ANARCHY

[man in the red suit]

what do you guys think of anarchy?
If you read Marx, he believes that communism evolves into anarchy. Personally I think that this is completely stupid. I still want your opinions though.

[Anarcho]

Just don't make the mistake of assuming that Anarchy means a totally lawless society.

[man in the red suit]

what would you say it is? I believe that in your opinion I have already made this mistake. (oh stupid me) no really what is it then?

[Josip Broz Tito]

In my opionion, anarchy means gevernance without formal governing boddies e.g. police, army, government etc. Actually, it is a state in wich country doesn't need these boddies because it can governe itself. Anarchy is the last stage of country's development. Socialism evolves into coummunism and communism evolves into anarchy. Since no country evolved from socialism into communism yet, I don't think that anarchy is possible.

[man in the red suit]

EXACTLY no really the prob. with anarchy is that who ever has the most power taks control. Not everyone with power is good. :(

[Fires of History]

Go to The Anarchist FAQ Page (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/) to answer any possible question you could have. It is an often misunderstood theory because of media, as well as the widely held- but incorrect- belief that anarchy is just looting and rioting.

[BOZG]

Anarchy is the only form of society in which people are truely equal. Government members have more power than the ordinary person no matter how uncorrupt they are, the police have more power over ordinary people etc and this is why I oppose it. In parliamentary democracy, when you vote for someone in an election, you give up the right for you to govern yourself and to make your own decisions and that is why I oppose it.

The media has portrayed anarchy as a society where everyone steals and kills each other and one where there is no rules. Anarchy is lawless to the point that you don't affect other people.

[guerrillaradio]

FoH - thanks for the link...very informative. Where's antigovernment?? Has he been arrested again?? He was the board's most prominent anarchist.

In terms of theory, i think that anarchy is the least flawed. However, it would be very difficult to operate in practice for the simple reason that human nature (for wont of a better word, as human nature itself doesn't really exist...you know what I mean anyway) dictates greed.

[BOZG]

I think that it is society that makes people greedy and that people are not born that way.

[yuriandropov]

anarchy will never happen and if it does it will be thousands of years from now. you can't have no standing army or police, it is mans natural instinct to attack one another. like it or not. it is also some mens natural instinct to want more than others. this would eventually lead to capitalism as capitalism is, economic anarchy. mans natural instinct has been moulded by thousands of years of evolution, it will take thousands more years to take greed away from some men. communism is the right way to go about it though.

[Menshevik]

Anarchy is the only truly sane way of living in my opinion. Anarchy allows you to live free from compulsion and equal to your fellows.

[Hattori Hanzo]

Very interesting topic here. I'm still not sure we can achive marxist anarchy

[peaccenicked]

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=158 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=158)

[Josip Broz Tito]

Well if it is not possible to have anarchy, at least in next 1000 years, is it possible to apply it on personal level? Is society so influential so that we cannot be anarchist, at least personally?

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

And you call yourselfs socialists? I'm disgusted.

Racism and seatshops would be rampart, there would be no government to supply welfare. Think of anarchy as meal of corporatism hold the "restrictive" monopoly regulations.

In anarchy everything is owned privatly such as roads, schools, hospitals and even peoples own private armies.

[BOZG]

Actually, everything is owned by the community and there are no armies because there is no war.

How exactly would racism and sweatshops be rampant, anarchy is all about complete equality.

[RGacky3]

in anarchy one greedy basterd will take over. and equality would no longer exist.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 10:55 pm on May 12, 2002
Actually, everything is owned by the community and there are no armies because there is no war.

How exactly would racism and sweatshops be rampant, anarchy is all about complete equality.

Who would enforce it? And yes there would be war eg. One corporation decides to conduct a very hositile takover of another rival company.

[BOZG]

In a completely anarchistic world, all the companies would be owned by all the people so why the fuck would the people want to start a war against themselves and as for enforcing things the people would enforce it.

[GUERILLA MAN]

I think that we'd better first define anarchy. Anarchy means that everyone can do anything no matter if he hurts or not the other people. And Marx never said that communism will turn into anarchy. He wrote that gradually, after the victory of communism, the state will become useless and all the world will become one state.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Quote: from GUERILLA MAN on 8:28 pm on May 13, 2002
I think that we'd better first define anarchy. Anarchy means that everyone can do anything no matter if he hurts or not the other people. And Marx never said that communism will turn into anarchy. He wrote that gradually, after the victory of communism, the state will become useless and all the world will become one state.

I agree. I think what BoZG is talking about is anarcho-socialism(I hope)

[Menshevik]

Read the posts in the Anarchy thread in General Political Topics.

[RedRevolutionary87]

i would have to disagree, anarchy is very possible, it just NEEDS to evolve from communism, it is the only way people can be ready for it, socialism puts some compasion in peoples capitalist survival tactics that have developed during the capitalist times, the communism, forces that compasion and sort of makes sure people are compasionate to eachother and creats a government with no longer any power but only organisational purposes, but is still kept central, by the time anarchy comes around it will be a natural process no different than communism exept the lack of central government, and force of sharing, since compasion will become a survival tactic in the communist society.

[Anonymous]

I dont think that pure anarchy is possible at all. but if it eveolve with communist ideas then it would be excellent.

[Vanstro der Gatas]

Its to week to have an effect, when the police dont have anything to say and ain't there at all, an capitalist Techno Boy wants to take over, and take the buisness as his concernes. But a combined with the communist would work as hell, were we can do what we wont but also got an control over it. Like know its a hypocritical system who gets us to forget that we ain't getting decide anything in the state. The state thinks they can come with the long arm of the law. I'll say that the God diden't give a brain she/he gave a stripe, star and gun!!

To the Norwegian people remember the meeting of the World Bank 24-26 juni check it :http://www.indymedia.no/?doc=3218

[Anonymous]

yeh right

[Marc]

To me anarchy seems like the vision of unrealistic idealists. I agree that it would be great to have a society in which everyone was equal and the need for oppressive bodies such as the police was removed however arnt we being a bit short sighted? Ultimately why would anyone feel compelled to for example, grow crops when there was nothing to gain from doing this? The result would be a compromise between people and a return to capitalism, whereby crops were produced and sold.
Anarchy: its a great idea but goes against human nature so wi8ll never happen

[evil chris]

afternoon comrades.

As was sensibley suggested eariler,to have a debate we must first have a subject to debate,which requires a definiton.
anarchy (note small "a") is lawlessness and chaos.
k?
Anarchism (and Anarchy---captial A ,like for a noun.) is a poltical ideal of liberty and freedom.This is a very,very biref definition and hardly adiquate because of the nebusls and wide nature of Anarchism.

So that you understand my biases in this and subsiquant posts, i lean towards Anarcho-Syndacalism.
lets go.

there are numerous forms of Anarchism,right wing and left wing,depending on how you define (right and left w is another debate in it's self but your the sake of arguments lets call right capitalist and left socailist/anti-capitalist)


Gurriillaradio: you would have to find the human nature to make your point vaild.Are we naturally greedy as you suggest?
When there is a shortage or a threat of a shortage of essesntials then there is a hoarding instinct, yes, but in simalar conditions there is also a heavy social instinct.A comunity and shareing instinct.Why? because man is a social anaimal.
The hinge here is only that we must know our brothers.Many do not relate to their neigbours.That is a problem.

yuri. On what do you base the idea that man's instinct is to attack one another.In this room now there are 12 other people and i do not feel compeled to attack any of them.
why can you not have an army or a police force.Ask your self what they are there for and what they do.Then ask again ," can _I_ live without an army or police?"
Because of your comments may i conclude you are a centralist or authoritarn commuinst? You don;t belive that people will naturally take on a sharein' carein' society but communist dictorship will.Hopefully you will be met with peasents burning their crops.Theft (sorry 'collectiviation') by the state is still wrong.
Capitalism is indeed a form of economic anarchism.So is a simple market economy.
We do not live in a capitalist state though ( sorry kids), we live in a protectionist pseudo capitalism.There are people trying to form captialism such as the Friedmans and their Lazzes Fiareist buddies.They are no better but i feel i should correct the statement.

Mac OS Revolutioary.
Dude your flying all over there.Why would a lack of govt mean a rise in racism??Nazi state? Klu Kluk Klan ( and they're Reb links) Facism? Apartid? Islamofacism? all statist all racists all the time.I'm not saying that private individuals are not racist the goverment does little or nothing to stem racism.

Why would sweat shops be rampant?
We are at a level of technology were many,many tasks can be done mechanically---- programme the task on monday and all the work you got to do is switch the factory on.
------clocking off time---- to be continued tomorrow

[FAT CHE]

if limited government is good, then no government is perfection

[Nick Yves]

Guys I am a semi educated, but new, anarchist. I do believe that true 'anarchy' (no form of governement whatsoever) will ever happen. There will always be some type of power. But, thats not to say that this 'power' is greedy, evil, and corrupt.

[sickdiscobiscuit]

I believe that what Yuriandropov is saying is right,
my opinion though, communism is the only state of society where people are truly equal, the only way anarchy could work in society if people had morals, but where do morals come from? society, and society says that anarchy is bad. With anarchy, i could do whatever you want, anarchy is social darwinism, only the strongest survive, if you aren't strong, what happens to you? rape? murder?

[FAT CHE]

i think that there are certain grups that are aggainst anarchy becouse they have a stupid and childish mentality.cause they see the state as a "big father" so they are afraid to be free...but they are more afraid to the other's freedom...and they need autoritarism to be satisfied. they think"i stand having less freedom as long as my pares have it too"

[FAT CHE]

cuando se le otorgan libertades a los individuos hay algunos que no la aceptan...por que? por que le tienen miedo a ella! nececitan alguien superior a ellos para que los protega(dios, estado, ect.).....esta vision infantil y paternalista del estado se da cuando las sociedades no han evolucionado lo suficiente para poder valorar las libertades INDIVIDUALES...y asi surgen los totalitarismos clasicos que proveen al individuo "seguridad" mediante la fuerza.
NAZIS FUCK OFF!!!!

[FAT CHE]

Philosophers have long speculated on the origins of human social life and political life. Some have pictured the ancient condition of man as one of total chaos where people went about plundering everything and murdering everyone they could find. Only government, they say, brought order and peace to this world of conflict. Others have argued with some force that people joined together basically for economic reasons - it simply was the only practical way to survive. They have further argued that this need for physical survival ultimately brought government into being since people needed an organization to settle their personal disputes and to protect them from rapacious outsiders. Both theories are based on benevolent views of government and they form the basis for many people's idea of what government is today, or at least what they think government should be today.
Neither theory, however, offers an historically realistic appraisal of the origin and nature of government. A third and much more promising theory was advanced by Franz Oppenheimer, who argued that the state is formed from conquest.
It is, however, difficult to determine how men actually lived in "a state of nature" because we have few records of how social life was then organized. Since we can know little of the primeval beginnings of the human race, it is best that we look at man as we see him every day around us.
It takes little discernment to realize that all modern governments are the result not of benevolent policemenship, as many political scientists would like us to believe, but of conquest, of intrigue and power struggles, and of a desire to gain advantage over others through the creation of the state.
Modern governments were not formed by a social contract, not even one remotely resembling Rousseau's ideal. Rather, some of them are the result of revolutions which merely exchanged one set of rulers for another, while others are the children of ancient governments that have passed down the lordship they gained centuries ago through conquest from one generation of political class to another.
Man could not possibly live as a social animal if he lived in a world of universal antagonism. Social life is made possible by our knowledge that most people most of the time are not going to hurt each other or steal from each other. Without that assurance all social life would come to a standstill and there would be no agency or organization of any kind that could bring peace and order out of such a situation.
Man is a social animal and for the most part he will live in cooperative, peaceful relations with his neighbors. It is in this fact of nature, and not some supposed magical power of government, that we discover the essential ingredient for understanding social stability. People by their nature get along with each other. Government doesn't bring them together or keep them together. People live social lives because it is to their advantage to do so. Government doesn't create order out of chaos. The order of social life is already here.

[FAT CHE]

Anarchist societies will place responsibility for order directly on free individuals, not on formal government. As William Reichert pointed out so well in his book Partisans of Freedom, authoritarians place their faith in the repressive state while anarchists put their trust in social man.
Paraphrasing David T. Wieck, Reichert writes: "Anarchism is not opposed to organization that depends upon the authoritarian principle of command and compulsion for its success. An anarchist society, building upon th social responsibility and initiative of primary groups acting voluntarily, will gradually develop the libertarian social foundations essential for a truly free society."
Anarchism doesn't pretend to offer answers to all the social, economic, and political problems that confront us. It's no grand blueprint that attempts to spell out in detail how anarchist societies of the future will be organized and will solve the problems that confront them.
You challenge me to "set up a society from its roots and project how you see it would be in 100 years under anarchy." In doing so you approach anarchist political philosophy with the same premises you have borrowed from statist ideology. You suggest by such a comment that it is in the power of an anarchist to dream up some social model and program how people would exist in that sort of world. Statists have been trying to do that for centuries and they've always failed.
We don't view people as clay to be shaped and moulded according to our schemes and we have no desire to create models for the future. It's not because our imaginations lack the vitality possessed by other mortals. Rather, it's due to our belief that people know what they want out of life, know how best to achieve it for themselves, and, if left alone, will do so in an orderly and peaceful manner.
We're no afflicted by the urge to create grand designs and then pretend somehow that these visions bear any relationship to what is or could be.
In sum, then, the question is not whether anarchist societies will take care of those who are unable to provide for themselves, but rather whether the aid some few have received from the government isn't greatly overbalanced by the misery, destruction and chaos that governments have always wreaked on the human community.

[thebigcom]

anarchy is the very essence of communism, when you have a stateless society, it falls by definition into anarchy. no soceity can exist in anarchy, it is the one flaw in marx's theory

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from FAT CHE on 1:23 am on May 30, 2002
i think that there are certain grups that are aggainst anarchy becouse they have a stupid and childish mentality.cause they see the state as a "big father" so they are afraid to be free...but they are more afraid to the other's freedom...and they need autoritarism to be satisfied. they think"i stand having less freedom as long as my pares have it too"


come on now. let's not go calling all the anti-anarchists stupid and un-intelligent. I don't acuse you anarchists of being un-intelligent. You anarchists have many good points however it is in a few of our opinions that anarchy does not work. I personally believe that anarchy would begin class wars. Some will have it all while others starve and die. There would be no control.
People would loot and kill. Nothing would get done.

I used to be an anarchist. I used to have the mentality that people can behave and act civilized without a government. The thing is this; one person can be civilized. A group of people cannot. People as a whole are roudy and unruly. I believe in the rights of the many as opposed to the few but this doesn't mean that I believe they are fit to govern themselves. People, in my opinion, need some control. It is when the control becomes to strict and authoritarian, when you have a problem.

That is my opinion. If you disagree, try to give me your thoughts without telling me to fuck off and all this other chilidish threats you've been giving me lately. Let's act civilized. Opinions please..........

[BOZG]

So that you understand my biases in this and subsiquant posts, i lean towards Anarcho-Syndacalism.

The trade unions are just another body which seperates the working classes - skilled and unskilled, different jobs etc. We need to completely unite the working class with no divisions or ranks.



I agree. I think what BoZG is talking about is anarcho-socialism

Anarcho-communism or anarcho-socialism



think that we'd better first define anarchy. Anarchy means that everyone can do anything no matter if he hurts or not the other people

Anarchy allows people to have the highest level of personal freedom as defined by civil liberties. One civil libertary would be the right to life so therefore no other person can interfere with that. Anarchy is freedom to the extent that you don't interfere with other people.

[Nick Yves]

In which would not work..someone would eventually take another persons life....

ture anarchy wont work....against the current governemnt anarchy could.

[FAT CHE]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 8:18 am on May 30, 2002
[quote]So that you understand my biases in this and subsiquant posts, i lean towards Anarcho-Syndacalism.

The trade unions are just another body which seperates the working classes - skilled and unskilled, different jobs etc. We need to completely unite the working class with no divisions or ranks.



I agree. I think what BoZG is talking about is anarcho-socialism

Anarcho-communism or anarcho-socialism



think that we'd better first define anarchy. Anarchy means that everyone can do anything no matter if he hurts or not the other people

Anarchy allows people to have the highest level of personal freedom as defined by civil liberties. One civil libertary would be the right to life so therefore no other person can interfere with that. Anarchy is freedom to the extent that you don't interfere with other people.



you're right...maby i didn't expressed myself like i wanted to...i just wanted to say that the anarchism is a synonim of self-control...i mean...you can not expect the state to protect you by taking out some liberties from the others...understand what i mean? i said this because one of the most common objections to anarchysm is the "it will be a chaos and everyone will kill everyone"
1) the people will not change only because the is anarchysm.your neighbour will not become mad just because there is not a state
2)if your safety means the oppresion of your pares...there is something wrong here..isn't it?

[FAT CHE]

sorry...
my last post was not for the one it says...it is for the man in the red suit

[Menshevik]

The only reason anyone is really opposed to anarchy is because they have a stake in keeping the state in power.

[BOZG]

Yes people will still take lives but there will be a dramatic decrease in the death rates. People who do kill though should be rehabilitated more than punished.

[man in the red suit]

I can't help but laugh. I don't mean this in an insulting way but do you really disagree with the fact that people will rampage through the streets if there were anarchy? We would live in as society in where we all live like they did in road warior and thunderdome. We would all live like 13th century peasants. Nothing would get done, nobody would have the desire to invent new technollogy or help participate in mass production. People will not simply adapt to anarchy harmoniously. It is true that problems won't be as bad at first but soon after, the influence of pilaging and murdering will grow and take over until we are all living like neanderthal.
And if you do like anarchy, don't tell me that you think there is a chance in hell of it ever happening because that is really ignorant to thin so. Pro-anarchy is one thing, but don't think that you have a chance in hell of it ever happening in Amerika. The opposing capitalist forces are overpowering. Don't give me the guerillas in Amerika crap because it will never happen, get over it.

[BOZG]

There's as much chance of communism happening in AmeriKKKa as there is Anarchy.


with the fact that people will rampage through the streets if there were anarchy?

There's no point in rampaging through the streets so why the hell would anyone do it?



We would all live like 13th century peasants. Nothing would get done, nobody would have the desire to invent new technollogy or help participate in mass production.

So what you're saying is that if there was anarchy, all of sudden people would want to die from diseases like cancer and AIDS and they wouldn't want to build things like spaceships? So because there is anarchy everyone would just give up their jobs and starve to death?



the influence of pilaging and murdering will grow and take over until we are all living like neanderthal.

Most crime happens as a result of social issues and the main reason is poverty. Help destroy poverty and the crime rate will dramatically decrease. Why the hell would you go on a big murdering spree? Murder would only happen out of anger and not from robberies, drug dealling, gang warfare because there is no reason for these things because you can't make money out of them. Crime will drop greatly in such a society. Anarchy has never been tried so you can't just try to disprove everything. If you think you can do that, we all might aswell give up on communism if you just look at what Stalin, Pol Pot etc have attempted to do.

[thebigcom]

anarchy is a complicated subject. it depends on whose theories you take faith on it. before you ask the opinion of your peers, try to find the info from leftist literature.

[oki]

Quote: from GUERILLA MAN on 8:28 pm on May 13, 2002
I think that we'd better first define anarchy. Anarchy means that everyone can do anything no matter if he hurts or not the other people. And Marx never said that communism will turn into anarchy. He wrote that gradually, after the victory of communism, the state will become useless and all the world will become one state.


well not really.the term anarchy is just as abused in history as the term communism.it does not mean chaos.
in an anachist system,the power stays with the people,they organise everything themselves,from unions to police to army,to the economy.all elements are chosen democraticly,the leadership switches (for instance every week)the syndicalists brought this into practice in their part of spain in the civil war.the republic gouv.was passed by on everything,and when the gouv. offered the anarchists to run the gouv.,and have power,they turned it down.all presidents,majors,factory directors,and so on were send home and proberty disowned,and put in the hands of the union.the workers would run the factorys and send someone to the union meetings.unions would work together,nad determin what the economy needed.noone was in charge and that kind of worked.
anarchist communitys have been existing in spain for century's allready,before sosialism became a big movement.anarchy is assosiated with chaos and violence because it needs a revolution and has to end all the ruling systems and powers before it can work.allso it got that name because of propaganda from opposing forces.

[oki]

Quote: from jetgrind on 9:13 pm on May 30, 2002
In which would not work..someone would eventually take another persons life....


which would still be illegal.the community would lock you up.anarchy is not the freedom to terrorize and kill.it is the ultimate personal freedom,without leaders to terrorize you,instead you take care of yourself and everybody.anarchism will still have rules.

[Shock To The System]

Ok, no offense or anything, but most of you sound like u know little about anarchism.
I've heard all of your arguments before.
'greed is human nature'..Thats probably the one ihear most often. It amkes me laugh when i hear someone say this. Why? because it is so fucking ridiculous.
there is no greedy gene. Greed is learnt......If you think greed is 'human nature', than why are you on this board?
Surely if greed was human nature, communism wouldnt work? If EVERYONE was 'naturally' greedy, society would collapse...
anyway, thats quite irrelevant....
All i'm gonna say is firstly, Anarchism is a highly organised theory. It values organisation over heirarchies/state.
Secondly, go to this site........http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
It is THE best (in my opinion) site explaining the A-Z of anarchism.
It explains most forms of anarchism, from anarcho-syndicalism, to anarcho-communism.
Once you've been there, you'll understand that Anarchism is the best theory. Better than the Marx's flawed theory.
I will say no more until you go there.
Enjoy!

[man in the red suit]

[quote]Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 12:19 am on June 1, 2002
There's as much chance of communism happening in AmeriKKKa as there is Anarchy.

[quote]

Oh asbsolutely, I agree, there is no chance, just cuz I'm a socialist, doesn't mean I think it will happen in amerika. I'm just trying to get you to realize how stupid anarchy is.

Greedy IS human instinct whether you like it or not. It is not stupid to think so either. You are greedy and so am I . We are not born greedy but we learn what greed is and it then becomes a part of all of us. Greed is human nature howevr some of us have less avarice than others and some of us are gifted with the ability to control our greed. And by the way, what the hell does this have to do with anarchy?

[Nateddi]

MITRS,

I am not an anarchist, however greed is not human nature.

The societies of primative communism (native americans), as well as the more common societies of the anarchist of spain, and the Paris Commune, are all examples of how a society can function without (great) greed. The more commonly known "communist" countries did not fail as a result of human nature either.

Human nature reflects society. In a society such as capitalism, the needs of the people are not met and reasonable people will feel insecure. People tend to hoard goods because possession does provide some security. People will have a tendency to distrust others, consider that the world is organized in a pretty much dog-eat-dog manner.

The statement that implys capitalism is “human nature” is often used by people on Wall Street. They apparently feel that humans are so brutal that they would never be able to live in a system that is based on coopeartion rather than competition.

Here are some examples:

Nazis and racists believe that people cannot be friends or be attracted to someone of a different race. That was truly the case in American abouty 100 years ago; however with greater civil rights and integration measures, I have experience both many times. Am I different from human nature? No. Society changed and human nature adapted.

It is also supposedly against human nature to kill those you feel like. Although anger and a build up of energy and hormones is human nature, the means of releasing them isn't. The countries which have outlawed guns have an enormously lower crime rate than the US. Huma nature changed?

You should learn dialects, the fundementals of the philosophical part of marxism, you will understand what is meant by that.

I conclude by saying that there is no such thing as human nature. The only qualities of true human nature is affection (love, some desire to reproduce), protection of your own kinds, remorse, etc etc.

Everything else for the most part isn't truly human nature; rather, it is nature developed by a society, and humans have shown countlessly that they adapt extremely well and fast to social changes which supposedly "change" "human" nature.

[man in the red suit]

alright alright, I must say your little speach convinced me. greed is NOT human nature however I do believe that it is greatly influenced on people by the United states. By this I mean that people born and raised in the USA are more familiar with greed and have a greater desire for money than those of the 3rd world or Europe.


(Edited by man in the red suit at 2:49 am on June 4, 2002)

[libereco]

that is why you need change peoples minds, before you change the system. Otherwise noone will be ready.

[Nateddi]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 7:43 am on June 2, 2002
By this I mean that people born and raised in the USA are more familiar with greed and have a greater desire money than those of the 3rd world or Europe.


Thats very true. Greed isn't a cause of a system, it is rather a symptom of it.

[oki]

the thought that greed is human nature is forced upon you.it's not true.you only want more then the other if you feel that the other has more,if you feel unequal.

[Kez]

one thing,

who killed the first internationl?

the anarchists

[Menshevik]

Early Anarchists were all violent radicals, even Alexander Berkman tried to kill Frick before he saw the light.

MITRS, why dont you accept anarchy as a logical result of social revolution? As Zapata's guns said, crime is largely based on poverty. Money is at the cause of nearly every crime in the US. Can you deny that?

[man in the red suit]

I will not deny that, You are right, if you have anarchy, people will become more poor and be more induced to commiting crimes. I will never see anarchy as a logical solution to anything.

[Nateddi]

You misunderstood his post a bit; Menshevik implies that supporters of Anarchism used violent means.

Anarchism as a philosophy is metaphysical and idealist, while Marxism-Leninism is dialectic and materialist. The higher society goals of the two ideologies are nearly identical nevertheless.

I myself do see anarchy as possible; after all, true communism is anarchy. I don't see it in our lifetimes at all, perhaps socialism, not anarchy though. Anarchy does not imply chaos of lack of government where people run around shooting each other legaly.

Anarchy is when there is no need for a centralized power of a state, where there is no threat from the outside, which allows self governing communes, governed by the people in a true democracy.

Marxism-Leninism implies a strong rule by the proletariat, with a presence of a state ran by the proletariat, until the bourgeois is no longer an influence or disturbance to world communism. Than the people controlled state may move to less central power and more power to the soviets and communes. This needs to be started correctly in a democratic centralist manner, to not lead to a stalinist dictator. After all, the purpouse of a state is to protect the demands and wants of the owning class.

"So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state. " - Vladimir Lenin, "The State & Revolution"

(Edited by Nateddi at 4:51 am on June 4, 2002)

[Fabi]

also i suggest, MITRS, you go to anarchyfaq.org (the link in libereco's signature, btw...) and READ what the faq has to say about anarchism.

most of your posts here will probably seem ridiculous to you, once you read the faq... (well, it did that to me.. ;))

nateddi, i would not necessarily describe anarchism as idealistic. again, the faq explains why not...

[Fabi]

also the first anarchists did not use violence so much, i think, but it rather started to become 'popular' to assassinate leaders and such, in the 1890s...

it should also be stressed that violence on the side of the anarchists is ridiculous to describe as such, from a certain point of view at least, since the violence comes from the state/police/hierarchy first.
anarchist violence is merely a reaction, not by itself a violent action and was also used not against civilians, but only to oppressors. thus anarchism is at least not terrorism since they tend to avoid 'collateral damage' and only attack where it is useful...



(i hope that made sense... correct me if i'm wrong)

[Kez]

can we take this thread to my thread with big post?

i think you will find it interesting

[evil chris]

i'm not dead- i had no connection for the week and i'm tired now.
Aint important but i was part way through sometyhing and i said i'd finnish it.
It'd be ruide to just leave it in the air.

[Fabi]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 6:29 pm on May 11, 2002
EXACTLY no really the prob. with anarchy is that who ever has the most power taks control. Not everyone with power is good. :(


that is exactly what anarchists say is wrong with a hierarchical society....

[man in the red suit]

that makes the anarchists hipocrytes then. Ever see the Road warrior? a fine example of anarchy there for you.
Anarchy simply promotes control. The more anarchy there is, the more desire we have for control. Really, even if you don't believe in chaos, people would still be lazy and do nothing. What incentive would people have to work when they could just sit on their asses all day and do nothing. Anarchy is just a silly idea for "punks"

[Nateddi]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 1:29 am on June 6, 2002
Really, even if you don't believe in chaos, people would still be lazy and do nothing. What incentive would people have to work when they could just sit on their asses all day and do nothing

What?

How will you get your food if you don't work?

Like I said again, anarchy simply doesnt have a central government. The people govern themselves in democratic communes. This is no different than marxism, marxism only has different means of achieving that stage, as compared to traditional anarchism.

[man in the red suit]

thats why i dont like anarchy. people will starve.

I hate anarchy. Marxism has a dictatorship of the proletariotl I like this idea however i dont believe that the dictatorship will dissolve itself as Marx believed.

[Nateddi]

Sigh*

You wrote: "What incentive would people have to work when they could just sit on their asses all day and do nothing"

I responded: "How will you get your food if you don't work?"

The incentive to work is to buy stuff for yourself; IE: food, etc. Now how will people starve.

Marxism isn't dictatorship of the proletariat; marxism is a correct scientific explanation of society, as well as an economic doctrine in which the dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitionary phase. What makes you think that the dictatorship of the proletariat won't end? Do you even know what the dictatorship of the proletariat is?

What is your opinion on how society should be in its final stage? State socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[man in the red suit]

dictatorship of the proletariot was the oligarchy that would take control for a period of time until people got the swing of things. A dictarship of the proletariot will not dissolve, it IS the final fase. In anarchy, people won't have the incentive to work because they want to buy things because there will be nothing to buy!
If we had anarchy, we would all be living in little huts with sticks and rocks, maybe not for the first decade or so but that is what it will evolve into. So anarchy has a benefit but only for about a decade or so, while technology still works.

[Nateddi]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 4:36 am on June 6, 2002
dictatorship of the proletariot was the oligarchy that would take control for a period of time until people got the swing of things. A dictarship of the proletariot will not dissolve, it IS the final fase. In anarchy, people won't have the incentive to work because they want to buy things because there will be nothing to buy!
If we had anarchy, we would all be living in little huts with sticks and rocks, maybe not for the first decade or so but that is what it will evolve into. So anarchy has a benefit but only for about a decade or so, while technology still works.

What the hell?!

Dictatorship of the proletariat isn't an oligarchy! Lenin where are you when I need you (I am referring both to the member and Vladimir Illych ;))

The Dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the many over the few. It is the rule by the people while the bourgeois influence is still around, while the bourgeois continues to be a threat to communism if freer communes and a final anarchistic society is being put together.

I will say this once and only once the dicatorship of the proletariat is not a dictatorship in the true sense of the word (one man tells everyone what to do, stalin, etc).

Ofcourse a true dictatorship cannot just dissapear, it is absurd! Dictatorship of the proletariat withering away is not a voulantary act as a dictator steps down from power, because there is no dictator, there is no oligarchy! It is simply a timeperiod of state-socialism, yet not communism. The centralized means of production will be controlled democratically, and the poeple will have power. That is why it is supposed to go away as the people are ready to make it go away. Not oligarchy, democracy.

As for anarchy, you completely have no clue about what it is. Why won't there be anything to buy? How does it just "go away"??? Anarchy is a lack of a central power controlling the people. There will still be democratic, small communes (small as in in hundreds of thousand), where collective ownership of the means of production takes place. If you are a communist, you are an anarchist; you simply wish to get to that stage via dictatorship of the proletariat (which is the only possible way IMO). Anarchy is most definatly not a removal of production, rather a removal of state control.

[Valkyrie]

--------
" In anarchy, people won't have the incentive to work because they want to buy things because there will be nothing to buy!
If we had anarchy, we would all be living in little huts with sticks and rocks, maybe not for the first decade or so but that is what it will evolve into. So anarchy has a benefit but only for about a decade or so, while technology still works.
----
Currently the pecking order that gives incentive to work is Food, Shelter, Clothing, Heat, i.e. the essential living expenses... most people after working shitty assed jobs, do buy things IF theres money left over as a kind of compensation/reward for getting though that month.
I, for example, get up and go to work every day(like everyone else who is able) without having to be told, and I have nothing extra at the end of the month to buy in regard to luxories and non-essentials. -- I live paycheck to paycheck. But, I still work. I have to. The incentive is for the basic needs.

Also, In what you're saying is that the worker NEEDS the boss to run the shop. Remember, it's the workers who know how to run the technology,,, the boss is just there to pocket the money. The boss will be obsolete. and The worker will continue to produce and invent. life will continue to grind on as it always has with little disturbance.

[evil chris]

"If we had anarchy, we would all be living in little huts with sticks and rocks, maybe not for the first decade or so but that is what it will evolve into. So anarchy has a benefit but only for about a decade or so, while technology still works."

why? after a decade an i going to forget how to fix my car?
Do you have some kind of locgic or reason for thsi view?

"In anarchy, people won't have the incentive to work......."

as noted above,starvation and not liveing up to your neck in shit are both rather fair incentives.


"because they want to buy things because there will be nothing to buy! "

buy what and why? Lets not be too vauge here.

"The Dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the many over the few. "

well you site what Lenin 'belived' there.I would say look at their ac tions not their words.From the way the Bolshys acted (o but it was war communsim!!) the DOP is the dictatorship of a small group of Power hungry tossers calling themselves the Prolitariat and dictating to everyone.

[Fabi]

MITRS,
you had an ETERNITY (not literally... duh.. ;)) to do some research on anarchism.
you can ask QUESTIONS, but i suggest, for you own good, to NOT make assumptions based on NOTHING but thin air.
as often posted in other threads on anarchy without too much of an effect: anarchyfaq.org has a very well-done faq on anarchism.

even I am not too lazy to do some research every once in a while on interesting topics...

[oki]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 1:29 am on June 6, 2002
that makes the anarchists hipocrytes then. Ever see the Road warrior? a fine example of anarchy there for you.
Anarchy simply promotes control. The more anarchy there is, the more desire we have for control. Really, even if you don't believe in chaos, people would still be lazy and do nothing. What incentive would people have to work when they could just sit on their asses all day and do nothing. Anarchy is just a silly idea for "punks"


hat's what I ment In my earlyer post,your not talking about anarchy but about chaos.in fact,the litle community that is beeing attacked by the punks in the movie could be anarchist.that is if they would shift leaders.do you actaully know what anarchy is?

[evil chris]

thats why i dont like anarchy. people will starve. "

why?

I hate anarchy"

good.so do i.Do you mean you hate Anarchy?My how sectarian of you.Got a reason?

"I like this idea however i dont believe that the dictatorship will dissolve itself as Marx believed. "

ah that'd be why then.Love of the authorian State.I assume you see yourself in power after your glorious revolution.Most authoritairn commies have delusions of grandrue.Correct me if i'm wrong of course.
So why don't you state the State disolving?
I'm with you here by the by, coz Dictators don't tend to give up power but i get the inmpresion you don't see it as a negitive.Please expand.

[Nateddi]

Quote: from evil chris on 7:13 pm on June 6, 2002

well you site what Lenin 'belived' there.I would say look at their ac tions not their words.From the way the Bolshys acted (o but it was war communsim!!) the DOP is the dictatorship of a small group of Power hungry tossers calling themselves the Prolitariat and dictating to everyone.


Ther have indeed been many flaws with the Russian Revolution, many conditions which led to this. The proletariat is the majority of a society, not a small group of people. If in a developed nation, the proletariat participates in the revolution, there will be a dictatorship of the proletariat, and please tell me why it won't work. It surely works better than the anarchists' idea of immediate transition into a stateless society.

[Valkyrie]

Nope, anarchists never advocate an immediate transistion to a stateless society. But a transition depending on however long it will take but without the dictator of the proletariat carrying it out. Think rather of councils.

I'll find a reference and post it. I know the Anarchist FAQ with it's some 2000 + pages ( obviously then a very developed theory) is way too daunting for people to read.

(Edited by Paris at 12:55 am on June 7, 2002)

[man in the red suit]

DE-EVOLUTION. anarchy is the catalyst for this theory of mine.
I cannot continue to argue with you people. I have researched all there is to research about anarchy. I was once, and anarchist myself. In my opinion anarchy is a happy little dream land. I have never seen an anarchist country or city anywhere on the world that was desirable to live in. I see anarchy as i see capitalism. People won't simply live together like little happy magical smurf friends. I've gone to Haiti and Mexico where I see people fighting just for the sake of fighting. People who kill each other for fun, knowing that nobody will be around to stop them. I don't know what you see in anarchy. It IS lawless, if you had laws, it wouldn't be called anarchy would it? I almost curse the day I asked people for their opinions on this thread. But I asked didn't I? You can preach anarchy to me all you want but it won't convince me anymore than I will convince you how stupid anarchy is.

(Edited by man in the red suit at 4:31 am on June 7, 2002)

[evil chris]

"If in a developed nation, the proletariat participates in the revolution, there will be a dictatorship of the proletariat, and please tell me why it won't work. "

i didn't say it would not work as such, just that ****s like lenin,stalin,trotsky et al are,if given the slightest opptuinty will seize power.Not a happy thing.Iaint a fan of it on paper,simply because tyrrany of the majority is still tyranny.

Whats wrong with immidate transition anyway?
Ask yourself if you need a group of blokes telling you how to live,wether you need boys in blue to 'protect' you,wether you need the above blokes to dictate what your going to learn in school- anything thats assocated with the state.If you don not need them then why would anyone else.Unless you regard yourself as some kind of liberated elite then i see no reason.

"I'll find a reference and post it. I know the Anarchist FAQ with it's some 2000 + pages ( obviously then a very developed theory) "

the seemlingly legendary Anarchist FAQ is just a starting point.It's anarchism expalined very simply and very consisely.It's a bit like learning thec arragemnt of atoms in 10th year Chemistry.Don't put too much stock in it.

Man In The Red Suit-
Sussesfully managed to avoid my question there.Seeing as you claim to have reserchedall there is to know about anarchism (i would be might impressed or your a liar......probbly the latter )and you were an anarchist i would have expected you to rip me apart in a blaze of logic.I don't have a closed mind, why would i hold onto something that doesn't work?
Educate me comrade.

[Fabi]

MITRS,

you never were an anarchist.
you do know what anarchism is NOW, nor did you know it at the time you considered yourself an anarchist.

you did not read all on anarchism and anarchy there is since if you had done that you wouldnt have said so many stupid things.


"I don't know what you see in anarchy. It IS lawless, if you had laws, it wouldn't be called anarchy would it? "

this is one of the stupidest things on anarchy i ever heard. and i've heard it way too often. mostly from people who never tried to find out about anarchy at all, but simply trusted the media, who of course consider everyone an anarchist/terrorist/nihilist who does not agree with the current system.

i am tired and getting arrogant, which is a really bad sign.... ;) i'll try to not let it happen again...

[oki]

anarchy has nothing to do with lawlessless.
I suggest you read some more,man in red suet.you got it very wrong.

[James]

http://communities.msn.co.uk/Informationontheleft

Check out my site, the bottom of the left toolbar, some stuff on anarchism...Whilst you are there join up! and make a post or something on the board!

Cheers

JAmes

[man in the red suit]

white flag! white flag!

I WAS an anarchist, who the fuck are you to tell me otherwise? I think I might know a bit better than you what I was in the past.

Not everyone will have your ideology of thinking. Not everyone will work for food. Why work for food when you can steal it? many people think this way whether you like it or not. More people think this way than the small minority who want to actually WORK. I am not a stalinist either but you must have control. Don't tell me over and over again that Anarchy is not chaos because it IS. you really are stupid if you can't see that that is what it will become even if it wasn't intended to be that way. It sounds great intheory but it just doesn't work.
I know nothing more than I did before about anarchy except for you ridiculous little comments you have made.

I may not of researched EVERYTHING there is to know about anarchy but what more do I need to know. It is lawlessness. You can call me a right wing, capitalist,fascist, nazi until your ass bleeds but it won't do a thing. Even if anarchy did work the way you intended it, it wouldn't work for long. You people describe anarchy as you would explain SOCIAL anarchy which is in fact very different from anarchy all together.

Stop with these stupid attacks and give me some tangible facts as opposed to the "you're stupid" crap.

And if you do know more than me, tell me what you see in anarchy because I see nothing.

[Valkyrie]

Not everyone will have your ideology of thinking. Not everyone will work for food. Why work for food when you can steal it? many people think this way whether you like it or not. More people think this way than the small minority who want to actually WORK.

Hi. Man in the Red Suit,

people are not forced to work now under the current system. There's no gestapo storming into people's houses with fog horns waking them up and cattleing them out to jobs. And despite that, people still work. And the first thing people buy with their paycheck is ususally food, groceries. So, in effect, they work for food. I don't see why they would stop doing that. They still need to eat under any system. I say this not to try to convince you to adopt anarchism, but only because it's true.
And even when they don't want to go to work, they get up and do it anyway.

Also, and I wrote this in another thread, lost somewhere on here. But, Most people are not inclined to commit crimes. Those people are not going to wake up one day and become theives, rapists and murderers because the central authority has been removed from power.
Those who have that proclivity towards crime would be dealt with in the same way as they would be dealt within a centralized government.


(Edited by Paris at 5:46 am on June 8, 2002)

[man in the red suit]

keep in mind though that we have a government.

thankyou for at least showing decent points as opposed to the other members on here so far.

[Valkyrie]

I edited my post to add a comment about lawlessness while you were replying.


Well, as to government... there is a form of governing, but on a different scale. I'll post some stuff.

[man in the red suit]

ok I'm am slowly losing my determination and interest in arguing on this subject.

[Valkyrie]

The social and political structure of anarchy is similar to that of the economic structure, i.e., it is based on a voluntary federation of decentralised, directly democratic policy-making bodies. These are the neighbourhood and community assemblies and their confederations. In these grassroots political units, the concept of "self-management" becomes that of "self-government", a form of municipal organisation in which people take back control of their living places from the bureaucratic state and the capitalist class whose interests it serves.

"A new economic phase demands a new political phase," argued Kropotkin, "A revolution as profound as that dreamed of by the [libertarian] socialists cannot accept the mould of an out-dated political life. A new society based on equality of condition, on the collective possession of the instruments of work, cannot tolerate for a week . . . the representative system . . . if we want the social revolution, we must seek a form of political organisation that will correspond to the new method of economic organisation. . . . The future belongs to the free groupings of interests and not to governmental centralisation; it belongs to freedom and not to authority."

[man in the red suit]

yeah you made that sound excellently wordy and logical and yet I still don't buy it. Anything else you want to add to that? Most specifically the anti-chaos thing. I really want to see how you guys think you can prevent chaos and de-evolution. I should go buy an island and let all of you anarchists come live on it for as long as you want and see what you think then. Oh wait,
things might actually work well. I'll release some ex-convicts on that island for you too. But oh wait, silly me. in this perfect anarchist island, you'l have nothing to fear because bubba will want to work for his food instead of murdering all of you for it. How silly I am.

No really, that is a good idea, you will be begging for a government then to rid your asses of bubba and his homicidal tendencies. Do you see what I'm saying? Not everyone can be relied on to be innocent. People are untrustworthy and must be punished. When you let criminals run around in anarchy, they run around and breed and make more mini-criminals who breed themselves and make more generations of criminals. You need control. People will always have things to steal fight and kill over. Capitalism is not the reason for all crimes.

[Valkyrie]

I didn't write that. My computer crashed before I had the chance to edit in the reference source. But that's from the Anarchist FAQ. Section I-5.

The word anarchy sucks. What can I say? The word in itself incites misinterpretation.
I prefer to identify it as Autonomous Marxism. A political system based on self-determination and consensus.

Ok, Crime. -- In any given society there are potential criminals running around among us. Crimes are dealt with after the fact. After the act has been committed.

I would hope atleast that a socialist society with a centralized government would also not imprison people on suspicion before commission.

[man in the red suit]

no society imprisons people on suspicion. What's your point. The misinterpertation of the word anarchy is the most logical thing you've said so far. Clear up what you're saying about how criminals are handeled. You're rambling a bit and I find it hard to see your point.

[RGacky3]

I think some sort of government is always needed, people will end up wanting power and tyranical governments will comeinto place. I think that a government can become extreamly desentralized over a period of time, but there will always need to be something.

[man in the red suit]

exactly !!! thank you gacky.

[oki]

ofcourse you need some sort of gouv.to arrange and direct things in sosiety.but 95 % can be handled by the people themselves.allso that gouv.has only power over you when they have means to hurt you.if they don't,they can surve sosiety in a good way.the anarchy I'm talking about does have laws,is the most democratic system you can think of,the people keep direct control over the desisions made,and who make them,its a slow system,but it can work.

man in red suet,I'm talking specificly about anarcho syndicalism,that is,spanish anarchists.they started an anarchist system during the civil war,and it worked pretty well.ofcourse all the facists were on the other side of the red line,but still....

[man in the red suit]

like i said, you're talking about social anarchy, not pure anarchy. There is a difference. Pure anarchy has no laws or established government. social anarchy has laws only no established government. The people solve their problems in social anarchy.

[Valkyrie]

I really want to see how you guys think you can prevent chaos and de-evolution. I should go buy an island and let all of you anarchists come live on it for as long as you want and see what you think then. Oh wait,
things might actually work well. I'll release some ex-convicts on that island for you too. But oh wait, silly me. in this perfect anarchist island, you'l have nothing to fear because bubba will want to work for his food instead of murdering all of you for it. How silly I am.

No really, that is a good idea, you will be begging for a government then to rid your asses of bubba and his homicidal tendencies. Do you see what I'm saying? Not everyone can be relied on to be innocent. People are untrustworthy and must be punished. When you let criminals run around in anarchy, they run around and breed and make more mini-criminals who breed themselves and make more generations of criminals. You need control. People will always have things to steal fight and kill over. Capitalism is not the reason for all crimes.
----
Man in red suit:

I don't see YOUR point. What I'm saying is that there are potential criminals and people with criminal natures in every society. That is true of a capitalist, anarchist and EVEN a socialist one. One is not a criminal until the crime has been committed, or technically by current law, until one has been convicted of the crime.

So, you tell me what and how the difference would be in preventing potential crimes from being committed in a socialist society as opposed to an anarchist one?

Furthermore, my meaning regarding the comment that the word "anarchy" (as the definition states it in a dictionary) sucks in trying to describe anarchy as a political system.

(Edited by Paris at 10:40 pm on June 8, 2002)

[oki]

so,okay,lets call it "sosial anarchy" then.what's your point?there have been loads of forms of anarchy.anarchy in communism is allso quite different.anarchy is a living theory,and I am a sosialist,as should all anarchists be,so guess I could be called a sosial anarchist.the anarchy you are talking about,man in red suet,is rediculous,and distructive,and therefore can never be a serious option.you call it pure anarchy,I don't agree.that's not anarchy,that's chaos.it's like calling stalinism communist.he wasn't a communist,he was a facist.he just used the word and system for his repression.
and paris,don't you think that if there is a criminal killing on your island,the community would tie him to a tree or something?that criminal is terrorising,and therefore breaking all anarchist rules.he puts himself above the rest and therefore cant be tolerated by anarchists.it's really simple.the people WILL control his ass.because he's frustrating liberty.if a criminal wouldn't cause problems,he'd be free like everybody else,to do whatever he pleases.you see,anarchy can never be chaotic and a playground for bad.cause that would break the anarchist rule of freedom for all

[Fabi]

as a matter of fact anarchism is a form of socialism.
the PURE anarchy you are talking about is basically anarcho-capitalism, which is NOT anarchism since ANARCHISM IS OPPOSED TO CAPITALISM, as all socialist theories are...

and if you had anarchy you couldnt be forced to join a community either. you could leave anytime you wanted, to live on your own. (at least i think that most would agree with that...)

[Fabi]

ooops... stupid comp...

(Edited by Fabi at 2:15 pm on June 9, 2002)

[Shock To The System]

''I think some sort of government is always needed, people will end up wanting power and tyranical governments will comeinto place. ''
Yes, this would be true in the beginning, but the proletarian militia would replace the state. They would protect against counter-revolutions and these dictators. They could also do a better job at protecting there commnes than a state ever could. Why? because the militia ARE the people, therefore they know what will benefit them more than a state ever could. Aslong as the militias from all the communes are united and well organised , you dont really have a problem.
Also, think about what the militia does. It destroys all heirarchies. So without heirarchies, it's very difficult for anybody to get into power. But what i'm saying is the militia could organise and crush anyone that tried too.
'Bakunin' goes into more detail in this. You might want to read some of that.

''ofcourse you need some sort of gouv.to arrange and direct things in sosiety.but 95 % can be handled by the people themselves''
Only 95%? hmmmm......
You can govern without authority.
Each commune would have elected 'leaders' that 'advise', rather than use a authority and dictate to the workers. They would have no real power because they have no state or organisation protecting them.
If they do a bad job , they get removed, if they do a good job, they stay in. If they get 'power hungry' , they get removed by militias of neighbouring communes.

''like i said, you're talking about social anarchy, not pure anarchy''.
A common mistake there.
Not many people realise that anarchism is socialism. Infact, it is a very 'pure' form of socialism. Because, i dont know about you, but i believe socialism to emphasise, 'social equality' and anarchism is complete social equality. Or atleast in theory it is supposed to be.

''. I should go buy an island and let all of you anarchists come live on it for as long as you want and see what you think then.''
Thank you, thats very nice of you.

''I'll release some ex-convicts on that island for you too. But oh wait, silly me. in this perfect anarchist island, you'l have nothing to fear because bubba will want to work for his food instead of murdering all of you for it.''

Well let me see. What is the likely reason those convicts became 'convicts'? hmm, oh! capitalism i would say.
I expect they'd quite enjoy living on this island, i'd welcome them with open arms and treat them as equals, and welcome them into the community....If they tried killing me, wouldnt all the other anarchists simply unite and deal with them? I'm sure the anarchists could over-power a few ex-convicts....

''you will be begging for a government then to rid your asses of bubba and his homicidal tendencies.''

lol....i think not.
His 'homicidal tendencies' would probably vanish in an equal society on the island. The only reason he ever became homicidal was because of capitalsim and state oppression (but i guess you dont agree with that)...Why would they kill the anarchists on this island when they are getting fed more than enough food anyway? What would be the point of killing people to get more food, when they couldn't eat it all beacuse they are getting enough anyway? Its just completely illogical.
I think this island would be great rehabilitation for the convicts personally! they'd learn alot more than being thrown into a cell isolated for 25 years.

''Capitalism is not the reason for all crimes.''

True, but most are...unless you'd like to enlighten us on what causes most crimes in your opinion and back it up with sufficent evidence?

''One is not a criminal until the crime has been committed, or technically by current law, until one has been convicted of the crime.''
This is infact, a right-wing theory on crime.
It's extremely narrow minded..it's like saying ''people are simply born bad''( another rightist theory on crime)
What are your political opinions btw?
If you say 'leftist' you'll look a bit stupid now, as your argument is based around a right-wing theory.
If you don't believe its a right-wing theory i'll go and find some quotations for you if you like. Just yell.

''the PURE anarchy you are talking about is basically anarcho-capitalism, which is NOT anarchism since ANARCHISM IS OPPOSED TO CAPITALISM, as all socialist theories are...''

Agreed fabi........
it's a common misconception, but i'll forgive you paris...
My only advice is you should go and read more about anarchism and get a little bit of understanding about it before formulating an opinion about it.

*shock*

[Fabi]

"''One is not a criminal until the crime has been committed, or technically by current law, until one has been convicted of the crime.''
This is infact, a right-wing theory on crime.
It's extremely narrow minded..it's like saying ''people are simply born bad''( another rightist theory on crime) "

i think that that might be a misunderstanding.
the person (forgot who it was, sorry) meant that you are NOT born bad. YOU ARE NOT A CRIMINAL until you comit a crime... it does not mean that people are 'non-practicing criminals' before they become real 'criminals'.....

or am i wrong and that is really a rightwing theory...?

[Shock To The System]

ah ok, i mistake. I'm man enough to admit it!
But i still think its quite irrelevant.

[Shock To The System]

I still back-up the rest of my argument though.....
And i can't help but feel that it was a rightist nature when paris talks about preventing potential criminals from commiting crime..........or am i getting confused between ignorant and rightist?....nnearly teh same, in my opinion!

[Valkyrie]

i think that that might be a misunderstanding.
the person (forgot who it was, sorry) meant that you are NOT born bad. YOU ARE NOT A CRIMINAL until you comit a crime... it does not mean that people are 'non-practicing criminals' before they become real 'criminals'.....

or am i wrong and that is really a rightwing theory...?
------
I said that. -- "People are not criminals until a crime is committed." I am standing by that. Is it a right-wing theory? NO, IT IS A FACT. The "offense" must be committed FIRST for the "crime" to have taken place. (defacto!) or there is no crime and no so-called "criminals." Therefore there are only PERHAPS potentential criminals who may or may not commit an offense. GET IT? Like I said before, You cannot inprison someone on suspicion before commission. As everyone would be suspect. Anyone has the potential if they are so INCLINED to do so.

Am I saying people are born bad? NO.
I am saying that everyone COULD be a potential criminall running around in society, and this also goes for socialist societies also, if they make the choice to carry out an offense against society. But "potential criminals" is relative, because as I said, the crime has to be committed first in the present tense. But even so, potential criminals does not make a case against anarchism as an impossibe non-workable political system, as Man w/the Red Suit's chaos/rocks and huts thoery suggests. for the reasons I just stated.

Yes, I think the majority of us are 'non-practicing' criminals, as doing something AGAINST humanity as opposed to doing something FOR humanity is a CHOICE one makes. One could easily Decide one day to carry out an offense against another human being.. So, in that respect, those of us who don't, are yes, 'non-practicing" potential criminals for lack of a better term. or pacifists toward crime. But, That is exactly what I am saying to Man in the Red Suit's argument of the criminality factor as a bad reason to even consider an anarchist society as he is assuming that in an anarchist society, everyone will turn into a criminal and kill and maime eachother for food and possessions.

Think about it: In the US, everyone without a felony who is over the age of 18 can get a gun permit. Does everyone have guns? NO. Do the ones who have guns shoot other people? NOT the most of them. Do the ones who have guns not shoot other people because they are outnumbered by the policeforces? No, the people far outnumber the police forces.
So, they don't shoot other people because the main part of society chooses to respect their fellow human being and live peacefully among eachother.


And as Evil Chris said, those who don't, would definetly be dealt with swiftly in an anarchist society. Maybe not tied to a tree, but something would be meted out.

Have I explained it enough? or do I have to use 5th grade examples.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Shock To The System on 2:54 pm on June 9, 2002
''I think some sort of government is always needed, people will end up wanting power and tyranical governments will comeinto place. ''
Yes, this would be true in the beginning, but the proletarian militia would replace the state. They would protect against counter-revolutions and these dictators. They could also do a better job at protecting there commnes than a state ever could. Why? because the militia ARE the people, therefore they know what will benefit them more than a state ever could. Aslong as the militias from all the communes are united and well organised , you dont really have a problem.
Also, think about what the militia does. It destroys all heirarchies. So without heirarchies, it's very difficult for anybody to get into power. But what i'm saying is the militia could organise and crush anyone that tried too.
'Bakunin' goes into more detail in this. You might want to read some of that.

''ofcourse you need some sort of gouv.to arrange and direct things in sosiety.but 95 % can be handled by the people themselves''
Only 95%? hmmmm......
You can govern without authority.
Each commune would have elected 'leaders' that 'advise', rather than use a authority and dictate to the workers. They would have no real power because they have no state or organisation protecting them.
If they do a bad job , they get removed, if they do a good job, they stay in. If they get 'power hungry' , they get removed by militias of neighbouring communes.

''like i said, you're talking about social anarchy, not pure anarchy''.
A common mistake there.
Not many people realise that anarchism is socialism. Infact, it is a very 'pure' form of socialism. Because, i dont know about you, but i believe socialism to emphasise, 'social equality' and anarchism is complete social equality. Or atleast in theory it is supposed to be.

''. I should go buy an island and let all of you anarchists come live on it for as long as you want and see what you think then.''
Thank you, thats very nice of you.

''I'll release some ex-convicts on that island for you too. But oh wait, silly me. in this perfect anarchist island, you'l have nothing to fear because bubba will want to work for his food instead of murdering all of you for it.''

Well let me see. What is the likely reason those convicts became 'convicts'? hmm, oh! capitalism i would say.
I expect they'd quite enjoy living on this island, i'd welcome them with open arms and treat them as equals, and welcome them into the community....If they tried killing me, wouldnt all the other anarchists simply unite and deal with them? I'm sure the anarchists could over-power a few ex-convicts....

''you will be begging for a government then to rid your asses of bubba and his homicidal tendencies.''

lol....i think not.
His 'homicidal tendencies' would probably vanish in an equal society on the island. The only reason he ever became homicidal was because of capitalsim and state oppression (but i guess you dont agree with that)...Why would they kill the anarchists on this island when they are getting fed more than enough food anyway? What would be the point of killing people to get more food, when they couldn't eat it all beacuse they are getting enough anyway? Its just completely illogical.
I think this island would be great rehabilitation for the convicts personally! they'd learn alot more than being thrown into a cell isolated for 25 years.

''Capitalism is not the reason for all crimes.''

True, but most are...unless you'd like to enlighten us on what causes most crimes in your opinion and back it up with sufficent evidence?

''One is not a criminal until the crime has been committed, or technically by current law, until one has been convicted of the crime.''
This is infact, a right-wing theory on crime.
It's extremely narrow minded..it's like saying ''people are simply born bad''( another rightist theory on crime)
What are your political opinions btw?
If you say 'leftist' you'll look a bit stupid now, as your argument is based around a right-wing theory.
If you don't believe its a right-wing theory i'll go and find some quotations for you if you like. Just yell.

''the PURE anarchy you are talking about is basically anarcho-capitalism, which is NOT anarchism since ANARCHISM IS OPPOSED TO CAPITALISM, as all socialist theories are...''

Agreed fabi........
it's a common misconception, but i'll forgive you paris...
My only advice is you should go and read more about anarchism and get a little bit of understanding about it before formulating an opinion about it.

*shock*







I gotta disagre with you there, I wouldn't say that most crimes are commited by capitalism, but only half. Someone in a socialist society will still steal. You don't need to be exploited to want to steal. Everyone knows what greed is and it is not something easily cast aside.
Socialism is one thing that will make a few people want to steal more. Not all people today are as hard working as you or I. And those who steal and kill willl not simply stop because they are in a "new and equal" society.


Oki explained it best when he said that I was talking about chaos and not anarchy. i think that the two go hand in hand. You NEED soem sort of government. You can't simply let a bunch of people try to run themselves, this causes CHAOS. anarchy is not just a commune, a commune is a commune. Anarchy is where people govern themselves and this leeds to chaos.

(Edited by man in the red suit at 6:26 pm on June 9, 2002)

[Fabi]

Paris,

dont get *****y, please... ( ;) ) i knew what you meant when you were talking about crime and criminals... i was defending you and explaining, what you had said, to STDS.... peace.

MITRS,
you dont really get that far with your argument... at least in my opinion.

"Anarchy is where people govern themselves and this leeds to chaos. "

you know what you could just say instead? "Democracy is where the people govern themselves and this leads to chaos..." and guess what? that is what was spread about democracy in the countries that saw their monarchies threatened. it was claimed that 'democracy is chaos' in the same manner as is said about anarchy today.

also your argument seems to imply that the president, police men, politicians, soldiers, judges etc. are not human or not people.
the problem is that those people are just as imperfect as the rest of us. there is no higher law that protects us, it is always the people governing themselvs. only now it is in a very hierachiecal manner, without one good reason why...
IT IS ALWAYS people 'governing' the people.
but NOW you can control the corrupt idiots at the top, who govern you.
in anarchy there may be idiots, but they dont have more power than yourself, so you have ways of stopping them...

know what i mean?

(off-topic: tomorrow i am gonna demonstrate for better education in public schools... exciting, huh? ;) )

[evil chris]

MITRS the poiticall scientist sez :"Anarchy simply promotes control."

Anarchy or anarchy?
Lawlessness and chaos or the large umbrella name for a range of anti statist poltical belifs.
I'm afraid that you'll have to have pin-point accuracy in this debate because vauge proclaimations will make you look like a prick to anyone who even has passing knowalge.I suggest you do some homework.

[evil chris]

"I may not of researched EVERYTHING there is to know about anarchy "

well then MITRS you are a liar.Because you catorgoically said that you HAD reserched everthing and that you were an anarchist until you saw the light.
You deliberatly tired to null the debate by implying authority on anarchism.You then tried to give up the debate because you "couldn't see people points" or some shit.

you are either
a) a really shitty liar
B) desperatly trying to shout down other idealogys in favour of that "community-union socialism" tripe
c) thick as shit
d) all of the above

(Edited by evil chris at 10:11 pm on June 9, 2002)

[Kez]

Comrades i think i will leave with a few final posts which u will agree are of good degree of intelligence and do not lack a basis of theory which is ever present on che-lives

Well, seems to me that the key question is the question of the state apparatus and the power.
Let's deal with this deeply.


Dear Comrades,

The Spanish experience is maybe just one, but is obviously a key one. There are few examples of successful anarchists movements. Spain is one of them but I will take in account the, probably, second most important: the Paris Commune of 1871. Where the anarchists were the lead of the insurrection.

Proudhon was one of the main theoreticians of the Commune, and Marx criticised the attitude of the Anarchist towards power. The Commune ended up with a blood bath.

Let's leave it like that. Look for your own historic sources… but the point is what was the approach of Marx and the Marxists to these events.

Lenin in the state and the revolution said: The words, "to smash the bureaucratic-military machine", briefly express the principal lesson of Marxism regarding the tasks of the proletariat during a revolution in relation to the state. That's the real approach, the key is how to achieve a real democratic rule. Self Government is basically the aim of the socialist movement but is not so simple. We do not live in a vacuum the state exists and their institutions are really powerful.

Marx explained this quite well: "Originating from the Middle Ages, there developed in the 19th century "the centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature." With the development of class antagonisms between capital and labor, "state power assumed more and more the character of a public force organized for the suppression of the working class, of a machine of class rule. After every revolution, which marks an advance in the class struggle, the purely coercive character of the state power stands out in bolder and bolder relief." After the revolution of 1848-49, state power became "the national war instruments of capital against labor". The Second Empire consolidated this"


So, essentially this is still the world in which we live. So how to destroy the state machine and what is to be replaced the smashed state machine? At this point scientific socialist movement and anarchist disagree, strongly by the way. Let's see why.

The "Communards" took power and the first decree of the Commune, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people. But this isn't enough, still. Because the ruling class (the capitalist class) has got more instruments of oppression than the army (the army is powerful one, but in Costa Rica there is no army and the people is oppressed). You have the judges, the police, the Parliament, the institutions that teach you to be a obedient citizen.

For Socialists at that point, after the working class trough truly democratic and representative organisation, such as bodies where you elected your representatives and they are under permanent control, takes power. We need a tool to suppress the bourgeoisie and crush their resistance. This was particularly necessary for the Commune; and one of the reasons for its defeat was that it did not do this with sufficient determination.
You need political and economic control by the exploited population in order to defend the gains of the revolution. If not the revolution is defeated. Like in Paris, Like in Spain and like anywhere else where the revolution is carried trough without destroying the old system. The anarchists dismissed the question of political forms altogether. And that's just what the anarchists say I could quote Bakunin or Malatesta if you want.
What means People's Power? The power of the people, seems obvious. But to organise the people (self organisation you called) you need worker's democracy (we call it like that). That means that you need to organise a new state that would be self-destroyed for Marx and Engles was just for a generation, for Lenin the process should be quicker… of course for Stalin was never to happen. And by the way in some Latin American countries the dictators wear sandals and moustache, nothing to do with boots and ties.

Comrade Kamo

[evil chris]

"Not everyone will have your ideology of thinking. "

you know what? Good! I don't think we need everyone to think and act the same.Democracy demands we have dissidance to make it work.If you and your buddies want to set yourself up a "Dictatorship Of The Prolitariate" somewhere you go do that.Just don;t go dictating to people and sening them off to gulaks or anything or there may well be pressure put on you.
Disscention is a good thing.But useing power for murder and oppression is not.


"Not everyone will work for food. "

thank fuck for that.I sure as hell don;t want to be limited to working for food.I'd rather work as little as possble and when i do, for a good of myself as well as for the good of the community.
You know how much food we produce? Enough to feed over 18 billion people comfortably.Christ we can do with a few people decided not to work for food all the time!
And working for food is so damned hard.
Line up that GM Hydropiical shit i say! You can set some vats up in my garden if you want! Easy production of nutricion food!
veggy? apposed to gm? they're plenty of land knocking around--grow your own and some for your mates!It's your call.
And hey, if you fuck up, they're plenty of slime being produced on my lawn.

"Why work for food when you can steal it? "

nono, i agree.Shit i steal it often enough!
But hey, why not come round to my vat and take home a couple of jars?If it make you feel better i'll turn around or close my eyes when you put them in your coat.K?

"More people think this way than the small minority who want to actually WORK. "

s'not the vibe i picked up from most people but i do have this vat............

"I am not a stalinist either but you must have control"

control of what,prey tell? Do we have 'control' now? No! We're liveing in fucking chaos and in many places the State is stronger than ever!
What about your beloved mother russia (not refering to you spesifically MITRS coz i don;t recall seeing you saying how you loved the soviet union but those reading this who do have that nostalgia)?
Strong state but that was chaos.When stalin and lenin and their bolshy buddies ruleing you got huge starvation while they were selling huge ammounts of grain.People trying to clear off to the West all the time and just general technical backwardness.
Strong State but still chaos.
Same now.Lots of "Control" knocking around the shop and plenty of chaos flying around dispite (because of?!) it!

"Even if anarchy did work the way you intended it, it wouldn't work for long. "

okydoky.Show me some example and show me how they fell down.
Show all your working out and no writeing in the margins.

"You people describe anarchy as you would explain SOCIAL anarchy which is in fact very different from anarchy all together. "

fair enough, we're calling a shovel a trowel.Does that stop it digging?

"Stop with these stupid attacks and give me some tangible facts as opposed to the "you're stupid" crap."

see that kettle over there? aint it black?

"people are not forced to work now under the current system. There's no gestapo storming into people's houses with fog horns waking them up and cattleing them out to jobs."

no Gestapo.You don't need one.You just don't eat.Actully that aint accurate.You get given 40 odd quid benifts to buy food.The ammount given is so little that you can't do anything other than survive.Unless you seel drugs.Or somethign else illigeal.Even the mimmum wage is a bag of shit.My mum and her boy friend have both had to whore themselves out to various firms in the hunt for atleast a fiver an hour coz you cannot maintain a fmaily.
You don't need a gestao, you have benifts officers and baliffs.

"yeah you made that sound excellently wordy and logical and yet I still don't buy it. Anything else you want to add to that? "

yeah ok.On the first bit about it's wordyness.Watch Michael Moore and Mark Thomas.Fuck the classical authors.I don't read em.Can't get into em and i find them tedious.
on the second point, yeah i'll add that you've willfully decided what you want and reason will not make a dent because, as i theorised, you see yourself as one of the bold leaders of the new society.

"I'll release some ex-convicts on that island for you too. "

everyone who's done porriage is a violent criminal are they?

"But oh wait, silly me. in this perfect anarchist island, you'l have nothing to fear because bubba will want to work for his food instead of murdering all of you for it. "

unless the island is a perfect micosim of the planet then it's not a fiar test.If you put us on an island with few resources and lots of people then coz he aint stupid there will be plundering- shit i'll be plundering with him.If the values are revrsed it might make uit look like Anarchism is an easy solution.
Bit of scientific thinking please.
while we're on crime, given much thought on what causes it?

[evil chris]

"no society imprisons people on suspicion"

yes they do.In the West the first thing you will often hear when you get busted is "I am arresting you on suspicion of...."
In the new "anti-terror" legistation it's fine and dandy to arrest people on suspicion.Many other countries, not aloways ruled by those who've taken power in coups, have long since had done with Habius Corpus for groups in society.Take the Kurds or , if you only take your world view from the bbc, the Palistinions.They have been show being handcuffed and sat down under guard while the IDF decides which ones they reckon might be "terrorists".

Atleast take a stab at accuracy,for the love of God,please!

"people will end up wanting power and tyranical governments will comeinto place."

when we've won freedom, do you think people are just going to let it go again?

"like i said, you're talking about social anarchy, not pure anarchy. There is a difference. Pure anarchy has no laws or established government. social anarchy has laws only no established government. The people solve their problems in social anarchy. "

shovel,spade so what.I thougth this debate was past semantics.Clearly not.Are you argueing against or for "social anarchy" as apposed to anarchy (lawlessness)?
Coz all through this debate people have been talking across terms.The pro (social) anarchy lot have been taling bout socail anachy and you've been saying that no, what they're saying is chaos.
shall we sort ourselves out?

Anarchy-- poltical ideal based on anti statism
anarchy-- (Noun) lack of disipline,lawlessness,chaos

can we get passed that now?

"''Capitalism is not the reason for all crimes.''

missed that one.No your right.I aint a reason for all crimes.A huge ammount of them but not all.Some are crimes of passion (murder is often one),mental disorder (kleptomania and some murder) and hey, some peopel are twats.
would crimes of passion and mental disorder be as prevelant in a free society.I dont think so.When people are relaxed and calmer they don't tend to snap as much.
What about punnishment?
in crimes of passion people tend to kill loved ones or someone taunting them.Killing your loved ones is probbly punnishment enough and if someone is taunting you enough to kill them then cock on!
do you punnish people for accedently coughing on others?
Nah.you don;t punnish peoplke for being ill.So how is punnishing a mentally ill person going to help?
as for twats.Well i don't know.I'm sure there might be a wall to put them up against somewhere.I'd rather avoid murder though.Why not just send em to Coventry?



(Edited by evil chris at 11:59 pm on June 9, 2002)

[Anonymous]

anarchism is an utopic theory it can only be aplied when all the people evolve to the last stage a human can evolve, until people need money and leaders they are too weak to live under anarchism, anarchism means compassion, and love the next but these things just dont exist nowdays

[evil chris]

"And as Evil Chris said, those who don't, would definetly be dealt with swiftly in an anarchist society. Maybe not tied to a tree, but something would be meted out. "

i think that's Oki.
I don't recall saying it anyway.

back to MITRS
Greed.What causes it?
i would suggest that shortages or the threat of shortages will trigger hoarding instints.
It is also capitalistic because if a group have alot of ,say, littlebitofmetalthatyouneedtogetstuffwith and there is only a finite ammount of it it's going to create a shortage in other areas.If there is enough to go around comfortabley then is not a problem.

"You NEED soem sort of government. You can't simply let a bunch of people try to run themselves, "

no ofcourse not! Coz humanity might actully prove themselves not a herd of cattle of a mass of thinking people and get their shit together.This would mean that wannabe rulers like yourself wouldn't get a look in.You might actully have to be equals eather than first amoung them.

"Anarchy is where people govern themselves and this leeds to chaos"

eveidence please.


"off-topic: tomorrow i am gonna demonstrate for better education in public schools... exciting, huh? ) "

no no no and thrice again ,no!
little education takes place in scchools ,public or otherwise

i think kamo's post can safely be ignored.
Haven't you gone lad?
If anyone would like to join Kamo's Youth For Revoultionary Change please email him at [email protected] or add him to your msn.
meantime i'm gonna find him an SWP sign up sheet.

[evil chris]

"anarchism is an utopic theory it can only be aplied when all the people evolve to the last stage a human can evolve, until people need money and leaders they are too weak to live under anarchism, anarchism means compassion, and love the next but these things just dont exist nowdays "

wadda load of bollocks.
Why do we have to wieght to the "last stage of evoultion"?
what is the stage?
do you have some eviedence?
what about the members of previous revoltuions? were they this ubermen?
what about anarchists today? are they some kind of enlightened elite?

[Valkyrie]

''One is not a criminal until the crime has been committed, or technically by current law, until one has been convicted of the crime.''
This is infact, a right-wing theory on crime.
It's extremely narrow minded..it's like saying ''people are simply born bad''( another rightist theory on crime)
What are your political opinions btw?
If you say 'leftist' you'll look a bit stupid now, as your argument is based around a right-wing theory.
If you don't believe its a right-wing theory i'll go and find some quotations for you if you like. Just yell. "
---

---
Stupid eh? Yes, please provide the refutation. If you're going to bring me something that states that tons of innocent people have been convicted of crimes. Don't bother. Anarchists are not proponents of the States oppressive judicial system and their puppet courts.
BWT,My political leaning is autonomous Marxist. that is decentralized government with Marxist economics.


(Edited by Paris at 7:15 am on June 10, 2002)

[oki]

"And as Evil Chris said, those who don't, would definetly be dealt with swiftly in an anarchist society. Maybe not tied to a tree, but something would be meted out. "

i think that's Oki.
I don't recall saying it anyway.

yes,I said something like that.

furthermore,I said 95 % of gouv. can be dismissed.but not all.someone then said,that I was wrong,and that we don't need authority.I agree,because gouv. and authority is not the same thing.a gouv.can have a seremonial function and a administrative one.they should have no power or means to power,otherwise you can just sit and wait for them to abuse it.people themself will have to take responcibility,and if they abuse their posisions,where the people put them,they should be dismissed right away.

the spainish anarchosyndicalists didn't revove the gouv.,they let them stay,but took as mutch work away from them as possible.allso the army and police,and then you have a gouv.that cant repress the people and that's how it should be.

[Shock To The System]

''Stupid eh? Yes, please provide the refutation.''

Ok...you didnt explain what you caused crime, therefore i assumed that you must believe some people are born bad.

[Lefty]

i agree with nateddi, human nature conforms to society. that seems entirely sensible to me.