Anarchy is a naive impossibility.

[Anarchyisdumm]

:o Now, I just came to this website because friend said, "dude, you should go to this website." He then said, "its the stupid fourteen year old Anarchist kids from high school gathering grounds." So, I checked it out. Now, I will add my honest opinion too much of what I have seen while checking out the forum pages. To all who read this, all of it, good for you, keep an open mind. To all who stopped after the first three lines, I dub thee, self-righteous pussies. On Marxism, and the modern concept of communism, I say that it is a dream. For it to function, properly, as a political theory, meaning that it must have a little thing the real world calls staying power, then every person who is in the system, everybody, from top to bottom, must be moral and virtuous. Reason being, that one person, being lazy and receiving the benefits of Marxism, gets more than everyone else, not to mention the many many many ways and opportunities that the people on top get to oppress those under them. That a theory may exist where all are equal can never exist, not so long as any person ever feels any bit of anger or fear, which is of course inevitability. On anarchy, I say, grow up, the same rules apply. The truth is, is that the world, as a whole, already exists in a state of anarchy, because anarchy literally means "not under one united state of government". While the UN may serve for the training wheels of the will of a united world, as of now it lacks the power to relieve the state of anarchy aforementioned. Anarchy would only mean shittier lives. Seriously, just think about it, without a state of government control, than, again, every person is required to be 100% holy in all aspects. Those on this website who advocate anarchy have all stolen, cheated, or lied for personal gain in some way. Any selfish act, and the magnitude does not matter, would completely stop any possibility of anarchy. Because every wrong act then sparks another wrong act, so unless you do away with everyone's sense of justice and humanity, because it is just and it is humane to get pissed when someone steels something from you or cuts off your wiener, then anarchy will remain impossibility. Capitalism may be flawed, but a perfect state of government cannot be until everyone's intentions have become flawless. Which I say will not happen. So, instead of advocating these already failed or never were political systems, maybe all of the time spent on this website waxing politics in ignorant, subversive ways could be spent actually doing something good for the world. What makes more difference, *****ing with fellow *****ers about how things are, or working at a soup kitchen? Go do charity work, go give blood, go join habitat for humanity, the peace corps, do anything, for until you do, then all you can ever be is a hypocritical, whiny kid from high school who wants an excuse to not have to deal with the real world. Comments appreciated, thanks to all who read.

Big Mike's Handicapped Crossing

[More Fire for the People]

Yep, you proved you know absolutely nothing about anarchism. Most anarchists aren't opposed to democratic organization. Most of support industrial unions and communes as alternatives to the state.

[LSD]

Paragraphs: learn them, use them.

Moved to OI.

[loveme4whoiam]

Those on this website who advocate anarchy have all stolen, cheated, or lied for personal gain in some way.
I haven't.


What makes more difference, *****ing with fellow *****ers about how things are, or working at a soup kitchen?
In the short-term, to a small number of people? Of course the soup kitchen. In the long-term, global scale of things, us debating how to make the world a better place and then going out and doing it will always be better. Come to that, some people on here probably do both.

Your argument seems to stem simply from the fact that humans are bad people. Indeed, we are bad people. But what you seem to ignore is the fact that we could be good people. There was a good thread on human nature a while ago, I doubt you read it since you seem to ignore what is talked about in it, which proclaimed that human nature, as a guiding psychological pattern of thought, does not exist. We are selfish now because in the capitalist system it is beneficial to us as individuals to be selfish. In a society where being altruistic is beneficial, that is what we will do.


Seriously, just think about it, without a state of government control, than, again, every person is required to be 100% holy in all aspects.
We do not expect people to become perfect people overnight, but when it dawns on people that it is better to work as part of the whole rather than be selfish, this is the behaviour that will emerge. It is sad that you have taken one look at this site, thought about it's ideas and members in the standard, government force-fed propaganda views, and decided it is wrong. Had you looked at what we believe in with something approaching an open mind (which, as your opening line clearly shows, you did not) you may have learned something.

[Goatse]

I hope, I really really hope, that the use of "dumm" in your name was meant to be ironic.

Although judging from the fact that you can't use paragraphs, and the fact that you call us naive yet believe anarchy is a state of disorder, I somehow doubt it.

[KC]

For it to function, properly, as a political theory, meaning that it must have a little thing the real world calls staying power, then every person who is in the system, everybody, from top to bottom, must be moral and virtuous.

No.


Reason being, that one person, being lazy and receiving the benefits of Marxism, gets more than everyone else, not to mention the many many many ways and opportunities that the people on top get to oppress those under them.

Laziness isn't a trait inherent in people. People are lazy because they don't like what they do. Have you heard of hobbies? Hobbies are people working because they enjoy it.

What people are on top? There is nobody "on top" in a communist society. In fact, that is antithetical to what communism is.


That a theory may exist where all are equal can never exist, not so long as any person ever feels any bit of anger or fear, which is of course inevitability.

How would anger and fear undermine a communist society?


The truth is, is that the world, as a whole, already exists in a state of anarchy, because anarchy literally means "not under one united state of government".

Read some anarchist literature before you talk.


Any selfish act, and the magnitude does not matter, would completely stop any possibility of anarchy.

Being determines consciousness.


Capitalism may be flawed, but a perfect state of government cannot be until everyone's intentions have become flawless. Which I say will not happen.

You are incredibly undereducated/miseducated on communism and anarchism. I suggest you read about it before you discredit it so blindly.


a hypocritical, whiny kid from high school who wants an excuse to not have to deal with the real world.

Most of the people here are out of highschool, and deal more with the real world than you do.

[violencia.Proletariat]

For it to function, properly, as a political theory, meaning that it must have a little thing the real world calls staying power, then every person who is in the system, everybody, from top to bottom, must be moral and virtuous.

First of all, marxism is not "moralist". That is against being rational and logical. There is no top to bottom in communism, you know egalitarianism.


Reason being, that one person, being lazy and receiving the benefits of Marxism, gets more than everyone else, not to mention the many many many ways and opportunities that the people on top get to oppress those under them.

This pile of shit you call an arguement shows you have no understanding of any kind of leftist theory. Tell me, what is marxism?


The truth is, is that the world, as a whole, already exists in a state of anarchy, because anarchy literally means "not under one united state of government".

No anarchist I know ever says "anarchy" or that they want "anarchy", because it has been mislabeled and is now a word associated with chaos. Fair enough, I'll stick with calling it anarchism.

What is the etymology of "anarchy"? It's from greek meaning no rulers. But thats not important, whats important is what kind of movement has been organized under the word which gives it its meaning to todays society.

Secondly, anarchism is not in action anywhere in the world, but it has happened in the past. IE-The Spanish Civil War


Seriously, just think about it, without a state of government control, than, again, every person is required to be 100% holy in all aspects.

Anarchism has a history of extreme contempt for all religion, dont try to pin any superstitious terms with the movement. :angry:

Maybe you should try the abc's of anarchism by Alexander Berkman for a basic start to anarchist-communist theory. Or Kropotkin on anarchism, or the Conquest of Bread.


Those on this website who advocate anarchy have all stolen, cheated, or lied for personal gain in some way.

Baseless assertions, this is the internet you do not know what anyone has done.


Any selfish act, and the magnitude does not matter, would completely stop any possibility of anarchy.

Another baseless assertion. You do not understand the theory. It's simple, you picture some power hungry dictator taking power. What the proles would do is simply shoot the bastard. :)


Because every wrong act then sparks another wrong act, so unless you do away with everyone's sense of justice and humanity, because it is just and it is humane to get pissed when someone steels something from you or cuts off your wiener, then anarchy will remain impossibility.

First of all, the economic reasons for stealing would not exist in communism (what anarchism is a transition for). Secondly, there would still be "justice", except it would take care of people who really cause problems, not take proletarian scapegoats.


Capitalism may be flawed, but a perfect state of government cannot be until everyone's intentions have become flawless.

What anarchy is no central government but now its a perfect government? Hmmm, and 2+2=5 :lol:


So, instead of advocating these already failed or never were political systems, maybe all of the time spent on this website waxing politics in ignorant, subversive ways could be spent actually doing something good for the world.

Let's follow you for example, come to a website you denounce, call everyone here ignorant 14 year olds, and have a *****ing rant about how we should stop. It seems you are using your time very wisely (NOTE EXTREME SARCASM)


or working at a soup kitchen?

Many board members do volunteer.


What makes more difference, *****ing with fellow *****ers about how things are

Who's *****ing and who is having intelligent debate? I nominate you for the first.


Go do charity work, go give blood, go join habitat for humanity, the peace corps, do anything, for until you do, then all you can ever be is a hypocritical, whiny kid from high school who wants an excuse to not have to deal with the real world.

Do you have an x-ray vision program on your computer? I didnt know we were all winey kids. Many of us do not take part in the activities of conmen (most charities, especially religious ones).

We do not wish to make charity, we wish to abolish the need for it. If you dont like that take a flying fucking leap of a cliff.



Now, please think about whos doing the *****ing next time before dropping steaming piles of shit you call arguements, have an awful day :)

[Publius]

I think you're basically right.

Anarchsim is untenable for a number of reasons, some of which you pointed out.

[Publius]

Yep, you proved you know absolutely nothing about anarchism. Most anarchists aren't opposed to democratic organization. Most of support industrial unions and communes as alternatives to the state.

'Democratic organization'. Like a government?

:rolleyes:

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 04:04 PM

Yep, you proved you know absolutely nothing about anarchism. Most anarchists aren't opposed to democratic organization. Most of support industrial unions and communes as alternatives to the state.

'Democratic organization'. Like a government?

:rolleyes:
A government is a hierarchical structure representing the interests of a class. An anarchist organization would be based upon particapatory democracy — consensus-decision making, open debate, and individual action and priorities.

[Publius]

A government is a hierarchical structure representing the interests of a class.

Interesting definition.

I understand your adding in the Marxian bent, but still.

Let's try to keep words at least somewhere near their actual meanings, lest we devolve into obfuscation.

Is hierarchy still hierarchy if it's democratically determined?

What if the class is the proles?



An anarchist organization would be based upon particapatory democracy —

As if there's any other kind.



consensus-decision making,

We don't live in a monarchy, we have that now.

Guess what? It sucks.



open debate,

A lot of good that'll do you.



and individual action and priorities.

That has to be the broadest description of a societal structure I have ever seen.

Everything is 'individual action and priorities'.

[More Fire for the People]

Is hierarchy still hierarchy if it's democratically determined?
Yes. A hierarchy is a system where one group is subordinate to another group in terms of authority.


What if the class is the proles?
The state is a tool of the ruling class. If only the proletariat existed then a state would be the means of the proletariat ruling over the proletariat. It would be no different than capitalism.

[Publius]

Yes. A hierarchy is a system where one group is subordinate to another group in terms of authority.

And you can't think of any situations where a hierarchy is desirable or advantageous?

[Anarchyisdumm]

Wow, i posted this thread screwing around about two hours ago and I'll say my position has changed a lot. i won't get into the defending myself thing, I honestly don't feel like it, but there is one point in one post that i WOULD like to comment on. Disagreeing with my opinions are fine, seriously, I'm a dick but I respect intelligence, but to say that you have never commited any sort of wrong doing is proposterous. EVERYONE has lied to cover their ass about something, stole a smoke from a buddy, or cheated on some test at some point. To say otherwise is lieing in itself...Anyways, I think a hierarchy is not only useful but necessary. Reason being that if the people are all left to do their thing without something watching over them other than morals, than they are bound to commit evil acts, which at some time will beget more evil acts, which at some time will beget more evil acts. so, like i said in my origional post, unless all 6 billion people plus in the entire world can be totally moral, than I beleive that a hierarchy of powers is a necessity. Even moral people to immoral things, and thats just a truth. thank you all for the prompt as shit feedback. Oh, I would also like to point out, that in any system of "Government" someone is on top and is in a position to exploit that power.

Angry faces do not make a statement like, "Anarchism has a history of extreme contempt for all religion, dont try to pin any superstitious terms with the movement." compel anything but contempt for Anarchy. But they do show you know how to use the clickable smilies!

[Anarchyisdumm]

Haha, guess I turned into a whiney 14 year old. Why are my balls hairy?

[KC]

Reason being that if the people are all left to do their thing without something watching over them other than morals, than they are bound to commit evil acts, which at some time will beget more evil acts, which at some time will beget more evil acts. so, like i said in my origional post, unless all 6 billion people plus in the entire world can be totally moral, than I beleive that a hierarchy of powers is a necessity.

Hierarchy isn't what is necessary. You are saying that people need to be held accountable to something. In a communist/anarchist society people are held accountable to society.


Oh, I would also like to point out, that in any system of "Government" someone is on top and is in a position to exploit that power.

In a bourgeois government, yes. Of course, in a communist/anarchist society government will not be the same as it is now. It will merely be an organizing body, not a ruling one.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Dude dumm is not a word.

Dude we are not all teenagers.

Dude we are all not utopian and pascifists.

Dude some of us deal with the real world on a daily basis and not living with mommy and daddy like yourself.

Dude your head is filled with shit you might want to concider cleaning your ears out.

[OkaCrisis]

<Anarchyisdumm:> “ one person, being lazy and receiving the benefits of Marxism, gets more than everyone else, not to mention the many many many ways and opportunities that the people on top get to oppress those under them.”

<nate:> “This pile of shit you call an arguement shows you have no understanding of any kind of leftist theory.”

And clearly no understanding of Capitalism.


<Publius:> “is hierarchy still hierarchy if it&#39;s democratically determined?”

<Diego Armando>: “Yes. A hierarchy is a system where one group is subordinate to another group in terms of authority.”

<Publius> “What if the class is the proles?”

<Diego Armando>: “The state is a tool of the ruling class. If only the proletariat existed then a state would be the means of the proletariat ruling over the proletariat. It would be no different than capitalism.”

At that point, there will be no classes. Thus there can be no hierarchy.


<Anarchyisdumm:> “if the people are all left to do their thing without something watching over them other than morals, than they are bound to commit evil acts, which at some time will beget more evil acts, which at some time will beget more evil acts. so, like i said in my origional post, unless all 6 billion people plus in the entire world can be totally moral, than I beleive that a hierarchy of powers is a necessity.”

<Lazar:> “Hierarchy isn&#39;t what is necessary. You are saying that people need to be held accountable to something. In a communist/anarchist society people are held accountable to society.”

Exactly. What&#39;s more effective? Some arbitrary system of laws that exists, where you and your fellow citizens have no control over defining exactly what is and what is not legal?
Should abortions be against the law? Should smoking pot?

Should letting people starve to death due to famine, while North Americans today experience an "obesity epidemic" be "legal"? Should denying people basic rights, like clean water, shelter, and food, and especially the right to work in a way to accommodate a decent living- especially in the face of the mind-blowing luxury of the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous"… Should these things be “legal”?

Why not eliminate the powers that dictate to us in their own best interests what is and is not “legal”?

That way, you will be held accountable to your immediate community, who themselves would define the boundaries of what is and is not “moral”, “legal” or Just.

You could do whatever you wanted within the bounds of keeping the respect of your community, and if that meant that pot and abortions were okay, then so be it&#33; Meanwhile, people wouldn&#39;t stand idly by while people froze to death or starved on the streets of their cities, or died of AIDS by the thousands, being denied acces&#036; to available drugs, drugs that are "owned" by the Richest countries in the world?&#33; No&#33; The global community would organize and solve the problem.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

To another point: does being held accountable to some arbitrary instituion really deter people from committing crimes? Being unjust? "Immoral"?

No.

Wouldn&#39;t it be more effective if instead you should be held accountable to your immediate community, your friends, neighbours, co-workers? Because after all, those are the only people who truly have influences on the way you live your life.

If you live to earn the respect of your fellow people- and if anything is a part of "human nature", I think it&#39;s the desire for respect from your peers- that alone will do more to encourage you to act in a "good" and Just fashion than the current system of arbitrary subordination to some oppressive, abstract entity: i.e. the "government" and it&#39;s "officials".

Anyway, chew on that.

[Anarchyisdumm]

Abolishing a ruling body will not end famine, it will only spread it. Ina world where no one has power over others, SOMEONE will go to get that power, and with no organization, government, whatever to stop them, then they will do so unaposed. This is all because morality is great and all, but with no big group of guys with clubs and guns saying, "you can&#39;t do this or we will punish you" than all of the people left to their own actions will slowly lose their sense of morality. it is this sense of morality, that all of these arguments are depending on. True, if everone in the world is willing to share and share alike, work hard, and know no jealousy than yes, Marxism, anarchy, and the easter bunny are all feasable. Keep in mind though, that economics is not the only thing that causes one man to envy another, money isn&#39;t the only thing that makes men want to kill. If no men have more power than other men, than killing will begin to go unpunished, then our race must commit itself to survival of the fittest, which defies most goals of humanity. And democracy has become the best way found so far to do away with those tyrants in power, because it concedes the need for a ruling body, without sacrificing the people&#39;s control in their own fate.

Anarchy-the absence of any formal system of government in a society or
a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control

Capitalism-an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit

Thanks to Mr. Dictionary, the arguments that I do not understand Anarchy, or Capitalism are defeated. Capitalism is a beautiful thing. There will always be starvation, distribute what the world has equally and people are still going to starve. but capitalism does one key thing that no other economic system can, it rewards those who work harder. yes, I know, this isn&#39;t always true, but if communism is so grand, than how come so many poor bastards are floating to america on dressers and tires? I think that if someone is willing to work ahrder than someone else, than they should live better. Communism means some people aren&#39;t going to work as hard as others, but are going to live the same life. Over the course of time, more and more people will stop caring and do less, than the societies will collapse. Can&#39;t argue that, the world has seen it plenty.

[KC]

Ina world where no one has power over others, SOMEONE will go to get that power, and with no organization, government, whatever to stop them, then they will do so unaposed.

How would one person get power over others if those other people don&#39;t let them? Also, why would they even want "power" when everything is free?


This is all because morality is great and all, but with no big group of guys with clubs and guns saying, "you can&#39;t do this or we will punish you" than all of the people left to their own actions will slowly lose their sense of morality.

Again, the same question arises. How would these people get power? Do you think the oppressed won&#39;t fight back? Why would these people even want power when everything is provided to them for free?


it is this sense of morality, that all of these arguments are depending on.

No. It isn&#39;t.


True, if everone in the world is willing to share and share alike, work hard, and know no jealousy than yes, Marxism, anarchy, and the easter bunny are all feasable.

Greed is a product of the society that we live in.


Keep in mind though, that economics is not the only thing that causes one man to envy another, money isn&#39;t the only thing that makes men want to kill. If no men have more power than other men, than killing will begin to go unpunished, then our race must commit itself to survival of the fittest, which defies most goals of humanity.

Those who kill will be held accountable to society through a jury, similar to the jury system that we have now.


If no men have more power than other men, than killing will begin to go unpunished, then our race must commit itself to survival of the fittest, which defies most goals of humanity.

That&#39;s what we&#39;re advocating. That&#39;s what you&#39;re saying won&#39;t work.



Anarchy-the absence of any formal system of government in a society or
a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control

An anarchist society is exactly the same as a communist society. Anarchists and communists differ only on the means of achieving that society. That being said, your definition is the wrong one. Government in a society that we are striving to achieve is direct democracy, organized through workers&#39; councils. There is government; it just isn&#39;t bourgeois government. Your failure to realize this shows the fact that you have read nothing on these ideas at all and that you are jumping to conclusions with no knowledge of the subject. Read about it before you criticize because you obviously haven&#39;t.



Capitalism-an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit

Capitalism: The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.



Thanks to Mr. Dictionary, the arguments that I do not understand Anarchy, or Capitalism are defeated.

You can&#39;t sum up the workings of an entire socio-economic system in one sentence. Also, your definition of anarchy is the wrong one, as it isn&#39;t the political definition that anarchists use. Try wikipedia at least. Try reading the Communist Manifesto and Principles of Communism.


There will always be starvation, distribute what the world has equally and people are still going to starve.

Actually, your assertion is completely wrong.


but capitalism does one key thing that no other economic system can, it rewards those who work harder.

No it doesn&#39;t. I&#39;m sure all the kids in Pakistan work a lot harder than you, and they&#39;re dying. Even a cursory examination of the capitalist system shows this to be untrue. The industrial revolution, for example.


yes, I know, this isn&#39;t always true

You&#39;re right. It&#39;s never true. Reward comes to those with the most money, with the most connections, with the best degrees (which requires both money and connections).


but if communism is so grand, than how come so many poor bastards are floating to america on dressers and tires?

1. Not that many are.
2. If you&#39;re talking about immigration, it&#39;s for a variety of reasons (mostly economic/mythical). People immigrate to America because of its supposed "high standard of living". America isn&#39;t the only capitalist country, though. When you examine capitalism you have to look at the whole system, which at present is a global system. You can&#39;t support capitalism by saying "look at the US&#33;" without looking at what it&#39;s doing to other countries and other peoples that aren&#39;t as lucky.


I think that if someone is willing to work ahrder than someone else, than they should live better.

Well that would be great. But that doesn&#39;t happen.


Communism means some people aren&#39;t going to work as hard as others, but are going to live the same life. Over the course of time, more and more people will stop caring and do less, than the societies will collapse. Can&#39;t argue that, the world has seen it plenty.

Do you know what a hobby is? It&#39;s work that someone does because they enjoy it. If they enjoyed their work, they wouldn&#39;t work less, or stop working. In fact, they would probably be willing to work more than usual. You can&#39;t use a capitalist mindset to examine capitalism. You have to be objective. You&#39;re completely failing to understand the fact that greed as a trait in humans will be nonexistant, that jobs aren&#39;t always something to hate, and that people can live with each other without being ruled over.

[dannie]

Ina world where no one has power over others, SOMEONE will go to get that power, and with no organization, government, whatever to stop them, then they will do so unaposed.

Well, when no one has power over another, people aren&#39;t going to tolerate one man trying to gain power again. There is one crucial period, and that is right after the revolution, when organisation is still weak and power can be taken back again, but this can be and someday will be overcome.
See it as when you have a group of friends, happily doing things together, based on free association with each other, of one starts saying what everybody else can and can&#39;t do, chances are big he will be kicked out.

[JKP]

Ina world where no one has power over others, SOMEONE will go to get that power, and with no organization, government, whatever to stop them, then they will do so unaposed.

A common objection to anarchism is that an anarchist society will be vulnerable to be taken over by thugs or those who seek power. A similar argument is that a group without a leadership structure becomes open to charismatic leaders so anarchy would just lead to tyranny.

For anarchists, such arguments are strange. Society already is run by thugs and/or the off-spring of thugs. Kings were originally just successful thugs who succeeded in imposing their domination over a given territorial area. The modern state has evolved from the structure created to impose this domination. Similarly with property, with most legal titles to land being traced back to its violent seizure by thugs who then passed it on to their children who then sold it or gave it to their offspring. The origins of the current system in violence can be seen by the continued use of violence by the state and capitalists to enforce and protect their domination over society. When push comes to shove, the dominant class will happily re-discover their thug past and employ extreme violence to maintain their privileges. The descent of large parts of Europe into Fascism during the 1930s, or Pinochet&#39;s coup in Chile in 1973 indicates how far they will go. As Peter Arshinov argued (in a slightly different context):

"Statists fear free people. They claim that without authority people will lose the anchor of sociability, will dissipate themselves, and will return to savagery. This is obviously rubbish. It is taken seriously by idlers, lovers of authority and of the labour of others, or by blind thinkers of bourgeois society. The liberation of the people in reality leads to the degeneration and return to savagery, not of the people, but of those who, thanks to power and privilege, live from the labour of the people&#39;s arms and from the blood of the people&#39;s veins . . . The liberation of the people leads to the savagery of those who live from its enslavement." [The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 85]

Anarchists are not impressed with the argument that anarchy would be unable to stop thugs seizing power. It ignores the fact that we live in a society where the power-hungry already hold power. As an argument against anarchism it fails and is, in fact, an argument against capitalist and statist societies.

Moreover, it also ignores fact that people in an anarchist society would have gained their freedom by overthrowing every existing and would-be thug who had or desired power over others. They would have defended that freedom against those who desired to re-impose it. They would have organised themselves to manage their own affairs and, therefore, to abolish all hierarchical power. And we are to believe that these people, after struggling to become free, would quietly let a new set of thugs impose themselves? As Kropotkin argued:

"The only way in which a state of Anarchy can be obtained is for each man [or woman] who is oppressed to act as if he [or she] were at liberty, in defiance of all authority to the contrary . . . In practical fact, territorial extension is necessary to ensure permanency to any given individual revolution. In speaking of the Revolution, we signify the aggregate of so many successful individual and group revolts as will enable every person within the revolutionised territory to act in perfect freedom . . . without having to constantly dread the prevention or the vengeance of an opposing power upholding the former system . . . Under these circumstance it is obvious that any visible reprisal could and would be met by a resumption of the same revolutionary action on the part of the individuals or groups affected, and that the maintenance of a state of Anarchy in this manner would be far easier than the gaining of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in the face of hitherto unshaken opposition . . . They have it in their power to apply a prompt check by boycotting such a person and refusing to help him with their labour or to willing supply him with any articles in their possession. They have it in their power to use force against him. They have these powers individually as well as collectively. Being either past rebels who have been inspired with the spirit of liberty, or else habituated to enjoy freedom from their infancy, they are hardly to rest passive in view of what they feel to be wrong." [Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, pp. 87-8]

Thus a free society would use direct action to resist the would-be ruler just as it had used direct action to free itself from existing rulers. An anarchist society would be organised in a way which would facilitate this direct action as it would be based on networks of solidarity and mutual aid. An injury to one is an injury to all and a would-be ruler would face a whole liberated society acting against him or her. Faced with the direct action of the population (which would express itself in non-co-operation, strikes, demonstrations, occupations, insurrections and so on) a would be power seeker would find it difficult to impose themselves. Unlike those accustomed to rulership in existing society, an anarchist people would be a society of rebels and so difficult to dominate and conquer.

Anarchists point to the example of the rise of Fascism in Italy, Spain and Germany to prove their point. In areas with strong anarchist movements the fascists were resisted most strongly. While in Germany Hitler took power with little or no opposition, in Italy and Spain the fascists had to fight long and hard to gain power. The anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist organisations fought the fascists tooth and nail, with some success before betrayal by the Republicans and Marxists. From this historical experience anarchists argue that an anarchist society would quickly and easily defeat would-be thugs as people would be used to practising direct action and self-management and would have no desire to stop practising them.

As for self-management resulting in "charismatic" leaders, well the logic is astounding. As if hierarchical structures are not based on leadership structures and do not require a charismatic leader&#33; Such an argument is inherently self-contradictory -- as well as ignoring the nature of modern society and its leadership structures. Rather than mass assemblies being dominated by leaders, it is the case that hierarchical structures are the natural breeding ground for dictators. All the great dictators the world have seen have come to the forefront in hierarchical organisations, not libertarian structured ones. Hitler, for example, did not come to power via a libertarian organisation. Rather he used a highly centralised and hierarchically organised party to take control of a centralised, hierarchical state. The very disempowerment of the population in capitalist society results in them looking to leaders to act for them and so "charismatic" leaders are a natural result. An anarchist society, by empowering all, would make it more difficult, not less, for a would-be leader to gain power -- few people, if any, would be willing to sacrifice and negate themselves for the benefit of another.

As would be expected, given our comments above, anarchists think an anarchist society must defend itself against attempts to re-introduce the state or private property. The question of defence of an anarchist society is discussed in the next section and so we will not do so here.

Our discussion on the power hungry obviously relates to the more general the question of whether ethical behaviour be rewarded in an anarchist society. In other words, could an anarchist society be stable or would the unethical take over?

It is one of the most disturbing aspects of living in a world where the rush to acquire wealth is the single most important aspect of living is what happens to people who follow an ethical path in life.

Under capitalism, the ethical generally do not succeed as well as those stab their fellows in the back, those who cut corners, indulge in sharp business practises, drive competitors into the ground and live their lives with an eye on the bottom line but they do survive. Loyalty to a firm or a group, bending over backwards to provide a service, giving a helping hand to somebody in need, placing friendship above money, count for nothing when the bills come in. People who act ethically in a capitalist society are usually punished and penalised for their ethical, moral and principled behaviour. Indeed, the capitalist market rewards unethical behaviour as it generally reduces costs and so gives those who do it a competitive edge.

It is different in a free society. Anarchism is based on two principles of association, equal access to power and wealth. Everybody in an anarchist society irrespective of what they do, or who they are or what type of work they perform is entitled to share in society&#39;s wealth. Whether a community survives or prospers depends on the combined efforts of the people in that community. Ethical behaviour would become the norm in an anarchist community; those people who act ethically would be rewarded by the standing they achieve in the community and by others being more than happy to work with and aid them. People who cut corners, try to exercise power over others, refuse to co-operate as equals or otherwise act in an unethical manner would lose their standing in an anarchist society. Their neighbours and work mates would refuse to co-operate with them (or reduce co-operation to a minimum) and take other forms of non-violent direct action to point out that certain forms of activity was inappropriate. They would discuss the issue with the unethical person and try to convince them of the errors of their way. In a society where the necessities are guaranteed, people would tend to act ethically because ethical behaviour raises an individuals profile and standing within such a community. Capitalism and ethical behaviour are mutually exclusive concepts; anarchism encourages and rewards ethical behaviour.

Therefore, as can be seen, anarchists argue that a free society would not have to fear would-be thugs, "charismatic" leaders or the unethical. An anarchist society would be based on the co-operation of free individuals. It is unlikely that they would tolerate such behaviour and would use their own direct action as well as social and economic organisations to combat it. Moreover, the nature of free co-operation would reward ethical behaviour as those who practice it would have it reciprocated by their fellows.

One last point. Some people seem to think that anarchism is about the powerful being appealed to not to oppress and dominate others. Far from it. Anarchism is about the oppressed and exploited refusing to let others dominate them. It is not an appeal to the "better side" of the boss or would-be boss; it is about the solidarity and direct action of those subject to a boss getting rid of the boss -- whether the boss agrees to it or not&#33; Once this is clearly understood the idea that an anarchist society is vulnerable to the power-hungry is clearly nonsense -- anarchy is based on resisting power and so is, by its very nature, more resistant to would-be rulers than a hierarchical one.

[Tungsten]

OkaCrisis

Why not eliminate the powers that dictate to us in their own best interests what is and is not “legal”?

That way, you will be held accountable to your immediate community, who themselves would define the boundaries of what is and is not “moral”, “legal” or Just.
But then you&#39;d have to eliminate your "immediate community" because it would begin dictating to you in it&#39;s own best interests, which might not coincide with your own.

You could do whatever you wanted within the bounds of keeping the respect of your community, and if that meant that pot and abortions were okay, then so be it&#33;
In other words, it&#39;s purely arbitary. Hang on a minute, I thought you said that was bad:
"What&#39;s more effective? Some arbitrary system of laws that exists, where you and your fellow citizens have no control over defining exactly what is and what is not legal?"

Meanwhile, people wouldn&#39;t stand idly by
Why wouldn&#39;t they sit idly by? Who&#39;s going to stop them from doing that?

while people froze to death or starved on the streets of their cities, or died of AIDS by the thousands, being denied acces&#036; to available drugs,
Yeah, they&#39;re just "available". How revealing.

drugs that are "owned" by the Richest countries in the world?&#33; No&#33; The global community would organize and solve the problem.
It&#39;s a safe bet that it involves some kind of forced labour or slavery. And you call yourself an anarchist.

[Anarchyisdumm]

Share power? Are we talking about humanity? All men desire power, and ina world with no governing body controlling the flow of society to some extent, than tyrants will pop up. Equalizing power to every person alive couldn&#39;t last long. How would a man get more power if the people don&#39;t let him? He becomes stronger, gets a baseball bat and takes that power, and thats if guns don&#39;t exist. What if the man was wrongfully accused, that is, what if his actions were misinterpreted and "the people" act wrongfully? Is that justice? Is that a perfect world? And when opinions vary, what if some people in some places need more of something and can&#39;t get it, than they are going to take it. Anarchy is fine, I do not want that to be missunderstood, but at some point, something will go wrong that will completely destroy the system and send humanity back where we are now, just in worse condition. The slightest indifference at any point in history could begin a war, whoever wins that war will be the ruling power. Men will always envy other men, the very people who have argued agaisnt me in this post have envied other men, there is no way they couldn&#39;t, its a human emotion. The second you say that everything would work and everything would be dandy, that all people, everywhere, were fine with having exactly as much economically, socially, and physically as everyone else everywhere, then anarchy could exist. However, until we evolve several trillion years, than anarchy will remain as it is, a dream, and some form of hierarchy in society will remaina necessity to ensure that we have some form of expression, some freedom in some regards. It would seem, freedom needs some bit of opression to survive.

[Anarchyisdumm]

The simple beauty of the system and state we are in now allows us to help people. It is not the governments job to help all people, to make sure everyone is equal. As is, we each have the ability to help the starving, the diseased, and the seeming hopeless around the world."Grrrrrrr, the government opresses us." i restate what I said earlier, if you want to make the world a better place, or wax right, wrong, justice, opression, poverty, or any of that good stuff, go someplace that needs you and ask the people that need you what they think. If you think about how much oportunity the current system affords us to help each other, than things aren&#39;t working that bad.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 10:58 PM
...but there is one point in one post that i WOULD like to comment on. Disagreeing with my opinions are fine, seriously, I&#39;m a dick but I respect intelligence, but to say that you have never commited any sort of wrong doing is proposterous. EVERYONE has lied to cover their ass about something, stole a smoke from a buddy, or cheated on some test at some point. To say otherwise is lieing in itself...
Bullshit, and how dare you accuse me of this.

Just because your &#39;morality&#39; and your &#39;religion&#39; don&#39;t teach you too keep your hand out of the cookie jar doesn&#39;t mean that I am incapable of being a greedy capitalist in all things human.

Personally, following rationality and logic -- the cornerstones of anarchism and communism -- I have been able to &#39;keep my nose clean&#39; despite refusing to blindly follow the crock of shit known as organized religion.

An anomaly, no?

[Atlas Swallowed]

anarchyisdumm :rolleyes: Capitalism is survival of the fittest. Maybe you are a Socialist and are too stupid to realize it :)

[OkaCrisis]

Ina world where no one has power over others, SOMEONE will go to get that power, and with no organization, government, whatever to stop them, then they will do so unaposed

In a world with no government or organization, what institutions can people possibly hope to have power over?&#33; Without these constructions in place, there is no concentration of power and thus no one person can hope to gain a lot of it, since it will be divided into a million small pieces of power, held in the hands of everyone, the people, collectively.


morality is great and all, but with no big group of guys with clubs and guns saying, "you can&#39;t do this or we will punish you" than all of the people left to their own actions will slowly lose their sense of morality

This isn’t true. Morality comes from living in societies. Read some books. On this particular point, I recommend Durkheim.


democracy has become the best way found so far to do away with those tyrants in power,

“Democracy” at it is today is tyrants in power.


Thanks to Mr. Dictionary, the arguments that I do not understand Anarchy, or Capitalism are defeated. Capitalism is a beautiful thing

These statements only prove further that you have no understanding of either. First of all you should have looked up Anarchism, not Anarchy if you wanted a definition of what the people here are referring to: “a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups”

Lazar and JKP took care of all of the other points I wanted to quite nicely. Read their posts. Several times if you have to.

On to Tungsten:


But then you&#39;d have to eliminate your "immediate community" because it would begin dictating to you in it&#39;s own best interests, which might not coincide with your own

This is absurd. In every possible way. Please elaborate if you want me to dignify it with an answer. Why would my interests differ so drastically from that of my community? Why, even if they did, would then the community have to be “eliminated”? And there is no dictating in Communist/Anarchist communities. That is a characteristic of Capitalism, and we want no part of it.


In other words, it&#39;s purely arbitary.

Do you know what “arbitrary” means? It can’t be arbitrary if you yourself have had a part in the creation and definition of what is right and wrong in that society.

You and I have not been consulted on what “laws” we, as citizens, believe reflect our ideals of Morality or Justice. That makes them arbitrary.

Answer my questions: Should abortions be illegal? Should smoking marijuana? Do these actions harm anyone in society? Does the outlaw of them lead to an increase of Morality or Justice in the world?

Your remaining points are utter nonsense. There are storehouses filled to the rafters with the drugs that could save millions of lives. But since the people who need them are too poor to even afford food or housing, let alone life-saving drugs, they have no access to them.

I’d like to see how much of a Capitalist you’d be if you were starving to death or dying of AIDS. At that point, it would be painfully obvious to you just what a ***** you were in the eyes of the Rich and Few who rule the world.

[KC]

Share power? Are we talking about humanity? All men desire power, and ina world with no governing body controlling the flow of society to some extent, than tyrants will pop up.

"Desire for power" isn&#39;t inherent in people. It&#39;s an acquired trait taught by our society. What part of that can&#39;t you get?


He becomes stronger, gets a baseball bat and takes that power, and thats if guns don&#39;t exist.

So he&#39;s going to take control of the world with a baseball bat?? :lol:


What if the man was wrongfully accused, that is, what if his actions were misinterpreted and "the people" act wrongfully? Is that justice? Is that a perfect world?

Nobody&#39;s talking about a "perfect world". It would certainly be better than this one, though. That&#39;s for damn sure.


And when opinions vary, what if some people in some places need more of something and can&#39;t get it, than they are going to take it.

Why wouldn&#39;t they be able to get it?


. Anarchy is fine, I do not want that to be missunderstood, but at some point, something will go wrong that will completely destroy the system and send humanity back where we are now, just in worse condition.

You have yet to give a single plausible example of what will "destroy the system".


The slightest indifference at any point in history could begin a war, whoever wins that war will be the ruling power.

Indifference over what? How would there be a war? Nobody desires power, everybody receives everything for free, there are no "states" for a war to be waged between.


Men will always envy other men, the very people who have argued agaisnt me in this post have envied other men, there is no way they couldn&#39;t, its a human emotion.

Envy has nothing to do with this. What are you going to envy? His property? Guess what: you have just as much access to everything as any other person does. So why would anyone wage a war or desire power? These are a product of private property and nothing else.


However, until we evolve several trillion years, than anarchy will remain as it is, a dream, and some form of hierarchy in society will remaina necessity to ensure that we have some form of expression, some freedom in some regards. It would seem, freedom needs some bit of opression to survive.

Could you please prove this outrageous claim that greed is human nature?


The simple beauty of the system and state we are in now allows us to help people.

It allows you to think you can help people, when in reality you can&#39;t do much for poor people. After all, capitalism needs poor people to work.


As is, we each have the ability to help the starving, the diseased, and the seeming hopeless around the world."Grrrrrrr, the government opresses us." i restate what I said earlier, if you want to make the world a better place, or wax right, wrong, justice, opression, poverty, or any of that good stuff, go someplace that needs you and ask the people that need you what they think. If you think about how much oportunity the current system affords us to help each other, than things aren&#39;t working that bad.

No matter how much food you send to Africa; no matter how much you work in soup kitchens; no matter how much you fight for minimum wages worldwide, there will always be poor people.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:10 PM
Share power? Are we talking about humanity? All men desire power, and ina world with no governing body controlling the flow of society to some extent, than tyrants will pop up. Equalizing power to every person alive couldn&#39;t last long. How would a man get more power if the people don&#39;t let him? He becomes stronger, gets a baseball bat and takes that power, and thats if guns don&#39;t exist. What if the man was wrongfully accused, that is, what if his actions were misinterpreted and "the people" act wrongfully? Is that justice? Is that a perfect world? And when opinions vary, what if some people in some places need more of something and can&#39;t get it, than they are going to take it. Anarchy is fine, I do not want that to be missunderstood, but at some point, something will go wrong that will completely destroy the system and send humanity back where we are now, just in worse condition. The slightest indifference at any point in history could begin a war, whoever wins that war will be the ruling power. Men will always envy other men, the very people who have argued agaisnt me in this post have envied other men, there is no way they couldn&#39;t, its a human emotion. The second you say that everything would work and everything would be dandy, that all people, everywhere, were fine with having exactly as much economically, socially, and physically as everyone else everywhere, then anarchy could exist. However, until we evolve several trillion years, than anarchy will remain as it is, a dream, and some form of hierarchy in society will remaina necessity to ensure that we have some form of expression, some freedom in some regards. It would seem, freedom needs some bit of opression to survive.
Since you probably didn&#39;t even read my last reply, I&#39;ll just say this; Anarchism is not a utopia.

[Anarchyisdumm]

I&#39;ll just reply to the comment with the laughing face on it. How does someone controlt he world with a baseball bat? With no police to stop him, he beat a bunch of people to death, the bat give shim power over other people, and without a greater power, government, to stop him or tell him that what he is doing is wrong, than he can continue to do it. Because he can run around killing people and taking their share of the Anarchy pie, he continues to become more powerful, his motive is having more than other people have. So, other people pick up baseball bats and do the same thing he did, but at some point they have to connect. When they do, the strongest of them is then the leader, because he can beat up the other baseball bat weilding guys, but those other guys are going to continue to beat up normal, moral people for what they have, and a ladder is assumed. For the people to stop them, they would have to band together, but how do they find these baseball bat weilding people? by taking time out of making corn and shoes? Then we don&#39;t have corn or shoes, and the entire society becomes split between nice people and bat weilding people. Look at it this way, A man comes into your house with nothing more than a baseball bat, at night when you are all asleep. He beats you all to death, he then controls your house.

Desire for power is an inherent trait in all people, people do not want to be told what to do. Power exists no matter what state a society is in, power can be physical strength or knowledge, no matter what you do to the workings of a society, then there will still be a hierarchy. Just the knowledge that the stronger guy COULD have more if he wanted is a sort of power.

[Anarchyisdumm]

Obviously Capitalism is NOT survival of the fittest. Anyone can name someone who is smart as hell and fully capable who is at the bottom of the social ladder. There is luck involved. I invent the pet rock, I live the rest of my days in luxury, am I more fit than you because I painted a face ona rock and sold it? :rolleyes:

[Tungsten]

OkaCrisis

This is absurd. In every possible way. Please elaborate if you want me to dignify it with an answer. Why would my interests differ so drastically from that of my community?
Why would your interests necessarily differ so drastically from that of a government, or a fascist dictator? Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn&#39;t. Nothing is guaranteed.

Why, even if they did, would then the community have to be “eliminated”?
Because it might not act in your interests, like the government you complain about.

Do you know what “arbitrary” means? It can’t be arbitrary if you yourself have had a part in the creation and definition of what is right and wrong in that society.
Even in democracy, you&#39;re a drop in the ocean.

You and I have not been consulted on what “laws” we, as citizens, believe reflect our ideals of Morality or Justice.
But there&#39;s no guarantee that the community will decide that your views will be worth listening to, or that you&#39;ll be consulted about it. You can&#39;t please everyone. If society believes in abortion and there are some people in it who don&#39;t, then aren&#39;t they going to feel like they&#39;ve been marginalised and ignored?

Should abortions be illegal? Should smoking marijuana? Do these actions harm anyone in society? Does the outlaw of them lead to an increase of Morality or Justice in the world?
Well that&#39;s interesting. No, I don&#39;t think they should be illegal. They don&#39;t harm anyone (perhaps other than the person doing the deed). But that leads on to our next point:

Your remaining points are utter nonsense. There are storehouses filled to the rafters with the drugs that could save millions of lives.
Filled to the rafters by workers, developers an scientists, only to be stolen away at your decree. That sure sounds like someone is getting hurt. It also sounds like slavery.

But since the people who need them are too poor to even afford food or housing, let alone life-saving drugs, they have no access to them.
Good. It&#39;d be as bad as slavery if they did. I don&#39;t want that.

I’d like to see how much of a Capitalist you’d be if you were starving to death or dying of AIDS.
Enough with the fantasy projections. No situation is magically going to make anyone see a way out of it and if I was in that situation I&#39;d get a job and pay for my own drugs, not follow your mindless, smash-and-grab philosophy.

At that point, it would be painfully obvious to you just what a ***** you were in the eyes of the Rich and Few who rule the world.
I&#39;d a ***** because I&#39;d be in need?

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 05:33 PM
Obviously Capitalism is NOT survival of the fittest. Anyone can name someone who is smart as hell and fully capable who is at the bottom of the social ladder. There is luck involved. I invent the pet rock, I live the rest of my days in luxury, am I more fit than you because I painted a face ona rock and sold it? :rolleyes:
A system based on who can aquire the most wealth at whatever cost to his fellow man or anything else. What is the difference between that and a pack of dogs fighting over a carcass but on a larger scale?

As you are paying some slave laborers in another country starvation wages to paint the smiley faces on your rock so you can live a soft life. Thats if some multinational corporation did not steal your idea and you end up with little or nothing as is the fate with many inventors.

The social ladder is a perfect example of survival of the fittest someone who is born higher up on the ladder will be more fit than those below, for he will be born with more advantages. Most of the wealthy were born into it and most of them exploit the classes below them to obtain more wealth. Since all capitalism is only concerned with is profit it is a inherently wasteful system that concentrates wealth in the hands of the few while the many toil and starve.

Judging by your blind trust of the police from your previous posts you must either be middle class or just a fucking idiot, probably both. You have such fear of your fellow man that believe you need some blue suited nazis to protect your little life. The police have never done anything but harass and annoy me. I am of the working class they do not serve and protect me.

You judge humanity by your own shallow views. Not all of us are interested in material wealth, power, status, and fame. Do not judge all others by the way you think or the society you defends values. You should read over the previous posts again other members have kindly tried explaining Anarchism to you and obviously you do not get it. Look at the world as a whole and how shitty it is run and you want to critisize us because we want it to be run differently because we desire a world of less violence suffering and more toleration. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

[KC]

I&#39;ll just reply to the comment with the laughing face on it. How does someone controlt he world with a baseball bat? With no police to stop him, he beat a bunch of people to death, the bat give shim power over other people, and without a greater power, government, to stop him or tell him that what he is doing is wrong, than he can continue to do it. Because he can run around killing people and taking their share of the Anarchy pie, he continues to become more powerful, his motive is having more than other people have. So, other people pick up baseball bats and do the same thing he did, but at some point they have to connect. When they do, the strongest of them is then the leader, because he can beat up the other baseball bat weilding guys, but those other guys are going to continue to beat up normal, moral people for what they have, and a ladder is assumed. For the people to stop them, they would have to band together, but how do they find these baseball bat weilding people? by taking time out of making corn and shoes? Then we don&#39;t have corn or shoes, and the entire society becomes split between nice people and bat weilding people. Look at it this way, A man comes into your house with nothing more than a baseball bat, at night when you are all asleep. He beats you all to death, he then controls your house.


1. The police is everybody. Everybody will be armed. Therefore your baseball bat wielding fool will just get arrested and/or shot.
2. The workday will be 4 hours long.
3. You have yet to answer my question: Why would anybody want power?



Desire for power is an inherent trait in all people, people do not want to be told what to do.

I again ask you to prove your claim that "power is an inherent trait in all people".



Power exists no matter what state a society is in, power can be physical strength or knowledge, no matter what you do to the workings of a society, then there will still be a hierarchy. Just the knowledge that the stronger guy COULD have more if he wanted is a sort of power.

Just because one person is stronger than the other doesn&#39;t mean that they have more power than them. Are you even being serious?


Obviously Capitalism is NOT survival of the fittest. Anyone can name someone who is smart as hell and fully capable who is at the bottom of the social ladder. There is luck involved. I invent the pet rock, I live the rest of my days in luxury, am I more fit than you because I painted a face ona rock and sold it?

Let&#39;s look at it this way. Who do you think has more of a chance to become wealthy: A child born into a rich family in America or a child born into a poor family in Africa?

Also, use the quote function. It will help you a lot. Right above where you type your reply, there&#39;s a button that says "quote" on it. Hit that once, then paste the quote, then hit it again.

[Tungsten]

Atlas Swallowed

A system based on who can aquire the most wealth at whatever cost to his fellow man or anything else. What is the difference between that and a pack of dogs fighting over a carcass but on a larger scale?
If I was advocating this, I would demand that we legalised theft and murder so that I can legally kill people steal their stuff whenever I wanted so that I could "aquire the most wealth". But then I&#39;d no longer be a capitalist. I&#39;d be an anarchist and a ruffian.

The social ladder is a perfect example of survival of the fittest someone who is born higher up on the ladder will be more fit than those below, for he will be born with more advantages. Most of the wealthy were born into it and most of them exploit the classes below them to obtain more wealth. Since all capitalism is only concerned with is profit it is a inherently wasteful system that concentrates wealth in the hands of the few while the many toil and starve.

Meanwhile, back in reality...
Capitalism is an economic system based on individual rights in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned and the initiation of force is banned.

There aren&#39;t any places that even partially fit my description of capitalism any more- they&#39;ve all been replaced by the bizzare quasi-socialist system we see today. And I doubt there are any capitalists here who believe that "capitalism is only concerned with is profit" or wish to extablish a society "only concerned with profit".

[gmaster]

As the aforementioned friend who led to the start of this thread, i feel that i should put my two cents in.

Now i want to start off with admitting that I cant even pretend to know enough about the topic. So i wont try to directly counter anyone, but i did read a few basic, starter if you will, doctrines on communism.

One of the counter arguments i see posted several times is: "Why would anybody want power?"

In said doctrines, and several arguments posted here, i have noticed that the system is set up on a community where everyone is equal. each community is self governing, by everyone in said community who wishes to participate. Everyone provides a service, from farming to medical to janitorial (someone has to clean the doctors office) yet still everyone is equal. Now stop me if i am wrong, and i know someone will (i am trying to learn/understand so it is appriciated) but there is no money in said system. there are only goods provided by members in different fields. If you want something you ask for it. everyone lives comfortably. now if this is the case, sometimes there will be shortages, waiting lists. and there would be, some items will be wanted more than can be produced at one time. somewhere, someone charismatic will get tired of waiting and watching what he wants go to his neighbors and not to his house despite him living his life the same as said neighbor. now mr charisma eventually gets frustrated and finds others that have similar feelings, using all his free time, because if i read a few previous posts correctly everyone is both armed and only works one day a week.
now mr charisma and his group of empathizers decide they are tired of waiting and take what they want. Or convince the community that with a little more "organization" things can be handled more "smoothly." with enough propaganda and such suddenly the community starts following and listening to this one person, mr charisma, because at first things start to work and ...

example of the downfall

whether or not said mr charisma wanted the power, whatever his original intentions and motivations could have been, absolute power corrupts absolutely

[gmaster]

Oh and Sam "HaHa your restricted&#33;" :lol:

[violencia.Proletariat]

This line of reasoning (not having "the stuff") is also a very real possibility in capitalism. What will you do when the poor people dont have the "stuff", get very angry about it, and over throw the ruling class? :o

Many of the capitalists complain about how the poor loot during riots, yet it would be perfectly ok for them to do the same under collectivism. :lol:


now if this is the case, sometimes there will be shortages, waiting lists. and there would be, some items will be wanted more than can be produced at one time. somewhere, someone charismatic will get tired of waiting and watching what he wants go to his neighbors and not to his house despite him living his life the same as said neighbor.

Theres a little thing called rationing. Why would whats rationed go to his neighbor and not him? There isnt a reason that his neighbor would get this luxury (which is what your reffering to right?) unless this neighbor works an "unpleasant" job that the community decides is bad enough (a job that for some reason cant be shared, or that most people dont want to do) to recieve luxury benefits (person moved to the top of the ration list for luxuries). And if this person really wanted luxuries they could do what you would call an "unpleasant" job. They would be put towards the top of the lists for luxuries they want when they are rationed. Now you may say, others will be mad about rationing and its unfair that he gets the luxuries, but these people choose not to do the "unpleasant" jobs so they can comftorably wait for the new I-pod 75.


now mr charisma eventually gets frustrated and finds others that have similar feelings, using all his free time, because if i read a few previous posts correctly everyone is both armed and only works one day a week.

I dont think our technology is advanced for everyone to work one day a week. If that were the case the bastard could get off his ass (along with all his angry friends you speak of) and secure the resources to make his precious luxury, this is a much easier task then toppleing communism. :)


Or convince the community that with a little more "organization" things can be handled more "smoothly."

Well this is a perfectly fine suggestion, anarchists arent against organization. If this person see&#39;s a more effective and productive way to organize production so shortages are rare, they could easily bring this up in their worker&#39;s council meeting. If the proposed system works better, then there is no reason it would not take effect.


with enough propaganda and such suddenly the community starts following and listening to this one person, mr charisma, because at first things start to work and ...

Propaganda? Where would this person get the resources to spread counterrevolutionary idealogies or ideas? Sure he could make an internet site, but so can nazis, I dont see them with massive power.

[KC]

Don&#39;t forget the fact that productive forces will be increased to the point where rationing would be a very rare occurrence.

Also, you have to remember that in a communist society consciousness is different than what it is now. It would be more geared towards society and care for others and less towards property and self than it is now.

[ReD_ReBeL]

As i believe Anarchism is pretty much communism but you don&#39;t go through socialism, just straight to communism(correct me if im wrong)? If this is the concept then i think it is actualy inevitable the anarchism is going to become what some mainstream percieve it as CHAOS. If we went straight to communism without empowering the wokers , distributing the wealth etc then who in a society of no authority is going to? Therefore there is going to be a battle to overthrow land lands etc to empower the workers etc, so inevitabley it is going to end in bloodshed.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 11:18 PM


As i believe Anarchism is pretty much communism

Yes a "tranistion" to communism. Instant abolishment of hierarchy, but not an instant transition (will take some time).


just straight to communism(correct me if im wrong)

It would be better to say, "the instant persute of it". But it&#39;s not possible to go straight to it.


If we went straight to communism without empowering the wokers

What anarchist wants to try and do this? :blink:


distributing the wealth etc then who in a society of no authority is going to?

You need to read some anarchist theory my friend. The distribution of wealth would happen as fast as possible. Anarchists feel that workers organizations can do this without a state however.


Therefore there is going to be a battle to overthrow land lands etc to empower the workers etc, so inevitabley it is going to end in bloodshed.

We&#39;re steretyped as bombthrowing terrorists yet now we are pacifists? :lol: Yes the revolution will be violent.

[gmaster]

As to the rationing, lets use the farm producing food for an example. In the example lets say there is a drought and not enough food is produced to meet the bare minimum need for the community. someone will starve to death.

As to the neighbor being first on the list, that was refering to said neighbor simply requesting his hypothetical item first.
I do have a question about your unfavorable-job/higher-on-the-list set up. Which i admit wasnt figured into my original argument. In the case of the aforementioned scenario a, for lack of a better word, "lower" job is balanced by a "higher" benefit correct? Wouldn&#39;t someone have to assign value to each and therefore be in a position of power over others? Isnt that not allowed? Again this isnt meant to be inflammatory, only a hypothetical debate to increase my, and hopefully others, understanding.

and im not saying looting and rioting are perfectly ok under any circumstances.

The one day a week thing was a typo, it was supposed to be 4 hours a day. My mistake.

what i was getting at was that organization can be a great thing, but when it starts to run better under the direction of one, then the community comes back to that individual with another problem, which inturn gets solved, and eventually you have one, or a group of individuals who are leading the community. The propaganda can be anything, surely as a contributor to this site you understand that.

[violencia.Proletariat]

In the example lets say there is a drought and not enough food is produced to meet the bare minimum need for the community. someone will starve to death.

Since when do droughts effect whole areas the size of America? Remember, not all the food would come from one country anyways.


As to the neighbor being first on the list, that was refering to said neighbor simply requesting his hypothetical item first.

Well they would not be "first" unless they did the "unpleasant" jobs. But recieving luxuries is not about asking for it first, its also about how much of your free time you put into the production of these items.


Wouldn&#39;t someone have to assign value to each and therefore be in a position of power over others?

Communitie&#39;s worker councils can decide what jobs that cant be shared are "unpleasant". There is no position of power here.


Again this isnt meant to be inflammatory, only a hypothetical debate to increase my, and hopefully others, understanding.

Not taking it as inflammatory :) , I&#39;m glad for the practice, and hope I&#39;m convincing you. :D


The one day a week thing was a typo, it was supposed to be 4 hours a day. My mistake.

This is a prediction, but we wont really know until we do it. What is known is that it will be considerably less than capitalist labor hours.


but when it starts to run better under the direction of one, then the community comes back to that individual with another problem, which inturn gets solved, and eventually you have one, or a group of individuals who are leading the community.

I dont see where this is true. I have yet to be confronted with a situation where community control cant do the same. If a single individual is necessary they would be direct voted in by the community and subject to instant recall.


The propaganda can be anything, surely as a contributor to this site you understand that.

Yes, but in order for propaganda to be effective it must be distributed widely. A revolutionary community is not going to donate resources (which could be used to make these hypothetical "rationed luxuries") to counterrevolutionary individuals who wish to promote these ideas.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:15 PM

Why would your interests necessarily differ so drastically from that of a government, or a fascist dictator? Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn&#39;t. Nothing is guaranteed.

Because governments exist to represent and facillitate the interests of big-businesses, owners of capital. They certainly don&#39;t represent my best interests, and unless you&#39;re rich (which you may or may not be), they don&#39;t represent yours.



Why, even if they did, would then the community have to be “eliminated”?
Because it might not act in your interests, like the government you complain about.

My best interests are the same as the community&#39;s. They wouldn&#39;t be in conflict, because nobody would be in a position where they were able to benefit any more or less than their community as a whole.

I was going to rebutt the rest of your post, but I can&#39;t be bothered to argue with you.

If you don&#39;t recognise the most basic structures of the world operating around you, then there&#39;s no point even carrying this on.

To finish though:


I&#39;d a ***** because I&#39;d be in need?

No. You are one. You are their ***** because they’re exploiting you, and you refuse to see it. Get that job, get three of them. You still won’t be able to afford to save your own life, all the while padding the pockets of pharmaceutical companies.

I can only take so much arguing in here. Thank goodness you guys are banished to OI forever.

[KC]

As to the rationing, lets use the farm producing food for an example. In the example lets say there is a drought and not enough food is produced to meet the bare minimum need for the community. someone will starve to death.

Droughts don&#39;t affect the world food supply on a severe enough scale as to have this happen.



I do have a question about your unfavorable-job/higher-on-the-list set up. Which i admit wasnt figured into my original argument. In the case of the aforementioned scenario a, for lack of a better word, "lower" job is balanced by a "higher" benefit correct? Wouldn&#39;t someone have to assign value to each and therefore be in a position of power over others? Isnt that not allowed? Again this isnt meant to be inflammatory, only a hypothetical debate to increase my, and hopefully others, understanding.

I disagree with nate on this suject. Many undesirable jobs will be taken care of through various means (automation, division throughout the community, or even just throwing the job out if it isn&#39;t needed). Nobody will really have "undesirable jobs". Although if they did, they would be very highly respected by the community.

If a situation occurs where rationing is necessary, I would guess that the item would be shared throughout the community. Although, if this wasn&#39;t the case, then some sort of list would have to be created where whoever benefits society the most (putting in extra hours, doing other projects for the community, etc...) will be put at the top. I highly doubt that this would really need to be done, though.



what i was getting at was that organization can be a great thing, but when it starts to run better under the direction of one, then the community comes back to that individual with another problem, which inturn gets solved, and eventually you have one, or a group of individuals who are leading the community. The propaganda can be anything, surely as a contributor to this site you understand that.

The thing is that society won&#39;t be run under the direction of one. There are no means by which this person can gain power. Yes, certain people might be held very highly by the community, but the only power that they will have is social, not political.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 11:34 PM

If I was advocating this, I would demand that we legalised theft and murder so that I can legally kill people steal their stuff whenever I wanted so that I could "aquire the most wealth". But then I&#39;d no longer be a capitalist. I&#39;d be an anarchist and a ruffian.

No jack ass you would be a common criiminal and it is legal to kill people and steal thier wealth it is called war.

Nice steriotypical view of Anarchism you are ignorant. Here is a link with a description of Anarchism. Maybe you and the other idiot will learn something. Big maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[Tungsten]

Atlas Swallowed

No jack ass you would be a common criiminal and it is legal to kill people and steal thier wealth it is called war.
If I legalised murder and theft, it would no longer be a crime to kill and rob would it? :rolleyes:

How, then, would I be a "common criminal"? War is just a continutation of politics. To be more precise, politics that have no respect for property rights.

Nice steriotypical view of Anarchism you are ignorant.
Nice use of the English language.

OkaCrisis

Because governments exist to represent and facillitate the interests of big-businesses, owners of capital.
Not in my country. Not in any country, come to think of it. All it seems to be doing is serving itself.

My best interests are the same as the community&#39;s.
Will the community see it that way? Maybe. Maybe not.

They wouldn&#39;t be in conflict, because nobody would be in a position where they were able to benefit any more or less than their community as a whole.
Except when a few of them decide that it would be in their interest to make you their slave.

I was going to rebutt the rest of your post, but I can&#39;t be bothered to argue with you.
Funny how the "rest of my post" mentioned where you ran into contradictions and began hinting at slavery.

No. You are one. You are their ***** because they’re exploiting you, and you refuse to see it.
Provide proof, not boilerplate.

Get that job, get three of them. You still won’t be able to afford to save your own life, all the while padding the pockets of pharmaceutical companies.
How the hell would you know how many or few jobs would be needed? Let&#39;s see your calculations.

I can only take so much arguing in here. Thank goodness you guys are banished to OI forever.
What&#39;s wrong? Can&#39;t take the criticism? Prefer to surround yourself with "yes" men? Loser.

[violencia.Proletariat]

If I legalised murder and theft, it would no longer be a crime to kill and rob would it? :rolleyes:

How, then, would I be a "common criminal"? War is just a continutation of politics. To be more precise, politics that have no respect for property rights.

How would you go about doing this? You see in democracy, your vote counts as one. You would obviously be voted down and maybe even kicked out of the commune for such a reactionary idea. If you tried to do this violently we should just shoot your ass. :)


Except when a few of them decide that it would be in their interest to make you their slave.

If the proletariat takes the time to abolish the class system, why would they revert back to slavery? That makes no sense. It is also no longer economically practical to have slaves. Any pro slavery rebellions would be put down.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 03:16 PM
Atlas Swallowed

No jack ass you would be a common criiminal and it is legal to kill people and steal thier wealth it is called war.
If I legalised murder and theft, it would no longer be a crime to kill and rob would it? :rolleyes:

How, then, would I be a "common criminal"? War is just a continutation of politics. To be more precise, politics that have no respect for property rights.

Nice steriotypical view of Anarchism you are ignorant.
Nice use of the English language.


Never mind my use of the English language proffessor. Your view of Anarchism is totally inaccurate and you still remain ignorant.

You were implying that being a murder and criminal would be alright under Anarchism, that you can do whatever you want and not be held accountable which is not the case. The point I was trying to make that murder and crime is legal now if done by the state.

[Tungsten]

nate

How would you go about doing this? You see in democracy, your vote counts as one. You would obviously be voted down and maybe even kicked out of the commune for such a reactionary idea. If you tried to do this violently we should just shoot your ass. :)
Well by that logic, Germany was a democracy before the Nazis took over, so it&#39;s transformation into a fascist state was therefore impossible. After all, the Nazis should have just had their asses shot. But they didn&#39;t; the only ones doing the shooting were them.

If the proletariat takes the time to abolish the class system, why would they revert back to slavery? That makes no sense. It is also no longer economically practical to have slaves. Any pro slavery rebellions would be put down.
Then the formation of Nazi Germany should have been impossible since it was nothing more than a throwback to absolute monarchy, which "no one" would want to (in theory) "revert back to".

[KC]

Well by that logic, Germany was a democracy before the Nazis took over, so it&#39;s transformation into a fascist state was therefore impossible. After all, the Nazis should have just had their asses shot. But they didn&#39;t; the only ones doing the shooting were them.

1. Germany was in a huge depression. People become extremist in times of extreme desperation. In this case they supported Nazism.
2. Germany wasn&#39;t directly democratic, which is what Nate was talking about.
3. Your analogy is terrible.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Well by that logic, Germany was a democracy before the Nazis took over, so it&#39;s transformation into a fascist state was therefore impossible. After all, the Nazis should have just had their asses shot. But they didn&#39;t; the only ones doing the shooting were them.

Was the german proletariat revolutionary communists? NO&#33; What caused this depression of theirs? CAPITALISM. If you guys would quit wasting your time *****ing about anarchists maybe an anarchist would have shot hitlers ass before he got into power :lol:

Nor am I going to agree that Germany is a democracy. We arent speaking of a supposedly representative republic bourgeois sham called a democracy, we are speaking of participatory democracy. Besides, if I remember correctly hitler WAS NEVER elected, he didnt get enough votes. But he still seized power because scabs like you would be *****ing about anarchists and not fascists.


Then the formation of Nazi Germany should have been impossible since it was nothing more than a throwback to absolute monarchy, which "no one" would want to (in theory) "revert back to".

Fascism is not a monarchy. It didnt go back in the economic scale either, I didnt see hitler destroying machinery for wooden tools and horses instead of cars.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:16 AM
What&#39;s wrong? Can&#39;t take the criticism? Prefer to surround yourself with "yes" men? Loser.
No. If you can&#39;t be bothered to learn a damn thing about communism or anarchism, then, I can&#39;t be bothered to try to provide well thought out and intellegent replies to your babbling nonsense.

[Coolpie]

Communist and Anarchists are what we like to call " Logical ". The Capitalist are just stupid losers trying to steal money off the working class. :ph34r: ( Just thought id state the obbvious :lol: )

[Zak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 11:19 PM
The simple beauty of the system and state we are in now allows us to help people. It is not the governments job to help all people, to make sure everyone is equal.
If it&#39;s not the government’s job to help people, what is the government’s job, to hurt them? Anything but helping is hurting. If they raise taxes and don&#39;t help us they are taking our money and hurting us.

I don&#39;t see how helping people makes them equal.

As to the rest of your last post, I would say the best way to help people is to have an organization, let’s say the government or society as a whole, to help people. Not make individual people sacrifice their livelihoods to go out of there way to help people. This is only viable to the very rich.

[Communism=Utopia]

anarchyisdum i agree with you without a doubt on everything buddy, just read some of the stuff in the first page, and one funny thing i kept seeing over and over again was how Lazar used the work "hobby" LMFAO&#33;&#33;&#33; hahahahahhaa

hobby , work that people do because they enjoy it, hahahahahah this is one of the funniest shits ever, so you think that a hobby is a work? wtf? so collecting stamps is a great way to make the GDP of a country better? lmao, you think people take work as a hobby? are you fucking kidding me? this is not only funny its downright ridiculously retarded , so would anyone have a hobby to do the most fucked up jobs in society? dude, thanks for reminding me how little you and your buddies know of the real world, and how you pretty much live in a theory mindset, that the world knows doesn&#39;t work, yet you keep saying it "WILL" (future tense) happen...

yeah well the Jews have been waiting for their messiah for 3000 years, hope during your lifetime there is a time machine invented, so you can travel 3000 years in the future, only to be in the same position your right now....

[YSR]

GDP means nothing. GDP does not account how well of people are.

Stop posting here, go read something about anarchism. Come back. Debate.

(Is C=U being anti-semitic above me? Or just random?)

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:12 AM
anarchyisdum i agree with you without a doubt on everything buddy, just read some of the stuff in the first page, and one funny thing i kept seeing over and over again was how Lazar used the work "hobby" LMFAO&#33;&#33;&#33; hahahahahhaa

hobby , work that people do because they enjoy it, hahahahahah this is one of the funniest shits ever, so you think that a hobby is a work? wtf? so collecting stamps is a great way to make the GDP of a country better? lmao, you think people take work as a hobby? are you fucking kidding me? this is not only funny its downright ridiculously retarded , so would anyone have a hobby to do the most fucked up jobs in society? dude, thanks for reminding me how little you and your buddies know of the real world, and how you pretty much live in a theory mindset, that the world knows doesn&#39;t work, yet you keep saying it "WILL" (future tense) happen...

yeah well the Jews have been waiting for their messiah for 3000 years, hope during your lifetime there is a time machine invented, so you can travel 3000 years in the future, only to be in the same position your right now....
Stop being so rude.

It makes you seem dumber than you probably are, and makes people not take you seriously.

[Communism=Utopia]

does it look like i care? listen you talk sense to a fool and he will call you foolish, instead of saying how rude, or how wrong i am, or how i gotta read a book, why dont you tell me your master plans, and why dont you tell me how im wrong on what i said, at least some in here have tryed, but you dont even try....

one more thing, iv anyone of you here, can tell me of a country that has a better government/economic system than USA i will more than gladly accept the facts and shut my ass up i swear to god..

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:38 AM
does it look like i care? listen you talk sense to a fool and he will call you foolish, instead of saying how rude, or how wrong i am, or how i gotta read a book, why dont you tell me your master plans, and why dont you tell me how im wrong on what i said, at least some in here have tryed, but you dont even try....

one more thing, iv anyone of you here, can tell me of a country that has a better government/economic system than USA i will more than gladly accept the facts and shut my ass up i swear to god..
suprisingly, there are alot of european countries where the population has better living standards than in America.

Holland and Sweden, for example.

[Communism=Utopia]

lets see , does Sweden and Holland face the immigration problems we face? do they have 283.2 million people?don&#39;t think so...but your right i admit it, the US has some issues with poverty, but how do you measure poverty? the material posetions of a person, the materials necessities for daly life, the access to clean water, etc.... i hope you do know that when it comes to material posetions US is #1 by a LOOOOONG&#33; way....our total GDP is 9.8 trillion, our GDP per capital is 34, 637 ....

but your measuring standard of living, i mean economically/militarilly/politically no country can compare........but yeah i know that some countries like Iceland or something like that , where there is no immigration, for example, and a population of less than 10 million people , have a better standard of living than the US, but not materially, the standard is probably the free access to doctors , etc.....and yeah that is one of the things i dont like about America, the whole medical thing, that one i have to side with all of you, it fucking sucks, pretty much if you can&#39;t afford it you die, well i mean the government does help you, but i mean, when you come into a hospital even if your dying they first have to check if you have insurance and shit like that...lol....but thats pointless, happiness is the real thing that counts in life

[Atlas Swallowed]

From those words of wisdom :rolleyes: I assume you are still living with mommy and daddy. Turn off the idiot box and get out of the house son.

Don&#39;t you think the land mass of Sweden and Holland may have something to do with it?

Go to any inner city in a large US city and then tell me about living conditions or poorer rural communties. Everywhere is not the suburbs(thank goodness).

What the hell does milatarily have to do with the standard of living?

Don&#39;t you think poverty may be more effected by jobs being taken out of the country to exploit cheap labor than it has to with immigrants?

If material possessions are what you judge happiness by, I pity you. If that is the case you live a very shallow exsistance.