Anarchism

[John Galt]

In a communist anarchy

1) Who stops criminals
2) How are these criminals sentenced
3) Who decides what is a criminal
4) Who makes sure nobody gains too much power
5) Who puts out fires
6) What stops people from stealing goods from others
7) What places restrictions of "businesses" (environmental and work conditions)


I think thats enough to start.

[Iepilei]

There is a difference between Anarchism and Anarchy (as a state).

[Y2A]

And another thing. Communism is a stateless, classless society correct? So what then are the differences between Communism and Anarchism?


Anarchy (as a state).

Uhhhhh isn't the entire concept of Anarchy that there is no state?

[Individual]

Ahh yes. Thank you JGalt for bringing up a topic beginning with questioning anarchy.

8/ who deals with foreign affairs
9/ are there government agencies (Intelligence, Internal Affairs, advisors, etc)
10/ are there written laws
11/ if there are no laws, how do you deal with crime, poverty, expenditure, monopolies, etc.
12/ If there is no leader, does everyone just come up with/start the revolution
13/ How do you deal with greed/capitalism
14/ (relating to Galt's #6) If nobody has "possesions"/"ownership", how do you stop people from saying "well this is my house, get out, my gun is bigger"
15/ What controls trade, is there free trade
16/ Is there a military
17/ If so, what are rules guidelines surrounding military (conduct, enrollment, etc)
18/ Somebody must have a leading role in a militaristic force (otherwise, there is no conduct, everyone just fights enemies as they please? This state would diminish quickly) Who will it be, and how?
19/ If you agree to anything on this list and support anarchism, there certainly must be an election for something, but there are no leaders?

List could go on and on.

Would like to hear logical responses to either mine or Galt's questions.

[JasonR]

1) Who stops criminals

A court made up of toilers

2) How are these criminals sentenced

See a above

3) Who decides what is a criminal

See above.

4) Who makes sure nobody gains too much power

i believe that under communism, the state is replaced with local comissions. That is the main diff between anarchism and communism.

[Iepilei]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:59 PM
Uhhhhh isn't the entire concept of Anarchy that there is no state?
I'm talking about state as in "having the properties of" not as the physical "goverment" state.

A state of anarchy is lawlessness, chaos, etc. Anarchism is a social-derived form of "communal" existance. I'm not sure, exactly how it works - as I'm not anarchist (or anarcho-syndicalist) myself. However, I do recognise the differences between the standard definition of anarchy and anarchism (as a practice).

[Y2A]

Even Chomsky doesn't know how it will work.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/961...-anarchism.html (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html)

7. Depict, if you can, how an ideal anarchist society would function day-to-day. What sorts of economic and political institutions would exist, and how would they function? Would we have money? Would we shop in stores? Would we own our own homes? Would we have laws? How would we prevent crime?

Chomsky: I wouldn't dream of trying to do this. These are matters about which we have to learn, by struggle and experiment

Edit: Telum if Chomsky doesn't even know, these guys sure as hell won't.

[Adamore]

in an Anarco-communist community every thing is public property but only if u cotribute to the betterment of the scocity
and dont say stuff like " if there are no laws, how do you deal with crime, poverty, expenditure, monopolies, etc.'' because if u only contribute to the better ment of scocity
then there is no crime and no poverty because every thing will be provided by the community, hence the name ''communist''

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:30 PM
in an Anarco-communist community every thing is public property but only if u cotribute to the betterment of the scocity
and dont say stuff like " if there are no laws, how do you deal with crime, poverty, expenditure, monopolies, etc.'' because if u only contribute to the better ment of scocity
then there is no crime and no poverty because every thing will be provided by the community, hence the name ''communist''
You see, what you just said, is completely retarded. Face it there will always be crime in any society. To say there won't is to hide from the truth.

[Adamore]

no its not retarded if every has every thing they want at their disposal then there will br no need for some one to steal but murders on the other hand in a communist city everyone gets pissed off and should all the people for the better ment of scocity will get to gether anf fond the person responsible for the hanus act and kill him woth out question in public in the same manor the victim was killed end of problem and the education system plays an important role in this also to teach the children good morals and to only do for the betterment of scocity as a whole or their life will be shitty just like our lives are now

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:54 PM
no its not retarded if every has every thing they want at their disposal then there will br no need for some one to steal but murders on the other hand in a communist city everyone gets pissed off and should all the people for the better ment of scocity will get to gether anf fond the person responsible for the hanus act and kill him woth out question in public in the same manor the victim was killed end of problem and the education system plays an important role in this also to teach the children good morals and to only do for the betterment of scocity as a whole or their life will be shitty just like our lives are now
So we are to assume that all crime will be eliminated? You are supporting a global revolution based on assumptions! :rolleyes:

[j.guevara]

I think those questions would be left up to communites through a direct democratic decision making process. Alot of laws would become useless after a social revolution. Just cuase theirs no government doesnt mean there wouldnt be fire fighters. Anarchy would require a higher level of organization and community involvement.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 12:20 AM
I think those questions would be left up to communites through a direct democratic decision making process. Alot of laws would become useless after a social revolution. Just cuase theirs no government doesnt mean there wouldnt be fire fighters.
Who is responsible for their training, their mainence, their oversight, etc?

[j.guevara]

They themselves would be responsible. They know how now. Why would that change if their was no government. They would understand how important they are and they would maintain themselves. Just cause their isnt some type of hierarchy in charge doesnt mean they would fall apart. I think you take "anarchy" to mean chaos.

[Individual]

no its not retarded if every has every thing they want at their disposal then there will br no need for some one to steal but murders on the other hand in a communist city everyone gets pissed off and should all the people for the better ment of scocity will get to gether anf fond the person responsible for the hanus act and kill him woth out question in public in the same manor the victim was killed end of problem and the education system plays an important role in this also to teach the children good morals and to only do for the betterment of scocity as a whole or their life will be shitty just like our lives are now

For one, am I supposed to understand that? It's called grammar. (periods, commas, end of sentences)

For two, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Even with everything public property. You think crime just goes away because? You think every single person in this 'anarchist state' is 100% for anarchy? Not everyone in the revolution will be for it, so not everyone will contribute. Come back to reality here. You sound like a 'Miss America', asking for World Peace and thinking that what you say makes a difference.

To the rest of you defending this. Instead of coming up with answers for 1, 2, 3, or 4 questions. If it is going to work, you should have answers for all of the questions. Not "well of course there will be firefighters" or "see above". That kind of b/s does not justify anything in my mind. Come up with something logical here.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 01:03 AM
They themselves would be responsible. They know how now. Why would that change if their was no government. They would understand how important they are and they would maintain themselves. Just cause their isnt some type of hierarchy in charge doesnt mean they would fall apart. I think you take "anarchy" to mean chaos.
Really?


And what stops them from taking all the best equipment, which is in short supply and needed most in big cities?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 01:03 AM
I think you take "anarchy" to mean chaos.
Its actually defined to be such


anarchy

n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness]

[LSD]

1) Who stops criminals

Clarify.

We're talking about small communist communities, therefore there will be less crime. Crimes of passion will still happen, of course, but crimes of poverty, desperation, or social inequity will no longer occur.

But what do you mean by "stop"?


2) How are these criminals sentenced

Courts will be set up to sentence criminals.


3) Who decides what is a criminal

The people will decide on designations.


4) Who makes sure nobody gains too much power

Clarify.

There are no politics and hence no political power.
There are no economics and hence no economic power.

If someone is hoarding resources or trying to raise an army, he would be stopped by the people because it is against their interest for someone to be "too powerfull".


5) Who puts out fires

firefighters.


6) What stops people from stealing goods from others

There are no personal property, only use rights. This means if I'm using something...you can't.

But, everyone is equal in this society and therebey there is no motivation to steal.


7) What places restrictions of "businesses" (environmental and work conditions)

The workers would regulate themselves.


8/ who deals with foreign affairs

Clarify.


9/ are there government agencies (Intelligence, Internal Affairs, advisors, etc)

....no.......mostly.

Certain functions carried out by "government agencies" today (e.g., fire fighting, crime investigation, public works construction) would be done in society, but as there is no government, there are no agencies.


10/ are there written laws

Yes, but very maliable laws which can be organized and modified by the people themselves.


11/ if there are no laws, how do you deal with crime, poverty, expenditure, monopolies, etc.

N/A


12/ If there is no leader, does everyone just come up with/start the revolution

Actually, revolutions tend to happen like that anyway....

besides, we're not talking about the revolution, we're talking about life after the revolution.


13/ How do you deal with greed/capitalism

You don't allow it.

The Leninist view that you have to "enforce" communism is ludicrous, if there is no currency and no private property, who gives a damn if someone is dreaming about capitalism.


14/ (relating to Galt's #6) If nobody has "possesions"/"ownership", how do you stop people from saying "well this is my house, get out, my gun is bigger"

Use rights.


15/ What controls trade, is there free trade

No trade.


16/ Is there a military

no.


17/ If so, what are rules guidelines surrounding military (conduct, enrollment, etc)

N/A


18/ Somebody must have a leading role in a militaristic force (otherwise, there is no conduct, everyone just fights enemies as they please? This state would diminish quickly) Who will it be, and how?

N/A


Really?


And what stops them from taking all the best equipment, which is in short supply and needed most in big cities?

um....why? To Play With?

[John Galt]

So basically your system depends on humans behaving nicely?



And what happens when there is a shortfall of goods and not everyone can have them?

[LSD]

Its actually defined to be such


anarchy

n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness]

Read the second definition:

b. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder).


So basically your system depends on humans behaving nicely?

Not at all.


And what happens when there is a shortfall of goods and not everyone can have them?

If there is a "shortfall" on goods, everyone will share what is available.

Maybe, the collective needs to look for new sources, or, in the worst case, resources may have to be imported from other collectives which have a surplus in the needed area.

[Osman Ghazi]

According to Lenin (if you can really trust anything he says about anarchism to be true, that is) the main difference between communism and anarchism is that communists have a scientific (sort of) method to implement communism whereas anarchy is supposed to just happen out of a revolution like in Barcelona in '36.
Non-Sequitar: Has anyone read Orwell's Barcelona in '36?

Anyway, firefighters would most likely not be full-time but volunteer as you had in most countries until the last 50 years or so.

Galt: Lo and Behold, a word can have more than one meaning. Anarchy in the political sense is not chaos.
Besides, if you wanted to get technical, it comes from Greek: an (without) archos (masters) = a society without masters.

As for the other things, LSD had already beat me to it. :D

[John Galt]

I am not talking about a communal shortage.

I am talking famine, or medicine for plague.


What happens when you have enough cure for 50 million people, and there are 500 million with the plague?

[LSD]

I am not talking about a communal shortage.

I am talking famine, or medicine for plague.


What happens when you have enough cure for 50 million people, and there are 500 million with the plague?

Well....make more.

If you can make 50, you can make 500, it's just a matter of time.


While waiting give out the cure to those most in need of it, i.e., those who are the sickest get treated first and so forth. It's how they do in civilized countries today (you know, the ones that aren't the US, the ones that actuall treat the sick).

[shintso]

We're talking about small communist communities, therefore there will be less crime. Crimes of passion will still happen, of course, but crimes of poverty, desperation, or social inequity will no longer occur.
you'd be supprised to know how many crimes are originated in upper and middle classes of society. what are crimes of poverty, a man stealing a loaf of bread? thats understandable. but how about two business rivels offing each other for money?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 13 2004, 01:59 AM
If you can make 50, you can make 500, it's just a matter of time.


What if you cant make more?


Lets say its a famine instead of plague?

[Osman Ghazi]

Galt: Are you aware of how much food this planet is capable of producing? What makes you think that they couldn't get it from another area?

Shinsto: There wouldn't be a middle class and there wouldn't be business rivals. Problem solved.

[Individual]

To start off:

For one, none of you can say what will happen for sure. If you want your society to run smoothly, you better theorize on effects, and consequences of actions, whether they happen or not. There has been no modern anarchist state that is sizable enough to study for a large populous use. Therefore you can not just predict that all people will abide by rules and behave in support of fellow men. You must, if you actually think that a state of this nature would succeed, plan ahead and think of the things that could happen, instead of just stating "everyone will share what is available" or that everyone will help their fellow man. This is bogus.


We're talking about small communist communities, therefore there will be less crime

So you have no plan for the spread of this 'anarchist' state? It will just stay in one community, that is small? What happens when more revolt from their government, and become part of your anarchist state. Then think about dealing with crime.


But what do you mean by "stop"?

Come on, what do you think he means? As in, a police force. Who deals with criminals? Who solves crime? Oh I'm sorry, it will be perfect, there will be no crime because it will be 'small'.


Courts will be set up to sentence criminals.

There are no politics and hence no political power.

Those two sentences don't mix. How do you have a judicial system with no government. Sure you may just have a jury, but you think this will always be equal. There will be no equal rights without a proper judicial system. And how do you have a correct judicial system without a government?


he would be stopped by the people because it is against their interest for someone to be "too powerfull".

What is to say this guy does not live out in the boonies, where nobody is there to stop him? Or what about a guy that does not agree with this anarchist state, and he has an arsenal of weapons, and a small following. What do you do when this man and his following decide to keep resources to themselves? Do you just kill them? What kind of utopia is that?


everyone is equal in this society and therebey there is no motivation to steal.

What is to say everyone agrees with this anarchy? So your telling me everyone drives the exact same car? Has the exact same radio? Has the exact same house? Has the exact same daughter? There will be motivation to steal, humans don't just change everything.


The workers would regulate themselves.

What if I decide not to regulate myself, what do you do with me? What if 5 of my friends are with me, what do you do with all of us?


8/ who deals with foreign affairs

Clarify.

As in who deals with your neighboring states/nations? You don't want war do you? You want peace with your neighbor. Who deals with them? Oh the people do it. Well what if one guy tells this 'neighbor' one thing, while the other guy tells 'this neighbor' another thing. Also, with modern society, you would need to ocmmunicate with 'the world' in order to keep your state current.


we're talking about life after the revolution

The revolution will be a huge part though. It will be a time that will be needed to try and bring as many people's views in line with your anarchist view. This will be a time of coming togethor, and a time of many lashing out against your views.


if there is no currency and no private property, who gives a damn if someone is dreaming about capitalism

who gives a damn if someone decides to take over the only cow pasture in town? Who gives a damn if someone takes over the only water supply in town? Oh but you think it won't be done because everyone is Utopian and equal? Welcome to reality, theorize over these circumstances.


14/ (relating to Galt's #6) If nobody has "possesions"/"ownership", how do you stop people from saying "well this is my house, get out, my gun is bigger"

Use rights.

As huge a question as this, and you say 'use rights'? As you might say clarify. Use what kind of rights? The rights to take it back? Ok, did you forget the part about the 'big gun'?


No trade.

No trade? What happens if you run out of resources, such as fossil fuel? Water? Parts of a balanced nutrition? You can't expect everyone to eat the same thing. Raw materials? What will happen? You just give up, because there is no trade?


Don't get me wrong, an anarchist state sounds very 'equal' and 'utopian'. Don't think I despise anarchism. It is just not a realistic form of living. In modern day, your society would not survive. Extreme problems would arise.

[shintso]

Galt: Are you aware of how much food this planet is capable of producing? What makes you think that they couldn't get it from another area?
youre correct about the food part. western societies through away more food than the amount they actually consume.

as for no no business rivels. no business rivels means no technological progress.... take a look at history before the 19th - 20th century.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 13 2004, 02:14 AM
Galt: Are you aware of how much food this planet is capable of producing? What makes you think that they couldn't get it from another area?

Plenty of things could happen


Volcanic Eruption(see: year without a summer), meteor impact, el nino, bad weather(see: dust bowl), flooding(global warming, if true), or just a few badly timed frosts.

[John Galt]

And now, I dont know how much food this planet can produce. Can you give me some research on that?

[Individual]

you know, the ones that aren't the US, the ones that actuall treat the sick

Are you serious? I despise the US in many ways. But God(wait, no god) help me if that is not the only reason I enjoy living in this country. If I were to become deathly ill tomorrow, I would have surgeons and the medicine needed to help me live.

Now goto Ethiopia, Thailand, Mexico, Afghanistan. Do you think they are as prepared and supplied to support sick and dying people? Like I said, it sickens me to live in this country, and what we stand for. However that is one thing I am greatful for, despite the cost. It can be done.

[Individual]

Are you aware of how much food this planet is capable of producing? What makes you think that they couldn't get it from another area?

Other areas? With no trade, and no money, how exactly do you plan on getting this food? Beg? Say, "ohh, but we are all equal, now just because you aren't an anarchist state like us, doesnt mean you shouldn't SHARE DAMNIT!"

Other countries will laugh their 'backside's' off while you ask for food with nothing to offer but the shoes on your feet. Again, there is no trade as LythergicAcid tells me. So there ya go, one of you haven't thought to clearly on the subject.

[shintso]

you know, the ones that aren't the US, the ones that actuall treat the sick

you know what we do in israel to our severelly illed. we wrap them up in neat little packedges and send them flying across the altantic ocean, hoping our allies has a cure.

[CorporationsRule]

Human beings have spent most their time on this planet in communal anarchistic societies. It wasn't until the agricultural revolution that power began to accumulate and class systems began to rise. It's just ignorant to say that we don't have any examples of anarchistic societies.

What we have never seen is an industrialized anarchistic society.We won't have a chance to, given the fact that industrialized civilization is about to collapse (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=22221).

As far as "is there a difference between industrialized anarcho-syndicalism and marxist communism?" I would have to say that there is.

They both shoot for the same end product, a decentralized classless society in which all institutions are radically democratic and all "property" is communal, but envision different paths.

Marx's theory was that capitalism would centralize power and control over production, that the workers would then take over the state through it's democratic institutions, take control of the already collectivized and centralized industries and corporations, and then begin to radically democratize all institutions through this democratic centralized state power.

Anarcho-syndicalists feel a radically democratic, classless society will come through union organization and other grassroot democratizing pushes through all institutions, not just through the state.

Simply put, Marxism says take over the head and impose the people's will from there. Anarcho-syndicalism says democratize institutions from within the institutions themselves.

Doesn't really matter. Neither of these will be options, given the fact that we're going down (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=22221).

[John Galt]

What happens when communities come into conflict?


My group of KKK members doesnt like your all-black community. We are gonna lynch yall.

What happens then?

" Human beings have spent most their time on this planet in communal anarchistic societies. It wasn't until the agricultural revolution that power began to accumulate and class systems began to rise. It's just ignorant to say that we don't have any examples of anarchistic societies. "

Human beings have also spent most their lives laboring from dusk till dawn just for food and dying at 30. You can have that, Ill keep my industry.

[Osman Ghazi]

First of all, Question (oops fruedian slip) an 'anarchist state' doesn't make any sense. It just wouldn't work. It would have to be the whole world. Otherwise another state would simply attempt to crush it and steal it's resources. When I said about aquiring it from another region, I assumed you that you saw this as self-evident. Oops.

Anyways, in the world anrachist state, all the guns would be confiscated and the making of more would be prohibited. What would be gained by someone taking other people's stuff? Eventually they would raise a mob and come and take it back.

My main problem with anarchism is it's supposed spontaneity. Anarchists assume that the people will revolt and just decide to be anarchist without anyone paving the way for them.

Not everyone in your country can afford the cost, by the by. Consider yourself lucky.

Galt: I've heard that it is somewhere around 8 billion people at the western level of consumption that can be fed, assuming of course that you use all the arable land and use the best, most productive techniques.

I guess that if there was a worldwide famine there would be real anarchy in the sense of chaos because people who were used to having everything they needed would suddenly starve.

Shintso: Believe it or not, there were technological invetions and innovations befoer the 19th and 20th centuries. Aside from that, have you ever realized that it is scientists and not businessmen making these breakthroughs? Why not just take the businessmen out of the picture and keep the scientists.

Edit: Since the KKK would no doubt support the ts, they would be exterminated with the rest of the reactionaries. Problem solved. ;) Also, I highly doubt that there would be an all-black community. Not next to an all-white one anyway.

[Solace]

How do you have a judicial system with no government. Sure you may just have a jury, but you think this will always be equal. There will be no equal rights without a proper judicial system. And how do you have a correct judicial system without a government

The people will make it. You don’t need a higher authority. You don’t need repressive laws. The people will decide. Any system relying on the government ends up serving the leading class interests.

Actually, I think that the less precise and strict laws with thousands of alineas are, the more proper the justice system would be.

Hell, you don’t judge a system based on how “perfect” it can be! You can’t get something perfectly equal and fair for every single one. We are not saints!


So your telling me everyone drives the exact same car? Has the exact same radio? Has the exact same house?

This is exactly it! Their material belongings do not measure their values as individuals!

[John Galt]

"Anyways, in the world anrachist state, all the guns would be confiscated and the making of more would be prohibited."

Ahh, so this "anarchy" is in fact a facist government?

"
Edit: Since the KKK would no doubt support the ts, they would be exterminated with the rest of the reactionaries. Problem solved. ;) Also, I highly doubt that there would be an all-black community. Not next to an all-white one anyway."

Do you truly believe you could eliminate racism?

[Osman Ghazi]

Ahh, so this "anarchy" is in fact a facist government?


Prohibiting people from having guns is generally a trait attributed to liberals but okay.


Do you truly believe you could eliminate racism?

Yes. Unlike you I believe that humans are essentially good.
Besides racism is a product of environment.
Killing racists seems to me to be the best way to go about it.

[John Galt]

"Yes. Unlike you I believe that humans are essentially good.
Besides racism is a product of environment.
Killing racists seems to me to be the best way to go about it."

Some humans are good. Some are not. Killing racists is just wide open to abuse. How about we kill witches as well?

[Osman Ghazi]

Humans being good or not is entirely a product of their environment. If you give them an environment that stimulates goodness, people will be good. As for killing racists i meant during the revolution, not an instituionalized policy.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 13 2004, 03:14 AM
Humans being good or not is entirely a product of their environment. If you give them an environment that stimulates goodness, people will be good. As for killing racists i meant during the revolution, not an instituionalized policy.
There is scientific evidence for both sides of nature vs nuture


Killing racists: Its still abusable. You can kill anyone you want and say "oh, he was a racist"

[CorporationsRule]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 13 2004, 02:55 AM
I guess that if there was a worldwide famine there would be real anarchy in the sense of chaos because people who were used to having everything they needed would suddenly starve.
Worldwide famine, coming right up!

I direct you to this (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=22221) thread I started.

John Galt: it's outside of the "opppossing ideologies" section, but I still invite you to participate in it. Please read my entire post, then I'd love to har your take.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 03:26 AM
John Galt: it's outside of the "opppossing ideologies" section, but I still invite you to participate in it. Please read my entire post, then I'd love to har your take.
I would if I could, but I am restricted.

[Osman Ghazi]

They still haven't found a good/bad gene and until they do I'm sticking with nurture.

As for killing racists, I think other people would be able to tell if someone was a racist or not. It is objectively knowable.

[LSD]

What if you cant make more?


Lets say its a famine instead of plague?

I already answerd that, you import.




For one, none of you can say what will happen for sure. If you want your society to run smoothly, you better theorize on effects, and consequences of actions, whether they happen or not. There has been no modern anarchist state that is sizable enough to study for a large populous use. Therefore you can not just predict that all people will abide by rules and behave in support of fellow men. You must, if you actually think that a state of this nature would succeed, plan ahead and think of the things that could happen, instead of just stating "everyone will share what is available" or that everyone will help their fellow man. This is bogus.

The idea is that there won't be an "anarchist state with a sizable...population"



So you have no plan for the spread of this 'anarchist' state? It will just stay in one community, that is small? What happens when more revolt from their government, and become part of your anarchist state. Then think about dealing with crime.

You have small seperate collectives


Come on, what do you think he means? As in, a police force. Who deals with criminals? Who solves crime? Oh I'm sorry, it will be perfect, there will be no crime because it will be 'small'.

There will be a group that investigates crims, probably on a rotating basis, definetly publicly accountable.
As to who "deals" with criminals, I already addressed that.


Those two sentences don't mix. How do you have a judicial system with no government. Sure you may just have a jury, but you think this will always be equal. There will be no equal rights without a proper judicial system. And how do you have a correct judicial system without a government?

Define "proper judicial system".

A jury system can indeed function, appeals can still function with a secondary jury, perhaps accused can be send to neighbouring collectives to insure unbias.



What is to say this guy does not live out in the boonies, where nobody is there to stop him? Or what about a guy that does not agree with this anarchist state, and he has an arsenal of weapons, and a small following. What do you do when this man and his following decide to keep resources to themselves? Do you just kill them? What kind of utopia is that?


A man living outside of the collective is no concern of the collective so long a he doesn't challenge the collective,

He cannot use collective resources, but if her wants to build his own house with his own resources and does not harm anyone than that is his right.


What is to say everyone agrees with this anarchy? So your telling me everyone drives the exact same car? Has the exact same radio? Has the exact same house? Has the exact same daughter? There will be motivation to steal, humans don't just change everything.

Well, if they don't "agree" with the system they can leave.

And you'll have to spell out your point....you're worried someone will steal your daughter??


What if I decide not to regulate myself, what do you do with me? What if 5 of my friends are with me, what do you do with all of us?

What?

You mean what if you choose to have unsafe working conditions?
If all of the workers want that, then let them have it I guess.....

(I might be missing your point)


As in who deals with your neighboring states/nations? You don't want war do you? You want peace with your neighbor. Who deals with them? Oh the people do it. Well what if one guy tells this 'neighbor' one thing, while the other guy tells 'this neighbor' another thing. Also, with modern society, you would need to ocmmunicate with 'the world' in order to keep your state current.


The people vote on foreign affairs issue and codify it. They may send someone to "represent" them, but despite what different people may say, there will always be a codified position.


As huge a question as this, and you say 'use rights'? As you might say clarify. Use what kind of rights? The rights to take it back? Ok, did you forget the part about the 'big gun'?


No one owns anything, but if they are using something (e.g., house, car) someone else cannot come in a take it. Regardless of how "big" their gun is, the rest of the collective can stop them. Besides the fact that the guy with the "gun" has a right to use equal to the first guy and so does not really have a motivation to use his "big gun".


No trade? What happens if you run out of resources, such as fossil fuel? Water? Parts of a balanced nutrition? You can't expect everyone to eat the same thing. Raw materials? What will happen? You just give up, because there is no trade?

You import. But you import from a collective with a surplus in that area.

It isn't trade because it isn't in exchange for anything.


Are you serious? I despise the US in many ways. But God(wait, no god) help me if that is not the only reason I enjoy living in this country. If I were to become deathly ill tomorrow, I would have surgeons and the medicine needed to help me live.

Oh yes, if you CAN AFFORD IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know how many do not have "health insurance"????

What kind of twisted country allows people to die because they can't "pay" for the surgery?

[CorporationsRule]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 13 2004, 02:52 AM
Human beings have also spent most their lives laboring from dusk till dawn just for food and dying at 30. You can have that, Ill keep my industry.
Yet another ignorant statement.

The Original Affluent Society (http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm) has been around for a while. Thought it was common knowledge. Guess not. I suggest you read it.

Synopsis: Hunter gathers worked two to three hours a day (with their friends and family).

How many hours did you work today? How was your cubicle?

If you're talking about life after the agricultural revolution, you might be right.Sedintary totalitarian agriculture is extremely labor intensive. Makes you wonder why anybody started doing it in the first place. Most peoples were forced to adopt it at gun point (or the point of whatever weapon was possible at the time that the global monoculture creeped into their neighborhood).

The plight of the average human laborer got progressively worse as society industrialized. Before the progressive union movements at the beginning of the 20th century, American men, women, and children worked incredibly long hours under terrible conditions for absolutely nothing.

You can't give all the credit for bettering this situation to the unions. The pay went up mainly because Henry Ford realized workers would stay on the incredibly boring assembly line if they were paid a little extra, and that this extra pay would simply go straight back into his pocket because they could now afford a car.

In short, you work all day so you can go fishing two weeks out of the year. Hunter-gatherers fished and foraged about two hours a day, then did whatever.

[Individual]

Osman Ghazi:

Your logic is absolute nonsense. How much do you honestly know of an anarchy?

Killing off 'racists' would be nearly impossible. For one, about 50% of your population would be gone. For two, how is this equality, idiot? For three, how do you determine if someone is indeed a racist? This goes back to hanging 'witches' in Salem. Prove someone is racist? I guarentee, when faced with death, that nobody beside extreme Nazi's would admit to being racist. Your logic is insane.


Anyways, in the world anrachist state, all the guns would be confiscated and the making of more would be prohibited."

This defeats the purpose of anarchy. How do you prohibit anything in an anarchist society? What's the word? Freedom maybe? Freedom is the basis of anarchy. How do you take away someone's freedom. No logic.


The people will make it. You don’t need a higher authority. You don’t need repressive laws. The people will decide. Any system relying on the government ends up serving the leading class interests.

Ok. The people will decide. Here is an eventual fault in your society. People will not always agree. With no set guidelines. One day a rapist might be let free because he was nice. However the next day a child that spit on the ground may be executed because he was not liked. This is not a solid, nor realistic way, to have the people run everything without guidelines.


So your telling me everyone drives the exact same car? Has the exact same radio? Has the exact same house?

This is exactly it! Their material belongings do not measure their values as individuals!

You missed my initial point. Something would have to be different. All dogs look the same? What if I want your dog because I am sick of mine. This could arise as a reason for me to steal your dog. (example)

I get that there are no material items. However would you like to live in a society where everyone has the same make and color car. Everyone? What about everyone having the same shape house, color, interior, everything. This takes away from the freedom. This would require laws (banning difference between people), which defeats anarchy. Everyone has the exact same amount of glasses, silverware, bedrooms, etc. What about people with large families (say 7 kids). Families with 2 children must have a house with 7 bedrooms because everything must be equal? Think with logic on these things. You are beginning to get too utopian for a realistic anarchist state.


First of all, Question (oops fruedian slip) an 'anarchist state' doesn't make any sense. It just wouldn't work. It would have to be the whole world. Otherwise another state would simply attempt to crush it and steal it's resources. When I said about aquiring it from another region, I assumed you that you saw this as self-evident. Oops.

I'm sorry smartass, however I don't read minds. Don't get 'smart' with me when you don't present your information. Again. Thinking with logic here.

Considering you did not tell me this would be a World state (I wish you all the luck in the world to spark that revolution). LAD told me this is a small community, you are telling me this is a world state. Don't think you are so brilliant, for I can't read minds, and I was going by what information was actually presented.


My main problem with anarchism is it's supposed spontaneity. Anarchists assume that the people will revolt and just decide to be anarchist without anyone paving the way for them.

Oh wow, now your even coming up with problems on your own. You should now be able to realize where I am coming from. Somebody/group would need to spark the revolution. What is stopping this group from staying in power?


Not everyone in your country can afford the cost, by the by. Consider yourself lucky.

Nobody said I could afford it. However without knowledge of my financial standing, surgeons would do whatever possible to keep myself alive. Insurance would hopefully cover some of the cost. After that I would be paying for it for the rest of my life. However, my point was, that in this country, there is the possibility of help.


It's just ignorant to say that we don't have any examples of anarchistic societies.

So you think we can compare neandrothals to modern day society? Ok? Also, when these anarchist states were in effect. Were they recorded in history? How do we study them? Cave paintings?

Again, people, think with logic here.

[CorporationsRule]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 13 2004, 03:30 AM
I would if I could, but I am restricted.
Here:

Have you really thought about Peak Oil?

All the quotes I'm going to provide are from this
interview, (which I implore you to listen to):

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/INTERVIEW...CHARD.HEINBERG/ (http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/INTERVIEWS/RICHARD.HEINBERG/)

I will provide additional resources at the end.

“Back in the 1950?s, M. King Hubbard, the petroleum
geologist who worked for Shell and a bunch of other
companies and taught at UCLA and MIT and a bunch of
other universities, realized that for any given oil
province, when about half the oil has been extracted
it becomes more difficult to extract what is left. And
so the rate of extraction begins to taper off and the
production peaks. And he reasoned that if that were
true for east Texas or Oklahoma, it would probably be
true for the United States as a whole. And he
predicted that oil would peak in the U.S., the rate of
production of oil, the rate of extraction of oil,
which is really what we are talking about, would peak
in 1970. And at the time everyone thought he was nuts,
crazy. And events of course proved that he was
absolutely correct. In fact, production of oil in the
lower 48 U.S. did in fact peak in 1970 and has been
going down ever since.”

The same methods used by Hubbard were applied to the
world oil supply. It is estimated that world wide oil
production will peak roughly in the range of 2006 to
2015.

Why does peak oil production matter?

“Why is that important? It is important because, from
that day onward, from that year onward we will have
less oil to go around each year from then on. In the
US after peak production we solved the problem just by
importing the oil from elsewhere. We saved our
industrial economy, our industrial way of life, just
by importing oil from other countries. But when the
globe as a whole peaks in oil production, there is no
place else to import it from. So then we get to the
real problem, which is that we are tremendously
dependent on this energy resource. Hugely dependent.
Our whole industrial way of life that we have built up
over the 20th century is absolutely tied to oil and
natural gas and to a somewhat lesser extent coal,
which is also a non-renewable fossil fuel. And once
these resources begin to be depleted, once the rates
of extraction peak, then we have nowhere else to
turn.”

Everything you do is based on an oil economy.
Everything. But lets just focus on one very important
thing. Eating.

The infrastructure of the agro-business industry
relies entirely on fossil fuels. Think about it. The
gas used to put food on your table is not only burned
by your car on the way to the store. The vehicles used
to distribute the food are almost exclusively gas
powered, and often travel long distances. The machines
that originally planted and harvested the food are
almost exclusively gas powered. Things only grow on
the land we've destroyed with the help of massive amounts
of pesticides and feritlizer, both of which are very often petroleum
products. We are only able to feed large populations,
and especially large populations distant from any major food
source, due to the massive amounts of energy provided to us by oil.

It's not hard to see what will happen to this system
when oil production peaks and prices begin to rise if
an alternative source of energy is not found and the
entire food production and distribution system is not
completely overhauled to run on it.

Even if we could manage to reform such a massive
infrastructure, do we have an alternative energy
source comparable to oil?

What about hydrogen?

“Recently George Bush in his State of the Union
address suggested investment in hydrogen as the fuel
of the future and I think this probably came as a
surprise to many environmentalists because they had
been proposing hydrogen as the fuel of the future, the
hydrogen economy themselves and I think Bush made a
politically motivated effort to co-opt the issue, and
perhaps successfully so. Of course Bush was talking
about making hydrogen from coal and nuclear
electricity where as many of the eco-activist's are
talking about making hydrogen from wind or solar
produced electricity. But whether it's made from
renewables or non-renewables, the question is hydrogen
going to save us? And I hate to say this but I think
it's extremely unlikely. Hydrogen is not an energy
source, there is no hydrogen reserves sitting around
beneath the the soil, beneath the rocks that we can
tap into the way we tapped into oil. Hydrogen has to
be made.”

We have to use energy to create usable hydrogen. Think
of it as a battery. It doesn't actually add to the
energy we can use, as oil does, it merely stores it.

“So what are the other alternatives? Natural gas.
Well, here in North America natural gas extraction is
is peaking even as we speak and we're seeing right
now, we're talking in the later part of February,
2003, and we're seeing natural gas prices at historic
highs as a result of depletion in the US and Canada
and Mexico. And it's very difficult to transport
natural gas from continent to continent, even though
there's a lot of it say in the middle east. It's very
difficult to transport that to the US, so natural gas
is not going to be a very good substitute for oil.

Nuclear, well nuclear has a very low net energy yield
to start with. It costs a tremendous amount not just
in dollars but also in resources and materials to
build nuclear power plants and then to de-commission
them at the end of their lives is an extremely
expensive process, and during their lifetimes they're
producing nuclear waste which we haven't figured out
what to do with. Investing more in nuclear energy
would be a huge mistake for industrial societies. We
would be making problems for ourselves and our
children's children for 100s of generations into the
future. Problems that I'm sure they would roundly
curse us for, assuming they exist.

Coal, there is a great deal of coal left to be mined,
but the stuff that is easy to get at is becoming
scarcer and scarcer. The net energy profit ratio on
coal is declining rapidly. Right now most of the the
easy to get at coal is surface coal from strip mining
and that's becoming more scarce. So what's left? Well,
it's coal that's deep underground and coal mining is
not a particularly attractive profession to get into.
Most coal miners would rather have their children go
into some other line of work and it involves not only
hard work, but also skills, and most of those skills
have been lost. There aren't that many coal mines in
operation these days because most coal is being strip
mined and so the skills, the equipment and the
motivation for mining coal from underground are fast
disappearing. In order to ramp up coal production
dramatically to make up for peak oil extraction again
would require not only investment but also would
entail huge environmental consequences. Coal is nasty
dirty stuff. There's just no getting around that and
the process of extracting coal ruins land and the
process of burning coal ruins air and water and
forests through acid-rain. It's a form of energy
production that has already resulted in huge
environmental costs and the idea of ramping up up coal
production is pretty much an acronym to anyone that
has the knowledge and care about the natural world.”

And whether your an environmentalist or not, you
should care about the natural world. He's not talking
about saving birds. He's talking about breathing.

So we have a food production and distribution system
predicated on oil energy, an oil supply ready to peak
and begin to decline, and no viable alternatives.

We have far surpassed the carrying capacity of the
globe by riding the wave of oil energy.

That wave is about to crash.

When people don't eat, they die.

Ecologists call it die off.

For further information visit the following sites.

Must read FTW article:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/..._your_face.html (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/013004_in_your_face.html)

Quick article on what's going and and why nobody is
talking about it:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1202-09.htm

Some guy that just learned what you did:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Massive amounts of info:

http://www.dieoff.org/

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/

http://www.peakoil.net/

[CorporationsRule]

"So you think we can compare neandrothals to modern day society?"

Who said anything about neanderthals?

Are you calling American Indians neanderthals? I'm thinking some people might object to that.

Read the classic anthropological text, "The Original Affluent Society", I provided above.

Read what I had to say about Peak Oil posted above.

Make some connections.

[Individual]

I've read through...

I am going to have to assume that LysergicAcid's intellect on the subject is far greater than OsmanNotknowing's. Considering you have contradicting ideas. OG really makes no sense.

Though I may not agree with LAD's ideas, atleast he is defending what he believes by using logic. You guys arguing in support of anarchism have failed to answer anything containing logic in your arguements. This topic started by asking questions, and yet the only attempt I have seen was made by LAD. So OG, before you go off and change the subject away from these impending questions, please answer some of them. At the same time, try to explain your contradicting beliefs of anarchy.

[CorporationsRule]

"Again, people, think with logic here."

I'm being 100% logical. You said an anarchistic society can't work. I told you that human being have spent most of their existence in decentralized collectives. In fact, human being evolved in such communities, and we are therefore, from sciences point of view, perfectly suited to live in a world choc full of anarchism.

The article I posted deals with anthopological work done in the 60's. No cave paintings necessary.

Oh, and neanderthals aren't human.

[Individual]

Ok CR.

You seem to be presenting logical arguements. I apologize for 'excluding' you from my last statement.. Don't take anything to heart. My statement was directed towards OG, who makes you guys look bad for arguing on your side. Can you not see his contradictions for anarchism?

-Prohibit guns

-Kill people with racist thoughts

-World Anarchist Society? (Let's be reasonable here, he really expects the whole world, with it's population, to agree with anarchism?)

-"My main problem with anarchism is it's supposed spontaneity. Anarchists assume that the people will revolt and just decide to be anarchist without anyone paving the way for them."

Again, don't take my comment to hear CR. Atleast you don't talk out of your ass.

[CorporationsRule]

Stop apologizing to me or I'll kill you.

Racist.

[Individual]

Ok. Well now I know, next time I'll just call you an idiot. Sound good?

Fucking idiot.

-By the way, I apologize (shock value, don't get your panties tied into a bunch)

[LSD]

I am going to have to assume that LysergicAcid's intellect on the subject is far greater than OsmanNotknowing's. Considering you have contradicting ideas. OG really makes no sense.

As far as I know, Osman Ghazi (and please correct me if I'm wrong) isn't an anarchist, he's more of a centralized-communist (e.g., Leninism). As demonstrated in:
"My main problem with anarchism is it's supposed spontaneity. Anarchists assume that the people will revolt and just decide to be anarchist without anyone paving the way for them."

As far as how I envisage anarchism:

-Prohibit guns
No.

-Kill people with racist thoughts
No.

-World Anarchist Society? (Let's be reasonable here, he really expects the whole world, with it's population, to agree with anarchism?)
No.
But an extended anarchist society would be required, as in over the national boundries of an average modern state.
The idea is be to include the entire world eventually, of course, but strictly speaking, anarchism could work on a limited scale so long as the scale is large enough.

The implicit risk, however, in limited-area anarchism is foreign attempts to destabalize or re-capitalize the area in which the revolution occured. If resistence is strong enough, however, or, as is more likely in coming decades, capitalist nations lack the requisite resources to successfully invade, than such a society could hold.



Stop apologizing to me or I'll kill you.
:lol:

[Stapler]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:06 AM
"Again, people, think with logic here."

I'm being 100% logical. You said an anarchistic society can't work. I told you that human being have spent most of their existence in decentralized collectives. In fact, human being evolved in such communities, and we are therefore, from sciences point of view, perfectly suited to live in a world choc full of anarchism.

The article I posted deals with anthopological work done in the 60's. No cave paintings necessary.

Oh, and neanderthals aren't human.
but NOT in a dense North American, urban, setting! god, we could exist in decentralised collectives if we were a hunter/gatherer cociety, or a simple, agrian pre-industrial society. but NOT after industrialization.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 12 2004, 08:34 PM
1) Who stops criminals
Depends on the crime


2) How are these criminals sentenced

In a trial


3) Who decides what is a criminal

The local people


4) Who makes sure nobody gains too much power

The same people. You see, they won't just delete the state and other forms of authority to let a new leader appear.


5) Who puts out fires

Firemen or whoever is nearby with some water


6) What stops people from stealing goods from others

That people will notice and will take measures against them


7) What places restrictions of "businesses" (environmental and work conditions)

Businesses? If I got what you mean (you probably meant what will be called "workplaces" this will be determined by the local people.

[CorporationsRule]

The original question was what anarchism would look like. The original claim was that human beings could not organize themselves into anarchism. I answered the question and refuted the claim.

What do you want from me?

[Stapler]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 05:18 AM
The original question was what anarchism would look like. The original claim was that human beings could not organize themselves into anarchism. I answered the question and refuted the claim.

What do you want from me?
five dollars

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:07 PM
8/ who deals with foreign affairs
People elect expert representatives which can be taken out from that place if they don't follow the ideals of the population


9/ are there government agencies (Intelligence, Internal Affairs, advisors, etc)

There will be advisors, there will be people in simmilar "agencies" but they shouldnt have much power


10/ are there written laws

That depends on what each local assembly decides


11/ if there are no laws, how do you deal with crime, poverty, expenditure, monopolies, etc.

Crime: well the same way we do now, just that people won't do so many crimes because there are high chances of getting caught.


12/ If there is no leader, does everyone just come up with/start the revolution

If I had the answer istead of discussing this we would be discussing which policies our assembly should follow and enjoy anarchism.


13/ How do you deal with greed/capitalism

If some bastard wants to take over something they can't because everyone would have the same rights over each thing, so you can't just claim to own, let's say, a factory, because the rest of the workers will kick you out.


14/ (relating to Galt's #6) If nobody has "possesions"/"ownership", how do you stop people from saying "well this is my house, get out, my gun is bigger"

Have you ever heard the word "respect"? And the point of socialist-styled economies has always been deleting private property over the means of production and certain excessive "residences".


15/ What controls trade, is there free trade

Do you mean locally or with other nations? Locally everything should be noted by each party and maybe a few economical organizations, to avoid abuses, but everything will possibly be free and move almost freely from place to place, if you get what I mean.


16/ Is there a military

Well there could be some kind of army but such a policy should be decided by the whole Anarchist society (example: the whole nation) so that there's no Federation trying to conquer another one who doesnt have an army.


17/ If so, what are rules guidelines surrounding military (conduct, enrollment, etc)

That's decided when it's founded and can be modified later if necessary. They must be democratic and people must trust them and do any changes they need.


18/ Somebody must have a leading role in a militaristic force (otherwise, there is no conduct, everyone just fights enemies as they please? This state would diminish quickly) Who will it be, and how?

Democracy. A squad can pick a leader if necessary.


19/ If you agree to anything on this list and support anarchism, there certainly must be an election for something, but there are no leaders?

I don't get what you mean.


I wish I had seen this thread before and I haven't completely read it.

And you can't just expect us "theorists" to have all answers because that takes away people's innovation inside such a system.

[CorporationsRule]

You've described some sort of federated representative democracy thinger.

An impossible one at that.

[dissident]

.

[bombeverything]

That is better :D.


Originally posted by John [email protected] 12 2004, 08:34 PM
In a communist anarchy

1) Who stops criminals
2) How are these criminals sentenced
3) Who decides what is a criminal
4) Who makes sure nobody gains too much power
5) Who puts out fires
6) What stops people from stealing goods from others
7) What places restrictions of "businesses" (environmental and work conditions)


I think thats enough to start.

1) The rest of the community. 3/4 of crime is property related so the abolition of capitalism will mean a dramatic reduction in crime.

2) This is worked out by the community, through bottom up management and consensus.

3) Same as above. A criminal would most likely be someone who infringed on the rights of others. E.g.) acts such as rape and murder. Though rape for example is closely linked with power so the decentralization of power would probably mean rape would be less frequent, if non-existent.

4) There wouldn't be any power to 'gain' because no one will have the right to power over others. They only have power over themselves.

5) Whoever is there when a fire starts?

6) If all goods were equally distributed and shared there would be no such thing as stealing (because there is no private property). I know you mean that people might take more than they need. If so, it would be up to the rest of the community to work out how to treat them.

7) Business? In a communist society? Please elaborate.

And yes, anarchists have a very positive view of human nature.

By the way, what Chomsky would have meant was that most anarchists do not like to set out a blueprint for a future society because this is meant to be worked out by ALL of the community at the time, not one person or theorist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Let's all try and get the terminology correct. The concept of Anarchism and the concept of the state are diametrically opposed to each other. The theory of anarchism is based around a fundamental principle. The opposition of the state. It's whole theory and philosophy is rooted in that very principle. Please stop sayking anarchist state, the gigantic contradiction just makes everyone look stupid.

John Galt


1) Who stops criminals

It depends on what crimes you are talking about.


2) How are these criminals sentenced

It depends on what crimes they have committed. I suppose it would be up to the collective's assembly to decide what happened.


3) Who decides what is a criminal

If you are talking about rape or child molestation then I think that is common sense. If you are talking about someone who is committing mass murder then again I think that comes down to common sense. The problem that many "non-believables" forsee is a question of authority. Anarchism is fundamentally opposed to authority. One of the reasons for this is that most authority can not justify itself. Gay oppression can not justify itself, state authority can not justify itself. However, one anticdote that Chomsky uses is that of his daughter walking infront of a car. He pulls her back. That is a form of authority which can be justified. Just as stopping a person molesting a child or stopping someone from taking the life of another through pleasure is justifiable authority.

If you are talking about property crimes then in my opinion these arent crimes. Property theft, in my opinion, is a consequence of the system we live under. In an anarchist society, or in any socity where the population was provided for with their basic human rights, food, shelter, clean running water, then the need to steal to better ones social standing becomes irrelevant. Also, the status wealth would have would be non existence. Attemtping to hord lots of wealth would be deemed immoral and all together pointless.


4) Who makes sure nobody gains too much power

What power would there be to gain? These questions dont lie in what would an anarchist society look like but how could you actually get to the point of making an anarchist society work. To ask these questions you have to assume that the workers have become conscious and taken control from the ruling class. This action is a prerequiste to achieving an anarchist society. Why would the majority workers have fought the ruling class gained power and organized themselves throughout society based on anarchist principles to then revert back to capitalism or allow indeviduals to gain power? And the only way to achieve such power is through using a mass of people, people who are conscious of there struggle, who have spent years fighting and who want to make anarchism work. The question creates contradictions!


5) Who puts out fires

Come on dude. What kind of question is that. You have gone from the rediculas to all together stupid. Why do you ask this question? Why do you assume that an anarchist society wouldnt be able to put out fires.


6) What stops people from stealing goods from others

Freedom from want!


7) What places restrictions of "businesses" (environmental and work conditions)

Most production, if not all, would be collectivised and therefore up to the workers councils within those areas to decide what conditions would be set. Of course the organization would be along anarchist principles.

When you talk of business what do you actually mean? Society would only produce what was needed to start with and that would not be for profit but for society as a whole. Thinks such as CD players would be indevidual initiatives designed to produce things needed for all society and not for profit. These industries would be organized along the same lines.


Who is responsible for their training, their mainence, their oversight

This is in referance to your question on "who would put out the first." Once society has changed fire fighters would still exist. Each community would still need a fire service and so those fire fighters or those who are retired fire fighters would train volunteers within those communities. The maintainance and oversights (what ever they are) would be dealt with by whom ever was elected by the workers assembly to be responsable for such things.


And what stops them from taking all the best equipment, which is in short supply and needed most in big cities?

Why would they do that?


anarchy

n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)

This was written by someone who, like yourself, knows nothing about anarchism. Most people assume that wihtout a government there would be choas and because in society of anarchy there would be no government the logic is cocluded that anarchy means disorder. In fact the opposite is true. This definition is not reliable as most political descriptions in dictionaries are uninformed or bias and written by bouregois intellectuals.


What happens when you have enough cure for 50 million people, and there are 500 million with the plague?

So what is more efficient?


Some humans are good. Some are not.

So let's be objective about it! Why are some humans bad?

[The Feral Underclass]

Iepilei


There is a difference between Anarchism and Anarchy

No there isn't.


A state of anarchy is lawlessness, chaos, etc. Anarchism is a social-derived form of "communal" existance. I'm not sure, exactly how it works - as I'm not anarchist (or anarcho-syndicalist) myself. However, I do recognise the differences between the standard definition of anarchy and anarchism (as a practice).

It is just a misconception of the word. Anarchism is the noun to describe the theory and anarchy is the noun to describe the anarchism in practice.

Y2A


So what then are the differences between Communism and Anarchism?

Semantics begin to get complicated, but I think it is important to highlight the differences between ideologies. Orthodox communism is rooted in marxism. It was Marx's final stage and is usually related to the other theories including the perpetration of the state. Socialism and Communism went together as a means and an end. Anarchism stood in direct opposition to Marxism and challanged the necessity of the state after a revolution. The principles of anarchist organization are also different to Marxism, although he didnt speak alot about it and what he did was vague (enter Leninism). Anarchism is a theory which advocates no authority in organization (authority being one who controls another) and without centralism. Anarchism also believes that cosnciousness must be achieved before society has a meaningful and purely communist revolution.

Actually, Anarchism stands against Leninsm now, more than it does Marxism. Marxism seems to be an all inclusive theory. You can take what you like from it. It is Leninism which stands in direct opposite now.

Anarchism has different varients of organizing society after a revolution. Varients (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html) (scroll down). Communism has a theory of how to roganize society [economiclly], "each according to ability, to each according to need." Basically meaning that all is provided for to the extent that is needed for them, provided they contribute to society to their ability. It also advocates that all means of production be collectivsed and controlled by workings councils in co-operation rather than centally.

Anarcho-communism then takes the philosophy and practice of anarchism but advocates a communist society [which, to be honest amounts to the same thing].


Chomsky: I wouldn't dream of trying to do this. These are matters about which we have to learn, by struggle and experiment

He is only being honest. We do have to learn and experiement and draw lessons from history. That dosnt make the theory flawed though.


You see, what you just said, is completely retarded. Face it there will always be crime in any society. To say there won't is to hide from the truth.

This isnt the X-Files! You make wild assertions...back them up. Why will crime always exist?


You are supporting a global revolution based on assumptions!

Most theories are based on assumptions. But how logical are those assumptions. Look at what anarchism wants to achieve then look at the question it throws up and actually, objectivly, anarchism is logical.

[The Feral Underclass]

AlwaysQuestion


8/ who deals with foreign affairs

It depends what you mean. I am sure there will be a level of co-operation with economic necessities and these would be done by the appropriate production areas.


9/ are there government agencies (Intelligence, Internal Affairs, advisors, etc)

No!


10/ are there written laws

No!


11/ if there are no laws, how do you deal with crime, poverty, expenditure, monopolies, etc.

The question of crime has been answered. The question of poverty is one of production. The means of production would be collectivised and organized by workers councils. They would be made up of volunteers or workers selected using demarchy. Everyone would contribue a certain amount of time per week to a socially necessary task in their area and in return would be provided for, shelter, food etc. Poverty would cease to exist.


12/ If there is no leader, does everyone just come up with/start the revolution

No! Class consciousness will be a gradual thing. There will be anarchist movements throughout the world organizing themselves and working within the working class. Consciousness will gradual come about as the movement grows and forces capitalism to justify itself more and more. Of course it can't which leads to direct action. The revolution will most likly be a spontaneous accurance after years of build up. Look at the thread in Theory which you have been debating in. I have answered this question there.


13/ How do you deal with greed/capitalism

The concept of greed will most likly have disappeared. If it did still exist it would be concentrated in a small group of people or few indeviduals and would eventually disappear all together.

As for capitalism, it will be destroyed all together, no question about it. Any capitalists who continued to activly organize against the workers either economically or militarily would be dealt with however the workers felt necessary.


14/ (relating to Galt's #6) If nobody has "possesions"/"ownership", how do you stop people from saying "well this is my house, get out, my gun is bigger"

People will have a house, they will have their own personal belongings what ever that was, but everyone would have a house. A house that was suitable for their needs. Why would anyone get a gun and go and threaten to shoot someone if they didnt hand over there house. In order to get to a point where your asking these questions a revolution must have happened, and to have that revolution certain things must be understood. Things like this wouldnt happen, and if you believe they would, then the revolution could never happen anyway.


15/ What controls trade, is there free trade

Who ever needed it. Free trade wouldnt exist. It wouldnt be necessary. Free trade exists as a way to make people money. We want to achieve a world where that is the case.


16/ Is there a military

Again this was answered in the anarchism by the objectivists thread.

[Osman Ghazi]

Okay, firstly, it is known fact that anrachism can only work if you have the whole world united in an anarchist society, otherwise, you would need a state apparatus to protect it. Am I wrong? Does that make sense?

Secondly, you tell me that I am talking out of my ass but you have yet to bring irrefutable evidence that 50% of the world is racist as you said earlier.

Thirdly, it wouldn't be prohibiting guns so much as the communities of the world deciding that they didn't want to risk having the possibility of violence and destroying the guns.

Lastly, I am not a Leninist, I just don't think that the world will ever have an anarchist revolution and just decide to be anarchist. It could happen in small areas, yes, but the whole of the world is a bit of a stretch.

I don't know if we were talking about only a small anarchist society. I assumed that he meant it would be decentralized and thus the government apparatus would be that of a small community. Perhaps I was merely assuming.

[The Feral Underclass]

It could happen in small areas, yes, but the whole of the world is a bit of a stretch.

What do you think the world is made up of? It is made up of small areas? :blink:

[Osman Ghazi]

But all at once?
If it didn't happen all at once, you would still require a state apparatus and thus woudn't have anarchy.

[guerrillaradio]

Anarchism is based on a set of principles and theories, such as:

#1 Human beings are essentially benevolent. Only soceity and temptation make them evil.

#2 Something like 75% of crime can be attributed to class problems, such as poverty.

#3 Human beings are much more motivated to work when they are doing it out of choice rather than being ordered to do so.

Finally, as 99.9% of anarchists will tell you, and many other left wingers too (such as Subcomandante Marcos, and indeed Chomsky, as was noted earlier in this thread), it is not one person's place to suggest an entire system. Any changes brought about post-revolution would have to have a concensus. That said, certain principles unite anarchists, such as the removal of the state and class etc.

At least that's how I understand it.

[The Feral Underclass]

But all at once?
If it didn't happen all at once, you would still require a state apparatus and thus woudn't have anarchy.

I doubt it will happen all at the same time on the same day no, but confrontations with capitalism will have been going on for years. Once one country falls, the effects will be felt around the western world. Once England goes, france will follow, if there is a movement to support such action.

Consciousness is not one fell swoop of a wand and hey presto. It is a gradual thing mounting to many different acts of direct action through out the west.

You conclusion also is confusing "would still require a state apparatus." Why do you think that.

Guerillaradio

certain principles unite anarchists, such as the removal of the state and class etc.

I suppose state can be all inclusive but it is important to point out that oppressive authority (ie one over another) and centralism is principly opposed to anarchism.

[Individual]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 13 2004, 02:05 PM
Okay, firstly, it is known fact that anrachism can only work if you have the whole world united in an anarchist society, otherwise, you would need a state apparatus to protect it. Am I wrong? Does that make sense?

Secondly, you tell me that I am talking out of my ass but you have yet to bring irrefutable evidence that 50% of the world is racist as you said earlier.

Thirdly, it wouldn't be prohibiting guns so much as the communities of the world deciding that they didn't want to risk having the possibility of violence and destroying the guns.

Lastly, I am not a Leninist, I just don't think that the world will ever have an anarchist revolution and just decide to be anarchist. It could happen in small areas, yes, but the whole of the world is a bit of a stretch.

I don't know if we were talking about only a small anarchist society. I assumed that he meant it would be decentralized and thus the government apparatus would be that of a small community. Perhaps I was merely assuming.
TAT, I am at work, and I shall take the time later in the day to answer your response. For a quick response to your questioin asking why people they are calling it an Anarchist state. Not as in a physical state, however in a 'state' of living view. As in, my state of living in this apartment sucks.

OG: Again, you continue to contradict your own beliefs, which cracks me up.

I don't have evidence. However my point is at any given point in the world, people are prejudice towards race. To deny the fact would be asinine. Now, this is what I am talking about. Instead of you trying to logically explain something, you bring up 'my irrifutable evidence' that I need. This is not the topic. My point in the statement is that many people across this globe are racist, and you cannot deny that. For you to say kill off racists is completely foolish of you.

Oh, so now your not prohibting guns? Before those were your exact words, to prohibit guns? I believe that would be a contradiction.

Oh, so now the whole world is a bit of a stretch. Oh well that is why you got so sarcastic with me earlier. So you just made yourself look like an idiot. I realized the World was unrealistic and off topic, this is why I was not talking about the World. Then you had to correct me, and assume I can read your mind.

So now your assuming this Anarchist state of living would be in small communities, but before you just figured everyone knew that you were talking about a World society? And you find logic in this?

[Osman Ghazi]

Were clearly not on the same page here, so I'll take this slowly:

1. Decentralization is having more people in the decision-making process by making more governmental bodies and dividing the state into smaller regions and granting those smaller regions more power. Yes?

2. I believe that any anarchist 'state/society' (whatever you want to call it, it isn't really important) would be instantly crushed by the capitalist states because a) it constitutes a direct threat to the capitalist system and b) it is easy to crush because there wouldn't be any sort of military other than militias which cannot stand against the might of modern militaries.

With me? Good.

3. An anarchist society that could stand up against the capitalist governments would need to have a real military and not just a militia. In order to have a real military, you would need to have someone in power, I think we all agree that in an efficient military there has to be some person/s giving orders and the other people have to follow them.

4. If someone were in charge, it would hardly be anarchist, would it?

5. Therefore, an anarchist society that could stand up against the capitalist states cannot exist.

6. Therefore, the only way in which a truly anarchist society could be made is by one worldwide revolution/ maybe several different revolutions.

7. That is why the world is a bit of a stretch.

8. Since this forum is discussing the administration of law in an anarchist society, I assumed that these would be the properties of said anarchist society.

9. As for the prohibition of guns, it was a case of the wrong word. In order for something to be prohibited, it would require a codified law that was enforcable by a government apparatus. So prohibition in an anarchist society could not exist because there wouldn't be a government enforcement apparatus. Therefore, I changed the word I used to describe it. Prohibition and 'people deciding they don't need guns' is pretty much the same, yes? So no it isn't a contradiction.

10. As for the racism, provide evidence that 50% of the world is racist as you stated above. Otherwise, you would have to retract said statement because there is no substance to your argument. There are racists all over the world but they do not constitute 50% of the world's population. Are you prejudiced towards race? Am I? Is anyone else on this forum? No. So why would you make such an outrageous claim?

Answer: BECAUSE YOU ARE PULLING IT OUT OF YOUR ASS.

[Individual]

With me? Good.

No the question is, are you with yourself?


3. An anarchist society that could stand up against the capitalist governments would need to have a real military and not just a militia. In order to have a real military, you would need to have someone in power, I think we all agree that in an efficient military there has to be some person/s giving orders and the other people have to follow them.

4. If someone were in charge, it would hardly be anarchist, would it?

5. Therefore, an anarchist society that could stand up against the capitalist states cannot exist.

6. Therefore, the only way in which a truly anarchist society could be made is by one worldwide revolution/ maybe several different revolutions.

7. That is why the world is a bit of a stretch.

Yes, the world revolution idea is a stretch. It is insane actually. I will not use the word impossible, however the closest thing to it.

Are you now arguing against anarchism? You've lost me here. You seemed to be standing for it. Now you are providing reasons that anarchy would fail. So which way are you heading with this? If you are arguing against anarchism, then why are you providing myself examples? I know these things already.


9. As for the prohibition of guns, it was a case of the wrong word. In order for something to be prohibited, it would require a codified law that was enforcable by a government apparatus. So prohibition in an anarchist society could not exist because there wouldn't be a government enforcement apparatus. Therefore, I changed the word I used to describe it. Prohibition and 'people deciding they don't need guns' is pretty much the same, yes? So no it isn't a contradiction.

Thats not a contradiction? Then what is? Ok? First you say guns need to be prohibited, which defeats freedom. Now you are saying that you used the wrong word? No I think you realize you contradicted yourself and are now coming up with excuses. Now if you don't need guns, and there is not a world anarchist society like you hope for. Do you plan on standing up to other nations with sticks and stones? Maybe a wrench or a hammer?


Prohibition and 'people deciding they don't need guns' is pretty much the same, yes? So no it isn't a contradiction.

No, prohibition is outlawing, banning, using laws to enforce (hence prohibition of liquor). People deciding they don't need guns is not prohibiting, for there is no law, just common understanding. So yes, this is contradiction.


10. As for the racism, provide evidence that 50% of the world is racist as you stated above. Otherwise, you would have to retract said statement because there is no substance to your argument. There are racists all over the world but they do not constitute 50% of the world's population. Are you prejudiced towards race? Am I? Is anyone else on this forum? No. So why would you make such an outrageous claim?

So 6.5 thousand people with leftist fews (minus a few), is comparible to approx. 5.5-6 billion people that make up the world? So because people on here aren't racist, doesn't mean that other people aren't? I already said that I don't have any evidence. How can you prove how many people are racist? I used to figure as an example. I have a feeling that this is an approximate guess though. Again, this is not relative to our discussion, and is leaning away from what this thread is about.

So really, you have me confused. You prove faults with anarchy. Yet you still seem to be arguing for it. Where are you getting at?

[John Galt]

Im leaving for Japan tomorrow, so I cant respond for a week.


How does anarchism deal with me?


How does it deal with rules lawyers?


How does it deal with charismatic orators that can convince the mob to to anything?

[Individual]

tAT:

Before I start, because there would be an extreme difference in many areas. Are we talking about a World Anarchist Society, or small Anarchist Societies (i.e. size of large cities, states, or even a country)?


9/ are there government agencies (Intelligence, Internal Affairs, advisors, etc)

No!

Ok. Then are there agencies to deal with foreign policies? Issues within this society (medical, disaster (natural, man), education type agencies) are to be dealt with on public terms? Everything of this nature is set up and run by the public? (I'm assuming I shall know the answer, just checking to see as if these types of things will still exist)


The question of crime has been answered. The question of poverty is one of production. The means of production would be collectivised and organized by workers councils. They would be made up of volunteers or workers selected using demarchy. Everyone would contribue a certain amount of time per week to a socially necessary task in their area and in return would be provided for, shelter, food etc. Poverty would cease to exist.

I seem to be confused on the issue of currency. Is there a form of currency? If no, which I think is the case, what are these people working for? If everything is equal, why don't people just work for themselves. Take care of what needs to be done in order for them to survive? If there is no currency, people work for nothing except to better their community. What do you do if someone is unwilling/able to work? This is not fair.

This society would seem to prove very primitive. No motivation is there for people to work. If everyone needs to be fair and equal, then everyone should be able to have the same thing. Why work, when everything is fair. The logic of people's respect and courtesy for other people should not be brought up, for not everyone is willing to bust their ass for someone else.

Exactly how utopian do you want/think that this society will be? How utopian do you want it to be. Arguing for complete equality seems a bit of a longshot, and unrealistic. Easily somewhere along the line, things will not be equal. Whether it is the number of bedrooms in a house, or how much knowledge one has. Things will prove to not be equal. So how utopian can it be?


The concept of greed will most likly have disappeared. If it did still exist it would be concentrated in a small group of people or few indeviduals and would eventually disappear all together.

As for capitalism, it will be destroyed all together, no question about it. Any capitalists who continued to activly organize against the workers either economically or militarily would be dealt with however the workers felt necessary.

I have yet to read the thread in theory. I shall do that soon, however bare with me if something is repeated.

This is a long shot question. However if anarchism is based on freedom, wouldn't one have the right to be have his own possesions? Wouldn't one have the right to be different? Freedom can go very far, how much freedom does one have living in an anarchist state (of living).


Why would anyone get a gun and go and threaten to shoot someone if they didnt hand over there house.

This argument came up over there being no initiatives for theft. What if I wanted your house because I was sick of mine? I'm not saying this would 100% happen, but the likeliness of someone having an initiative to steal would be high. Sure over time people may adapt, and learn crime is not the answer. However what do you do in the instance of this happening? And how can you be sure that society would change, and people will become better in their morals.


In order to get to a point where your asking these questions a revolution must have happened, and to have that revolution certain things must be understood. Things like this wouldnt happen, and if you believe they would, then the revolution could never happen anyway.

Another reason why the revolution will not happen.

However you are incorrect. What if 75% of the people in any given town, city, state, or country agree with the revolution. Lets say the revolution takes place. Well what about the 25% of the people that do not agree with these new morals of society? They live in this revolution because the majority of the people made it happen, however there are still some that do not want it. You cannot expect 100% of the people living in this revolution, to follow it. So yes, the revolution could happen under these circumstances. What do you do about it?


Who ever needed it. Free trade wouldnt exist. It wouldnt be necessary. Free trade exists as a way to make people money. We want to achieve a world where that is the case.

Trade would be needed if there was not a world anarchist society. And besides that, it would be people's rights to trade with other locations if there was a world society. People want to conserve their traditions. People will need/want to trade. Trade is necessary either way.

Again, a main question is are we talking about:

small society
world society
or both?

[Osman Ghazi]

Essentially, the end result of communism and anarchy are the same. The differences are in the process by which it is acheived. So, I like the concept of anarchy, but I do not think that it is acheivable. I do not ever remember saying that I would support anarchism, though I may have forgotten.


Direct opposition or repugnancy; inconsistency; incongruity or contrariety; one who, or that which, is inconsistent.

Prohibiting guns and deciding that guns are not necessary have the same end result i.e. the elimination of guns from a society. That is like saying that Anarchism and Communism is a contradiction. It is simply two means of acheiving the same end.

So no, it isn't a contradiction.


So 6.5 thousand people with leftist fews (minus a few), is comparible to approx. 5.5-6 billion people that make up the world? So because people on here aren't racist, doesn't mean that other people aren't? I already said that I don't have any evidence. How can you prove how many people are racist? I used to figure as an example. I have a feeling that this is an approximate guess though. Again, this is not relative to our discussion, and is leaning away from what this thread is about.

I was simply refuting your statement. You haven't met the 6.3 billion people who inhabit this planet so you cannot say that 50% of them are racist anymore than I could say that 50% of them have been to the moon.
i.e. both are baseless statements which have no place in this argument.
However, since you and I are discussing it, it is in fact relative to our discussion.

[Individual]

Answer: BECAUSE YOU ARE PULLING IT OUT OF YOUR ASS.

You are correct that there is no proof to my statement. However I never said there was.

Atleast my ass doesn't talk like yours.

[Osman Ghazi]

Why then would you say something that you can't prove?

[Individual]

Why did early astronomers and explorers say the Earth was flat?

Why do I think you talk out of your ass?

Why do people think God is real?

Why do people think God isn't real?

Why do I think green is the best color?

None of these things I can prove. I can't prove 50% of the world is racist. However you can't prove that 50% of the world isn't racist. Go figure. Don't tell me I'm incorrect in my statement, when you can't prove it.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 13 2004, 10:37 PM
2. I believe that any anarchist 'state/society' (whatever you want to call it, it isn't really important) would be instantly crushed by the capitalist states because a) it constitutes a direct threat to the capitalist system and b) it is easy to crush because there wouldn't be any sort of military other than militias which cannot stand against the might of modern militaries.

With me? Good.

3. An anarchist society that could stand up against the capitalist governments would need to have a real military and not just a militia. In order to have a real military, you would need to have someone in power, I think we all agree that in an efficient military there has to be some person/s giving orders and the other people have to follow them.

4. If someone were in charge, it would hardly be anarchist, would it?

5. Therefore, an anarchist society that could stand up against the capitalist states cannot exist.
So basically you are assuming that, as there won't be an army with leaders, an anarchist society will be smashed by foreign powers?
I'm sure people won't be so stupid as to ignore having a defense system. There will always be some idealistic anarcho-fascist or some kind of pro-military soldier willing to "die for the motherland", and an army doesn't need a leader. To plan actions it would be wise if the "soldiers" could talk a lot to each other. They should divide and only if necessary they should democratically pick leaders.

An anarchist "nation" will need support from other anarchist "nations", but it will depend on the impact of anarchism on a big scale. For example if a Pacific island becomes anarchist, I don't think it will matter to much to most people, but if, let's say, Canada starts to become anarchist then it will have huge impact in the whole world. And that's were we will see if other idealists attemp to do the same, or they move there, or if nobody cares too much, or if all of a sudden the yanks send their army to kill everyone (and how will this affect the rest of the world).

[LSD]

Ok. Then are there agencies to deal with foreign policies? Issues within this society (medical, disaster (natural, man), education type agencies) are to be dealt with on public terms? Everything of this nature is set up and run by the public? (I'm assuming I shall know the answer, just checking to see as if these types of things will still exist)

Yes and no.

You're sort of lumping a lot of things together. Of course there will be schools and hospitals, but they won't be "government" run. In case of disasters, society will deal with it. Perhaps by increasing production or adjusting distribution.


I seem to be confused on the issue of currency. Is there a form of currency? If no, which I think is the case, what are these people working for? If everything is equal, why don't people just work for themselves. Take care of what needs to be done in order for them to survive? If there is no currency, people work for nothing except to better their community. What do you do if someone is unwilling/able to work? This is not fair.

This society would seem to prove very primitive. No motivation is there for people to work. If everyone needs to be fair and equal, then everyone should be able to have the same thing. Why work, when everything is fair. The logic of people's respect and courtesy for other people should not be brought up, for not everyone is willing to bust their ass for someone else.

Exactly how utopian do you want/think that this society will be? How utopian do you want it to be. Arguing for complete equality seems a bit of a longshot, and unrealistic. Easily somewhere along the line, things will not be equal. Whether it is the number of bedrooms in a house, or how much knowledge one has. Things will prove to not be equal. So how utopian can it be?

People will work because they care about society, because when you live in a small community, society is no longer an abstract concept, but one's family and friends.

If one patently refuses to contribute, than they will be kicked out of the community and can support themselves on their own. The "motivation" is that helping one's society helps oneself.


This is a long shot question. However if anarchism is based on freedom, wouldn't one have the right to be have his own possesions? Wouldn't one have the right to be different? Freedom can go very far, how much freedom does one have living in an anarchist state (of living).

Clarify.

One can have the "freedom" to go out into the woods, cut down a tree and call it "mine".
But honestly, who cares??

Within the community itself, everything is publically owned. Freedom is not absolute, one is not "free" to kill and so one is equally not "free" to own.


This argument came up over there being no initiatives for theft. What if I wanted your house because I was sick of mine? I'm not saying this would 100% happen, but the likeliness of someone having an initiative to steal would be high. Sure over time people may adapt, and learn crime is not the answer. However what do you do in the instance of this happening? And how can you be sure that society would change, and people will become better in their morals.

In the immensly rare situation that I steal your house because I'm "bored", society will punish you. Besides, since everything belongs to everyone anyway, two people who are "bored" with their respective houses can just swap!!


However you are incorrect. What if 75% of the people in any given town, city, state, or country agree with the revolution. Lets say the revolution takes place. Well what about the 25% of the people that do not agree with these new morals of society? They live in this revolution because the majority of the people made it happen, however there are still some that do not want it. You cannot expect 100% of the people living in this revolution, to follow it. So yes, the revolution could happen under these circumstances. What do you do about it?

um.....what's your point?

Most people do not support capitalism because they've been convinced by the argument, they just support it because its there. In the post-revolution society, most people would be getting more for less work, so what motivation is there to not go along?


Trade would be needed if there was not a world anarchist society. And besides that, it would be people's rights to trade with other locations if there was a world society. People want to conserve their traditions. People will need/want to trade. Trade is necessary either way.

If enough of the world is anarchist, it's enough, besides, so long as the revolution doesn't happen in the Western Sahara, most countries are capable of being self-sufficient to a point. It is only the capitalistic overproduction drive that is forcing so many western countries, like the US (*cough* 1.5 billion a day *cough*), to import so much.






Why did early astronomers and explorers say the Earth was flat?

Explorers? Which explorers?


Why do I think you talk out of your ass?

Drugs.


Why do people think God is real?

Dogma.


Why do people think God isn't real?

Truth.


Why do I think green is the best color?

Drugs.

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, you see all of those things are only subjectively knowable.
They were all why questions.

Whether or not 50% of the world is racist is an objective fact in that anyone can know it and it is not related to the persons disposition. It is also a what question which is quite different than the one you asked.

Oye. You probably don't want to go on arguing about this and honestly neither do I.
The thing is though that I am in the right and you are in the wrong.

So just give in and it will all be over. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Stapler]

Just one question, how would a decentralized "Anarchist" society maintain a population of 6 billion, and keep everyone safe, healthy, and well educated?

[CorporationsRule]

They wouldn't. Nothing (other than a break through that allows us to harness the power of my sex drive) can do that. We're all going down.

[Stapler]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 05:00 AM
They wouldn't. Nothing (other than a break through that allows us to harness the power of my sex drive) can do that. We're all going down.
sex drive? i'm sure your testicles have the ability to influence people, but if it is impossible to support 6 billion people in an anarchist "state" why do you advocate anarchism?

[LSD]

Just one question, how would a decentralized "Anarchist" society maintain a population of 6 billion, and keep everyone safe, healthy, and well educated?

Quite easily.

Each collective would be founded to be effectively self-sustaining in terms of food, resources, neccessities. Certain collectives would have specialities due to location or geography that they could send to other communities, however not as a form of trade, but merely because they have more than they need and so will share with others. If every community follws this model, than the system functions.

In terms of education, I would propose that the average person would be far MORE educated under anarchism as everyone would be provided with an equal and non-financial education, meaning that the entire purpose of education would be education and not profit or balancing government accounts.

[LSD]

They wouldn't. Nothing (other than a break through that allows us to harness the power of my sex drive) can do that. We're all going down.

Your libido notwithstanding, it is quite possible for the world to sustain its current population, what is not possible is for it to sustain the current society.

Humanity will outlive the 21st century, but I highly doubt that society as we know it will.


Welcome to the dark ages....

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 04:54 AM
Just one question, how would a decentralized "Anarchist" society maintain a population of 6 billion, and keep everyone safe, healthy, and well educated?
What's your point?

Descentralizing and creating a federative system and different organizations that can help distributing and producing what's needed will do the job. The only thing we need is people waking up and taking the things that matter in their own hands.

[The Feral Underclass]

AlwaysQuestion

I apologize for my long post.


Are we talking about a World Anarchist Society, or small Anarchist Societies

The world is made up of small societies, so although I am talking about collectives, it still applies to the whole world, as the whole world would be made up of collectives.


Then are there agencies to deal with foreign policies? Issues within this society (medical, disaster (natural, man), education type agencies) are to be dealt with on public terms? Everything of this nature is set up and run by the public? (I'm assuming I shall know the answer, just checking to see as if these types of things will still exist)

My Nan is probably the most neurotic person I have ever met. She is always flapping her arms and getting into a confused muddle over something or another. Sometimes I think this personality disorder applies to politics also. There is calm and rationale politics and then there is confused neurotic politics.

You are being my Nan right now. You're flapping your arms and getting all worried and neurotic about everything. Don't get me wrong, the question of dealing with medical disasters etc are important ones, but I do not think we need to think so hard about them.

I can not answer such specific questions. I can not talk about how the entire world will function. I am just one human. One single, solitary individual who happens to be an anarchist. All I know is that things such as natural disasters or medical emergencies are things that will have to be considered by the international community. You can not refute anarchism by asking these sorts of questions. Organization comes through human ability, regardless of how they choose to do it. Without human ability nothing could happen.


I seem to be confused on the issue of currency. Is there a form of currency?

No!


If no, which I think is the case, what are these people working for?

Society.


If everything is equal, why don't people just work for themselves.

My mother goes to work everyday to earn some money so she can live. She has my sister to take care of, gas, electricity, water, rent and food to pay for. Not to mention her TV license bill, telephone bill, transport to work and loan debts. Maybe she earns 180 pounds per week. That's not a great deal of money considering all the costs she has. Maybe at the end of it she can buy a packet of cigarettes, a magazine or something for my sister. Now she works 8 to 10 hours a day for 5 or 6days a week and this is her life. Every day, every week, every month for the last 25 years.

Now food, shelter, electricity, water and gas are all human discoveries, yet they are packaged and sold back to us so some people can make some money. These things are our human right to have. We all should have shelter, food etc without having to pay for it. We should all be able to live without want. My mother should not have to go to work all her life just so she can have a house or some food. She should be enjoying her existence by experiencing life, without having to work her guts out for someone else.

Now in order for everyone to have this and live without want society has to be organized in a certain way. Let's assume that the majority of workers agreed that this was the case, that being forced to sell your labor for a few pounds while others got rich was not acceptable, that they smashed the state and brought power into their hands. We then simply organize it.

Let us say we have a city of 497,674 people which broke down into 349 collectives. That's 349 collectives of 1426 people. Now in this area there are 2 electricity stations, 4 water plants, 1 gas station, 65 farms producing different kinds of meats, vegetables, dairy products. We have 2,000 buses and a sewage team which needs 2,000 people to work it. Now each collective has an assembly who elects a representative to attend a meeting for all the city. At this meeting these representatives work in co-operation and discuss what the city needs. This group of people has no legislative power, it can not make decisions which effect the city, nor is there a chairperson. It is simply a logistics meeting. They conclude at the meeting.

2 electricity stations = 3,589 people
4 Water plants = 8,546 people
1 gas station = 567 people
65 farms = 1,450 people
2000 people to drive the buses
2000 people to work the sewage team
5,000 fire men
2,000 doctors
750 ambulance drivers
2,098 house maintenance team.

So this meeting ends and the representatives return back to their collectives to report what is required of each collective.

There are 28,000 people needed altogether to run this city. 80 people are needed from each collective to ensure that everyone has food, shelter, electricity, water, gas, doctors, ambulances, fire brigade, sewage cleaning, and buses. So lets say that these 80 people worked 4 days a week (except emergency jobs - which is different because of the nature of the job) for 5 hours a day. That would mean that you, as an individual, would work for 20 hours in one week every 18 weeks. So for 20 hours work, every four and a half months you get a house, some food, electricity, free buses, gas, a clean sewage, free health care and emergency services. This now frees up your time to actually live. Maybe you want to organize producing a CD player for your collective, or making a cinema. You can now arrange with other collectives to do that. Your life is free, for the minimal amount of work for the maximum return. You work to your ability and you receive according to your need. Communism, anarchism, the perfect world. The world we all want and all it takes it to remove these bastards from power!!!


This society would seem to prove very primitive. No motivation is there for people to work. If everyone needs to be fair and equal, then everyone should be able to have the same thing. Why work, when everything is fair. The logic of people's respect and courtesy for other people should not be brought up, for not everyone is willing to bust their ass for someone else.

Of course you wouldn’t be able to go and buy caviar from your local shop, or buy 20 brands of coffee. Maybe a DVD player would take a while to get to you, but I don’t think that these things are what is really important. What is important is making sure that every human being lives from want. What is important is for us to live together in peace and co-operation and enjoy our lives. Experience and living a happy, decent life.

Why would people not want to work for that? The difference between working now and working in such a society is vast. Wouldn’t you do 20 hours a week of work in an electricity plant every 4 and a half months if you knew that everyone in your city would benefit from it. I would. I would do what ever was needed of me if I new that it would benefit my comrades, my friends, family and community and that everyone was provided for.


Exactly how utopian do you want/think that this society will be? How utopian do you want it to be. Arguing for complete equality seems a bit of a longshot, and unrealistic. Easily somewhere along the line, things will not be equal. Whether it is the number of bedrooms in a house, or how much knowledge one has. Things will prove to not be equal. So how utopian can it be?

The word utopian is sometimes used in a negative way. I find it amazing but that's the way it is. I do not think there is anything wrong with being a Utopianist or an idealist. When you ask "how utopian do want society to be" I can not really say. How do you really define utopian. I want to live in a world where people do not have to live in want. I want to live in a society without exploitation or persecution. I want to live in a stateless, classless society based on economic equality. I do not think that is a lot to ask for.

When you talk about equality of course there can not be material equality. Everyone can not have the same amount of bedrooms. But everyone can have bedrooms according to what they need. I do not need three bedrooms. I need only one. Maybe there are 4 other people who need one. We all move in to a 5 bedroom house together. A family of 8 can have a house with 5 or 6 bedrooms. I do not need to have 50 potatoes. I only need 10 where as a family of 4 may need 50. This is equality. At the moment a family of 8 has 3 bedrooms while one person has a house with 10 bedrooms, that is not equality.


wouldn't one have the right to be have his own possessions?

Of course, but it is how and why one has those possessions which is important to define. I own a mobile phone because I need it to be in contact with people. However, I don’t need to have 30 vintage cars which I managed to buy through exploiting other human beings. This is not fair. Everyone has the right to have personal belongings but those personal belongings have to be justified.


Wouldn't one have the right to be different?

Of course! Everyone is different. Everyone has different passions and desires. In an anarchist society or a collective there maybe 4 people who want to race bikes and 49 people who want to maintain a cinema. There maybe a person who wants to make an astronomy project for children or 9 people who want to go traveling around the world. Maybe there are people who want to play music or put on a dance festival. The possibilities and differences of life and love are endless. The problem is, in society, no one can peruse what they desire and love because they are forced to work in order to survive. Anarchism embraces freedom of all kind, but real, lasting freedom. Not selective freedom.


how much freedom does one have living in an anarchist state (of living).

As long as everyone contributes to society (20 hours a week every 18 weeks) then your life is your own, to pursue anything you desire. Bare in mind that individuals must take responsibility for themselves. If you want to run a cinema or build a park, then that is your responsibility to act on it. Organize it and do it. Individual freedom is about being individual and acting on your desires and seeing them through. In an anarchist society the concept of freedom becomes existence. You are free to do and act and desire and love in what ever capacity or form you wish it to be. Anarchism is freedom!


What if I wanted your house because I was sick of mine?

If you came to my house with all my friends in it and demanded to have it for your own I would tell you to fuck off. If you pulled out a gun I would leave. Go to some friends or other members of my collective and explain what has happened. It would then be the role of the collective to decide how we move forward.


What if 75% of the people in any given town, city, state, or country agree with the revolution. Lets say the revolution takes place. Well what about the 25% of the people that do not agree with these new morals of society?

There are about 13 to 14 million working class people in the UK. That's a vast majority. Say another 2.5 million students and 3 million unemployed. That’s 19.5 million people. 75% makes 14.625 million people. That's one hell of a lot of people who have taken to the streets in what ever capacity (not necessarily literally) and demanded the system change, fought it and over thrown it. Now the remaining 5 million would have a choice. Either fight us, go into exile or form their own community, isolated from the rest of the country. If they choose to fight us, then fine, we would fight back. If they chose to leave, fine again. If they chose to set up their own communities fine once more. These communities wouldn’t last long at all however. They would eventually begin to collapse. The workers in these communities would gradually see how better off they would be working with their fellow comrades. Why would they want to live separately to their fellow workers? Sooner or later they would integrate into the rest of society or begin to actively attack it. In which case we would have to fight them.


What do you do about it?

Me personally? What ever was needed.


Trade would be needed if there was not a world anarchist society.

Of course, but I think it would be very difficult.


People will need/want to trade. Trade is necessary either way.

I am sure they will need and want to trade. Then fine. People will just do it, in what ever method both parties agree on.

[Osman Ghazi]

Very good. A little simplistic though. I mean, you would also need people to make the 'food' into something. You can't just eat grain and raw meat. Would you also not need people to make different manufactured products? Personally, I would prefer if everyone did about 2 hours of work for say 3 or 4 days a week instead of not doing anything for 4 and a half months.

[The Feral Underclass]

A little simplistic though.

There maybe many different jobs needed which I or you can not forsee.


you would also need people to make the 'food' into something. You can't just eat grain and raw meat

Of course. Raw meat however can be distributed and cooked. Things such as bread would have to be produced in a factory. Maybe these farms supplied the 30 bread factories around the country with the material and the bread was distributed to the collectives from there. These are all problems that collectives and co-operatives would discuss and solve together.


I would prefer if everyone did about 2 hours of work for say 3 or 4 days a week instead of not doing anything for 4 and a half months.

The work may not be there to do. Remember, we are not living in a consumer world were we over produce things to sell and people will not need to work to survive. Society will be very different and the amount of work will be limited to socially necessary work, except for those projects started by collectives or indeviduals to produce goods that we wanted.

[CorporationsRule]

Billions of people are going to die in the next century. There will be massive die off of the human population.

It's stupid to talk about sustaining our population. It cannot be done.

We have two choices. Allow corporate elites to keep conglomerating power and live in a psychotically fascist state in which useless consumers are herded into camps to die. Or we begin to push hard for decentralized democratic institutions in all sectors of our society so that when our energy crisis becomes acute locally organized communities can deal with it as they may.

A practical anarchism does not have to explain how it will sustain our population. Nothing but more fossil fuels can do that, and more fossil fuels just ain't there.

A violent decent into agrarian fuedalism, or a difficult but democratic return to primitive anarchistic communities?

What's it gonna be?

[Osman Ghazi]

Is anyone else getting tired of this guy?

Newsflash: Billions of people died in this century.

Tell me something I don't know.

[CorporationsRule]

"Newsflash: Billions of people died in this century."

Um...I don't think you're following me here.

When I say "billions of people are going to die", I mean you...of starvation...

"Is anyone else getting tired of this guy?"

I am. I wish somebody could convince me I'm wrong so I could shut up about it.

[LSD]

I am. I wish somebody could convince me I'm wrong so I could shut up about it.

Well first you'd have to actuall make an argument, and not just repeat your "predictions" for the future.

Although certainly there are tough times ahead, I see no evidence of the cataclysm you seem to forsee.

[Individual]

Is anyone else getting tired of this guy?

Maybe so.

But I am sure as hell getting tired of you!

'Oh anarchy will work ... Wait, no it won't anymore ... Wait, lets prohibit guns and kill people ... Oh, yes, anarchy will work ... Wait no it won't ... Oh, tell me something I don't know ... Wait, I don't know anything actually ... Actually, I now know everything'

Shut the hell up and make up your mind. You haven't provided a decent arguement this whole time. You contradict what people who actually know what they are talking about, and still manage to pretend like you do know what you are talking about. Try and listen, instead of opening your damn mouth.

[Osman Ghazi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 11:32 PM

Is anyone else getting tired of this guy?

Maybe so.

But I am sure as hell getting tired of you!

'Oh anarchy will work ... Wait, no it won't anymore ... Wait, lets prohibit guns and kill people ... Oh, yes, anarchy will work ... Wait no it won't ... Oh, tell me something I don't know ... Wait, I don't know anything actually ... Actually, I now know everything'

Shut the hell up and make up your mind. You haven't provided a decent arguement this whole time. You contradict what people who actually know what they are talking about, and still manage to pretend like you do know what you are talking about. Try and listen, instead of opening your damn mouth.
Ouch.

If I actually cared what you thought I might be offended. Wait, no it's gone now. Never mind, false alarm.

1. Anarchy as a system, were it actually implemented would work. IMO, of course.

2. Anarchy cannot be achieved. Again, IMO. For the reasons stipulated above.

3. I don't think that a fully implemented anarchist society would require guns and I think that they would probably be destroyed. At least that is what I would want in an anarchist society. Also, I would want the enemies of anarchism to be liquidated i.e. killing undesirable people like racists. It would have to be done during the revolution though.

I thought my arguments were quite decent actually.

Did you have any specific criticism or was it more of general critique? If the latter, I think a more systematic and more constructive method would be preferable in the future. :lol:

As for changing my opinion, well, what I just said are my current thoughts on anarchism. I take it as a compliment that my views aren't fixed in a forum where everyone's chief complaint is the dogmatism of the opposing side.

And please, don't insult my intelligence. You don't know me. You don't know anything about me, really. I would say that you and I are probably something of intellectual equals. Of course, I'm basing that on very little evidance so you may not be as smart as I think you are.

[Individual]

If I actually cared what you thought I might be offended. Wait, no it's gone now. Never mind, false alarm.

I thought you didn't care what I thought? Then why did you take the time to point out your arguements? And no, your arguements were not decent, in fact, what were your arguements? Again, your contradiction:


1. Anarchy as a system, were it actually implemented would work.
2. Anarchy cannot be achieved

Wait, so it would work, but cannot be achieved? So you think if it were implemented it would work. It just couldn't be achieved? Well if it were implemented, wouldn't it work? Oh but implement means to carry out. Achieving anarchy would not be carrying it out? I can hear you now, so what's your excuse? And what exactly would your stance on anarchy be? You seem to like to argue for it, then argue against it. So where are you with this. Oh yeh. It can't be achieved, but it would work. Got ya. Don't worry, I know what your arguement is, don't bother.


3. I don't think that a fully implemented anarchist society would require guns and I think that they would probably be destroyed. At least that is what I would want in an anarchist society. Also, I would want the enemies of anarchism to be liquidated i.e. killing undesirable people like racists. It would have to be done during the revolution though.

Again, do you understand the meaning of anarchy? Freedom. That is great that you want guns and racists banned, or 'liquidated' as you put it. What if I want to go hunting? What if I shoot for recreation? What if people like you go crazy, how do I shoot you? Guns would be needed, whether protection, or recreation. Taking away guns would defeat the purpose of anarchy. What would be next, cars? Cars kill people. Howcome you don't have a problem with cars?

I won't even get into the killing of racists. You should realize my problem with this.


Did you have any specific criticism or was it more of general critique? If the latter, I think a more systematic and more constructive method would be preferable in the future.

You are telling me this? More systematic and constructive. Are you kidding me? What you are referring to is my implyed quotes of yourself. Did you want me to number it out for you. You seemed to understand it quite clearly for I caught your attention.


As for changing my opinion, well, what I just said are my current thoughts on anarchism. I take it as a compliment that my views aren't fixed in a forum where everyone's chief complaint is the dogmatism of the opposing side.

Wait, what was that. The dogmatism? Yes, that is a fair complaint towards someone. Nobody has absolute knowledge. Therefore that is a good complaint, for many people have ego's the size of Texas. Many people have great knowledge, but nobody on this board, or on Earth for that matter, can possibly know everything. This is why I consistently inform people to open their mind. Listen. I fall under the same problem, getting carried away. Just don't think I'm getting soft on you now.


And please, don't insult my intelligence. You don't know me. You don't know anything about me, really. I would say that you and I are probably something of intellectual equals. Of course, I'm basing that on very little evidance so you may not be as smart as I think you are.

Lets not go there. That clues me in on some of your intelligence. Judge to early. You are clearly right, I do not know you. Nor do you know me. However to grade someone's intellect on their grammar is pushing it. You shouldn't grade someone's intelligence on whether or not they can talk a good line or not. Also, my knowledge could be in the complete reverse of someone else. It all depends on what you have studied in life, what you have learned. So I may have intelligence on human behavior, and the human mind. However someone else may have intelligence about mathematics, and biology. Don't be so quick to judge someone's intelligence.

[The Feral Underclass]

AlwaysQuestion

Stop *****ing and get back to the topic. You havent answered my post to you. I understand that it is long, but if you want to understand more about anarchism lets get on with it!!!

EDIT: If you are posting to me right now then I apologise :)

[Individual]

Yes. I did not realize my last post would carry on so long. I have been meaning to respond. This weekend I was very occupied, and at the moment I am attending my slave session. Don't worry, I will respond.

[Osman Ghazi]

1. Okay, you are twisting my words just a smidgeon. By 'if it were implemented' I mean if an anarchist society along the lines previously discussed came to be. By 'it would work' I meant that it would be sustainable and a viable form of government that would be absolutley great.

2. As I have said before, I do not think that an anarchist society could be implemented. 1 and 2 actually do make sense coming out of the same person's mouth, er... keyboard. :lol:


Wait, so it would work, but cannot be achieved?
Yes. Glad to see you understand. :P


Howcome you don't have a problem with cars?


Umm.. I guess because cars weren't designed to kill people whereas guns were. Am I wrong?
If no one had guns, why would you need guns to defend yourself? People could just train in the martial arts or be given stun-guns. (Yes, a stun-gun is still a gun but it is notably different than a regular gun.) The fact is that there is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to defend yourself.

Maybe, just maybe the killing racists comment was ummm.... over the top?
However, since racists would probably side with the forces of reaction, they would probably mostly be killed anyway.

Tension: How did you arrive at those numbers?

[LSD]

Osman, AQ.....do you two even know what you're arguing about??


Seriously, both of you, calm down...

Debate the issues or don't, but arguing over the meaning of "implemented"??

[Individual]

Ok AT. Sitting here during my lunch hour with my In-n-out burger (oh yes, you must be jealous. haha. Probably don't know what they are, west coast thing) Anyways. Where to begin.


The world is made up of small societies, so although I am talking about collectives, it still applies to the whole world, as the whole world would be made up of collectives.

Ok. Got that. So would that then mean that their are smaller communities that make their own guidelines as agreed upon by the people? i.e. Cities would make control things like education/property allowment/food supply etc. Meaning that everything is an anarchist society, just broken down so that individual communities are deciding what is best for themselves?



QUOTE
Then are there agencies to deal with foreign policies? Issues within this society (medical, disaster (natural, man), education type agencies) are to be dealt with on public terms? Everything of this nature is set up and run by the public? (I'm assuming I shall know the answer, just checking to see as if these types of things will still exist)



My Nan is probably the most neurotic person I have ever met. She is always flapping her arms and getting into a confused muddle over something or another. Sometimes I think this personality disorder applies to politics also. There is calm and rationale politics and then there is confused neurotic politics

You are being my Nan right now. You're flapping your arms and getting all worried and neurotic about everything. Don't get me wrong, the question of dealing with medical disasters etc are important ones, but I do not think we need to think so hard about them. .

And I can agree that this is how politics can be. Barking about things that need to be changed or that can and will go wrong. However these are logical questions. However I see where you are coming from that you cannot answer them and should be dealt with when anarchy takes place.



I can not answer such specific questions. I can not talk about how the entire world will function. I am just one human. One single, solitary individual who happens to be an anarchist. All I know is that things such as natural disasters or medical emergencies are things that will have to be considered by the international community. You can not refute anarchism by asking these sorts of questions. Organization comes through human ability, regardless of how they choose to do it. Without human ability nothing could happen.

And yes, I see where you are coming from. As one person, without a set way to know how this will happen, you could not possibly have a complete answer. I guess I was just asking these things to see if an answer was had, and to see your feelings. Just remember, though I may not think anarchy would completely work, I think it is a logical idea that favors the well being of human living.


QUOTE
I seem to be confused on the issue of currency. Is there a form of currency?


No!

Again you have answered my question of whether or not we are talking about a world anarchist state of living. However what would be the case if only partial revolution took place in the beginning. And a form of currency was needed to deal with opposing nations.

Or would this society become isolationist and wait for a world revolution to take place?


QUOTE
If no, which I think is the case, what are these people working for?


Society.

This is obviously a very logical reason to work. However would it not be the freedom of the people to choose not to work? Obviously people would need to work in order to survive, but what about how it was in the early 1800's in America (not all, but many were like this. And not particularly talking of farms, just going to use as an example) when people worked in order to support their own immediat family. Working to supply food for themselves, shelter for themselves, etc. Not all would want to do this, however would this society be supportive of these circumstances?




QUOTE
If everything is equal, why don't people just work for themselves.

Now food, shelter, electricity, water and gas are all human discoveries, yet they are packaged and sold back to us so some people can make some money. These things are our human right to have. We all should have shelter, food etc without having to pay for it. We should all be able to live without want. My mother should not have to go to work all her life just so she can have a house or some food. She should be enjoying her existence by experiencing life, without having to work her guts out for someone else.

And yes, this I can completely agree on. Something which would only be accomplished in an anarchist society. One major benefit. Why should we have to work nearly our entire lives in order to survive?


Now in order for everyone to have this and live without want society has to be organized in a certain way. Let's assume that the majority of workers agreed that this was the case, that being forced to sell your labor for a few pounds while others got rich was not acceptable, that they smashed the state and brought power into their hands. We then simply organize it.

Again, I agree with this concept. Here would be a question. What happens if oil is discoverd on my property (you know what, forget it. One of those questions that need be answered when revolution takes place)




Let us say we have a city of 497,674 people which broke down into 349 collectives. That's 349 collectives of 1426 people. Now in this area there are 2 electricity stations, 4 water plants, 1 gas station, 65 farms producing different kinds of meats, vegetables, dairy products. We have 2,000 buses and a sewage team which needs 2,000 people to work it. Now each collective has an assembly who elects a representative to attend a meeting for all the city. At this meeting these representatives work in co-operation and discuss what the city needs. This group of people has no legislative power, it can not make decisions which effect the city, nor is there a chairperson. It is simply a logistics meeting. They conclude at the meeting.

2 electricity stations = 3,589 people
4 Water plants = 8,546 people
1 gas station = 567 people
65 farms = 1,450 people
2000 people to drive the buses
2000 people to work the sewage team
5,000 fire men
2,000 doctors
750 ambulance drivers
2,098 house maintenance team.

So this meeting ends and the representatives return back to their collectives to report what is required of each collective.

This is a logical approach. Only thing is that there would be many more jobs need done. This was just an example though so I'm not complaining.

Another thing is that how do you decide who works and who doesn't? This could lead to class development which would clearly not be wanted. I do think that though major class difference may not exist, there will still be different classes of people. There may not even be hatred or superiority to these classes, however I do believe that classes would arise, and would cause slight tension.

Back to deciding on who would work. Again, question that may not be anle to be answered, I'll try my best. The people that work, are they chosen to work, or are they volunteer. If they are chosen, what to do if they choose not to work? Are they banned from the community? Or are they able to go on with their life without working?


There are 28,000 people needed altogether to run this city. 80 people are needed from each collective to ensure that everyone has food, shelter, electricity, water, gas, doctors, ambulances, fire brigade, sewage cleaning, and buses. So lets say that these 80 people worked 4 days a week (except emergency jobs - which is different because of the nature of the job) for 5 hours a day. That would mean that you, as an individual, would work for 20 hours in one week every 18 weeks. So for 20 hours work, every four and a half months you get a house, some food, electricity, free buses, gas, a clean sewage, free health care and emergency services. This now frees up your time to actually live. Maybe you want to organize producing a CD player for your collective, or making a cinema. You can now arrange with other collectives to do that. Your life is free, for the minimal amount of work for the maximum return. You work to your ability and you receive according to your need. Communism, anarchism, the perfect world. The world we all want and all it takes it to remove these bastards from power!!!

Ahh. You have answered another question of entertainment.

This is actually a logical approach. So to even free up more free time, and to make everything completely fair. Maybe you divide up all of the able body workers. Everyone that is able. You train them all in specific fields of work. Then everyone will work, rotating shifts (by week, month, etc.). This would make everything fair so nobody could complain to not work.

Ok. I know I don't think anarchy would work. But you've really left me with not much to debate. You have given logical examples of this society. The only things I can think to debate are things that you, as one person, could not answer. They are logical debates against anarchy, just things that would need be decided when anarchy took place. So lets keep going...


QUOTE
This society would seem to prove very primitive. No motivation is there for people to work. If everyone needs to be fair and equal, then everyone should be able to have the same thing. Why work, when everything is fair. The logic of people's respect and courtesy for other people should not be brought up, for not everyone is willing to bust their ass for someone else.


Of course you wouldn’t be able to go and buy caviar from your local shop, or buy 20 brands of coffee. Maybe a DVD player would take a while to get to you, but I don’t think that these things are what is really important. What is important is making sure that every human being lives from want. What is important is for us to live together in peace and co-operation and enjoy our lives. Experience and living a happy, decent life.

So really people would just need to adapt to change. Just realizing in the meantime that hopefully the change is for their benefit. This was something I was curious about, glad to know you didn't come back saying something along the lines as people's technology in their homes would stay the same (i.e. people would have 5 T.V.s, computers, expensive art, this sort of thing) without maintaining 'classes' within the society. This would be merely impossible. For that is where class system develops in our nations today. Who has more of what, and how much it cost.


Why would people not want to work for that? The difference between working now and working in such a society is vast. Wouldn’t you do 20 hours a week of work in an electricity plant every 4 and a half months if you knew that everyone in your city would benefit from it. I would. I would do what ever was needed of me if I new that it would benefit my comrades, my friends, family and community and that everyone was provided for.

Also agreed. However not all people care for the common good of society as a whole. While you, I, and most of the Che-Livers would give a helping hand to benefit someone else. Many wouldn't. Maybe this is due to modern societies way of life, but I don't see everyone falling for this. Like a couple posts up. I think a good way to go about this is to do what you have said, divide up working hours. And not physically force/or even ban persons that would not participate in work. Just make it known that everyone will work, and if everyone works, the less you have to work. This is a very logical idea. It just may take a while to get going. Many do not want to work for themselves, let alone for someone else.


QUOTE
Exactly how utopian do you want/think that this society will be? How utopian do you want it to be. Arguing for complete equality seems a bit of a longshot, and unrealistic. Easily somewhere along the line, things will not be equal. Whether it is the number of bedrooms in a house, or how much knowledge one has. Things will prove to not be equal. So how utopian can it be?

The word utopian is sometimes used in a negative way. I find it amazing but that's the way it is. I do not think there is anything wrong with being a Utopianist or an idealist. When you ask "how utopian do want society to be" I can not really say. How do you really define utopian. I want to live in a world where people do not have to live in want. I want to live in a society without exploitation or persecution. I want to live in a stateless, classless society based on economic equality. I do not think that is a lot to ask for.

When you talk about equality of course there can not be material equality. Everyone can not have the same amount of bedrooms. But everyone can have bedrooms according to what they need. I do not need three bedrooms. I need only one. Maybe there are 4 other people who need one. We all move in to a 5 bedroom house together. A family of 8 can have a house with 5 or 6 bedrooms. I do not need to have 50 potatoes. I only need 10 where as a family of 4 may need 50. This is equality. At the moment a family of 8 has 3 bedrooms while one person has a house with 10 bedrooms, that is not equality.

My meaning of utopian is not necessarily a negative one. I meant, how perfectly equal a society do you want it to be. Someone (can't remember) had said that absolutely everything would be the same, down to the car, everything. This sounded absolutely obsurd to me and thus sparked my comment on 'how utopian'. I understand the goal is personal freedom and equality, I just wondered how exact and perfect it needed to be. Which threw me off. Started reminding me of some stories I read back in highschool. Weird stuff. I think I now understand where you would like it to go, just that one comment didn't register and sounded a bit asinine to me. Would it not be crazy if everyone had the same shape house, same interior, same couch, same silverware, same number of bedrooms. The same make of car, same color. The same clothes, day after day. This would get completely out of control, yet this is what someone(again, forget who, it's in this thread) was trying to imply.


QUOTE
wouldn't one have the right to be have his own possessions?


Of course, but it is how and why one has those possessions which is important to define. I own a mobile phone because I need it to be in contact with people. However, I don’t need to have 30 vintage cars which I managed to buy through exploiting other human beings. This is not fair. Everyone has the right to have personal belongings but those personal belongings have to be justified.

How do you justify them. I could justify and say that there are seven days in the week, therefore I need seven pairs of shoes. I see where you are getting at, but how do you enforce this without laws? Just the common good of the people? Which would probably be the case, however if you start having people keep track of this stuff. This would lead to discrimination or even classes.


QUOTE
Wouldn't one have the right to be different?

Of course! Everyone is different...... Anarchism embraces freedom of all kind, but real, lasting freedom. Not selective freedom.

Ok. Good just checkin.


QUOTE
how much freedom does one have living in an anarchist state (of living).

.... In an anarchist society the concept of freedom becomes existence. You are free to do and act and desire and love in what ever capacity or form you wish it to be. Anarchism is freedom!

Yes I realize this. Just it goes back to Osman saying stuff like prohibiting guns. And making things equal. 100% complete freedom would be merely impossible to keep around. I agree that people need as much possible freedom as they can. However complete freedom would allow someone to make a bomb and hold an entire community under fear. Or something along those lines. If you have complete freedom than I do not think equality would be able to be accomplished, yet if you don't have 100% freedoms, then is it still an anarchist society?


QUOTE
What if I wanted your house because I was sick of mine?

If you came to my house with all my friends in it and demanded to have it for your own I would tell you to fuck off. If you pulled out a gun I would leave. Go to some friends or other members of my collective and explain what has happened. It would then be the role of the collective to decide how we move forward

Ok. Got ya


QUOTE
Trade would be needed if there was not a world anarchist society.


Of course, but I think it would be very difficult.

QUOTE
People will need/want to trade. Trade is necessary either way.


I am sure they will need and want to trade. Then fine. People will just do it, in what ever method both parties agree on.

Ok. Makes sense.

(3 burgers later.. haha)

So it seems like you have made good arguements as to show positive sides of anarchy. I still do not think it is accomplishable, but that may not mean it will not work. You have exposed me to more positive sides, that I was uncapable of realizing, for negative sides kept fluttering through my mind. Again, sorry it has taken so long, I have been quite busy, that whip keeps hitting me in the back (Get that info on my desk! I need those data statistics as soon as possible! Blah, Blah, Blah. Haven't been able to actually sit down and type for a while.

Better get back and make this corporation some money, or I just may be let go. Oh no, I'm scared! haha.

[Osman Ghazi]

Ok AT. Sitting here during my lunch hour with my In-n-out burger (oh yes, you must be jealous. haha. Probably don't know what they are, west coast thing)

"It's near the In-N-Out Burger"
"They've got good burgers"
"Shut the up, Donny"

[Individual]

And a quote from Pulp Fiction has anything to do with Anarchy.. Actually not trying to argue.

However not all people catch that bit. And not all people have seen that movie.

InNOut, for anyone that has never had one, are seriously, hands down, the best damn burgers I've ever eaten in my entire life. If ever in the California area (God forbid), you should certainly try an InNOut burger.

They're fresh!
They'rree Great!

*(Yes, you guessed it. INO burger has paid me upwards of $556,789.23 to tell the members of Che-Lives this bit of ingenious advertising.)*

[apathy maybe]

These should first be ordered differently, I will answer them in the order they should have been ordered. Secondly before you ask these questions you should see this site http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...t=ST&f=6&t=6421 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6421) ,it has a number of good links as well. Thirdly as you can see there are almost as many interpretations of how anarchism would work as there are anarchists. A similar sort of thing applies for communists.


Edited to remove some material offensive to AlwaysQuestion. I'm sure that if someone wanted it they could PM me and I could try and recreate it.

[Y2A]

"Common sense"???? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You are basing your entire ideology on the thought that everyone would willingly agree with it. Not even Chomsky knows how it will work, how do you expect to know.

[synthesis]

And a quote from Pulp Fiction has anything to do with Anarchy.. Actually not trying to argue.

I thought that was from The Big Lebowski.

[Individual]

I thought that was from The Big Lebowski.

Yes, it very well could have been. Own them both. However am I wrong, or did they mention Innout in Pulp Fiction. I'm going to have to watch it tonight now that you bring it up.

ApathyMaybe:

You have got to be joking me. You must have put so much intellectual process into that last post. Man you just blew me away, by posting questions in a specific order!

For one, who in the hell cares what order they are in, the questions don't change.

For two, you make absolutely know logical atempt at answering them.

For three, the order of these questions could not have been coordinated, for they were written by different people! Geez-us Christ.

And for four, these questions have been answered with more logic than what you have provided (common sense, I have common sense not to light myself on fire too. Thanks for such great insight! Man... I'm telling ya!)

If you would like to participate in this debate, I'd ask that you go back, read up, and figure out where were at in the discussion. Your still at addition and subtraction, while were now working on Geometry. If you contribute with some logic, we just may make it to Calculus. Read up, then come up with your brilliant answer to the questions that haven't been answered, not the ones that have.

[synthesis]

Yes, it very well could have been. Own them both. However am I wrong, or did they mention Innout in Pulp Fiction. I'm going to have to watch it tonight now that you bring it up.

Perhaps Pulp Fiction did mention In-N-Out Burger. I was pretty sure that the Big Lebowski was the only movie with the line "Shut the fuck up, Donny!"

[Individual]

haha. Couldn't connect the name. Yes, that clearly must have been the Big Lebowski.

Goodman sure is a war veteran. He sure does know how to take care of a man's ashes to.

Shut the F'ck up! Vietnam, vietnam, vietnam. Duude! The money!

The Coen brothers are genius'. Fargo is one of my personal favorites.

[apathy maybe]

Not even Chomsky knows how it will work, how do you expect to know.
So what if Chomsky doesn't know, doesn't mean that someone else doesn't.


For one, who in the hell cares what order they are in, the questions don't change.
...
For three, the order of these questions could not have been coordinated, for they were written by different people! Geez-us Christ.

Actually it makes it easier to answer as some of the questions are related, and the answers to some questions answer others.



For two, you make absolutely know logical atempt at answering them.
...
And for four, these questions have been answered with more logic than what you have provided (common sense, I have common sense not to light myself on fire too. Thanks for such great insight! Man... I'm telling ya!)

I'm sorry if my answers were not up to you standard


If you would like to participate in this debate, I'd ask that you go back, read up, and figure out where were at in the discussion. Your still at addition and subtraction, while were now working on Geometry. If you contribute with some logic, we just may make it to Calculus. Read up, then come up with your brilliant answer to the questions that haven't been answered, not the ones that have.
What I'll do instead is edit my previous post just leaving the first part of it which is relevent which you made no reference to. No matter where you are in the debate.

[Individual]

So what if Chomsky doesn't know, doesn't mean that someone else doesn't.

No, but what it does mean in reality is... You sure as hell don't know.


Actually it makes it easier to answer as some of the questions are related, and the answers to some questions answer others.

Ok. My point being, the answers to the questions will still be the same. So sorry our brilliance didn't think ahead and realize that you wanted these in specific order. We were trying to make points while showing questions on the system of anarchy.


I'm sorry if my answers were not up to you standard

It's not my standard. It's what you call common sense. Here are your answers that you wrote, and having read through this thread, wouldn't you think we are past the level of these answers?

Yours: Oh sh't. I'm sorry, didn't notice that you removed your answers realizing they were completely unlogical. So I shall now provide examples of your kinds of answers:

no
no
n/a
common sense
no
no

Do you get where I'm coming from by asking you to put logic in this? This does nothing to help conversation. Put evidence to your answer. Not no, no, no. Especially when all of those questions had already been answered for me. Using no, then proper evidence or logic behind them.


What I'll do instead is edit my previous post just leaving the first part of it which is relevent which you made no reference to. No matter where you are in the debate.

...

Thirdly as you can see there are almost as many interpretations of how anarchism would work as there are anarchists

Ok. Figured that. However did you want me to interpret your version with

no
no
n/a
common sense
no

Honestly? I'm really not trying to be rude. But coming in with a completely unprepared and unlogical arguements that are completely irrelevant to what we were currently talking about.


Edited to remove some material offensive to AlwaysQuestion.

Offensive? Right. Exactly where have I said the word offensive? Are you getting the two unrelated words 'unlogical' and 'offensive' mixed up? I think you must be. Or did you just pull that word from out of a hat and claim that I said it? I've seen people make stuff up before, but never as obvious as that.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 10:49 PM

So what if Chomsky doesn't know, doesn't mean that someone else doesn't.

No, but what it does mean in reality is... You sure as hell don't know.
Exactly. If Chomsky does not know, how are we to expect you to know? Face it you do not and thus have no argument. There is no point to continue this debate considering you haven't even the slightest clue about how your ideology is to work in the physical world.

[Osman Ghazi]

In Petr Kropotkin's Fugitive Writings, the first chapter is entitled "Must We Occupy Ourselves with Predictions on our Future Society?". The first sentence in that chapter is "Yes, I believe we must"

If no one knows, we should probably get around to figuring it out, no?

[The Feral Underclass]

Cities would make control things like education/property allowment/food supply etc. Meaning that everything is an anarchist society, just broken down so that individual communities are deciding what is best for themselves?

Each city or area would be broken down into collectives. There would also be production collectives who produced food etc or collectives, which ran electricity supplies etc. Things such as water and electricity are pretty straightforward. Every building which is in operation should be supplied with electricity the same for water or gas.

Each "residential" collective if you like would have certain teams responsible for certain things that were accountable to a collective assembly. Take the food team, they would be responsible for finding out what the collective needed and then make the necessary arrangements with the appropriate production collective.


And a form of currency was needed to deal with opposing nations.

Or would this society become isolationist and wait for a world revolution to take place?

It is a difficult question to answer. I can only presume by the nature of an anarchist revolution that capitalism had begun to be confronted throughout the west. Some may take longer than others to get where they wanted to be and at those times it may be hard going on the general population. As soon as the west had calmed down trading would be able to start properly.

If the revolution was confined to one nation then I think it would be extremely difficult to maintain anarchist principles while at the same time trying to sustain the same standard of living as we have now.


However would it not be the freedom of the people to choose not to work?

Of course it is the right of anyone not to work but if an individual or a group of individuals chose to do this it would isolate them from the rest of society. Not because people would exile them but because they would be forgotten. People who did want to make society work would simply get on with their jobs working together with their comrades. Those who chose not to would do what. Live at home. How would they eat? They would get left behind and I don’t think that if you were in a community where everyone was working together and you chose not to, you would feel very happy. All your friends and family and community working together for the good of everyone and you sat at home and watched TV...would that make people happy!


Not all would want to do this, however would this society be supportive of these circumstances?

Of course. There is no problem with people being self-sufficient providing they didn’t employ people to work on their farms.


What happens if oil is discovered on my property (you know what, forget it. One of those questions that need be answered when revolution takes place)

It is a fine question. If oil was discovered on your property you would inform the collective about it and make sure that it benefited everyone in society.


Another thing is that how do you decide who works and who doesn't?

For those people who have severe physical or mental difficulties working may be difficult and obviously would be exempt from work [unless of course they really wanted to and could do something].

There maybe jobs more suitable for some people more than others. There is a theory called demarchy, I do not know who discovered it or invented it but I know Redstar2000 is a big fan of it. The theory would see people volunteering for things they wanted to work as. So the collective would have the list of jobs and people would choose. Say I wanted to be a teacher and you fancied doing some work on a farm then we would both go to those jobs. Unfortunately jobs may not be available so a rota basis would be created. You could have second, third and fourth choices and you would be shifted around according to need. [if someone who knows more about demarchy reads this and I have it wrong please correct me].

There may also be people who want to travel and so would be exempt from work to do so. There maybe people who are trying to invent or design something which would improve the standards of the collective and so would also be exempted from work by the collective. there are many examples but the point is that people would talk and discuss it with the collective and come to an agreement.


I do think that though major class difference may not exist, there will still be different classes of people. There may not even be hatred or superiority to these classes, however I do believe that classes would arise, and would cause slight tension.

Class is not a creation of skill it is a creation of your economic status. Everyone would be economically equal so there can be no class distinctions.


people that work, are they chosen to work, or are they volunteer.

Nobody can be forced to work. People would want too.


If they are chosen, what to do if they choose not to work? Are they banned from the community? Or are they able to go on with their life without working?

People are able to do what ever they want, but they would find it very difficult to live if they isolated themselves from the rest of society.


However not all people care for the common good of society as a whole. While you, I, and most of the Che-Livers would give a helping hand to benefit someone else. Many wouldn't.

Maybe not in today’s society but that can change.


This is a very logical idea. It just may take a while to get going.

I think it will take a long time.


I could justify and say that there are seven days in the week, therefore I need seven pairs of shoes.

But that's just subjective logic. It isn’t actually fact.


but how do you enforce this without laws? Just the common good of the people? Which would probably be the case, however if you start having people keep track of this stuff. This would lead to discrimination or even classes.

People aren't stupid. People will realize just as I and hopefully you have that having 7 pairs of shoes is ridicules. There is no need to keep track of these things. Even if someone did think it, how would they manage to do it, unless they made them themselves that is fair enough.


complete freedom would allow someone to make a bomb and hold an entire community under fear. Or something along those lines. If you have complete freedom than I do not think equality would be able to be accomplished, yet if you don't have 100% freedoms, then is it still an anarchist society?

Noam Chomsky says, and I agree, that there are forms of domination [authority], which are justifiable. Stopping someone from making a bomb and killing people is justifiable authority, just as stopping your daughter from running in front of a car is. Wage slavery and the state however cannot be justified and therefore should be destroyed.


So it seems like you have made good arguments as to show positive sides of anarchy. I still do not think it is accomplishable

Why?

If you are interested to read more about anarchism I have reading lists and resources from the Internet, which you can look at. One good place to start is the Che-Lives Dictionary. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=21255)

[Osman Ghazi]

Noam Chomsky says, and I agree, that there are forms of domination [authority], which are justifiable. Stopping someone from making a bomb and killing people is justifiable authority, just as stopping your daughter from running in front of a car is. Wage slavery and the state however cannot be justified and therefore should be destroyed.


There are three types of power according to something i read: coercive, normative and (i think) suggestive or something like that. Justifiable authority is normative power i.e. it is recognized as necessary to a society.

Did you see my question about the numbers you gave?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Heres how I would like things...
In a collective of undeterminable size, a group of people get together and decide on what things they want to have as a group, and things they would like as individuals. The collective then sends in its demands to a city council made up of party representatives of each collective, who review the demands and filter out demands that are not justified (like new cars for everyone). Then the revised list of needs goes to a regional committee to further filter out needs that are not feasable with the current level of resources. A national party committee then makes plans to meet those needs, and sends a requests back to each city counsel on how many people will be needed to do certain tasks, and are given a quotas to meet. Then through a compromise of aptitude tests and volunteerism, each collective comes to some sort of consensus on who will specialize in what field. That way, everyone is doing a job that is socially useful.

[The Feral Underclass]

Tension: How did you arrive at those numbers

It was just an example...I took at random and then divided it by a number at random. Then I just guessed.

[The Feral Underclass]

The collective then sends in its demands to a city council made up of party representatives of each collective, who review the demands and filter out demands that are not justified. (like new cars for everyone).

I am sure the collective can come to its own conclusion about things, even how many cars everyone should have.

Who would these representatives be? Why do they have a right to such authority? How would these representatives become representatives.


Then the revised list of needs goes to a regional committee to further filter out needs that are not feasable with the current level of resources. A national party committee then makes plans to meet those needs, and sends a requests back to each city counsel on how many people will be needed to do certain tasks, and are given a quotas to meet.

Pure bullshit. It's just bureacracy gone mad. It is completely unnecesasry. Can you justify the need for all these committees. Why dont the collectives just get on with the job instead of going through all these representaitves who have no right to decide what is and what isnt acceptable for a collective.

[Individual]

TAT and the rest in the debate:

I shall respond to these new posting on anarchy as soon as this chaos settles down.

Well I guess its a good thing this topic is in OI. I'm starting to like the title I now have... "Who the hell do you think I am?"... It's almost as if it was something I would request for myself. However I am trying to figure out this Restricted M. business going on, which has been consuming my time.

Thank you for the response of anarchy, and I shall respond as soon as time permits. Seems like we have some good points to discuss. Am looking forward to it. Should be pretty soon.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2004, 05:20 PM

The collective then sends in its demands to a city council made up of party representatives of each collective, who review the demands and filter out demands that are not justified. (like new cars for everyone).

I am sure the collective can come to its own conclusion about things, even how many cars everyone should have.

Who would these representatives be? Why do they have a right to such authority? How would these representatives become representatives.


Then the revised list of needs goes to a regional committee to further filter out needs that are not feasable with the current level of resources. A national party committee then makes plans to meet those needs, and sends a requests back to each city counsel on how many people will be needed to do certain tasks, and are given a quotas to meet.

Pure bullshit. It's just bureacracy gone mad. It is completely unnecesasry. Can you justify the need for all these committees. Why dont the collectives just get on with the job instead of going through all these representaitves who have no right to decide what is and what isnt acceptable for a collective.
I do not think that a collective can make its own decisions entirely. Granted they can in many instances, but not all of them. I think higher government agencies are needed to view things in a larger perspective, and to make desicions on what is best for everyone as a whole, not just an individual commune. I think decisions made as a commune should be made by everyone, and decisions made on a regional and national level should be made by Communist party officials, who are elected through elections open only to Communist party members, done at party meetings.

[The Feral Underclass]

I noticed your signiture. It really says alot when, after making numerous theoretical arguments and serious points in theory debates about Leninism, none of which you were involved in, you take one stupid comment I made and then monopolize on it...It says alot


I think higher government agencies are needed to view things in a larger perspective, and to make desicions on what is best for everyone as a whole, not just an individual commune.

Why can collectives not does this using co-operation. Why do we need a state structure to think for us.


I think decisions made as a commune should be made by everyone, and decisions made on a regional and national level should be made by Communist party officials, who are elected through elections open only to Communist party members, done at party meetings.

You want decisions made by everyone, but only members of the communist party. So everyone can make a decisions as long as they are a party member. Unbelievable.

This is the problem with Leninsm. On the one hand you say that the dictatorship of the proletariat will be representative and democractic, while on the other hand saying that party officials will control national committees and make decisions which effect working class people. The workers don't give a flying fuck about your party meetings or your national committees, they want to get on with building their collective. By taking control of their own lives. Not be responsable to some snotty nosed opportunist in London who has probably never been to collective X in his life and only joined the party so he could be come the Chairman of the Third Committee for Internal Affairs of the National Assembly of Tits.

You people are so set in your ways it's pointless debating with you, you wont even consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

If you don't like me using your stupid comments for my sig, then dont say them.
It would be logical that a party member would be just as interested in participating at regional party conferences as they would be about their individidual commune. Furthermore, I do not think communes should have total independance, so decisions are needed on a larger scale. I see no harm in letting non-party members take part in communal affairs, however, decisions made on a larger scale should be done only by party members. Workers SHOULD give a flying fuck about it. Making decisions is a job too, perhaps not so much a job as a responsibility. Furthermore, I think assemblies should be devoid of "chairmans". I think we've learned a lesson from Stalin, Pol Pol, and Meloshevik on what can happen when a single person gains absolute control over anything. Anyone with purely political ambitions would be very disappointed to find out they highest they can get is to be a member of the national committee.

[Osman Ghazi]

Why do we need a party? Are we stupid brainless fucks who can't do anything for ourselves? What gives Party members special powers that allow them to rule where a common man cannot?

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't care what you put in your signiture...what bothers me is that when ever there is a serious debate you are never to be found and then you put those comments on your signiture as if that is it..as if I have nothing more to say about Leninism than those purposefully inflamatry marks made in Shit Chat..why don't you go and read my thread about Leninism, or the threads about the dictatorship of the proletariat and the others and take a quote from there?..

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

If you don't like the stupid shit that people say to go in my profile, then stop saying stupid shit!

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 07:24 PM
If you don't like me using your stupid comments for my sig, then dont say them.
Now that deserves to be quoted in my future signature... :lol: :D


I see no harm in letting non-party members take part in communal affairs, however, decisions made on a larger scale should be done only by party members. Workers SHOULD give a flying fuck about it. Making decisions is a job too, perhaps not so much a job as a responsibility.

Decisions made on a larger scale should be done by everyone, unless someone don't care, in that case they wouldnt care too much about governing. Making decisions shouldn't be a job, it should be part of the daily life. After all people makes decisions every single day, on different things and levels, but I don't think it's a job to pick which TV channel to see, or if it's better to take a shower in the morning or in the afternoon, or about which is the btter neighoburhood to move to, just to give some simple examples. Of course some people will have decision-making jobs but they shouldn't have too much power and should be about not very important issues, or issues that do not affect the people's freedom (like teachers, those in charge of libraries, scientists, etc.)

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think the economy, and international policy, and social issues should be dictated by the party, and I see know problem in letting someone manage something like a liberary. We shall rule the Pasco County liberaries with an iron fist! ....mmm not likely to happen. If gays had to submit to the will of the majority, then there would be no more gays in America, and in Alabama, if the majority of the people had the power to do anything, then the only place youd find a minority would be hanging from a tree. The majority can not be held responsible to always make the right decisions or to make everything fair and equal, the parrty however, can, and should be.

[The Feral Underclass]

If you don't like the stupid shit that people say to go in my profile, then stop saying stupid shit!

Like I said fuck face, i dont care what you put in your signiture...

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

...

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 04:54 AM
Just one question, how would a decentralized "Anarchist" society maintain a population of 6 billion, and keep everyone safe, healthy, and well educated?
How is the centralized state accomplishing this?

It's not!

How on earth do you expect a single centralized entity to care for 6 billion people?

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 12 2004, 08:34 PM
In a communist anarchy

1) Who stops criminals
2) How are these criminals sentenced
3) Who decides what is a criminal
4) Who makes sure nobody gains too much power
5) Who puts out fires
6) What stops people from stealing goods from others
7) What places restrictions of "businesses" (environmental and work conditions)


I think thats enough to start.
1. The people of a community decide what type of citizen based enforcement system they want or don't want.
2. By a system the people decide is fair.
3. The people. Anarchism doesn't mean "no rules;" it means "no rulers."
4. There is no power, because there are no permanent or long term positions. People are subject to immediate recall.
5. The fire department. There is no reason why you can't have a fire department selected by the citizenry.
6. Nothing immediately. It will take a long process of social conditioning to reverse this trend.
7. The people decide what sort of rules will exist for businesses. Perhaps a community would go back to the definition of the corporation that was used in the U.S. before the 1850's. At that point, a corporation was simply a tool to accomplish a specific task, like building a bridge, in a community. Once the task was complete, the corporation's useful life came to an end.

[The Feral Underclass]

So you want to burn me to death with a flame thrower......... :blink:

*steps back slowly...so not to startle the psycho*

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:07 PM
Ahh yes. Thank you JGalt for bringing up a topic beginning with questioning anarchy.

8/ who deals with foreign affairs
9/ are there government agencies (Intelligence, Internal Affairs, advisors, etc)
10/ are there written laws
11/ if there are no laws, how do you deal with crime, poverty, expenditure, monopolies, etc.
12/ If there is no leader, does everyone just come up with/start the revolution
13/ How do you deal with greed/capitalism
14/ (relating to Galt's #6) If nobody has "possesions"/"ownership", how do you stop people from saying "well this is my house, get out, my gun is bigger"
15/ What controls trade, is there free trade
16/ Is there a military
17/ If so, what are rules guidelines surrounding military (conduct, enrollment, etc)
18/ Somebody must have a leading role in a militaristic force (otherwise, there is no conduct, everyone just fights enemies as they please? This state would diminish quickly) Who will it be, and how?
19/ If you agree to anything on this list and support anarchism, there certainly must be an election for something, but there are no leaders?

List could go on and on.

Would like to hear logical responses to either mine or Galt's questions.
8. The people of each community or bioregion would use consensus process to make decisions about foreign affairs and would send a representative that was only given authority to speak or act in accordance with the decision of the community.
9. There is no government, per se, so no. There can, however, be community based groups that handle issues like education, roads, fire, etc.
10. yes
11. na
12. It depends on how you define revolution. Peaceful revolution has plenty of leaders, but being a leader doesn't necessarily mean that you are a ruler. Non-peaceful revolution is antithetical to anarchism and is not possible.
13. The society we observe today exhibits human behavior resulting from the characteristics of the society we observe today. Were we to observe a different society, with different cultural characteristics, we would observe different behaviors.
14. I'm not sure there wouldn't be ownership. Keep in mind that not all anarchists are going to agree on this point.
15. The people of each bioregion or community decide what their trade policy will be or not be. There will always be trade between communities, since not all communities have all of the natural resources needed for survival. I made want to trade corn grown in my community for venison if the deer population in my community is insufficient to feed the citizens.
16. I'd favor a true citizens Militia, but disputes can be lessened through free association. As the centralized focus of our present society recedes, we will naturally tend to associate with those of like mind, forming communities of people with shared interests, based on those economic and political interests. Communities will form confederations with other communities based on common interest and mutual aid.
17. Again, issues handled by the community. Let the people decide, in a democratic forum, how their militia will be staffed and for how long.
18. People lived successfully under these models for thousands of years. The current form of state society you are referring to is a brash upstart.
19. Leaders or rulers?

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:42 PM
Face it there will always be crime in any society. To say there won't is to hide from the truth.
The reason societies exist is to provide common rules for all behavior.
The reason we have such an oppressive, greedy, self-centered society in the
United States is because the rules of our society provide occasion for and
reward oppressive, greedy, self-centered behavior. If we change those rules,
we no longer provide a pathway for the accumulation of political and
economic power and we no longer reward oppressive, greedy, self-centered
behavior.


Many ancient societies existed in this manner. They existed in communities where
egalitarian, altruistic actions were rewarded and valued over self-centered actions.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 01:17 AM
To the rest of you defending this. Instead of coming up with answers for 1, 2, 3, or 4 questions. If it is going to work, you should have answers for all of the questions. Not "well of course there will be firefighters" or "see above". That kind of b/s does not justify anything in my mind. Come up with something logical here.
I have logical answers to all of your inquiries. Sorry I joined the discussion so late....

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by DEPAVER+Feb 22 2004, 03:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DEPAVER @ Feb 22 2004, 03:34 PM)
[email protected] 12 2004, 11:42 PM
Face it there will always be crime in any society. To say there won&#39;t is to hide from the truth.
The reason societies exist is to provide common rules for all behavior.
The reason we have such an oppressive, greedy, self-centered society in the
United States is because the rules of our society provide occasion for and
reward oppressive, greedy, self-centered behavior. If we change those rules,
we no longer provide a pathway for the accumulation of political and
economic power and we no longer reward oppressive, greedy, self-centered
behavior.


Many ancient societies existed in this manner. They existed in communities where
egalitarian, altruistic actions were rewarded and valued over self-centered actions. [/b]
To me I think the state vs no-state debate comes out of certain understandings of the role of the state. The marxist explaination for all states is that it it is a tool used by one class (the ruling class) to enforce it&#39;s will. In Feudal times, the state was set up to ensure that feudal caste systems were maintained and so on. This is why the borgoise needed to change the state in order to progress their class. You can&#39;t have a caste of peasants when you need free-labor (so you can exploit it and make profits off it) so the borgoise in England and other countries (and to this day) destroyed the feudal order and enclosed the land which caused all the former peasants (now homelss) to come to cities and compete with eachother for jobs in mills and factories in order to survive in the new borgoise order.

If the working class it going to reorganize society in our collective intrests, I think a worker&#39;s state (in practice and set-up not in name alone) will be a usefull and necisay tool to prevent a conter revolution by either would-be tyrants or fascists or the remanents of the old ruling class in addition to setting up a new society.

A state is not inherantly corrupt or evil - just ask the eliete borgoise about our current bourgoise governments. They might have some petty complaints, but they have power and can influence this government and their complaints are not of the nature or scale of our complaints because this state exists to meet their needs such as providing a military defence and offence for capitalism and busines all over the world and having cops to ensure that people don&#39;t simply stop paying rent and to harass minoreties, the poor, and the homeless (i.e. to maintain the social order and class system).

But it is valid to be wary of state power and I think the point is for the working class to use the state not the other way around otherwise there would be no real socialism and ultamately no communist society.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 22 2004, 11:21 AM
So you want to burn me to death with a flame thrower......... :blink:

*steps back slowly...so not to startle the psycho*
Ever heard of flaming? You know, that thing people like you do on forums?

[The Feral Underclass]

Did anyone ever tell you you&#39;re a fuck nut&#33;&#33;&#33;

hows that for inflammptry