Anarchism...according to Objectivists

[Don't Change Your Name]

http://solohq.com/Objectivism101/Bloody_An...Anarchism.shtml (http://solohq.com/Objectivism101/Bloody_Anarchism.shtml)

This site is stupid from it's origin and especially concerning they seem to assume that "Anarchism = Anarcho Capitalism"

Basically they hold the idea that "government protects individual rights, therefore government is good", while their whole ideology criticizes government. They claim that it's a situation where "situation where the law is unclear or cannot be enforced", of course forgetting the whole concept of the basic anarchist ideals, and basing this on their dumb objectivist "100% racional, 100% correct" assumption that everything is the way they see it.

Then they close saying that "Anarchism is a call for disorder and injustice, hiding behind a facade of a promotion of freedom. In practice, it is violence and destruction.", thus contributing with this stupid myths.

Honestly, i find this Ayn Rand worshipping, arrogant, irrational, anti-everything, selfish, contradicting libertarian idiots as nothing more than just a bunch of philosophers wannabes.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Then if you check the links you see how they compare fascism and communist, calling North Korea communist, and saying the fascism is a form of communism because you can't use your private property as you want to, which sounds like a stupid argument because of how they defend private property, government's defense of it, and especially if we consider that fascism was the defense people like them had against the increase of "red agitators". Pathetic.

Then their "Communism killed 100 million" list is based on assumptions, which seem contrary to their pseudo-philosophy, and the numbers are exagerated, they consider some governments "communists" while I never heard a leftist speaking well about them. Then they add 13m+ for "other" countries, so it seems someone all of a sudden counted that 13 million died...where? Communist rebels killing people? And they consider that " this chart doesn't include the blood of the Dark Age theocracies with their inquisitions and holy wars.", when those had capitalist-styled principles. Hmm... :rolleyes:

[Individual]

I did not sit down to read that page. However regarding your arguements against anarchism turning capitalist.

This is often the way that I logically think that anarchism would come to. There are no laws, no governing. It is really everyman for himself. Which is what capitalism is. How would you survive, make a living? Sure some unions may form. However there will always be someone that will try and make a quick dollar by himself.

If you really think about it, without denying this because you are hardcore anarchist, anarchy would bring out greed in people. Yes freedoms are nice, however I do not believe anarchy could survive governing masses of people. Capitalism would arise, chaos would arise, and nobody could do anything about it for there is no government. Over time things would escalate and get worse.

Disagree if you must, just try and think about it.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:35 PM
This is often the way that I logically think that anarchism would come to. There are no laws, no governing.
Who said there weren't laws? There are no IMPOSED laws, it's not the same. And people will govern, but nobody will govern over you.


It is really everyman for himself.

No it's not. Otherwise how could the revolution be possible, eh?


However there will always be someone that will try and make a quick dollar by himself.

Collective property over the means of production...that means nobody can go around taking profits unless the rest of the people allows them


If you really think about it, without denying this because you are hardcore anarchist, anarchy would bring out greed in people. Yes freedoms are nice, however I do not believe anarchy could survive governing masses of people. Capitalism would arise, chaos would arise, and nobody could do anything about it for there is no government. Over time things would escalate and get worse.

Disagree if you must, just try and think about it.

You're just assuming that all of a sudden sombody will delete the state. That's impossible.

[Individual]

How is that impossible?

Human nature brings out greed. Survival of the Fittest. Sure people might like anarchism in the beginning, maybe even for a few years. However I strongly believe that someone would branch out and try and rise to the top. Look back in history, has there ever been a society that hasn't somewhat had someone in a leading position?


It is really everyman for himself.


No it's not. Otherwise how could the revolution be possible, eh?

This is exactly why an anarchy revolution would not be possible. You will never be able to get everyone to agree on something. There will always be atleast one man that goes against the grain. Sure people could over throw this one man. However what happens when someone already has a plan to go along with the revolution, then when anarchy officially took over, this one man didn't rise up. Imagine if it were more than one man.

I can see a possible positive of anarchy, I just don't think it would work in a long term state. Human nature/instinct would take over at some point.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:32 PM
How is that impossible?

Human nature brings out greed. Survival of the Fittest. Sure people might like anarchism in the beginning, maybe even for a few years. However I strongly believe that someone would branch out and try and rise to the top. Look back in history, has there ever been a society that hasn't somewhat had someone in a leading position?
Nothing lasts forever. Even if such a situation will happen, however, those leaders won't have anything to support their leadership. Leaders can xist but they won't have power over others.And they will have to gain massive support. And my point is that the whole thing will be a revolution, not a sudden change where a drunk president abolishes the state or something like that.


This is exactly why an anarchy revolution would not be possible. You will never be able to get everyone to agree on something. There will always be atleast one man that goes against the grain. Sure people could over throw this one man. However what happens when someone already has a plan to go along with the revolution, then when anarchy officially took over, this one man didn't rise up. Imagine if it were more than one man.

Anarchism doesn't require all the people to support the cause. And such a thing can happen in every revolution. People would have already risen up by then so their "rise up" will possibly be trying to bring back a capitalist system.


I can see a possible positive of anarchy, I just don't think it would work in a long term state. Human nature/instinct would take over at some point.

Instinct? Human nature? How can you prove greed is a universal attitude in every human?And why does greed always needs to be about money or power? And I don't really see how greed would be useful...

[Individual]

Nothing lasts forever. Even if such a situation will happen, however, those leaders won't have anything to support their leadership

Sure nothing may last forever. However if you support anarchy, wouldn't you think it is strong enough to stay in place for a good while?

How can you say that there will be nobody to support them? What if problems do arise, because there hasn't been anarchy to study, and someone preaches to bring good things to society and develops a following. A leader would be born.


And my point is that the whole thing will be a revolution,

Obviously it will begin as a revolution. Most things do. No matter how long the 'change over' is, what is to say that eventually a problem will not arise and chaos strikes.

What does your society do when another nation/state that doesn't support anarchy declares war on you? Is their military/defense to defend you? If so, how do you have order in the military? If their is a military, what is to say that the military will not start governing the people.

There must be a military, so how will your anarchist state deal with the laws that must be around the military. (i.e. enrollment, conduct, guidelines)


There are no IMPOSED laws

What are you to do with no Imposed laws? What do you do with someone against the revolution who decides to start mass murdering people? Let him be? No that won't work. Jail him? No, because that requires real laws and a judicial system. Kill the man? Would it then be Ok to start killing off anyone that causes harm?


Instinct? Human nature? How can you prove greed is a universal attitude in every human?

Do all bears hybernate in the winter? Do all birds fly South for the winter? No there are always ones that do not. Yet hybernating and flying South are instincts, yet not all follow them.

Look back in history It may not be in all humans, but it is an instinct. Survival of the fittest. I never said it was a good thing, but it is true. Again, look back throughout history.

And why does greed always needs to be about money or power? And I don't really see how greed would be useful...

I never said it had to be. However most greed is about money and power. The greed may not start there, but that is where it will finish.

HaHa.. of course greed would not be useful in an anarchist state. My point is that what happens when someone becomes greedy? It's gonna happen. Unless your anarchist state only has a few people (rigghht) and they are loyal enough to not become greedy.

My point with this whole arguement is that there are hundreds of ways anarchy would fail, just off the top of my head. Anarchy could be easily overthrown. Anarchy would mostl likely have a horrible economy. Anarchy could not last without set guidelines. Anarchy would need a judicial system (yes, however you may argue, crime will go on). Anarchy would have to start off with someone/thing guiding it along towards a true anarchist state, what is to same that someone/thing would go away. Or are the people going to figure out how to run the society all togethor? You get my point with my arguements...

To anybody who's got me mixed up:

Remember, Anarchy is spelled: A, n, a, r, c, h, y Communism is spelled: C, o, m, m, u, n, i, s, m

See the difference?

[SonofRage]

wow...what a ridiculous site

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:04 PM
Sure nothing may last forever. However if you support anarchy, wouldn't you think it is strong enough to stay in place for a good while?
Yes it is. My point is that you can't just say that it "won't work" because it won't last forever.


How can you say that there will be nobody to support them? What if problems do arise, because there hasn't been anarchy to study, and someone preaches to bring good things to society and develops a following. A leader would be born.

I said nothing, not nobody. Such a thing could happen, however it won't be inmediately after a revolution, and the situation would require a change (for example if there is a huge crisis), and some idiot could appear with well-studied propaganda to claim he is "the saviour". However i don't think such a thing is likely to happen, people won't be so stupid as to do such a revolution and then forget completely about it and accept a new leader.


What does your society do when another nation/state that doesn't support anarchy declares war on you? Is their military/defense to defend you? If so, how do you have order in the military? If their is a military, what is to say that the military will not start governing the people.

There must be a military, so how will your anarchist state deal with the laws that must be around the military. (i.e. enrollment, conduct, guidelines)

Good point. Let's say that the anarchist nation has a Workers Army. That could be enough as to defend itself from an invasion. Some equipment would be also needed (to take down enemy planes before they nuke the whole "nation"). Every army can easily take power in any country, in fact they did so thousands of times (especially here in Argentina), so what guarantees that having a state will stop that? Those who are allowed to be in the Workers Army should be strictly controlled by the whole society and each of them must be allowed by the people to be part of the Army. Concerning the system they must use, they should democratically pick leaders, they should be anarchists, it's voluntary, and they must follow what is established by people decides when they gather, otherwise they will be removed and people can go and take arms if necessary before it becomes a threat. Another solution is giving every "sane" person a gun, that way nobody will shoot each other because of the fear of this becoming a massacre, and this way people would be protected from Army's betrayals and any imperialist attack. But all this should be decided by the people.


What are you to do with no Imposed laws? What do you do with someone against the revolution who decides to start mass murdering people? Let him be? No that won't work. Jail him? No, because that requires real laws and a judicial system. Kill the man? Would it then be Ok to start killing off anyone that causes harm?

This means that to leave in a certain area you must accept the rules established by it's people or they can make you get the fuck out, or then you can be taken to a rehabilitation center where they isolate you? But as I said this is decided by the people, not by theorists. And there will be judicial systems because crimes always happen.


Do all bears hybernate in the winter? Do all birds fly South for the winter? No there are always ones that do not. Yet hybernating and flying South are instincts, yet not all follow them.

Look back in history It may not be in all humans, but it is an instinct. Survival of the fittest. I never said it was a good thing, but it is true. Again, look back throughout history.

Survival of the fittest is not the same as greed. And being greedy doesn't guarantee survival, and doesnt guarantee that you will reproduce and let your specie spread.


I never said it had to be. However most greed is about money and power. The greed may not start there, but that is where it will finish.

HaHa.. of course greed would not be useful in an anarchist state. My point is that what happens when someone becomes greedy? It's gonna happen. Unless your anarchist state only has a few people (rigghht) and they are loyal enough to not become greedy.

Well that depends on how the greedy affects the rest. Will he try to steal what the rest of the people has? I doubt so. Will it affect other people's survival? Well then the people will have to take measures against this person.


My point with this whole arguement is that there are hundreds of ways anarchy would fail, just off the top of my head. Anarchy could be easily overthrown. Anarchy would mostl likely have a horrible economy. Anarchy could not last without set guidelines. Anarchy would need a judicial system (yes, however you may argue, crime will go on). Anarchy would have to start off with someone/thing guiding it along towards a true anarchist state, what is to same that someone/thing would go away. Or are the people going to figure out how to run the society all togethor?

Horrible economy? I don't think so. As there won't be such a bureaucratic system as those "communist" governments that have existed, you will just have to call someone asking for a certain resource, then ask another one to take it were you want it to go, and that's it. It will be more efficient. People will produce things otherwise those who produce food, seeing that anothers are lazy, won't feed them and they will starve. Judicial systems don't really go against Anarchism. Anarchy won't be "easily overthrown" because of the characteristics of the system, and how it was accepted by society. Power will be federated into different areas, each with its own government system and then there will also be a bigger assembly for discussing things that involve more communes.

Anyway, ti's weird to discuss this in this forum

[Individual]

Someone please (Mod, Admin) move this thread into politics/theory? This is a good topic that need be discussed.

Just finished reading your post Infiltrado. Seems like some good points. Grabbing something to eat. Will respond in a bit.

[redstar2000]

Human nature brings out greed. Survival of the Fittest. Sure people might like anarchism in the beginning, maybe even for a few years. However I strongly believe that someone would branch out and try and rise to the top. Look back in history, has there ever been a society that hasn't somewhat had someone in a leading position?

Has there ever been a society where people generally agreed that "someone rising to the top" was a really bad idea?

Then consider the purpose of "greed". Is it not, first of all, to provide security against misfortune?

Since basic necessities will be free to all for the asking, the primary motive for greed won't exist.

But what about status? Under capitalism, you "are" what you "buy" -- the more wealth you can display for everyone to see, the more "real" you are...to yourself and others.

What good is that under communism? There's no money. If you want a luxury good, you'll either have to make it yourself or persuade someone that it will be fun to make it for you.

A highly-skilled musician might convince an equally highly-skilled instrument maker to make her a new instrument. Both will be "repaid" by the beauty of the music that the new instrument produces.

That's "luxury" production under communism.

As to century-old clichés about "survival of the fittest", there's little point in even raising such obsolete arguments here...or anywhere.

Any genuinely reputable scientist will tell you that, at the present time, we really don't have a very good understanding of "human nature" at all.

Certainly not sufficient as to say that "this" or "that" form of human society is potentially viable or non-viable.

We just don't know. (And those who pretend to "know" in order to advance their economic agendas are simply beneath contempt.)


My point with this whole argument is that there are hundreds of ways anarchy would fail, just off the top of my head.

I think that's your difficulty...thinking "off the top" of your head. Did you actually read the threads about anarchism at the top of this page? Anarchists have done a lot of thinking about how some of their proposed societies might work...and work successfully.

That's not to suggest that there are or will be no problems or that useful criticisms cannot be raised.

But you really can't just "drop in" here and flail about with clichés about "human nature" and hypothetical situations which make no sense...and be expected to be taken seriously.

That's not how things work here.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Individual]

Yes, and I thank you Redstar..

One, for moving the thread as I requested

Two, for insulting my intelligence

Besides this. I will now spend the next while researching for something that shall suit your tastes and disregard my cliches.

I shall agree that scientists are now questioning their hypothesis' on certain(if not many) theories.

Although however much 'survival of the fittest' may be a cliche and may not be correct. On the reverse, can they prove it incorrect. So I appreciate the arguement, however you can not positively argue on either side, nor can I.

I am no expert on anarchism. However I learn everyday, which is my dream for life. I am always open for something new. So I have presented some of my thoughts on anarchism, and I will not deny the fact that I do not know it all. The only thing I ever ask of anyone, whether knowledge on either side is greater, that if I be open, that you open your mind also.

I'm sure that both of you are willing to be open and listen, as well as I on this subject of anarchism.

So shall we procide.

Let the games begin.

[The Feral Underclass]

AlwaysQuestion


However if you support anarchy, wouldn't you think it is strong enough to stay in place for a good while?

Yes!


What if problems do arise, because there hasn't been anarchy to study,
...Obviously it will begin as a revolution. Most things do. No matter how long the 'change over' is, what is to say that eventually a problem will not arise and chaos strikes.

A change of society in this magnitude requires a prerequisite of understanding. Otherwise the change wouldn’t be able to happen.

Anarchism is a social philosophy, which claims certain things about how to organize and why those methods of organization are preferable to the status quo.

Human beings have a brain. This brain grows bigger and bigger as one gets older. The brain begins to interpret understandings about certain things. For the majority that understands is simply a question of survival. They go to school, the get a job, they pay their taxes and then they die. That is the social understanding that has been reality for the past hundreds of years. To believe this and to accept it is as natural as breathing. It simply exists and that is how we are supposed to live. However, this understanding isn’t a finite thing. It doesn’t exist like your computer screen exists now. It is an idea, a concept, of no material substance and attached to nothing.

Ideas and concepts change. They are challenged. New understandings and realities are accepted. This has been proven throughout history. Anarchism is simply another understanding. It's a concept, which challenges the old order and substitutes it with a new, rational and progressive concept. A concept which we all desire and we all want.

You say "what if problems arise." I am sure there will be thousands of problems of gigantic proportion. It is how you deal with them, which is the question you are really asking. You presume that the only concept and understanding that could solve these problems is by using a government, rules and laws with people to enforce them. The concept and understanding, which would see people working in co-operation with each other, who are passionate and willing simply just cannot be comprehended.

I understand anarchism. I understand what is needed of me. So can you. So can everyone. Once that understanding has been reached. As soon as people understand the concept of working in co-operation with each other for the benefit of all the use of laws and rules and those to enforce them become irrelevant. We would just deal them. Together!


What does your society do when another nation/state that doesn't support anarchy declares war on you? Is their military/defense to defend you? If so, how do you have order in the military? If there is a military, what is to say that the military will not start governing the people.

"Lost without a Shepard." I anticipate that when social unrest does begin it will not be isolated in once country. As soon as capitalism falls in one country the nature of the system we have now will mean it will be damaged in other countries. A revolution will only come about after years of popular unrest. Be it forums through out the country, national newspapers getting more and more radical. Demonstrations and riots. These things grow over time as understanding of new concepts develops.

During a revolutionary situation there will be soldiers and police officers that also understand these concepts and join in the struggle. These men and women will have an indispensable knowledge of how to fight militarily. They will be able to advise workers militias on defensive and attacking situations.

You assume that because an army has a hierarchy it is more efficient. This isn’t the case. Any organization, which has commitment and passion, is efficient. It is humans that make organization efficient, not structure. If we were attacked from outside the country then if would simply be a question of organizing a defense in co-operation with the rest of the country.


There must be a military, so how will your anarchist state deal with the laws that must be around the military. (i.e. enrollment, conduct, guidelines)

Anarchist and state is an oxymoron. They are fundamentally opposed to each other. A military may exist for the first few years, maybe longer, who knows. But it would not be a military in the sense that you think it. Defence would be made up of workers who have volunteered to defend this new society and it would simply be groups of men and women working together. Maybe one or two of these groups has a former soldier or police officer who advises the group. The difference is there is no one who has control of power over another. No one will have the authority to dictate to a member of the group how they should live. These groups would work in co-operation with each other across the country.


What are you to do with no Imposed laws? What do you do with someone against the revolution who decides to start mass murdering people? Let him be? No that won't work. Jail him? No, because that requires real laws and a judicial system. Kill the man? Would it then be Ok to start killing off anyone that causes harm?

Those who activly organize against a workers revolution will be dealt with however it comes about. If a police chief in Birmingham decided to slaughter thousands of workers families because their husbands and wives or brothers and sisters were active fighters then that of course would not do. In my opinion these men deserve to die. Just because there are no laws, does not mean that we want mass murderers and rapists to go unchecked. These people will be dealt with however a community sees fit.

Of course it is not acceptable to go around killing people who disagree with you. Of course there maybe me many other left revolutionary organizations which have different ways of organizing but are working along side each other to achieve workers liberation. The problem that will arise is the difference in how to achieve it. It is perfectly possible for an anarchist and Leninist group to work together, providing their choice of organization wasn’t imposed on the working class or on society in general. People who didn’t agree with the revolution but kept to themselves (and were in a minority) would also be harmless. It is when they actively organize against the interests of the working class as a majority which then creates problems.


Do all bears hybernate in the winter? Do all birds fly South for the winter? No there are always ones that do not. Yet hybernating and flying South are instincts, yet not all follow them.

It goes back to the question of consciousness. Why would people understand something, fight for it and then turn their back on it. You talk about greed etc as if they were genetic. I think this is a attempt to rationalize something which you find difficult to comprehend. Greed is merely a concept, enforced and legalized by the system we live under.


Look back in history It may not be in all humans, but it is an instinct. Survival of the fittest. I never said it was a good thing, but it is true. Again, look back throughout history.

But we have a brain. He have a mind and we can understand things. When the first civilizations sprung up around the world they did not suddenly know how to live. The ideas and technology developed over time. It was inevitable that human consciousness developed the way it did. How else could it have developed. Throughout history it has been acceptable to cut someone’s head off if the committed a crime. It was normal to burn witches. History changes. We can learn and understand things. We have done, throughout history. Just because human nature turned out greedy does not mean it is a finite thing that we can never change. Change comes from within you. If you decide not be greedy then you can work to stop it. If you decide not to force people to sell their labour then you can stop doing it. Just as I can decide not to type this message to you and stop doing it. Your few is narrow and short sighted. You see something and presume that this is simply it, there is not room for improvement.


And why does greed always needs to be about money or power? And I don't really see how greed would be useful...

I don’t really understand this, please explain.


My point with this whole arguement is that there are hundreds of ways anarchy would fail, just off the top of my head.

With all due respect you don’t seem to know very much about it, so this assertion is useless.


Anarchy could be easily overthrown. Anarchy would mostl likely have a horrible economy. Anarchy could not last without set guidelines. Anarchy would need a judicial system (yes, however you may argue, crime will go on). Anarchy would have to start off with someone/thing guiding it along towards a true anarchist state, what is to same that someone/thing would go away. Or are the people going to figure out how to run the society all togethor? You get my point with my arguements...

No not really! None of these things are worth anything. They are the usually misconceptions thrown out by people who haven’t got the first clue about anarchism. What would be useful if you do want to learn is to be more specific about what problems you see with anarchism. Why would it have a bad economy? Why would crime go on? Why would crime not be able to defend itself?


Remember, Anarchy is spelled: A, n, a, r, c, h, y Communism is spelled: C, o, m, m, u, n, i, s, m

See the difference?

I know what the difference is. Do you? I don’t understand your point. Please explain?