Someone please inform me about anarchism. - explain it to me [Archive]

Unrelenting Steve

13th June 2003, 19:15

We have so many criminals, how will an anarchist sociaty deal with them? and if you organise against them just because its in the best interests of collective families, then you might aswell form a goverment and institutions while your at it, before all the people who would rather steal than work for what they want make little gangs and decide to take it from you. Of course you could just have a unrealistic tremdous faith in poeple and hope that they wouldnt do revert to thievary because in this new world it wouldnt be like the old one and so people wouldnt do bad things blah blah blah, the truth is people wont change, but put them in the prettiest box you can find and you'll do them a favour. That is my view, as cinical as it is. And I believe communism is that box!

Unless of course you think people should do whatever they want and I want to live in a place where its kill or be killed! why not? it works for the animals.- I however am not that cynical

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 6:23 pm on June 13, 2003)

Som

13th June 2003, 23:55

We have so many criminals, how will an anarchist sociaty deal with them?

Ever consider the causes of crime?
Generally their roots are capitalism and the state.

People commit property crimes like theft because of the existence of the notion of property, drugs being illegal for instance causes an underground murderous capitalism that wouldn't exist in anarchism.

Theres a lot more to it, but the jist of it is that Anarchism would create a society thats just not very conducive to crime, as in, it eliminates most of the causes of crime, and whats left can be left to communities, councils, assemblys, or just left alone, so long as theres not a clear and present danger.

I dont remember where i heard this but someone else said it best with something like
Anarchism will get rid of most crime, and whose left, we might as well let them do what they may, as least then we can see them for what they really are, instead of using formalities like 'senator' 'boss' and 'officer'.

Heres a piece from the anarchist faq about it, as always a better description than i can give:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci58

if you organise against them just because its in the best interests of collective families, then you might aswell form a goverment and institutions while your at it,

Just because you'd rather be told what to do, doesn't mean its a government. Its wrongly simplistic to associate government and organization.

Of course you could just have a unrealistic tremdous faith in poeple and hope that they wouldnt do revert to thievary because in this new world it wouldnt be like the old one and so people wouldnt do bad things blah blah blah, the truth is people wont change, but put them in the prettiest box you can find and you'll do them a favour. That is my view, as cinical as it is. And I believe communism is that box!

Ah, and this is when I really start to hate these threads, I don't know why the hell i even bother to keep repeating myself.

Going on these mini rants, you might as well just say what you mean, you think that people are a bunch of fucking savages and can't rule themselves, you pull the same crap rhetoric as fascists.
Now tell me, if people are so bad, whats your insistence on giving so few people power?

and theivery? you seem to focus way to much on that theft in a society without property.

Unless of course you think people should do whatever they want and I want to live in a place where its kill or be killed! why not? it works for the animals.- I however am not that cynical

Kill or be killed wouldn't be very anarchist would it? Considering being killed is an act of authority, the very thing anarchism seeks to abolish.

Read the anarchist FAQ blibblob posted, it'll save us all alot of trouble.

synthesis

14th June 2003, 00:00

Wasn't Proudhon in favor of capitalism on an extremely small scale? Like, free enterprise on a local, self-sufficient level?

Wouldn't that inherently lead to class differences?

Som

14th June 2003, 02:35

Wasn't Proudhon in favor of capitalism on an extremely small scale? Like, free enterprise on a local, self-sufficient level?

Wouldn't that inherently lead to class differences?

Proudhoun wasn't a capitalist but its easy to make that mistake, since he still believe in markets and competition.

Proudhouns economic system is called Mutualism. Its a form of market socialism. Basically a system of 'banks of the people' and free credit would be able to create a sort of perfect competition. In this system since no one has any inherent advantage, it'll be able to bring a relative degree of equality.

Proudhoun also made the difference between property and possession. 'Property' would simply be a matter of occupation and use. Personal possession is essentially the fruits of your labor, generally put forward in labor notes by these banks of the people.

Since theres no property still all groups of people working together would be collective and democratic instead of authoritarian.

Well thats the theory behind it anyway, im not really much of a fan, except for it maybe as a sort of a subeconomy, to pick up where collectivism and communism miss.

(Edited by Som at 2:37 am on June 14, 2003)

Blibblob

14th June 2003, 02:46

and bliblob why would it require education to get there I dont think you need education to achieve anarchism.
Without education before anarchy people would think that they could do whatever they wanted. Such as murder, and other cruel acts. The education would be mostly moral, to say that this is somebody like you, you want to kill or maim, do it to yourself. After that people will take over.

And Som answered this thread 100 times better than I did.

And to end with a quote: "Property is theft"- Proudhon(how could a guy who says that be somewhat of a capitalist?)

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 10:53

Quote: from Som on 10:55 pm on June 13, 2003
We have so many criminals, how will an anarchist sociaty deal with them?

Ever consider the causes of crime?
Generally their roots are capitalism and the state.

People commit property crimes like theft because of the existence of the notion of property, drugs being illegal for instance causes an underground murderous capitalism that wouldn't exist in anarchism.

Theres a lot more to it, but the jist of it is that Anarchism would create a society thats just not very conducive to crime, as in, it eliminates most of the causes of crime, and whats left can be left to communities, councils, assemblys, or just left alone, so long as theres not a clear and present danger.

I dont remember where i heard this but someone else said it best with something like
Anarchism will get rid of most crime, and whose left, we might as well let them do what they may, as least then we can see them for what they really are, instead of using formalities like 'senator' 'boss' and 'officer'.

Heres a piece from the anarchist faq about it, as always a better description than i can give:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci58

if you organise against them just because its in the best interests of collective families, then you might aswell form a goverment and institutions while your at it,

Just because you'd rather be told what to do, doesn't mean its a government. Its wrongly simplistic to associate government and organization.

Of course you could just have a unrealistic tremdous faith in poeple and hope that they wouldnt do revert to thievary because in this new world it wouldnt be like the old one and so people wouldnt do bad things blah blah blah, the truth is people wont change, but put them in the prettiest box you can find and you'll do them a favour. That is my view, as cinical as it is. And I believe communism is that box!

Ah, and this is when I really start to hate these threads, I don't know why the hell i even bother to keep repeating myself.

Going on these mini rants, you might as well just say what you mean, you think that people are a bunch of fucking savages and can't rule themselves, you pull the same crap rhetoric as fascists.
Now tell me, if people are so bad, whats your insistence on giving so few people power?

and theivery? you seem to focus way to much on that theft in a society without property.

Unless of course you think people should do whatever they want and I want to live in a place where its kill or be killed! why not? it works for the animals.- I however am not that cynical

Kill or be killed wouldn't be very anarchist would it? Considering being killed is an act of authority, the very thing anarchism seeks to abolish.

Read the anarchist FAQ blibblob posted, it'll save us all alot of trouble.

Just because people wont have anything doesnt mean they wont have things that they need taken, Like food and a dwelling, well if you dont own those, then you cant really call it stealing can you. So what would happen then? And that would totaly abbolish law, which is a good things in my mind, for then people that are accused of crimes might more times in an Anarchist sociaty just be hung, of course this would lead to a drop in wrong doing as punishment is more rolled out (like in CHina) buts its just not very just is it. Thats why we need institutions like the law, to protect poeple from themselves.

Blibblob

14th June 2003, 12:32

Just because people wont have anything doesnt mean they wont have things that they need taken, Like food and a dwelling, well if you dont own those, then you cant really call it stealing can you. So what would happen then? And that would totaly abbolish law, which is a good things in my mind, for then people that are accused of crimes might more times in an Anarchist sociaty just be hung, of course this would lead to a drop in wrong doing as punishment is more rolled out (like in CHina) buts its just not very just is it. Thats why we need institutions like the law, to protect poeple from themselves.

The law is not what creates morals or protects them. The law is in place to define what is right and wrong. It is a useless structure. Morals are already there.

If you have needs that can be taken, no one would take it, they have the same. Now people say that others are greedy, and would take to have more necessities than they need, why? It would just make them fat and make people look down on them in society. Oh, and they all have food and a dwelling. Point of communism, sir.

Hanging them would be quite wrong.

You didn't reed that section of the Anarchist FAQ, did you?

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 13:06

I am still reading those links, they are very good thank you.

But in an anarchist sociaty, who would provide a dwelling for everyone, when some people have 13 kids ect. And there will always be ambitious people who would rather take what others have farmed. poeple just arent that nice! the whole anarchism thing needs people to be educated, and act for the best interests of everyone, but people will never be that enlightened on a mass scale. For example, over population will be a problem, and in China they have the 1 child law thing, Anarchism cant deal with that, other than to say poeple will know that over population will be a problem and then act responsibly and accordingly. Then I make sure I only get my wife pregnant once, and then my neigbour is very horny and has sex and is often in too much of a rush to use any preventitive measure, he has three children, now I have had to suffer only having one child just because my neigbour couldnt be responsible enough, its not fair, im going to have three children as well.-------------How can this be overcome without an institution keeping everyone in check equally.

-and dont tell me peer pressure will stop them, isnt that just a synonym for institution anyway.

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 12:18 pm on June 14, 2003)

Blibblob

14th June 2003, 13:18

13 kids... thats a bad number, one will have to be killed, or they need another :biggrin:

WHY would those "ambitious" people take what others have? They have it too, also, if it is food, they get FAT, if it is other things, they will be looked down upon.

Of course people need to be educated. That's what I said a while ago, education needs to come first.

Those people who have two more kids to catch up with their neighbors definately have a mental disorder.... why would anyone want three kids? It's not like they'll get anything out of it, other than a headache.

People tend to police themselves rather well, and others police others. You don't need a cop beating the shit out of somebody to get them to obey. Why must they obey anyways? People always act in their own intrest, and it would be in their own intrest not to fuck up in an anarchist state. There aren't any cops to keep the people off of them.

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 13:27

So its basicly a democratic facism, the majority of poeple go around fucking up whoever is srewing up there little order by their irresponisble actions. Sounds worse than what weve got now, would rather have law, this sounds like it will breed group identity that people will get trapped in, and now you have replaced the enemy of freedom; institution, with people who have the freedom to go beat the crap out of you if they dont like you. Yes that is an extremely free sociaty, unless your the one braking the "rules" (I thought anarchism didnt have ne rules, but what are rules if not being punishinshed for not doing something you should have conformed to) -looks like anarchism throught having the most liberty, just deals up no liberty, to weak minorities who think they should have as many kids as they want (sorry for the kid thing, i couldnt think up a better example)

therefore I decrare
Anarchism is an oxymoron

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 12:32 pm on June 14, 2003)

Blibblob

14th June 2003, 14:59

WHAT?! You blew everything completely out of proportion. People don't walk around "beat[ing] the crap out of you if they don't like you". If you commit a moral(we are dealing with morals, not exactly laws and rules) crime the people of that society ARE going to deal with you. Whether that be social isolation or having a severe punishment depends on what you did. Social isolation because the average person strives to be apart of the community, to fit in. Of course if you kill somebody, it will be harsher than just social isolation.

Ok, there is a diffrence then being punished for fucking people up and just "not conforming". Not conforming, you can be the damn hermit on the hill if you want to, but if you start screwing around with others that is wrong, and there must be some form of punishment.

Ok, back to the rules. Anarchy has no set "rules" but people have morals. Like I've been trying to say, if you fuck with somebody, they will fuck with you back(that works so many ways :biggrin:). There are no police to overstep their powers. No judicial system to convict innocents and let off those guilty of murder. No government to intervene and expunge those who fucked up because it is in their best intrest for the next election.

Anarchy gives out as much liberty as possible. But remember your rights ALWAYS end where somebody else's start. You cannot have total freedom, that would be chaos.

Back to the kids. Having kids depends on what you do. A farmer is going to have three or more kids to help him on the farm, but an artist will have only one or two because he doesn't need as much manual labour help. You can have as many kids as you want, but remember, if they intrude on others rights, you shouldn't have them.

Don't go declaring anything without the complete picture, or I will declare you a dumbass.

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 16:26

If you commit a moral(we are dealing with morals, not exactly laws and rules) crime the people of that society ARE going to deal with you
-But who will make sure that its fair. Without things like law that make sure there is a proper amout of proof brought foward, its really going to go to the point where; we all know he did it, so lets get to handing out the punishment.

aaah, I have just thought of a good point-Anarchy gives out as much liberty as possible. But remember your rights ALWAYS end where somebody else's start. You cannot have total freedom, that would be chaos.
- This is very good definition of how people should be limited, but the thing is it is all about interpretaion, this could be interpreted 100 differant ways by a 100 differant people, are you standing on my foot or is my foot standing on yours. Are you blocking my view of the ocean or am I trying to impede on your freedom of movement (postition in this instance). This is something that has to be laid down for all to see, in a document held up by an institiution or it will be chaos.

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 3:35 pm on June 14, 2003)

Blibblob

14th June 2003, 17:04

But who will make sure that its fair. Without things like law that make sure there is a proper amout of proof brought foward, its really going to go to the point where; we all know he did it, so lets get to handing out the punishment.
You decide if it is fair. If you impose a harsh punishment on somebody for something not that bad, they can get back at you when you do something wrong. Exactly the point on "we all know he did it, so lets get to handing out the punishment". It is a small community, everybody knows everybody else. They'd know the person's personality, and where they were, they could find out who did it. Real laws are just an echo of a human's morality. But most laws are just in place for the betterment of a few.

This is very good definition of how people should be limited, but the thing is it is all about interpretaion, this could be interpreted 100 differant ways by a 100 differant people, are you standing on my foot or is my foot standing on yours. Are you blocking my view of the ocean or am I trying to impede on your freedom of movement (postition in this instance). This is something that has to be laid down for all to see, in a document held up by an institiution or it will be chaos.
If a person is purposely blocking your view, then they are impeding on your freedom of movement to see. If they are just there accidentally, you can move, or they can move. If you were there first, and you ask them to move, then they should move, and if they don't they need to be delt with. How they are delt with depends on what you can do. If somebody pushes you to the point of a fight, you fight, cops will just arrest you for trying to deal with somebody messing with you. They are unnecessary. What is chaotic is a police state.

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 17:21

If a person is purposely blocking your view, then they are impeding on your freedom of movement to see. If they are just there accidentally, you can move, or they can move. If you were there first, and you ask them to move, then they should move, and if they don't they need to be delt with- this is all your opinion on how it this sought of situation should be delt with, others might disagree, so my argument still stands, what your saying only works if you can supplement everyone elses opinion for your own, which is basicly what law does.

How they are delt with depends on what you can do. If somebody pushes you to the point of a fight, you fight, cops will just arrest you for trying to deal with somebody messing with you. They are unnecessary. What is chaotic is a police state.- what if you dont have the power to make him, your too week, I would shure like the law to call some buff sherifs to impose what is right.

Som

14th June 2003, 17:26

Just a few months ago, a government went in and killed likely a lot more then 6,000 innocent people, plus several thousand more acting as pawns of the governments squabble, to topple another government that had killed many thousands more.

All this and your whining about about a few vandals? Why the fuck would you give these 'ambitious' shitheads police uniforms, armys, tanks and bombs?

But in an anarchist sociaty, who would provide a dwelling for everyone, when some people have 13 kids ect. And there will always be ambitious people who would rather take what others have farmed. poeple just arent that nice!

An anarchist SOCIETY would 'provide' the dwellings. You act as though its an unorganized mob, that somehow people can only work together with a gun to the back of their head, what sort of socialist are you if you think that?

the whole anarchism thing needs people to be educated, and act for the best interests of everyone, but people will never be that enlightened on a mass scale.

Is something like 10 million people a mass scale enough for you? Because histories seen that happen. Hell, 10 million is an incredibly conservative number for those involved, im just trying not to overshoot I guess.

The citizens of Barcelona and Catalonia didn't need to have read kropotkin or bakunin to understand anarchism, When the fascists tried take power, they simply took the power themselves, councils, commitees, syndicates, unions, federations, all coming forth in place of the spanish state.

-But who will make sure that its fair. Without things like law that make sure there is a proper amout of proof brought foward, its really going to go to the point where; we all know he did it, so lets get to handing out the punishment.

and where do your laws come in when the criminal is the state? It takes more states doesn't it?
The worst acts of humanity have not been committed by roving individuals hell bent on destruction for the sake of it, the worst acts of humanity have been committed by STATES. Even you're pretty little 'western democracies' are institutions of keeping the criminals in power.

People dont NEED little pieces of paper backed by guns to settle minor disputes. The concept of freedom is freedom from authority. Your rights end where mine begin. This is simple, and groups of people do not need to have petty little institutions to favor those already in power, in order to settle disputes.

(Edited by Som at 5:29 pm on June 14, 2003)

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 17:33

People dont NEED little pieces of paper backed by guns to settle minor disputes. The concept of freedom is freedom from authority. Your rights end where mine begin. This is simple
- saying this is simple does not contradict the points made in my proir post.

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 4:35 pm on June 14, 2003)

Som

14th June 2003, 17:40

- saying this is simple does not contradict the points made in my proir post.

What points? All you seem to manage to muster up is that since people have disputes, only judges, courts, police, and legislatures can somehow 'rightly' settle these disputes, completely neglecting that they are simply groups of people.
Groups of people will not cease to exist, their arbitrary self appointed power will.

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 17:52

My points are that of interpretaion of: Your rights end where mine begin, are differant, when people converse there has to be a comon definition of: Your rights end where mine begin, institutions do this, unless everyone in your anarchist world agrees to some basic stipulations and rules stemming from: Your rights end where mine begin, but that is what insitutions are, large groups of people agreeing on certain things to then be enforced on all who are in them.

Anonymous

14th June 2003, 17:57

Steve:

The superiority of the model as an idea is far better than the actuall application of the thoery.

Who cares that in real life anarchist do not have any real world success. The superior intellectual model is far better than reality.

Sound familiar?

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 18:08

Hi kelvin

No I do believe that it is possible to deabate something that will in the end result in a true representaion of what would happen, the key lies in how will you can articulate the human condition in your writtings,

neway, where is that from? It really doesnt sound familiar to me.

and would SOM please come back and persue this debate to its logical ends.

And doesnt my avatar look kool, no1 has commented on it yet, are there no FF players here? neway.......

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 5:10 pm on June 14, 2003)

Anonymous

14th June 2003, 18:14

Quote: from Unrelenting Steve on 6:08 pm on June 14, 2003

neway, where is that from? It really doesnt sound familiar to me.
(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 5:10 pm on June 14, 2003)

Sorry. No not from you. Go and read the theories section.

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 18:28

k, my posts are noe 70!!!!!!!!!!!!

where has SOM gone now?????????????

Som

14th June 2003, 18:32

and would SOM please come back and persue this debate to its logical ends.

You really need to be more patient, I had to take a crap.

My points are that of interpretaion of: Your rights end where mine begin, are differant, when people converse there has to be a comon definition of: Your rights end where mine begin, institutions do this, unless everyone in your anarchist world agrees to some basic stipulations and rules stemming from: Your rights end where mine begin, but that is what insitutions are, large groups of people agreeing on certain things to then be enforced on all who are in them.

You really need to work on those run-on sentences, they make this a bit difficult.

Institutions of force do not do that, its basic human interaction. You don't go and call the police everytime you get into an argument do you?
Since anarchism comes about through a popular revolution, it would be the principle the society is organized on and is generally agreed on.

As far as i can tell, your trying to potray the state as somehow the only legitimate holder to its monopoly on force, and then going into the hobbesian social contract. (may be off on who it was, what its called so on) This would assume that the state truly is the an embodiment of the peoples will. This is a huge assumption, considering the clear will of the ruling class has always been put forth.
While we're at though, even in the best case scenario the state is an instrument for the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 18:47

Dont confuse whats happening in our world today for what I am arguing is a neccesity. what I am saying has got nothing to do with poeples will, only realizations that must be shared.
Since anarchism comes about through a popular revolution, it would be the principle the society is organized on and is generally agreed on. ----could you please ellabourate that, I dont quiet understand it.

oterwise are you agreeing with me, because I really didnt see anything in your writting that contradicts me?

and sorry for being impatient, but I ate dinner in a shorter time frame

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 5:54 pm on June 14, 2003)

Som

14th June 2003, 19:09

what I am saying has got nothing to do with poeples will, only realizations that must be shared.

This has been the problem, im not quite sure what the hell you're saying.
What realizations are you talking about?

Since anarchism comes about through a popular revolution, it would be the principle the society is organized on and is generally agreed on. ----could you please ellabourate that, I dont quiet understand it.

Anarchism can not be built from above. It comes from a popular revolution, the entire populace builds the anarchist institutions from the local commune to the confederation.
Generally all the non-vanguardist marxists argue for the same type of revolution. Like in the paris commune, like in catalonia, like in ukraine in 1918.

oterwise are you agreeing with me, because I really didnt see anything in your writting that contradicted me?

I don't think theres any point where i agreed with you here. since that, i guess i'll add on a bit.

Institutions do not create the premise of 'your rights end where mine begin' society as a whole does that. an anarchist society is organized on that premise.

You can't seem to differ between organization and states as well, in the unlikely case a mediation is needed, it can be set up, its not a state and its not meant to 'enforce' anything, it'd be just what it promises, mediation.

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 19:23

Your rights end where mine begins, that lends itself to interpretation, one interpretaion would have to be used by all for what you want to work----- so that one interpretation is the realization im going on about.

If that is nessary, everyone having the same realization
---then the managment of that is institution.

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 6:26 pm on June 14, 2003)

Som

14th June 2003, 19:32

You're not making very much sense, so im gonna keep on guess at what your trying to say with those.

If that is nessary, everyone having the same realization
---then the managment of that is institution.

Its not some massive realization, as such as a revolution, little is (or should be) different in the minds of people from ANY mass socialist revolution.

The management of freedom and individuality? It wouldn't be free that way.

Really playing on vague terms and meaningless rhetoric here.

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 19:37

Im no talking another language, what dont you understand??????????

The managment of everyone needing to have the same realization (use my proir definition) would be an institutional thing to do----------- that would be an institution.

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 6:40 pm on June 14, 2003)

Som

14th June 2003, 19:48

Im no talking another language, what dont you understand??????????

Maybe you should be.

You're not exactly too high on coherent sentence structure.

The managment of everyone needing to have the same realization (use my proir definition) would be an institutional thing to do----------- that would be an institution.

Is this anything more then empty rhetoric? theres no management of realization, we're not herding cattle here. People are freeing themselves, no ones doing it for them.
And you keep using the word 'institution', what do you mean by that? Anarchism has organization, it has grassroots democratic groups, it has trade unions, but these groups are not authoritarian in any way and have no power over other people, are they 'institutions'?

Its seems sort of similiar to Engels 'revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is', somehow implying that neglecting authority is somehow authoritarian. Its a logical twist, all just a play on words.

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 20:06

How do you make sure everyone has the same realization, are you saying your sociaty wouldnt fall apart even if people had differant ideas about interpretation of: My freedom stops where your's begins.

Anarchism sounds like a sociaty full of institution that are just unspoken, I would rather have it out in the open where I could debate it and have it changed through the institutions themselves- of course if they are bad institutions and didnt alow that, I would have to revolt and try to destroy them.

Institutions- principals or statments or rules that are acertained and then enforced by people.

Anarchism just seems to enforce their principal (your freedom ends where my begins) through peer pressure, poeple's freedom of beating the crap out of you and in special cases organised mediation.-----sounds like an institution to me, just more disguised than most

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 7:11 pm on June 14, 2003)

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 7:14 pm on June 14, 2003)

Som

14th June 2003, 20:23

How do you make sure everyone has the same realization, are you saying your sociaty wouldnt fall apart even if people had differant ideas about interpretation of: My freedom stops where your's begins.

How did the workers in russia come to the realization of socialism? its no different.

and the principle is not forced, its implyed. Its not some ingrained meaningless slogan, its just a logical extension of a society without coercion.
There will always be minor disputes, and they'll dont need force to be solved.

Anarchism sounds like a sociaty full of institution that are just unspoken, I would rather have it out in the open where I could debate it and have it changed through the institutions themselves- of course if they are bad institutions and didnt alow that, I would have to revolt and try to destroy them.

"That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. " - Noam Chomsky

I just thought that seemed a fitting response. Again, you pull out odd assumptions that somehow you can't question anarchist organization, that something needs to be authoritarian to be done something about.

You wouldn't even have to revolt if you found an 'unspoken institution', you'll just have to mention it, or if that doesn't work out, find others to freely associate with.

Anarhism just seems to enforce there principal (your freedom ends where my begins) through peer pressure, poeple's freedom of beating the crap out of you and in special cases organised mediation.-----sounds like an institution to me, just more disguised than most

Sounds like a giant assumption and a huge stretch of that assumption to me. Also an odd assumption that somehow after they've overthrown capitalism and state, people will naturally be inclined to want it back and be forced to it.

Even if what you were saying had any merit, would it even matter? Wouldn't an unofficial 'institution' be hugely more desirable then giving those institutions guns and declaring they have the power to shoot you?

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 20:50

There will be people that will have differant interpreations of: Your freedoms ends where mine begins, that means there are more than 1 interpreations, in a practicle instance, only one measure can be taken, only one interpretaion applied, therefore someone is left dominated (I cant think of a better word)----Isnt that what is attempted to be abolished through anarchism (the substitution of anothers truths for your own).

How do you make sure everyone has the same realization, are you saying your sociaty wouldnt fall apart even if people had differant ideas about interpretation of: My freedom stops where your's begins.

How did the workers in russia come to the realization of socialism? its no different.

and the principle is not forced, its implyed. Its not some ingrained meaningless slogan, its just a logical extension of a society without coercion.
There will always be minor disputes, and they'll dont need force to be solved.
------------- The realization of socialism is one thing, everyone can agree that they wont more freedom. But im talking about something that isnt as easily derived- not everyone will have the same interpretation!!! are you in denile? I have said this repeatedly and your counter has been the same, its as easy as choosing socialism over cappitalism- its not!

Even if what you were saying had any merit, would it even matter? Wouldn't an unofficial 'institution' be hugely more desirable then giving those institutions guns and declaring they have the power to shoot you?
----The oppisite of Anarchism is not facism, it can be the creation of institutions that try to embody the truth and facilitate the growth of the evolving human mind. That is also a possibility. And poeple arent that evolved, hell I cant even have a debate at school with someone so that in the end they can come to the realization of why cappitalism is bad, they just dont wont to hear it, in a "unofficial 'institution'" it will be even harder to get poeple to admit their errors to improve things at least a judge has to be present in court and listen to you.

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 7:56 pm on June 14, 2003)

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 8:01 pm on June 14, 2003)

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 8:03 pm on June 14, 2003)

Som

14th June 2003, 21:17

Do me a favor, and trying quote things better, just laying out the text like that is really hard to read. Make things your quoting be bold or something [ b ] [ / b ]

There will be people that will have differant interpreations of: Your freedoms ends where mine begins, that means there are more than 1 interpreations, in a practicle instance, only one measure can be taken, only one interpretaion applied, therefore someone is left dominated (I cant think of a better word)----Isnt that what is attempted to be abolished through anarchism (the substitution of anothers truths for your own).

This.. doesn't mean anything when applied to any sense of normal descision making.
This is not a utopia, nothing is perfect.

Your focusing way too much on the concept of freedom ends where mine begins, obviously enough, statements like that rule out murder, rape, acts of violence. Theres no set way
After that, petty shit is all thats left, and no matter how a society is organized its just petty shit, and there isn't any utopian answer, its all a matter of practicality.

The realization of socialism is one thing, everyone can agree that they wont more freedom. But im talking about something that isnt as easily derived- not everyone will have the same interpreation!!! are you in denile? I have said this repeatedly and your counter has been the same, its as easy as choosing socialism over cappitalism- its not!

Everyone can agree they want more freedom? and your trying to use a statement like that AGAINST anarchy? Anarchy is the most freedom for everyone. This is VERY easily derived. The state is a tool of capitalists that keeps people exploited. MILLIONS of people in Spain had an anarchist revolution, the ukrainian peasants had an anarchist revolution at the same time as the Bolshevik revolution.

It IS as easy as choosing socialism as capitalism, hell its even simpler, Its choosing not having someone tell you what to do.

Intrepretation? What the hell do you keep going on about? Thats nothing but petty rhetoric, are there more than one types of anarchism? Yes definetly, there are a lot of types, even 3 distinct anarchist economic systems, but does it matter? NO, because the principle of no authority is there, and after that none contradict eachother.

----The oppisite of Anarchism is not facism, it can be the creation of institutions that try to embody the truth and facilitate the growth of the evolving human mind. That is also a possibility.

Try putting something solid and rational instead. This overly abstract crap is getting on my nerves.

And poeple arent that evolved, hell I cant even have a debate at school with someone so that in the end they can come to the realization of why cappitalism is bad, they just dont wont to hear it, in a "unofficial 'institution'" it will be even harder to get poeple to admit their errors to improve things at least a judge has to be present in court and listen to you.

Oh just quit while your ahead and dont bother if you think a socialist revolution is impossible.

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 21:55

b
The realization of socialism is one thing, everyone can agree that they wont more freedom. But im talking about something that isnt as easily derived- not everyone will have the same interpreation!!! are you in denile? I have said this repeatedly and your counter has been the same, its as easy as choosing socialism over cappitalism- its not!

Everyone can agree they want more freedom? and your trying to use a statement like that AGAINST anarchy? Anarchy is the most freedom for everyone. This is VERY easily derived. The state is a tool of capitalists that keeps people exploited. MILLIONS of people in Spain had an anarchist revolution, the ukrainian peasants had an anarchist revolution at the same time as the Bolshevik revolution.

It IS as easy as choosing socialism as capitalism, hell its even simpler, Its choosing not having someone tell you what to do.

Intrepretation? What the hell do you keep going on about? Thats nothing but petty rhetoric, are there more than one types of anarchism? Yes definetly, there are a lot of types, even 3 distinct anarchist economic systems, but does it matter? NO, because the principle of no authority is there, and after that none contradict eachother.
/ b

Im not going to answer that, you misunderstood what I was saying, but never mind, it was fairly contradicted by your first critique. now onto that....

It might be petty shit, but I can tell you I would rather have an institution controling my petty shit affairs than my "peers" mediatory abilities, especialy with the kind of person I am(quiet a good hate figure), Im not going to let my justice get perversed into a popularity contests, infact justice doesnt even exist in this sociaty, its all realtive to the people around me, and if they dont feel like thinking about actual merits of cases.

The thing is the emphasis is placed way too much on the individual, people when left to themselves dont revert to the upholders of truth and justice, they turn into mobs, poeple who are swayed by their emotions, which are prodominant in a world that does not neccisitate you use the right side of your brain constatntly.

[ b ]

And poeple arent that evolved, hell I cant even have a debate at school with someone so that in the end they can come to the realization of why cappitalism is bad, they just dont wont to hear it, in a "unofficial 'institution'" it will be even harder to get poeple to admit their errors to improve things at least a judge has to be present in court and listen to you.

Oh just quit while your ahead and dont bother if you think a socialist revolution is impossible.

[ / b]

This is not a defeat for the revolution, only depicting the denile that is inherent in the majority of poeple when faced with contradictions to their initial thinking- which I believe will only be agrivated when we turn anarchist.

[ b ]
----The oppisite of Anarchism is not facism, it can be the creation of institutions that try to embody the truth and facilitate the growth of the evolving human mind. That is also a possibility.

Try putting something solid and rational instead. This overly abstract crap is getting on my nerves.
[ / b ]
what is more abstract than everyone just suddenly being embued with the morality of my freedom ends when yours begins. Whats more the law can be this institution im talking about- it needs a little streamling, but I can say in my country, its totaly seperate from state, it could be kept the same in a communist state, it evolves throught presindent- Why would you prefer something else? If it is flawed and it cant answer its flaws them domolish it, and build a better one that doesnt not contain the same flaw, unless of course you can come up with a flaw that would be present in all institution that would be sufficient to justify why its not worth making.

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 9:01 pm on June 14, 2003)

Unrelenting Steve

14th June 2003, 21:59

an explanation of how the "b"s work would be nice
lol

Som

14th June 2003, 22:17

take out the spaces in the [ b ] [ / b ]

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/mis...action=ikoncode (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/misc.pl?action=ikoncode)

It might be petty shit, but I can tell you I would rather have an institution controling my petty shit affairs than my "peers" mediatory abilities, especialy with the kind of person I am(quiet a good hate figure)

No one said you HAD to, it was an option.

to save myself a bit, maybe clear some things up about anarchist 'justice' heres something from the anarchist faq (you should really just read the section on crime and save us both plenty of trouble)

Therefore, while anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialised justice system, they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may not totally disappear in a free society. Therefore, some sort of "court" system would still be necessary to deal with the remaining crimes and to adjudicate disputes between citizens.

These courts would function in one of two ways. One possibility is that the parties involved agree to hand their case to a third party. Then the "court" in question would be the arrangements made by those parties. The second possibility is when the parties cannot not agree (or if the victim was dead). Then the issue could be raised at a communal assembly and a "court" appointed to look into the issue. These "courts" would be independent from the commune, their independence strengthened by popular election instead of executive appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system of selection of random citizens by lot, and by informing jurors of their right to judge the law itself, according to their conscience, as well as the facts of a case. As Malatesta pointed out, "when differences were to arise between men [sic!], would not arbitration voluntarily accepted, or pressure of public opinion, be perhaps more likely to establish where the right lies than through an irresponsible magistrate which has the right to adjudicate on everything and everybody and is inevitably incompetent and therefore unjust?" [Anarchy, p. 43]

In the case of this little bit here, note that it says parties agree to hand it over. Not forced.

The thing is the emphasis is placed way too much on the individual, people when left to themselves dont revert to the upholders of truth and justice, they turn into mobs, poeple who are swayed by their emotions, which are prodominant in a world that does not neccisitate you use the right side of your brain constatntly.

No ones reverting to anything. You really give the state too much credit.

Try... keeping your thoughts in order, i cant tell where you start and end here, but still trying...

what is more abstract than everyone just suddenly being embued with the morality of my freedom ends when yours begins.

Like i've said, and history has shown, no more abstract than a socialist revolution, conditions and classes will do it.

Why would you prefer something else? If it is flawed and it cant answer its flaws them domolish it, and build a better one that doesnt not contain the same flaw, unless of course you can come up with a flaw that would be present in all institution that would be sufficient to justify why its not worth making.

And of the massive amount of bloodshed that comes from overthrowing state after state? Can't even overthrow some of them, some states have to wait to screw up themselves.

Why would you prefer war and murder to a few democratic councils and grassroots movements.

Im not going to post again today, ive got other things i should be doing, and im fairly well sick of repeating myself.