Examples of Anti Left Ideas

[Macchendra]

Belief #1:
Through violence, we can have authority over the moral behavior of others

Belief #2:
The proper social hierarchy wil bring about the society that is needed.

Belief #3:
Strict adherence to tradition is the direction to advance our cause.

Belief #4:
Monoculturalism promotes the development of ideas.


New cops same as the old cops, new warmongers same as the old.

Peace!
David Bright Morning

[More Fire for the People]

The last two three are of course not conducive to leftism but the first two are indeed quite Marxists, a scientific view of history, politics, and economics.

[Macchendra]

As a leftist, and more importantly, as a human being, I have to reject violent authoritarian moralism, as well as crypto-classism.

Are there anarchists who disagree?

Peace!

[More Fire for the People]

Bullshit strawman cop-out. The fuckers oppressing you don't give a damn about being authoritarian. We don't give a damn about oppressing them. But you wouldn't know about that because you probably own your own business. Go back to your coffee-shop / bookstore and look up the section labeled Marxism.

And, yes all the fucking anarchist disagree. I've never seen an anarchist with such absurd notions.

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+Apr 30 2006, 04:35 PM--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ Apr 30 2006, 04:35 PM)The fuckers oppressing you don't give a damn about being authoritarian. We don't give a damn about oppressing them. [/b]
You go ahead and model your behavior after theirs, see what you become.


Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 30 2006, 04:35 PM
But you wouldn't know about that because you probably own your own business. Go back to your coffee-shop
Ad-hominem, I see your point.


Hopscotch [email protected] 30 2006, 04:35 PM
I've never seen an anarchist with such absurd notions.
Which notions specifically? And why are they absurd?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Macchendra+Apr 30 2006, 10:41 AM--> (Macchendra @ Apr 30 2006, 10:41 AM)
Hopscotch [email protected] 30 2006, 04:35 PM
The fuckers oppressing you don't give a damn about being authoritarian. We don't give a damn about oppressing them.
You go ahead and model your behavior after theirs, see what you become. [/b]
The ruling class? Yes indeed, the workers want to become the ruling class.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+Apr 30 2006, 05:06 PM--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ Apr 30 2006, 05:06 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:41 AM

Hopscotch [email protected] 30 2006, 04:35 PM
The fuckers oppressing you don't give a damn about being authoritarian. We don't give a damn about oppressing them.
You go ahead and model your behavior after theirs, see what you become.
The ruling class? Yes indeed, the workers want to become the ruling class. [/b]
That'll just lead to the working class to become the new bourgeoise, as they'll try and exert will over other groups. Equality for all is necessary, not just replacing one class with another.

[More Fire for the People]

Umm, no? You see, Marxism is a scientific outlook of the world, based upon historical and dialectical materialism. According to historical materialism, new classes gain power via revolution and alter the mode of production, or something like that. The new ruling class instutes a dictatorship against the old class. Ropsberrie? Supressed feudal lords. Lenin? Supressed capitalist reaction.

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 30 2006, 05:29 PM
Umm, no? You see, Marxism is a scientific outlook of the world, based upon historical and dialectical materialism. According to historical materialism, new classes gain power via revolution and alter the mode of production, or something like that. The new ruling class instutes a dictatorship against the old class. Ropsberrie? Supressed feudal lords. Lenin? Supressed capitalist reaction.
Pure Monoculturalism.

The anarchists, however, undermine this or that ruling class, whether it be the landlords, or the "state-landlords".

Peace!

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Macchendra
The anarchists, however, undermine this or that ruling class, whether it be the landlords, or the "state-landlords".
Contrary to the Lennie, I think that revolution should serve to eliminate class itself, not just install a new ruling class.

However, in order to smash the state and abolish capitalism, I think violence will inevitably be needed.

[More Fire for the People]

Pure Monoculturalism.
Ironic, seeing as I support multiculturalism under the guide of scientific absolutism. If being rational means being a monoculturalists, sign me up!

[YSR]

I'm with Anomoly. Class-struggle anarchists, while they don't have to enourage violence, must recognize that it will definitely occur and is, in the course of revolutionary struggle, is acceptable. It's not about how anarchism comes about, but that it does.

[LSD]

Belief #1:
Through violence, we can have authority over the moral behavior of others

That's not a "belief", it's a proven fact.

I'm not sure what "moral" means in this context; but a preponderance of violent force does give one the power to dicate the behaviour of others.

Whether or not that's a "good thing" can be debated, but the reality cannot be denied.

Nor should it be ignored. After all, even postrevolutionary society will not be "free of violence". Ending capitalist inequalities will put an end to most forms of "crime", but there will always be murderers and rapists and pedphiles.

Unless the society at large has a social monopoly on violence, chaos is the inevitable result.

Remember, Anarchism is not anarchy!


Belief #2:
The proper social hierarchy wil bring about the society that is needed.

The problem with that "belief", of course, is that the "society that is needed" is one without hierarchy!

Now Leninists and strict Marxists will tell you that "transitional" hierarchy is nescessary to "prepare" us for classless society, but notice how they avoid telling you exactly what "transitional" means in definite terms.

In the Soviet Union "transitional" meant about 73 years and the only thing that it "transitioned" into was gangster capitalism.

China's not quite there yet, so far only 57 years of "transition", but it looks like the end result's not going to be any more encouraging.

At this point, the doctrine of "transition" had been pretty much debunked. The only thing that creating a "new kind" of hiearchy does is create a new hierarchy. And if we're interested in emancipation, giving ourselves new masters doesn't exactly help.

To create a communist society, we need to work at communism straight from the get-go. It won't be "instant" and it won't be "perfect", but if we do it right, it will be free.

That's a start.


Belief #3:
Strict adherence to tradition is the direction to advance our cause.

Well, that's obviously false on the face of it.

Every great change in history has occured due to defiance of tradition. All that convervatism has ever lead to is more of the same.


Belief #4:
Monoculturalism promotes the development of ideas.

Monoculturalism doesn't "promote" anything. It's a result of material conditions, not a "cause" of social change.

In the same vein, of course, "promoting" monoculturalism as some sort of effective "political tool" is utter idealism. Global cultural unification is nothing more than the inevitable result of advanced technology.

It should neither be "welcomed" nor "feared".

[hoopla]

Might be wrong, but I don't think it would be a terrible thing if everyone post capitalism was like you, I do not always agree with the "kill everything that pisses off my frustrated ass" school of anarchism.

Peace out.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by hoopla
"kill everything that pisses off my frustrated ass" school of anarchism
I am completely ignorant as to this particular 'school'. :lol:

Were you referring to LSD? Because I don't quite get that sense from his post...

[hoopla]

Can anyone recommend anything about the struggle against pacifism?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 06:47 PM
Can anyone recommend anything about the struggle against pacifism?
I have a vague memory that Lenin wrote something against it during the opening months of World War I.

In periods of "sharp struggle", I think most people just "give it up" from a "common sense" point of view.

Pacifism is a difficult position to maintain when people are trying to kill you. :lol:

The ones who don't abandon pacifism are simply not a factor in the outcome, one way or the other.

I must add that this is another "strange" thread from Macchendra. He has a rather peculiar notion of the "left" which I frankly fail to comprehend at all.

In four or five centuries, I imagine there will be a "global monoculture" (with some minor local variations) and I can't imagine why anyone would think that such a thing would be "anti-left".

Unless one imagines that capitalism "really is" the "end of history" and everyone "will be a businessman" by c.2500.

A very strange idea indeed. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[comet_rider]

QUOTE
Belief #1:
Through violence, we can have authority over the moral behavior of others



That's not a "belief", it's a proven fact.


Indeed. Even though violence should be kept at a minimum if not eliminated in the final society, and even though violence is not nessasary for the shaping of moral behaviors, it is nevertheless a way to go about it. But we don't always have to do what we can do.

However, since the current society does use violence (in various forms and under various disguises), it is quite impossible to replace it by talking over tea and cheese.

If you want peace in a warlike society, then you must prepare for war.


QUOTE
Belief #3:
Strict adherence to tradition is the direction to advance our cause.



Well, that's obviously false on the face of it.

Every great change in history has occured due to defiance of tradition. All that convervatism has ever lead to is more of the same.


True. But these reactionary forces do have their uses by providing a comparison. Also, communism/anarchism does require the basis of capitals generated in capitalism as a groundwork to be built on.

[Monty Cantsin]

Historically most notable pacifist does give it up when there’s a threat to them or their people. Gandhi as I remember criticised England for going to war with the Nazis but pretty much no one else did, Einstein went so far as abandoning his pacifist principles to advocating the creation of WMD.

[Macchendra]

Thank you LSD! Although, on #1, allow me to restate it as:
"We should use violence to control the moral behavior of others."

And also, I really disagree that "society at large" should have a "social monopoly on violence" to prevent the "inevitable" chaos that would result. This is the main argument against anarchism: that authority is needed to ensure autonomy or chaos will result. Is it not?


RedStar...
Only you could think a "global monoculture" was good. I am reminded of the xenophobia of the typical right-wingers who envisage a "global monoculture" of their brand of Christianity. I think that tolerance and multiculturalism are hallmarks of the Left, not the Right. How you connect it to thinking that 'capitalism "really is" the "end of history"' is totally beyond me. I am glad that my ideas are strange to you. Do you fear the strange? I call that xenophobia.


Comet rider, (heavens gate?) war is not the only tool. Cooperation, and non-cooperation are tools also, and the self-interest of capitalists limit their ability to act collaboratively, while socialists are not limited in the same way.


Finally, Monty, non-violence only works if you never surrender.


Peace!
David Bright Morning

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Non-violence tends to get your head kicked in.

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:54 PM
Non-violence tends to get your head kicked in.
And yet, we have created the nuclear standoff merely out of an attempt to save ourselves with violence. Kind of makes getting your head kicked in like having your balls tickled with an ostrich feather by comparison.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Macchendra+May 1 2006, 03:26 PM--> (Macchendra @ May 1 2006, 03:26 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 02:54 PM
Non-violence tends to get your head kicked in.
And yet, we have created the nuclear standoff merely out of an attempt to save ourselves with violence [/b]
No we haven't - Capitalism and the ruling classes of nations with nuclear weapons have


Now Leninists and strict Marxists will tell you that "transitional" hierarchy is nescessary to "prepare" us for classless society, but notice how they avoid telling you exactly what "transitional" means in definite terms.
You mean Dictatorship of the Proletariat - without it, how could a post-revolutionary society be managed and defended from reactionaries?

[Red Axis]

It can be defended with the people's army.

[The Grey Blur]

Consisting of, being directed by and organized by...the proletariat!

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 1 2006, 04:10 PM
No we haven't - Capitalism and the ruling classes of nations with nuclear weapons have
The military of others becomes the justification for the military of self. And it works both ways. For this simple fact of reality, escalation to Nuclear war is inevitable while we mold our peace out of war.

Those who believe total victory will bring peace have an even more aggressive idea than those who believe containment will bring peace.

Neither will work, neither is peace.

The presence of military imposes the threat of violence on the unconsenting. This is equivalent to violence. Is it rape if violence is threatened but not actually imposed? Certainly.

All police and military must be disbanded.

This is not chaos, this is order.

Chaos is when people take upon themselves to impose their will with violence.

The belief that they must do so to ensure order is the opposite of Anarchism.

However, there must be an organizing force, which operates by the principle of cooperation and non-cooperation, and the level of cooperation must exceed that of all states for anarchism to succeed. To be anarchic, cooperation must be voluntary, and to create the most cooperation, cooperative action should be democratic.

Peace!
David Bright Morning

[LSD]

And also, I really disagree that "society at large" should have a "social monopoly on violence" to prevent the "inevitable" chaos that would result.

Well, I don't really see what the alternative is.

Every society must have rules of conduct; and whether those rules are codified or not, in order to have functional legitimacy they must be backed up by the threat of social force.

Now, in an hierarchical society, that force is exerted by the elite minority against the crminal minority; in an anarchist society, that force is exerted by the popular majority against that same crminal minority.

In both cases, the use of violent force acts as a punishmnt to the perpetrators and a deterent to any potential criminals. The question is not whether or not force will be utilized, it's who will be doing the utilization.

No serious political thinkers advocate an absolute "elimination" of monopoly-violence as the alternative is chaos.


This is the main argument against anarchism: that authority is needed to ensure autonomy or chaos will result. Is it not?

No, the argument against anarchism is that "government" is nescessary because the people are "incapable" of ruling themself.

What authoritarians claim is not that society requires a social monopoly on violence but that they or their "party" needs a social monopoly on violence. Their claim is that only "they" have the requisite "skills" or "knowledge" to use that monopoly "properly".

Anarchists, by contrast, argue that although social organization is nescessary, that organizatoin can be popular and fully franchised. In our minds, all human beings are naturally capable of participating equally in societal decision making and no one has "special liscence" to make those decisions "for us".

Remember, Anarchism is not an opposition to order, it is an opposition to hierarchy. The people must still democratically govern themselves. Even though an anarchist society would almost certainly be minimalist in its approach to legislation, some rules of conduct are nonetheless nescessary.

We do not, after all, reject the basic right of society to defend itself from incalcitrant offenders Crimes of property will not occur in classless society, but crimes of passion and psychopathology certainly will.

As both a deterent to such crimes and to ensure that subesequent matters of justice and punishment are carried out in a fair and equitable manner, it is nescessary that individuals refrain from any personal retributive acts and concede to the social monopoly of society at large.

Violence can't just be "gotten rid of", it can only be controlled. The only real question is who gets to control it?


Only you could think a "global monoculture" was good.

Again, Macchendra, a "global monoculture" is neither "good" nor "bad", it is simply an inevitable result of technological development.

The nature of human civilization is that culture changes. No society today is what it was 100 or 500 years ago; nor should we expect that 500 years hence it will be what it is today.

Humanity develops and, thanks to increasing communication speeds, integrates.

And in terms of the "social impact" of this integration, the evidence so far is that, asdie from where it is exploited by capitalit interests, it is generally positive. Exposure to a wide range of ideas tends to reduce insular provincialism and ingender more tolerant attitudes.

That is not to say that it's "good" that the world is getting smaller, merely that it isn't "disastrous". And good thing too, because there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it/


You mean Dictatorship of the Proletariat - without it, how could a post-revolutionary society be managed and defended from reactionaries?

By organizing itself along communistic lines as soon as possible, by immediately implementing democratic and majoritarian governance, and by elminating all remnants of the bourgeois state apparatus.

I understand that in Marxist circles there is a degree of controversy on exactly what "dictatorship of the proletariat" means. After all, for Leninists it means an actual dictatorship and for the rest, it means something a lot more representative.

Either way though, we are talking about some sort of institutional state appartaus with all the baggage that goes with it: an elite legislative body, a massive civil service bureaucracy, institutional groupthink, and "official secrets".

In the class vacuum of postrevolutionary society, these institutional entities cannot help but to emerge into a parasitic clique and eventually into a fully functional new rulling class.

Class is not determined by "belief" or "character", it is determined by relation to the means of production. And when a "revolutionary" government begins to centralize production according to it's "revolutionary" dictates, the members of that government are controling those means of production.

In no uncertain terms, they effectively "own" them.

Now, again, the exact structure of a "workers state" is very much "up in the air", and it is certainly possible that someone will finally "do it right" and create an actually democratic DoP.

But even if they do, representative "democracy" is always elitist and always prone to corruption. The development of career politicians and institutional identify is pretty much inevitable.

And unless serious restrictions are placed on the power and freedom of the new "workers stater" -- the kind that would seriously hamper its "efficiency" and "flexibility" -- I see absolutely no way of preventing a return to effective class scociety.

As I see it, for communism to work, it must start from the begining. Institutions simply cannot be expected to eventually "wither" into it.

"Transition" just doesn't work!

[anomaly]

Originally posted by LSD
Transition" just doesn't work!
Transition in Leninist terms doesn't work. Transition is Marxist terms is just confusing, and anymore, there is no real 'Marxist' transition. Different 'Marxists' have different ideas. Indeed, the entire term 'Marxist' is really meaningless these days. One has to add an appropriate adjective in front. (libertarian or vanguardist are what I usually use)

But what do you think about collectivism? I've read a bit about it, and it seems the most important difference (the only major difference, really) would be that Time Labor Vouchers would be used rather than a free access economy.

Sure, I'd like to go straight to a free-access economy, but we don't know if it will be materially possible to do so. And if it's not, then collectivism will probably need to be used.

[LSD]

I was speaking in political terms, not economic ones.

Certainly some degree of economic transition will be nescessary, although not nearly as much as Leninists would propose.

The defeat of the bourgeoisie and their lackeys will not be quick, will not be easy, and will not be without echos. Certainly postrevolutionary society will need to rapidly deal with reactionaries and loyalists and prevent them from arranging any sort of counterrevolution.

In my mind, however, this is all still a part of the revolution. Until matters "calm down" that is, the revolution is still underway. Only once the victorious proletariat has secured the are and put down organized resistance, can we even address the matter of begining reorganization.

During the revolution, production will be haphazard and it will be deeply influenced by the preceding social order. It will not be wage-labour per se, of course, but it will doubtltessly be co-ordinated and managed.

Once the revolution is entirely or mostly completed, however, it's time to begin the transition towards communist economic organization.

Exactly what institutions will need to be set up to manage an interim economy is unclear. Some form of TLV might work, certainly something needs to be introduced as a unit of value since "money" will be effectively useless.

Personally, I think that the best idea is to decentralize as much as possible. Allow workers' collectives and revolutionary unions to determine their own basic policies (so long as they fit within basic social guidelines) and then negotiate distribution based on capacity and need. Any remunerative policies, if implemented, should be suplementary and temporary and not be permitted to seriously take root.

The point, after all, is to transition towards volunteer production, meaning that we want to dispense with wage-labour remnants as quickly as possible.

After infastructure is fully repaired and a cogent system is implemented, we can begin the shift to a complete gift economy. In all likelyhood, though, we're talking about at least a few years before everything is up and runing.

During all this time, however, it is essential that no "provisional government" or "revolutionary state" be allowed to emerge. All decisions effecting the entire community must be made democraticall, even though that will initially require additional work.

In emergencies, local workers collectives or other democratic ad hoc bodies may be forced to act, but even in these instance, democracy must be the rule of the day.

Immediate postrevolutionary society will be a "messy" place, but it will be inhabited by very energized and very socially conscious workers. After all, they will have just successfuly waged the greatest revolution in history! :)

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by LSD+May 1 2006, 09:36 PM--> (LSD @ May 1 2006, 09:36 PM)Now, in an hierarchical society, that force is exerted by the elite minority against the crminal minority; in an anarchist society, that force is exerted by the popular majority against that same crminal minority.

In both cases, the use of violent force acts as a punishmnt to the perpetrators and a deterent to any potential criminals. The question is not whether or not force will be utilized, it's who will be doing the utilization.[/b]

That is Democracy, a form of statism.


Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:36 PM
No serious political thinkers advocate an absolute "elimination" of monopoly-violence as the alternative is chaos.

Argument by authority. (and for authority)


Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:36 PM
No, the argument against anarchism is that "government" is nescessary because the people are "incapable" of ruling themself.

In democratic fashion apparently.


Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:36 PM
Anarchists, by contrast, argue that although social organization is nescessary, that organizatoin can be popular and fully franchised. In our minds, all human beings are naturally capable of participating equally in societal decision making and no one has "special liscence" to make those decisions "for us".

Us refering to the "popular majority" you mentioned above.


Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:36 PM
Remember, Anarchism is not an opposition to order, it is an opposition to hierarchy.

Here's a hierarchy for you: Cop over non-cop. qed


Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:36 PM
The people must still democratically govern themselves. Even though an anarchist society would almost certainly be minimalist in its approach to legislation, some rules of conduct are nonetheless nescessary.


A democratic state is still a state. It still assumes the authority to impose its will upon the unconsenting, just like any other landlord.


Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:36 PM
Violence can't just be "gotten rid of", it can only be controlled. The only real question is who gets to control it?

Anarchism is not yet another state owned by the people.


Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:36 PM

Only you could think a "global monoculture" was good.

Again, Macchendra, a "global monoculture" is neither "good" nor "bad", it is simply an inevitable result of technological development.

That point is refuted by your next point:


Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:36 PM
The nature of human civilization is that culture changes. No society today is what it was 100 or 500 years ago; nor should we expect that 500 years hence it will be what it is today.

This change is the cause of diversity.


Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:36 PM
Exposure to a wide range of ideas tends to reduce insular provincialism and ingender more tolerant attitudes.

Provincialism does not create diversity. And a monoculture is not tolerant.


[email protected] 1 2006, 09:36 PM
As I see it, for communism to work, it must start from the begining. Institutions simply cannot be expected to eventually "wither" into it.

"Transition" just doesn't work!

"Merely quantitative differences, beyond a certain point, pass into qualitative changes." --Karl Marx

It adds up over time, I think so, and so does Karl.

You are an old man LSD.

Peace!
David Bright Morning

[LSD]

That is Democracy, a form of statism.

Actually, democracy is by its nature stateless. What I think that you are refering to is republicanism or "representative democracy", a bourgeois perversion of traditional notions of democratic organization.

In anarchist democratic society, no individual will have any liscence to exploit, harm, or command and other individual. This means, however, that the natural power of might must be combatted somehow.

It is all well and good to speak of full equality; but if you go down to the local gun factory and pick up a gun, you are no longer practically "equal" to an unarmed individual. If you threaten that person with violence, they would be forced to compley with your wishes.

Should society then have no recourse against you? Do you deny the right of your victim to turn to his society and demand justice?

You have violated a basic rule of your community and some responsive and deterrent action is nescessary. Clearly you must be prevented from commiting similar acts in the future and it must be made clear that such acts are universally not permitted.

Now, this scenario will doubtlessly be rare in anarchist society. Especially due to the elimination of private property, a significant majority of present-day "crimes" would no longer be an issue.

But there will always be those who, for one reason or another, desire to impose their will on others and there must be some system in place to protect the rest of society from them.

Anarchism is not just about positive rights, it's also about negative ones and that means some form of basic social monopoly on force.

There really is no alternative


Here's a hierarchy for you: Cop over non-cop. qed

Absolutely. Which is why all anarchists oppose the creation or maintance of organized police forces.

Again, no individual should be granted special status or authority over another. That kind of elitism inexorably leads towards oppression and exploitation.


A democratic state is still a state.

Which is why, again, I oppose the creation of an institutionalized state


It still assumes the authority to impose its will upon the unconsenting

Again, I must ask, what precisely is your alternative?

The pedophile will never "consent" to not raping children; the psychopath will never "consent" to not kill. Without a social monopoly on force, how do you suggest we prevent these individuals from harming others?

Anarchism is about eliminating hierarchy, not eliminating order.

No society can function unless a prohibition on individual force is both in place and enforced. And even if such a nihilistic "society" were attempted, it would eventually revert to class society.

Communism is the highest order of societal organization, not primativist barbarism!


Provincialism does not create diversity.

:huh:

I never claimed that it did.


And a monoculture is not tolerant.

Well, it depends on the "monoculture" in question, I suppose. Certainly, the integration of culture over the past few decades as increased awareness of alternative lifestyles, but, largely due to capitalism, there have definitely been some harmful side-effects.

In any case, again, the eventual emergence of some form of "monoculture" is inevitable so any discussion of its noramtive value is pointless.

The question is not will the cultures merge, it's when will the culture merge.


"Merely quantitative differences, beyond a certain point, pass into qualitative changes." --Karl Marx

I believe that you are refering to the Hegelian theory of "Dialectical Materialism". If so, I suggest that you read this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48119) on the subject. You may find it quite enlightening.

[anomaly]

Ok, LSD, thanks for clarifying. I agree.


Originally posted by Macchendra+--> (Macchendra)That is Democracy, a form of statism.[/b]
What do you have against democracy? I think it will probably be the best way to 'get things done' in an anarchist society.

Also, I think you overestimate the power that the 'majority' will have over society. Firstly, it changes with every issue. So there is no permanent ruling body; there is no state. Secondly, LSD had a good point here:

LSD
Even though an anarchist society would almost certainly be minimalist in its approach to legislation, some rules of conduct are nonetheless nescessary.
This means that any 'rules' passed democratically, any 'policy' will be far less intrusive than it is today. They will be basic and general rules, not specific ones. And so an individual's freedom will increase dramatically.

[Macchendra]

Yes, Democracy is the way to collaborate effectively...

But a Democratic "monopoly of force" is a state no matter how you try to paint it.


That "Anarchy is not chaos" means simply:

"Anarchy is not anyone imposing their will upon whoever they feel like."

It does not mean:

"Anarchy is a state with different laws."

[anomaly]

Anarchy is not anyone imposing their will upon whoever they feel like
Obviously. But neither is democracy. Anarchism does not mean we shy away from any decision making process.

[LSD]

But a Democratic "monopoly of force" is a state no matter how you try to paint it.

No it's not.

A state is an institutionalized government; a distinct set of "leaders" and "law-makers" who rule over the general population.

State government is a form of governance, specifically a highly hierarchical and elitist one. Similarly, democracy is a form of government and one which does not rely upon structural elites.

Anarchy is a non-hierarchical society, but it is not a non-ordered one and some form of governance will be required. Someone, after all, needs to establish that murder is disallowed and someone needs to make sure that that decision is enforced.

And if not the people, who?


Anarchy is not anyone imposing their will upon whoever they feel like.

Obviously, but the key question is how is such a society to be maintained?

You have critisized the idea of democratic self-governance several times now, but you have yet to propose an alternative. Now, I have asked this question a few times already, but I'm going to ask it again:

Absent a social monopoly on force, how will basic rules of conduce be maintained?

Society exists to benefit its members; that nescessitates counterbalancing the natural power of might with the numerical power of a concerted community. If you take away the ability for society to wield that power, then you fatally cripple it.

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:23 PM
Absent a social monopoly on force, how will basic rules of conduce be maintained?
When one person imposes their will upon another with violence, the imposer of violence has implicitly consented to violence against them. These people can reap what they sow. Any violence against such a person would be consensual.

The only type of violence that is non authoritarian is consensual violence.

I myself will only engage in explicitly consensual violence. (Love it, in fact.) And I encourage other to limit their violence to the explicitly consensual.

But the formation of police and military and granting them a territory of authority imposes the threat of violence upon the unconsenting, and it is an act of extortion, and a form of land ownership.

My personal advice is separate from anarchism. I advise people to limit their violence to the explicitly consensual, but I do not condemn implicitly consensual violence. My advice is based on the fact that we have reached the height of the nuclear standoff not by retaliating against nuclear violence, but by retaliating against the threat of it.


Peace!
The Anarchist of Anarchists

[Morpheus]

The very definition of a state is an organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. States automatically lead to hierarchies & elites because that monopoly of force means those who can use violence end up with power over those who can't. If one group has monopoly of force then your'e just asking for abuses.

Even today, the enforcement of most rules (what sociologists call norms) isn't through the state or violence. When you go on an elevator and other people are there, does anyone immediately start dancing? Does anyone change clothes, sit on the floor or do an extensive exercise routine on the elevator? No, that violates a norm. In this case, an unwritten informal norm. Instead, we usually keep to ourselves and quietly wait for our floor, although some conversation may occur depending on the circumstances and the gender of the elevator riders. How is that unstated rule enforced? Through informal sanctions. If you break that rule, unless you have a valid reason to justify an exception, people will look at you funny and think you odd. They may even say negative things about you or ask you to stop. That reaction is an example of a negative sanction. Sanctions are reactions from other people, groups or institutions to your actions and have the effect of enforcing compliance with norms. These include negative sanctions - punishments for deviating from norms - and positoin sanctions - rewards for complying with norms. If enforced long enough norms usually become internalized, we end up following them out of our own will without regard to sanctions. For example, most people have internalized the norm of wearing clothes in most situations. Only a small portion of today's norms are legislated by the state, and most sanctions are of a non-violent nature. There is a wide variety of different kinds of sanctions: positive & negative, violent & non-violent, legal, religious, diffuse, pyschological & others. The state doesn't maintain order in any society; norms & sanctions do.

Instead of giving a single group a monopoly of force violence should be diffuse, spread through many groups and people. Whether a violent act is legitimate or not should be determined by how violence was used, not by which group deployed force. Violence that prevents or undermines injustice/hierarchy is legitimate; violence that does the opposite is illegitimate. Nor do we need any central organization to legislate on everything. We don't need a legislature to micro-manage our lives. Most norms and sanctions should operate in a manner similar to the elevator example. In some cases more formal sanctions & norm creation may be needed, which is what popular assemblies are for. But these should be limited in scope and should not attempt to monopoly force or become a central source of legislation on everything.

Monoculture cannot exist outside of hierarchical societies. In order to compel everyone to go along with the monoculture you need hierarchy. Otherwise, anyone who doesn't like the monoculture will form a different culture, and we'll end up with multiple cultures.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 12:06 AM
When one person imposes their will upon another with violence, the imposer of violence has implicitly consented to violence against them.
If I ever use force against you (and I doubt I ever would), I will be sure to explicitly state that I do not consent to violence being used back against me.

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by Morpheus+May 3 2006, 12:39 AM--> (Morpheus @ May 3 2006, 12:39 AM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 12:06 AM
When one person imposes their will upon another with violence, the imposer of violence has implicitly consented to violence against them.
If I ever use force against you (and I doubt I ever would), I will be sure to explicitly state that I do not consent to violence being used back against me. [/b]
Very funny...

The implicit consent would still be there.

Peace!
David

[LSD]

When one person imposes their will upon another with violence, the imposer of violence has implicitly consented to violence against them. These people can reap what they sow. Any violence against such a person would be consensual.


That is a remarkably simplistic approach to societal organization.

How, for instance, do you determine whether or not someone actually "imposed their will"?

It's all well and good to say that people will be punished for any violent acts, but the mere suspision of commision is not sufficient justification for retributive action!

Now, in many cases the truth of the matter may be obvious, but doubtlessly in many others, it will not. And in those circumstances it is nescessary that society accept that violence agasint the accused is still not permitted.

The mere fact that you suspect your neighbour of molesting your child does not grant you liscence to harm him. It must be first be fairly and credibly established by verifiably evidence. Only then should action be taken and only in an organized and equitable manner.

Vigilante justice is not Anarchist, it's nihilist.


But the formation of police and military and granting them a territory of authority imposes the threat of violence upon the unconsenting

Which is why, again, I do not support the creation of an institutionalized state or government apparatus.

For some reason you seem to be confused on this point but allow me to, once again, clarify my position on this issue. I do not favour the creation of any postrevolutionary elite bodies with any special "liscense" above or beyond ordinary individuals.

Decisions which affect the entire community should be discussed in a public and democratic manner and carried out by the entirety of society. Again, though, this would be very minimalist in approach and extremely limited in nescessity.

We're not talking about majoritarian micromanagement, but basic rules of conduct do need to be agreed on and enforced.

Again, someone needs to establish that child molestation is wrong -- yes, even when "force" is not applied!

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by LSD+May 3 2006, 01:11 AM--> (LSD @ May 3 2006, 01:11 AM)It must be first be fairly and credibly established by verifiably evidence. [/b]

Measured by which authority?


Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:11 AM
Only then should action be taken and only in an organized and equitable manner.

Administered by which authority.


Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:11 AM
Which is why, again, I do not support the creation of an institutionalized state or government apparatus.

Yet you have implicitly called for such above...


Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:11 AM
We're not talking about majoritarian micromanagement, but basic rules of conduct do need to be agreed on and enforced.

The one rule of anarchy is:
"No person may impose their will upon another with violence or the threat of violence."

The more you try to enforce it, the more it gets broken.


[email protected] 3 2006, 01:11 AM
Again, someone needs to establish that child molestation is wrong -- yes, even when "force" is not applied!

The child does not consent, so it is rape. Rape is a form of violence. If you don't think it is wrong for that reason, then we have different ideas about child molestation, and somebody, besides me, needs to straighten you out on that point.

Your arguments are the standard arguments against anarchy.

Its always:
"But if we don't have the police and military, then others will come to impose their will against us."

Again and again and again.

Minimalist statism has a name: libertarianism.

Anarchism is a whole nother thing. Yes, anarchists have tried before to come up with a theory and have failed. Mostly because they did not think it through, or in your case because you had confused it with something else. As far as I know I am the first. Which is why I am the Anarchist of Anarchists.

Peace!
David Bright Morning

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Macchendra
Measured by which authority?...Administered by which authority
How about the people themselves? Democracy is no state, it is self-governance. The state implies actual and official hierarchy, something noticeably missing from direct democracy.


"But if we don't have the police and military, then others will come to impose their will against us."
I'm sorry, but LSD has said over and over that he wants no such things.

But how do you expect society to function if the people cannot decide on anything, since you say that would be 'imposing authority'. Yes, in democracy, in every decision we have a minority. But this minority changes from issue to issue. So their is no actual or official hierarchy, thus there is no state.


As far as I know I am the first. Which is why I am the Anarchist of Anarchists.
No, there is no 'anarchist of anarchists'. You apparently want a society in which no decisions are ever reached, but instead we rely on vigilante justice.

What is so bad about democracy?

[LSD]

Measured by which authority?

Personally, I'm in favour of a system of large randomly selected civil juries, perhaps composed of as many as 100 to 200 members, who will hear evidence and then vote on a verdict.

Obviously the entire community can't address every single petty criminal issue, but equally obviously, a degree of standardization and basic protection is needed to ensure that justice is dealt out equitably.

A man accused of a serious crime, say rape or murder, deserves to have the evidence against him evaluated before his is punished for his "crime". Under your proposed "system", however, there would be no way of judging his guilt. Instead, individuals would just randomly "impose their will" upon him in exchange for his having, ostensibly, "imposed his will" on someone else.

Well that kind of nonsensical chaos may appeal to your sensibilities, but it has nothing to do with political Anarchy. Rather it's some perverse form of neo-nihilism and, to my judgement, is not even leftist in its approach! :o


Yet you have implicitly called for such above...

Nonsense.

An institutional state requires the presence of a elite body charged with social authority; in an anarchist/communist society, however, said authority is dispersed throughout the entire community and only directly exerted by majoritarian decision.

Democracy is not a form of state, it's a form of governance and it's time that you recognize the difference.

Frankly, I'm tired of going around in circles with you here. Seriously, do some research on what Anarchism actually is and then maybe we can have a fruitful debate.


The one rule of anarchy is:
"No person may impose their will upon another with violence or the threat of violence."

It doesn't matter how many times you say that, you have still yet to define it.

Again, how will you determine whether or not someone "imposed their will" on someone else? Once it is determined how will appropriate retributive action be selected?

It's all well and good to talk about this "perfect" model of yours, but until you actually address the hard questions, it's entirely without merit.


The child does not consent, so it is rape.

And what if the child does consent? What if, out of limited understanding, imaturity, and maleability, a 4 year old girl becomes convinced that she "wants" to be penetrated by an 80 year old man?

Is it no longer "wrong" for you? Should there be no social prohibition on such "consentual" acts?

Well, at least NAMBLA will be happy... <_<


Anarchism is a whole nother thing.

No. Anarchism is, basically, what I described; a classless, stateless society centered around volunteer production and gift economics with a system of decentralized democratic communal governance.

What you&#39;re talking about, your "anarchy of anarchy" as you put it, is some form of neo-nihilism masking as Anarchism.

But Anarchism as a political philosophy has a very long and very coherent history and it bears very little resemblance to your idealist utopian image. Anarchism, or at least the branches of Anarchism that have any chance of success, is rooted in fundamentally materialist and rational approaches to social organization.

We do not rely upon "trust" or metaphysical notions about "will". Rather we envisage a society organized along logical and pragamatic lines in order to maximize the benefit to all members of society.

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:42 AM
And what if the child does consent? What if, out of limited understanding, imaturity, and maleability, a 4 year old girl becomes convinced that she "wants" to be penetrated by a 65 year old man?
Not an appropriate age of consent. You should know better.
Tsk tsk.


A true anarchist would not believe in the utopian application of police and miltary.
Every non-anarchist is a utopian. Every anarchist is a non-utopian.

[LSD]

Not an appropriate age of consent. You should know better.

<_<

You know, you are possible the most frustrating poster I have ever debated with.

Again, how would your utopian neo-nihilist society determine who molested the child in question? And once determined, how would appropriate punishment be decided.

Hell, while we&#39;re on the subject of "age of consent", who would set it?

As I have been asking since you began this anti-democratic tear, if you oppose democracy as coercively authoritarian, [b]what is your alternative?[b/]