,there is a difference between atheism and amoralism,in that the theists believe that something exists out of them and without their full understanding or participation in it's creation,while orthological people with morals simply follow some very simple and loose rules THEY have created out of both practicallity,instinct and logic.

Well I'll be back tomorrow to answer and reply to the rest of the posts here in this thread. Everybody have a wonderful evening. (I'm out.) ( Wonderful morning or afternoon if your in a different time zone.) Ciao,if I see a lunatic demolishing a skyscraper with an axe on the news I know it will be you :laugh:

[SavagePostModern]

Wow,SPM you sound like the person my school's teachers used to have in mind when they were speaking about anarchy...you know this whole ''anarchy is survival of the fittest and destruction of civilisation propaganda thing''.... funny to know that such people exist.Anyway.

While anarchy in the dictionary is just described as a state of no leadership,what anarchism actually craves is not the destruction of organisation,in fact an anarchistic society is the one which requires the most organising since the individuals have to self-organise.It is NOT survival of the fittest,nor is it a place where you can do ''whatever you want'' literally,your freedom ends when someone's else starts.An anarchistic community is organised with many many human collaborations and consensus via direct democracy,granting each individual the maximum personal freedom possible.Your ''vision'' of anarchy is just a state of chaos where anyone can use his authority over other people and out of which someone will come out as a leader-it's only the flow of things.Anarchy is not Chaos,Anarchy is Order.

Fail arguement,why something not happened by now equates it will never happen?Did we pass a lock or something that fixes humanity in the place it is today?You know one could say the same arguement for every social change in human's history as in the evolution from feudarchy.As for the social determinism, well it's only logical.From all the possible societies there can be,anarcho-communism is the only one that can organise fairly,respecting both the freedom and the equality of the individuals entwined.It is eventual that one day (maybe far away from now but still) people will realise this and fight for it,either that or humanity gets destroyed first.

oy oy oy

No.Civilisation is everything the human existence has created (with the exception of The Jonas Brothers of course.)You can't tell me that art,science in all of its forms and social structures only serve the ruling class.It is true however that they do benefit more than the rest of us,and that's why we combat them.


Well,philosophically and practically speaking there will always be some authority,you just can't purge it's existence out of here since it rests in nature itself.But this simple realisation does not equate a non hierarchical structure utopistic.Let me ellaborate.Authority is met wherever there is difference of power between two individuals,so thus speaking even one of the most simple acts such as asking a direction as a foreigner in a town builds a temporary platform gap of authority between you and the one you asked,since he knows more and can therefore use his knowledge-power to send you somewhere completely off,therefore abusing you.Simple paradigm but you get what I'm saying I reckon,there will always be temporary relationships of authority since it is something build within the natural laws.Not to being so would have to mean that everyone is practically the exact SAME,something which is both unnatural,impossible and undesirable.From that point and after though,the aim of anarchism is to break down the various form's of central,exploitive and strong authority replacing them with a net of communes (or any other forms of organisations) that rule themselves with true democratic measures.Under such a society,consciousness and social justice is being totally and subtly preached into it's denizens so that when those temporary relationship's of authority arise,the power will be used responsibly and fairly.

You watch too many science fiction movies or read too many dystopian novels.Technology is far from the point it can do that yet fortunately and some of the things that are imagined in those visions can quite simply not exist.Now it is our aim and our hope that when technology rises into such an extent that it becomes too dangerous for human existence and justice/freedom the world will be responsible enough to know where to draw the line.Either that or they will rebel against it.But I don't believe in total control of technology,the human factor is far too strong to be wiped away,life will find it's way and always survive.


....The fuck?:confused:

We as humanity,adapted and grew up from the rest of this world's life simply because we joined together creating communities and therefore civilisation.It's quite simple to understand this I think,since both power in unity and combination of different individual talents make a foundation that is always stronger than any individual.Fair enough,civilisation introduced human authority together under the name of social organisation and ''the greater good'' but we are here to fix that :cool:
After all,a return in the ''genuine anarchy'' of survival of the fittest you propose is not possible,simply because we live in survival of the fittest.Authority and exploitation in society is a direct stem of it,since some people found that blinding,lying and manipulating others is much more practical and usefull than enforcing their brute strength in front of their eyes.

Morality and ethics are nothing more than human creations,agreed.They were created though to serve some purpose and it is therefore a 'duty' of any orthologist and any anarchist to constantly question them and criticise them under a non-delusional materialistic perspective in order to understand which of them are trully practical and fair (e.g which can serve humanity better) and wipe the rest of them away.

Finally,for the whole optimism - pessimism debate,there is truly no use or logic into being a pessimist,it can only bring bad things to you.Optimism,you have to realise is neither a delusional and utopic analysis of the truths that constitute our existence nor a idealistic and illogical belief that things will turn out better whatever happens,but rather a realisation of our current limits,the fact that by mourning over them we achieve nothing and the decision to try and change them with hope there is indeed chance they can turn for the better.



Well,philosophically and practically speaking there will always be some authority,you just can't purge it's existence out of here since it rests in nature itself.

And as long as a authority exists there will always be a disenfranchised class of people because all power rests on disenfranchisement with the slaves it commands.

Power cannot exist without disenfranchisement. Power and authority can only exist with the disenfranchisement of others.

The foundation of all power and authority is disenfranchisement.


But this simple realisation does not equate a non hierarchical structure utopistic.

I believe a non-hierarchial structure to be impossible.



Let me ellaborate.Authority is met wherever there is difference of power between two individuals,so thus speaking even one of the most simple acts such as asking a direction as a foreigner in a town builds a temporary platform gap of authority between you and the one you asked,since he knows more and can therefore use his knowledge-power to send you somewhere completely off,therefore abusing you.Simple paradigm but you get what I'm saying I reckon,there will always be temporary relationships of authority since it is something build within the natural laws.

And as long as authority exists with it's tendency to disenfranchise others violence and conflict shall forever be a thorn inflicted in our specie.



Not to being so would have to mean that everyone is practically the exact SAME,something which is both unnatural,impossible and undesirable.

And as long as inequality exists violence or conflict shall always exist.

As long as competition rules or is a dominant factor in social interaction violence and inequality shall rule with it.


From that point and after though,the aim of anarchism is to break down the various form's of central,exploitive and strong authority replacing them with a net of communes (or any other forms of organisations) that rule themselves with true democratic measures.

Eventually the liberated oppressed overtime will become the new oppressors.

(They'll seek to enslave and disenfranchise their previous oppressors through a sort of vengeance.)

It plays out through history all the time repeatively.





Under such a society,consciousness and social justice is being totally and subtly preached into it's denizens so that when those temporary relationship's of authority arise,the power will be used responsibly and fairly.


As long as there is any authority the outcome I guarantee you will never be fair.

All forms of authority are monopolies including governments.


You watch too many science fiction movies or read too many dystopian novels.

Art imitates life.


Technology is far from the point it can do that yet fortunately and some of the things that are imagined in those visions can quite simply not exist.

But the possibility of them existing in the future I believe is quite real.


Now it is our aim and our hope that when technology rises into such an extent that it becomes too dangerous for human existence and justice/freedom the world will be responsible enough to know where to draw the line.

I doubt it.


Either that or they will rebel against it.

More likely.


But I don't believe in total control of technology,the human factor is far too strong to be wiped away,life will find it's way and always survive.

Depends............


We as humanity,adapted and grew up from the rest of this world's life simply because we joined together creating communities and therefore civilisation.

Civilization to me is merely a artificial vehicle or expiriment if not some elaborate tabernacle affair where all desires, wishes,aspirations, and ideals of humanity comes to be wrapped up in. ( Many are quite absurd.)

There is a difference I believe between pre-civilized cultures existence versus civilized existence.

There is a difference between pre-civilized communities versus civilized ones.

In pre-civilized cultures or hunter gatherer communities they live day by day.

( They live for today without concern of tomorrow.) ( They live for themselves thoroughly.)

In civilization none of us live for today or the present but instead we live our lives for some non-existent future.

( For the future doesn't exist yet from today.)

( A future defined and dictated by the upper classes.)

Civilization I also believe is a creation of the upper classes since it is usually they who benefit from it the most while all others within the artificial confines of civilization toil and labor under them.

Sure the lower classes exist in the confines of civilization but always with ultimatums stemming from their upper class masters.

( They exist in civilization only in which how their upper class masters let them exist or how they define their existence.)

( The lower classes are held in a captive state. A sort of captivity.)

The artificial domain of civilization all throughout history I merely perceive to be nothing more than an extension of the upper classes and those with power.

Artificial civilization never has been a place of existence for all people to live equally as it is an extension of the upper class conscious only.

There is a reason why the first ancient civilizations were ruled by those that demanded to be worshipped like the mythical gods they believed in. ( Pharoahs and Chinese Emperors come to mind.)


Morality and ethics are nothing more than human creations,agreed.

Morality and ethics is merely mental warfare of the upper classes used as mental weapons against those it commands and subjugates.

Morality, ethics, law, social justice, government, legislation, the police, and perceived rights are merely safety nets designed by upper classes as some sort of practical guarantee of keeping their authoritative hegemony over everybody else as a way from keeping them from being competed or rebelled against by the lower classes.

( The upper classes are seen too big to fail on their own. This is why when a lower class assailant affronts a upper class member the police is a established entity ready to bail out the upper class member of their defenseless position.)

( Practically all institutions serve the purpose of bailing out and protecting the upper classes when they are in trouble or in a position of being defenseless. The recent bailing out of banks and corporations in the United States is a great example.)

Of course the lower classes are protected under these same items because they in of themselves are seen as valuable assets and commodities economically speaking from the upper classes perspective in that they are profitable laborers/tools needing of protection and because the more the lower classes feel that they are being cared for or at the very least having the illusion of care through a effective propaganda public relations campaign the more easily they are ready to labor for their masters.


They were created though to serve some purpose and it is therefore a 'duty' of any orthologist and any anarchist to constantly question them and criticise them under a non-delusional materialistic perspective in order to understand which of them are trully practical and fair (e.g which can serve humanity better) and wipe the rest of them away.

To me morality and ethics is a religious cultic affair that is not necessary in having.

They are merely beliefs and nothing more.

There is no evidence for believing in them in that there is nothing tangible about them as they are merely appeals to emotions.

The world is a cruel, brutal, and indifferent place with and without them irregardless in that there is no difference of the world whether they exist or not exist. ( If anything they are merely a useful distraction.)


Finally,for the whole optimism - pessimism debate,there is truly no use or logic into being a pessimist,it can only bring bad things to you.

Funny I could say the same thing for optimism.


Optimism,you have to realise is neither a delusional and utopic analysis of the truths that constitute our existence nor a idealistic and illogical belief that things will turn out better whatever happens,but rather a realisation of our current limits,

Pessimism is the same thing in that it is also the realization of our current limits too.



the fact that by mourning over them we achieve nothing

Pessimism is more than that. It is a cautionary analysis of things and a healthy dose of doubt or skepticism.

I hate how this age is so whimsically optimisitic where any form of pessimism is seen as heretical.



and the decision to try and change them with hope there is indeed chance they can turn for the better.

Optimism seems to think it can change everything.

Tell me what does optimisitc think of limitations, or is speaking of limitations which confine humanity just some pessimistic paradigm that should go unspoke of?

[Muzk]

gosh why are you guys still wasting your time with this useless guy?
its like arguing with a nazi that there is no such thing as races

as useless as he thinks everything is

[trivas7]

I believe a non-hierarchial structure to be impossible.

Agreed. All nature functions hierarchically; to presume that humans can evade this fact is merely rebellion against reality.

[SavagePostModern]

Fuck, how did I miss the rest of that post?



Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. As for a posthuman existence being a living nightmare, you have yet to make your case.



There are lots of things we could do. It depends on what we find once we're out there.

You're certainly one to talk about demagoguery - what about your own fetishisation of the inherent purposelessness of existence?

If you think Star Trek is an accurate representation of my intended vision for humanity, you're suffering from a failure of imagination - the society represented in that fictional universe hasn't even undergone a Singularity! Never mind everything that follows from that...



Humans, or the power? If it's the latter, you would be waging a murderous campaign against AI researchers if you were at all serious.



Well for a start, religion no longer has the deathgrip it had on human society - it still clings tightly even so, but it is nonetheless slipping.



The Age of Enlightenment was an important turning point, as well as the collapse of feudalism. The divine right of kings is quite rightly considered laughable by most in this day and age. Hopefully global capitalism and the age of scarcity will likewise be consigned to the history books.



So what difference does it make?



Well let's see, the collapse of civilisation is unlikely to be an environmentally friendly event. Once civilisation is gone, any environmental problems caused by the collapse of civilisation and whatever preceded it is not going to be fixed by the survivors, if any - they'll be too busy, and would lack the resources even if they wanted to.

However, if civilisation does not collapse, then the massive material and intellectual resources available to it can be turned, at least in part, towards the issue of fixing up our various mistakes and making sure we don't shit where we eat any further.



That's not the comparison I was making - in a world with few humans, environmental destruction can continue without us being forced to face the consquences of our wasteful and destructive ways. As a global civilisation we have the opportunity to learn some important lessons and clean up our act.



A global civilisation with no easy access to space, like ours, cannot simply move on as resources are depleted and environments destroyed, because there's nowhere to go. Even if we were to immediately begin full-scale exploration and colonisation of other worlds within our Solar System, the Earth would still require our careful and forthright stewardship, because it would still contain the bulk of human civilisation for many decades, possibly centuries to come.



Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. As for a posthuman existence being a living nightmare, you have yet to make your case.

For me transhumanism is the goal of creating one single consciousness and mind while excluding or destroying all others.

(All the while human existence has never been a single consciousness and never will be.)

( Transhumanism seeks to create a singular human existence in a sort of singularity.)

Posthuman to me is just another way of defining a pathetic future caricature of a human being.

Transhumanism or progressivism utilizes political correctness to further it's goals of global homogenization ( and eventual universal homogenization if it had it's way.) of all human societies, by it's methodology of subsuming of all elements of culture/thinking/action/existence/language/progress/politics underneath one universal singular created order.

For me your singular account of the future would be a nightmare leading to stagnation if not a sterile existence where diversity or difference would be absorbed out of existence.

( You like star trek. Here's my account of transhumanism below in artistic imagery.)


http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/startrek-borg.jpg





There are lots of things we could do. It depends on what we find once we're out there.


Assuming you get out there to begin with.




You're certainly one to talk about demagoguery - what about your own fetishisation of the inherent purposelessness of existence?


Just a perspective of mine. I've been unable to see the world any other way and I'm content with my findings.


If you think Star Trek is an accurate representation of my intended vision for humanity, you're suffering from a failure of imagination -

Imagination although it is entertaining is merely a representation of fantasy. I have no time for fantasy as I'm only concerned with reality.

( Besides I'm a Klingon fan anyways.) (Laughs.)

http://fremenalex.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/klingon.jpg



Humans, or the power? If it's the latter, you would be waging a murderous campaign against AI researchers if you were at all serious.

I'm just against those who feel they are somehow entitled to rule the lives of everyone else and those who feel they can control the universe/existence for the rest of us and dangerously so.

I'm against those who think they can speak for everybody all the while they interject their own personal agendas with the silencing and censoring of others.


Well for a start, religion no longer has the deathgrip it had on human society - it still clings tightly even so, but it is nonetheless slipping.

Instead we have secular institutions with secular beliefs that mimic religion where government has become the new godhead.

Ayn Rand said it best when she stated in her book the virtue of selfishness:



No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values. So long as that question remained unanswered, no rational, scientific, objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined. The greatest of all philosophers, Aristotle, did not regard ethics as an exact science; he based his ethical system on observations of what the noble and wise men of his time chose to do, leaving unanswered the questions of: why they chose to do it and why he evaluated them as noble and wise.

Most philosophers took the existence of ethics for granted, as the given, as a historical fact, and were not concerned with discovering its metaphysical cause or objective validation. Many of them attempted to break the traditional monopoly of mysticism in the field of ethics and, allegedly, to define a rational, scientific, nonreligious morality. But their attempts consisted of trying to justify them on social grounds, merely substituting society for God.

The avowed mystics held the arbitrary, unaccountable “will of God” as the standard of the good and as the validation of their ethics. The neomystics replaced it with “the good of society,” thus collapsing into the circularity of a definition such as “the standard of the good is that which is good for society.” This meant, in logic—and, today, in worldwide practice—that “society” stands above any principles of ethics, since it is the source, standard and criterion of ethics, since “the good” is whatever it wills, whatever it happens to assert as its own welfare and pleasure. This meant that “society” may do anything it pleases, since “the good” is whatever it chooses to do because it chooses to do it. And—since there is no such entity as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men—this meant that some men (the majority or any gang that claims to be its spokesman) are ethically entitled to pursue any whims (or any atrocities) they desire to pursue, while other men are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gang’s desires.




The Age of Enlightenment was an important turning point, as well as the collapse of feudalism.

The so called age of enlightenment in philosophy never fulfilled any of it's promises or main tenets into the present.

We are literally living in the golden age of hypocrisy, corruption, and massive social depravity.

We live in the golden age of decadence where the entire world burns.



The divine right of kings is quite rightly considered laughable by most in this day and age.

Instead today we just have the so called divine right of presidents, senators, politicians, and congress members who fly on million dollar jets.



Hopefully global capitalism and the age of scarcity will likewise be consigned to the history books.


Seriously doubt it.............

[SavagePostModern]

I'll reply to more messages later this afternoon.

( Time is always a issue.)

[SavagePostModern]

Noxion said:


So what difference does it make?


Personal preference.



Well let's see, the collapse of civilisation is unlikely to be an environmentally friendly event.

And the advancement and growth of civilization is also unlikely to be an enviromentally friendly event.

( Infact so far the advancement and growth of civilization has only led to enviromental destruction.)

( Besides toxins and pollutions you have also over territorial expansion which messes up natural ecological systems along with over population that is a heavy factor in the depletion of all kinds of natural resources which green technology all by itself will not be able to fix.)

( Of course green technologies have not been heavily implemented at the present either for that matter.)



Once civilisation is gone, any environmental problems caused by the collapse of civilisation and whatever preceded it is not going to be fixed by the survivors, if any - they'll be too busy, and would lack the resources even if they wanted to.

Points to previous post. It's really a perfect catch 22 where it doesn't matter either way.


However, if civilisation does not collapse, then the massive material and intellectual resources available to it can be turned, at least in part, towards the issue of fixing up our various mistakes and making sure we don't shit where we eat any further.


Intellectual saviors and messiahs? Wonderful..................



That's not the comparison I was making - in a world with few humans, environmental destruction can continue without us being forced to face the consquences of our wasteful and destructive ways.

Some level of enviromental alteration might then be a consequence of our existence.


As a global civilisation we have the opportunity to learn some important lessons and clean up our act.


I have no faith in global civilization or humanity.



A global civilisation with no easy access to space, like ours, cannot simply move on as resources are depleted and environments destroyed, because there's nowhere to go.

Currently there is nowhere to go. I imagine that if humanity was to travel to other livable planets they would leave many dead barren unsurvivable planets in their trail.

[SavagePostModern]

Bah,I wouldn't call him primitivist, at least not anarcho-primitivist.I know some people who sympathize with anarcho primitivism IRL and their theses are quite different,at least their vision is a social community and not a chaotic survival of the fittest struggle even if they fail to realise that neither technology nor civilisation on themselves oppose it's existence.This guy just wants chaos:lol:

In a chaotic survival of the fittest struggle scenario social communities are still possible only they would be based on a different form of social interaction and order then what is conventionally defined today.

Even a gang of plunderers must have some sort of reciprocal agreement amongst themselves in order to share what they plunder.

( Where afterwards they hope such an agreement is not breached later on between themselves.)

[Patchd]

Aww, do I not get a rebuttal? :( I'm guessing it's time restraints.

[SavagePostModern]

Aww, do I not get a rebuttal? :( I'm guessing it's time restraints.

I'll get to your post. I'm trying to be nice by replying to everyone who posts in this thread.

[Skooma Addict]

And the advancement and growth of civilization is also unlikely to be an enviromentally friendly event.

( Infact so far the advancement and growth of civilization has only led to enviromental destruction.)

( Besides toxins and pollutions you have also over territorial expansion which messes up natural ecological systems along with over population that is a heavy factor in the depletion of all kinds of natural resources which green technology all by itself will not be able to fix.)

( Of course green technologies have not been heavily implemented at the present either for that matter.)

The advancement of civilization is only possible if property rights are respected. But that means that the growth of civilization will be environmentally friendly. Since many environmental problems would disappear if property rights were properly upheld.


I have no faith in global civilization or humanity.

What do you mean by this?

[SavagePostModern]

Power is a secondary factor, it's about living free from oppression and exploitation, in order to be able to fulfil the potential of oneself, collective power is only a secondary reward as we would have to overthrow the power of those who are currently oppressing us in order to attain emancipation.


Do you know of the context of the Somali pirates? Many have been forced to take up piracy thanks to many foreign businesses and states dumping toxic waste into the Aden gulf, which as well as killing off a lot of their fish, a staple diet for Somalis living by the coast and further inland, it washed toxic waste onto their shores also. As a result, their own means of survival has been to take to piracy.

Why take when you can receive freely? Furthermore, in an abundant society taking what may be considered someone else's won't be as offensive or damaging, they can simply get another of that produce again, for free. He'd probably be more content and happy if he didn't have to pick up a gun in order to survive.

May I ask of your class background? Have you ever needed to work in order to feed yourself, or does mummy and daddy provide it all for you? Simple question. :cool:


Well, fuck me sideways, who you trying to convince?

Of course revolution is about authoritarianship, one way or the other. Rather, I'd have collective authority where authority would be less limited to a single individual than 'chaos', where an individual can very easily take authority for themselves. In addition, I'd also like to keep my insides without someone just gutting me up because it's fun and they'd want to do it, and because in your picture perfect society everyone is allowed to do anything they like. Not saying that that would necessarily happen to me, but I at least want a guarantee that a collective of people will come to my aid if that ever happens.



Power is a secondary factor, it's about living free from oppression and exploitation, in order to be able to fulfil the potential of oneself,

How do you plan on going about living free from oppression and exploitation in a world that seems to thrive upon it?



collective power is only a secondary reward as we would have to overthrow the power of those who are currently oppressing us in order to attain emancipation.

I agree on the overthrowing part.


Do you know of the context of the Somali pirates? Many have been forced to take up piracy thanks to many foreign businesses and states dumping toxic waste into the Aden gulf, which as well as killing off a lot of their fish, a staple diet for Somalis living by the coast and further inland, it washed toxic waste onto their shores also. As a result, their own means of survival has been to take to piracy.

Actually I do. I also know their country has gone through a variety of wars in the past couple of decades.

I understand that many are forced to take up piracy because of many pressing outside influences on their country.

Atleast they fight for their lives with a gun rather than become a slave to western foreign aid who's only motive is transforming their country into one of their ideal pet projects.


Why take when you can receive freely?

Please explain to me the depth of that question.


Furthermore, in an abundant society taking what may be considered someone else's won't be as offensive or damaging, they can simply get another of that produce again, for free. He'd probably be more content and happy if he didn't have to pick up a gun in order to survive.

I believe in cooperation when it is beneficial. I don't think taking up arms to a great number of people is their first choice in doing things.

I'm not anti-cooperation. However cooperation is not always a beneficial option.

Not everyone benefits from cooperation equally especially when you got the upper classes ordering you to pick up a shovel and broom through coercion telling you that you need to be cooperative in living a life as one of their servants or else.


May I ask of your class background? Have you ever needed to work in order to feed yourself, or does mummy and daddy provide it all for you? Simple question. :cool:

If you must know I would tell you that everything I own is in four bags right now where I only have seven hundred dollars to my name. ( I'm a twenty two year old male going on twenty three early next year.)

( In the past year and a half I have come close to being homeless three times.)

I'm a unemployed unskilled laborer who is trying very hard to make a living for himself.

( I ration what little bit of food I have everyday.)

( In the upper classes eyes I'm a unproductive form of human disposable waste who's only utility in existence is being a slave or servant for their interests in being taken advantage of.)

( Because of my lack of economical viability I live in isolation and alone away from social interactions in having friends or a relationship of the opposite sex since in postmodern economies all forms of social interaction are materialstic in being denominated by wealth and the lack of.)

( If you don't have enough money, wealth, status, or power you do not exist. You become invisible like a ghost where your life more and more doesn't matter.)

( If I don't get anywhere in the next five years I will most likely become a career criminal/ life long social deviant in which I plan on taking whatever I want or I'll get a bullet in my head trying to in which I will subsequently die.)




Because of the terrible economy where I live (In the central United States. No I don't live in British Columbia.) I'm moving to the east coast of the United States 1400 miles away from where I currently live in search for opportunities with my four bags of property and seven hundred dollars that is to my name in which I'll be moving into an apartment with a couple of friends of mine.

( I'll have less than seven hundred dollars when I actually move over there because of the severe debt I find myself in.)

( I'm a highschool graduate.)

( I've been to a couple of trade schools none of which I've been able to pass.)

(I'm ex-military.)

( I'm self educated.)

( I don't own a computer and the one I'm using and have been using in the past is from a public library.)

( The only main piece of property I own is my fifteen year old vehicle or what I like to call shit on wheels.)

( Currently I'm trying to sell it for my move but I doubt I'll be able to.) ( Might sell it for scrap metal at a junkyard.)

( The only luxory I enjoy is a local gym that I go to which costs me twenty bucks a month.)



Am I low class enough for you? ( Laughs.)

Do I pass? ( Laughs.)




Well, fuck me sideways, who you trying to convince?


Noone. People will believe in whatever they want to.


Of course revolution is about authoritarianship, one way or the other.

Finally someone here admits it.


Rather, I'd have collective authority where authority would be less limited to a single individual than 'chaos',

Collective authority is merely a tyranny by the majority via a democracy.


where an individual can very easily take authority for themselves.

That's why I like chaotic and disordered states of existence because it tends to be more individual not to mention individuals of similar minds can band together if they so chose to.


In addition, I'd also like to keep my insides without someone just gutting me up because it's fun and they'd want to do it, and because in your picture perfect society everyone is allowed to do anything they like.

In a chaotic state that centered around survival of the fittest it would be up to yourself to keep your insides.

You would either have to:

1. Be strong
2. Be intelligent
3. Be resourceful
4. Or you could find and create a group of individuals banding together that offered mutual protection not to mention mutual interests.

In my eyes a person deserves to die if they cannot protect themselves. When a mountain lion attacks and slaughters a deer is it the fault of the mountain lion that the deer died or is it the fault of the deer for becoming the mountain lion's prey?








Not saying that that would necessarily happen to me, but I at least want a guarantee that a collective of people will come to my aid if that ever happens.


In my envisionment of chaotic anarchy where anything and everything goes centered around survival of the fittest there would be multiple groups and clans of people.

There would be local leaderships just not central ones. ( All of them competing amongst themselves.)

[KarlMarx1989]

What do you define as anarchy? I define anarchy the way the dictionary defines it, for that is where I first learned about anarchy. I have learned more, since then, but I don't see how it could differ very greatly; when it is in detail, from the definition...

an⋅ar⋅chy n. [an-er-kee ]
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control

[Bright Banana Beard]

certainly, there is people who doesn't agree with you. One example is me. (Referring to SavagePostModern)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For me transhumanism is the goal of creating one single consciousness and mind while excluding or destroying all others.

(All the while human existence has never been a single consciousness and never will be.)

( Transhumanism seeks to create a singular human existence in a sort of singularity.)

Some transhumanists wish to aggregate all human consciousness into one - I am not one of them, and I can't say that I have come across any that do. People should be free to become part of a collective intelligence if they so desire, but if people wish to retain their individuality they should also be allowed to do so, and neither one nor the other should be unduly favoured.


Posthuman to me is just another way of defining a pathetic future caricature of a human being.

What's so pathetic about a posthuman existence?


Transhumanism or progressivism utilizes political correctness to further it's goals of global homogenization ( and eventual universal homogenization if it had it's way.) of all human societies, by it's methodology of subsuming of all elements of culture/thinking/action/existence/language/progress/politics underneath one universal singular created order.

For me your singular account of the future would be a nightmare leading to stagnation if not a sterile existence where diversity or difference would be absorbed out of existence.

Actually, the sort of civilisation I talk about would encourage diversity, rather than limiting it. Find the fleshly world a drag? Upload your mind and never have to bother with the issues of being a meatbag again. Hypertechnological society is too much for you? Find a remote planet and live at a level of technology that you're comfortable with. Cultural and social variety will follow from that.


( You like star trek. Here's my account of transhumanism below in artistic imagery.)

Actually, the Borg are a perfect illustration of Star Trek's conservative attitude towards technology. The ban on human enhancement and modification is also an illustration of Star Trek's bioconservatism.

I prefer my science fiction to be more adventurous.


Assuming you get out there to begin with.

Well yes, but arriving at that point will be a significant challenge (or rather, a series of challenges) in itself.


Just a perspective of mine. I've been unable to see the world any other way and I'm content with my findings.

Well, I agree that existence is inherently pointless, I just don't agree with the conclusion that you derived from that. In a world without meaning, why not create our own?


Imagination although it is entertaining is merely a representation of fantasy. I have no time for fantasy as I'm only concerned with reality.

( Besides I'm a Klingon fan anyways.) (Laughs.)

Actually, the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

Your Klingon there is a good example. For a being that supposedly evolved on another world, it is suspiciously humanoid. Not only biologically, but culturally too. Yet, even on our own planet, life takes a truly startling array of forms and behaviours.

If aliens exist, they ain't gonna look like Mr Spock, that's for sure!


I'm just against those who feel they are somehow entitled to rule the lives of everyone else and those who feel they can control the universe/existence for the rest of us and dangerously so.

The universe is simply too big to be controlled by one being, even a super-intelligent one. Any control of the universe must have the consent of it's inhabitants if it is to be meaningful or effective.


I'm against those who think they can speak for everybody all the while they interject their own personal agendas with the silencing and censoring of others.

Who am I intending to silence?


Instead we have secular institutions with secular beliefs that mimic religion where government has become the new godhead.

Who worships the government? Not me, that's for sure.


Ayn Rand said it best when she stated in her book the virtue of selfishness:

Ayn Rand? Come on. Are you gonna copy & paste John Galt's speech next as well? :lol:


The so called age of enlightenment in philosophy never fulfilled any of it's promises or main tenets into the present.

We are literally living in the golden age of hypocrisy, corruption, and massive social depravity.

We live in the golden age of decadence where the entire world burns.

Hypocrisy, corruption and depravity have been our constant companions throughout history. The only reason it seems massively worse in this day and age is because communications technology enables one to see it coming from all over the world, rather than just one's local area. Look up Mean World Syndrome.


Instead today we just have the so called divine right of presidents, senators, politicians, and congress members who fly on million dollar jets.

I doubt it, especially since the US Constitution begins with "We the people..." - indicating government by consent, at least in theory. Things may not be that way in practice, but it does serve as an indicator that even in the late 1700s, the sociopolitical Zeitgeist was such that secular governance was seen as a realistic goal.

Of course, now we know (or should know) that government, secular or otherwise, is not the way forward.


Seriously doubt it.............

So what are you doing on this website?


Personal preference.

So you would rather have civilisation collapse, an event which is highly likely to kill you, rather than having civilisation continue, which at least will give you the chance to die of old age?

Each to their own, I suppose, but I cannot help but think of your position as pathological. The collapse of civilisation will mean the deaths of billions. It's not just about you - or you do like the idea of everyone else suffering and dying alongside you?


And the advancement and growth of civilization is also unlikely to be an enviromentally friendly event.

Gold and muck come from the same mineshaft. Your proposed shaft however, contains only muck.


Points to previous post. It's really a perfect catch 22 where it doesn't matter either way.

The reason our civilisation not as environmentally friendly as it could be is almost entirely down to the fact that it simply isn't profitable.


Intellectual saviors and messiahs? Wonderful..................

Don't be ridiculous. It's a sign of incredible intellectual laziness to dismiss arguments by making sophomoric comparisons with religion.


Some level of enviromental alteration might then be a consequence of our existence.

It's unavoidable, in fact. But as long as humanity is safe and comfortable, I don't see the problem.


I have no faith in global civilization or humanity.

Yes, I know that already. But we will only keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again in your primitive wonderland.


Currently there is nowhere to go. I imagine that if humanity was to travel to other livable planets they would leave many dead barren unsurvivable planets in their trail.

Well, it's a good thing that the planets we can reach at the moment are barren already. A good opportunity for us to get good at planet management.

[KarlMarx1989]

...and in the thesaurus; the synonyms of anarchy:
chaos, confusion, disorder, disorganization, disregard, hostility, misrule, mob rule, nihilism, nongovernment, rebellion, reign of terror, revolution, riot, turmoil, unrest

The one I find most interesting is mob rule. Another one is unrest. I don't agree, very much, with the whole "reign of terror" thing; that seems like an exaggeration of an opinion, to me.

I believe that it is impossible for people to be cooperative of such a movement. An anarchy requires voluntary participation in keeping society up. I don't think that it is possible to get the masses to be very cooperative without having someone keeping them in line, which is government. A person governing over everyone's participation in the anarchy. Which defeats its purpose.

[Havet]

Find the fleshly world a drag? Upload your mind and never have to bother with the issues of being a meatbag again. Hypertechnological society is too much for you? Find a remote planet and live at a level of technology that you're comfortable with. Cultural and social variety will follow from that.


That... sounds...absolutely...amazing :drool:

[SavagePostModern]

In a broad sense, life is an experiment. Each of us comes into this world a blank slate in terms of knowledge and experience. The fact that civilisation allows knowledge to survive the death of individuals means that knowledge and experience can be passed down the generations - that is something we should treasure and embrace - because that means it is no longer just individuals who can learn, but the species as whole also.



What is there to explain? I asked the question of you.



It's a long list, but I'll tell you about one; currently civilisation derives most of its electrical energy from fossil fuels, a limited and polluting resource. Switching over entirely to nuclear fuels (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html) and renewables will ensure that Earthly civilisation has energy to last for billions of years. Pretty neat, eh?



For a start, the computer you are using is based on physical principles that, while not completely understood, are nevertheless known to a large enough degree to achieve the technological wonder you're now sitting in front of. The germ theory of disease is part of what turned medicine from quackery into a functioning science.



Physics. Sometimes called the Queen of Sciences, its principles underlie everything you see around you, and a lot of things that you cannot directly detect but affect you even so.



It's not faith, but the realisation that enlightened self-interest is something that can be attained by all mentally sound individuals if they're given the chance. Part of my purpose here is to aid people in taking advantage of such an opportunity.



I meant "here" as in this website. Do you enjoy visiting websites in order to preach doom, gloom and nihilism? That doesn't sound healthy - on the other hand, the pleasures of the flesh are legion and their benefits provide almost immediate succour - indeed, I do not shy from taking part in them myself. But I also have higher things in mind.



Because you seem quite sober, and rather miserable to boot. And misery, it appears, loves company.



Yeah, I'm sure they love you too.



There's a certain challenge in letting my flamethrower rest in its sheath that I did not appreciate as much as I do nowadays.



"That's just like, your opinion man" - come on, you can do better than that.



When all the stars have exhausted their reserves of fusion fuel, there will still be objects such as brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, black holes and neutron stars, all potential sources of matter and energy for any civilisation still extant by that time. But of course, the story doesn't end there, for the universe at least.



Utopia may or may not be achievable - we won't know until we try. If we don't try, that would be an insult not only to the giants whose shoulders we stand on, but also to those suffering and dying needlessly right now, as well as being an utterly criminal waste of human potential.



The truth is that the "natural order of things" fucking sucks! "Natural" is not the same as "good" or "desirable" or even "necessary".



That is the point. Further, the more planets we colonise, the better our chances, since it is increasingly astronomically (heh) unlikely that a civilisation shattering disaster will strike two, three, more planets at once. Once we start colonising planets around other stars, we'll be sticking around for a very long time. Time enough for us as a species to prepare for the universal lights-out you mentioned earlier.



And why the hell not? Half-hearted half-measures never did anybody much good. I also used the plural.



Well, that's something we have to work on, isn't it? Your solution - destroy civilisation - is certain to cause the extinction of the human race. My solution, on the other hand, has a non-zero chance of success. Long odds beat certain failure every time.



[my emphasis]

You see, you have the spark in you, I knew it! Now use that spark to ignite a torch to light the way, rather than banging your shins in the darkness.



That's not realism, that's fatalism. You seem to have resigned yourself to a powerless and meaningless existance where you stimulate your nerve endings with various distractions until you die and are forgotten.

Me? I intend to make my mark on the world, no matter how small, and hopefully for the better.


In a broad sense, life is an experiment. Each of us comes into this world a blank slate in terms of knowledge and experience.

I was discussing how you treat life like a scientific expiriment or laboratory.

I look at life as somthing to be expirienced and enjoyed that needs little to no modification at all.


The fact that civilisation allows knowledge to survive the death of individuals means that knowledge and experience can be passed down the generations - that is something we should treasure and embrace - because that means it is no longer just individuals who can learn, but the species as whole also.

History is written by the victors. What get's passed down from generations to generations is only that which the upper classes let be passed down.

With modern media controlled by the upper classes literature is becoming less influential.

Civilization is top down in that everything is controlled from the top down quite literally.

In our present situation everything is becoming institutionalized where all aspects of life is becoming dictated by created institutions.

( Institutions monopolized, supervised, and controlled by the upper classes.)


because that means it is no longer just individuals who can learn, but the species as whole also.

And by learn what you really mean is in a manner that is accepted and supervised by the upper classes that is beneficial to their own interests.

The promises of equality by modern education and academics is a joke.

Modern education is merely a means of segregation. Modern education is merely the means that divides the social classes.

In modern education individuals are defined value or worth. If they meet the standards where they are deemed profitable or productive to the economy in narrow specific traits of skills they are defined to be invaluable superior individuals while if they don't they are deemed unproductive inferior disposable individuals.

( A bit off topic.)



What is there to explain? I asked the question of you


I didn't understand the question.


It's a long list, but I'll tell you about one; currently civilisation derives most of its electrical energy from fossil fuels, a limited and polluting resource. Switching over entirely to nuclear fuels (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html) and renewables will ensure that Earthly civilisation has energy to last for billions of years. Pretty neat, eh?

We haven't done it yet.

What are you going to do with over population or over human territorial expansion that destroys natural ecological systems that eventually depletes natural resources?

Have you heard about the modern global fresh water shortage?

What are you going to do with natural ecological systems that are already infected with pollutants like that of under water reefs in the oceans that are disappearing globally?

What are you going to do with climate change that is already happening as we speak?

In a few more years I can't wait to watch the many disasters worldwide that is coming our way.



For a start, the computer you are using is based on physical principles that, while not completely understood, are nevertheless known to a large enough degree to achieve the technological wonder you're now sitting in front of. The germ theory of disease is part of what turned medicine from quackery into a functioning science.


For almost every advance and technological innovation you can list I can name a destructive reaction or toll they have facilitated on our specie.



It's not faith, but the realisation that enlightened self-interest is something that can be attained by all mentally sound individuals if they're given the chance. Part of my purpose here is to aid people in taking advantage of such an opportunity.



Saying some specific enlightenment exists as a sort of salvation for people is about as equal as saying there is some absolute truth out there independent in the universe.




I meant "here" as in this website. Do you enjoy visiting websites in order to preach doom, gloom and nihilism? That doesn't sound healthy -


I enjoy expressing my mind, insights, and opinions otherwise I wouldn't.


on the other hand, the pleasures of the flesh are legion and their benefits provide almost immediate succour - indeed, I do not shy from taking part in them myself.

Definately.




But I also have higher things in mind.


Where have I heard similar phrases? I wonder.......................



Because you seem quite sober, and rather miserable to boot. And misery, it appears, loves company.


Laughs.


Yeah, I'm sure they love you too.

Definately.



When all the stars have exhausted their reserves of fusion fuel, there will still be objects such as brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, black holes and neutron stars, all potential sources of matter and energy for any civilisation still extant by that time. But of course, the story doesn't end there, for the universe at least.


All energy exhausts itself over time. I was talking specifically a part of the universe's future where the last bit of cosmic energy exists.

There will be a time where all energy will exhaust itself in total depletion. ( Hundreds of billions of years from now of course.)


Utopia may or may not be achievable - we won't know until we try.

I thought communism in the early 1900's up until the early 1990's have tried already only to fail.

Besides I've read many utopian works both fictional and that dealing with the non-fictional where I've come to known that such a place called utopic are often enough the most miserable of places to live in.




If we don't try, that would be an insult not only to the giants whose shoulders we stand on, but also to those suffering and dying needlessly right now, as well as being an utterly criminal waste of human potential.



Depends on your perspective.


The truth is that the "natural order of things" fucking sucks!

It can be but not always.


"Natural" is not the same as "good" or "desirable" or even "necessary".

No those words are implied "oughts".



That is the point. Further, the more planets we colonise, the better our chances, since it is increasingly astronomically (heh) unlikely that a civilisation shattering disaster will strike two, three, more planets at once. Once we start colonising planets around other stars, we'll be sticking around for a very long time. Time enough for us as a species to prepare for the universal lights-out you mentioned earlier.


If you accept cosmological entropy as I do it really doesn't matter how many planets you colonise because when the end of the universe comes in the distant future it will be all encompassing having a effect on everything and everywhere.

It won't really matter what galaxy you are in when it happens.

( No escape.)




Well, that's something we have to work on, isn't it? Your solution - destroy civilisation - is certain to cause the extinction of the human race. My solution, on the other hand, has a non-zero chance of success. Long odds beat certain failure every time.


The way I look at it were doomed either way. I'm just choosing an alternative that I think offers more independence in this temporal ride of existence we call life.

To me independence can only come with the destruction of current global government, society, and civilization.


You see, you have the spark in you, I knew it! Now use that spark to ignite a torch to light the way, rather than banging your shins in the darkness.

I don't know how to. I don't think anybody does.


That's not realism, that's fatalism. You seem to have resigned yourself to a powerless and meaningless existance where you stimulate your nerve endings with various distractions until you die and are forgotten.

I believe the only thing we can do is change and empower ourselves individually.

( There are of course limitations and I think it is my doub along with my constant speaking of limitations in this thread that is putting people off.)

( The universe is not some limitless like people wish to believe.)

[KarlMarx1989]

In a chaotic state that centered around survival of the fittest it would be up to yourself to keep your insides.

You would either have to:

1. Be strong
2. Be intelligent
3. Be resourceful
4. Or you could find and create a group of individuals banding together that offered mutual protection not to mention mutual interests.
Huh. Sounds like another excuse to separate people.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That... sounds...absolutely...amazing :drool:

Which part?


I was discussing how you treat life like a scientific expiriment or laboratory.

I look at life as somthing to be expirienced and enjoyed that needs little to no modification at all.

The thing is, the rest of humanity doesn't seem to agree with you. Humans tend to be inveterately incorrigable tinkerers - instead of evolving powerful legs and sharp claws/teeth for catching prey, we evolved brains capable of making tools and utilising strategies to catch our supper.


History is written by the victors. What get's passed down from generations to generations is only that which the upper classes let be passed down.

The ruling class is not some monolithic bloc that agrees on everything. Sure, they have coinciding goals, but they also have many conflicting ones also.


With modern media controlled by the upper classes literature is becoming less influential.

Maybe. Got any evidence for that loss of influence? In any case there are upsides as well as downsides - a mere twenty years ago websites like this one just weren't possible.


Civilization is top down in that everything is controlled from the top down quite literally.

Actually, most of the problem is that civilisation isn't controlled in a top-down manner. Various interests compete vociferously and things are decided by money, not merit.


In our present situation everything is becoming institutionalized where all aspects of life is becoming dictated by created institutions.

( Institutions monopolized, supervised, and controlled by the upper classes.)

Everything? Where are the instructions on how to wipe my bum from the Ministry of Personal Hygiene?


And by learn what you really mean is in a manner that is accepted and supervised by the upper classes that is beneficial to their own interests.

You are oversimplifying things. Not everything that we learn is of benefit only to the ruling class.


I didn't understand the question.

Basically, I'm distinctly unimpressed with your "skill with negation" based on your performance so far, and wonder why exactly you think yourself so great.


We haven't done it yet.

But we know we can do it. And knowing, as the esteemed philosopher GI Joe said, is half the battle. :D


What are you going to do with over population or over human territorial expansion that destroys natural ecological systems that eventually depletes natural resources?

I'm told that overpopulation is a myth, but if it is a problem then it can be easily dealt with by raising living standards so that birthrates sink to replacement levels or less. With a reduced population, there would be no need to use up more land and resources.


Have you heard about the modern global fresh water shortage?

Yes, and?


What are you going to do with natural ecological systems that are already infected with pollutants like that of under water reefs in the oceans that are disappearing globally?

That ties in with easing off population growth as I mentioned earlier.


What are you going to do with climate change that is already happening as we speak?

Absolutely nothing and deal with the consequences, since it's pretty much unavoidable if people are going to have better living standards.


In a few more years I can't wait to watch the many disasters worldwide that is coming our way.

Now you see, statements like that make me want to fucking smack you. You do derive pleasure from the suffering of others. Fucking sadist. Don't lash out at others just because your own life is shitty.

[SavagePostModern]

Noxion said:
Now you see, statements like that make me want to fucking smack you. You do derive pleasure from the suffering of others. Fucking sadist. Don't lash out at others just because your own life is shitty.


I lash out only because others make me constantly miserable. For every action there is a reaction.

Growing up in a world that is constantly cruel and indifferent to oneself leaves a man wanting such a same world to be destroyed.

If I am to be viewed to be a sadistic monster just know that I didn't become one overnight as I've been conditioned to be one. ( Laughs.)

Behold violent men are merely creations of other violent men.

Behold violent men are merely creations of those that fashion them.

Society as it exists today collectively derives pleasure from the suffering, inequality, and constant servitude of others.

Where is it's outrage?

[SavagePostModern]

Anyhow...........I'll be back tomorrow morning to make further replies.

This has been another great conversation.

I look forward to exchanging conversations tomorrow.

[Skooma Addict]

History is written by the victors. What get's passed down from generations to generations is only that which the upper classes let be passed down.

With modern media controlled by the upper classes literature is becoming less influential.

Civilization is top down in that everything is controlled from the top down quite literally.

In our present situation everything is becoming institutionalized where all aspects of life is becoming dictated by created institutions.

( Institutions monopolized, supervised, and controlled by the upper classes.)

The "upper class" is not one group of people with a single set of interests. Your analysis is completely flawed.



What are you going to do with over population or over human territorial expansion that destroys natural ecological systems that eventually depletes natural resources?

The price system can take care of these problems. People have been mining copper for centuries, yet there is still plenty left. Why? Because as resources get scarce, their prices increase. This reduced demand lowers consumption. Also, as resources are being depleted, new ones are being taken advantage of. Problem solved.


What are you going to do with climate change that is already happening as we speak?

In a few more years I can't wait to watch the many disasters worldwide that is coming our way.

Climate change? That sounds really threatening.

Also, there are disasters every year, and they are completely natural. Why You would want natural disasters to occur is beyond me.


The way I look at it were doomed either way. I'm just choosing an alternative that I think offers more independence in this ride of existence we call life.

To me independence can only come with the destruction of global government, society, and civilization.


Are you some kind of anarcho-primitivist? You should know that human cooperation is completely natural. Humans naturally engage in voluntary exchange, leading to capital accumulation, and ultimately civilization. So you will not be able to destroy society and civilization without changing the very nature of humans.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I lash out only because others make me constantly miserable. For every action there is a reaction.

And what, specifically, has nearly every other human being on this planet done to you to deserve a horrible death?


Growing up in a world that is constantly cruel and indifferent to oneself leaves a man wanting such a same world to be destroyed.

Only if he's a self-centred manchild like you seem to be. The healthy response is to grit one's teeth and deal with it. Those of us who are particularly altruistic may try to improve the world in whatever way they can.


If I am to be viewed to be a sadistic monster just know that I didn't become one overnight as I've been conditioned to be one. ( Laughs.)

Strangely enough, despite the world's many flaws, most people somehow manage to avoid turning into nihilistic and empty shells.


Society as it exists today collectively derives pleasure from the suffering, inequality, and constant servitude of others.

No, those things exist largely because the economic system requires it. The computer I am using was probably built by someone who was overworked and underpaid, but I do not revel in their suffering.


Where is it's outrage?

Most people are either ignorant or too busy. Some people are aware but powerless. Those people who are aware and have power do not have an interest in changing things. It's an unhappy situation, but by spreading awareness there is a chance that enough people will become outraged enough to make a difference. The USSR, as a product of Russian outrage, may not have been perfect but it was better than life under the Tsars.

[KC]

I lash out only because others make me constantly miserable.

Either get over yourself or kill yourself then.

Why is a moron like this even allowed to post here?

[Havet]

Which part?


All...The possibilities...the plurality of opportunities...the diversity of experiences...it's all too overwhelmingly great...

[Kronos]

Can we all just chill out for a minute and spend some quality time together?

I'd like to invite you all to hold hands and sing this song with me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFhJUk7LNT0

If you shed a tear, please don't feel embarrassed. It takes a strong man to cry, comrades. We are all in this together.

[SavagePostModern]

Either get over yourself or kill yourself then.

Why is a moron like this even allowed to post here?

Get over myself? I can't do that since I like myself very much.



kill yourself then.



Now why would I want to do somthing like that?

Do you have a desire to see a person like me dead? Why?

Do I interfere with your ideal perception of this world? Is that why you want a person like me dead? Oh dear................



Why is a moron like this even allowed to post here?


Answer that question for yourself.

[SavagePostModern]

Can we all just chill out for a minute and spend some quality time together?

I'd like to invite you all to hold hands and sing this song with me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFhJUk7LNT0

If you shed a tear, please don't feel embarrassed. It takes a strong man to cry, comrades. We are all in this together.:lol:

[SavagePostModern]

Huh. Sounds like another excuse to separate people.

People are already seperate.

Everybody is seperate individuals.

[SavagePostModern]

The op is even worse than anarchists, he wants a state where crime can go unpunished and women used as sex objects, we should leave this!

We already live in a state where slavery goes unpunished as it legalized through legislation.

Why doesn't anybody discuss the crimes of government,collective society, and civilization?

Why are people always so distracted with the infractions of individuals?

Why don't you tell me how ideal you view this world to be? ( Laughs.)

[SavagePostModern]

I'm disappointed. You ignored my latest post and simply went back and quoted from an earlier one.



That's because "godhood" was reserved for an elite, and they weren't really anything even approaching gods in any case - they were just as human as you or I.

Besides, why do you care if people are killed or enslaved? I though you were a nihilist...



That's because your imagination has been stunted with misanthropic rubbish - you can't even concieve of an egalitarian technological society, so you summarily dismiss the possibility.



Again, that's your problem, not mine.



So? Just because something hasn't happened before, does not in itself mean it won't ever happen.



You have to have a good idea of what you want before you can struggle for it. I have good reason to believe that comrades are struggling the world over in order to achieve that.


I'm disappointed. You ignored my latest post and simply went back and quoted from an earlier one.

Whoops......Sorry about that.

I'm so busy trying to reply to everyone elses posts that I forgot about yours.

If you should see a post go unanswered by me again just call me on it so I can reply to it later.



That's because "godhood" was reserved for an elite, and they weren't really anything even approaching gods in any case - they were just as human as you or I.


Of course they are just as human as you and I but that doesn't stop them from feeling that they should be entitled or compensated more in that to this day they still believe themselves to be the chosen flock of the human race over all others.

It is from that belief from which their self worship comes from in which they view themselves as a higher race of human thoroughbreds and demi-gods.



Besides, why do you care if people are killed or enslaved? I though you were a nihilist...


I don't.......... I just love illustrating what reality really is destroying the pathetic make believe and pretend definition of reality that shows humanity as some happy feel good cooperative state where everybody lives in some sort of utopian musical.



Human beings have always existed in a state where those with power constantly enslave those without power.

( That right there is a general outline of human social interaction.) ( Cooperation is not a dominant part of humanity.)

( Infact I would go on to say that the present situation of human social interaction is rarely mutually cooperative and more motivated by fear and coercion.)


That's because your imagination has been stunted with misanthropic rubbish -

Oh really? And I suppose you think that I must exist away from the sin and heresy of pessimism where I should come embrace the salvation of optimism where I should join the secular collective crusade to create the future promise land here on earth.

http://www.sixwise.com/images/articles/2005/09/07/exorcism.gif

( Let's build a earthly and universal heaven in the future.) (Hallelujah!)

( Make way! Only the righteous shall inherit the future promise land.)

( I'm ready to do my part in creating the future promise land.)

( Technology,innovation, and happy feel good thoughts will save us all! Hallelujah! Salvation is ours!)

( Let us all worship man's innovation in demagoguery!)

( Laughs.)

Give me a break..........




you can't even concieve of an egalitarian technological society, so you summarily dismiss the possibility.


Because I believe what you envision and idealize is impossible.

I'm still waiting for somebody to prove me incorrect.

I'm waiting...........................( I won't hold my breath.)




So? Just because something hasn't happened before, does not in itself mean it won't ever happen.


According to christians their mystical mythical god name Jesus second coming hasn't happened yet.

According to your logic just because the second coming hasn't happened yet does not in itself mean it won't ever happen and therefore doesn't mean people should stop believing that it will happen.

Interesting...........

( For the record I'm a atheist where this is just my attempt at sarcasm and satire.)


You have to have a good idea of what you want before you can struggle for it.

Is it possible to desire the impossible?



I have good reason to believe that comrades are struggling the world over in order to achieve that.

Anarchists and plunderers are the only people I can relate to. ( Shrugs.)

[SavagePostModern]

The advancement of civilization is only possible if property rights are respected. But that means that the growth of civilization will be environmentally friendly. Since many environmental problems would disappear if property rights were properly upheld.



What do you mean by this?

Respected like how?


Since many environmental problems would disappear if property rights were properly upheld.

Like how?


What do you mean by this?

Exactly as it sounds.

[SavagePostModern]

I define anarchy the way the dictionary defines it, for that is where I first learned about anarchy. I have learned more, since then, but I don't see how it could differ very greatly; when it is in detail, from the definition...

Notice the term social disorder in that definition.............

[SavagePostModern]

certainly, there is people who doesn't agree with you. One example is me. (Referring to SavagePostModern)

Huh?

[SavagePostModern]

Which part?



The thing is, the rest of humanity doesn't seem to agree with you. Humans tend to be inveterately incorrigable tinkerers - instead of evolving powerful legs and sharp claws/teeth for catching prey, we evolved brains capable of making tools and utilising strategies to catch our supper.



The ruling class is not some monolithic bloc that agrees on everything. Sure, they have coinciding goals, but they also have many conflicting ones also.



Maybe. Got any evidence for that loss of influence? In any case there are upsides as well as downsides - a mere twenty years ago websites like this one just weren't possible.



Actually, most of the problem is that civilisation isn't controlled in a top-down manner. Various interests compete vociferously and things are decided by money, not merit.



Everything? Where are the instructions on how to wipe my bum from the Ministry of Personal Hygiene?



You are oversimplifying things. Not everything that we learn is of benefit only to the ruling class.



Basically, I'm distinctly unimpressed with your "skill with negation" based on your performance so far, and wonder why exactly you think yourself so great.



But we know we can do it. And knowing, as the esteemed philosopher GI Joe said, is half the battle. :D



I'm told that overpopulation is a myth, but if it is a problem then it can be easily dealt with by raising living standards so that birthrates sink to replacement levels or less. With a reduced population, there would be no need to use up more land and resources.



Yes, and?



That ties in with easing off population growth as I mentioned earlier.



Absolutely nothing and deal with the consequences, since it's pretty much unavoidable if people are going to have better living standards.



Now you see, statements like that make me want to fucking smack you. You do derive pleasure from the suffering of others. Fucking sadist. Don't lash out at others just because your own life is shitty.


The thing is, the rest of humanity doesn't seem to agree with you. Humans tend to be inveterately incorrigable tinkerers - instead of evolving powerful legs and sharp claws/teeth for catching prey, we evolved brains capable of making tools and utilising strategies to catch our supper.

It seems to me that the upper classes with their scientists and innovators create advancements which they call "progress" where they come to subjugate everyone else under such innovations by calling it "better" for everyone.



The ruling class is not some monolithic bloc that agrees on everything. Sure, they have coinciding goals, but they also have many conflicting ones also.


Alright.




Maybe. Got any evidence for that loss of influence?


Nothing empirical only anecdotal.



In any case there are upsides as well as downsides - a mere twenty years ago websites like this one just weren't possible.



I fail to see how any website will change things.


Actually, most of the problem is that civilisation isn't controlled in a top-down manner.

It isn't? I suppose governments are just illusions............


Various interests compete vociferously and things are decided by money, not merit.

Who controls value and worth? Who has complete hegemony over value and worth?

Who controls the cash flow? ( Laughs.)



Everything? Where are the instructions on how to wipe my bum from the Ministry of Personal Hygiene?


In a personal hygiene book for dummies at your local library.




You are oversimplifying things. Not everything that we learn is of benefit only to the ruling class.


Considering that modern academics or educational institutions is a state funded and operated apparatus filled with many forms of censorship along with every other institution I care to disagree.



Basically, I'm distinctly unimpressed with your "skill with negation" based on your performance so far, and wonder why exactly you think yourself so great.


Ouch..........My feelings are hurt now.

I'm unimpressed by your utopian smugness.............( Sticks out tongue.)



But we know we can do it. And knowing, as the esteemed philosopher GI Joe said, is half the battle.


Do you really?


I'm told that overpopulation is a myth,

That's news to me. For some reason billions upon billions of humans expanding all throughout the world is not considered unusual or even a form of overpopulation.

Can you imagine what terms we would used if billions upon billons of caribou were expanded all throughout the world?


but if it is a problem then it can be easily dealt with by raising living standards so that birthrates sink to replacement levels or less. With a reduced population, there would be no need to use up more land and resources.

And so humanity further creates even more problems for itself where a variety of the conflicts it faces both old or new are usually self inflicted...............



Yes, and?


How do you plan on dealing with that with a ever increasing population?

[SavagePostModern]

And what, specifically, has nearly every other human being on this planet done to you to deserve a horrible death?



Only if he's a self-centred manchild like you seem to be. The healthy response is to grit one's teeth and deal with it. Those of us who are particularly altruistic may try to improve the world in whatever way they can.



Strangely enough, despite the world's many flaws, most people somehow manage to avoid turning into nihilistic and empty shells.



No, those things exist largely because the economic system requires it. The computer I am using was probably built by someone who was overworked and underpaid, but I do not revel in their suffering.



Most people are either ignorant or too busy. Some people are aware but powerless. Those people who are aware and have power do not have an interest in changing things. It's an unhappy situation, but by spreading awareness there is a chance that enough people will become outraged enough to make a difference. The USSR, as a product of Russian outrage, may not have been perfect but it was better than life under the Tsars.





No, those things exist largely because the economic system requires it. The computer I am using was probably built by someone who was overworked and underpaid, but I do not revel in their suffering.


Who tolerates such economical policies? Collective society.

Who creates such economical policies? Collective society.

Who creates the supply and demand of social inequality, human suffering, and human disenfranchisement? Collective society does.


Only if he's a self-centred manchild like you seem to be.

Laughs...........


The healthy response is to grit one's teeth and deal with it.

In other words: "Be a good obedient slave."

"Keep on laboring and get paid a minimal salary by doing so without having a disobedient disposition."

"Slavery is freedom."



Those of us who are particularly altruistic may try to improve the world in whatever way they can.


Altruism is a myth. Altruism doesn't exist. All actions, interactions, and behaviors are self interested with specific agendas by the actors.

Oh who am I kidding? Human beings must be altruistic since that must be why 25% of the population in the ancient Roman empire were slaves.

Human beings must be altruistic since 2% of people own the wealth around this globe presently.

( Laughs.)

It is also interesting how so called improvements are never enough or effective.

http://www.darrellwconder.com/images/sexslavery.jpg

http://latinrepublicans.org/latin/florida/Portals/0/boulanger_gustave_clarence_rudolphe_the_slave_mark et.jpg

[SavagePostModern]

I'll be back later this afternoon Sports fans..............:cool:

[Skooma Addict]

Respected like how?

Humans are social beings, and they will naturally cooperate. People also have negative emotional responses towards actions they view as unethical or wrong. When a person tells you something is "right" or "wrong", all they are really telling you is their emotional stance on that particular issue. Humans instinctively oppose theft, murder, kidnapping ect. Obviously, there are exceptions. A starving man may view theft as wrong, but his hunger may be too overwhelming, and he may feel that it is necessary to steal food from a stranger. But cooperation will continue, and civilization will emerge in spite of these exceptions.

There are also people who claim they view nothing as moral or immoral. They claim they would have no problem killing a child if they would not be punished for it afterwords. But saying something is one thing, and doing it is another. Even though people may say they would kill an innocent person if they could get away with it, I doubt many actually would. Regardles, institutions will naturally develop that will create incentives for such people to conform to the social standards, and to punish people who commit crimes.


Like how?

Well, since half the environmental problems are myths anyways, we don't have much to worry about. There would be very few shortages if all land were private property. The markets price system would adjust according to supply and demand. Also, you are violating a persons property rights if you are polluting their land.

[SavagePostModern]

Noxion said:

Strangely enough, despite the world's many flaws, most people somehow manage to avoid turning into nihilistic and empty shells.



Laughs.


Most people are either ignorant or too busy.

Most people don't care or are indifferent. Face the music.




Some people are aware but powerless.


Those aware do nothing in order to save their own skin because in their minds they are thinking it is better that others suffer instead of themselves.

And then of course since the enslaved low income workers provide a variety of cheap convenient manual labored services those aware find no problem in taking advantage of their labors where they turn their head at their hardships where many are forced into such hardships against their own will daily.


Those people who are aware and have power do not have an interest in changing things.

Nods.


It's an unhappy situation, but by spreading awareness there is a chance that enough people will become outraged enough to make a difference.

Two thousand somthing years have gone by............Where's the mass outrage at?



The USSR, as a product of Russian outrage, may not have been perfect but it was better than life under the Tsars.


The fact that perfection is unattainable only advances my point..........

[SavagePostModern]

Easy,first of all it's impossible for individuals to live in complete independence as you say because humans are social animals and even if you could self cater your own needs perfectly well, you would still desire interaction with other persons.Additionally,even the needs that don't directly contain social interaction are fulfilled better within a community than on their own.Now to the point of violence,in an anarchistically organised society the reasons violence is incited are tracked down and taken care of with the source of violence been preemptively cut down.People act violently for several reasons and the aim of a social society must always be to prevent those reasons rather than to punish the violators(That's like a man wanting to cut a ever-growing tree down and fighting with the branches instead of decapitating the root).Now I'm not saying that every last ounce of violence will be prevented,that's something awfully idealistic and naive,but still most(and certainly the more dangerous forms)would.As you said violence grows when people's interests conflict with each other but the point of such a society is that each's interest can be fulfilled without coming in conflict with their neighbour's ones.When a violent act takes place and during it's duration,the community will act to stop it in the most practical way,collaboratively and immediatly but without the use of a central ''guard'' squad but rather direct action from the citizen's themselves.(Sorta like a civilian militia)Finally,should the action be stopped,the community will try and find why and where it stemmed from and act so to prevent future incidents both from other people and the ones who did it,keeping in mind that vengeance,punishment and preemptive laws and rules serve no practical purpose other than satisfy the egotism and act as a detterent against resistance to authority,thus abstaining from them. Under what Kropotkin first baptised the anarchist consciousness or ''the one true moral'' which simply states "don't do unto others what you wouldn't want them to do to you and on the contrary act to them as you would like them to act upon you."And don't play the ''yes but everyone has different likings and limits so that's impossible'' card because yes,everything is relative but that doesn't mean that some things are not much more objective than the others,e.g you can be sure that acting against someone's will is something that he doesn't like and something you wouldn't like either.So the original statement must be read in it's more general context as in to ''act in such a way that you deal no pain or authority upon anyone but rather give pleasure and aid" Well anarchism is of course a kind of democracy in it's most extreme and direct form.The difference from a ''democratic libertarian'' community is of course that there is no authority and so no government in it's narrow definition but rather a state of self-governing. Let's use these definitions: Chaos:a state of unpredictability and lack of sense where one cannot determine the rules or logic under which things flow /{used for human communities} a term used to describe lack of organisation and peace,where everyone is acting as they will according to their powers[survival of the fittest],a community lacking laws or order./-ic {used for humans} a person acting solely according to his instincts and impulses without following plans or using logic but rather subconsciously. Order:{In mathematics}a condition under which things follow a certain and predictable flow,underlined by some mathematic,logic law or rules as opposed to chaos/{In social studies,politics} A state in which actions are planned and followed strictly and thoroughly usually with the assistance of laws and some kind of authority,a state of peace and harmony. Two extremes if you want my opinion,none of which can always work or exist on it's own.Complete lack of organisation and logic leads to nothingness,to the Void, it simply cannot exist while even trying to completely plan down and track every action and detail is on it's own arrogant,impractical stupid and unnatural,that's why you can never ever have total control of something-there is always one thing you will not notice or prevent and that's why I don't believe in any determinism,be it scientific,social or theological.Authoritarian governments and communities try to totally repress and keep down resistance and what they label as wrong or evil,unaware of the fact they are failing while creating more of that which they tried to keep down.It's impractical and utopic to actually succeed in such away.Anarchism on the other hand,realises the innate chaos in nature,accepts the limits it gives us and tries to organise humanity in harmony and balance with it keeping the human existence as high as it can and granting the individuals freedom and satisfaction to their desires,to any extent this is possible.Therefore,as Proudhon said:Property is Theft,Anarchy is Order. All these I said until now are really basic stuff about anarchism man,have you ever sat and read one of the social anarchist's books on what does anarchy mean for us and what do we crave along with all these individual-anarchism crap you are reading from Stirner?I'd reccomend you read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid,Anarchy:It's Morals and Ideals and even The Conquest of Bread and you will find answers for all of these. As I said above I don't believe in determinism in the meaning that anyone can predict and strictly regulate the flow and path of future things,only make some logical assumptions.However I surely believe that from all possible human communities,one ruled anarchistically and regulated economically with communism is best there can ever be and when humanity reaches it,should it each it,it won't go back to anything else.(All that if we are not destroyed by some comet,an extra-enviromental disaster or allien invasion:lol:) Do you not admire and feel art in any of its forms for entertainment?Do you deny that you are using the conquests of science every day,even now typing on a forum on a computer? Surely,most of the morals religion had created to serve the authority of the ruling classes have survived in one way or another and we are constantly fighting against them,surely morals are human creations and not something solid.BUT,there is a difference between atheism and amoralism,in that the theists believe that something exists out of them and without their full understanding or participation in it's creation,while orthological people with morals simply follow some very simple and loose rules THEY have created out of both practicallity,instinct and logic.
Ciao,if I see a lunatic demolishing a skyscraper with an axe on the news I know it will be you :laugh:




Easy,first of all it's impossible for individuals to live in complete independence as you say because humans are social animals and even if you could self cater your own needs perfectly well, you would still desire interaction with other persons.

This is just a cop out to excuse some form of interjecting authority.

It is possible for all individuals to live in complete independence but to do so we would have to eradicate the belief that somehow everything must be controlled.

All individuals in prehistory lived pretty much self fulfilling independent lives back in a age that was considered un-structured centrally.



Additionally,even the needs that don't directly contain social interaction are fulfilled better within a community than on their own.

Not always.



Now to the point of violence,in an anarchistically organised society the reasons violence is incited are tracked down and taken care of with the source of violence been preemptively cut down.People act violently for several reasons and the aim of a social society must always be to prevent those reasons rather than to punish the violators(That's like a man wanting to cut a ever-growing tree down and fighting with the branches instead of decapitating the root).Now I'm not saying that every last ounce of violence will be prevented,that's something awfully idealistic and naive,but still most(and certainly the more dangerous forms)would.As you said violence grows when people's interests conflict with each other but the point of such a society is that each's interest can be fulfilled without coming in conflict with their neighbour's ones.When a violent act takes place and during it's duration,the community will act to stop it in the most practical way,collaboratively and immediatly but without the use of a central ''guard'' squad but rather direct action from the citizen's themselves.(Sorta like a civilian militia)Finally,should the action be stopped,the community will try and find why and where it stemmed from and act so to prevent future incidents both from other people and the ones who did it,keeping in mind that vengeance,punishment and preemptive laws and rules serve no practical purpose other than satisfy the egotism and act as a detterent against resistance to authority,thus abstaining from them.




As you said violence grows when people's interests conflict with each other but the point of such a society is that each's interest can be fulfilled without coming in conflict with their neighbour's ones.




Now to the point of violence,in an anarchistically organised society the reasons violence is incited are tracked down and taken care of with the source of violence been preemptively cut down.


Violence is not some sort of disease that can be confined, eradicated,isolated or neutralized as it is a natural form of things.

There is no quick fix or cure for violence.

Violence and aggression is a natural adaptation to a competitive conflicting enviroment. Aggressive behavior is natural to humans like all other forms of behaviors are.



When a violent act takes place and during it's duration,the community will act to stop it in the most practical way,collaboratively and immediatly but without the use of a central ''guard'' squad but rather direct action from the citizen's themselves.(Sorta like a civilian militia)


That's fine and all not to mention expected in such a analogy however if a civilian militia is destroyed or squashed you will have the accept the consequences of defeat besides victory.



Finally,should the action be stopped,the community will try and find why and where it stemmed from and act so to prevent future incidents both from other people and the ones who did it,keeping in mind that vengeance,punishment and preemptive laws and rules serve no practical purpose other than satisfy the egotism and act as a detterent against resistance to authority,thus abstaining from them.


I find that amusing considering all of social justice is merely social revenge.

Your envisionment on that particular issue sounds nice in theory but whether it would be practical or applicable is another thing.


Under what Kropotkin first baptised the anarchist consciousness or ''the one true moral'' which simply states "don't do unto others what you wouldn't want them to do to you and on the contrary act to them as you would like them to act upon you."And don't play the ''yes but everyone has different likings and limits so that's impossible'' card

You read my mind.


because yes,everything is relative but that doesn't mean that some things are not much more objective than the others

Such as?




,e.g you can be sure that acting against someone's will is something that he doesn't like and something you wouldn't like either.


Survival is a them or me mentality. It almost seems like you want to achieve a single consciousness.

( Somthing I also view to be impossible.)



So the original statement must be read in it's more general context as in to ''act in such a way that you deal no pain or authority upon anyone but rather give pleasure and aid"


As I said in the past I have nothing against cooperation. Cooperation is great when people benefit from cooperating but the moment a person becomes mistreated, exploited, or tooken advantage of they have no obligation to keep on cooperating.



Well anarchism is of course a kind of democracy in it's most extreme and direct form.The difference from a ''democratic libertarian'' community is of course that there is no authority and so no government in it's narrow definition but rather a state of self-governing.


How would you keep such a democracy from being a tyranny of the majority like it exists today?


Let's use these definitions:

I like definitions.




Chaos:a state of unpredictability and lack of sense where one cannot determine the rules or logic under which things flow /

What rules? What logic?



{used for human communities} a term used to describe lack of organisation and peace,where everyone is acting as they will according to their powers[survival of the fittest],

My kind of place. Why is everybody against that interpretation here?




a community lacking laws or order./-ic {used for humans}


Centralization is destroyed.



a person acting solely according to his instincts and impulses without following plans or using logic but rather subconsciously.


Precisely. Sounds nice to me.



Order:{In mathematics}a condition under which things follow a certain and predictable flow,underlined by some mathematic,logic law or rules as opposed to chaos/{In social studies,politics}

What logic? What law? What order? Who benefits from such a order?



A state in which actions are planned and followed strictly and thoroughly usually with the assistance of laws and some kind of authority,

All of which the upper classes benefit while everybody else toils and labors under them where the upper classes don't give a dam about anyone under them.


a state of peace and harmony.

Are you serious? Is that how you describe the history of civilization and organized authorities?


Two extremes if you want my opinion,none of which can always work or exist on it's own.

Well I like my extreme more and I don't see any alternative between the two.

Atleast in my extreme everybody has a chance to independence.



Complete lack of organisation and logic leads to nothingness,to the Void,

Considering that I don't believe there is any massive destiny or final destination of things that needs to be achieved I find comfort in what you call nothingness and the void.



it simply cannot exist while even trying to completely plan down and track every action and detail is on it's own arrogant,impractical stupid and unnatural,


Lack of organization and unstructured settings was apart of our prehistory which might I add existed far much longer than the history of civilization has.



that's why you can never ever have total control of something-there is always one thing you will not notice or prevent and that's why I don't believe in any determinism,be it scientific,social or theological.

I'm not a fan of the free-will argument. I admit that I'm a determinist.




Authoritarian governments and communities try to totally repress and keep down resistance and what they label as wrong or evil,unaware of the fact they are failing while creating more of that which they tried to keep down.It's impractical and utopic to actually succeed in such away.


Nods.



Anarchism on the other hand,realises the innate chaos in nature,accepts the limits it gives us and tries to organise humanity in harmony and balance with it keeping the human existence as high as it can and granting the individuals freedom and satisfaction to their desires,to any extent this is possible.


Nods.



,as Proudhon said:Property is Theft,Anarchy is Order. All these I said until now are really basic stuff about anarchism man,have you ever sat and read one of the social anarchist's books on what does anarchy mean for us and what do we crave along with all these individual-anarchism crap you are reading from Stirner?


I've read excerpts by Proudhon and Bakunin many times. I'm familiar with other writings.

The individual anarchism of Stirner makes more sense with me because to me independence has to start with the individual.

So called collective independence to me I believes leaves the individual barren of genuine independence.

I'm not a fan of collectivism because I find it to be centered against individualism and egoism.


I'd reccomend you read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid,Anarchy:It's Morals and Ideals and even The Conquest of Bread and you will find answers for all of these.

I'll check into that book.




As I said above I don't believe in determinism in the meaning that anyone can predict and strictly regulate the flow and path of future things,only make some logical assumptions.


I however believe in determinism.


However I surely believe that from all possible human communities,one ruled anarchistically and regulated economically with communism is best there can ever be and when humanity reaches it,should it each it,it won't go back to anything else.

I'm not a fan of communism. Anarchism is the only thing I understand although my version of anarchy is a bit different from others to put it mildly.




Do you not admire and feel art in any of its forms for entertainment?



It's alright but it is also somthing I can live without.


Do you deny that you are using the conquests of science every day,even now typing on a forum on a computer?

Yes a computer is a conquest of science but I do not feel their existence is necessary.

Technology is a tool but at the same time is not necessary to survival.


Surely,most of the morals religion had created to serve the authority of the ruling classes have survived in one way or another and we are constantly fighting against them,surely morals are human creations and not something solid.

Nods. All of them which try to make it a "sin" to rebel or disobey against authoritarian entities.


BUT,there is a difference between atheism and amoralism,in that the theists believe that something exists out of them and without their full understanding or participation in it's creation,while orthological people with morals simply follow some very simple and loose rules THEY have created out of both practicallity,instinct and logic.


To me both versions of morality are purely fictional, imagnitative, and stem from a sort of wishful thinking. ( Shrugs.)




Ciao,if I see a lunatic demolishing a skyscraper with an axe on the news I know it will be you http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolution-useless-revolution-t117005/revleft/smilies2/lol.gif


Actually if I was to act out I would be much more smarter than that as only a idiot would do somthing like that.

I prefer not to get caught. Talk to you later.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Of course they are just as human as you and I but that doesn't stop them from feeling that they should be entitled or compensated more in that to this day they still believe themselves to be the chosen flock of the human race over all others.

It is from that belief from which their self worship comes from in which they view themselves as a higher race of human thoroughbreds and demi-gods.

And history showed them to be wrong. The god-kings of Egypt? The emperors of China? The kings of France? They exist only in the history books and in the museums, despite their claims to cosmic sanction.




I don't.......... I just love illustrating what reality really is destroying the pathetic make believe and pretend definition of reality that shows humanity as some happy feel good cooperative state where everybody lives in some sort of utopian musical.

I never said things are or will be perfect - but they can be a whole lot better.


Human beings have always existed in a state where those with power constantly enslave those without power.

( That right there is a general outline of human social interaction.) ( Cooperation is not a dominant part of humanity.)

( Infact I would go on to say that the present situation of human social interaction is rarely mutually cooperative and more motivated by fear and coercion.)

That's because humans for most (all?) of recorded history have been living in a state of material scarcity and social hierarchy. Eliminate those conditions and the material basis for a large amount of negative human behaviour disappears.


Oh really? And I suppose you think that I must exist away from the sin and heresy of pessimism where I should come embrace the salvation of optimism where I should join the secular collective crusade to create the future promise land here on earth.

[IMG]http://www.sixwise.com/images/articles/2005/09/07/exorcism.gif[IMG]

( Let's build a earthly and universal heaven in the future.) (Hallelujah!)

( Make way! Only the righteous shall inherit the future promise land.)

( I'm ready to do my part in creating the future promise land.)

( Technology,innovation, and happy feel good thoughts will save us all! Hallelujah! Salvation is ours!)

( Let us all worship man's innovation in demagoguery!)

( Laughs.)

Give me a break..........

But you see, I'm actually doing something more than just argue with a stranger over the internet - I fully intend to use what I learn from my studies for the good of the human species, as much as I can.

So what are you doing?

That is, apart from languishing in your own self-made Hell, a consequence of your hopelessly nihilistic mindset.


Because I believe what you envision and idealize is impossible.

I'm still waiting for somebody to prove me incorrect.

I'm waiting...........................( I won't hold my breath.)

I'm sorry, I don't have a time machine.


According to christians their mystical mythical god name Jesus second coming hasn't happened yet.

According to your logic just because the second coming hasn't happened yet does not in itself mean it won't ever happen and therefore doesn't mean people should stop believing that it will happen.

Interesting...........

( For the record I'm a atheist where this is just my attempt at sarcasm and satire.)

Notwithstanding the lack of evidence for the Christian god, the fact that Jesus supposedly said "behold, I come quickly" and we've been waiting for over two millennia kind of puts the lie to the idea of the Second Coming, don't you think?


Is it possible to desire the impossible?

Of course. But what I desire isn't impossible.


Anarchists and plunderers are the only people I can relate to. ( Shrugs.)

Considering the kind of "anarchism" you espouse, that's an enormous shame.


It seems to me that the upper classes with their scientists and innovators create advancements which they call "progress" where they come to subjugate everyone else under such innovations by calling it "better" for everyone.

Yeah, I'm so oppressed by my refridgerator. :rolleyes: Seriously, it isn't technology that is oppressive, it's the way it's used.


I fail to see how any website will change things.

By itself? I don't expect much. But the fact that revolutionaries the world over can communicate with each other so easily has to amount to something.


It isn't? I suppose governments are just illusions............

Exactly, governments. As in the plural noun. Different governments with different goals and agendas, which bring them into conflict with each other.


Who controls value and worth? Who has complete hegemony over value and worth?

Who controls the cash flow? ( Laughs.)

Such questions of are the root of the problem - instead of focusing on the essential management of energy and resources, we have an entire section of society wasting their physical and mental power on questions of value, worth and the fiddling of imaginary numbers which relate to actual productive activity marginally at best.


In a personal hygiene book for dummies at your local library.

I can't seem to find that particular title, but the fact that books with such subjects exist does not mean a particular hygiene regimen is mandated by the government, no more than the existence of cookbooks means one's diet is thus mandated also.


Considering that modern academics or educational institutions is a state funded and operated apparatus filled with many forms of censorship along with every other institution I care to disagree.

Have you seen the crap that academics have been known to come out with? Such things would not happen in the absence of tenure.


Ouch..........My feelings are hurt now.

I'm unimpressed by your utopian smugness.............( Sticks out tongue.)


Oh noes, utopian! You know, your kind of intellectual position is incredibly easy, to the point of laziness - it takes advantage of the fact that the world is not perfect and that shitty things happen. If things are totally fucked and will never change, what's the point in telling us?


Do you really?

Did you even look at the link I provided?


That's news to me. For some reason billions upon billions of humans expanding all throughout the world is not considered unusual or even a form of overpopulation.

Can you imagine what terms we would used if billions upon billons of caribou were expanded all throughout the world?

Free venison? :lol:


And so humanity further creates even more problems for itself where a variety of the conflicts it faces both old or new are usually self inflicted...............

It sure beats your pathetic whine of "woe is me, the world sucks, I want everyone to die". The fact that we will encounter difficulties along the path of improvement is no excuse to spinelessly give up like some spoiled little brat. Thankfully people like you are rare, otherwise we would still be fighting with the bears for the best cave to sleep in.


How do you plan on dealing with that with a ever increasing population?

As I already said, increasing living standards across the board should be enough to reduce population growth.


Who tolerates such economical policies? Collective society.

Who creates such economical policies? Collective society.

Who creates the supply and demand of social inequality, human suffering, and human disenfranchisement? Collective society does.

"Collective society" is far too broad a rubric with which to analyse the problem. You oversimplify things to the point of uselessness.


Laughs...........

I'm serious. You sound like one of those people before they go on a shooting spree, the signs are all there - a self-centred view of the world, contempt for the masses, overweening nihilism, and a steadfast refusal to even consider things differently. Maybe I'll see you on the news one day.


In other words: "Be a good obedient slave."

"Keep on laboring and get paid a minimal salary by doing so without having a disobedient disposition."

"Slavery is freedom."

Says the person who claims change is impossible. If change is impossible, that's a perfect situation for the ruling classes as their position will never be threatened. In fact I would not be surprised if some sections of the ruling class actually encourage your style of thinking - it's perfect for producing people who will never seek to change or threaten the system, since they're convinced such efforts would be in vain.


Altruism is a myth. Altruism doesn't exist. All actions, interactions, and behaviors are self interested with specific agendas by the actors.

Oh who am I kidding? Human beings must be altruistic since that must be why 25% of the population in the ancient Rome were slaves.

Human beings must be altruistic since 2% of people own the wealth around this globe presently.

( Laughs.)

[IMG]http://www.darrellwconder.com/images/sexslavery.jpg[IMG]

Why yes, I bought a slave only today. :rolleyes: Fucking idiot. The 2% you speak of have various reasons for not giving away their wealth - have you actually examined those reasons, or are you too fucking stupid to see that 2% of the world's population in extraordinary circumstances do not represent the entire population?


Laughs.

I'm sorry but typing "laughs" is not a substitute for an actually meaningful reply.


Most people don't care or are indifferent. Face the music.

Maybe you don't care, but I do. Judging by your presence here it seems you have an active interest in other people also not giving a shit.

Are you sure you're not some ruling class propagandist?


Those aware do nothing in order to save their own skin because in their minds they are thinking it is better that others suffer instead of themselves.

Wrong (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/273664), fucko. Why don't you slit your fucking wrists already?


And then of course since the enslaved low income workers provide a variety of cheap convenient manual labored services those aware find no problem in taking advantage of their labors where they turn their head at their hardships where many are forced into such hardships against their will.

Most of us are in the same fucking boat, but you're too fucking selfish and too willing to project your own selfishness onto others to realise that.


Two thousand somthing years have gone by............Where's the mass outrage at?

My word, you're more stupid than I thought. Do you seriously think society two millennia ago is the same as society today? Did you miss all those peasant rebellions, civil wars, and revolutions in history class, or were you too busy whining about how shitty your life is?


The fact that perfection is unattainable only advances my point..........

Bullshit! The fact that perfection is unattainable does not mean things cannot get better.

[SavagePostModern]

...and in the thesaurus; the synonyms of anarchy:
chaos, confusion, disorder, disorganization, disregard, hostility, misrule, mob rule, nihilism, nongovernment, rebellion, reign of terror, revolution, riot, turmoil, unrest

The one I find most interesting is mob rule. Another one is unrest. I don't agree, very much, with the whole "reign of terror" thing; that seems like an exaggeration of an opinion, to me.

I believe that it is impossible for people to be cooperative of such a movement. An anarchy requires voluntary participation in keeping society up. I don't think that it is possible to get the masses to be very cooperative without having someone keeping them in line, which is government. A person governing over everyone's participation in the anarchy. Which defeats its purpose.



...and in the thesaurus; the synonyms of anarchy:
chaos, confusion, disorder, disorganization, disregard, hostility, misrule, mob rule, nihilism, nongovernment, rebellion, reign of terror, revolution, riot, turmoil, unrest

The one I find most interesting is mob rule. Another one is unrest. I don't agree, very much, with the whole "reign of terror" thing; that seems like an exaggeration of an opinion, to me.



I wonder where the reign of terror is reflected from considering history is full of governmental periods of terror.

Many people say having a government is better than anarchy because violence and oppressive forces are kept in check but in my eyes violence or oppression is still ever present in government oriented societies where I don't see much of a difference.



The one I find most interesting is mob rule.


Mob rule is definately a interesting definition. I believe it stems from the belief that individuals within a government view themselves protecting the people from themselves in that they view the people to be unable or unfit to self direct themselves.

I believe that to be a idiotic postion because it allows those within a government to believe that they have some sort of special insight or knowledge that a majority of others don't have that allows them to direct the lives of others.

Like the old anarchist saying goes:

"You say the masses are unable or unfit to rule themselves yet what special insight and right do you have that allows you to direct the lives of others?"



I believe that it is impossible for people to be cooperative of such a movement. An anarchy requires voluntary participation in keeping society up. I don't think that it is possible to get the masses to be very cooperative without having someone keeping them in line, which is government. A person governing over everyone's participation in the anarchy. Which defeats its purpose.


Why must the masses be kept in line in single file and order? For what purpose? If there is no purpose to life which I believe to be the case then equally there is no purpose in keeping them in line in single file and order.

[SavagePostModern]

Some transhumanists wish to aggregate all human consciousness into one - I am not one of them, and I can't say that I have come across any that do. People should be free to become part of a collective intelligence if they so desire, but if people wish to retain their individuality they should also be allowed to do so, and neither one nor the other should be unduly favoured.



What's so pathetic about a posthuman existence?



Actually, the sort of civilisation I talk about would encourage diversity, rather than limiting it. Find the fleshly world a drag? Upload your mind and never have to bother with the issues of being a meatbag again. Hypertechnological society is too much for you? Find a remote planet and live at a level of technology that you're comfortable with. Cultural and social variety will follow from that.



Actually, the Borg are a perfect illustration of Star Trek's conservative attitude towards technology. The ban on human enhancement and modification is also an illustration of Star Trek's bioconservatism.

I prefer my science fiction to be more adventurous.



Well yes, but arriving at that point will be a significant challenge (or rather, a series of challenges) in itself.



Well, I agree that existence is inherently pointless, I just don't agree with the conclusion that you derived from that. In a world without meaning, why not create our own?



Actually, the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

Your Klingon there is a good example. For a being that supposedly evolved on another world, it is suspiciously humanoid. Not only biologically, but culturally too. Yet, even on our own planet, life takes a truly startling array of forms and behaviours.

If aliens exist, they ain't gonna look like Mr Spock, that's for sure!



The universe is simply too big to be controlled by one being, even a super-intelligent one. Any control of the universe must have the consent of it's inhabitants if it is to be meaningful or effective.



Who am I intending to silence?



Who worships the government? Not me, that's for sure.



Ayn Rand? Come on. Are you gonna copy & paste John Galt's speech next as well? :lol:



Hypocrisy, corruption and depravity have been our constant companions throughout history. The only reason it seems massively worse in this day and age is because communications technology enables one to see it coming from all over the world, rather than just one's local area. Look up Mean World Syndrome.



I doubt it, especially since the US Constitution begins with "We the people..." - indicating government by consent, at least in theory. Things may not be that way in practice, but it does serve as an indicator that even in the late 1700s, the sociopolitical Zeitgeist was such that secular governance was seen as a realistic goal.

Of course, now we know (or should know) that government, secular or otherwise, is not the way forward.



So what are you doing on this website?



So you would rather have civilisation collapse, an event which is highly likely to kill you, rather than having civilisation continue, which at least will give you the chance to die of old age?

Each to their own, I suppose, but I cannot help but think of your position as pathological. The collapse of civilisation will mean the deaths of billions. It's not just about you - or you do like the idea of everyone else suffering and dying alongside you?



Gold and muck come from the same mineshaft. Your proposed shaft however, contains only muck.



The reason our civilisation not as environmentally friendly as it could be is almost entirely down to the fact that it simply isn't profitable.



Don't be ridiculous. It's a sign of incredible intellectual laziness to dismiss arguments by making sophomoric comparisons with religion.



It's unavoidable, in fact. But as long as humanity is safe and comfortable, I don't see the problem.



Yes, I know that already. But we will only keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again in your primitive wonderland.



Well, it's a good thing that the planets we can reach at the moment are barren already. A good opportunity for us to get good at planet management.



Some transhumanists wish to aggregate all human consciousness into one - I am not one of them, and I can't say that I have come across any that do. People should be free to become part of a collective intelligence if they so desire, but if people wish to retain their individuality they should also be allowed to do so, and neither one nor the other should be unduly favoured.

Collective society never has in any point of history allowed people the option or choice to retain their individuality.

It has always been conform and absorb into the collective mindset and physical form of living or suffer the consequences of your refusal.

Transhumanists believe their insights are progressive which roughly translates into the perspective of being better where they view all other insights to be obsolete or nonsensical beyond their own.

Transhumanists to me seem unable to tolerate dissension. ( That is why I believe my image of the borg was an effective analogy.)




What's so pathetic about a posthuman existence?


Points to previous post.



Actually, the sort of civilisation I talk about would encourage diversity, rather than limiting it. Find the fleshly world a drag? Upload your mind and never have to bother with the issues of being a meatbag again. Hypertechnological society is too much for you? Find a remote planet and live at a level of technology that you're comfortable with. Cultural and social variety will follow from that.


That's interesting since the beginning I've been conversing with you to me it seems like your future civilization and future humanity is completely singular.


Actually, the Borg are a perfect illustration of Star Trek's conservative attitude towards technology. The ban on human enhancement and modification is also an illustration of Star Trek's bioconservatism.

Why must everything be modified in your perspective? Why can't you just leave things as they are?

What is your disposition towards those who wish to leave everything as it is without modification?



Well, I agree that existence is inherently pointless, I just don't agree with the conclusion that you derived from that. In a world without meaning, why not create our own?


I have no problem with individuals creating their own meaning it is when specific individuals create meaning where they view that everyone must be subjugated under that I find conflict with.



Who am I intending to silence?



Not saying you are but there is a constant government movement out there that is.



Who worships the government? Not me, that's for sure.


The worship of collectivism. The worship of the collective mindset. The worship of collective will as omnipotent and omniscient.


Ayn Rand? Come on. Are you gonna copy & paste John Galt's speech next as well? http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolution-useless-revolution-t117005/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Did you even read the quote I posted? To be honest that is the only book of hers I like in that I'm not a fan of any of her other books.

( No, there will be no quotes from John Galt.)


Hypocrisy, corruption and depravity have been our constant companions throughout history.

And most likely forever so.



The only reason it seems massively worse in this day and age is because communications technology enables one to see it coming from all over the world, rather than just one's local area. Look up Mean World Syndrome.


I would actually say it is equally destructive in every historical generation although as the time progresses I believe humanity becomes increasingly self destructive and decadent.




I doubt it, especially since the US Constitution begins with "We the people..." - indicating government by consent, at least in theory. Things may not be that way in practice, but it does serve as an indicator that even in the late 1700s, the sociopolitical Zeitgeist was such that secular governance was seen as a realistic goal

The government has never been a accurate representation of the people.

It has always been a seperate entity ruling their lives.


So what are you doing on this website?

Somthing to do.


So you would rather have civilisation collapse, an event which is highly likely to kill you, rather than having civilisation continue, which at least will give you the chance to die of old age?

I don't want to die from old age. Infact I want to die at the age of fifty five or earlier because I just can't see myself going on living after that age.

( My motto is live free and die young.)

And yes I would rather have civilization collapse even with the knowledge that it could kill me in it's collapse with the chance of achieving total independence afterwards in it's destruction and because there might be a chance of my own survival through the whole process.

( Psychology of risk taking.)

( What can I say? I like to gamble.)


Each to their own, I suppose, but I cannot help but think of your position as pathological. The collapse of civilisation will mean the deaths of billions. It's not just about you - or you do like the idea of everyone else suffering and dying alongside you?

All of human existence is pathological.


The advancement of civilization could also mean the deaths of billions. And?

( How many have died in wars that plague civilization? What's the difference?)



Gold and muck come from the same mineshaft. Your proposed shaft however, contains only muck.

How so?




The reason our civilisation not as environmentally friendly as it could be is almost entirely down to the fact that it simply isn't profitable.

Agreed.




Don't be ridiculous. It's a sign of incredible intellectual laziness to dismiss arguments by making sophomoric comparisons with religion.

Well it is no secret that secularists everywhere are obsessive in creating a future promiseland..............

[scarletghoul]

Whoa, I'm taken aback by the OP's idiocy. This is like extreme ultra-leftism mixed with a complete swallowing of the bourgeois line on revolution, resulting in a very confused and useless view.

I politely advise you to read some history of socialist revolutions (from the socialist view of course, rather than the bourgeois animal farm narrative which I'm guessing youve experienced enough) to get a fuller understanding.

Its easy to sit and criticise shit but i honestly dont see wtf your enlightened philosophy of "Genuine anarchy. Where anything and everything goes" will do. Hell, I could say everyone here was stupid for believing in revolution and I have a superior idea, that is "make the world perfect with everything made of chocolate and icecream, that doesnt melt and instantly replenished itself". Of course, this is a ridiculous ideology because I offer no way to get there and theres no way such a society could support itself, without radical progress of science and shit

[VientoLibre]

In response to the original post.. We can only change our oppressors. It is impossible for people to liberate themselves from oppressors. People have to change themselves. This is what is meant by Anarchy--to be a revolutionary, to make the break from statist thinking.

A true, social revolution on any large scale that lasts (keyword "lasts") will simply be a logical manifestation of this, in essence, spontaneous.

[Ele'ill]

Whoa, I'm taken aback by the OP's idiocy. This is like extreme ultra-leftism mixed with a complete swallowing of the bourgeois line on revolution, resulting in a very confused and useless view.

I politely advise you to read some history of socialist revolutions (from the socialist view of course, rather than the bourgeois animal farm narrative which I'm guessing youve experienced enough) to get a fuller understanding.

Its easy to sit and criticise shit but i honestly dont see wtf your enlightened philosophy of "Genuine anarchy. Where anything and everything goes" will do. Hell, I could say everyone here was stupid for believing in revolution and I have a superior idea, that is "make the world perfect with everything made of chocolate and icecream, that doesnt melt and instantly replenished itself". Of course, this is a ridiculous ideology because I offer no way to get there and theres no way such a society could support itself, without radical progress of science and shit

This would be stupid because a lot of us are extremely lactose intolerant.

[SavagePostModern]

Whoa, I'm taken aback by the OP's idiocy. This is like extreme ultra-leftism mixed with a complete swallowing of the bourgeois line on revolution, resulting in a very confused and useless view.

I politely advise you to read some history of socialist revolutions (from the socialist view of course, rather than the bourgeois animal farm narrative which I'm guessing youve experienced enough) to get a fuller understanding.

Its easy to sit and criticise shit but i honestly dont see wtf your enlightened philosophy of "Genuine anarchy. Where anything and everything goes" will do. Hell, I could say everyone here was stupid for believing in revolution and I have a superior idea, that is "make the world perfect with everything made of chocolate and icecream, that doesnt melt and instantly replenished itself". Of course, this is a ridiculous ideology because I offer no way to get there and theres no way such a society could support itself, without radical progress of science and shit


Whoa, I'm taken aback by the OP's idiocy.

What idiocy?


This is like extreme ultra-leftism mixed

I'll take that as a compliment.


with a complete swallowing of the bourgeois line on revolution, resulting in a very confused and useless view.

Not sure what your explaining here...........


I politely advise you to read some history of socialist revolutions (from the socialist view of course,

You assume I haven't............


rather than the bourgeois animal farm

Orwell?




narrative which I'm guessing youve experienced enough) to get a fuller understanding.


Expirienced? You betcha............


Its easy to sit and criticise shit but i honestly dont see wtf your enlightened philosophy of "Genuine anarchy.

I strive for total independence and self management of the individual.


Where anything and everything goes" will do.

Why do you have a problem with everyone having total independence for themselves to do whatever they want in having self directing lives?





Hell, I could say everyone here was stupid for believing in revolution and I have a superior idea,


The reason I like my chaotic version of anarchism is because it pales in comparison to those who speak of revolution that usually has some authoritarian metanarrative involved where a group of people direct and command the lives of others whether it be republican, democratic, socialist, communistic, or capitalistic.



that is "make the world perfect with everything made of chocolate and icecream, that doesnt melt and instantly replenished itself". Of course, this is a ridiculous ideology because I offer no way to get there and theres no way such a society could support itself, without radical progress of science and shit


My way there is to destroy global society, civilization, and culture everywhere. ( It's simple really.)

( Of course even if no specific group tries to destroy global society, civilization, and culture I still win because I view the present mess that we live in as self destructive where it will all end irregardless due to it's unsustainability.)

( My position really can't lose either way.)

[SavagePostModern]

In response to the original post.. We can only change our oppressors. It is impossible for people to liberate themselves from oppressors. People have to change themselves. This is what is meant by Anarchy--to be a revolutionary, to make the break from statist thinking.

A true, social revolution on any large scale that lasts (keyword "lasts") will simply be a logical manifestation of this, in essence, spontaneous.

Everybody seeks to be masters and oppressors in that everybody seeks some sort of social power in their lives.

In order to have social power or social upward mobility it requires the disenfranchisement of another.

[SavagePostModern]

And history showed them to be wrong. The god-kings of Egypt? The emperors of China? The kings of France? They exist only in the history books and in the museums, despite their claims to cosmic sanction.





I never said things are or will be perfect - but they can be a whole lot better.



That's because humans for most (all?) of recorded history have been living in a state of material scarcity and social hierarchy. Eliminate those conditions and the material basis for a large amount of negative human behaviour disappears.



But you see, I'm actually doing something more than just argue with a stranger over the internet - I fully intend to use what I learn from my studies for the good of the human species, as much as I can.

So what are you doing?

That is, apart from languishing in your own self-made Hell, a consequence of your hopelessly nihilistic mindset.



I'm sorry, I don't have a time machine.



Notwithstanding the lack of evidence for the Christian god, the fact that Jesus supposedly said "behold, I come quickly" and we've been waiting for over two millennia kind of puts the lie to the idea of the Second Coming, don't you think?



Of course. But what I desire isn't impossible.



Considering the kind of "anarchism" you espouse, that's an enormous shame.



Yeah, I'm so oppressed by my refridgerator. :rolleyes: Seriously, it isn't technology that is oppressive, it's the way it's used.



By itself? I don't expect much. But the fact that revolutionaries the world over can communicate with each other so easily has to amount to something.



Exactly, governments. As in the plural noun. Different governments with different goals and agendas, which bring them into conflict with each other.



Such questions of are the root of the problem - instead of focusing on the essential management of energy and resources, we have an entire section of society wasting their physical and mental power on questions of value, worth and the fiddling of imaginary numbers which relate to actual productive activity marginally at best.



I can't seem to find that particular title, but the fact that books with such subjects exist does not mean a particular hygiene regimen is mandated by the government, no more than the existence of cookbooks means one's diet is thus mandated also.



Have you seen the crap that academics have been known to come out with? Such things would not happen in the absence of tenure.



Oh noes, utopian! You know, your kind of intellectual position is incredibly easy, to the point of laziness - it takes advantage of the fact that the world is not perfect and that shitty things happen. If things are totally fucked and will never change, what's the point in telling us?



Did you even look at the link I provided?



Free venison? :lol:



It sure beats your pathetic whine of "woe is me, the world sucks, I want everyone to die". The fact that we will encounter difficulties along the path of improvement is no excuse to spinelessly give up like some spoiled little brat. Thankfully people like you are rare, otherwise we would still be fighting with the bears for the best cave to sleep in.



As I already said, increasing living standards across the board should be enough to reduce population growth.



"Collective society" is far too broad a rubric with which to analyse the problem. You oversimplify things to the point of uselessness.



I'm serious. You sound like one of those people before they go on a shooting spree, the signs are all there - a self-centred view of the world, contempt for the masses, overweening nihilism, and a steadfast refusal to even consider things differently. Maybe I'll see you on the news one day.



Says the person who claims change is impossible. If change is impossible, that's a perfect situation for the ruling classes as their position will never be threatened. In fact I would not be surprised if some sections of the ruling class actually encourage your style of thinking - it's perfect for producing people who will never seek to change or threaten the system, since they're convinced such efforts would be in vain.



Why yes, I bought a slave only today. :rolleyes: Fucking idiot. The 2% you speak of have various reasons for not giving away their wealth - have you actually examined those reasons, or are you too fucking stupid to see that 2% of the world's population in extraordinary circumstances do not represent the entire population?



I'm sorry but typing "laughs" is not a substitute for an actually meaningful reply.



Maybe you don't care, but I do. Judging by your presence here it seems you have an active interest in other people also not giving a shit.

Are you sure you're not some ruling class propagandist?



Wrong (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/273664), fucko. Why don't you slit your fucking wrists already?



Most of us are in the same fucking boat, but you're too fucking selfish and too willing to project your own selfishness onto others to realise that.



My word, you're more stupid than I thought. Do you seriously think society two millennia ago is the same as society today? Did you miss all those peasant rebellions, civil wars, and revolutions in history class, or were you too busy whining about how shitty your life is?



Bullshit! The fact that perfection is unattainable does not mean things cannot get better.



And history showed them to be wrong. The god-kings of Egypt? The emperors of China? The kings of France? They exist only in the history books and in the museums, despite their claims to cosmic sanction.

Only to be replaced by newer forms of worshipping authority and might.



I never said things are or will be perfect - but they can be a whole lot better.


If existence will never be perfect that means it will never ever be equal so if things will never be socially equal for everyone who specifically will things be better for? ( The upper classes?) ( That appears to be what your argument is supporting.)

( If improvements are not made for everybody equally it seems they are reserved only for a special chosen class of people.)

( Who could that special chosen class of people be?............The upper classes?..........)




That's because humans for most (all?) of recorded history have been living in a state of material scarcity and social hierarchy. Eliminate those conditions and the material basis for a large amount of negative human behaviour disappears.

How will you eliminate it? Will everyone have a equal income? Will you get rid of class stratification?

Or do you plan on getting there with happy thoughts and prayers?

The capitalists say that if everybody was to have the same income living total complete equal lives it would stifle competition, advancement, and growth of society and civilization in that noone would be motivated to innovate or work harder.

( Making the directing of activities by an authority impossible.)

What do you think about that? Are they incorrect?

( Which brings me to my conclusion that the advancement, growth, and competition of human society or civilization is brought about by it's need of fear, coercion, and human suffering by the might of the upper classes who direct civilization with social ultimatums.)

( Talk about cynical...........)

( This is a fun conversation. Wouldn't you agree?) ( I'm enjoying myself alot right now.)



But you see, I'm actually doing something more than just argue with a stranger over the internet -

What are you doing? Tell me about your activities.

Do you give five dollars to the salvation army every year in order to make yourself feel better about yourself?



I fully intend to use what I learn from my studies for the good of the human species, as much as I can.


Well keep on wishing............I wouldn't want you to give your hopes up.


So what are you doing?

For my envisionment of anarchism to work I really don't have to do anything due to global civilization's tendency towards self destruction.

All I have to do is sit idly by and watch the whole thing come crashing down.........


That is, apart from languishing in your own self-made Hell, a consequence of your hopelessly nihilistic mindset.

What if I told you that I'm constantly finding ways of enjoying my life? What would you say?



I'm sorry, I don't have a time machine.


Darn.



Notwithstanding the lack of evidence for the Christian god, the fact that Jesus supposedly said "behold, I come quickly" and we've been waiting for over two millennia kind of puts the lie to the idea of the Second Coming, don't you think?


Nice quick dodge of my analogy and comparison.


Of course. But what I desire isn't impossible.

Are you sure? Believe it or not I used to think exactly like you. Arguing with you is kinda like arguing with myself from the past.


Considering the kind of "anarchism" you espouse, that's an enormous shame.

Why?



Yeah, I'm so oppressed by my refridgerator. :rolleyes: Seriously, it isn't technology that is oppressive, it's the way it's used.


Not all technology. I was merely trying to express who the upper classes direct and manipulate the lives of others through technological imperatives or directives of their own making through innovation and how they believe the world ought to be.

Are you denying such imperatives and directives exist?

[Skooma Addict]

The reason I like my chaotic version of anarchism is because it pales in comparison to those who speak of revolution that usually has some authoritarian metanarrative involved where a group of people direct and command the lives of others whether it be republican, democratic, socialist, communistic, or capitalistic.

But as I mentioned before, your chaotic version of anarchy would not occur due to the fact that humans are social beings who voluntarily cooperate in order to better their current state of affairs.



My way there is to destroy global society, civilization, and culture everywhere. ( It's simple really.)

Even if civilization were destroyed, humans would still trade with one another. Once people begin to exchange goods, capital accumulation will begin, and a medium of exchange will arise. In other words, a civilized society will begin to form.


Everybody seeks to be masters and oppressors in that everybody seeks some sort of social power in their lives.

Not everybody seeks to be masters and oppressors. The term "social power" is very vague, and almost meaningless. Besides, one could seek social power without attempting to become an oppressor.

[SavagePostModern]

Noxion said:

Why yes, I bought a slave only today. http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolution-useless-revolution-t117005/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif Fucking idiot.


Oh I'm sorry I should of made myself more clearer............

( When is the last time you have been at your local Walmart?) ( Being that walmart is worldwide now.)

http://users.wfu.edu/willlr7/ap_walmart_070618_ms.jpg

Here let's see if this definition meets your fancy:



Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person is dependent for a livelihood on the wages earned, especially if the dependency is total and immediate.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-merriam-webster.com-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-1) The term is used to draw an analogy between slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) and wage labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_labor). Some uses of the term may refer only to an "[un]equal bargaining situation between labor and capital,"[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-2) particularly where workers are paid unreasonably low wages or minimum wage with little or no hours(e.g. sweatshops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshops)). More controversially, others equate it with a lack of workers' self-management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-globetrotter.berkeley.edu-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-socialissues.wiseto.com-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-5) or point to similarities between owning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) and employing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment) a person, and extend the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hierarchy) social environment with limited job-related choices (e.g. working for a wage under threat of starvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation), poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty) or social stigma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stigma)).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-schalkenbach1-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-8)


Similarities between wage labor and slavery were noted at least as early as Cicero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero).[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-9) These comparisons were elaborated by subsequent thinkers, such as Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon) and Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx), particularly with the advent of the industrial revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution).[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-11) Before the American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War), Southern defenders of African American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American) slavery also invoked the concept of wage slavery to favorably compare the condition of their slaves to workers in the North.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-12)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-13)
The introduction of wage labor in 18th century Britain was met with resistance – giving rise to the principles of syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-14)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-15)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-Geoffrey_Ostergaard_p._133-16)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-17) The use of the term wage slave by labor organizations may originate from the labor protests of the Lowell Mill Girls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Mill_Girls) in 1836.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-18) The imagery of wage slavery was widely used by labor organizations during the mid-19th century to object to the lack of workers' self-management. However, it was gradually replaced by the more pragmatic term "wage work" towards the end of the 19th century, as labor organizations shifted their focus to raising wages.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-Hallgrimsdottir-19)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-20)
The term is now most often used by anti-capitalists (socialists, anarchists, and other groups) to express disapproval of a condition where a person feels compelled to work for the private interests of others in wage labor.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Historically, some groups and individual social activists, have espoused workers' self-management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management) or worker cooperatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative) as possible alternatives to wage labor.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-socialissues.wiseto.com-4)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-Geoffrey_Ostergaard_p._133-16)


The view that wage work has substantial similarities with chattel slavery was actively put forward in the late 18th and 19th centuries by defenders of chattel slavery (most notably in the Southern states of the US), and by opponents of capitalism (who were also critics of chattel slavery).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-schalkenbach1-7)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-21)
The first articulate description of wage slavery was perhaps made by Simon Linguet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Nicholas_Henri_Linguet) in 1763:[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-22)‎

The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market… It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat… It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him… what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?

Some defenders of slavery, mainly from the Southern slave states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) argued that workers were "free but in name – the slaves of endless toil," and that their slaves were better off.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-urlThe_Hireling_and_the_Slave_.E2.80.94_Antislaver y_Literature_Project-23) This contention has been partly corroborated by some modern studies that indicate slaves' material conditions in the 19th century were "better than what was typically available to free urban laborers at the time."[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-24)[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-Fogel-25)
The description of wage workers as wage slaves was not without controversy. Many abolitionists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionist) in the U.S. including northern capitalists, regarded the analogy to be spurious.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-26) They believed that wage workers were "neither wronged nor oppressed".[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-27) The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass) declared "Now I am my own master" when he took a paying job.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-28) Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) and the republicans of that era also rejected the contention that slavery and wage labor were equivalent. Although they despised the condition of wage labor, they argued that the condition was fundamentally different as laborers were likely to have the opportunity to work for themselves in the future, achieving self-employment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-employment).[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-29)
However, self-employment became less common as the artisan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artisan) tradition slowly disappeared in the later part of the 19th century. In 1869 The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times) described the system of wage labor as "a system of slavery as absolute if not as degrading as that which lately prevailed at the South".[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-30) E. P. Thompson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Thompson) notes that for British workers at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, the "gap in status between a 'servant,' a hired wage-laborer subject to the orders and discipline of the master, and an artisan, who might 'come and go' as he pleased, was wide enough for men to shed blood rather than allow themselves to be pushed from one side to the other. And, in the value system of the community, those who resisted degradation were in the right." [32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-31) A "Member of the Builders' Union" in the 1830s argued that the trade unions "will not only strike for less work, and more wages, but will ultimately abolish wages, become their own masters and work for each other; labor and capital will no longer be separate but will be indissolubly joined together in the hands of workmen and work-women."[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-32) This perspective inspired the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union of 1834 which had the "two-fold purpose of syndicalist unions – the protection of the workers under the existing system and the formation of the nuclei of the future society" when the unions "take over the whole industry of the country." [17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-Geoffrey_Ostergaard_p._133-16) "Research has shown", summarises William Lazonick, "that the 'free-born Englishman' of the eighteenth century – even those who, by force of circumstance, had to submit to agricultural wage labour – tenaciously resisted entry into the capitalist workshop."[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-33)
Karl Marx described Capitalist society as infringing on individual autonomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy), by basing that on a materialistic and commodified concept of the body and its liberty (i.e. as something that is sold, rented or alienated in a class society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_society)). According to Marx:[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-34)

The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/CottonNegrosSouth.jpg/200px-CottonNegrosSouth.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CottonNegrosSouth.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CottonNegrosSouth.jpg)
African American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American) wage workers picking cotton on a plantation in the South.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Jay_Gould_1911.jpg/200px-Jay_Gould_1911.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jay_Gould_1911.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jay_Gould_1911.jpg)
American financier Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Gould). After he hired strikebreakers, he said "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half."[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-35)


Proponents of the viewpoint that the condition of wage workers has substantial similarities (as well as some advantages and disadvantages) vis a vis chattel slavery, argued that:
1. Since the chattel slave is property, the chattel slave's value to an owner is in some ways higher than that of a worker who may quit, be fired or replaced. The chattel slave's owner has made a greater investment in terms of the money he paid for the slave. For this reason, in times of recession, chattel slaves could not be fired like wage laborers. A "wage slave" could also be harmed at no (or less) cost. American chattel slaves in the 19th century had improved their standard of living from the 18th century[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-36) and, as historians Fogel and Engerman's reported, slaves' material conditions in the 19th century were "better than what was typically available to free urban laborers at the time."[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-Fogel-25) This was partially due to slave psychological strategies under an economic system different from capitalist wage slavery. According to Mark Michael Smith of the Economic History Society:[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-37)

Although intrusive and oppressive, paternalism, the way masters employed it, and the methods slaves used to manipulate it, rendered slaveholders' attempts to institute capitalistic work regimens on their plantation ineffective and so allowed slaves to carve out a degree of autonomy.

Similarly, various strategies and struggles adopted by wage laborers contributed to the creation of labor unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions) and welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_(financial_aid)) institutions, etc. that can constrain the perceived inequity of wage slavery.
2. Unlike a chattel slave, a wage laborer can oftentimes choose an employer, but he cannot choose not to have one, while attempts to implement workers' control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_control) on employers' businesses may be met with violence or other unpleasant consequences. The wage laborer's starkest choice is to work for an employer or face poverty or starvation. If a chattel slave refuses to work, a number of punishments are also available; from beatings to food deprivation—although economically rational slave owners practiced positive reinforcement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement) to achieve best results and before losing their investment (or even friendship) by killing an expensive slave.[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-38)[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-39)[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-40)
3. Historically, the range of occupations and status positions held by chattel slaves has been nearly as broad as that held by free persons, indicating some similarities between chattel slavery and wage slavery as well.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-41)
4. Arguably, wage slavery, like chattel slavery, does not stem from some immutable "human nature," but represents a "specific response to material and historical conditions" that "reproduce[s] the inhabitants, the social relations… the ideas… [and] the social form of daily life."[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-amazon.com-42)
The similarities between chattel and wage slavery were noticed by the workers themselves. For example, the 19th century Lowell Mill Girls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Mill_Girls), who, without any knowledge of European radicalism, condemned the "degradation and subordination" of the newly emerging industrial system, and the "new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self", maintaining that "those who work in the mills should own them."[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-43)[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-44) They expressed as such in one of their protest songs in their 1836 strike:
Oh! isn't it a pity, such a pretty girl as I
Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?
Oh! I cannot be a slave, I will not be a slave,
For I'm so fond of liberty,
That I cannot be a slave.[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-45)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Portrait_Emma_Goldman.jpg/180px-Portrait_Emma_Goldman.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_Emma_Goldman.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_Emma_Goldman.jpg)
Emma Goldman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman) famously denounced wage slavery by saying: "The only difference is that you are hired slaves instead of block slaves"[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-46)


The term 'wage slavery' was widely used by labor organizations during the mid-19th century, but the structural changes associated with the later stages of industrial capitalism, including "increased centralization of production... declining wages... [an] expanding... labor pool... intensifying competition, and... [t]he loss of competence and independence experienced by skilled labor" meant that "a critique that referred to all [wage] work as slavery and avoided demands for wage concessions in favor of supporting the creation of the producerist republic (by diverting strike funds towards funding... co-operatives, for example) was far less compelling than one that identified the specific conditions of slavery as low wages..." Thus, "wage slavery" was gradually replaced by the more pragmatic term "wage work" towards the end of the 19th century.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-Hallgrimsdottir-19)
In the past, some supporters of wage or chattel slavery could be viewed as having linked some features of life in society with seemingly unavoidable conditions of social structures (the subjection of man to man); arguing that hierarchy and their preferred system's particular relations of production represent human nature and are no more coercive than the reality of life itself. According to that way of thinking, any well-intentioned attempt to fundamentally change the status quo is naively utopian and will result in more oppressive conditions.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-47)[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-48)[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-49) Bosses in both of these long-lasting systems argued that their system created a lot of wealth and prosperity. Both did, in some sense create jobs and their investment entailed risk. For example, slave owners might have risked losing money by buying expensive slaves who later became ill or died; or might have used those slaves to make products that didn't sell well on the market. Marginally, both chattel and wage slaves may become bosses; sometimes by working hard. It may be the "rags to riches" story which occasionally occurs in capitalism, or the "slave to master" story that occurred in places like colonial Brazil, where slaves could buy their own freedom and become business owners, self-employed, or slave owners themselves.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-50)[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-51) Social mobility, or the hard work and risk that it may entail, are thus not considered to be a redeeming factor by critics of the concept of wage slavery.[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-52)
Anthropologist David Graeber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber) has noted that, historically, the first wage labor contracts we know about—whether in ancient Greece or Rome, or in the Malay or Swahili city states in the Indian ocean—were in fact contracts for the rental of chattel slaves (usually the owner would receive a share of the money, and the slave, another, with which to maintain his or her living expenses.) Such arrangements were quite common in New World slavery as well, whether in the United States or Brazil. C. L. R. James made a famous argument that most of the techniques of human organization employed on factory workers during the industrial revolution were first developed on slave plantations.[54 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-53)


In 19th century discussions of labor relations, it was normally assumed that the threat of starvation forced those without property to work for wages. Proponents of the view that modern forms of employment constitute wage slavery, even when workers appear to have a range of available alternatives, have attributed its perpetuation to a variety of social factors that maintain the hegemony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony) of the employer class.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-amazon.com-42)[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-54)
In the 21st century Dubai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai), employers pay low wages to many workers—often less than £120 ($178.83) a month, for a 60-hour work week. Often 'employment contracts', if they are given, "are not worth the paper they are written on," and collective bargaining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining) and trade unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions) are illegal in Dubai. It all starts in their home countries, often India or Bangladesh, where local recruitment agents promise them high salaries and generous overtime payments. In these workers home countries they are charged a "visa" or "transit" fee, averaging 200,000 taka, or £2,000 ($2,980), which in these home countries is supposed to be illegal.
The workers pay the fee because they believe the figures they've been promised of future wages. However in most cases, it will take them the entire two-to-three year contract for them just to pay back that fee and break even.[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-55)
In his book, Disciplined Minds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplined_Minds), Jeff Schmidt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Schmidt) points out that professionals are trusted to run organizations in the interests of their employers. Because employers cannot be on hand to manage every decision, professionals are trained to “ensure that each and every detail of their work favors the right interests–or skewers the disfavored ones” in the absence of overt control:

The resulting professional is an obedient thinker, an intellectual property whom employers can trust to experiment, theorize, innovate and create safely within the confines of an assigned ideology.[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-56)

The term 'wage slavery' or 'wage slave' has been used to describe the condition of workers in various economic systems, including communist states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state), but given the prevalence of modern capitalism, it is sometimes described as a lack of rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights) in the market system; especially in the absence of non-market structures stemming from some degree of democratic input (welfare system, retirement income, health insurance, etc.). The concept seeks to point out how the only rights workers have are those they gain in the labor market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market). Workers face starvation when unable or unwilling to rent themselves to those who own the capital and means of production. Capitalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalists), landowners, or sometimes a state elite, own the means of production (land, industry etc) and gain profit or power simply from granting permission to use them. This they do in exchange for wages. The 19th century economist Henry George (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George) argued that the market economy could be reformed by making land common property. In his view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgist), people should own the productive results of their efforts, but that everything found in nature, most importantly land, should belong equally to everyone in society.[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-57)
Though most opponents of wage slavery favor possessions for non-exploitative personal use, they oppose the "freedom" to use property for the exploitation of others (non-labor income); claiming that private ownership of the means of life is theft and that sometimes a person's freedom ends where another person's begins[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-58) (e.g. my freedom to oppress, kill, steal etc violates yours). Given that workers are the majority, they believe that the elite maintain wage slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) and a divided working class through their influence over the media and entertainment industry,[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-59)[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-60) educational institutions, unjust laws, nationalist and corporate propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda), pressures and incentives to internalize values serviceable to the power structure, state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state) violence, fear of unemployment [62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-61) and a historical legacy of exploitation and profit accumulation under prior systems:
The notion that "asic supply and demand theory would indicate that those economic theories which have utility to others would be provided by economists," entails that "n a system with inequalities of wealth, effective demand is skewed in favor of the wealthy." Therefore, wage slavery-apologetics and omissions are considered, by some radical economists and intellectuals, to be the main motor behind the "unscientific" nature and "unrealistic assumptions" of modern economic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_theory), and many of the "irrelevant...mathematical models" which attempt to legitimize it, particularly by ignoring "power disparities" in the market and workplace, while "concentrating upon the 'subjective' evaluations of individuals...[who] are abstracted away from real economic activity (i.e. production) so the source of profits and power... [namely] exploitation of labour...interest and rent can be ignored...[in favor of] exchanges in the market...[and concepts such as] abstinence or waiting by the capitalist, the productivity of capital, 'time-preference,' entrepreneurialism and so forth." Allegedly, "[t]hese rationales have developed over time, usually in response to socialist and anarchist criticism of capitalism and its economics (starting in response to the so-called Ricardian Socialists who predated Proudhon and Marx and who first made such an analysis commonplace)."[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-62)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/AdamSmith.jpg/180px-AdamSmith.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AdamSmith.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AdamSmith.jpg)
Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith)


<B>Preceding these thinkers, however, was Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith), who while offering an argument for markets based on the notion that under conditions of perfect liberty markets would lead to perfect equality, stated that the value created by workers in production must exceed the wages paid,[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-63) and articulated in The Wealth of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations) some factors in the development of wage slavery:[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-64)[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-65)

The interest of the dealers in any particular branch and trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from and even opposite to, that of the public… [They] have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public… We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate… It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms.

</B>





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery







An indentured servant is a laborer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laborer) under contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract) to an employer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employer) for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, drink, clothing, lodging and other necessities. Unlike a slave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery), an indentured servant is required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant#cite_note-0)[not in citation given (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability)]
The labor-intensive cash crop of tobacco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco) was farmed in the American South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_South) by indentured laborers in the 17th and 18th centuries.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant#cite_note-VJT-1) Indentured servitude was not the same as the apprenticeship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apprenticeship) system by which skilled trades were taught, but similarities do exist between the two mechanisms, in that both require a set period of work.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant




[B]Working poor is a term used to describe individuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual) and families (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family) who maintain regular employment but remain in relative poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty) due to low levels of pay and dependent expenses. The working poor are often distinguished from paupers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauper), poor who are supported by government aid or charity.

There are various issues to consider when studying the extent, cause and definition of "working poor" and "working poor" conditions. One such issue is the definition of poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty). Given on a global scale, the definition and requisites to be considered impoverished or in poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty) may sharply contrast the conditions of any one specific country. When viewed at a high level, the global definitions of poverty are typically much lower than that of more prosperous countries. In areas such as the United States, England, France and other more prosperous nations, the poverty line is much higher than that of countries with typically lower or even negative economic conditions. When considering localized differences, such as in the United States, differences in market rates of goods and services may impact the effects of poverty.
Yet another consideration to be made with a global view is data collection and reporting methods. With no globally accepted standards on data recording and reporting, variances may be obscured, omit or inflate specific factors considered in determining poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty) levels or measures of the working poor.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Working_poor&action=edit&section=2)] Definitions for the USA and Canada

In the USA and Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada) a person is working poor depending on his revenues compared to an absolute poverty level. Officially, in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the working poor are defined as individuals who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor force (working or looking for work), but whose incomes fell below the official poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty) level. Often, those defined as "working poor" have negative net worth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_worth) and lack the ability to escape personal and economic contingencies.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Working_poor&action=edit&section=3)] Definition in Europe

In the European Union a person is working poor depending on his revenues compared to a relative poverty level. Eurostat defines this level at 60 percent of the median income. The minimum wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage) can also be used as the threshold[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor#cite_note-Maruani-0).

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Working_poor&action=edit&section=4)] The extent and causes of "working poor" conditions

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Ambox_globe_content.svg/48px-Ambox_globe_content.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ambox_globe_content.svg)
The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias) of the subject. Please improve this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Working_poor&action=edit) and discuss the issue on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Working_poor).

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Working_poor&action=edit&section=5)] The "working poor" in the United States

The nature and extent of the working poor in the United States is a contested subject; while both sides of the political spectrum acknowledge that there are non-negligible numbers of working people living near or below the poverty line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line), there is disagreement as to whether or not this reflects a genuine flaw with current economic policy, and what the response should be.
In the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), according to the government Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics), there were 6.4 million working poor in 2000 [1] (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2000.htm); by 2003 the number had grown [2] (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2003.pdf). In 2004, Business Week (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Week) suggested [3] (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_22/b3885001_mz001.htm) that "the share of the workforce earning subpoverty pay 24% [in 2003]".
Different numbers were found by The Working Poor Families Project, a national initiative that examines the conditions of working families both nationally and at the state level. In 2005, using U.S. Census American Community Survey data, the project found that 2.8 million working families are poor (earn less than 100% of poverty) and that these families constituted 12.2 million people. In addition, 9.6 million, or more than 1 out 4 working families in America (29%), are low-income, earning less than 200% of poverty. The 200% of poverty threshold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold) is considered a reasonable estimate of the amount of earnings needed to be economically self-sufficient ($39,942 for a family of four in 2005). Among states, the range for low-income working families extends from 15% (New Hampshire) to 42% (New Mexico). [4] (http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/indicators.html)
The question of the working poor, how many there are and the reasons for their situation, remains controversial. For example, the [I]Business Week magazine article cited above, which was generally critical of the political response to the problem of the working poor, itself received criticism from Townhall.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townhall.com) columnist Thomas Sowell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell), who claimed that the magazine had, among other sins, inflated statistics.
Sowell claimed that "census data show that most people who are working are not poor and most people who are poor are not working", and that workers who were part-time or under the age of 25 should not be counted as working poor [5] (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2004/06/01/the_working_poor_scam). Citing the author Horatio Alger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Alger), Sowell suggested that the intelligentsia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia) had dismissed words such as moxie and gumption, and that the working poor themselves, and not larger socioeconomic factors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomics) such as the lack of labor unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions) and the changing nature of employment, as suggested by Business Week, were to blame for the situation.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Working_poor&action=edit&section=6)] The "working poor" in Europe

The working poor in France are women in 80 percent of cases[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor#cite_note-Maruani-0).

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Working_poor&action=edit&section=7)] Possible problems faced by the working poor

Workers without marketable skills may face low wages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage), potential economic exploitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation), unpleasant working conditions, and few opportunities to attain skills that would allow them to escape their personal and economic situations. Unexpected costs (such as medical or repair costs) can substantially decrease the economic ability of the working poor to manage their lives.
In some cases, members of the working poor work at multiple part-time jobs, which require nearly full-time commitment but are classified as "part time". In this situation some benefits, like medical insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_insurance), are not paid by employers [6] (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-06-08-low-wage-working-poor_x.htm). This situation is sometimes referred to as precarious employment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarious_work). These workers are more often than not without adequate (or in many cases [I]any) health insurance.
A common expression of working poor conditions states that such individuals often live from "paycheck to paycheck".

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Working_poor&action=edit&section=8)] Policy responses

Many governments have initiated programs with the proclaimed intention of assisting those who may be considered impoverished or working poor. Much debate is centered upon the efficacy of such programs.
In the United States, fiscal conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism) tend to argue in favor of the approaches recommended by Trickle-down economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics), in which stimulation of the investment sector is assumed to lead to increased job opportunities and a better economy. Examples of conservative measures include lowering taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax) and reducing governmental regulation of business and trade. Fiscal progressives (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fiscal_progressives&action=edit&redlink=1) tend toward a more direct approach, usually with increased taxes and regulation. The government funds social welfare programs like food stamps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_stamps) and vouchers, subsidized housing, meal plans, and healthcare, and regulating wages, or by helping the working poor become more competitive in the labor market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_market), through such measures as job training programs, low-interest student loans, and small business loans.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor




The welfare trap theory asserts that taxation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation) and welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_(financial_aid)) systems can jointly contribute to keep people on social insurance. This is also known as the unemployment trap or poverty trap in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom).
In the UK, there is a distinction between two concepts:

the unemployment trap occurs when the net income difference between low-paid work and unemployment benefits is less than work related costs, discouraging movement into work;
the poverty trap refers to the position when in-work income-tested benefit payments are reduced as income rises, combined with income tax and other deductions, with the effect of discouraging higher paid work whether that involves working longer hours or acquiring skills.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap



Involuntary servitude is a United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) legal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) and constitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution) term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion). While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery), involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labor). Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remuneration) or its amount.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude

[SavagePostModern]

I'll be back tomorrow to reply to everyone elses posts.

( Time is a ***** that always interferes with my day.)

[StalinFanboy]

So are you going to present a actual argument or are you just going to jest around in crude mockery?

Of course I could care less what you do in that whatever you choose to do only reveals what you are all the more clearly.
You're not here for open debate.


Frankly, I can't take you seriously. "Chaos anarchist?" LOL K

Do you also listen to The Casualties?

[VientoLibre]

But you see, I'm actually doing something more than just argue with a stranger over the internet - I fully intend to use what I learn from my studies for the good of the human species, as much as I can.

So what are you doing?

I'm not taking sides, but could you please elaborate on what it is you are doing?

[Bright Banana Beard]

(Laughs)
(Stick Out Tongue)
(Laughs)
(Accidently Tongue)
(Cry)
(Laughs again while tongue is bleeding)

Yeah, those are not arguments.

[SavagePostModern]

(Laughs)
(Stick Out Tongue)
(Laughs)
(Accidently Tongue)
(Cry)
(Laughs again while tongue is bleeding)

Yeah, those are not arguments.

Neither is insulting but that doesn't stop people here from doing so around me.

( Your bias is showing.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not taking sides, but could you please elaborate on what it is you are doing?

I'm studying physics with the intent to go into research. It might not be as impressive as helping to build schools or being involved in an IWW chapter but it's better than saying "It's all hopeless, I don't give a shit and neither should you".

[SavagePostModern]

You're not here for open debate.


Frankly, I can't take you seriously. "Chaos anarchist?" LOL K

Do you also listen to The Casualties?


You're not here for open debate.

Yeah I am actually...............

I want to be proved incorrect.

I want to see if somebody can counter my world view.

I want to see if somebody has some sort of information that counters mine completely in a sensical sort of way.



Frankly, I can't take you seriously. "Chaos anarchist?" LOL K


I have my own envisionment of anarchism. So what? I've been nothing but serious since the entire time I've been here.



Do you also listen to The Casualties?


Never heard of them.........but I do like the Sex Pistols.

[Pirate Utopian]

GGwHUr0b4yE


Never heard of them.........but I do like the Sex Pistols.
The Casualties are pretty shite. Nothing like the Sex Pistols.

[SavagePostModern]

I'm studying physics with the intent to go into research. It might not be as impressive as helping to build schools or being involved in an IWW chapter but it's better than saying "It's all hopeless, I don't give a shit and neither should you".

So how is your studying of physics helping out the world situation?

[Skooma Addict]

I have my own envisionment of anarchism. So what? I've been nothing but serious since the entire time I've been here.

I thought I explained this to you three times already. Your envisionment of anarchism will never become a reality due to the nature of humans. Even if your chaos anarchism were to occur, it would never last.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So how is your studying of physics helping out the world situation?

The world (especially the part of the world in which I'm living) needs more educated people, for a start. But more pertinently the UK needs more nuclear power stations if it is produce sufficient energy without relying on fossil fuels. With a degree in physical science I'd be perfectly placed for a position if plans for more nuclear power stations go ahead. Failing that, I could move to France where my skills would be more appreciated.

If the nuclear power generation industry in any nearby country doesn't want me, there's always the pursuit of knowledge - working for CERN or a university as a research associate would be an interesting and noble endeavour.

[SavagePostModern]

GGwHUr0b4yE


The Casualties are pretty shite. Nothing like the Sex Pistols.

Dark knight. Awsome movie.

( I liked the joker way before the movies came out. classic comic book super villain.) ( Are you a Lex Luthor fan?)

I checked out the casualties on youtube. They don't sound impressive.

[SavagePostModern]

I thought I explained this to you three times already. Your envisionment of anarchism will never become a reality due to the nature of humans. Even if your chaos anarchism were to occur, it would never last.

What is the nature of human beings? My observation of the nature of human beings is one that is self interested to the point of being self centered and egotistical.

( In my observation of the nature of human beings it is individual egoism.)

Your envisionnment of a future promise land won't be achieved.

[SavagePostModern]

Humans are social beings, and they will naturally cooperate. People also have negative emotional responses towards actions they view as unethical or wrong. When a person tells you something is "right" or "wrong", all they are really telling you is their emotional stance on that particular issue. Humans instinctively oppose theft, murder, kidnapping ect. Obviously, there are exceptions. A starving man may view theft as wrong, but his hunger may be too overwhelming, and he may feel that it is necessary to steal food from a stranger. But cooperation will continue, and civilization will emerge in spite of these exceptions.

There are also people who claim they view nothing as moral or immoral. They claim they would have no problem killing a child if they would not be punished for it afterwords. But saying something is one thing, and doing it is another. Even though people may say they would kill an innocent person if they could get away with it, I doubt many actually would. Regardles, institutions will naturally develop that will create incentives for such people to conform to the social standards, and to punish people who commit crimes.



Well, since half the environmental problems are myths anyways, we don't have much to worry about. There would be very few shortages if all land were private property. The markets price system would adjust according to supply and demand. Also, you are violating a persons property rights if you are polluting their land.


Humans are social beings,

To what degree though?



and they will naturally cooperate.


So you believe all social interaction is totally cooperative? ( Laughs.)

I believe social contracts are a myth and a joke.

I believe most social interaction either works through power,fear,coercion, or mutual interests.

( A combination of the four.)


People also have negative emotional responses towards actions they view as unethical or wrong.

Because they have been taught and indocrinated to through series of behavior modifications in their lives in that they have been taught to believe in fundamental assumptions regarding social interaction passed down through collective beliefs from one generation to another.




all they are really telling you is their emotional stance on that particular issue.


Appeal to emotions................



Humans instinctively oppose theft, murder, kidnapping ect.


Except for those humans who are actually facilitating those activities..........

Of course prey will oppose that which threatens them.............




Obviously, there are exceptions.


There always is.



A starving man may view theft as wrong, but his hunger may be too overwhelming, and he may feel that it is necessary to steal food from a stranger.


Of course. Desperation is the prime motivation of violence and aggression.


But cooperation will continue, and civilization will emerge in spite of these exceptions.

Tell me, what percentage of social interaction in civilization do you view to be cooperative?

From my observation about 35% of social interaction in civilization is cooperative through mutual interests being played out ( usually by those with wealth and power.) while the rest of it is brought about through fear, coercion,manipulation, and power.


There are also people who claim they view nothing as moral or immoral.

Like me. Welcome to the wonderful world of moral nihilism, moral skepticism, and amoralism.



They claim they would have no problem killing a child if they would not be punished for it afterwords.

Children are killed all the time in present Afghanistan only we just give it a nifty little name like collateral damage of war.

It's interesting how human social interaction revolves around the idea of necessary sacrifice of people in order to achieve ends.

Human beings are so sacrificial when it comes towards other human beings.


But saying something is one thing, and doing it is another.

It's done all the time world wide.


Even though people may say they would kill an innocent person if they could get away with it,

What does innocence look like? What is innocent?


I doubt many actually would.

Millions of prisoners worldwide might disagree with you.



Regardles, institutions will naturally develop that will create incentives for such people to conform to the social standards, and to punish people who commit crimes.


Indeed institutions directed by the upper class will seek to reward the docile obedient and punish the dissident disobedient.

It's all a matter of function really facilitated by the upper classes.


Well, since half the environmental problems are myths anyways, we don't have much to worry about.

Not all of them are myths.


There would be very few shortages if all land were private property.

How does that work?


The markets price system would adjust according to supply and demand.

Like?



Also, you are violating a persons property rights if you are polluting their land.


mmmmmk.........

[Skooma Addict]

What is the nature of human beings? My observation of the nature of human beings is one that is self interested to the point of being self centered and egotistical.

All humans are self interested in the sense that they only act in order to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory state of affairs. But humans acting out of self interest is what leads to social cooperation and civilization.



To what degree though?

To a high enough degree where civilization can naturally arise.



So you believe all social interaction is totally cooperative? ( Laughs.)

What do you mean by "social interaction"? I think voluntary acts between two people are cooperative and hence mutually beneficial.


I believe social contracts are a myth and a joke.

Social contract theory is false. But there are still legitimate contracts.


Because they have been taught and indocrinated to through series of behavior modifications in their lives in that they have been taught to believe in fundamental assumptions regarding social interaction passed down through collective beliefs from one generation to another.

People would have negative emotional reactions towards actions they view as wrong regardless of indoctrination. All indoctrination can hope to do is alter what people view as right and wrong.


Appeal to emotions................


I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying I committed a logical fallacy by appealing to the emotions?


Except for those humans who are actually facilitating those activities..........

Of course prey will oppose that which threatens them.............

Yes, as I mentioned, there are exceptions. Humans are not angels. But the point is that these exceptions are not enough to stop a civilization from emerging.

[SavagePostModern]

All humans are self interested in the sense that they only act in order to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory state of affairs. But humans acting out of self interest is what leads to social cooperation and civilization.



To a high enough degree where civilization can naturally arise.



What do you mean by "social interaction"? I think voluntary acts between two people are cooperative and hence mutually beneficial.



Social contract theory is false. But there are still legitimate contracts.



People would have negative emotional reactions towards actions they view as wrong regardless of indoctrination. All indoctrination can hope to do is alter what people view as right and wrong.



I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying I committed a logical fallacy by appealing to the emotions?



Yes, as I mentioned, there are exceptions. Humans are not angels. But the point is that these exceptions are not enough to stop a civilization from emerging.



All humans are self interested in the sense that they only act in order to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory state of affairs.

Explain that statement in depth please.


But humans acting out of self interest is what leads to social cooperation and civilization.

To what degree? ( Laughs.)

Are you saying human beings are totally cooperative?

( Past and present history disagrees with you.)


To a high enough degree where civilization can naturally arise.

Describe "high enough degree."


What do you mean by "social interaction"?

Do you believe social interaction as whole of human beings is dominated by cooperation exclusively?




I think voluntary acts between two people are cooperative and hence mutually beneficial.


I don't believe many social interactions are voluntary as you so much like to say they are.

Infact from my observation voluntary acts concerned with social interaction is very rare.


Social contract theory is false.

Agreed.



But there are still legitimate contracts.


Such as?


People would have negative emotional reactions towards actions they view as wrong regardless of indoctrination.

Only if they are on the blunt side of that which was being threatened, oppressed, or striked against.

History shows that people can be very comfortable in facilitating acts of violence and horror.



All indoctrination can hope to do is alter what people view as right and wrong.


My whole thing is if people were not taught to believe in morality or ethics they would have no conception and understanding of what is described as "right" and "wrong".

Morality and ethics are not biologically innate concepts. They are acquired behavior modifications that is taught from one generation to another.

A person that has not been taught to believe in the concepts of "right" and "wrong" would not understand what others view to be "wrong" because they would have no conception of it in their mind.




I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying I committed a logical fallacy by appealing to the emotions?



Yes.



Yes, as I mentioned, there are exceptions. Humans are not angels. But the point is that these exceptions are not enough to stop a civilization from emerging.


You seem to think civilization was inevitable and pre-ordained almost in a sense.

You must also realized that the uncivilized state of nature we lived in through prehistory was a much longer period than the couple of thousands of years we have resided within the constructs of civilization.

There is nothing to say that we will not eventually return back to such a state of existence.

[Skooma Addict]

I just noticed you lengthened your post.



Tell me, what percentage of social interaction in civilization do you view to be cooperative?

From my observation about 35% of social interaction in civilization is cooperative through mutual interests being played out ( usually by those with wealth and power.) while the rest of it is brought about through fear, coercion,manipulation, and power.

All voluntary exchange is cooperative. I don't know a percentage, but I think most social interaction is cooperative by far. In the absence of a central government, this would be magnified.


Children are killed all the time in present Afghanistan only we just give it a nifty little name like collateral damage of war.

Yes, people get killed. Humans are not angels. But most of these problems would be solved in the absence of a State. Pointing out that people are killed proves nothing.



Indeed institutions directed by the upper class will seek to reward the docile obedient and punish the dissident disobedient.

It's all a matter of function really facilitated by the upper classes.

The institutions will seek a profit, and they get that profit by providing fair and just arbitration that will be respected by the community.


How does that work?

As a resource gets scarce, its price goes up. So if there is a drought in City A, the cost of water goes up. An entrepreneur lives in City B, where water is abundant, and its price is very low. He can make a large profit if he finds a way to supply City A with the water from city B.


Like?

He fact that the market is always approaching equilibrium.

[SavagePostModern]

I just noticed you lengthened your post.



All voluntary exchange is cooperative. I don't know a percentage, but I think most social interaction is cooperative by far. In the absence of a central government, this would be magnified.



Yes, people get killed. Humans are not angels. But most of these problems would be solved in the absence of a State. Pointing out that people are killed proves nothing.



The institutions will seek a profit, and they get that profit by providing fair and just arbitration that will be respected by the community.



As a resource gets scarce, its price goes up. So if there is a drought in City A, the cost of water goes up. An entrepreneur lives in City B, where water is abundant, and its price is very low. He can make a large profit if he finds a way to supply City A with the water from city B.



He fact that the market is always approaching equilibrium.


I just noticed you lengthened your post.

Yeah sometimes I do that.


All voluntary exchange is cooperative.

What does voluntary exchange and cooperation look like?

Describe it.


I don't know a percentage, but I think most social interaction is cooperative by far.

Really? So tell me what you think about on the subjects of social inequality, oppression, coercion, blackmail, exploitation, and disenfranchisement.



In the absence of a central government, this would be magnified.



How do you believe that?


Yes, people get killed. Humans are not angels. But most of these problems would be solved in the absence of a State.

You seem to think that a centralized state is the fundamental thing that facilitates social inequality, human suffering, and the exploitation of others.

Who creates the supply and demand of human suffering, social inequality and exploitation of people?

Collective society and the people do.

A government only acts as a intermediary of the people as a sort of governing monopoly of individuals but it is the people themselves that create the supply and the demand of social inequality.

Without a centralized government people would still oppress and exploit other people.


Pointing out that people are killed proves nothing.

Maybe my last post will explain things.


The institutions will seek a profit,

Of course they will in which such profits will go into the pockets of the upper classes who reign over such institutions.



and they get that profit by providing fair and just arbitration that will be respected by the community.


Fair and just arbitration. What does that look like?




As a resource gets scarce, its price goes up. So if there is a drought in City A, the cost of water goes up. An entrepreneur lives in City B, where water is abundant, and its price is very low. He can make a large profit if he finds a way to supply City A with the water from city B.



How does this facilitate the future promiseland of a entirely total equal society?



He fact that the market is always approaching equilibrium.


Economical equilibrium will never be achieved because it assumes everyone has the same aspirations, motivations, goals, and desires.

Such a ideal is built upon a generalization and many assumptions of human nature.

[Skooma Addict]

Explain that statement in depth please.


A human will only preform a certain action if he thinks it will better his current state of affairs. So if someone thinks it would be worse for them to perform a certain act, then they wont pursue that end. Even if someone says otherwise, the fact that they performed a certain action means that at the time of the act, the individual thought they would achieve a satisfactory end by performing the action.



Are you saying human beings are totally cooperative?

No.


Describe "high enough degree."


The degree of cooperation that allows civilization to arise.


Do you believe social interaction as whole of human beings is dominated by cooperation exclusively?

No.


I don't believe many social interactions are voluntary as you so much like to say they are.

Infact from my observation voluntary acts concerned with social interaction is very rare.

The vast majority of our interactions are voluntary. Our conversation right now is voluntary.


Such as?

Contracts based on property for one. For example, the contract I must sign before I can work for a business is legitimate.


Only if they are on the blunt side of that which was being threatened, oppressed, or striked against.

That's completely wrong. Many people who were not slaves were opposed to slavery.


My whole thing is people were not taught to believe in morality or ethics they would have no conception and understand of what is describe as "right" and "wrong".

Morality and ethics are not biologically innate concepts. They are acquired behavior modifications that is taught from one generation to another.

A person that has not be taught to believe in the concepts of "right" and "wrong" would not understand what others view to be "wrong" because they would have no conception of it in their mind.

I disagree with you here. I think morality is completely natural.

[Skooma Addict]

What does voluntary exchange and cooperation look like?

Describe it.

When I voluntarily exchange my X for your Y, we have engaged in mutually beneficial exchange. It does not have to be two physical goods we are exchanging. I could give you a computer if you promised to be my best friend, and that would qualify as a voluntary exchange.


So tell me what you think about on the subjects of social inequality, oppression, coercion, blackmail, exploitation, and disenfranchisement.

Nothing is wrong with inequality. I do not like blackmail, coercion, ect.



How do you believe that?

Government is coercive. There would also be far fewer violent conflicts in the absence of a Sate.


You seem to think that a centralized state is the fundamental thing that facilitates social inequality, human suffering, and the exploitation of others.

Well yea.


Without a centralized government people would still oppress and exploit other people.


Yes, but it wouldn't be as easy, and less people could do it. But the whole point was that your chaos anarchy cannot happen.

[SavagePostModern]

A human will only preform a certain action if he thinks it will better his current state of affairs. So if someone thinks it would be worse for them to perform a certain act, then they wont pursue that end. Even if someone says otherwise, the fact that they performed a certain action means that at the time of the act, the individual thought they would achieve a satisfactory end by performing the action.



No.



The degree of cooperation that allows civilization to arise.



No.



The vast majority of our interactions are voluntary. Our conversation right now is voluntary.



Contracts based on property for one. For example, the contract I must sign before I can work for a business is legitimate.



That's completely wrong. Many people who were not slaves were opposed to slavery.



I disagree with you here. I do not think morality is completely natural.


A human will only preform a certain action if he thinks it will better his current state of affairs.

Agreed. But human beings think differently on a variety of issues.

A bank robber for instance thinks it will benefit his current state of affairs with a rifle in hand.




So if someone thinks it would be worse for them to perform a certain act, then they wont pursue that end.


People think differently on a variety of issues. I think your generalizing yet again.



The vast majority of our interactions are voluntary. Our conversation right now is voluntary.


You still haven't shown me how a vast majority of social interactions are voluntary specifically how a vast majority of economical social interactions are voluntary.

If I have to I will show you a variety of involuntary social interactions in order to help our little conversation.



Contracts based on property for one. For example, the contract I must sign before I can work for a business is legitimate.


Only if it is mutually agreed upon but often enough contracts are used to take advantage of people where many people are forced into contracts upon being in situations where there are no alternative options or choices at their disposal.



That's completely wrong. Many people who were not slaves were opposed to slavery.


Well their opposition didn't seem to work just by the acknowledgement of modern wage slaves and the working poor that still exist today.


I disagree with you here.

In what way?



I do not think morality is completely natural.


Explain.

[Skooma Addict]

Agreed. But human beings think differently on a variety of issues.

A bank robber for instance thinks it will benefit his current state of affairs with a rifle in hand.


Correct.


People think differently on a variety of issues. I think your generalizing yet again.

I never said people don't think differently on a variety of issues.


You still haven't shown me how a vast majority of social interactions are voluntary specifically how a vast majority of economical social interactions are voluntary.

If I have to I will show you a variety of involuntary social interactions in order to help our little conversation.


Ok, every action that is not coercive is voluntary. Since most of us are not under an immediate and direct threat of violence most of the time, it follows that most social interactions are voluntary.


Only if it is mutually agreed upon but often enough contracts are used to take advantage of people where many people are forced into contracts upon being in situations where there are no alternative options or choices at their disposal.

You asked me what kind of contracts I view as legitimate. Obviously I do not view contracts signed under the threat of violence as legitimate.


Well their opposition didn't seem to work just by the acknowledgement of modern wage slaves and the working poor that still exist today.

Lol, "wage slavery" is a joke.


Explain.


I meant to say I think morality is natural.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

And as long as authority exists with it's tendency to disenfranchise others violence and conflict shall forever be a thorn inflicted in our specie.
No,because as I was trying to show you in my paradigm,such small gaps of power mean nothing worthwhile and since they will not offer and contain the temptation necessary to incite violence they won't.The goal of anarchism is to break down all central authority in as smaller parts as it's practically possible and let those parts rule themselves with self organisation while cooperating with each other.There will be thus no space and no chance for a future authorititian figure to arise from a world that has established anarchy.

I believe a non-hierarchial structure to be impossible.
There will be hierarchy,horizontical hierarchy,in the sense that each one will be fulfilling a different role in the community.But there will be no power between those roles.Oh and btw,..''I believe?'' I thought we were making a mature conversation here,please use logic to support your arguements.If we fall to beliefs we may as well end our arguement with swords as the christians did against the saracens.

And as long as inequality exists violence or conflict shall always exist.

As long as competition rules or is a dominant factor in social interaction violence and inequality shall rule with it.

Physical and Natural inequality will always exist,you can't have a world full of the same person (that would be also extremely boring),but the point is not about that.The point is what value does the community give on the individual.In this part they should be made equal within the society and that's exactly what ''from everyone according to his ability to everyone according to his need'' means.

But the possibility of them existing in the future I believe is quite real.
The scientific fields transhumanism touches indeed exist and are indeed on a rise,but whether they will manage to reach such a level of omniscience to practically allow something like that is highly doubted.There is a thing in life called theory of chaos you see

Morality and ethics is merely mental warfare of the upper classes used as mental weapons against those it commands and subjugates.

Morality, ethics, law, social justice, government, legislation, the police, and perceived rights are merely safety nets designed by upper classes as some sort of practical guarantee of keeping their authoritative hegemony over everybody else as a way from keeping them from being competed or rebelled against by the lower classes.
No morality and ethics are meanings invented by the people consciously or subconsciously either by their instincts and fears,by experience or of course by authority.The thing is that the authority realises their existence and it's power and use them to keep the people encased in their places fighting over some silly non existing,double standarded ideals while the bosses accumulate power.But I wasn't speaking for such morals I was speaking for those very few but crucial moral limitations one must put on himself in order and with the aim of a community existing with true freedom,mutual respect and solidarity,morals that are necessary for such a community to run.

To me morality and ethics is a religious cultic affair that is not necessary in having.

They are merely beliefs and nothing more.

There is no evidence for believing in them in that there is nothing tangible about them as they are merely appeals to emotions.
Nah.Such morals have nothing to do with religious believes and I already told you that,since these morals are knowingly CREATED by humans for their use,to organise their societies and have no base on supernatural faith.Plus no one is ever gonna tell you,''hey don't do that because thick spagghetie's will grab you from the heavens and squeeze you for punishment'',only something like that ''oy don't do that because you are being egotistical and exploitive against other people's expenses and you are such disrupting the flow of the society

This is just a cop out to excuse some form of interjecting authority.

It is possible for all individuals to live in complete independence but to do so we would have to eradicate the belief that somehow everything must be controlled.

All individuals in prehistory lived pretty much self fulfilling independent lives back in a age that was considered un-structured centrally.
I never spoke about a central control and of course I fight that.But humans cannot by their nature live in complete independence because simply enough we are social animals and as such we need the company of others to be able to survive,even for purely emotional-psychological reasons.After all what the fuck are you doing here at the moment instead of enjoying conversations with other human beings?Plus you can't really argue that a co-operation of people fullfil it's needs better than him alone(except of course that co operation translates to a greedy bastard on authority exploiting everyone)

Violence is not some sort of disease that can be confined, eradicated,isolated or neutralized as it is a natural form of things.

There is no quick fix or cure for violence.

Violence and aggression is a natural adaptation to a competitive conflicting enviroment. Aggressive behavior is natural to humans like all other forms of behaviors are.
Yes,violence is an adaptation to a competitive enviroment and no there is no quick or ultimate fix for the urge to violence.However communism/anarchism seeks exactly that:to make the human society a non-competitive enviroment so to destroy the very reasons that give birth to it.

That's fine and all not to mention expected in such a analogy however if a civilian militia is destroyed or squashed you will have the accept the consequences of defeat besides victory.
If there was room for something that big to exist and destroy the attempts of the people to defend themselves then anarchism has not yet been introduced properly.You can't have anarchism in one country/place and let the one next to it exist and function in an exploitive way.As long as one person is still a slave you are not really free.

I find that amusing considering all of social justice is merely social revenge.

Your envisionment on that particular issue sounds nice in theory but whether it would be practical or applicable is another thing.
We are not speaking of ''justice'' of this world and society,of laws and ''righteousness''Those are stupid meanings invented with theistically-supported arguements which of course lead to nothing while ours are materialistic,logical and true.

You read my mind.
Yes I do.Unfortunately my father is an existentialist and a moral nihilist (although a much milder one and with quite different views than you concerning technology and chaos-order) so I grew up learning this individualistico-nihilistic post modern way of bullcrap-thinking and how to argue it.

It almost seems like you want to achieve a single consciousness.
Having one single same consciousness for everybody is impossible,but what is called the anarchist consciousness is only a very small part of what constitutes the persona and the character of a human and of course a part of the human nature which entails and gives birth to all the social instincts that we have.Plus if you are ready to argue that even such a shared part of consciousness is unreachable try and think of today.Try and think of how many people function and think in a certain way,underlined and created by the egotistical nature of capitalism.Pop culture and mainstream way of thinking show exactly that.

keep such a democracy from being a tyranny of the majority like it exists today?
Today's ''democracy'' is a tyranny of the majority because the authority control and shape the majority's decisions directly and indirectly,binding and using them to their will.In anarchism that is gone,no authority baby!

I like definitions.
Weird,noticing their orderly,structured nature as opposed to the chaotic one you are preaching.

What rules? What logic?
Since we are discussing the general meaning of the definition any kind of.If you can predict it's outcome it's not chaotic enough.

My kind of place. Why is everybody against that interpretation here?
Because it sucks,simply.Not beneficial to any one.

Precisely. Sounds nice to me.
Yet you defy that,using logic and organised thought to support the use of instinct and impulse...kinda ironic don't you think?:cool:

What logic? What law? What order? Who benefits from such a order?
Again we are speaking with the broad sense of the word now,so for any logic law,be it arithmetically subversible (1+1=2) or not,simple following an action-result formula.

All of which the upper classes benefit while everybody else toils and labors under them where the upper classes don't give a dam about anyone under them.
Agreed.

Are you serious? Is that how you describe the history of civilization and organized authorities?
Nope,this is how a definition describes the ideal meaning of order,as I told you before I believe total order to be unnatainable,non-surviving and oppressive.

Well I like my extreme more and I don't see any alternative between the two.

Atleast in my extreme everybody has a chance to independence.
None of these extremes can exist,authority springs out of chaos all the time,ending it's existence as she places rules and oppression to maintain her place as the conqueror of the survival of the fittest.Anarchism tries to once and for all end this,finding a stable society between those two extremes and focusing on the human,his individual freedom and quality of life.

Lack of organization and unstructured settings was apart of our prehistory which might I add existed far much longer than the history of civilization has.

No,organisation existed from the beginning along humanity man,since man had to plan his actions in order to survive and so created the first tribes.Even hunter-gatherer communities organised (hello division of labour!).

I'm not a fan of the free-will argument. I admit that I'm a determinist.
Careful on my words there,I'm also a determinist with the sense that every action someone takes is determined by a combination of the enviroment's influence and his genes,but I'm not challenging that here.What I'm saying is merely that I don't believe in any human theory or philosophy to come and tell me ''I have planned everything and things will go exactly this way'' since it's an opinion made by humans under much subjective criteria and therefore doubtable.Everything has a meaning in a specific system of relativity,outside of it it's void.

I'll check into that book.
They are three.Books.

I however believe in determinism.
Strange for a post modern nihilist.Can you explain that?

I'm not a fan of communism
Again no debatable points given.I am not a fan of Chelsea.

By the way keep your believes,fine by me but please swipe that anarchist of your description.Chaos is a nice word,it has it's own cool symbol: http://img69.imageshack.us/i/starofchaosqe5.png/#q=chaos star
,you don't have to give anarchism a bad name with your actions.Hmm?:)

[Conquer or Die]

Revolution is merely where one dictator or authoritarianship comes to be replaced by a newer one.

Revolution is the collective enforcement of a will. It is the most absolute and complete form of political action. Any character can be considered authoritarian; however, the results of a revolution are told throughout history. The creation of a socialist state in Russia sent ripples throughout the world. The socialist state of Russia destroyed invaders and punished them. Inspired democracy throughout conquered worlds and offered at least in some form, an ideological measure of justice. The same thing happened with the American revolution.


Revolution is merely where the oppressed overthrow their oppressors only to become the new oppressors themselves.

Revolutionaries actually transform their world.


Revolution is only useful to the party or faction that assumes power.

Good; producers and egalitarians need power because they commit justice. I want the parties of justice and the factions of egalitarianism to terrorize injustice. I want the rights of oppressors stripped away and given to the oppressed. I'm also not stupid and pre-scientific and see this as merely moral relativist word play. I understand that egalitarianism means equality before the law, freedom of assembly, and equitable distribution of resources. I know that justice means that nobody is above nobody else and everybody has a responsibility to everybody else.


Politics is merely where individual people come out promising other people various things in order to get into office where once they are in office they never fulfill what they originally said and then go on to fill their pockets with other people's wealth.

Except George Washington decided to not become King of America. John Brown provided a huge spark to ending slavery. Lenin abolished feudalism in his country. And Fidel gave his resources to his country.


Politics are only useful to politicians.

Politics are the means in which the world controls its power. When the rule becomes oppressive; people act. When the rule becomes brutal; people act.


This is my rudimentary definition of revolution and politics and why I view them being useless or hopeless endeavors.

Most people think like you. Moral relativism is okay in a society of abundance. If we are right and capitalism collapses or leads to a war then you won't be able to claim your position any more. Soon your moral high ground will be changed to survival, as is the case with most of the world's population. You can be smug in safety, in middle class freedom and opportunity. Smugness is not a leisure for the people of Palestine or the Congo. People in the Palestine and the Congo look to their survival instincts, look to identities, look to religion, a state, an entity, a belief in order to survive and ensure their measure of justice and happiness in the world.

[SavagePostModern]

Going back to the subject of wage slavery, the working poor, and involuntary servitude I would describe today's slavery to be where a distinct class of people are forced into repetitive menial drudge like labors against their will as their only means to survival in a oppressive society in that their existence or being is not seen matching up to post-modern ideals, standards,imperatives, and expectations of a society where they are inferiorly compensated in that they themselves are viewed to inferior by those who force them into such situations in the first place.

( Poverty consists of those below the standards of living in any given society. Poverty is those within a society who benefits the least.)

Like slaves they are looked at and treated as inferiors where their entire existence is looked upon only as a function of servitude or consumption.

[SavagePostModern]

I figured since everybody ignored my divide and segregate thread that I would simply post it in this thread here......................


http://mises.org/images4/PyramidCapitalism.gif


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-Y6ubW7No24/SB9xWZNCyNI/AAAAAAAAAEY/gdPY-TTQI0I/S760/upper%2Bclass!.jpg


http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/lamont_family.jpg






http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/081023/mad-men-style/mad-men-office_l.jpg





The chosen flock. On the wealthy and upper classes.

It is more appropiate to describe the wealthy and upper classes the chosen flock in that they view themselves above everybody else.

( Above the fray.)

In some way they view themselves to be bestowed by the universe the right to rule the lives of others and to mold them into whatever fashion they may conjure up in their minds.

In the world view of the upper classes they are the privileged chosen of the human specie entitled by what they deem in themselves to be superior qualities where they view their own lives model in comparison to others.


( To the upper classes they themselves are a sort of human thoroughbred that is prized, privileged, and desired.)


To the upper classes they themselves are model human beings superior, better, ideal,enlightened, profane,sanctified, puritan,untouchable,unfettered,limitless, and unbound in contrast to other classifications of people that is also created and categorized by themselves.

( The upper class.)

And it is that underlying belief of themselves that they believe gives them the right to control, manipulate,and order other human beings around to which how they see themselves in comparison to others that they come to see themselves as having the ability in having the final authority on all things from which all social authority derives.


In the view of the upper classes everyone else beneath them doesn't have a purpose since for them others have a purpose only when it is handed down to them by their own design and making.


For the upper classes everyone beneath them sole purpose is to exist in servicing their amusement, wants,comfort, goals,aspirations,accomadations,pleasure,self indulgence, and existence.

To this they view all other people's lives to exist only for themselves to take advantage of for their own to which they attribute to be privileged and more better suited.


The the upper classes all others they view beneath them don't exist for themselves but instead only exist for their uplifting, adoration, and self worship.

They do this by having complete hegemony and control over value to which they relate and reduce the lower classes into mere function or instrumentation.

It makes sense as to why they do this because according to their perspective the lower classes are merely empty vessels, instruments,tools, and biological machines at their every disposal to take advantage of for whatever whim they may have.

It also makes sense as to why the upper classes feel the necessity to dehumanize and disenfranchise the lower classes in that as they see the lower classes as mere instruments and tools at their disposal with human flesh it then becomes necessary to seperate their humanity from their perceived mechanized function in a economical setting.


( In other words it becomes necessary to dehumanize them in order to reduce them into mechanical function or economical appliance which then becomes translated into social compliance by coercion.)


Thus the warehouse worker is reduced to a work horse or mule maybe even a biological machine who's only function is seen to be moving things.

The grocery store clerk is reduced to a automated convenience appliance apart of the grocery store expirience.

The waitress reduced to a automated service interface apart of the restaurant expirience.

( So on and so fourth.)

(All of them seen only to have the sole purpose of servicing the upper classes and each other.)


However you wish to perceive the relationship between the upper class and the lower classes it is always clear that the upper class has no intention of living under the same terms they dictate to the lower classes as coercive ultimatums.

To the upper class they expect nothing but servitude, degradation,drudgery, and exploitation when it comes to the masses of lower class workers.

Should the lower classes band together in revolt, rebellion, or insurrection directly in front of the upper classes they have at their disposal the police, local army, and courts of law to protect them when they are attacked or left defenseless in that as the upper classes see themselves as a sanctified race of human thoroughbreds they are a protected class of people guarded by a variety of government runned safety nets should they find themselves in a situation where they cannot protect themselves.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/173-0401075102-riot-police.jpg


http://www.ci.san-marcos.tx.us/departments/police/Images/SWAT1474web.jpg





There is no justice for the lower classes for it is the government that dictates law and justice where a government is merely a representation of those in power through the upper classes.

( Thus law, justice, and the courts becomes dictated by the upper classes where the lower classes come to not have a say or word in what is imposed upon them but instead must contend with what is thrusted upon them.)

( Thus when Thrasymachus said in Plato's Republic:" Listen—I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” It then becomes all the more understandable.)

( He also said: "What I say is that 'just' or 'right' means nothing but what is in the interest of the stronger more powerful party." )

( It could be said that all institutions are merely representations and abstractions of the upper classes will or agenda.)

As said before the upper class is a protected group of people. They are a coddled class of people.

Not only do they demand the absolute subjugation, obedience, and bondage of others to service them but they also demand that there be no reprisals and consequences of their demands by making it a crime to revolt, rebel, or insurrect against them.

When a member of the upper class is affronted by a assailant they fall to the safety nets of their paid police when they cannot protect themselves or when they are left defenseless as they have others fight their battles for them.

A more recent example of this coddling social interaction of the upper classes is the current United States recession.

Several banks, corporations, and places of business were about to fail recently in the United States where they were about to be left to fail at their own demise but then in came the safety net of the long arm of government which bailed them out from failure in order to stabilize them.
Too big or invaluable to fail on their own has become the motto of such socially constructed safety nets that bails them out constantly.

( Clearly survival of the fittest is absent from post-modern society in that survival of the fittest amongst nature through natural selection there is no safety nets of any kind.)

The upper classes get the best of both worlds in that they command and subjugate others without mercy but have also made it nearly impossible for anyone and anybody to compete or challenge against the legitimacy of their authority.

Truely the upper classes today are the chosen people in the most sanctified perspective.

Chosen by what? Their self referencing ideals and logic.





















http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41tb6WRm7bL.jpg




http://www.1.sulekha.com/mstore/geethamanian/albums/default/indian-poverty.jpg


http://www.laborphotos.cornell.edu/images/5780pb30f3e.jpg





http://www.knowmoremedia.com/uploads/mcdonalds-thumb.jpg

http://monkeysonparade.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/homeless.jpg


http://www.elaw.org/assets/images/places/cl.arica/cl.2003.arica.street.near.site_uncropped.jpg





The poor,the disenfranchised, and the condemned.


What is certain is that through every society, civilization, and nation on earth there exists a social class of disenfranchised people who are exploited and taken advantage of by the more powerful.

It is ironic and somewhat insane that we describe this historical era or generation as one of building equality and fairness considering that neither of those concepts are practiced at all in what is a inequal unfair indifferent existence.

Those concepts seem to be mere words of pretend used in order to give off the illusion of fantasy in order to make people feel a illusional sense of calm in their emotions of how human society actually operates.

While it's true that there are different levels of poverty, disenfranchisement, and oppression from nation to nation all forms of disenfranchisement hold common factors or denominators.

Have you ever heard this social cliche or addage before?

"Sure you complain about being poor here but compared to those poor in Africa you relatively have it well."

This is a typical statement in Western industrial nations used in order to dismiss the feelings and malcontent of the poor and disenfranchised.
If every culture is relative, would it not make sense that the concept or existence of poverty is also relative?

Although a person considered poor in a industrial nation of the West might seem wealthy to a impoverish people in Africa it is redundant to bring it up in that both nations and cultures are relative to each other where a complete or total comparison between the two is impossible to achieve without including the vast differences between the two.

If nations or cultures are relative to each other individuals considered poor in different cultural nations are also relative to each other in their poorness.

As said before there are similarities between relative nations and cultures of disenfranchised or exploited individuals that are considered poor worldwide.

What is comparable of poor people worldwide is that they are a group of people who are taken advantage of by the more powerful and wealthy who profit or benefit off of their disenfranchisement.

They are a group of people looked at as inferiors as anyone can observe just by looking at the inferior jobs they are coerced into doing in order to make a living to survive and to make matters worse they are paid a inferior income compared to present standards of living in that as human beings they are valued to have a inferior worth in their existence of being alive.

They are a group of people who are exploited and taken advantage of who's sole purpose according to their superiors is consumerism.

In other words the purpose of the poor as seen by their superiors is obedience, labor, and consumption.

It almost seems that the poor are regarded as work oxen or domesticated cattle who's only value is labor and grazing.

A familiar theme is used when discussing poor people worldwide and that is that they are of little value or worth in regards to the rest of humanity.

The poor worldwide are seen as a necessary sacrificial offering for the function and artificial order of global civilizations.

The poor are the condemned in that they are condemned to "purposeless" work and inferior jobs or positions when it concerns society in that as they are seen of little value and worth in their existence of being alive they are deemed in of themselves without purpose.

Today's minimum wage earners and poor by all definition are slaves in that just like slaves of old they are looked at as inferior human beings who's sole purpose is obedience, labor, production, consumption, service, and tireless bondage in the yoke of others.


The poor like the slaves of old are deemed expendable and disposable human beings in they are looked at as being recyclable.

They are human fodder and brick and mortar of society.

Like slaves of old they are herded and rounded up like cattle in the control of another into service.

Although they no longer walk around the streets in chains or with numbers burned into their flesh under various insignias like slaves of old they come to be under chains nonetheless that are often enough invisible anymore to the naked untrained eye where their chains often enough is masquaraded as "obligation" or "civic duty" in that just as slavery has evolved into newer forms so has their chains.

In order to give off the illusion of "equality" in society it has become necessary to make the poor or slave class along with every other class of people believe that they are "free" or independent entities as individuals in order to give the impression that they are in their predictament by the illusion of "choice" in to make them believe that they are currently where they are at by their own making succumbed by a even more equal illusion of "free-will" even when in all actuality they are in the predictament that they are in because of the standards, expectations, judgements, and coercion of others that rule over society who exploit them where quite the contrary they had no choice at all in the manner of the predictament that they find themselves in life.

How ironic that Western civilization praises "equality" and the so called abolishment of slavery considering everywhere there exists nothing but inequality where whole new generations are bred into servitude as the poor or as "slaves" creating whole new generations of inferiors in the eyes of the standards and expectations of societies everywhere who treat such individuals no better than slaves that are bought and sold for profit just the same.

Everywhere amongst Western civilization societies in their hypocrisy pretend in order to give off the illusion of "equality" that "freedom" or independence is free to all equally when in all actuality it is the direct opposite.

Meanwhile amongst all of this governments have their social welfare programs to further the illusion of "equality" where they insist their role is as benevolent arbitrars of the people where they call their intervention amongst the poor a great moral "service" for the people's benefit when it comes to dealing with the poor but in all reality beyond stage show their social welfare programs accomplish nothing beyond creating whole new generations of dependents who's very lives and very independence becomes dependent if not contingent on you guessed it, the government.

( What the government offers in social welfare programs as people's salvation becomes their damnation.)

( Wherever there is a race of dependents there are those ready and willing to disenfranchise and take advantage of them furthering the creation of slaves in newer generations.)

In the end it is not surprising why a great deal and number of those considered poor or of the lower classes are prolific in being over-represented in crime in societies worldwide.

Rather than live in the bondage of others as inferiors a great number of the lower classes would rather risk life and limb as criminals than to submit to another as just another inferior.

The wealthy classes pretend to not know why crime and extreme violence exist in their midst but know far well that it exists as a consequence of their own far reaching authoritarianism.


http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&/images3/2004_war_photos_5/r783586708.jpe




















http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19067/19067-h/images/image03.png


http://www.troundup.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/1984_detail_photo.jpg

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Technology/images/1984-movie-big-brother.jpg


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_clJaEXZlUQc/SPes-m_HX9I/AAAAAAAAAcs/90MmGwm2Uu0/s320/DUNCE+A.bmp



Education as segregation.


Educational institutions are segregation centers.

(Beyond being re-education and indocrination centers.)

Educational institutions are the prime systems of dividing and seperating people within post-modern society in that they classify people into categories of value or worth when it pertains to their existence of being alive through evaluating people's compatibilities, skills, and potential within the constraints of economics as it concerns the rest of collective society.

Educational institutions quite literally seperate the grain from the chaff in that their sole duty is seperating the pure from the impure stock or breed of humanity by the imposing standards, metanarratives, and expectations of society where the impure are those who have very little to no value and worth in their existence of being alive that the rest of society can profit off of.

In contrast the pure stock or breed of prized thorough bred human beings are those who are considered of high worth or value to the rest of collective society in that they are valued for their compatibilities, skills, and potential.

Through training, classes, tests, and value judgement so called educators act as harvesters for the rest of society by seperating the grain from the chaff, seperating the valued from the devalued.


It is in educational institutions that post-modern human beings are described value and worth in society and it is within their halls that it can be taken away.

It is in educational institutions where educators drain and sap the energy of lively youth around the world of their natural instincts in almost a sense of robbing them through their training and re-education processes where they put their minds towards supporting the artificial machine that is civilization with flesh amongst metal which comes to the conventionality of so called higher cult-ure.


For those that are valued or deemed worthy there is no wonder at all to where their lives go in that they go on to be rulers or wealthy patrons of society in that they obviously benefit from educational institutions.
What happens to those who are deemed to have very little to no value or worth in their existence of being alive for the rest of society is much more interesting.

Educational institutions literally have power over young lives by constantly having their hand on a button that can ruin their entire existential future of a individual youth for the rest of their adult life should they not meet the standards and expectations of the rest of society in that the value judgements of educational institutions dictates and determines the course of all individuals the entire rest of their life.

Once a person is valued by a educational institution their existential fate is sealed in that it dictated and determined by the educational institution itself.

In educational institutions the youth are constantly threatened for their non-compliance or non-adaptability striking fear and obedience through their very hearts during the education training and re-education process.
Those considered to have very little to no value or worth in their existence of being alive for the profit of collective society are damned and condemned to live the rest of their lives as apart of the poor lower classes.

Those considered to have very little to no value or worth in their existence of being alive are violently coerced not to mention herded up to be the next new generation of poor laborers, servants, slaves, and pets of the more powerful and wealthier social classes where they are forced to make a living in whatever fashion the powerful wealthy would have them do.

There is nothing "equal" of the re-education process of indocrination when it comes to educational institutions.

It is somewhat comical how pretensious educational institutions present themselves when they say their duty is to nurture young minds academically on a equal scale so that everybody has a equal opportunity considering that is not what they are designed to do nor is that what they practice.

In reality there is nothing equal of the operations when it concerns educational institutions.

Educational institutions count on inequality being the vehicle that advances human knowledge and society.

How gullible the general populance are to believe today that education is built upon equal means for everyone.

Educational institutions count on the fact that there will always be those who will fall short of it's ideals, value judgements, standards, and expectations of value or worth on a inequal scale imposed by the rest of society.

















http://www.ncwss.org/images/missouri-kansas-city.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0c/FrenchPeople.jpg/400px-FrenchPeople.jpg





http://blogs.reuters.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/dylan2.jpg


Equal participants of human suffering. How public collective society creates the demand and supply of social inequality.

Everyone who partakes in the rituals, systemization, practices, traditions, operation,movement,belief structure, standards, and politics within a society consequently affect the outcome of those persons suffering in it.

This includes everyone including myself.

There is no escaping this simple fact.

How does this work? Although you may say to yourself that you do not harm or cause the suffering of another person personally or actively you nonetheless partake in the systemization of society which thrives on inequality and human suffering of others.

How does a person who does not actively seek out the suffering of others be the actual cause of other people's suffering?

All people participate and associate themselves with civilized society that actually quite actively seeks out the suffering of others and since there is noone who can deny their association, involvement, or partaking in society that makes them equal accomplices when it comes to the suffering of others within society irregardless of whether they refrain from attacking and oppressing others themselves.

I'll use an analogy:

There is a car driver who drives a vehicle full of bank robbers to a bank heist.

Although the driver waits outside the bank for his team inside to come back never even stepping outside of the car acting merely as a driver that same driver nonetheless is a accomplice by association even when he has done nothing himself inside the bank.

How does this analogy fit with the rest of society?

What do we know about society?

It thrives on inequality, forced coercion, violence, competition, conflict, blackmail, and deception.

What is the source and foundation of society's existence? The people.

A government of individuals only acts as a intermediary of the exchanges or interactions amongst amongst inequality and human suffering.

The people supply the need and desire of inequality or human suffering of others for their own advances, conveniences, and pleasures where the government as a monopolized intermediary enforces the demands of the people that it itself profits off of.

Nobody is innocent. Everybody is a accomplice.


If you are born and live within a society you are an accomplice.

All people partaking within society is the very energy and life force substance of society that thrives on in order to maximize inequality or human suffering of others for profit.

The status quo is merely a manifestation of the people themselves in that the demand of inequality and human suffering for the status quo comes from the people.


















The myth of social contracts.


Social contracts are a myth. Social contracts do not exist.

Voluntary social participation is a ever growing rarity in the world for the world is mostly operated upon social ultimatums passed from the top down through coercive force where people are pressured into a great deal of things for fear of punishment,alienation, or ostracization.




Quote:
David Hume
An early critic of social contract theory was Rousseau (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousseau)'s friend, the philosopher David Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume), who in 1742 published an essay "On Civil Liberty", in whose second part, entitled, "Of the Original Contract [1] (http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL35.html#Part%20II,%20Essay%20XII,%20OF%20THE% 20ORIGINAL%20CONTRACT)", he stressed that the concept of a "social contract" was a convenient fiction:

AS no party, in the present age can well support itself without a philosophical or speculative system of principles annexed to its political or practical one; we accordingly find that each of the factions into which this nation is divided has reared up a fabric of the former kind, in order to protect and cover that scheme of actions which it pursues. . . . The one party [defenders of the absolute and divine right of kings, or Tories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tories)], by tracing up government to the DEITY, endeavor to render it so sacred and inviolate that it must be little less than sacrilege, however tyrannical it may become, to touch or invade it in the smallest article. The other party [the Whigs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whigs), or believers in constitutional monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy)], by founding government altogether on the consent of the PEOPLE suppose that there is a kind of original contract by which the subjects have tacitly reserved the power of resisting their sovereign, whenever they find themselves aggrieved by that authority with which they have for certain purposes voluntarily entrusted him. --David Hume, "On Civil Liberty" [II.XII.1] [2] (http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL35.html#Part%20II,%20Essay%20XII,%20OF%20THE% 20ORIGINAL%20CONTRACT)
However, Hume did agree that, no matter how a government is founded, the consent of the governed (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed) is the only legitimate foundation on which a government can rest.

My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only pretend that it has very seldom had place in any degree and never almost in its full extent. And that therefore some other foundation of government must also be admitted. --Ibid II.XII.20
[edit (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_contract&action=edit&section=17)] Logic of Contracting

According to the will theory of contract, which was dominant in the 19th century and still exerts a strong influence, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties agree to it voluntarily, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. Lysander Spooner (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner), a 19th century lawyer and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, in his essay No Treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason), argues that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation, because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all.
Modern Anglo-American law, like European civil law, is based on a will theory of contract, according to which all terms of a contract are binding on the parties because they chose those terms for themselves. This was less true when Hobbes wrote Leviathan; then, more importance was attached to consideration, meaning a mutual exchange of benefits necessary to the formation of a valid contract, and most contracts had implicit terms that arose from the nature of the contractual relationship rather than from the choices made by the parties. Accordingly, it has been argued that social contract theory is more consistent with the contract law of the time of Hobbes and Locke than with the contract law of our time, and that features in the social contract which seem anomalous to us, such as the belief that we are bound by a contract formulated by our distant ancestors, would not have seemed as strange to Hobbes' contemporaries as they do to us.[6] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#cite_note-5)

[edit (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_contract&action=edit&section=18)] Multiple Contracts

Legal scholar Randy Barnett (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett) has argued,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#cite_note-6) that, while presence in the territory of a society may be necessary for consent, it is not consent to any rules the society might make regardless of their content. A second condition of consent is that the rules be consistent with underlying principles of justice and the protection of natural and social rights, and have procedures for effective protection of those rights (or liberties). This has also been discussed by O.A. Brownson,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#cite_note-7) who argued that there are, in a sense, three "constitutions" involved: The first the constitution of nature that includes all of what the Founders called "natural law". The second would be the constitution of society, an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government, by which it does establish the third, a constitution of government. To consent, a necessary condition is that the rules be constitutional in that sense.

[edit (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_contract&action=edit&section=19)] Tacit Consent

The theory of an implicit social contract holds that by remaining in the territory controlled by some government, people give consent to be governed. This consent is what gives legitimacy to the government. Philosopher Roderick Long (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderick_Long) argues that this is a case of question begging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_begging), because the argument has to presuppose its conclusion:

I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they're trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it's not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I've got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don't know, but here I am in my property and they don't own it – at least they haven't given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in "this country" means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#cite_note-8)






Criticisms of natural rights


Contractualism is based on the notion that rights are agreed upon in order to further our interests, which is a form of individualism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism): each individual subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_(philosophy)) is accorded individual rights, which may or may not be inalienable, and form the basis of civil rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights), as in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citize n). It must be underlined, however, as Hannah Arendt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt) did on her book on imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism), that the 1789 Declarations, in this agreeing with the social contract theory, bases the natural rights of the human-being on the civil rights of the citizen, instead of the reverse as the contractualist theory does.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#cite_note-9) The individualist and liberal approach has been criticized since the 19th century by thinkers such as Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx), Nietzsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche) & Freud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freud), and afterward by structuralist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism) and post-structuralist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism) thinkers, such as Lacan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacan), Althusser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althusser), Foucault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault), Deleuze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleuze) or Derrida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrida).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Criticism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Criticism)

[SavagePostModern]

But as I mentioned before, your chaotic version of anarchy would not occur due to the fact that humans are social beings who voluntarily cooperate in order to better their current state of affairs.



Even if civilization were destroyed, humans would still trade with one another. Once people begin to exchange goods, capital accumulation will begin, and a medium of exchange will arise. In other words, a civilized society will begin to form.



Not everybody seeks to be masters and oppressors. The term "social power" is very vague, and almost meaningless. Besides, one could seek social power without attempting to become an oppressor.


humans are social beings

To what degree?




voluntarily cooperate


Human beings are not exclusively cooperative.

Non-cooperative means of blackmail, coercion, and violence are popular forms of human social interaction.




order to better their current state of affairs.



What is being bettered? For whom is benefiting?


Even if civilization were destroyed, humans would still trade with one another.

Not denying that.


Once people begin to exchange goods, capital accumulation will begin, and a medium of exchange will arise. In other words, a civilized society will begin to form.

I don't deny history repeats itself but it also has it's disturbances too.


Not everybody seeks to be masters and oppressors.

Sure they do. Everybody seeks some amount of power or influence in their lives which for the most part can only be brought about by taking advantage of others around them.

Power can only be achieved by the disenfranchisement of another person or persons.




The term "social power" is very vague, and almost meaningless.


Not really. Think of social upward mobility if you like.



Besides, one could seek social power without attempting to become an oppressor.


Such as?

[SavagePostModern]

Olaf said:

I think morality is completely natural.


You people who still believe in morals, ethics,entitlements, and rights make me laugh.

If human beings were so moral and ethical like they like to claim to be, how could they tolerate the existence of social inequality, human suffering, and oppression around themselves everyday like they do all the time?

Hypocrisy negates morals and ethics into non-existence showing them to be non-existent.

The revealing of hypocrisy is that which smashes the illusional facade like existence of morals and ethics showing the existence of both subjects to be nothing but the absurd mumbo jumbo of the masses that they are.

It was once said that religion was the opium of the masses. Today the belief in morals and ethics are the opium of the masses.

There's nothing moral and ethical about humanity or civilization for that matter.

[Skooma Addict]

You people who still believe in morals, ethics,entitlements, and rights make me laugh.


Thats funny because in another discussion I was having with you I asked....


Do you literally believe that what makes an action right is the amount of force backing it up?

and you said...


Yes.

So I guess you believe in morals and ethics.

[SavagePostModern]

Thats funny because in another discussion I was having with you I asked....



and you said...



So I guess you believe in morals and ethics.

And you totally misinterpreted what I was saying because I was speaking about how often enough human social interaction is directed through fear, coercion, blackmail, and violence by the powerful where everyone lower in the social hierarchy becomes subjugated underneath.

( I was speaking about how coercive force is that which dictates and directs the bulk of human social interaction where coercive force dictates people's lives in what they come understand as being "right" but more importantly in my comment I made no reference to pretend morals or ethics.)

I don't even think you even understand what you are arguing anymore but instead you are just arguing for the sake of arguing in that you find my opinion untolerable to grasp.

If you keep on putting words in my mouth or twisting everything that I have to say I'll simply stop talking to you.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Genuine anarchy. Where anything and everything goes.

Total independence to whatever people want and will.

This is what I've been hinting at for awhile now :thumbup1:

[SavagePostModern]

This is what I've been hinting at for awhile now :thumbup1:

Well it's about time somebody else agreed with me. ( Laughs.)

[SavagePostModern]

Either get over yourself or kill yourself then.

Why is a moron like this even allowed to post here?

So many people here want me dead with statements like this...........:laugh:

How can anybody hate a up standing class act person like myself?

[SavagePostModern]

Olaf said:

The "upper class" is not one group of people with a single set of interests. Your analysis is completely flawed.


The upper class have a common mutual interest of staying in power in creating wealth for themselves.

[Skooma Addict]

And you totally misinterpreted what I was saying because I was speaking about how often enough human social interaction is directed through fear, coercion, blackmail, and violence by the powerful where everyone lower in the social hierarchy becomes subjugated underneath.

Well I asked you a pretty straightforward question. So if anything, you somehow misunderstood a simple question.


I don't even think you even understand what you are arguing anymore but instead you are just arguing for the sake of arguing in that you find my opinion untolerable to grasp.

I am saying that your chaos anarchy will never last due to the natue of humans as cooperative beings with negative emotional reactions towards actions they view as wrong.


If you keep on putting words in my mouth or twisting everything that I have to say I'll simply stop talking to you.

How an I putting words in your mouth? I asked....


Do you literally believe that what makes an action right is the amount of force backing it up?

Is that such a difficult question to understand? Apparently for you it is...


The upper class have a common mutual interest of staying in power in creating wealth for themselves.


Some wealthy people create wealth for themselves at the expense of other wealthy people. Wealthy people are not all working together to increase their income at the expense of the poor. It is not that black and white.

[Bud Struggle]

Well it's about time somebody else agreed with me. ( Laughs.)

I agree, too.

The Anarchy posted on RevLeft seem like living with both the rules of my wife AND my mother.

Just listen to Gack's "no you can't do THAT under Anarchy!" over and over again.

[Ele'ill]

I like this thread. :thumbup1:



(because it has pictures)

[Bud Struggle]

The upper class have a common mutual interest of staying in power in creating wealth for themselves.

We drink a bit too much be rooting for such lofty purposes.

[☭World Views]

I figured my version of anarchistic philosophy would be put in the opposing ideologies right away, being that I don't see socialism or communism as a form of human salvation, like many here seem to believe.

So I decided to put my threads in the opposing ideologies section of this website in order to bring about some sort of convenience for the moderators here, so that they wouldn't have to, later on knowing that what I have to say probably won't be well liked here. Your welcome.


Now to what I have to say when it concerns this thread............................


Revolution is merely where one dictator or authoritarianship comes to be replaced by a newer one.

Revolution is merely where the oppressed overthrow their oppressors only to become the new oppressors themselves.

Revolution is only useful to the party or faction that assumes power.

Politics is merely where individual people come out promising other people various things in order to get into office where once they are in office they never fulfill what they originally said and then go on to fill their pockets with other people's wealth.

Politics are only useful to politicians.

This is my rudimentary definition of revolution and politics and why I view them being useless or hopeless endeavors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgToMBdlApU

[SavagePostModern]

"But if you try sometimes you might find that you get what you need." -Rolling Stones. :lol:

The lesson of the song is to be determined and keep on trying.

Alright now it's my turn to select the music being played here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbmWs6Jf5dc

[SavagePostModern]

I agree, too.

The Anarchy posted on RevLeft seem like living with both the rules of my wife AND my mother.

Just listen to Gack's "no you can't do THAT under Anarchy!" over and over again.



The Anarchy posted on RevLeft seem like living with both the rules of my wife AND my mother.

Just listen to Gack's "no you can't do THAT under Anarchy!" over and over again.


Precisely. That is why I only like my own version of anarchism.

Other people's version of anarchism is contradicting and rather boring. I just find them rather unappealing.

( I like my anarchy without big brother's far reaching arm and all seeing eye.)

( I think anarchism as a world view should be spiced up a bit.)

( I like my anarchism with a little bit of funk and fight into it.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"But if you try sometimes you might find that you get what you need." -Rolling Stones. :lol:

The lesson of the song is to be determined and keep on trying.

Maybe next time the revolution rolls around we'll get something better, eh?

Oh, but according to you, revolution is "useless ... hopeless". So why try?

You're a mess of contradiction.

[SavagePostModern]

Maybe next time the revolution rolls around we'll get something better, eh?

Oh, but according to you, revolution is "useless ... hopeless". So why try?

You're a mess of contradiction.

Let me re-address myself.

Determination within individuals is not hopeless as I view only collective ones to be.

[Rosa Provokateur]

So many people here want me dead with statements like this...........:laugh:

How can anybody hate a up standing class act person like myself?

Join the club, I've been stuck here ever since I made a wrong turn into anarcho-capitalism (of which I got out of and have made clear several times) but they just don't seem to have any use anarchists that don't resort to Leftism.