RE: Anarchy

RE: Anarchy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sinergy -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 7:54:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Ok, you are far enough along to understand that Socialism is inherently flawed. Why do you think that socialism is flawed? I am genuinely curious how you arrived at these conclusions, not because I am a running-dog socialist. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 8:04:43 PM)
Isn't everything inherently flawed. Taxation WITH representation isn't such a picnic it's turning out, eh?

Sinergy -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 10:15:45 PM)
Thanks for the answer, farglebargle, but I was hoping FirmHandKY would answer my question since his entire argument is predicated on the certainty that the precept that socialism is flawed. While it is a lovely opinion for somebody to have, I tend to dislike people shoving their opinions down my throat as "fact" or "agreements among everybody" or whatever. Want to know what I think, ask. Since I am a member of the set of "everybody," I really dislike it when people posit a logical argument with "everybody thinks," since I dont recall being asked when "everybody" was surveyed. Sinergy

NorthernGent -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 11:13:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval NG, you really need to make a trip across the pond to Burning Man this summer. Warning, images of nudity and fetish wear on the site, so not suitable for viewing at work! http://www.burningman.com Looks good to me Vendaval. Have you been?

NorthernGent -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 11:17:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Any Anarchists on the board? Anarchy Burger, Hold the Government. "Anarchy stands for freedom, but if you think you're free, try walking into a deli and urinating on the cheese." Anarchy Burger, The Vandals. Sinergy Anarchy is a lovely idea, but it seldom works very well in practice. The Amish demonstrate this very well. A person needs to build a barn, they cannot do it alone, they need a social fabric to make it happen. There is a Xhosa word, Ubuntu - "I am because we are", or "People are people because of people." Which basically makes the point that nobody exists by themselves, what defines a human is their interaction with other people. Sinergy Sinergy, I'm not quite understanding the Amish point. Any chance you can expand on this?

NorthernGent -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 11:48:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OedipusRexIt quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou That reminds me, in my short drug experimentation days, not much really pot, shrooms a couple time, and acid a few times. Trouble with all this anarchy talk is that I've gotten to that point in life where, while the world sucks, I'm not sure that whoever rises out of the anarchy would be any better. Look at Putin, as an example of the grand opportunity, now lost. I think a nationalist like Putin was almost guaranteed to take a grip on Russia. Attempting to install democracy overnight created an oligarch controlled society and serious widespread poverty, and, as a result, the Russian people turned away from the concept of democracy in exchange for order, stability and subsistence - i.e. Putin's nationalism. Personally, I wouldn't be too downhearted about Putin coming to the fore in Russia. In terms of anarchy, Anarchists make a very good point about freedom, one I happen to agree with. They point to the excessive and constant use of propaganda in countries such as Britain and the US. Taking Britain as an example: the first seeds of democracy were sown here in the 1200s - people were forming movements that showed a certain level of political awareness. By the 1600s we had a revolution of sorts aimed at widening representation. The point to this is the British government and establishment realised earlier than most that they couldn't use widespread force and violence to control Britons, because Britons were more politically aware than most and ultimately more free than most (at that time). So, they came up with more subtle means of social control that revolved around attitude adjustment (or brainwashing, whichever you prefer). They've been practicing this for centuries through constant propaganda telling us that it's fine to kill people in another country, that it's fine not to care about people, that it's fine to step over the homeless on our way to buying the latest fashions. In contrast to this, humans are naturally sympathetic, we do care about people and other things - we all have something we want to preserve which exists outside of the four walls of our own homes - regardless of political affiliation. Basically, our establishment does to us what African establishments do to Africans - the means are different - one sustains itself through violence the other sustains itself through more subtle attitude adjustment. In terms of how this relates to your post, our establishments control our attitude to the extent that some of us think it's fine not to care, and others think there's no point in caring because there is nothing better. Personally, I think humans are inherently sympathetic towards other humans and I think there is something better than this. Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not possible. Most of us don't know our own minds. As we evolve and understand more about ourselves, and about what humans need out of life, then it isn't much of a stretch to suggest that the systems will be shaped accordingly. At present, the establishment adjusts our attitude to think we need death, destruction and greed out of life - this isn't a given or a constant - at some point the majority will come to realise that we really need loyalty, respect, friendship, love - and we don't get any of these by bombing other people or by being obsessed with consumerism.

NorthernGent -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 11:54:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent In terms of Anarchism, I completely agree with the notion that violence is rarely justified by the end result. If you're going to use violence as a tool of diplomacy, then a heavy burden of proof falls on those claiming it to be a legitimate tool of authority. I am yet to see the burden of proof satisfied on this message board or anywhere else. And you never will, because - quite simply - you will reject any argument, logic or proof counter to what you wish to believe. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I've been curious about Anarchism for a while now, and the more I read the more it makes perfect sense to me. Much of it I have always agreed with - the notions of co-existence, mutual aid, consensus rather than rule, non-violent, and most of all - freedom and self-possession of mind and body. The third way :-) Nice thoughts. Not grounded in reality, but nice nonetheless. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I like where Socialists are trying to get to - ultimately the same place as Anarchists, but I think Socialism is inherently flawed. If the working class take over the government they are no longer the working class, they become the establishment and have violence and propaganda at their disposal (and they will use it), so rule by the masses seems an impossibility. Also, Socialism can not be achieved without a lot of bloodshed, there is nothing voluntary about Socialism and I think this is a very flawed concept that contradicts the human spirit. Ok, you are far enough along to understand that Socialism is inherently flawed. You seem to understand that Anarchism is flawed in the same way as well ... why do they consider them both flawed? What is the "thing" that makes them unworkable? Once you identify that "thing", then tell me ... what system current addresses it, no matter how imperfectly? FirmKY Firmhand, we had this chat on the Resolve thread and you melted away into the background. Now that you're ready to continue, then best to post on that thread and see what sort of response you get.

BrutalDemon -> RE: Anarchy (4/27/2007 12:05:24 AM)
I wonder where my Traveller RPG rulebook is... every 4 years, some guy rolls a pair of 6 sided dice and consults a table to see which form of Government to adopt... that way, we all get a chance to bitch and moan equally. Or is that too Anarchistic?

seeksfemslave -> RE: Anarchy (4/27/2007 12:10:42 AM)
quote: Addressing me Sinergy said I am not sure where "sauces" were discussed, but I do apologize if I posted something that confused you. Sinergy "Apology" not necessary MrS, I enjoyed my feeble little joke at your and MsJO's expense. I also enjoy these Off Topic posts. Looked at the Humour section yesterday and had a bit of a belly laugh there too. Will view that more often !

seeksfemslave -> RE: Anarchy (4/27/2007 12:31:00 AM)
I wish NG would realise that he is really preaching the basic Christian message. While lip service is paid to it, the message I mean, it certainly hasn't stopped people slaughtering one another over the centuries. Has it ? A place to see the basic nature of humans is to watch a large group of UM's at play. There will exist large noisy groups down to isolated loners but in almost every group "hierarchy" and mental/social control will exist. Boys with their macho attitudes or "nerdy" enthusiasms trying to outdo one another: girls with their cliquee liasons, loyalties and emnities. This is also clearly seen when watching groups of adolescents, noisy dominant trend setting leaders, followers, sychophants and non entities. It is also true that you may see one or two who appear to relate and cooperate, but note, at the time nothing is usually at stake. Watch a group of people who while not actually starving desperately need food. See how they behave when food is distributed. Do they co operate and say "lets ensure equal shares for all "? Well do they.? Just to add that I realise that many people actually try to live the Christian ideal and give of themselves to help others. I mean in a sense wider than immediate family but few would dispute that such people are a small minority and in fact may well be ridiculed by others.

luckydog1 -> RE: Anarchy (4/27/2007 1:13:37 AM)
New Orleans after the levees broke was Anarchy. Why would anyone want that. Are we to assume after that happens everywhere, something good will arise? A person could believe that, but that is Faith. Death Destruction and Greed is the history of man, not based on propaganda by the capitalists. The anarchists of today are the intellectuall heirs of people paid by the USSR and refered to as usefull idiots. They pumped a lot of propaganda in the 20th century. Killed people by the millions and supressed ideas also.

Vendaval -> RE: Anarchy (4/27/2007 1:52:01 AM)
Yes, several times. What would you like to know? quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval NG, you really need to make a trip across the pond to Burning Man this summer. Warning, images of nudity and fetish wear on the site, so not suitable for viewing at work! http://www.burningman.com Looks good to me Vendaval. Have you been?

Vendaval -> RE: Anarchy (4/27/2007 2:03:49 AM)
General reply - There is a famous trial of two anarchists in American history, Sacco and Vanzetti. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/SaccoV.htm

gypsygrl -> RE: Anarchy (4/27/2007 2:26:47 AM)
A general comment to those who dismiss anarchy as being out of hand. I would posit that a form of anarchy already obtains at the level of global politics, and in the United States at least, at the local level, in interpersonal relationships. At these levels of analysis, there are no supreme authorities with the power of enforcement. Civility depends on self-restraint and an internalized ethos of co-existance and mutual aid. When that internalized ethos breaks down, usually under conditions of extreme trauma, all hell breaks loose. But, under normal circumstances, hell doesn't break loose. In the United States, social order depends on voluntary cooperation. The police don't have near the power necessary to enforce order in the absense of such cooperation. And, I've lived in plenty of crappy neighborhoods to know that criminals can mutually co-exist with someone such as myself: they don't bother me and I don't bother them. They could mess with me and take my stuff. They have the raw power to do that. And, they aren't so integrated into mainstream society that they stop their drug running, their pimping and whatever else they're doing, so its not like they're motivated by obeying the law because they obviously don't care about that. So, in my experience at least, we have pockets where anarchy does obtain and sort of works. I'm not convinced its totally against human nature. If it were, I'd be screwed.

farglebargle -> RE: Anarchy (4/27/2007 2:47:57 AM)
To extend that. Today you can be pulled out of line at the airport and disappeared. Why would this happen? Likely, some minor flunky for the TSA just didn't like your style, and wanted to give you a hard time. It's Tyranny, with a random component of never knowing when you're going to be oppressed. I would submit that the United States Government is a de-facto Anarchy/Tyranny. Anarcho-Tyrrany? The oppressors don't have any rules. Where does the "Terrorist Watch List" the airlines use to blacklist activists come from? No-one can say... It just is. In other news, the chocolate ration is being raised AGAIN from 20 grams to 15!

NorthernGent -> RE: Anarchy (4/27/2007 5:45:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Yes, several times. What would you like to know? quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval NG, you really need to make a trip across the pond to Burning Man this summer. Warning, images of nudity and fetish wear on the site, so not suitable for viewing at work! http://www.burningman.com Looks good to me Vendaval. Have you been? Most certainly would. Let's hear it :-)

Sinergy -> RE: Anarchy (4/27/2007 6:27:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Sinergy, I'm not quite understanding the Amish point. Any chance you can expand on this? Hello NorthernGent, Perhaps it was a poor example, in rereading it. I suppose I consider the breakdown of social fabric (such as you saw in the Los Angeles / Long Beach riots) where people think and act only for their own best interests at the expense of everybody else to be "anarchy." Why it might have been an invalid comparison is that, while I believe the Amish community is comprised on a heirarchical framework with village elders at the top of the "food chain," I cannot with certainty make that claim about their society. Where I was going with that is with the breakdown of any sort of social order, I am dubious it will be possible to get people together to perform a task that a single person cannot do alone. Extrapolate out from that idea, and as the society becomes more complex the institutions (which are lacking in anarchy) become more complex as well. As the article I cited pointed out, anarchy has been found to be workable on a very minor scale in primitive tribal societies in Africa. This is the major flaw I personally find in Communism that has gone full circle to the transferance of the means of production back to society. How do, for example, firemen (a necessary job with a ephemeral product) support their families? How do all the people get together and build a dam or put out a forest fire or whatever? Not saying it doesnt happen, but it strikes me that the society Marx posited was a government that had gone full circle from Capitalism to a form of economic anarchy, and I have doubts that without some form of market control from somewhere, human nature will make it workable. Does that answer your question? Sinergy

NorthernGent -> RE: Anarchy (4/27/2007 6:30:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Watch a group of people who while not actually starving desperately need food. See how they behave when food is distributed. Are you Brummies having a hard time of it down there or what, Seeks? Get yerself up North, lad, and I'll bake you a stottie cake. There's plenty to go 'round, so no need to resort to the behaviour you have in mind in the above post.

NorthernGent -> RE: Anarchy (4/27/2007 6:35:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Sinergy, I'm not quite understanding the Amish point. Any chance you can expand on this? Hello NorthernGent, Perhaps it was a poor example, in rereading it. I suppose I consider the breakdown of social fabric (such as you saw in the Los Angeles / Long Beach riots) where people think and act only for their own best interests at the expense of everybody else to be "anarchy." Why it might have been an invalid comparison is that, while I believe the Amish community is comprised on a heirarchical framework with village elders at the top of the "food chain," I cannot with certainty make that claim about their society. Where I was going with that is with the breakdown of any sort of social order, I am dubious it will be possible to get people together to perform a task that a single person cannot do alone. Extrapolate out from that idea, and as the society becomes more complex the institutions (which are lacking in anarchy) become more complex as well. As the article I cited pointed out, anarchy has been found to be workable on a very minor scale in primitive tribal societies in Africa. This is the major flaw I personally find in Communism that has gone full circle to the transferance of the means of production back to society. How do, for example, firemen (a necessary job with a ephemeral product) support their families? How do all the people get together and build a dam or put out a forest fire or whatever? Not saying it doesnt happen, but it strikes me that the society Marx posited was a government that had gone full circle from Capitalism to a form of economic anarchy, and I have doubts that without some form of market control from somewhere, human nature will make it workable. Does that answer your question? Sinergy Cheers for the reply Sinergy. I'm setting off on a longish journey to the North East for a football match, so will have a good read tomorrow and get back to you.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Anarchy (4/27/2007 6:51:47 AM)
Gypsygirl: Why do criminals exist at all if Anarchy in its pure form , or a tendency to it, is the norm. ? Most do not steal in order to eat, they steal cos' they want a bigger car, a new mobile (cell)phone, a flashier pair of trainers or more to spend on sex, alcohol or other drugs. In an Anarchical society the tendency to conflict would multiply exponentially, it would have to, if only as a matter of self defence.from the criminal elements. I also doubt that many close relationships are quite as evenly balanced ,when viewing the power status, as you appear to think..

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125