"Anarchy will never work because people are cunning, nasty pieces of work"

[Trystan]

I comment I recently stumbled upon on another forum. I suppose the same criticism could be made of Marxist communism, too. I'm curious: how many of you OIers share this view?

If so, then why would you want a government in the first place?

[pusher robot]

how many of you OIers share this view?I do. Why?
So...in the nature of man, we find three principall causes
of quarrel. First, Competition; Secondly, Diffidence; Thirdly, Glory.

The first, maketh men invade for Gain; the second, for Safety;
and the third, for Reputation. The first use Violence, to make
themselves Masters of other mens persons, wives, children, and cattell;
the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word,
a smile, a different opinion, and any other signe of undervalue,
either direct in their Persons, or by reflexion in their Kindred,
their Friends, their Nation, their Profession, or their Name.

Out Of Civil States,
There Is Alwayes Warre Of Every One Against Every One
Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without
a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition
which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man,
against every man. For WARRE, consisteth not in Battell onely,
or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the Will
to contend by Battell is sufficiently known: and therefore the
notion of Time, is to be considered in the nature of Warre;
as it is in the nature of Weather. For as the nature of Foule weather,
lyeth not in a showre or two of rain; but in an inclination thereto
of many dayes together: So the nature of War, consisteth not
in actuall fighting; but in the known disposition thereto,
during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary.
If so, then why would you want a government in the first place?Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every
man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time,
wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength,
and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition,
there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain;
and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use
of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious
Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things
as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth;
no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is
worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death;
And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

The finall Cause, End, or Designe of men, (who naturally love Liberty,
and Dominion over others,) in the introduction of that restraint
upon themselves, (in which wee see them live in Common-wealths,)
is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented
life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that
miserable condition of Warre, which is necessarily consequent
(as hath been shewn) to the naturall Passions of men, when there is
no visible Power to keep them in awe, and tye them by feare of
punishment to the performance of their Covenants, and observation of
these Lawes of Nature set down in the fourteenth and fifteenth Chapters.

[RGacky3]

Thats the EXACT argument for Anarchism, people are cunning, nasty pieces of work, and they will be worse if allowed power over other people, why allow that? Anarchism is about stopping these people to wield authority, just because someones in power does'nt mean he's suddenly the non-cunning, nasty piece of work that has to keep everyone in line, very, very likely he's the most cunning nasty piece of work, and is going to do all he can to abuse that power.

Anarchism takes that potential of abuse away.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Heheh. People are bad, so let's give them power over millions of others. :laugh:

[Ken]

i share a similar view, that anarchy/communism will never happen, because people are too stupid.

[RebelDog]

If people are bad bastards why should we have a system that encourages them to be bad bastards? i.e, capitalism.

[Dr Mindbender]

i share a similar view, that anarchy/communism will never happen, because people are too stupid.

Why do we allow stupid people to run countries?
http://www.worthalaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/small-bush.jpg

I've probably encountered countless joe averages that are brighter than this^. If by stupid you mean 'lacking knowledge' that isnt the same thing. The reason average people lack knowledge is for the most part, we have an elitist education system that penalises on the basis of social origin.

[Incendiarism]

The thing with anarchism is that agitation and education are necessary and perhaps the most important technique for any anarchist activist. The prime example of anarchism working rather well(Spain, but of course) was the product of decades of influence exerted by the trade unions and anarchist groups working within the area and an overwhelming number of workers were anarchist.

Considering the simplistic nature of anarchism I think it could work and would be easy for people to relate to given how fed up people are with governments. Anarchism may not seem very realistic or viable in most cases, but it has and can work.

[Malezani]

The prime example of anarchism working rather well(Spain, but of course)

How did it work in Spain?
Did it abolish the monetary system ? Did it create an anarchist region? Was it successful against its aggressors? Did it spark world revolution ?(The anarchists uphold the theory of world revolution, notwithstanding uneven development :lol:) .


Considering the simplistic nature of anarchism I think it could work and would be easy for people to relate to given how fed up people are with governments.

You do know that in every country communists have more influence than anarchists and that the anarchists are seen as police provocateurs or a laughing stock everywhere?

No one is taking anarchism and anarchists seriously. There might be some exceptions but in general anarchists are isolated , young adults ho are idealistic.

[Trystan]

How did it work in Spain?
Did it abolish the monetary system ? Did it create an anarchist region? Was it successful against its aggressors?


Mostly yes.

[Malezani]

Mostly yes.

These where rhetorical questions. ...

The answer is no , for those who know their history.

The was a monetary system in "anarchist" "Spain". There was no anarchism established. They lost the battle against Franco. Oh ya and obviously it didn't spark global revolution as anarchists think will happen.

Anarchism is a joke. Communism is pretty ok for me but I have some more stuff to learn.

[Dr Mindbender]

Anarchism is a joke. Communism is pretty ok for me but I have some more stuff to learn.

If you admit you're humble enough to learn than slating an ideology which you admit you don't know much about offhand on your opening post isnt a good way to start.

[Malezani]

If you admit you're humble enough to learn than slating an ideology which you admit you don't know much about offhand on your opening post isnt a good way to start. __________________

Well that was my main concern on communism and that was a question I was wanting to ask communists for a long time. It was not my opinion but the general perception of society.

And I was indeed very satisfied with people's answers especially the one by Mikeprole.

[Incendiarism]

Some anarchists do not oppose money, though, do they not? Catalonia was under anarchist control and stayed that way amidst civil war, which to me signifies its ability to withstand outside forces and its superiority over bourgeois democracy. If the situation allows it, then it is desirable to look to anarchism, but as I outlined above, that is not always the case.

I do not oppose any form of communism(though I do have my reservations at times), but whenever a certain tradition makes a positive contribution I am ready and willing to recognize that.

[Trystan]

These where rhetorical questions. ...

The answer is no , for those who know their history.

The was a monetary system in "anarchist" "Spain". There was no anarchism established. They lost the battle against Franco. Oh ya and obviously it didn't spark global revolution as anarchists think will happen.

Anarchism is a joke. Communism is pretty ok for me but I have some more stuff to learn.

I said mostly yes. There was a large anarchist region and they succeeded in fighting off the fascists (but alas, not the Stalinists).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

These where rhetorical questions. ...

The answer is no , for those who know their history.

The was a monetary system in "anarchist" "Spain". There was no anarchism established. They lost the battle against Franco. Oh ya and obviously it didn't spark global revolution as anarchists think will happen.

Anarchism is a joke. Communism is pretty ok for me but I have some more stuff to learn.

Actually, a lot of regions did get rid of money, and people were allowed to freely associate - there even existed populations of independent artisans. I think you need to drop the straw.


Some anarchists do not oppose money, though, do they not? Catalonia was under anarchist control and stayed that way amidst civil war, which to me signifies its ability to withstand outside forces and its superiority over bourgeois democracy. If the situation allows it, then it is desirable to look to anarchism, but as I outlined above, that is not always the case.

I do not oppose any form of communism(though I do have my reservations at times), but whenever a certain tradition makes a positive contribution I am ready and willing to recognize that.

Anarchism in the general sense is not opposed to money in the least. Anarcho-communism is, but you have different branches that would vary with the individual.

[Malezani]

Some anarchists do not oppose money, though, do they not?

Anarchism and Communism being the non-hierarchical societies(classless societies) and also societies of post-scarcity do in fact abolish money.

But the difference is that communists are realistic enough to understand that it is impossible to do away with money in the first years after the revolution .Thus the transitional stage of socialism where money exists for accounting purposes and purposes of determining relative value.


Catalonia was under anarchist control and stayed that way amidst civil war, which to me signifies its ability to withstand outside forces and its superiority over bourgeois democracy.

No shit, people where disgusted with capitalism and that is why the revolution happened int he First Place. But the "anarchist" (it was not classless and neither non-hierarchical ) catalonia was short lived and that is due to the mistakes of the anarchists in the first place and their incapability to organize effectively against Franco's armies and also to win the people over from the reformists, Stalinists and trotskyists.


If the situation allows it, then it is desirable to look to anarchism, but as I outlined above, that is not always the case.


So how is it possible to have a non-hierarchical society with money still existing?
If money exists then surplus exists.


I do not oppose any form of communism(though I do have my reservations at times), but whenever a certain tradition makes a positive contribution I am ready and willing to recognize that.

On the contrary I am opposed to anarchism as I see it as an ideology which will fail to overthrow capitalism(as manifested by history)

[Malezani]

Actually, a lot of regions did get rid of money, and people were allowed to freely associate - there even existed populations of independent artisans. I think you need to drop the straw.

Sources?(Please no biased ones)


I said mostly yes. There was a large anarchist region and they succeeded in fighting off the fascists (but alas, not the Stalinists).

Did they succeed against Franco or did they lose the Civil War?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Anarchism and Communism being the non-hierarchical societies(classless societies) and also societies of post-scarcity do in fact abolish money.Oh, ha ho, you have a lot to learn about anarchism.

See:
Anarcho-collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism)
Mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mutualism)
Anarcho-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism)
Free Market Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism)

The predominant anarchist schools. Only one rejects money.


But the difference is that communists are realistic enough to understand that it is impossible to do away with money in the first years after the revolution .Thus the transitional stage of socialism where money exists for accounting purposes and purposes of determining relative value.Your straw man argument aside, it's not as if anarchists believe we can get rid of the state tomorrow morning. Anarchists believe that people will need to first organize independently before the state can be crushed.


No shit, people where disgusted with capitalism and that is why the revolution happened int he First Place. But the "anarchist" (it was not classless and neither non-hierarchical ) catalonia was short lived and that is due to the mistakes of the anarchists in the first place and their incapability to organize effectively against Franco's armies and also to win the people over from the reformists, Stalinists and trotskyists.Yar. When it's 10 against 1, and your comrades are shooting you in the back, winning sorta' appears more abstract.


So how is it possible to have a non-hierarchical society with money still existing?
If money exists then surplus exists. Then the "transition stage" you speak of is exploitive.

You obviously need more time to study Leftism, because surplus does not correlate to money.


On the contrary I am opposed to anarchism as I see it as an ideology which will fail to overthrow capitalism(as manifested by history)Looks to me that anarchism has been the only successful alternative, if you don't like to spend a few years in the gulags.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Sources?(Please no biased ones)


Did they succeed against Franco or did they lose the Civil War?

Read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. I'm sure it's online for free.

[Malezani]

Looks to me that anarchism has been the only successful alternative, if you don't like to spend a few years in the gulags.

So the failures of anarchism are because of the objective conditions while the failures of the communists due to the ideology?Ha!




Read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. I'm sure it's online for free.

I will after I finish Lenin's State and Revolution.

Now as about the things you said before I am obviously refering to anarchist-communism, the only "legitimate" form of anarchism for me. So I don't know/care about what the mutualists and other various reformist/capitalists think.

[Trystan]

^^ >> http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/index.html

Complete text.

[revolution inaction]

Read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. I'm sure it's online for free.

Yes its here (http://libcom.org/library/homage-to-catalonia-george-orwell)

lots of other stuff about spain during the civl war and about anarchism on libcom.org

[trivas7]

The view that individuals left free from physical force to pursue their own lives will do corrupt and evil things is a view shared both by most lefties and conservatives. That individuals are bad; their view of human nature is not one of love and benevolence, it's one of corrupt human nature, and the need, therefore, for those who are familiar with what the good life and the moral life is, to take upon themselves the power of government in order to force you into their world.

[danyboy27]

i dont believe in anarchism beccause i believe that a well oiled state is necessary to organize and establish decents health, military and civil standards. Even in a communist world i would believe in the principle of state. democratic centralism could work and worked for china beccause they managed to make it work, i think the problem with democratic centralism and central planned economy is that they require highly skilled manager and that every small error could lead to a economic or social disaster. but anyway, anarchism is bad mmkay.

[revolution inaction]

anarchism is bad mmkay.

what an argument! i'm going to give up on anarchism and become a maoist :D

[Bud Struggle]

I think Anarchy would work for the human race--I just think it's going to take a lot of organization and leadership to get us there.:lol:

[danyboy27]

what an argument! i'm going to give up on anarchism and become a maoist :D

that was not an argument, just a little southpark related joke.
but the rest was, an argument.

seriously, to the anarchist i talked to, they told me verry complicated structures of how each cities would be democratic, ow they would work togwether etc etc. but at the end, all thise whole system rely on the goodwill of peoples. Peoples are great, but i dont trust them enough to expect such a thing to happen. could work in verry small city, but big places like new-york? no way!

[Ken]

Why do we allow stupid people to run countries?
http://www.worthalaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/small-bush.jpg

I've probably encountered countless joe averages that are brighter than this^. If by stupid you mean 'lacking knowledge' that isnt the same thing. The reason average people lack knowledge is for the most part, we have an elitist education system that penalises on the basis of social origin.

i doubt you have. do you think he is stupid? average joes dont become president of the U.S.

also, penalises on the basis of social origin? what do you mean? the richer people put their kids into better schools... thats unfair?

when i say stupid i dont mean 'lacking knowledge' or 'didnt come from a 30k a term school... im talking heroin addict stupid, fashion victom stupid.

[Incendiarism]

why wa sthis guy banned

[RGacky3]

i dont believe in anarchism beccause i believe that a well oiled state is necessary to organize and establish decents health, military and civil standards. Even in a communist world i would believe in the principle of state. democratic centralism could work and worked for china beccause they managed to make it work, i think the problem with democratic centralism and central planned economy is that they require highly skilled manager and that every small error could lead to a economic or social disaster. but anyway, anarchism is bad mmkay.


Since when has the state been to force standards, if anything its been the people forcing the standards on the state.



I think Anarchy would work for the human race--I just think it's going to take a lot of organization and leadership to get us there.:lol:


I love how people say anarchists are idealistic, then all the arguments AGAINST anarchism are theoretical, and hypothetical arguments, i.e. abstract, whereas most Anarchist arguments are concrete examples of Anarchism actually working as well as theoretical arguments.

All of those arguments that Anarchism would'nt work because people would take over or it would turn into chaos have been prooved wrong over and over and over again, in history and in reason.

[Plagueround]

Did they succeed against Franco or did they lose the Civil War?

Should we count everyone through history that fell to the backing and/or actions of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy as failures? :rolleyes:

[danyboy27]

Since when has the state been to force standards, if anything its been the people forcing the standards on the state.

people forcing the standard at the state but this is the state that work to make the standard well established.

the state is an important gear in society, no matter how you see it, communist or capitalist, a state is important. to make stuff more egalitarian, you can advocate a world state, 1 big country that would be the world with 1 single governement.

[Plagueround]

why wa sthis guy banned

Because OI OI OI is too fucking stupid to understand IP addresses.

[RGacky3]

people forcing the standard at the state but this is the state that work to make the standard well established.

Thats NEVER been the case, you know how long it took for the US government to actually respect freedom of speach? A long time, a lot of struggle, a lot of court cases, a lot of protests, a lot of arrests and a lot of pressure. You think if the ruling class did'nt have to respect that freedom they would? You bet your ass they would'nt.


the state is an important gear in society, no matter how you see it, communist or capitalist, a state is important. to make stuff more egalitarian, you can advocate a world state, 1 big country that would be the world with 1 single governement.

You think giving a few people power and authority over the rest would make things more egalitarian? The State NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL make an egalitarian society or tolorate it.

In future posts try have have some logic, examples, reasoning, historical reference, or something to backup your statements, otherwise your just blowing hot air.



Did they succeed against Franco or did they lose the Civil War?


If you read about the history, and what they were up against, (communists/republicans backed by the USSR and much of the country, fascists backed up by italy and germany, while they were just pretty much workers and farmers with their union and some guns) you'd be amazed they lasted as long as they did, which is a testiment to how Anarchism is able to defend itself without turning into a hiarchy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'll be honest with you, here: anarchism does not have a good track record as far as sustaining change in the long term, to put it mildly.

However, this is an affliction that obviously plagues not only anarchism, but the whole revolutionary left. I'm sorry, but I must have missed the current "vanguard of the working class" in international politics...where is it, exactly? Where is our shining beacon on the hill, our illustrious worker's state to lead us into a new tomorrow? Because last time I checked, the former USSR is now mired in capitalism that can only be described as grotesque, China is a state capitalist bureaucracy which makes sure that the workers are treated like something less than human excrement, and Marxists everywhere are extremely marginalized.

It sure as hell looks like capitalism won Round 1 to me. Now let's move on, and stop wallowing in our own sectarian bullshit! :cursing:

*Whew* Now I feel much better.

[danyboy27]

Thats NEVER been the case, you know how long it took for the US government to actually respect freedom of speach? A long time, a lot of struggle, a lot of court cases, a lot of protests, a lot of arrests and a lot of pressure. You think if the ruling class did'nt have to respect that freedom they would? You bet your ass they would'nt.


its been the case, has you mentionned above. People put pressure over the state, the state changed their positions. its also the people that pressured the state in various european countries to adopt better health standards in hospital. its the people that forced the governements to accept equal voting for all citizens, women vote. Its not necessarly only about the rulling class, its also beccause of the change of mentality, transgressing old dogma, and dogma is not a matter of political system, its a matter of the evolution of a society.





You think giving a few people power and authority over the rest would make things more egalitarian? The State NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL make an egalitarian society or tolorate it.

wether you like it or not folks that organize stuff are NEEDED and must be used at their best potential for the common good.

anyway, i think its useless to argue with you on that issue since you seem to be an hardcore anarchist, and so far, the only dialogs i have been able to come up after hour of discussion with anarchist where: we gonna hang them all, kill all the capitalist and use them has bayonet training, the state is tyranny, and if its necessary to kill people and to suffers beccause we destroyed the health system/education system, it will worth it.

and it was after hours of discussion!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If people are cunning, nasty pieces of work, doesn't that negate capitalism entirely? I would think a population worthy of such adjectives would tax the wealthy 100%.

[Plagueround]

wether you like it or not folks that organize stuff are NEEDED and must be used at their best potential for the common good.

It isn't that people that organize stuff aren't needed and won't exist. They just won't be placed in positions of such extreme privilege that give them the means to make their voice count more than others. As it stands, here in the US, I, along with millions of others, didn't have a say at all on whether or not I thought any of our policies have been good or bad ideas, we simply had to accept them because our "leaders" had the power to do so without consulting any of us. We have an extremely distorted hierarchical organization controlling things now, but what we seek to destroy is all hierarchy and not all organization, if that makes sense.


anyway, i think its useless to argue with you on that issue since you seem to be an hardcore anarchist, and so far, the only dialogs i have been able to come up after hour of discussion with anarchist where: we gonna hang them all, kill all the capitalist and use them has bayonet training, the state is tyranny, and if its necessary to kill people and to suffers beccause we destroyed the health system/education system, it will worth it.
and it was after hours of discussion!

Were you speaking with class-struggle anarchists or some kids outside a convenience store with misfits t-shirts on? RGacky3 is clearly presenting a more intelligent viewpoint than what you've described and it would be nothing but admittance of defeat to dismiss what he says based on all that.

[RGacky3]

its been the case, has you mentionned above. People put pressure over the state, the state changed their positions. its also the people that pressured the state in various european countries to adopt better health standards in hospital. its the people that forced the governements to accept equal voting for all citizens, women vote. Its not necessarly only about the rulling class, its also beccause of the change of mentality, transgressing old dogma, and dogma is not a matter of political system, its a matter of the evolution of a society.

That does'nt proove that the State is nessesary, or a good thing, all it prooves is that it WILL adjust if a lot of pressure is put on it. That does'nt justify anything, if there was'nt a State to begin with, the people would'nt need to pressure it for freedoms, which should'nt have been restricted (or had anyone with the power to restrict them) in the first place.


wether you like it or not folks that organize stuff are NEEDED and must be used at their best potential for the common good.


People organizing does not equal a State by any means.


we gonna hang them all, kill all the capitalist and use them has bayonet training, the state is tyranny, and if its necessary to kill people and to suffers beccause we destroyed the health system/education system, it will worth it.


I don't want to kill anyone, nor do I support anyone calling for the ddeath of anyone. The health/educational system does not need a State, the community does not equal the state. You don't need a ruling body for a community to provide services to its citizens.

Any Anarchist thats calling for killing Capitalists has simply replaced reason with anger, and obviously not worth discussing with, we are against power structures and exploitative systems, not people.

[Killfacer]

I'll be honest with you, here: anarchism does not have a good track record as far as sustaining change in the long term, to put it mildly.

However, this is an affliction that obviously plagues not only anarchism, but the whole revolutionary left. I'm sorry, but I must have missed the current "vanguard of the working class" in international politics...where is it, exactly? Where is our shining beacon on the hill, our illustrious worker's state to lead us into a new tomorrow? Because last time I checked, the former USSR is now mired in capitalism that can only be described as grotesque, China is a state capitalist bureaucracy which makes sure that the workers are treated like something less than human excrement, and Marxists everywhere are extremely marginalized.

It sure as hell looks like capitalism won Round 1 to me. Now let's move on, and stop wallowing in our own sectarian bullshit! :cursing:

*Whew* Now I feel much better.

Thats not fair, anarchism has clearly not had the opportunity that communism has had to show its a failure.

[Jazzratt]

im talking heroin addict stupid

:laugh: Drug use makes you stupid now?

Well I guess this lot were all a bunch of utter morons:

Aldous Huxley
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Aldous_Huxley.JPG

Author of 'A Brave New Goat', a "My Pet Goat" fanfic and of the collection of essays 'ooh the pretty colours' about reading 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar" through the lens of his mescaline-destroyed mind. Of course, not a great deal was expected from him given the cretinous stock of absolute mouth breathers that spawned him and his brothers Julian (a blithering imbecile in his own right, given a knighthood for unbelievable stupidty) & Andrew (a complete prat who was given a nobel prize by mistake). It included such distinguished twits as Thomas Huxley who was a renowned proponent of Darwin's thourghouly debunked theory of evolution.

Oscar Wilde (opium anyone?)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Oscar_Wilde_3g07095u.jpg/200px-Oscar_Wilde_3g07095u.jpg

"Rumours of my demise have been greatly misunderstimated.", perhaps?
Famous for being possibly the most memorably moronic tramp of the 19th century. Because opium had dulled his senses to the point that he could no longer steal to maintain his habit and his infamous vow of celibacy prevented him from selling his body for it he turned to the only thing someone of his vestigal wit was capable of - writing. So he started making some substandard scrawlings such as "The Person-Picture of Dorian Gray" a story about a man called Dorian Gray posing for portrait (or as Wilde endearingly referred to it a "person-picture") and then owning it. Occaisonally when he was really ripped he'd post on revleft's chit-chat, these comments were gathered into a small book entitled "The Soul of Man Under Socialism" a poignant exploration of opium's destruction of a promising mind. As well as this, of course, he also wrote "poetry" about how much he hated his parents and how he wished the clean drug-free girls/boys would pay attention to him.

Dr. Albert Hoffman
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Albert_Hofmann_Oct_1993.jpg

People often recieve doctorates for acts of extreme stupidity, this man for example was so astoundingly stupid that he synthesised LSD-25 entirely by accident in his meth lab, died at the tragically young age of 102 and worked tirelessly doing "experiments" with hallucinogenic drugs. Why he even signed some tabs of LSD-60 during an outrageous trip and gave it to those ne'er do well cretins at erowid.

Benjamin Franklin
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Benjamin_Franklin_by_Jean-Baptiste_Greuze.jpg

Opium makes you into a drooling idiot, take this loser. When he wasn't writing complete and utter dross under an assumed name because of the horrible and absolutely forgettable content he was pissing about making useless devices like the lightning rod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_rod), the glass harmonica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_harmonica), the Franklin stove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_stove), bifocal glasses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifocals), and the flexible urinary catheter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinary_catheterization). Like a lot of drug users he had some sort of half baked political ideology thing going and would go on to help his weed-smoking stoner mate Thomas "dimebag" Jefferson write a declaration of independence on a load of old rizlas and fag packets. Eventually this idiot was becoming tiring, even to his mates, and was thus sent far away to be ambassador to france.

I could go on, citing other famous morons such as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle a poor writer and even worse logician, Lewis Carrol a cretinous author and mathematician. There are just so many halfwitted polymaths out there, don't you agree?

[RGacky3]

Thats not fair, anarchism has clearly not had the opportunity that communism has had to show its a failure.

Well Capitalism has had plently of time to show itself to be a complete failure, and its done that extensively.

[Killfacer]

Well Capitalism has had plently of time to show itself to be a complete failure, and its done that extensively.

Ok thanks for that.

[danyboy27]

tanks for those precisions wacky.

okay, lets erease the word state for a moment, lets call it organitional structure.

i support the concept of state beccause of the organisational structure, the fact it can be verry functionnal and deliver to the people things that are badly needed to make people live well and progress.

that not beccause a lot of state actually fucked up that the concept itself is all bad.

you can hate the principle of a head of state, a president, minister, all that, i am not a fan of those peoples neither. i advocate better equality between the bureaucracy and the people, but that bureaucracy is badly needed to deliver crucial service to the population and we need them. having a state or multiples states in a communist world would be necessary beccause people are not strugguling with the same issues everywhere, and its a lot less complicated to help another state than dirrectly help the peoples, beccause the state is used to his own people and know how to help them, would know what to ask to other communists countries to prosper.

in those exemple, not that i dont take current capitalist or dictatorship regime has exemples of state but democratical communist states that would work together.

[RGacky3]

i support the concept of state beccause of the organisational structure, the fact it can be verry functionnal and deliver to the people things that are badly needed to make people live well and progress.


How can those things not be delivered by the people themselves?


i advocate better equality between the bureaucracy and the people, but that bureaucracy is badly needed to deliver crucial service to the population and we need them.

Impossible, as long as the bureaucracy can make and enforce laws you cannot have better equality, also in terms of power you can't have 'better' equality, either you have equality or you dont.

Also what are these curcial services that only the state can deliver and communities cannot?


having a state or multiples states in a communist world would be necessary beccause people are not strugguling with the same issues everywhere, and its a lot less complicated to help another state than dirrectly help the peoples

Is'nt that an argument against the state? The State makes universal desicions and laws, even though people are not struggling with the same issues, is'nt it more efficient to let the people collectivly deal with their own issues.

Also your forgetting one main thing, even IF the State is more efficiant and dealing with peoples struggles (which its not) than communities themselves, there will always be abuse of power (which is kind of a double statement, to have power is abusive in itself), no matter what, you can't stop it.

Historically the State has ALWAYS been a power structure to protect the ruling class, thinking we can transform it into a good institution is fantasy, when you take away the ruling class the State becomes the ruling class, and we all know how that turns out (USSR).

[danyboy27]

How can those things not be delivered by the people themselves?
.

i think you overestimate peoples. Do you really trust peoples that much?
those services cannot be delivered by the people efficiently beccause the people without some kind of rigid frame cannot efficiently regulate those thing at a bigger scale. i mean, self sufficent town could exist but the cities are what making things moving these days, and i doubt you can make 3 millions peoples stuck together working without a power structure to manage it. what isd your big solution? disband the cities?




-universal health standard
-food quality standard and regulations
-water sanitation services
-research and developement
-universal education standards
-road and railway maintenance and security standards
-disaster relief and emergency services
-security against an exterior treat
-regulations of medical and professional practices

the so called communities you are talking about can sure be autonomous and all that stuff (if small), but i would be curious what would be the life expectancy of the avearge male or female in the region. even if you hate it, you need standards, and the only entity that can efficiently impose standards is the state. at least with a state you know what to expect from a dentist/hospital/carpenter/water supply. sure they dont always do the job properly, but imagine, if the state fail now and then, how a decentralized structures with no standards will make it?




[quote=RGacky3;1266945]
Is'nt that an argument against the state? The State makes universal desicions and laws, even though people are not struggling with the same issues, is'nt it more efficient to let the people collectivly deal with their own issues.


then again, you trust peoples too much, if you ask the people what they want and what they dont want, its fine, democratic, and i love the idea, but you will always need someone to cut the decision in case of problems and the state often do the dirty job that the people dont want to do. what to do if only 30% agree of something like sex eguality? you gonna let it go? kill the other side? jail them? you cant expect peoples to be all agree on a decision all times, and you cant wait that everybody will all agree about something like water purification standards! what the state will do, ask to scientists that studied durring years in chemisrty what is the needed purifucation standard, and they will do. There is a shitload of things that are stable around you just beccause the state regulate it. look at haiti, the governement didnt regulated lumber cut, and beccause of that they got all sort of problems like landslides beccause the people cutted all tree at the bad places. In the us and canada, the state actually imposed regulation in order to avoid that thing to happen, but there was no election about this shit for sure, and i dont want them to ask me why and how something like that should be done, just fucking do it, avoid landslide, that it.

[Ken]

stuff

what the hell are you saying, that everyone should try heroin?

some famous people took heroin so that makes it great?

[Jazzratt]

what the hell are you saying, that everyone should try heroin?

some famous people took heroin so that makes it great?

The point just whizzed pas your head didn't it? What I am saying, dumbfuck, is that making statements about someone's intelligence based only on the drugs they've taken is fucking stupid. Especially since your post seemed to imply that george bush was smarter than a drug user (I guess the mountains of colombian flake that he hoovered up his schnozz don't count), which is patently untrue.

[Killfacer]

what the hell are you saying, that everyone should try heroin?

some famous people took heroin so that makes it great?

What are you? An idiot?

[RGacky3]

i think you overestimate peoples. Do you really trust peoples that much?


I trust people to take care of themselves than I do some boss or leader to take care of them. I think you overestimate people too much to trust them with authority over other people.


those services cannot be delivered by the people efficiently beccause the people without some kind of rigid frame cannot efficiently regulate those thing at a bigger scale. i mean, self sufficent town could exist but the cities are what making things moving these days, and i doubt you can make 3 millions peoples stuck together working without a power structure to manage it. what isd your big solution? disband the cities?


You don't need a chain of command to authority to make a city function, obviously you'll have people who are entrusted with responsibilities (like civil engineers or the such), but thats different than having a state. Those people don't have authority, they have a job in society, a function, and if they abuse any of that they can be stripped of that by the people at any time.

Actually for the most part States and Chains of command, and Bosses get in the way of efficiancy. Let me point to how Anarchist Catolina was run, without hte State, collectively, people had different responsibilities, but it was all done without a power structure. Barcelona is quite a big city.


-universal health standard
-food quality standard and regulations
-water sanitation services
-research and developement
-universal education standards
-road and railway maintenance and security standards
-disaster relief and emergency services
-security against an exterior treat
-regulations of medical and professional practices

All of those things can be taken care of experts in that area with public approval, you don't need a State for any of those things.


you need standards, and the only entity that can efficiently impose standards is the state. at least with a state you know what to expect from a dentist/hospital/carpenter/water supply. sure they dont always do the job properly, but imagine, if the state fail now and then, how a decentralized structures with no standards will make it?


Experts can suggest those standards and put them in place with public sanction, again, I'm not against giving people who are experts in certain fields responsibility, I'm against giving them authority. That does'nt mean there won't be rules, but it does mean that peoples responsibilities or authority will be completely subject to public sanction, meaning they can be stripped of them at any time, and can never say "well I'm the boss or leader." Because as soon as that happens your giving someone power, and power, will ALWAYS, by its very nature, be corrupted.


then again, you trust peoples too much, if you ask the people what they want and what they dont want, its fine, democratic, and i love the idea, but you will always need someone to cut the decision in case of problems and the state often do the dirty job that the people dont want to do. what to do if only 30% agree of something like sex eguality? you gonna let it go? kill the other side? jail them?

Thats not anarchism, thats total direct democracy, Anarchism, no one can infringe on someone elses personal rights.


you cant expect peoples to be all agree on a decision all times, and you cant wait that everybody will all agree about something like water purification standards! what the state will do, ask to scientists that studied durring years in chemisrty what is the needed purifucation standard, and they will do. There is a shitload of things that are stable around you just beccause the state regulate it

They don't NEED to all agree on it, the people responsible for the water will be responsible for that, and they will most likely be scientists that studied years in chemistry.


look at haiti, the governement didnt regulated lumber cut, and beccause of that they got all sort of problems like landslides beccause the people cutted all tree at the bad places.

Difference is those people chooping up the forests are most likely doing so for profit motive. In an Anarchist society, with no profit motive, work would only be done to benefit the community, because there with out property laws, thered be no point in chopping up a bunch of trees unless the community needed it.

Again, look at the alternative, first of all your assuming that the government would do things on behalf of the people anyway, just out of niceness, THATS NEVER THE CASE, its out of public pressure, so wh not avoid that all together, let the people run it themselves, let the experts run their fields for the people and not the government, the government is'nt around to coordinate the poeple, and society, its around to protect the ruling class and flex its muscles.

[danyboy27]

I trust people to take care of themselves than I do some boss or leader to take care of them. I think you overestimate people too much to trust them with authority over other people.


That good you trust people that much, i dont, and i dont fully trust the system either, but i do think that a system that is well made can do the job 80% of the time. i think a community can take care itself, but i dont believe it enought to believe that it would work nicely 80% of the time.




You don't need a chain of command to authority to make a city function, obviously you'll have people who are entrusted with responsibilities (like civil engineers or the such), but thats different than having a state. Those people don't have authority, they have a job in society, a function, and if they abuse any of that they can be stripped of that by the people at any time.

seriously, what you tell me you want to avoid (bureaucrat, boss, peoples with superior authority) will florish in all their glory in that kind of world.
the system (state) have the big advantage of not being a man, but a coherent structure that gonna track down every error they can find (when well oiled). what you are telling about standard imposed by the peoples mean that the people will be the verificators and standards will be regulated by peoples who will do just that, wich mean they are gonna be in a certain position of authority, wich mean that at this stage NOTHING would stop those men to abuse of his power to blackmail epople who dont respect the standards in exchange of favors of stuff like that.

you cant efficiently implent standards or efficients rules in a system like that! COMMON MAN!

[RGacky3]

That good you trust people that much,

THE STATE IS MADE UP OF PEOPLE, that are generally of les moral caliber than regular people.


but i do think that a system that is well made can do the job 80% of the time. i think a community can take care itself, but i dont believe it enought to believe that it would work nicely 80% of the time.


Yes, but you will also end up with some sort of tyranny, 80% of the time. Be it Capitalist or Socialist.


seriously, what you tell me you want to avoid (bureaucrat, boss, peoples with superior authority) will florish in all their glory in that kind of world.


I never said give them authority, they like everyone else, will have a job to do, that job may be setting up safty standards, or whatever, BUT its just a job with no innate authority.


the system (state) have the big advantage of not being a man, but a coherent structure that gonna track down every error they can find (when well oiled).

The system, the state, is a framework for men to wield power over other men, its made up of men, its not some entity, its a system to wield power, ultimately its a tool of men.


wich mean they are gonna be in a certain position of authority, wich mean that at this stage NOTHING would stop those men to abuse of his power to blackmail epople who dont respect the standards in exchange of favors of stuff like that.

They have no authority other than that which is regulated to them by the people, which like I said, can be taken away at any time. Its impossible to bribe a man who has no authority in themselves.

In a State, certain people have innate authority, because they rule over the state, that authority is innate, meaning its REAL power, to make laws people must follow, whether or not those people allowed this man to make those rules or not.


you cant efficiently implent standards or efficients rules in a system like that! COMMON MAN!

First of all, I do'nt know what you mean by "COMMON MAN," but I'm supposing your tyring to insult me, if thats the case kiss my ass douche bag.

Second, Yes you can and its been done, Zapatista territories have many standarts, some quite stringant, such as no drugs, alcohol, and lumber regulations, as well as others, which are kept without a state or central authority, they are kept by common agreement, and community enforcement.

Also Anarchist Spain ran their society without a State, ran public transportation, health services, and so on.

Maybe 10% of the State is about public standards and social services, the rest is as I said, protecting the ruling class and furthering its nationalistic and corporatistic interests. If your willing to live with that 90% so that the 10% might (and a big might) be more efficiant, then so be it, but I think thats rediculous.

[danyboy27]

THE STATE IS MADE UP OF PEOPLE, that are generally of les moral caliber than regular people.

care to backup that? i mean, to calculate that generally most of the people that are part of the state are from less moral caliber than the regular peoples?





Yes, but you will also end up with some sort of tyranny, 80% of the time. Be it Capitalist or Socialist.

what do you exactly mean by tyranny? if your definition of tyranny is hitler or stalin and franco, well, tyranic regimes are far less today than what they used to be.




I never said give them authority, they like everyone else, will have a job to do, that job may be setting up safty standards, or whatever, BUT its just a job with no innate authority.


if there is no verificator or people to establish standards, nothing will ever avoid someone to do a botched job and kill thousand of people with contaminated water, and it will be much harder to track down the sources of those death if there is no watchdogs. its basicly let the lives of millions peoples in the hand of a fews professionnals that we should trust beccause they are part of the people. Scary.






The system, the state, is a framework for men to wield power over other men, its made up of men, its not some entity, its a system to wield power, ultimately its a tool of men.

i see the state has an organizational body that have the mains function of assuring to its citizen a certain standard of life, to protect its citizen and assuring to them good services and a certain decisional power over how things shoudl be done. we are often far frobn that definition in reality, but that how i see a good state.

then again, if i love apple and that you hate apple, we will describe it verry differently.




They have no authority other than that which is regulated to them by the people, which like I said, can be taken away at any time. Its impossible to bribe a man who has no authority in themselves.

a man that know thing other ignore have authority, he have for exemple the duty to tell to the people that water sanitation standard havnt been respected, but if he is corrupted he can use his information for personnal goal, and beccause there is no consistent frame to avoid him to make crap, he could cause severe damage to the people.

[danyboy27]

In a State, certain people have innate authority, because they rule over the state, that authority is innate, meaning its REAL power, to make laws people must follow, whether or not those people allowed this man to make those rules or not.


nobody have innate authority in a state, all the authority people have in a state is given by the people who elect it, in the case of a democratic state.
laws are decided by elected people who are chosen by the peoples.




First of all, I do'nt know what you mean by "COMMON MAN," but I'm supposing your tyring to insult me, if thats the case kiss my ass douche bag.

i was trying to make some humor but you dont have any sense of humor, so suck my balls assole.



Second, Yes you can and its been done, Zapatista territories have many standarts, some quite stringant, such as no drugs, alcohol, and lumber regulations, as well as others, which are kept without a state or central authority, they are kept by common agreement, and community enforcement.

what they are doing confirm what i believe: small group of people can live in those kind of community systems, and seriously, i am not surprised they are applying those standards with armed groups everywhere, i am pretty sure if you disobey you got a bullet in the head. those armed folks rules over the people, they rule liberally, but they rule them, like a state scare people shitless of doing bad things.
i seriously prefers the state option than having armed milita shooting me on sight if i disobey to one of their golden rules, at least i will have a fair judgement.





Also Anarchist Spain ran their society without a State, ran public transportation, health services, and so on.

using complicated up to date equipements requiring hours of complicated maintenances?







Maybe 10% of the State is about public standards and social services, the rest is as I said, protecting the ruling class and furthering its nationalistic and corporatistic interests. If your willing to live with that 90% so that the 10% might (and a big might) be more efficiant, then so be it, but I think thats rediculous.
10% where did you get that?
lets see...
-police service
-fireman
-justice system
-hospitals
-schools
-street and town cleaning
-employement and job integration institutions
-application and gestion of environnement
-natural ressources
-disaster relief

i dont see anything here that is there to especially defend the interest of the bourgeois.
what i see there is thing ALL citizens benefit or at least should.
ladt time i remembered i had all those services at my disposal and i am fucking poor.

[Dejavu]

Heheh. People are bad, so let's give them power over millions of others. :laugh:

I second that !

[RGacky3]

care to backup that? i mean, to calculate that generally most of the people that are part of the state are from less moral caliber than the regular peoples?

Well the first part, the state is made up of people is just common sense, its not made up of monkeys, the second part, is because people who want power, want to be part of the state, people who desire that type of authority over people I consider to be of less moral caliber, and should'nt be entrusted with that authority, no one should.


what do you exactly mean by tyranny? if your definition of tyranny is hitler or stalin and franco, well, tyranic regimes are far less today than what they used to be.

What I mean by tyranny is a power structure that exploits its own people for its own gain, the oppresses people to stay in power, and tries to wield as much power as it can.


if there is no verificator or people to establish standards, nothing will ever avoid someone to do a botched job and kill thousand of people with contaminated water, and it will be much harder to track down the sources of those death if there is no watchdogs. its basicly let the lives of millions peoples in the hand of a fews professionnals that we should trust beccause they are part of the people. Scary.

The same thing can happen with the state, only difference is more layers of power, and more incentive for people to abuse power. Right now people can do a botched job, right now its in teh hands of a few professionnals. Only difference is they answer to the state, not the people.


i see the state has an organizational body that have the mains function of assuring to its citizen a certain standard of life, to protect its citizen and assuring to them good services and a certain decisional power over how things shoudl be done. we are often far frobn that definition in reality, but that how i see a good state.

Well good luck making it into a 'good' state', its not going to happen, you can't give people power and expect to only use it for good, and not selfishly, its not gonna happen.

I look at the way States are in the real world, not what they are supposed to be theoretically. Because theoretically everyone in North Korea has freedom of speach.


a man that know thing other ignore have authority, he have for exemple the duty to tell to the people that water sanitation standard havnt been respected, but if he is corrupted he can use his information for personnal goal, and beccause there is no consistent frame to avoid him to make crap, he could cause severe damage to the people.

First of all, what personall goal could he have in an Anarchist society? What could he accomplish. With a State there is a higher authority that could grant him stuff, without one the higher authority are the same ones he's sanitizing th water for, the community. There is a consistant frame, its Anarchist organization, community organization. A whole community is way harder to corrupt or bribe than a couple politicians.


nobody have innate authority in a state, all the authority people have in a state is given by the people who elect it, in the case of a democratic state.
laws are decided by elected people who are chosen by the peoples.


Yes they do, that is why a person elected can make desisions that are unpopular, they can abuse power, they can create controls to make sure the next guy in charge is your friend, what a State does is ultimately gives the people options between a couple guys to be their ruler. The State can make laws, and force people to obay them, whether or not the people agree with them or the laws are nessesary. Not only that you have a Socialist State the state, and the people in it, become the ruling class.


i was trying to make some humor but you dont have any sense of humor, so suck my balls assole.


Either your joke of "common man" was so intelligent and so funny I did'nt get it because it was such a sophisticated joke only super intelligent people can get it.

Or you suck at telling jokes, and your not funny.

I think its the latter.


what they are doing confirm what i believe: small group of people can live in those kind of community systems, and seriously, i am not surprised they are applying those standards with armed groups everywhere, i am pretty sure if you disobey you got a bullet in the head. those armed folks rules over the people, they rule liberally, but they rule them, like a state scare people shitless of doing bad things.
i seriously prefers the state option than having armed milita shooting me on sight if i disobey to one of their golden rules, at least i will have a fair judgement.

Well I"m not going to explain it, but before you make assumptions, why not read a little about the Zapatistas before you comment, because your 100% wrong, do some reading about the Zapatistas territories and how they do things then come back.


using complicated up to date equipements requiring hours of complicated maintenances?


Read about anarchist spain then come back, in fact anarchist spain, with all the pressure put on it, ran more efficiently than State run spain.


10% where did you get that?
lets see...
-police service
-fireman
-justice system
-hospitals
-schools
-street and town cleaning
-employement and job integration institutions
-application and gestion of environnement
-natural ressources
-disaster relief

i dont see anything here that is there to especially defend the interest of the bourgeois.
what i see there is thing ALL citizens benefit or at least should.
ladt time i remembered i had all those services at my disposal and i am fucking poor.

Just look at your average state budget and legal system, most of the laws are about property, most of the money goes to the military, corporate subsidies, and the such.

[danyboy27]

ho well, fuck that, i give up.

not that i dont have something to say about it but i am getting tired that we cant agree on something. i think what we are doing right now serve no good at all, we dont develop anything but argues against eachother principle and at the end we do nothing good.

seriously, i dont think anarchism could work on a large scale but i have to admit that on small territories with a small population it can somehow, work.

what i hate with your vision of anarchism is that you think its gonna be all rosy, with flowers, butterfly and kitten, that its gonna fix anything etc.

i got a serious problem with that but i have to admit its biaised somehow beccause i dont trust the man, i think i can imagine how someone that trust peoples could see that system has perfect.

my bad if you dont understand my humor wacky, but to explain you my point: imagine someone talking to you and giving you a tap on your shoulder and telling you come on man!
i have to admit lacked of good context.

[RGacky3]

Ahhhh, I get it, come on man, common man, all right that was funny, my bad.

I never said it was going to be rosy, but it would be better than concentrating power. You don't trust men, me niether, which is why I don't want to give them power.

The difference is that you think that the State controls the leaders, its the other way around.

[danyboy27]

and besiode wacky you pretty much agree with my opinuion concerning soldiers, and just for that, i like you now.