Dianetics

[The Feral Underclass]

I was fundraising today in beautiful brum and I got stopped by a rather moorish young man who asked if I had ever taken a stress test. I said no, then he escorted me into a very posh Church of scientology building and proceeded to ask me rather personal questions.....it turned out the test was just a ploy for this handsome, yet bizzarely enthusiastic man to sell me L. Ron Hubbards latest book....i giggled softly gave my excuses and then left..........

However, I had never heard of this dianetics before so am interested to know more...Apparently dianetics is about udnerstanding the mind and how the mind makes you behave....according to this quy there are boxes in your "mind" which have nothing to do with your brains???, where all your negative thoughts go, blah blah blah....what do you guys think....and has anyone read the book?

:ph34r:

[sc4r]

Yes. It is convoluted crap made to sound convincing by a fairly well established method. The same method (sorry guys) that is used to make Anarchism, and religion, ans utopian communism appealing and convincing. The method is as follows :

1. Make some testable and reasonable claims.
2. Promise something highly desirable if the reader continues. Insist that they understand it all before they can possibly see how it 'fits together'.
3. Introduce a reasonable sounding, but untestable premise.
4. Ask the reader to suspend disbelief in this premise 'for the moment'; promising that it will be made clear later why it is true.
5. Use this (unsupported) prmise to 'prove' something else (again something not entirely unreasonable).
6. Use this to 'prove something else.
7. At some point use the 'proven' things to 'prove' the original premise (disguised as much as possible by incidental side-proofs of things which are factual).
8. Now use the (now supposedly 'proven') premise to 'prove' something else.
9. Introduce mild threats of consequences or losses of benefits if the study is not contuinued (and by now the reader is thinking that it all seems to hang together).
10 Continue to build circular self referential 'proofs' of increasingly bigger consequence.

Its a gradual process, You start off essentially only by being made sufficientlt desirous of the benefits that you will agree to 'suspend disbelief' in a small step. Once you do this you have laid yourself open to all sorts of chicanery with words altered to mean something subtly different than would be right in context, and circular arguements which do work given only that you have accepted the initial 'suspension'. Bt you gradually get sucked into accepting the whole crock because you are lulled into failing to spot that one crucial step at 7. when it became an invalid proof.

NEVER agree to move on with something left dangling or unclear 'to be shown later' in such discussions with such people. You would be amazed at how often the 'dangly bit' is later 'proved' using the very thing it was used to 'prove' in the first place. But only if you really really are aware of it. It can be disguised in all sorts of ways.

[The Feral Underclass]

ahem....and how does anarchism fit into all this?

[praxis1966]

Well said, sc...

Libertarian
I think he simply meant that similar logic is sometimes used to forward the ideology or dogma of various philosophies.

As the Marquis de Sade once said:

"It requires only two things to win credit for a miracle: a mountebank and a number of silly women."

[The Feral Underclass]

I know what he was saying, what my question was, is how does Anarchism fit into his ten point blah...??? If he is trying to instigate yet another debate on the fatality or credability of Anachism....bring it on baby!!! :ph34r:

As for your Marquis de Sade quote, i'm not entirly sure what it's supposeed to mean...... :huh:

[sc4r]

You know I've been told 'Bring it on Baby' probably a thousand times by Anarchists. When I do the responses mysteriously go quite except for instructions that I should 'read all about it (understand the totality - see point 2 of the ten point list.) .

Here are some sample questions (of hundreds to which I have never recieved a satisfactory answer) for you to 'Bring it on to'; I'm expecting the usual load of slogans in response, with not a reasoned answer to any of them.

1. What does one even mean by an 'Anarchist Society' what makes it a society rather than just a collection of individuals who you hope will all have the same meta views for no explained reason.

What gives the Anarchist 'Society' cohesion.

2. How would one Anarchist 'commune' know what was demanded of it by other communes? How would it know what to produce and how much to produce? How would other communes know that it would actually make what they need? How could they rely upon it?

3. What would prompt any investment in any scheme or new idea which both benefitted multiple communes and required large scale investment funds (greater than the spare resources of any individual commune).

The anarchist commune is in reality just a sort of city state, Larger states have arisen and superceded such isolated and individual 'states' precisely because co-ordination brings benefits and allows larger projects to be tackled.

[The Feral Underclass]

1. What does one even mean by an 'Anarchist Society' what makes it a society rather than just a collection of individuals who you hope will all have the same meta views for no explained reason.

What gives the Anarchist 'Society' cohesion.

There are two parts to this question, and I cant answer the first question without first answering the second. What gives Anarchist society cohesian? Nothing if you considered an anarchist society in the context of capitalism. If you tried to establish an anarchist society now under these conditions it would fail. Outside forces and peoples social and economic condtioning would mean eventually it would stop working.

Capitalism exists because that is how we as humans developed. It was our first time at humanity and history had not been written. There where no history books or advanced understanding when we first started, so we did as best we could, and now, after centuries of fuedal systems we have capitalism...reality is defined purly by your economic status within a state mechanism which is designed purely for the preservation of the only reason for existance....wealth.

Humans exist in this perpetuating wheel of survival. You are born, you grow up, you get a job, you pay your taxes, you work for decades paying for your kids to do exactly the same, usually in a job they hate, so that they can pass onto their children this struggle...all the time you belief that the path to freedom is by being beautiful, rich and famous. We strive for it, we play the national lottery in hope that our lives will suddenly transcend into a world where we dont need to want for anything. And that is what it is when it comes down to it....want! We all need things, we need to buy water, or electricity, things we all agree are basic human needs, rights which we should all be allowed to enjoy. Yet we allow people to package it, tie it in a bow slap a prize tag on it and then we go out, work, just so we can pay for this thing we all agree should be ours for free anyway....society is full of contradictions, capitalism is a contradiction. They prefess peace yet they bomb innocent citizens, they profess an end to the food shortage yet they dump tons of food in the sea rather than give it away, why, because the prices would go down and the bosses would loose money. They talk about allowing everyone to have the right to education yet they build weapons programmes for a trillion dollers and call it self-defence...defence against a problem created by them in the first place. When I talk about them, I talk about the bosses, the capitalists, the leaders of this world, who bind us all in this system . And they do it with our blessing.

People allow capitalism to exist because they dont belive that there is an alternative. But there is an alternative. Once people have become aware of what capitalism is, its contradictions, the way to exploits human beings they will want to change it. I did, so do most of the people on this message board, and we aren't special people, we aren't people who been ordained or chosen to have these principles, we are simply aware that we exist. We are a little more conscious, more aware of the things that go on in this world. Therefore if I can do it and RedStar can do it, then so can my mother, my uncles my aunties, my friends and their parents and their parents friends. Every working class person, and any other can become conscious, of course you will need top build a movement, but it is possible, through hard work, struggle the masses can become aware of their existance.

Once that has happened they will want to change society, they will go on the streets and demonstrate, go on strikje and refuse to work for a system that is so corrupt, and the police will come, and the army, and they will try and smash us, but we will fight them, and then we will win.

So now you have millions of conscious people all wanting the same fair and equal soceity. There is your cohesian. All these people who have the same thing in common [consciousness] would not, after struggeling to overthow capitalism decide that they wanted to go back to it and all fuck each other over, human nature will have changed, peoples beliefs would have changed. Reality would have changed. It wasnt a sudden thing that happened it was a gradual process, which may have taken a hundred years but it was a process that ended in the overthrowing of capitalism.

The first part of your first question is almost the same as your second question....

2. How would one Anarchist 'commune' know what was demanded of it by other communes? How would it know what to produce and how much to produce? How would other communes know that it would actually make what they need? How could they rely upon it?

Anarchist society would essentially be about experience. Capitalist defination of existance is simply about survival, a continous quest for wealth. Anarchist society is about using your life to exist, to live. Experience the world, write a book, make a film, set up community projects, organize music festivals, enjoy life, feel love, go bird watching, build a sky slope, invent a new car, use your brain to create and be amazed, experience everything....that is the point of life...not working in mcdonalds for eight hours a day for your whole life, just so you can pay taxes for services that dont work, being a slave to the need for money in order to create welath for someone you dont even know.

But of course there is socially necessary work that must be done. Taking your example of the need to produce something...let us say that you need to produce shoes. So you have two shoe factories. Frist of all, you need a work force. You need an administrative staff...these people can be slected by a lottery from the rest of the country. Then you would need people to make the shoes, this would again be done by lottery.

Society would be broken down into communities, how small depends on the size of the area, say for instance sheffield, could be broken down into constituancies, Hillsborough, Hallem, Heeley, Totaley etc etc. At weekley or monthly community meetings you would say that you need some shoes, you can appoint or elect someone at that monent to be responsible for sorting it out, they would then contact the factory and the shoes would get made and sent to you.

The same for rubbish collecting, it would be done on a lottery basis within communities....everyone would have to participate something every week to socially necessary work and by doing this you would be fed, watered, clothed and housed, for free. it may even get to a point after everything was in place and organized that peoiple only hasd to work for three or four hours a week, leaving you with time to exist and to do whatever you wanted.

Of course it would take a lot of time, effort and a few years to organize society in such a way, and maybe times would be hard for a while, but these are things we have to face if we ever want society and life to have any kind of meaning.

3. What would prompt any investment in any scheme or new idea which both benefitted multiple communes and required large scale investment funds (greater than the spare resources of any individual commune).

I dont know what you mean. What kind of scheme...lets say it is a scheme to build a new aeroplane, someone has invented this great new aeroplane and wants to build it. So there is an announcment on radio or television or in the national paper that "Bertie Jones from the Winestead Community in Hull needs volunteers to assist him in his new project". so you go to your community meeting and say I want to go and help bertie, there maybe a one person per community limit and say three people want to do it, you have a draw, maybe you share the task...after you have been selected you are taken of the lottery for the social work and you go to meet Bertie Jones and then you start to organize yourselves into teams...painting team, metal team, welding team, avionics team, whatever, and then you go about and build your plane. You call other communities for materials if you need materials you organize building or making them, maybe a community somewhere else in the world can help you, you just have to work hard. you can find pilots to help you fly it. hard work! It's as simply as that...

I have attempted to answer your questions as fully as possible. I am sure you have other questions and comments and I am willing to clear up anything you dont understand...it may seem utopian and impossible, but thats just the limitation of your mind...anarchism can work, if we just fight hard enough for it. :ph34r:

[sc4r]

Well I will give you your due, you at least tried. But no you did not actually answer the questions in my view. In one case not really at all (you answered a different question), and in the others not in a way which reflects the problems inherent in the question.

I also think its kind of ironic that you said ‘There are two parts to this question, and I cant answer the first question without first answering the second.’ Given what I earlier said in my ‘list’ about deferring answers.

What you spent most of your time doing was denouncing Capitalism. That is not the issue. Capitalism may not produce what you want (it does not produce what I want either) but it does not follow in any way from this that Anarchism does. You are not supposed to be denouncing Capitalism here, you are supposed to be proving Anarchism.

BTW despite what YOU say few capitalists would agree that ‘Capitalist defination of existance is simply about survival, a continous quest for wealth’. all that is really is an expression of your dislike for Capitalism; you are putting words and intentions into their mouths. Intentions they genuinely do not have.

Now to the questions themselves :

Q1. What you actually answered here is how an anarchist movement (not society) might find cohesion in pursuing one goal (the overthrow of Capitalism). You completely ignored the part of the question that asked ‘what do you even mean really by an Anarchist society’.

You then blithely assume that people will continue to behave cohesively as an anarchist society because they achieve this goal. This is assuming almost exactly what you are supposed to be proving.

But of course there is no reason why people should adopt even a single cohesive Anarchist goal until you have proved that Anarchy itself has cohesion. Which leaves you simultaneously arguing in a circle (exactly what I said you would do) and in this case not even answering the original question even then.

If people come to be disgusted by Capitalism they might seek to destroy it. This in no way means that they will become Anarchists, only that they will dispose of Capitalism. In point of fact what it probably means in practise is that all they will do is seek a change of government to one which will say it has found a way to eliminate the problems of their society. It will, in other words, say that the flaw is not Capitalism itself, but the detailed workings of the (non Capitalist) moderating influences of their particular brand of liberal democracy.

The key point I’m making, however, is that you did not answer the actual question posed, you answered a different one; poorly IMHO.


Q2. Telling me what ‘anarchist life is all about’ tells me nothing. Every ideology will espouse these virtues. All you are doing is proving that you can say anarchy is wonderful. Every supporter, of almost every ideology, says this. The question is always ‘How will your particular ideology provide the conditions to produce wonderfulness?’. Not ‘Will it?’ but ‘How will it?’

You did though, also make an attempt to answer the more prosaic question (the one actually posed) of ‘How would one Anarchist 'commune' know what was demanded of it by other communes? How would it know what to produce and how much to produce? How would other communes know that it would actually make what they need? How could they rely upon it’.

You did not, though, seem to take the hint that you needed to give a really solid answer to all parts of the question in order to make it convincing. The answer you gave is not illogical, just impractical; and as such it is harder for me to refute in a short response. Nevertheless I’ll try to show why its not a realistic answer even though really one needs to understand practical problems of supply and demand planning to grasp it.

a) You have implicitly broken one of the ‘commandments’ of Anarchist principles anyway when you invoke a ‘national lottery’ to allocate people to tasks. Anarchy is not supposed to involve people being told from a national centre what to do with their lives.

b) Ditto when you talk of it ‘taking time to organise society’ this is a strange concept for an Anarchist to espouse. Who is doing this organising? Anarchy is supposed to be self organising; something that you seem to forget throughout (this, with point a; BTW more or less invalidates the entire answer anyway, because you are not describing an anarchist solution, but a more or less Socialist one).

c) People need shoes. You describe them being made on demand. Really? You are going to manufacture entirely to order? That’s a massive overhead you are carrying if so.

d) Lets assume you did not really mean this. In which case you have not said at all how demand levels would be established. And this has major implications for production planning (including how many people would need to be allocated ‘by lottery’)

e) So lets assume that for something as mundane as shoes a pretty reasonable estimate can be made of the number required each week, and that we gear up to producing that amount.

f) But we don’t really have just two shoe manufacturing factories do we? We have hundreds, or thousands. And people don’t want just shoes, they want particular styles, they all have their own individual preferences for style, and this can change over time.

g) So now our ‘shoe rep’ has to run around placing orders with dozens perhaps hundreds of factories. He has to know which produces what (he’s a sort of shopkeeper in effect).

h) Now some of these factories will be producing very high spec shoes, and some very low spec shoes. But guess what? Who is going to request the low spec ones, given that they can just as easily, and at exactly the same cost to themselves request really good ones. Answer no-one is, obviously.

i) Does this mean that this society now values a fantastic shoe higher than it values anything else? Does it mean that the people will accept a low spec pair of jeans as a trade off? Certainly they have not said so. And in fact they wont. Exactly the same mechanism will operate to jack up the spec of jean manufacture; and the spec of everything else.

j) But to make a high spec thing costs more than a low spec thing. The people in this society simply cannot have the highest spec of everything, it’s a physical impossibility.

k) Which brings us right back to the original question ‘HOW DO ANY OF COMMUNES ACTUALLY KNOW (in practise) HOW MUCH, OF WHAT TO MAKE ?’ what tells them which trade offs should be accepted.

l) A related question is to ask why one would expect (even given that an average trade off has been reflected in production volumes by some mechanism you do not describe) that anybody would accept this particular trade off as valid for them personally; it is after all only an average, it may (in extreme circumstances) not actually reflect the precise trade off that any individual at all would want.

m) What then ensures (even assuming you somehow find a way to manufacture the quantities that would make it possible for everyone to receive the trade off appropriate to them) that anyone will actually get that particular bundle of stuff ? You cant just ask them which of each type they want (because then you are back to them all wanting the best of everything). You cant just allocate it randomly (because then most people will get a distinctly sub-optimum bundle for their personal requirements). What do you do?

n) Hmmmm maybe you could give them all a requistions budget and let them distribute the budget to decide what they get (does this sound suspiciously like a market? It should, because it is).

The real bottom line of this is that you can’t answer questions about an economy by talking about a single product in the way you do. That’s not the actual problem.


Q3) Your answer to this question is likewise not an anarchist answer. You are imposing a constraint on what people are allowed to do from above. I have to assume (since you did not say) that the needs of the people working on these schemes are also being met from society.

Now the question left hanging is how exactly does this society decide which schemes to allow? Which to provide people for? How many people for each?

You’ve already implied that it is not individual people deciding for themselves.

In other words you don’t actually show any mechanism at all by which the costs which society incurs on such schemes are balanced against the benefits it may expect from them. At best you have left it to individual communes to decide (although you do actually imply a higher authority – Not very Anarchist that mate). This could (to say the least) be unfortunate if these communes retained any sense of personal benefit; or even if they were, rather understandably, inclined to, honestly, but mistakenly, see benefits that related to their areas of experience.

Conclusion : You don’t actually describe an anarchist solution to anything. What you do mostly is describe a rather vague Socialist command economy, leaving the bits that would make it obviously so unsaid but implicit. I dont doubt your sincerity, only your grasp of practicalities and systems

[The Feral Underclass]

It is difficult argueing anarchism with someone who wishes to preserve capitalism and refuses to accept human nature is a changeable entity. It is also difficult to answer questions to someone who has already written the answers. You asked me what anarchist society was, I told you, you didnt understand because it wasnt the answer you want it to be.

What you spent most of your time doing was denouncing Capitalism. That is not the issue. Capitalism may not produce what you want (it does not produce what I want either) but it does not follow in any way from this that Anarchism does. You are not supposed to be denouncing Capitalism here, you are supposed to be proving Anarchism.

They are intrinsicly linked. Anarchism is an afront to Capitalism, it exists as an ideology because of Capitalism. In order for you to understand Anarchism, you first must understand what Capitalism is.

It is not simply about capitalism not producing certain things it is a system which chains people down to having to work all their lives for nothing. You do not need to work for a wage and become alienated from your family, from your society, for fellow human beings. We can organize society in a different way...DO YOU UNDERSTAND!

BTW despite what YOU say few capitalists would agree that ?Capitalist defination of existance is simply about survival, a continous quest for wealth?. all that is really is an expression of your dislike for Capitalism; you are putting words and intentions into their mouths. Intentions they genuinely do not have.

Of course they wouldnt give capitalism that definition George W. Bush thinks it is ok to bom innocent cirvilians and calls it an act of goodness, dosnt mean it is...and when these capitalists are cutting wages to safe costs what in essence are they doing, when they set up business' what are they trying to achieve. When a Lawyer joins a top law firm what does he want? When a CEO gets a 50% pay rise, given to hium, by himself, what is that? A quest for wealth, everyone does it, it is a fract. Ask any working class person what they want more than anything, and 99% they will say to be rich!...It is not simply an expression of my dislike of capitalism it is a fact, concluded not only by me, but by Marx also.

What you actually answered here is how an anarchist movement (not society) might find cohesion in pursuing one goal (the overthrow of Capitalism). You completely ignored the part of the question that asked ?what do you even mean really by an Anarchist society?.

"Anarchist society would essentially be about experience. Capitalist defination of existance is simply about survival, a continous quest for wealth. Anarchist society is about using your life to exist, to live. Experience the world, write a book, make a film, set up community projects, organize music festivals, enjoy life, feel love, go bird watching, build a ski slope, invent a new car, use your brain to create and be amazed, experience everything..."

Anarchism is not simply about defining a kind of society, it is about creating a whole new world, a whole new existance...something you dont seem to be understanding.

You then blithely assume that people will continue to behave cohesively as an anarchist society because they achieve this goal. This is assuming almost exactly what you are supposed to be proving.

And you do nothing to disaprove me! HUMAN NATURE WILL CHANGE, THAT IS WHAT AN ANARCHIST MOVEMENT IS FOR....REVOLUTION CAN ONLY HAPPEN THROUGH HUMAN NATURE CHANGING....I am not asking you to agree, I am asking you to understand!...do you understand.

once a movement has been built people will fight for an anarchist revolution. They will fight for it, because they have become conscious, because they understand what anarchism is, and they want to create a society based on anarchy, just like me....therefore it follows, logically, that once they had fought and died to achieve that society, they would fight and die to make it work. You are assuming that people will fight for a revolution and then suddenly decide they dont want it anymore....that dosnt make sense now does it.

ut of course there is no reason why people should adopt even a single cohesive Anarchist goal until you have proved that Anarchy itself has cohesion. Which leaves you simultaneously arguing in a circle (exactly what I said you would do) and in this case not even answering the original question even then.

What is your point. How can you live an idea before first imagining it....by this hypothesis nothing can ever happen unless it first has been proved...which of course is complete bullshit. Anarchism will grow as capitalism begins to fail even more and the contradictions become more evident. Fuedalism turned into capitalism because of demnads being made by the middle-class, it was a natural progression.

If people come to be disgusted by Capitalism they might seek to destroy it. This in no way means that they will become Anarchists, only that they will dispose of Capitalism. In point of fact what it probably means in practise is that all they will do is seek a change of government to one which will say it has found a way to eliminate the problems of their society. It will, in other words, say that the flaw is not Capitalism itself, but the detailed workings of the (non Capitalist) moderating influences of their particular brand of liberal democracy.

That is the whole point of having a movement. led by convitions the anarchist movement can steer the working class towards the ultimate goal, a utopia, we all dream about.

The key point I?m making, however, is that you did not answer the actual question posed, you answered a different one; poorly IMHO.

And you spent alot of time doing it without actually giving me any substantial argument why it wouldnt work.

a) You have implicitly broken one of the ?commandments? of Anarchist principles anyway when you invoke a ?national lottery? to allocate people to tasks. Anarchy is not supposed to involve people being told from a national centre what to do with their lives.

No I didnt. The only principle that would have been broken is if the person was forced to do the work. Again we come back to human nature. you presume that people will mind having to do the work. People will not. This would have been the entire point of fighting the revolution.

b) Ditto when you talk of it ?taking time to organise society? this is a strange concept for an Anarchist to espouse. Who is doing this organising? Anarchy is supposed to be self organising; something that you seem to forget throughout (this, with point a; BTW more or less invalidates the entire answer anyway, because you are not describing an anarchist solution, but a more or less Socialist one).

The time it takes to organizing society does not negate the notion of self organization. Self organization does not mean it will happen straight away. The organizartion of products needed and socially necessary work can be organized by federated communities working in cooperation with each other. We are pretty intelligent creatures and will be able to use technology to up hold this principle. Remember, human nature has changed.

c) People need shoes. You describe them being made on demand. Really? You are going to manufacture entirely to order? That?s a massive overhead you are carrying if so.

Overhead of what? Food? It can be sent to the factory, or grown in the surrounding communities. Materials? They can be manufactured at the factory. The necessary things needed can be organized with other communties and important to the factory.

f) But we don?t really have just two shoe manufacturing factories do we? We have hundreds, or thousands. And people don?t want just shoes, they want particular styles, they all have their own individual preferences for style, and this can change over time.

Ok, so we have one hundred facotries needed to produce shoes. Say thrity thousand shoes need to be made every month that isnt alot of workers. And why do you need different styles. Maybe different types for different weathers but shoes are shoes and only the vain would be so bothered about what they looked like....Gucci will most definatly not be around any more...

All the other points bash on under the context of this capitalist human nature of these fashion hungry people......it works thus....you have one hundred factories who are operated on a lottery basis...each community every month asks if the people there need shoes...if yes they send an order to the facotry who make the shoes....if there are no shoes needed at a particular facotry then thedy do something else, they read books or organize festivals,m what ever they want. Each factory can make different styles or 'specs' and so you can choose which shoes you need and then go from there....it isnt difficult to understand.

These question can not be answered now. They are questions thathave hundreds of factors to conside. of which I know none. Whatever scheme, what ever materials or skills needed is something society, communisties, working together, realise. If we need a plane, then we organize building one. What ever the difficulties. You take it far to seriuoiously and lack faith in humanities ability to effectly organize.

Now the question left hanging is how exactly does this society decide which schemes to allow? Which to provide people for? How many people for each?

You?ve already implied that it is not individual people deciding for themselves.

The same question just in a different guise. Nobody is being forced to do anything. All decisions are made by communities or elected, recallable officials organzing each other, not because they have to, but because they WANT TO!

In other words you don?t actually show any mechanism at all by which the costs which society incurs on such schemes are balanced against the benefits it may expect from them. At best you have left it to individual communes to decide (although you do actually imply a higher authority ? Not very Anarchist that mate). This could (to say the least) be unfortunate if these communes retained any sense of personal benefit; or even if they were, rather understandably, inclined to, honestly, but mistakenly, see benefits that related to their areas of experience

What mechanism....it isnt difficult to understand...again, the same question....an what higher authority did I speak of! None! You talk of benifit as if material things are all which make our lives important, they are not. People wioll be too interested in existing to care about what shoes their wearing, what care their driving or what brand of bread their eating...what they will benifit from is the freedom of not having to work for a wage, being able to concntrate their lives on things that matter to them.....if you dont understand now, then your stupid....

at first I thought it was me, but it isnt me...its you....you refuse to understand what anarchism is...like i said before, you do not have to agree with it, merely understand it. :ph34r:

[sc4r]

It's hardly worth continuing with someone who starts off with ridiculous assumptions, and statements. Hence I read 1 paragraph of that post before tuning out :

1. I dont Support or wish to retain Capitalism. Not only is this obvious but I actually said it explictly again in my last post.

2. I'm absolutely sure I understand Capitalism far far better than you do.

3. I understood your answers alright. I did not however, think them any good. Nor did I think they for the most part actually addressed the questions posed. This (remember) was exactly what I said you would do, dodge around them.; in fact its exactly what I, in passing, originally complained about. Its hardly a valid complaint from you now to say 'ahh but you have not disproved Anarchism'. You seem to have forgotten that this was never the issue, the idea was for you to show that you had decent answers which were not self referential.

4. Opposition to capitalism does not make you an anarchist, its that simple. That there are faults in Capitalism does not make Anarchism correct. Which is what I actually said. 1+1 does not = 3. It does not therefore follow that 1+1=4 is correct.

5. can you seriously not grasp that just because a thing is 'for something' does not mean it is capable of actually doing it. The car I bought last year was 'for getting from A to B efficiently' it did not, however, achieve that purpose because it was pile of shit. (I leave it to the reader to guess the similarity between that car and Anarchism).

5.1 It does not matter that Capitalism involves pursuing wealth. This is not what it is ultimately for according to its supporters. I find it amazing that you can say because Anarchism stands for something we can be fairly relaxed about how well it might do it; yet when you SAY that capitalism stands for something (and are told that in fact it does not) THEN it becomes important to you only to focus on what it does. Its an amazing piece, of not double standards ,but exponential standards.

5.2 Nor is it remotely relevent to this discusion that 'Anarchism is about creating a whole new world'. You were asked to say how it worked. You said you could. And yet for the most part all you did was make grand sounding, and unsupported, claims for it. Any fool can make grand sounding claims about anything; the hard part is to show how those claims are justified. This you certainly have not done.

5.3 Its a quite amazing piece of self delusion to say 'human nature will change'. This is not a trivial claim, its about as dramatic and unlikely as anything could be. To justify it would require an absolutely rock solid and totally convincing reason why. Yet amazingly you not only barely justify it all but actually use this assumption to justify belief in anarchism's plausibility itself (a totally self referential argument).

5.4 You quite clearly have no idea at all of the difficulty inherrent in producing even a decent approximation to a best solution for balancing cost and benefit overall when you have multiple individual cost/benefit equations all competing for the same limited resources. And this is even assuming you had suggested any way of expressing benefit unambiguosly.

Yet you are in effect suggesting that individual people each do this for an entire economy, work out how they fit in, and furthermore make their individual actions fit this plan (presumably hoping that everyone else has come to the same conclusion and does not fuck the whole thing up by failing to produce, or even realise that they are the one expected to produce, a vital component in the whole plan).

This is not merely a fundamental change in human nature you require. It's a quite extraordinary change in human abilities; WE'd all have to be almost Godlike to perform such feats.

Delegating the task upward to 'committees' doesn't really help all that much with the entire problem, even if such committees are extended up through levels until we have one for a complete society. If you do this, of course, you dont have an anarchist society anyway; you have democratic command economy socialism (because there is no point coming to a valid co-ordinated conclusion at the top unless that conclusion is filtered down again as instructions about what to do at the bottom).

Committees dont solve the whole problem anyway (it helps a bit in making sure that at least gross mistakes are not made); because each time you go up a committe level you gain co-ordination, but you lose something of the detail of individual requirement balancing. You end up with something which may approximate to average of requirements but does nothing very much for ensuring that variation in individual requirements falling outside of the average (as most will) is recognised.

And yes I know that this does not mean that it would be impossible or even unlikely that no variation at all could be catered for. But you still would not be saying how such variation would actually be catered for when it came to final distribution.

6. No mate shoes are not just shoes.

Even leaving aside that 'fashion' is a facet of individuality, and that indibuality can be expressed in many different ways (if it so happens that I do want yellow spotted thigh high boots because it amuses me who are you to insist that I should not have them?); Shoes can be made to last 1 yr, or ten years, they can be made completely, partly or wholly waterproof, they can be made very comfortable, a little comfortable, or fairly uncomfortable, they can be made lightweight or heavy, they can be designed to facilitate lots of long walks or not; in fact there are hundreds of different specs possible, and some of these specs dont just reflect a different type of usage, they reflect a different degree of fitness for purpose. Not everyone needs shoes to be as fit for long walks as others, but this dont mean that the person wont ocasionally want to walk, and wont therefore want a show somewhat fit for that purpose.

Personally I care about shoes. I happily work a little longer to pay for good shoes rather than for good haircuts. But this does not mean that I would deny someone else the right to feel the exact opposite. But if you said 'hey you can have whatever quailty you like of both' Guess what I'd want the the best of both. So would anyone. Furthermore if you are not constraining me by cost why should I not want shoes that are even better and a haircut to make the gods jealous. I, like evryone would want the unattainable ultimate in quality of everything.

And who would I give my respect to? Why the person who tried to make such fream shoes of course, why should I revere somebody producing any lesser quality? BUT this means that person (which is now every person, because who will volunteer to do a less well thought of job that no-one is going to request anyway?) spending longer making them, which means that fewer get made. And guess what? Quite a few people cant get shoes or haircuts at all, of any quality.

When you talk about totally practical things like light bulbs and thousands of other things (particularly production goods) you can start to get what is very definetly a trade off between what you would probably call quality and cost, which has a different optimum balancing point in different circumstances. If you take away cost all you are left with is a desire for the highest possible 'quality' (because this will always maximise benefit, but may not maximise cost/benefit). Those circumstances are not easily judged except by the individual. Thats the point being made in that paragraph. A point you miss completely because you understand not a bloody thing about actual production planning or resource management or cost/benefit evaluation across multiple requirements. And those things are fundamental to understanding what constitues a workable economic system and what does not.

Without a way of balancing cost against quality you end up with an ever increasing spiral where less and less, but of an increasingly unattainable quality spec gets made. You end up with farmers unable to plough fields because there are no basic tractors, but only a few absolutely massively over specified Combine Harvesters which deliver biggest benefit but not biggest benefit less cost (net benefit).

7. What is your 'lottery' supposed to be for? You invoked it originally to explain how it was that neccessary work would get done and tasks allocated. Now you are saying that all tasks will be done only by volunteers for that task. Well what is the lottery for then? If you are saying that despite the lottery saying I have drawn task X I can quite merrily go and do task Y (or nothing at all) this lottery seems to have achieved nothing. I'd guess that you actually are trying to give an actual mechanism for explaining away the fairly obvious truth that in fact some jobs will be unpopular, and upon realising that your 'solution' seems to imply something you had not thought of you are now backtracking. The trouble is that this , again, exactly what I said you would do and its a variation on the 'leave it till later type of "proof" one that does not follow on or connect to what has actually been said'. It is symptomatic in fact of a non coherent argument.

AND you have not actually answered the question of who organises the lotery and works out how many people are need to do each job. Because Anarchism IS NOT supposed to merely mean that people find a central orgainising function acceptable and non totalitarian. IT IS SUPPOSED TO DISPENSE WITH THE NEED FOR A CENTRAL ORGANISATION ALTOGETHER. In fact the central reason for Anarchisms justification is that any such central function must give rise to problems. NO ideal suggests that its central authority will be unacceptable and oppressive.

I could go in, but jesus, why am I bothering? If someone wont answer clearly once or address problems raised on one occasion he wont do so simply because yet more problems are pointed out.

Really this is what I expected. The more you question anarchists the more they contradict their previous answers. Thats exactly what is wrong with it. It does not genuinely fit together as a coherent whole. All it in fact says (as you did) is that it will work because people will want it to. In that one sentence you have both a massive assumption and a huge unexplained gap in reasoning.

[RyeN]

I could see Anarchy working for a small time, if the conditions were right. Perhaps afer the next world war and there is chaos. Anarchy could come in and people would be able to live that way until the resources left behind were all gone. Anarchism doesnt support a working platform that would be able to progress. Sure people could live in harmany over eachother, but there has to be some structure. If there was no hiarchy of control nothing would get done.

One of the basic principals of anarchism is that no one person should have power to oppress another. What about parents trying to disapline thier misbehaving child. Not in an Anarchist nation. This would just mean that the youth to come out of that societey would be unbalanced and ignorant. Not something I want to see. However Anarchists do fight the system of coruption so in essance theyu are our allies.

I think that if Anarchy were to set in it would be alot easier to guide the people to socialism or communism rather than from capitolism. Together we stand the left united and the stronger we will be

[sc4r]

It certainly would be easier in one sense; Because they'd run screaming from it's total inability to satisfy even their most basic material or security needs.

But I hardly feel that inflicting hell on people is the way I'd like to see Socialism implemented.

And in fact what would happen is that with the total obliteration of actual society we'd start again with society been rebuilt in the same old way Feudalism, small states, large ones, Liberalism etc. etc. We would have gone backwards.

Theres a reason Marx saw Socialism evolving from Capitalism not from Anarchism. It's because he was not unaware of what constitutes society, and what constitutes a feasible path of progression.

[redstar2000]

If there was no hierarchy of control nothing would get done.

You won't find a boss anywhere who will disagree with you about that.

Aren't you suspicious of that "coincidence"? Just a little?


What about parents trying to discipline their misbehaving child. Not in an Anarchist nation. This would just mean that the youth to come out of that society would be unbalanced and ignorant.

It seems that "beating the kids" is one of those things you must "like" about capitalism.

Just what do you want a revolution for, anyway?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RyeN]

Silly I didnt say anything about beating kids, but without anyone to guide them they would not learn. The youth is the future of any societey. In a societey where you have a planet and a whole population of people too wory about there has to be an organizational system or there will be nothing productive accomplished. It is not posible for a person to create all the nessecities one would need in modern life. Therefore there have to be poeple producing goods. Therefor you need organization and structure

[redstar2000]

I didn't say anything about beating kids, but without anyone to guide them they would not learn.

Yes you did. You just used a "code word"--discipline--that is used in "polite company". Just as "well-bred" people don't say n*****s any more, they say "urban underclass" and everyone knows who that means.

When you say "discipline misbehaving kids", everyone understands that you are talking about physical violence against people who are too small to effectively retaliate in kind.

It has been argued throughout most of recorded history that children "only learn" through the application of violence or the threat of violence.

More contemporary--and civilized--theories are available. You should check them out.


It is not possible for a person to create all the necessities one would need in modern life. Therefore there have to be people producing goods. Therefore you need organization and structure.

Well, are you using the words "organization" and "structure" as code-words for hierarchy and control? Because no sensible person, anarchist or otherwise, denies the need for organization and structure.

What kind of organization? What kind of structure?

Do you want to replace the existing bosses with new bosses? Or do you want to get rid of bosses altogether? Even the ones that wave red flags?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RyeN]

Discipline - training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character. Discipline doesnt have to encure anything physical. It could be done with words. If your jumping to these conclusions perhaps it is because you have these feelings or tendancies. I myself as an educated person realize the faulty thinking of negative enforcment, as opposed to possotive re-inforcement, But anarchism says that no person should be placed higher than another. Losing respect for elders is unwise because they often have knowledge. Also Ill have you know that im not very well bread at all my friend.

Organization and struture doesnt mean that there is a need for rulers or Authority. There are levels on wich things will get done. Every person has a job to do in order for the machine to work. Some people will have the job of delegating the working process to others who do the processess. This will happen at all sorts of levels, form agriculture to health care, to gouvernment. With the respective levels, no person will be more equal that anyother becasue they are just completing thier tasks.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't know you sc4r, and quite frankly don't want to know you, you seem a bit like my imposing military grandfather. he always had to be right. he would terrify all this gradchildren with his angry loud, domineering persona. he was arrogant and obnoxious and my nan had her own room to get away from him.....sad really!

Just to make this clear I am not an authority on the economic workings of capitalism, I do not fully understand it all, I have no problem admitting it. It's ok with me, I still have a few decades left to learn....unlike some......

But. Why is it, that all the way through your argument you refute everything I say, tell me that it just couldnt work, tell me that I haven't considered certain things, tell me that I dont really answer the questions, and then end with insuling me....never really explaining anything to me, or trying to convince me that im wrong by giving me factual based answers and substantial arguments, something you burn me down for.

I have got the picture that you do not think that Anarchism can work, it dosnt really concern me, but I am interested to know how you would like society to be. how do you think we can achieve it. So, intstead of simply bashing on about the fatality of anarchism and giving me your rheotircal bullshit about how I havent considered this and this could never work blah blah beeldin' blah, let's here from the master himself...............sc4r, take it away!

[The Feral Underclass]

One of the basic principals of anarchism is that no one person should have power to oppress another.

Quite rightly so....

What about parents trying to disapline thier misbehaving child. Not in an Anarchist nation.

Smacking does not work. If it did, you wouldnt have to keep doing it. That aside, why would you want to hit your child anyway. Your teaching your child that violence is how you solve problems. It is not. If your child scribbles on a wall, he is expressing creativity....if they scream and shout and have a tantrum because they want a biscuit, they are expressing their emotions....if your child takes drugs, they are expressing their independance, independance which is theirs.

A four year old does not know that writing on your nice new wall paper is not allowed....so your daughter gets some crayons and wants to draw her dad or mom a pictures, so she draws so squiggles and looks happily at you as you walk in the room. what do you then do, smak her. by hitting her your telling her that you hated her picture, that she is not allowed to express her creativity. of course not. at four, they have the ability to understand basic things, talking, explaining to your child that if she wants to draw she must do it on paper, not on mommys wall....sure your angry, you want to scream, but you have a duty to your child to make sure they are cared for, nurtured and encouraged at any opportunity.....and to be honest, if you dont want mess on your walls and cheaky smilling todlers ruining your sofa, dont have fucking children.

If your child goes and takes drugs and you find out, do you hit them, ground them....it wont work, it will make them do it secretly and they will try damn hard you dont find out again, then they go to a club, and you dontknow, they take some drug, because you havent told them about it and they die....if your child takes drugs, it is their choice. It is a horrible thing to admit but it is true, and if you find out, you tell them you dont want them to do it, it wont work, and then you make a deal. That if they have to do it, they tell you where theya re going to do it, when they go to clubs and then you educate them...you sit them down and you go through every single drug and its effect, and in the end, if they choose not to listen and it all goes to shit, you still have to be there, with a cup of tea, a big hug and a 'I told you so'.

Your children need to know your there for them, supporting them, not that your some bad oger who will hit them and ground them if they do something that they chose to do. They will respect you for it and as a consequence will listen to you more and they will be loyal to you.

Anarchism is about accepting that as a principle, you dont have to like it, but the right to be creative, the right to express your emotions, the right to independence is a principle that extends to everyone, not everyone except your children....it dosnt work like that.
This would just mean that the youth to come out of that societey would be unbalanced and ignorant. Not something I want to see.

Treating your children with respect and teaching them good values, listening to them and encouraging them will not make them unbalanced and ignorant. If children are born into a society that is based on Libertarian principles, born to parents who listen and respect them these children will grow up to respect life, respect society and respect their parents.

In a societey where you have a planet and a whole population of people too wory about there has to be an organizational system or there will be nothing productive accomplished.

Anarchism is based on hyper-organization...

Organization and struture doesnt mean that there is a need for rulers or Authority. There are levels on wich things will get done. Every person has a job to do in order for the machine to work. Some people will have the job of delegating the working process to others who do the processess. This will happen at all sorts of levels, form agriculture to health care, to gouvernment. With the respective levels, no person will be more equal that anyother becasue they are just completing thier tasks.

Your simplify Anarchism....it comes down to this argument of human nature.....if you put a docter who voted conservative, a lawyer who didnt vote and took cocaine all the time and lived like a play boy, a gay priest, a sixteen year old pregnant high school drop out and a black intellectual in a house and the house collapsed and they got trapped in a room you would have conflicting personalitites trying to work together. The doctor would hate the lawyer telling him what needs to be done, "dont tell me what o do" he would say, there would be some natural leaders who had eprsonalities that like to control, natural followers who like to sit abck and be led, arrogant abstenees and the nice guy who tries to keep everything together, it just wouldnt work........now take those five people, allow them to become copnscious of their actions, of the world around them, give them a common goal and belief and they will work together. The point I am trying to make is, that present day society creates these self obsessed, materialistic people who think only of themselves, change that conditioning and people will behave in a completely different way.

Anarchism is about freeing peoples minds, giving them consciousness and unity to work together to build a better society. You talk about delegating and organization as if Anarchism wishes to run away from it....it does not. It respects the need for officials, but officials democratically elected and easily recallable. It endorses organization, but organization which allows freedom for everyone, freedom from wage-slavery and freedom from want.

We are clever animals. once we have got rid of the ego, the selfishness , this material craving and realised we can live in a world where we exist rather than survive we will be able to function and organize ourselves collectivly, together, taking responsbility for necessary work.

I am reading a book, 'Anarchism' by Sean M. Sheehan, he is an Anarchist in the 21st century and he wrote this book a year ago and in it he writes...

"Anarchism seeks to replace the competitive market with a communal system of production and distribution based on needs and availability rather than on deand and supply. It is not a matter of just an economy but an economy that is just. Establishing the means and the methods of running and coordinating a communist economy without recourse to Soviet-style centralized planning and control would be the defining task fro any communist society based on libertarian principles. A lot of economic planning would be on a participatory and local scale, with national and international planning for complex modes of production and scarce or locally unavailable resources. For anarchism to work in a modern industrial world, means must be developed to replace essential services presently managed by the state or private monoploies. The central organization idea proposed by anarcists is that of federation, built up from democratic base associations, councils and communes, arriving at joint decisions and exerciszing authority but in a way that does not recreate the authotarian rule of the state."

you can see that Anarchism holds its entire base in organization...the point is, that we can organize ourselves without the need for a centralized government or a state machine. Sheehan goes onto to talk about Seatlle, and how all the activities where organized collectivly with entire grous co-ordinating between each other, with elected represetatives who where there simply to co-ordinate...there was no central command, no one incharge, and they managed to organize floats, street dancing, music etc etc. Of course cynics such as sc4r can argue this example can not be used on a national or internation level, but I ask why not? People are the same the world over, there exploitation is the same and their wanting is the same....give them an alternative, and they will fight for it.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 15 2003, 09:16 AM
I don't know you sc4r, and quite frankly don't want to know you, you seem a bit like my imposing military grandfather. he always had to be right. he would terrify all this gradchildren with his angry loud, domineering persona. he was arrogant and obnoxious and my nan had her own room to get away from him.....sad really!

Just to make this clear I am not an authority on the economic workings of capitalism, I do not fully understand it all, I have no problem admitting it. It's ok with me, I still have a few decades left to learn....unlike some......

But. Why is it, that all the way through your argument you refute everything I say, tell me that it just couldnt work, tell me that I haven't considered certain things, tell me that I dont really answer the questions, and then end with insuling me....never really explaining anything to me, or trying to convince me that im wrong by giving me factual based answers and substantial arguments, something you burn me down for.

I have got the picture that you do not think that Anarchism can work, it dosnt really concern me, but I am interested to know how you would like society to be. how do you think we can achieve it. So, intstead of simply bashing on about the fatality of anarchism and giving me your rheotircal bullshit about how I havent considered this and this could never work blah blah beeldin' blah, let's here from the master himself...............sc4r, take it away!
Listen up mate.

It was you that decided to declare that it was I who did not understand Capitalism and so bring the debate down to a rather silly game of who can declare himself the bigger authority.

So I gave you my opinion of which of us, in fact, did understand it. That without one shadow of a doubt is me.

I have in fact tried to explain precisely, and in great detail, why your proposals for an anarchist society are not workable. If you can genuinely see much 'dogma' in my replies then I'm absolutely astounded. I think all you mean is that you cant see why I dont agree with you. I dont agree with you because I know enough about systems, and production, and planning, and organisation, and cost/benefit equations, and macro-economics, to see the great gaping holes in your proposals.

You can choose to disregard those criticisms, thats up to you, not me. I'm not dumb enough to think that one can ever 'win' an internet discussion of this sort, and my replies are not really even directed at you, since I already know you will fail to grasp them.

Yoi are asking why you cant seem to understand my poimts. Thats easy enough; it is because you dont have the expertise to do so, or the willingness to try and do so. Where are your questions asking 'why do you say this'? there are none; you just insist that you did in fact make sense and consider that an adequate response. It is not.

I am more than happy to lend what I can of my own expertise to helping you, and anyone else in this regard. I dont even demand that you agree. But what I cannot do is magically imbue you with the understanding that comes from having studied, questioned, and worked in the relevant fields for 20 years. Its that simple. You are arguing what to me are quite transparrently nonsensical points; that fully 95%+ of the educated world agrees with me, not you, even if most dont know quite why, ought to tip you off that just maybe you are not being as clear and logical as you think you are.

I have frequently presented my own proposals. But that is not what THIS discussion is about. It was you that declared 'BRING IT ON' mate, it seems you dont like it when people accept such challenges.

And finally you inform me that organisation and structure indeed do not neccessarily call for rulers and imposed authority. This is true. So what ? Who said they did? Not me. Like many you are replying to what you have been told those who disagree with you must be saying, not what they actually are saying.

[The Feral Underclass]

It was you that decided to declare that it was I who did not understand Capitalism and so bring the debate down to a rather silly game of who can declare himself the bigger authority.

Maybe....you have one oppion of what capitalism is....I have another, I believe I am right, you believe you are right....period!

So I gave you my opinion of which of us, in fact, did understand it. That without one shadow of a doubt is me.

Agreeable you have a better understanding of the economics of capitalism, but you do not seem to understand the psychological implications capitalism has on human beings.

I have in fact tried to explain precisely, and in great detail, why your proposals for an anarchist society are not workable.

You have given valid arguements of why Anarchism may not work....no correction, you have given vaild arguments about problems we will face while trying to create an anarchist society...this however does not refute anarchism as a practical solution to capitalism.

If you can genuinely see much 'dogma' in my replies then I'm absolutely astounded. I think all you mean is that you cant see why I dont agree with you.

I can see someone attempting to undermine Anarchism in an almost personal and vindictive way, providing no alternative...and yes I am annoyed that you dont agree with me, but...cest la vie as they say!

...I know enough about systems, and production, and planning, and organisation, and cost/benefit equations, and macro-economics, to see the great gaping holes in your proposals.

Granted...but why dont you then try and come up with solutions to these problems...you have said yourself that Anarchism is a nice idea...if you think it is, and you genuinly would like to see such a society, then you are only limiting your mind by sujesting that these problems are unsolvable.

I am more than happy to lend what I can of my own expertise to helping you, and anyone else in this regard.

Thank you!

You are arguing what to me are quite transparrently nonsensical points; that fully 95%+ of the educated world agrees with me, not you...

95%+ of educated people use to believe that black people where only good for being slaves...untill 2001 the most educated people in the UK believed that gay people did not have the same rights as straight people, in fact it was only in 1994 that the gay age on consent was reduced from 21 to 18. People change, thoughts and beliefs change, history proves it, over and over again.

even if most dont know quite why, ought to tip you off that just maybe you are not being as clear and logical as you think you are.

I share the same logic as people like Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Pierre Proudhon, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Ernesto Malatesta and contemporaries such as Sean M Sheehan and Noam Chomsky, and that's ok with me...you do not see anarchism as logical [i]because you have spent so long indulged in the world of micro-economics and production and can not see that human beings have the ability to work things out. Your economic spiel does not make anarchism unworkable...it makes it difficult, but not impossible.

I have frequently presented my own proposals. But that is not what THIS discussion is about. It was you that declared 'BRING IT ON' mate, it seems you dont like it when people accept such challenges.

I have never heard you talk about anything other than the fatality of everyone elses beliefs...granted I have only been around on this board a a short while, so maybe I havent had the opportunity. Granted, I did "decalre 'bring it on", and no, I do like it when people accept such challenges. But you have not disproved that Anarchism can not work. Again, you have merely presented problems that face the Anarchist movement...and if you declare that it will be impossible, it is only the limitations in your mind that conclude such a cynical few.

And finally you inform me that organisation and structure indeed do not neccessarily call for rulers and imposed authority. This is true. So what ? Who said they did? Not me. Like many you are replying to what you have been told those who disagree with you must be saying, not what they actually are saying.

If your refering to the Sheehan quote it was not infact directed at you. I maybe saying what I have been taught, but they are things which I believe.

You maybe older, and you maybe wiser, but they are things that have not worked to your advantage. Cyncism has made you bitter. I hope that I never have the misfortune of turning out like that...history changes, eveytime I speak to someone about anarchism, everytime I sell a paper or a book the world changes...anarchism to you maybe the rebelliousness of naive teenagers, or the illogical conclusion of illogical dreamers....but for me, and for the anarchist movement they are dreams which see a world where human beings can live together, free from oppression, free from alienation, free from want and free to experience existance in the way that we should be...and if you call me naive or illogical for wanting such a world, then fine...but the world will change, anarchism will be a reality and the world will be a better place, whether you agree with it or not :ph34r:

[sc4r]

Please try and understand the following: I've said it about 10 times to you, sometimes poliutely and sometimes not :

I am not so foolish as to believe that any argument I present, no matter how objectively valid, is going to about face your beliefs. This does not mean that the argument actually is invalid*, it means you cant/wont accept it. If one argues with rabid Capitalists/ conservatives one meets the same very silly idea that if one cant convince them that they are wrong then they are right. It is not so.

Most of the time when I critice your view of what could work there actually is built into that criticism an explanation of my own views. If there were not such 'luminaries' as yourself would have a hard time explaining even to their own satisfacytion how I could be called a 'reformist, and imperialist etc.

But there is lots and lots of very specific statements of my own views scattered arounf this forum; probably far more of mine than of yours, anyway. That you have not seen it is of no particular concern to me and most assuredly does not mean that I have to rewrite and represent it every time some new self obsessed opponet appears.

The point chummy is that we are not here in this thread discusing my beliefs; but yours.

Yes mate I do understand the psychological impact of Capitalism. Again I'fd like to remind you that we are not discussing Capitalism, and I am not defending it. We are discussing the practicality or impracticality of Anarchism.

Grow up.

* it does not mean that it is valid either. Its a POV which either convinces many or few on its own merits; I would, of couyrse, like you to accept my POV. But I dont regard it as a particular failure that I have not. Convincing YOU is not my rasion d'etre mate; only your ago makes you think it is.