Anarchy [Archive]

RaÃºl Duke

16th October 2007, 02:54

If I am in power...

STALINISM!!!

If I am not in power...

ANARCHY!!!

:lol:

Very pragmatic/practical of you!

its just kinda hard to take this thread seriously from someone who considered themselves a "neo-stalinist" like 2 days ago.

I would have to agree... :mellow:

At best I can believe that you are someone who is interested in Anarchism and find it "better" than the other "alternatives" in RevLeft.

Although, if you are interested in Anarchism (specifically, Anarcho-Communism) I suggest you read up (some more) of it;
Specifically What is Anarchism (AKA: ABC of Communist Anarchism, What is Communist Anarchism) by Alexander Berkman, Anarchism by Daniel Guerin, and some of Kropotkin's works. There's also Anarchism: A short introduction by Colin Ward.

Hope any of this helps.

La ComÃ©die Noire

16th October 2007, 05:32

To elaborate on JohnnyDarko's post, "The Conquest Of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin is especially excellent.

Hope that helps. :)

Forward Union

16th October 2007, 10:23

No serious anarchist objects to all authority. They simply object to hierachy.

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought! In the case of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker" - Bakunin

If you are arguing for the decenteralisation of power into local workers councils, those councils must have some authority.

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2007, 10:42

Originally posted by William [email protected] 16, 2007 10:23 am
No serious anarchist objects to all authority. They simply object to hierachy.
Anarchism is practically predicated on such an ideal. It is only in your strange revisionist mind that "serious anarchists" (whatever they are) do not reject authority.

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought! In the case of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker" - Bakunin

That's a total misrepresentation of that quote. Bakunin is not justifying political authority, he is saying that in a society we will listen to people qualified as authorities on subjects, such as boot-making in order to make boots.

If you are arguing for the decenteralisation of power into local workers councils, those councils must have some authority.

Such as what?

Bilan

16th October 2007, 10:50

Originally posted by TAT
Bakunin is not justifying political authority, he is saying that in a society we will listen to people qualified as authorities on subjects, such as boot-making in order to make boots.

I don't think he was trying to justify political authority (after all, he is an anarchist). I think he was saying the same thing you are.

Although, I could be wrong.

Nusocialist

16th October 2007, 10:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:43 am
Such a quick, rapid change... :huh:

Oh well... :unsure:

I personally prefer using the term hierarchy than authority...

Do you contend that "Anarcho-Capitalism" and Mutualism are equal to Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Communism as viable (economic) models in a post-revolutionary society?
Are you suggesting Mutualism is not?

Nusocialist

16th October 2007, 10:56

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 09:42 am

Such as what?
I think he has some point here, some residual authority is needed.

Resources must be managed, criminals such as rapists and murderers dealt with.

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2007, 10:57

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+October 16, 2007 10:50 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ October 16, 2007 10:50 am)
TAT
Bakunin is not justifying political authority, he is saying that in a society we will listen to people qualified as authorities on subjects, such as boot-making in order to make boots.

I don't think he was trying to justify political authority (after all, he is an anarchist). I think he was saying the same thing you are.

Although, I could be wrong. [/b]
Is he an anarchist? Platformists are not anarchists.

Except he then goes on to say that Workers councils will exercise authority. Also, if he did mean what I said then why didn't he say that?

Bilan

16th October 2007, 11:00

Is he an anarchist? Platformists are not anarchists.

Explain!

Except he then goes on to say that Workers councils will exercise authority. Also, if he did mean what I said then why didn't he say that?

I don' know, maybe he thought what he had said showed this?

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2007, 11:00

Originally posted by Nusocialist+October 16, 2007 10:56 am--> (Nusocialist @ October 16, 2007 10:56 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 09:42 am

Such as what?
I think he has some point here, some residual authority is needed.

Resources must be managed, criminals such as rapists and murderers dealt with. [/b]
You don't need authority to manage resources and dealing with criminals and murderers should not be left to a small council. It should be dealt with by community assemblies.

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2007, 11:01

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 16, 2007 11:00 am

Is he an anarchist? Platformists are not anarchists.

Explain!
Well, Platformism and anarchism are different things. It's no more complicated than that.

Nusocialist

16th October 2007, 11:02

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 10:00 am

You don't need authority to manage resources
You do.

What if I want to use a resource for something and someone else wants to for something else, and we cannot agree, and the commune has to decide.

and dealing with criminals and murderers should not be left to a small council. It should be dealt with by community assemblies.That is still authority.

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2007, 11:05

Originally posted by Nusocialist+October 16, 2007 11:02 am--> (Nusocialist @ October 16, 2007 11:02 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 10:00 am

You don't need authority to manage resources
You do.

What if I want to use a resource for something and someone else for something else, and we cannot agree, and the commune has to decide. [/b]
A commune collectively agreeing on the distributions of goods is not authority.

and dealing with criminals and murderers should not be left to a small council. It should be dealt with by community assemblies.That is still authority.

You're not explaining yourself adequately. In what way is it authority?

Nusocialist

16th October 2007, 11:09

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 10:05 am

A commune collectively agreeing on the distributions of goods is not authority.

It is if I don't get what I want.

If they say I can't use a resource, then that is authority.

Anarchism is of course about limiting this and I'm not suggesting it is a state but it cannot be removed completely.

You're not explaining yourself adequately. In what way is it authority?Because it is force. These people are forced to do something against their will such as leave the commune or even be punished.(I presume we are talking not about direct defence of victims but after the fact dealing with the issue.).

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2007, 11:18

Originally posted by Nusocialist+October 16, 2007 11:09 am--> (Nusocialist @ October 16, 2007 11:09 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 10:05 am

A commune collectively agreeing on the distributions of goods is not authority.

It is if I don't get what I want. [/b]
Erm, no it isn't. If you don't "get what you want" it's because it's not necessary for you to have it or it isn't available.

If they say I can't use a resource, then that is authority.

No, if a collective say you cannot use a resource it's not necessary for you to do so. Remember, being a part of this collective is a voluntary partnership. You have entered into a contract with this collective and the decision is made collectively.

If a decision is made for you to not have a resource it is because of a reason and surely you would be able to understand that and accept it, rather than cry "authority".

That's ridiculous!

Anarchism is of course about limiting this and I'm not suggesting it is a state but it cannot be removed completely.

Oh fuck off!

You're not explaining yourself adequately. In what way is it authority?Because it is force. These people are forced to do something against their will such as leave the commune or even be punished.

I do not accept that in an anarchist society we should be "punishing" people.

Fredrick Engels argued that self-defence is an authoritarian act. I don't accept that to be true. Defending a community against rapists and murderers is not an act of authority.

(I presume we are talking not about direct defence of victims but after the fact dealing with the issue.).

What is restricting a rapists freedom if it is not to defend ourselves from the rapist?

Bilan

16th October 2007, 11:21

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 16, 2007 08:01 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 16, 2007 08:01 pm)
Proper Tea is [email protected] 16, 2007 11:00 am

Is he an anarchist? Platformists are not anarchists.

Explain!
Well, Platformism and anarchism are different things. It's no more complicated than that. [/b]
So, the Platform of the Libertarian Communists is not anarchist?
Please explain why, I don't understand.

Forward Union

16th October 2007, 11:26

"au·thor·i·ty pl. au·thor·i·ties
1.
a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
!-

In an Anarchist society, say someone rapes 400 women. You can't possibly believe that the people have no right to bring that person to justice. Because recognising their right to do so would entail they have the authority to do so. And we're against that, right?

You said "You don't need authority to manage resources and dealing with criminals and murderers should not be left to a small council. It should be dealt with by community assemblies"

Community councils? wait, are you recognising their authority when it comes to dealing with criminals? You are, afterall, saying they have 'The power to judge and determine' what happens to the criminal, which is part of the definition of authhority.

So, the Platform of the Libertarian Communists is not anarchist?
Please explain why, I don't understand.

The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian communists, is not considered anarchist by TAT, because he doesn't understand it.

But I find it amusing that whenever we have a practical disagrement, he seems to reduce it to a debate about the platform. Can't we stick specifically to the debate about whether democratic workers councils have the authority to punish criminals, or if the criminal has the freedom to run rampant?

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2007, 11:28

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+October 16, 2007 11:21 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ October 16, 2007 11:21 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 08:01 pm

Proper Tea is [email protected] 16, 2007 11:00 am

Is he an anarchist? Platformists are not anarchists.

Explain!
Well, Platformism and anarchism are different things. It's no more complicated than that.
So, the Platform of the Libertarian Communists is not anarchist?
Please explain why, I don't understand. [/b]
Well, Malatesta would have said it was but only because he was a hippy when it came to being all "inclusive".

Look, anarchism is predicated on fundamental principles, which the Platform outright rejects. Political leadership, centralisation of political authority (into an Executive Committee, not my words.)

All of these things the Platform desires but calls it "theoretical unity" and "collective responsibility". It's Bolshevism dressed in red and black. I've had Leninists tell me it's a good idea.

Believing in regionalist, federal gift economy does not make you an anarchist.

Nusocialist

16th October 2007, 11:32

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 10:18 am

Erm, no it isn't. If you don't "get what you want" it's because it's not necessary for you to have it or it isn't available.

It is still force and authority. Someone still has to decide this and force it on me(I find it strange an anarchist would talk of it not being necessary for me!.)

No, if a collective say you cannot use a resource it's not necessary for you to do so. Remember, being a part of this collective is a voluntary partnership. You have entered into a contract with this collective and the decision is made collectively. This is what I thought you were going to say. It reminds me of the capitalist defence of wage labour or the idea of the social contract.

Ultimately there is still force being used and hence authority.

If a decision is made for you to not have a resource it is because of a reason and surely you would be able to understand that and accept it, rather than cry "authority".Perhaps but it doesn't change that ultimately there would be force and authority applied.

I do not accept that in an anarchist society we should be "punishing" people.
Me neither.

Fredrick Engels argued that self-defence is an authoritarian act. I don't accept that to be true. Defending a community against rapists and murderers is not an act of authority.After the fact it is such as exile or punishment but not during the act.

What is restricting a rapists freedom if it is not to defend ourselves from the rapist?It is still force and hence authority.

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2007, 11:35

Originally posted by William [email protected] 16, 2007 11:26 am
Community councils? wait, are you recognising their authority when it comes to dealing with criminals? You are, afterall, saying they have 'The power to judge and determine' what happens to the criminal, which is part of the definition of authhority.
No, community Assemblies. No one should be delegated to make decisions on the freedom of other people except a community as a whole, collectively deciding.

I am saying that a community assembly is justified in collectively defending its freedom.

The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian communists, is not considered anarchist by TAT, because he doesn't understand it.

Yeah, that's the reason.

But I find it amusing that whenever we have a practical disagrement, he seems to reduce it to a debate about the platform.

Someone said you were an anarchist. I disagreed. They asked why and I told them.

Can't we stick specifically to the debate about whether democratic workers councils have the authority to punish criminals, or if the criminal has the freedom to run rampant?

I do not accept that society should punish people and of course communities should defend themselves against people attempting to usurp their freedom (in whatever form that takes).

Self-defence is not an authoritarian act.

Forward Union

16th October 2007, 11:38

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 10:35 am
No, community Assemblies. No one should be delegated to make decisions on the freedom of other people except a community as a whole, collectively deciding.

I am saying that a community assembly is justified in collectively defending its freedom.

When I say council, I mean the same thing as you when you say assembly.

So you recognise the authority of the assembly over the criminal?

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2007, 11:41

Originally posted by Nusocialist+October 16, 2007 11:32 am--> (Nusocialist @ October 16, 2007 11:32 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 10:18 am

Erm, no it isn't. If you don't "get what you want" it's because it's not necessary for you to have it or it isn't available.
It is still force and authority. Someone still has to decide this and force it on me(I find it strange an anarchist would talk of it not being necessary for me!.) [/b]
I don't think you understand what anarchism or communism is. Read a book.

No, if a collective say you cannot use a resource it's not necessary for you to do so. Remember, being a part of this collective is a voluntary partnership. You have entered into a contract with this collective and the decision is made collectively. This is what I thought you were going to say. It reminds me of the capitalist defence of wage labour or the idea of the social contract.

Qualify that. It makes no sense to me.

Ultimately there is still force being used and hence authority.

Why would you be apart of a collective if you were just going to complain and accuse your comrades of authoritarianism when you didn't get what you wanted?

If a decision is made for you to not have a resource it is because of a reason and surely you would be able to understand that and accept it, rather than cry "authority".Perhaps but it doesn't change that ultimately there would be force and authority applied.

Well, yeah...

You're not being forced to accept a decision, you, as apart of this collective, are being asked to understand the reasoning behind the decision. If you didn't want to accept it and attempted to usurp a collectively agreed decision then do so.

Fredrick Engels argued that self-defence is an authoritarian act. I don't accept that to be true. Defending a community against rapists and murderers is not an act of authority.After the fact it is such as exile or punishment but not during the act.

What is restricting a rapists freedom if it is not to defend ourselves from the rapist?It is still force and hence authority.

Self-defence is not an authoritarian act.

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2007, 11:50

Originally posted by William Everard+October 16, 2007 11:38 am--> (William Everard @ October 16, 2007 11:38 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 10:35 am
No, community Assemblies. No one should be delegated to make decisions on the freedom of other people except a community as a whole, collectively deciding.

I am saying that a community assembly is justified in collectively defending its freedom.

When I say council, I mean the same thing as you when you say assembly. [/b]
I don't think we do.

So you recognise the authority of the assembly over the criminal?

No assembly has authority over someone, even if they're a murderer but once you enter into that dynamic a community is justified in ensuring that their freedom is defended. That's not an authoritarian act.

An assembly is not saying you do not have the right to exercise your freedom as an individual. An assembly is not asserting that you must subject in obedience to the will of the collective.

There is nothing being commanded here. The assembly is not claiming that they have a right to "control" or that they have jurisdiction to determine. They're just defending themselves.

Forward Union

16th October 2007, 12:11

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 10:50 am
No assembly has authority over someone, even if they're a murderer but once you enter into that dynamic a community is justified in ensuring that their freedom is defended. That's not an authoritarian act.

Well that was a slippery paragraph wasn't it!

I'm not sure what you meant exactly. Are you saying that the assembly has no right to decide what to do with a murder, unless the murder volonteers to be part of the assebly?

Also, if in any instance one person, or a million people decide the fate of another (in this case an assembly over a murder) you recognise their legitimacy in deciding the fate of the guilty. That, by definition means they have authority, self defence or not. You can't deny it! You're just doing everything you can to define the authority of the assembly, without using the word 'authority'! ...grow up!

There is nothing being commanded here. The assembly is not claiming that they have a right to "control" or that they have jurisdiction to determine. They're just defending themselves.

Defence is a justification, and contol is the means to that end. You can't interchange them or say one can replace another. That's a logical falacy.

You are saying the defence of the community legitimises the authority of an assembly over an individual.

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2007, 12:28

Originally posted by William [email protected] 16, 2007 12:11 pm
You're just doing everything you can to define the authority of the assembly, without using the word 'authority'! ...grow up!
Grow up?

Who the fuck do you think you're talking to! If you spoke to me like that in person I'd slap your fucking face!

You are saying the defence of the community legitimises the authority of an assembly over an individual.

Fine.

apathy maybe

16th October 2007, 12:32

To throw my three and a bit cents into the ring...
Personally I'm tending towards TAT's position.

Self defence is not authority and doesn't legitimise authority of anyone over anyone else.

If someone attacks me, and I defend myself, I am not using authority over them.

If this person attacks a number of people, and they decided to defend themselves, they are not using authority over that person.

If a community says to an individual that the individual is no longer welcome in that community, that isn't using authority.

Of course, we aim for a society where authority over another is not around, but we maynot get there. It maybe that in an ostensibly "anarchist" society that authority is used over individuals to prevent them from harming others. But ideally, this would be kept to a minimum.

(And, for the record, I haven't read the Platform.)

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2007, 12:39

I might not slap it, but I'd definitely look at it sternly!

Forward Union

16th October 2007, 12:50

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 11:28 am
Who the fuck do you think you're talking to! If you spoke to me like that in person I'd slap your fucking face!

Oh calm down! you'll have your chance soon enough!

Fine.

See, concensus isn't to hard.

Forward Union

16th October 2007, 12:54

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 16, 2007 11:32 am
If someone attacks me, and I defend myself, I am not using authority over them.

That's true on an immediate personal level, but not on a societal level, when the guilty has been captured, and the community are deciding what to do with the offender. I mean, you don't argue that in such a situation, the criminal has the authority to decide what to do with the community, that would be rediculous. The authority of the community over the offender is obviously legitimate.

TAT has already stated that he agrees with me when I say that the authority of the community is legitimate (in this instance anyway), and that it is by definition authority.

And, for the record, I haven't read the Platform

The Organisational Platform (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/plat_preface.html)

Malatestas objections to the platform (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/mal_rep1.htm)

Makhnos reply to Malatesta (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/abouplat.htm)

If you have the time , that is :P

RaÃºl Duke

16th October 2007, 20:55

authority

I always preferred the term hierarchy (i.e. inequality, etc.) as to what we are against...since the people collectively could be considered to be exercising "authority" through councils, assemblies, etc.

Goatse

16th October 2007, 21:46

Off topic, but can I point out to you, Gadfly, that the USA does not have a fascist government. Calling the USA, George Bush etc fascist undermines what it really means. Yes, they're bad, but they're not as bad as fascists.

The Feral Underclass

17th October 2007, 02:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:33 pm
Maybe this shit is above my retarded head.
Educate yourself then.

Red Scare

17th October 2007, 02:15

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 16, 2007 08:09 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 16, 2007 08:09 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 09:33 pm
Maybe this shit is above my retarded head.
Educate yourself then. [/b]
Good idea...

Although this "person" (for lack of better word) probably has never read beyond a rebel skater magazine.

Nusocialist

17th October 2007, 02:47

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 10:41 am

I don't think you understand what anarchism or communism is. Read a book.

I don't think you understand basic logic or English. Collective authority is still authority.

Qualify that. It makes no sense to me.You are saying because I don't leave the collective it is not authority.

Why would you be apart of a collective if you were just going to complain and accuse your comrades of authoritarianism when you didn't get what you wanted?Why would you live in a state if you didn't want to pay taxes. If someone makes you do something against your will it is still authority whatever.

Well, yeah...

You're not being forced to accept a decision, you, as apart of this collective, are being asked to understand the reasoning behind the decision. If you didn't want to accept it and attempted to usurp a collectively agreed decision then do so.If I ignore the decision and still attempt to use a resource then they will stop me, hence they are applying force and authority.

Self-defence is not an authoritarian act.Arguable, but we are talking about after the fact actions.

Are you saying actions like punishment or exile are self-defence?

The-Spark

18th October 2007, 00:37

I agree with TAT on this one, does not a community have the freedom to decide wither they will allow murders and rapists? Will you deny them that freedom? The very freedom to defend themselves?

If the majority of a community agrees that this person must leave for our safety than they should have the freedom to do that, the rapist and murderer im sure will find somwhere else to live, but that community has the right not to accept him or her.

If you say the community has no right to remove a murderer from the community you take away the freedom and the safety of the community.

Nusocialist

18th October 2007, 05:09

Originally posted by The-[email protected] 17, 2007 11:37 pm
I agree with TAT on this one, does not a community have the freedom to decide wither they will allow murders and rapists? Will you deny them that freedom? The very freedom to defend themselves?

If the majority of a community agrees that this person must leave for our safety than they should have the freedom to do that, the rapist and murderer im sure will find somwhere else to live, but that community has the right not to accept him or her.

If you say the community has no right to remove a murderer from the community you take away the freedom and the safety of the community.
Who has denied that?

We were just suggesting it is authority. If the collective forces someone out they force them ie use authority.

And it is not just that, things like the collective deciding on the use of resources requires residual authority.

As anarchists we aim to limit authority but we cannot remove the residual completely.

dannthraxxx

18th October 2007, 06:22

fuck anarcho capitalism. anarcho capitalism is in my opinion, what we have today. everything is controlled by business. why are people so illogical? that's just stupid. it's like a contradiction.

imho, i think that the workers should have all control of production, if you work, you produce, so you decide what to do with it. as for racism, i believe in equality, everyone is the same, we all bleed blood and we all live/die. we're all human diseases. as for sexism, i believe the same, equality, we are people, despite sexual drives, we are all the same, no one is good or bad based upon sexual preference.

no war but the classs war.

The Feral Underclass

18th October 2007, 10:35

Originally posted by Nusocialist+October 17, 2007 02:47 am--> (Nusocialist @ October 17, 2007 02:47 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 10:41 am

I don't think you understand what anarchism or communism is. Read a book.

I don't think you understand basic logic or English. Collective authority is still authority. [/b]
Look, your whole argument is predicated on the notion that in a collective there will be a dynamic between members that is hostile. A wonderful part of anarchism is that collectives will exist to work through issues together in solidarity and co-operation.

You assume that if someone wanted something and could not have it that this person would somehow become hostile and feel victimised. I don't accept that this will be the case. I've worked within many groups who have had to organise complex logistical things and the fact is everyone voluntarily submits to a process of consensus.

Collective authority is a misnomer because collectives will work things out together so that a decision is made collectively. If it turns out a resource cannot be given to someone that person will be happy with that decision because they were apart of and understand the process by which it was made.

This kind of attitude requires a change in human behaviour but this is something anarchism moves to create and urges people to become: It's mutual aid and a fundamental basis of anarchism.

Qualify that. It makes no sense to me.You are saying because I don't leave the collective it is not authority.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Why would I say that, it makes no sense? What I was saying was what I have just outlined above.

Why would you be apart of a collective if you were just going to complain and accuse your comrades of authoritarianism when you didn't get what you wanted?Why would you live in a state if you didn't want to pay taxes. If someone makes you do something against your will it is still authority whatever.

If people were being made to do something against their will then we aren't living in anarchy.

Well, yeah...

You're not being forced to accept a decision, you, as apart of this collective, are being asked to understand the reasoning behind the decision. If you didn't want to accept it and attempted to usurp a collectively agreed decision then do so.If I ignore the decision and still attempt to use a resource then they will stop me, hence they are applying force and authority.

Yes, I suppose in that sense, when you attempt to usurp the freedom of other people authority is legitimised, but it is only legitimate in that context. This, I have already accepted.

Self-defence is not an authoritarian act.Arguable, but we are talking about after the fact actions.

Are you saying actions like punishment or exile are self-defence?

I don't accept punishment as a legitimate course of action and exiling someone from a community would be pointless.

Anarchism is about progression and that means moving post-bourgeois mentality. We have to create new ways of dealing with problems that may require responses like this, but they must be based on the idea of helping them and compassion. Not on emotional reactions and retribution

RGacky3

18th October 2007, 16:45

It seams like a big argument against Anarchism simply has to do with the definition of Authority :P, which is kind of silly.

But anyway, this is how I see it, if its completely voluntary, then its not authority.

ComradeR

19th October 2007, 09:59

It seams like a big argument against Anarchism simply has to do with the definition of Authority :P , which is kind of silly.
Same how the big argument between Marxists and Anarchists is the definition of the state. It's all pointless bickering.

Forward Union

19th October 2007, 10:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:59 am
Same how the big argument between Marxists and Anarchists is the definition of the state. It's all pointless bickering.
No it's not "pointless bickering" it's a massive fucking ideological chasm that not only prevents us working together, but places us in direct opposition to eachother!

Im sick of this "let's all hug and get a long" bullshit.

Forward Union

19th October 2007, 10:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:45 pm
But anyway, this is how I see it, if its completely voluntary, then its not authority.
Right. And if you rape a child in an anarchist society, you wont volonteer to be hanged, it will be forced on you.

Therefor the community assembly has authority to determine peopels fates.

The Feral Underclass

19th October 2007, 19:40

Originally posted by William Everard+October 19, 2007 10:27 am--> (William Everard @ October 19, 2007 10:27 am)
[email protected] 18, 2007 03:45 pm
But anyway, this is how I see it, if its completely voluntary, then its not authority.
Right. And if you rape a child in an anarchist society, you wont volonteer to be hanged, it will be forced on you. [/b]
Says who?

Therefor the community assembly has authority to determine peopels fates.

Your view of an anarchist society is not my view. Why would we want to live in a society where we hung people?

blackstone

19th October 2007, 19:46

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 19, 2007 01:40 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 19, 2007 01:40 pm)
Originally posted by William [email protected] 19, 2007 10:27 am

[email protected] 18, 2007 03:45 pm
But anyway, this is how I see it, if its completely voluntary, then its not authority.
Right. And if you rape a child in an anarchist society, you wont volonteer to be hanged, it will be forced on you.
Says who?

Therefor the community assembly has authority to determine peopels fates.

Your view of an anarchist society is not my view. Why would we want to live in a society where we hung people? [/b]
You prefer beheading?

RaÃºl Duke

19th October 2007, 20:37

So what do you propose we do with the few who do continue to commit crimes?

Put them in prison? <_<

RGacky3

19th October 2007, 22:16

If the rapist wants to give in the community he'll probaby agree to a couple community rules before hand, like don't rape people or else. I doubt anyone would disagree to the rule "don't rape people," Generally thats a crime that comes out on the spot, or out of a deep seeting severe mental disorder.

blackstone

19th October 2007, 22:47

I can see the signs now, " Warning: Entering autonomous zone. No raping people or else" :D

The Feral Underclass

20th October 2007, 00:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:37 pm
So what do you propose we do with the few who do continue to commit crimes?
Help them make sure they don't continue to do it.

The Feral Underclass

20th October 2007, 00:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:16 pm
If the rapist wants to give in the community he'll probaby agree to a couple community rules before hand, like don't rape people or else. I doubt anyone would disagree to the rule "don't rape people," Generally thats a crime that comes out on the spot, or out of a deep seeting severe mental disorder.
We don't know what causes rape. I suspect that it is unrealistic to just say "don't rape people" and then a person won't.

What ever the reason or whatever the actual situation I think it is important to find a solution to helping that person achieve an attitude in their life where they don't continue to commit such horrible acts and genuinely understand how terrible their actions are and why.

This is clearly a radical opinion, even in radical circles, but I don't want to live in a society that uses bourgeois morality and punitive measures to establish a process by which human beings interact with each other.