Anarchism - Page 2

**djtoast** · 8th February 2008, 12:46pm

Not sure how someone can claim to be a commie and yet be workshy!?

One of the defining "advantages" of communism-in-practice as told by its adherents was full employment!

*LesMTS* · 8th February 2008, 12:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoNotResus

In a simplistic sense Hierarchy arises when one man has something another doesn't but needs, leading to control. Get rid of the mechanisms of ownership and this diminishes. Very idealistic of course.

As a whole we're biologically predisposed to form hierarchies, to strive to become dominant and, when we can't, to respect the dominant.
My argument is pretty much the same as in the communism thread. We evolved as pack animals, like dogs and apes, and we have social strata which are defined by our biology, not by our design (not that I'm saying certain social strata aren't brought about by design).
We default to a hierarchical pack.

¡Punk! · 8th February 2008, 12:49pm

Enough of your nonsense. I now have a job. Direct your anger towards your lady friend now

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesMTS

As a whole we're biologically predisposed to form hierarchies, to strive to become dominant and, when we can't, to respect the dominant.
My argument is pretty much the same as in the communism thread. We evolved as pack animals, like dogs and apes, and we have social strata which are defined by our biology, not by our design (not that I'm saying certain social strata aren't brought about by design).

You seem to have little faith in the idea human's have evolved to a degree we can shed our more "base" desires for the greater good?

*LesMTS* · 8th February 2008, 12:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ¡Punk!

You seem to have little faith in the idea human's have evolved to a degree we can shed our more "base" desires for the greater good?

We can, but avoiding defaulting to our "base" desires or instinctual behaviour and having this system unenforced requires effort and relies on everyone investing this effort.
I have perfect faith that individuals can shed their base desires for the greater good. Not the collective.

Like I said, it's a nice pipe dream. Utterly unrealistic, though.

¡Punk! · 8th February 2008, 12:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesMTS

We can, but having this system unenforced requires effort and relies on everyone investing this effort.
I have perfect faith that individuals can shed their base desires for the greater good. Not the collective.

Like I said, it's a nice pipe dream. Utterly unrealistic, though.

Could a majority do it?

The Continental · 8th February 2008, 12:55pm

Anarchism's a fucking nightmare. If I even look at a wee money-spider I scream like I've just stabbed Andy Bell and got his blood in my mouth.

*LesMTS* · 8th February 2008, 12:55pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ¡Punk!

Could a majority do it?

What about the minority who don't want to? Do we enforce the system? Ostracise them? Exterminate them?

¡Punk! · 8th February 2008, 12:55pm

What COULD they do against a majority?

*LesMTS* · 8th February 2008, 12:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ¡Punk!

What COULD they do against a majority?

Then you have passive enforcement and anarchy is fucked.

Mrhopeless · 8th February 2008, 1:00pm

I'm Dave's (donotresus) brother Dan. I believe in Anarchy and try and follow an Anarchist life as much as you can.

We dont need to be 100% free from capitilism to make Anarchy work. Anarchy is best described as life free from coercive control. We dont need to get rid of value systems or basic heirarchys to be free from external control. A danger when you do try and get rid of heirarchys is the breakdown of respect for the elderly and exploitation of children. Kate Millet wrote a fairly scary essay called "Women, Homosexuals and Youth: Latent Sexual Liberation" Where she argued that children dont share the same human rights that adults do and need to be liberated and be allowed to have sex. I know that might be a bit of a distant point to make but it's important for anyone considering the dangers of a completely anarchistic society. Some heirachys to keep would be the importance over parents and children. Heirarchys to lose would be the idea that there is good sex and bad sex, good violence and bad violence. Check out Cindy Pattons "Sex and Germs" for more ideas on good sex bad sex. Jaques Attali says that society is controled through the ordering of violence. The threat of violence from a police officer, the lack of violence towards systems that hurt us and the display of violence as justice in corperal punishment. Anarchists must consider where they stand on violence. I believe in mild violence and pacifists are too often silenced into the recieving end of totalitarianism or worse, passive acceptance.

I could go on but I'm hungover like nothing else and probably cant think this through as good as I would like to.

Check out
Mike Gunderloys Factsheet Five book "Anarchy and the End of History"
Semiotext(e)' "Hatred of Capitilism"
Crass's "Yes Sir, I will"

*LesMTS* · 8th February 2008, 1:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrhopeless

We dont need to be 100% free from capitilism to make Anarchy work. Anarchy is best described as life free from coercive control.

So to work 100% of the population would have to want the system. Even if 99% want it there's coercive control over the 1%.

Also, you don't believe in coercive control but sanction "mild violence" to further your cause, and, I assume to maintain the anarchistic society once established? Explain please.

metallideth · 8th February 2008, 1:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesMTS

We can, but avoiding defaulting to our "base" desires or instinctual behaviour and having this system unenforced requires effort and relies on everyone investing this effort.
I have perfect faith that individuals can shed their base desires for the greater good. Not the collective.

Like I said, it's a nice pipe dream. Utterly unrealistic, though.

Social Darwinism here we come. Can I hop in your time machine back to the 19th century with you?

RE: anarchism, I would tend to throw my weight behind anarcho-syndicalism as a valid mechanism for a society without rule (bearing in mind that 'rule' and 'law' are different things). At the same time of course, I think holding too closely to anarchism as an ideology is a bit foolhardy because there is an element of truth in Les' ideas - I suppose if we're going for working examples then I'd cite Kronstadt in 1921, Catalonia in the late 1930s, Free Derry in the early 1970s, and the Chiapas in Mexico at the moment. All of them have their faults, but that's life and if these "faults" are a reason to tolerate the bullshit that the majority of us currently have to put up with then people would do well to grow a collective spine.

Mrhopeless · 8th February 2008, 1:15pm

Violence doesnt need to be an act of control or a display of dominance. I was arrested one night after my girlfriend was attacked by two men. I went to beat the utter shit out of them, what would the pacifist do? Watch his girlfriend get attacked? Is the anarchist just meant to stand on the sidelines and watch this happen? Tell me the truth, have you never wanted to beat the crap out of someone so much that you can justify it on every level? I have. I can see your point though.

Why would the 1% be living the society? Why wouldnt they leave? When I say100% i dont mean people. I mean that we can still buy food from the butchers but practice anarchy in our homes and comunities.

Dario · 8th February 2008, 1:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrhopeless

Violence doesnt need to be an act of control or a display of dominance. I was arrested one night after my girlfriend was attacked by two men. I went to beat the utter shit out of them, what would the pacifist do? Watch his girlfriend get attacked? Is the anarchist just meant to stand on the sidelines and watch this happen? Tell me the truth, have you never wanted to beat the crap out of someone so much that you can justify it on every level? I have. I can see your point though.

Oh, please. You're not seriously suggesting that the sole reasoning behind wanting to defend your girlfriend was simply down to your chosen ideology, are you? In other words, that you would only have defended her for the sake of giving the impression that you'd lived up to your own political ideals? I very much think that anyone who referred to themselves as a 'pacifist' would be compelled to react in the same way given the circumstances; people aren't ideologically preprogrammed robots. What you're talking about here is nothing more than basic human survival instinct, it has nothing to do with political ideology at all. Total non-sequitor.

Mrhopeless · 8th February 2008, 1:45pm

I'm not saying that that fight was a display or affirmation of my ideology, I'm saying that that fight was where mild violence is acceptable. If we refuse the power we have through channeling violence at aggressors then we're just going to lie back and get fucked. Of course the fight was on impulse but even actions on impulse are politically loaded, everything we do is ideologically motivated. You cant escape ideology even in the most primal urges. Ideology is in the food you eat and the people you fuck.