Anarchism

**xGriffox** · 05-05-2009, 09:20 PM

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?

**xGriffox** · 05-05-2009, 09:24 PM

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?

**xsecx** · 05-05-2009, 09:38 PM

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.

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.

**xGriffox** · 05-05-2009, 09:47 PM

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.

**rodrigo** · 05-05-2009, 09:54 PM

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.

**xsecx** · 05-05-2009, 09:56 PM

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.

**Sociocidal** · 05-06-2009, 05:32 AM

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?

**mouseman004** · 05-06-2009, 04:06 PM

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?

**mouseman004** · 05-06-2009, 04:06 PM

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?

**xGriffox** · 05-06-2009, 05:33 PM

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.

**xGriffox** · 05-06-2009, 05:36 PM

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.

**D1988** · 05-06-2009, 05:54 PM

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.

**xGriffox** · 05-06-2009, 08:35 PM

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.