Anarchism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsecx

Then I'd have to question what he's actually educated in and what's he's actually qualified to do.

---

well then you would probably have to meet him. He is a competent mechanic, computer tech, essential encyclopedia on mathematics and radical theory, and a wonderfully eloquent speaker and writer.

Quote:

---

I'd like some sucessful examples of where communities have tackled problems like you listed without any government assistance.

---

Though i have used this example already and though it was some years back, the Black Panther Party served this role for a decent period of time before they were picked off by the powers that be.

Quote:

---

depends on the circumstances, depends on if someone has prior convictions, and it depends on what else the person is involved in. you can't talk about this shit in a vacuum.

---

The fact that you are considering locking a human being away for a quarter century for a non-violent crime astounds me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

absolutely everything. The entire purpose of anarchism is to make things better for humanity as a whole; to truly liberate everyone and to allow for truly fulfilling lives free from coercion in any form.

---

That is the most optimistic view of anarchy I have ever heard, and is completely naive and gives a false sense of the reality of the human mind. So child molesters should be allowed to have free access to whomever they want? I should have the ability to steal from anybody I want, because in anarchy, private property doesn't exist. This is no different than the Christian debate about sxe. You are taking parts of a beleif system that help your argument and ignoring the parts that you don't like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

they are not extremely specific cases but rather specific examples drawn from the huge pool of abuses of authority and law that occur every single day.

---

Once again, you are ignoring the benefits of authority and looking only at the abuses of power. You fail to realise that without authority of any kind, mankind would erupt into chaos. I am a firm beleieve in much of what Thomas Hobbes said about the state of nature and the evil of mankind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

yes, i am. Isn't this not the goal of every human? To have the freedom to do what they wish with their time and to make their lives fulfilling?

---

See my first point in this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

Nelson Mandela was imprisoned under the law for his actions in ending apartheid and was held in prison for well over a decade. I would hardly say at that point in time that he held a "position" at all, let alone a position of authority, other than being a popular voice of the oppressed.

---

He used his position as president of South Africa to completely reform the country, how can you argue he never used a position of authority? Yes, the white government imprisoned Mandela and enforced a racist regime, once again I am not arguing that abuses of power don't exist, they obviously do. I am simply arguing that there are countless situations in which power and positions of authority are used for good and to help people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

you need only look to history and headlines to see the abuses perpetuated by power over and over again. On the occasion that communities finally do decide to protect themselves and to manage their own internal affairs (for example, the Black Panthers) they are targeted by the system of authority as "dangerous" and "revolutionary", sought after by the police, and slowly killed off either in jail cells or by bullets in the street.

---

The black panthers were a violent radical group so your example of the goodness of society coming through internal organisations is not at ALL enforced by that example. I supported the ideas that the panthers were fighting for, but their methods were violent and radical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

your mockery of that statement only shows how little you understand about any theories pertaining to social organization, even within moderate groups. One doesn't need a system of capital, insurance, etc. if a solid community is available to fall back on and to provide for one another.

---

You really need to stop making assumptions about me. I just finished a 4 year university degree studying politics, political organisation and political thinkers from Marx and Engels to Hobbes. I have taken classes taught by marxists, anarchists, capitalists, so I am fairly certain that my understanding of social organisation and political theories is quite extensive. I have studied anarchy, feminism, eco-feminism, capitalism, marxism, social democracy, and the list continues. So don't assume that I don't understand what I am talking about, because you are wrong. But wait, my education came from a school that is paid for by the government, so I suppose that doesn't really count? And Your naive outlook on the state of current affairs and on anarchy and community vs. captial pretty much shows me that you have a one sided view of these theories and have chosen to look at only what you want to look at.

Quote:

---

You really need to stop making assumptions about me. I just finished a 4 year university degree studying politics, political organisation and political thinkers from Marx and Engels to Hobbes. I have taken classes taught by marxists, anarchists, capitalists, so I am fairly certain that my understanding of social organisation and political theories is quite extensive. I have studied anarchy, feminism, eco-feminism, capitalism, marxism, social democracy, and the list continues.

---

seems like you really didn't absorb much then considering the fact that you seem to totally misunderstand the tenants of anarchism and liberation ideologies as a whole.

Your generalizations about the black panthers being violent and far too radical are indicative of (from what i can observe) your status-quo ideological outlook.

P.S. I understand both sides of the argument for and against the state. We are debating here though so why would i be on your side of this argument?

yeah you still ignored one, but hey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

The police (and as a further extension, the army) serve the purpose of being the arm of the state and the way in which its laws are enforced in the physical plane. Certainly the police have saved people when it has synced up within the law but in the same manner they have repressed them when the law and the state has allowed it. Look to segregation, slavery, Bloody Sunday, the movement against Apartheid, the Angola 3, the entire anti-war movement, the Red Scare, the Green Scare, the January Uprising in Poland, and so many more than come to mind right now.

Every case of state repression has not been carried out by the ruler him or herself, but rather by the generals, armies, and police forces under his/her command. You have called me out for ignoring the good that police do for people and i continue to call you out for every case of state repression that could have never occurred without such a police force.
"There is a psychological deficiency in policing others."

---

uh, they can't really save people when it isn't in scope of the law, if it did, you'd be crying the other way about abuse beyond authority just in a different direction. Can you also use things that are at least within the last 20 years if you're going to use them for examples, otherwise they aren't really relevant to what's in place and happening today. just about every case you listed has been corrected and actions have been put in place to keep them from occurring again. You completely deny the good that is done daily because it doesn't fit into your agenda but instead you choose to focus on limited abuse that isn't systematic and certainly isn't as wide spread and your point would lead people to believe.

Quote:

---

see: The Paris Commune, Rural Spain in 1936, The communes and non-hierarchical squats that exist throughout the world today and especially thrive in Europe, occurrences within everyday life in which decisions are made collectively and without coercion by groups of friends, many non-civilized groups of tribal peoples when (and where) they still exist(ed).

---

and none of that is relevant when talking about a global or even country based system since it's never existed on any kind of scale and when it has, has been destroyed due to it's inherent weaknesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

Your generalizations about the black panthers being violent and far too radical are indicative of (from what i can observe) your status-quo ideological outlook.

---

so how were they not violent and radical?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

seems like you really didn't absorb much then considering the fact that you seem to totally misunderstand the tenants of anarchism and liberation ideologies as a whole.

---

I understand anarchism fine, you are moulding the tenants of anarchism to fit your idealistic and unrealistic view of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

well then you would probably have to meet him. He is a competent mechanic, computer tech, essential encyclopedia on mathematics and radical theory, and a wonderfully eloquent speaker and writer.

---

I'm glad you have such a high opinion of him, but I'd still have to doubt someone's qualifications if they're completely self taught since there's no real easy well to tell that someone is qualified without an independent and unbiased source such as a degree or a qualification.

Quote:

---

Though i have used this example already and though it was some years back, the Black Panther Party served this role for a decent period of time before they were picked off by the powers that be.

---

I said successful.

Quote:

---

The fact that you are considering locking a human being away for a quarter century for a non-violent crime astounds me.

---

I guess you didn't read what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsecx

yeah you still ignored one, but hey.
uh, they can't really save people when it isn't in scope of the law, if it did, you'd be crying the other way about abuse beyond authority just in a different direction.

---

I was arguing that they are oppressing people in the name of the law in the same way they are helping them.

Quote:

---

Can you also use things that are at least within the last 20 years if you're going to use them for examples

---

The Green Scare (currently still going on), The G8 Summit in '99, Sean Bell being shot over 50 times, the individual shot and killed whilst handcuffed in Oakland, the murder of union organizers by Coca-Cola, the already mentioned destruction of homes and murder of lower-class South Koreans, the continued targeting of radicals by governments world wide, and so much more than i can come up with just from memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mouseman004

I understand anarchism fine, you are moulding the tenants of anarchism to fit your idealistic and unrealistic view of the world.

---

really? tell me in which way i am corrupting the ideals of anarchism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

I was arguing that they are oppressing people in the name of the law in the same way they are helping them.

---

but they aren't. Using the authority that the people gave them to protect them is totally separate from the abuses of the system you're talking about.

Quote:

---

The Green Scare (currently still going on), The G8 Summit in '99, Sean Bell being shot over 50 times, the individual shot and killed whilst handcuffed in Oakland, the murder of union organizers by Coca-Cola, the already mentioned destruction of homes and murder of lower-class South Koreans, the continued targeting of radicals by governments world wide, and so much more than i can come up with just from memory.

---

and these all pale in comparison to the number of lives and property that are protected daily on a global level, you just ignore that because it doesn't fit your agenda. In most of those cases where the people responsible acting according to the law? No, they weren't. They broke the law and were punished for it. They weren't rewarded for it, which for your point to be valid, they'd have to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

The fact that you are considering locking a human being away for a quarter century for a non-violent crime astounds me.

---

how is burning a car non-violent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

absolutely everything. The entire purpose of anarchism is to make things better for humanity as a whole; to truly liberate everyone and to allow for truly fulfilling lives free from coercion in any form.

---

I believe that was the original idea from Bakoenin, what i heard he was one of the founding people of the anarchistic ideas.
That idea was probably formulated for a good purpose but ,it has been said before, its pretty naive. It would demand of every human being to treat another like they'd be treaten themselves. (where did i hear that before... the Bible perhaps?)
Another scenario could follow the basic rule of the strongest, but then again the strongest would want more power and you'd end up in a system all along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fake

What do u think about anarchism?? to my mind, its a very interesting political philosophy

---

I like the idea, no affence to anybody who doesn't, but I think that the whole idea of "only the strong shall survive" is the totally best way to express idividualality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsecx

duh anarchists don't have to make sense or be consistent.

---

Very true. Most "anarchists" iv met could only loosely be called such, I personally do not consider armchair anarchists as true advocates of there chosen political ideal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wicked Brown

I like the idea, no affence to anybody who doesn't, but I think that the whole idea of "only the strong shall survive" is the totally best way to express idividualality."

---

The idea of only the strong survive is the mindset of the fascist, the Nazi and the totalitarian. When only the strong survive, the weak must die. Not fail to succeed, but must die. The disabled child, the mentally challenged, those with an IQ below average and the many other situations people cannot control, why should these result in there death? Why is it right for us as a spectacularly advanced species to leave anyone behind? We have the technology to end world hunger. To house every family and educate every child. But we don't. Because of the idea that only the strong survive. There is no reason for hardships in this world other than sickness and death and even sickness is one that we have beaten down to a minimum, but one human sees it fit to deny another the right to access of it. Did the inventor of the drug or treatment think to him self "Now to hoard these drugs and scientific miracles"? No. The business man did. The government man did. And on what basis? They are valuable. They can make money. What about the mother with no husband or partner to support her? Will she work her days so her and her child can barely survive, and then who will raise the child? Who will pay for school?

In this environment, how can any individuality be expressed? Who has decided what is strong? Don't you need to conform to this in order to survive? When a man decides that instead of working, he will dedicate his life to art, who will pick up there bill? Seems to me in a strong survive society, there is no room for this man. What about the musician? In order to get work to live they need to have an audience. Where is the individuality when they must conform to the marketable sound? Even the individual them selves, must not they dress appropriately to get a job to work in the strong survive world? No self expression allowed in this world.

Anarchism could work.
I also refuse to debate it, i am sick of being interrogated every time i voice an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Segadoway

Anarchism could work.
I also refuse to debate it, i am sick of being interrogated every time i voice an opinion.

---

Yeah but that just looks like you can't back your opinion up. You want to say it can work but won't explain how it can work and wont explain why the reasons people are saying it won't work are wrong.

I don't see why you have such a problem with people questioning opinions you voice? You should be thankful that people are taking the time to point out elements that you may have missed that could change your opinion to one that holds more strength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Segadoway

Anarchism could work.
I also refuse to debate it, i am sick of being interrogated every time i voice an opinion.

---

The pacific ocean is made of chocolate. But I refuse to debate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

really? tell me in which way i am corrupting the ideals of anarchism.

---

that was a misstep on my part. I don't necessarily think that you are corrupting the ideals of anarchism, you are just holding them up to a standard that human nature will never allow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mouseman004

The pacific ocean is made of chocolate. But I refuse to debate it.

---

This made me laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rodrigo

how is burning a car non-violent?

---

how is destroying a non-living object an act of violence?
no one died, no blood was shed, nothing was harmed other than the owner's wallet.
How does destruction of the non-living synch up with actual violence such as rape and physical harm inflicted upon sentient beings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsecx

I said successful.

---

they were VERY successful in the run they had have before they were disbanded. They ran community education programs, community food programs, and even got drugs and drug dealers out of their neighborhoods.

Can you give me one example of capitalism in which EVERYONE benefited?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

they were VERY successful in the run they had have before they were disbanded. They ran community education programs, community food programs, and even got drugs and drug dealers out of their neighborhoods.

---

and ultimately failed miserably and the neighborhoods are still fucked up 30+ years later.

Quote:

---

Can you give me one example of capitalism in which EVERYONE benefited?

---

you're asking something that's as impossible as anarchy working. There isn't an example of anything benefiting everyone in any system. It's a matter of making things as good for as many as possible. The undeniable truth is that regardless of the system there is always exploitation and talking about examples where everyone benefited is pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsecx

you're asking something that's as impossible as anarchy working. There isn't an example of anything benefiting everyone in any system. It's a matter of making things as good for as many as possible. The undeniable truth is that regardless of the system there is always exploitation and talking about examples where everyone benefited is pointless.

---

but this was your chief criticism of anarchism, that it wasn't ever successful. If no system if ever 100% successful and the human condition is one of seeking full humanization for everyone than why not strive for something truly better? I believe firmly that the organization that would best benefit humanity would be anarchy. As you have said (and i do agree) it would not be 100% perfect (though it may get close :-P), but it would certainly constitute a step up from what we currently do have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

how is destroying a non-living object an act of violence?
no one died, no blood was shed, nothing was harmed other than the owner's wallet.
How does destruction of the non-living synch up with actual violence such as rape and physical harm inflicted upon sentient beings?

---

so it's only violence when its towards a living object? how do you know if the car had something important inside? i take that you wouldnt mind then if somebody goes and burn your house as long as nobody was inside. i'm sure your mom would be thrilled.

you got this pretty weird, same way as those anti religion guys who go and say that the catholic church sucks because of the horrors they have done, and forget every good thing they have done too... because its people who do it, not the institution itself

same way you go and say every bad thing made by the goverments all around the world, and forget every other good thing that goverments have done.

sure, i used to hate every cop because they were a figure of authority that tried to control people, and sure i have said fuck the cops a gazillion times, but all those fucking words came back when it was cops who helped me find my brother when he ran away during a depression attack. it was fucking cops who helped my family get our shit back together when we got robbed.

same way i could point out that an anarchist group threw molotovs at a bus where a little 4 year old girl got second grade burns.

and all that because its people who hide behind an idea, make it anarchy or capitalism, that got wrong perspectives and abuse their power and impose themselves over other people. shit has been done from every side, people killing each other here and there, you think that will stop magically if we all lived in anarchy?

dont get me wrong, i think the idea behind anarchy is really pretty, but i doubt it would work, maybe on a long long time it can and in small groups, but not now. and burning cars is not the way to achieve anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

but this was your chief criticism of anarchism, that it wasn't ever successful. If no system if ever 100% successful and the human condition is one of seeking full humanization for everyone than why not strive for something truly better? I believe firmly that the organization that would best benefit humanity would be anarchy. As you have said (and i do agree) it would not be 100% perfect (thought it may get close :-P), but it would certainly constitute a step up from what we currently do have.

---

I never said 100% successful, anarchism can't exist partially or in a vacuum. There's no way it could exist in the world today and the only way it could ever be tried is with the wide scale destruction of mankind which would also be against your goal. From a practical perspective I can't imagine how anarchy could work in anything but a world where people were subsistence farmers, anything else and you end up with hierarchies and rules which need to be in place for things to function and once that starts happening you no long have anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Segadoway

Anarchism could work.
I also refuse to debate it, i am sick of being interrogated every time i voice an opinion.

---

Then why post it on a forum in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

they were VERY successful in the run they had have before they were disbanded. They ran community education programs, community food programs, and even got drugs and drug dealers out of their neighborhoods.

Can you give me one example of capitalism in which EVERYONE benefited?

---

Can you give me an example of anarchism that never disbanded and exists today in the same form it existed at its creation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

how is destroying a non-living object an act of violence?
no one died, no blood was shed, nothing was harmed other than the owner's wallet.
How does destruction of the non-living synch up with actual violence such as rape and physical harm inflicted upon sentient beings?

---

So if I blow up a building on a weekend when there is nobody in it, and nobody gets hurt, that does not count as an act of violence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mouseman004

So if I blow up a building on a weekend when there is nobody in it, and nobody gets hurt, that does not count as an act of violence?

---

I wouldn't really think so. You are destroying brick and mortar, not lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mouseman004

Can you give me an example of anarchism that never disbanded and exists today in the same form it existed at its creation?

---

that was the question dusty was already asking me previously so i finally decided to turn the question on him. You have seen my answers and going back and forth isn't going to progress our discussion any further. It is clear I have different ideals than dusty and yourself when it comes to what would benefit the human race the most. It seems (at least from the posts in this thread) that both of you favor competition amongst people so as to insure freedom where as i favor cooperation. We differ on this point, it's not the end of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

I wouldn't really think so. You are destroying brick and mortar, not lives.

---

That building could be someones office, someones store. Maybe that is a major part of there life and if they lose that then it could have a great impact on there life in a very negative way. It could destroy there life. But because nobody was physically injured it would be OK?

Acts of violence aren't limited to human beings man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D1988

That building could be someones office, someones store. Maybe that is a major part of there life and if they lose that then it could have a great impact on there life in a very negative way. It could destroy there life. But because nobody was physically injured it would be OK?

Acts of violence aren't limited to human beings man.

---

As i said, it certainly could be malicious and in certain contexts it can be considered immoral but i don't think i would ever consider it violent. I am not attempting to justify property destruction, but in my mind violence equates to physical harm of sentient beings.

:(

Same as communism...great in theory, but could never work in the real world (or would ever gain acceptance)

Ezln

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Segadoway

Ezln

---

?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mouseman004

?

---

Ejercito Zapitista de Liberacion Nacional

or in english:
Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

I can't believe i forgot about them. I would recommend both dusty and mouseman check this out and see just how possible living a community oriented and hierarchical-free life works on a large scale (the whole southern Mexican state of Chiapas) and has worked for the past 15 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xGriffox

Ejercito Zapitista de Liberacion Nacional

or in english:
Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

I can't believe i forgot about them. I would recommend both dusty and mouseman check this out and see just how possible living a community oriented and hierarchical-free life works on a large scale (the whole southern Mexican state of Chiapas) and has worked for the past 15 years.

---

Its not completely anarchist. It takes aspects of anarchy and combines it with other forms of social order and political thought.

Oh, and using an armed guerilla revolutionary force as an example of the benefits of anarchy, doesnt really convince me that the world would be a better place if it were an anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Segadoway

Ezln

---

Why do you bother posting. That would have been a good thing to post, if you at least explained what it was and used some sort of argument. I know you don't think there is a point in arguing...so then why bother posting anything in the first place?