|
Solomon Ash
Nudibranch

Registered: 05/16/11
Posts: 149
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Anarchism
#14461171 - 05/16/11 09:12 AM (13 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Do you feel that anarchism is a meaningful and relevant political philosophy?
Do any of you consider yourself political anarchists?
If so , what does anarchism mean to you?
I have done some research on Anarchism, and it seems to be making an unexpected resurgence in the form of incorporation into the global anti-globalization/alternative-globalization.
Anarchism seems to mean three things: an emphasis on direct political action (protests and direct resistance), a conviction that no meaningful change will ever be allowed from within the dominant system, and a commitment to building community and individual level solutions to problems rather than relying on the state.
Anarchism also seems to be allied with feminism, environmentalism, social justice movements and indigenous people's struggles.
It seems that as more and more people lose confidence in the government and other major institutions, Anarchism will have a wider and wider appeal.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
Good, this way they can create a new government about which they will be pissed off in no time.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
memes
Blessed



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 27,785
Loc: In a Tree
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: Good, this way they can create a new government about which they will be pissed off in no time. 
ding ding ding.
in the absence of a government, gang rule wins. How do well-mannered citizens protect their assets from the gangs? they form a police force. how do you pay for a police force? collect taxes from thsoe the force is protecting. Wait, fuck, we have a government again.
|
Solomon Ash
Nudibranch

Registered: 05/16/11
Posts: 149
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
|
So are you of the opinion that government is inevitable and inescapable, and that therefore the anarchist project is futile?
Is it impossible for humans to develop egalitarian, freely organized societies and social organizations that are non-hierarchical, non-authoritarian, consensual and consensus based?
|
Orium
NEWB



Registered: 05/12/11
Posts: 35
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
|
|
Maybe in the future, but not now. Many will argue that human instinct, greed, and jealousy would screw things up, but I ask: are these things truly natural? Or are we socialized to believe they are natural. I can see both sides to the answer of this question.
However, I think that those traits of greed, lust, and a drive for power must be eradicated or significantly diminished for there to be an anarchy. Same thing with true communism.
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Solomon Ash said: So are you of the opinion that government is inevitable and inescapable, and that therefore the anarchist project is futile?
Absolutely. The strong will always dominate the weak. The smart will always dominate the stupid. The criminal, left unchecked will always dominate the law abiding.
Quote:
Is it impossible for humans to develop egalitarian, freely organized societies and social organizations that are non-hierarchical, non-authoritarian, consensual and consensus based?
At this point in our development? Absolutely.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
So are you of the opinion that government is inevitable and inescapable, and that therefore the anarchist project is futile?
That's about it. No society worthy of the descriptor "civilized" can exist for long absent a government. All that is left to decide is in how many areas the citizens of that society will allow their government to be the final arbiter. No rational society of which I am aware has ever decided that government should involve itself in less than the irreducible minimum of the following four key areas...
- military - criminal justice system (objective body of law, cops, courts, prisons) - contract law and civil law (objective body of law, courts, fines, contract arbitration) - foreign relations (State department, ambassadors, diplomacy, etc.)
...although there is no shortage of societies who have decided to allow their governments far more power than this. The above list represents the minimum necessary areas to which Anarchism has no realistically effective approach. As has been pointed out already, in the absence of a government handling these four areas (especially the first three) then society degenerates into "might is right" at the entry of the first thug into that society.
Quote:
Is it impossible for humans to develop egalitarian, freely organized societies and social organizations that are non-hierarchical, non-authoritarian, consensual and consensus based?
It is not strictly speaking impossible for some very small groups (like a few hundreds at most) of like-minded and incredibly disciplined humans to secrete themselves away somewhere for a few years or even a few decades and live this kind of lifestyle temporarily. It would end up being a subsistence lifestyle and would be ultimately doomed from the start, but I'm guessing it is not impossible that several good years could pass before the inevitable crash.
Phred
--------------------
|
Solomon Ash
Nudibranch

Registered: 05/16/11
Posts: 149
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Re: Anarchism [Re: Phred]
#14467661 - 05/17/11 12:19 PM (13 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Good points, all.
But I wonder
"No rational society of which I am aware has ever decided that government should involve itself in less than the irreducible minimum of the following four key areas...
- military - criminal justice system (objective body of law, cops, courts, prisons) - contract law and civil law (objective body of law, courts, fines, contract arbitration)"
Isn't it precisely because we give governments control over the military that we have trillion dollar a year military budgets while people starve, and nuclear bombs being detonated and stockpiled, and thousands of innocent civilians being killed in wars around the world?
And is it not because we give the government control of criminal justice that we have a global war on drugs, thousands of peaceful drug users in prison, and an increasing proportion of the population locked up?
Is it not because of the governments property laws that we have an increasing gap between rich and poor, and the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of the few?
So what is so rational about any of that?
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 45 minutes
|
|
Step 1: Kill all humans.
Step 2: Replace them with pink unicorns.
Step 3: Anarchy.
-------------------- This space for rent
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Isn't it precisely because we give governments control over the military that we have trillion dollar a year military budgets while people starve, and nuclear bombs being detonated and stockpiled, and thousands of innocent civilians being killed in wars around the world?
And what has led you to believe that real-world choices are always between a good outcome and a bad outcome? When dealing with imperfect beings (and humans are decidedly imperfect), the usual choice is between "sub-optimal" and "nowhere even close to optimal".
Further, while it is true that bad things can happen when governments run national militaries, the degree of badness can to a large extent be controlled by the citizens' lack of tolerance for government idiocy. Trillion dollar militaries are not an inevitability. And, of course, world hunger has no relevance to the necessity of a government-run military one way or the other.
Quote:
And is it not because we give the government control of criminal justice that we have a global war on drugs, thousands of peaceful drug users in prison, and an increasing proportion of the population locked up?
Again, it is up to the citizens of a society to reign in governments when they go to far. Once again you try to use one of the few disadvantages of having a government-run legal system in an attempt to invalidate the entire concept. Although I abhor drug prohibition, I would much rather just expend a bit of effort to smoke my weed away from government eyes than live in a society where gangs ruled all. That is such a minor inconvenience that the decision is a total no-brainer.
Quote:
Is it not because of the governments property laws that we have an increasing gap between rich and poor, and the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of the few?
No. Not even close.
Quote:
So what is so rational about any of that?
Everything.
Phred
--------------------
|
memes
Blessed



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 27,785
Loc: In a Tree
|
|
Quote:
Solomon Ash said: Isn't it precisely because we give governments control over the military that we have trillion dollar a year military budgets while people starve, and nuclear bombs being detonated and stockpiled, and thousands of innocent civilians being killed in wars around the world?
Eliminating the military budget would not fix poverty. Don't confuse the two. If it didnt take more than $3 of taxpayer dollars to distribute $1 of social welfare I might agree, but with such inefficiencies, i think we're better off spending it on military and keeping our markets secure (right? isnt that what military does now?)
Quote:
Solomon Ash said: And is it not because we give the government control of criminal justice that we have a global war on drugs, thousands of peaceful drug users in prison, and an increasing proportion of the population locked up?
No, it is because we give government control over criminal justice that your big asshole alcoholic neighbor cant' come over and fuck your wife and steal your food and car. Drug laws came to be as a result of public sentiment regarding substances, and the drafting of those laws was done by specific individuals. Do not blame the existance of drug persecution on the presence of a court system. Thats dumb.
Quote:
Solomon Ash said: Is it not because of the governments property laws that we have an increasing gap between rich and poor, and the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of the few?
No, its becuase of government property laws that individuals had the incentive to invest into their land, their homes, and their future. Without the ability to own what you earn, there is no incentive to be productivei - social leeching prevails.
Its pretty simple: we've reached the point that find ourselves in because it makes (more-or-less) the most sense.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Anarchism [Re: Orium]
#14467800 - 05/17/11 12:55 PM (13 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Orium said: but I ask: are these things truly natural?
And I ask: what, in your opinion, then, IS natural? What would classify these things as unnatural?
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
Baboons have government.
--------------------
|
Beanhead
IS IRONIC PARADOX


Registered: 10/11/08
Posts: 17,257
Loc: Geospatial inversion.
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
|
I like the anarchy in most politicaly-active squats
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
|
Quote:
Solomon Ash said: what does anarchism mean to you?
Somalia.
|
Joe Joe
2nd Level Meditator


Registered: 10/29/10
Posts: 190
Loc: Vortex #4
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Anarchism [Re: memes]
#14470756 - 05/17/11 11:04 PM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
meams said: 1) Eliminating the military budget would not fix poverty. Don't confuse the two. If it didnt take more than $3 of taxpayer dollars to distribute $1 of social welfare I might agree, but with such inefficiencies, i think we're better off spending it on military and keeping our markets secure (right? isnt that what military does now?)
2) No, it is because we give government control over criminal justice that your big asshole alcoholic neighbor cant' come over and fuck your wife and steal your food and car. Drug laws came to be as a result of public sentiment regarding substances, and the drafting of those laws was done by specific individuals. Do not blame the existance of drug persecution on the presence of a court system. Thats dumb.
3) No, its becuase of government property laws that individuals had the incentive to invest into their land, their homes, and their future. Without the ability to own what you earn, there is no incentive to be productivei - social leeching prevails.
4) Its pretty simple: we've reached the point that find ourselves in because it makes (more-or-less) the most sense.
1) Actually, if we reduced the military budget, we could also reduce taxes and then private and government dollars could be used towards more socially beneficial endeavors. Higher quality education, more research funding, etc. and less money sunk into roads, military bases, and hand-outs/bribes in foreign countries that are unfriendly to us. Also, I think that you would find a popular vote showing more favor for welfare than our warmongering in the Middle East. It always gets me that certain people want to reduce government spending and privatize everything EXCEPT for the military. When was the last time any legislation was passed to reduce military spending or influence?
2) Actually if our government wasn't working so hard to take away our freedoms and to make sure that we have less access to guns every year, then we could more easily defend ourselves from our unlawful neighbors. BTW, the last I heard, if someone wants to rape your wife, kill you, and steal your car - they're gonna do it anyway. Cops aren't precogs yet... Anyway, I don't know about you, but I don't need a legal system to protect myself from an unruly neighbor. Actually, living in the overbearing legal system that we do it is often difficult to defend yourself without being charged for a crime for doing so. Of course, there are subtle ways to deal with problematic people that don't leave much evidence. You just have to have the balls to carry through with them. That's one of the biggest problems in our society - lack of nuts on all sides.
And as far as public sentiment on drug laws goes, give me a break. My history book doesn't show protests in the street demanding that drugs be banned. Official lies and corruption were the reasons that the drug laws were enacted. The government lied to the people about the evils of drugs just like they do today. Look at Montana if you need any evidence of what the true public consent is worth. The legislature ignores the will of the people in favor of their cronies' interests everyday and on all issues.
3) Please elaborate on your knowledge of property laws. I have a feeling that you are blowing smoke here. I will admit that I don't have enough knowledge to make an informed statement on property law. Will you?
4) Its pretty simple: We've backed away from conflict with wealthy and powerful institutions and individuals and allowed them to legislate our freedoms away from us. THAT is why things are as they are. Ask any person on the street and they will tell you that the system is completely fucked. Makes no sense to most people. But I guess we're all just to dumb to get it. That's why we need all these smart people to run things for us and tell us what to do. At least that's what they tell us as they tighten the cinch on our balls.
Fuck all governments.
|
memes
Blessed



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 27,785
Loc: In a Tree
|
Re: Anarchism [Re: Joe Joe]
#14471909 - 05/18/11 06:33 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
You're argument is silly. And I have no need to elaborate on my property law knowledge. I dont know dick about individual property laws, but i DO know that if I dont own my property, I have no incentive to maintain or improve it, since the fruits of that property are not my own.
Its logic. Those of us who have the ability to rationally think use it well.
Regarding your counterpoints: they're more-or-less silly.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Anarchism [Re: Joe Joe]
#14472074 - 05/18/11 08:00 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Joe Joe writes:
Quote:
Actually, if we reduced the military budget, we could also reduce taxes...
This is self-evident, and can be accurately said of every other government function funded by taxes. It does nothing, however, to show that the military should not be under control of government.
Quote:
It always gets me that certain people want to reduce government spending and privatize everything EXCEPT for the military.
Military is one of the VERY few (one out of just four) legitimate functions of government. It is thus no surprise so many people want to privatize nearly everything else government does today... i.e. your examples of "socially beneficial endeavours". The US federal government has no business funding higher education or research.
Quote:
Anyway, I don't know about you, but I don't need a legal system to protect myself from an unruly neighbor.
No? Suppose circumstances arise which lead a number of intelligent people in your immediate area to logically conclude it is you (rather than a transient who bears a remarkable resemblance to you) who has been diddling kiddies at the local playground and they form a posse to visit justice upon you at four in the morning one night. You'd be okay with that?
Phred
--------------------
|
Solomon Ash
Nudibranch

Registered: 05/16/11
Posts: 149
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Re: Anarchism [Re: Phred]
#14472377 - 05/18/11 10:03 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
The interesting thing is that it is just as easy to think of horror stories about governments as horror stories about lack of governments.
For example, if my neighbour is a homicidal maniac, It would be terrifying not to be able to call the police for help.
At the same time, corrupt governments who kick your door down, drag you out of bed and throw you in a cell without a trial are probably even scarier, if only because they wield so much power.
It really depends. If you live in a good safe community with good people, government might be more harm than help.
And if you live in a country with an excellent, trustworthy, transparent government, government might be your best friend.
But when you live in the land of the patriot act, FEMA camps, nuclear weapons silo's, massive inequality and perpetual unprovoked wars around the world, where you can be locked up for smoking a joint and harassed for being a minority or a suspected "terrorist"... you might start wishing for less government presence instead of more.
I think we can all imagine situations where a friendly government would be of great help. But lets not forget that a government gone bad is more terrifying than any individual psycho or gang.
The Nazis were a well-ordered and well organized government, and similar atrocities have been committed by the governments of Pinochet in Chile and PoL Pot in Cambodia.
So its not simple, is all I am saying. Both sides have their horrors.
The thing is, a few good people can usually resist a few evil people. But when the government itself, with its stranglehold on the military, prisons and police goes haywire, the citizens are in real danger.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
But when you live in the land of the patriot act, FEMA camps, nuclear weapons silo's, massive inequality and perpetual unprovoked wars around the world, where you can be locked up for smoking a joint and harassed for being a minority or a suspected "terrorist"...
Oh please! Let's try to avoid hysterically exaggerated drama queen pronouncements for the rest of this thread, okay?
Quote:
...you might start wishing for less government presence instead of more.
"Less" is not a synonym for "zero". I have always advocated for the minimum possible government presence in the lives of a society's citizens. But I recognize the enormous and fundamental divide between a minimal presence and a total absence. Anarchists, sadly, do not.
Quote:
The Nazis were a well-ordered and well organized government, and similar atrocities have been committed by the governments of Pinochet in Chile and PoL Pot in Cambodia.
You seem to be arguing that because a very, very few governments over the course of human history have led to results arguably worse than total chaos and ubiquitous gang warfare, we should not institute governments. That is of course an absurd stance to hold. Governments do not inevitably devolve into Nazi Germanys and Commie Cambodias. Once again, you make the common Anarchist error of condemning "better" because it is not "perfect". Life almost never gives us choices with no potential downsides whatsoever. Rational people recognize this undeniable truth. Anarchists, sadly, do not.
Quote:
The thing is, a few good people can usually resist a few evil people.
And if that were all that were ever likely to pop up - a few evil people show up every now and then - your argument might sort of hold water, a little bit. But of course, Attila the Hun was in charge of more than a few people. As was Adolph Hitler. And Josef Stalin. And Pol Pot. Or Charles Manson.
And of course we haven't even begun to address the far more common situation - contract disputes between two good people acting in complete and sincere good faith.
Phred
--------------------
|
Solomon Ash
Nudibranch

Registered: 05/16/11
Posts: 149
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Re: Anarchism [Re: Phred]
#14472575 - 05/18/11 10:49 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
"Oh please! Let's try to avoid hysterically exaggerated drama queen pronouncements for the rest of this thread, okay?"
Um... all the things I mentioned were totally real. I don't think it really qualifies as a hysterically exaggerated drama queen pronouncement to point out that the American government has a history of unjust wars (vietnam) has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, has waged a long and brutally illegitimate war on drugs, and has passed the patriot act and other acts that severely limit civil liberties.
|
memes
Blessed



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 27,785
Loc: In a Tree
|
|
like he said. draaaaama queeeeeen :silly:
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
Solomon Ash said: "Oh please! Let's try to avoid hysterically exaggerated drama queen pronouncements for the rest of this thread, okay?"
Um... all the things I mentioned were totally real. I don't think it really qualifies as a hysterically exaggerated drama queen pronouncement to point out that the American government has a history of unjust wars (vietnam) has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, has waged a long and brutally illegitimate war on drugs, and has passed the patriot act and other acts that severely limit civil liberties.
1. Vietnam was not unjust. Ask the ghosts of South Vietnamese victims murdered after their defeat. 2. Several other countries also have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons, some of them rather actively opposed to the US. Who knew? 3. Every single nation on the planet is involved in drug prohibition 4. The Patriot Act has had zero impact on my civil liberties
--------------------
|
Vsnares.Zappa
bend over


Registered: 05/04/11
Posts: 3,153
Last seen: 7 months, 2 days
|
|
Anarchism = Order without hierarchy. it's not about abolishing state/government
|
Vsnares.Zappa
bend over


Registered: 05/04/11
Posts: 3,153
Last seen: 7 months, 2 days
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: 1. Vietnam was not unjust. .
|
Joe Joe
2nd Level Meditator


Registered: 10/29/10
Posts: 190
Loc: Vortex #4
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Anarchism [Re: memes]
#14475951 - 05/18/11 10:30 PM (13 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
meams said: You're argument is silly. And I have no need to elaborate on my property law knowledge. I dont know dick about individual property laws, but i DO know that if I dont own my property, I have no incentive to maintain or improve it, since the fruits of that property are not my own.
Its logic. Those of us who have the ability to rationally think use it well.
Regarding your counterpoints: they're more-or-less silly.
You could have just shortened this to: "I don't know dick, but that isn't going to stop me". Would've been sufficient. Really. And you threw in that logic shit for the lulz, right?
|
Joe Joe
2nd Level Meditator


Registered: 10/29/10
Posts: 190
Loc: Vortex #4
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Anarchism [Re: Joe Joe]
#14476037 - 05/18/11 10:51 PM (13 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
I seriously wonder why some of the people posting on these boards are here. Its pretty obvious that they don't partake in any illicit substances other than possibly coke or meth.
I honestly don't know one person who uses beneficial mind altering substances and holds the destructive viewpoints expressed by Shroomery's resident "political experts". Seriously guys, tells us - have you ever taken a psychedelic drug? Or did you do it once in college and that makes you legit? Or maybe you just run into annoying people who actually know what they're talking about on real political forums, so you have no choice but to post here?
You are obviously the outsiders in such a community. So seriously, of all places, why Shroomery?
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Anarchism [Re: Joe Joe] 2
#14476345 - 05/19/11 12:19 AM (13 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Not all psychedelic users must be stoopid hippies, sorry.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
memes
Blessed



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 27,785
Loc: In a Tree
|
Re: Anarchism [Re: Joe Joe]
#14477147 - 05/19/11 06:47 AM (13 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Joe Joe said: I honestly don't know one person who uses beneficial mind altering substances and holds the destructive viewpoints expressed by Shroomery's resident "political experts". Seriously guys, tells us - have you ever taken a psychedelic drug? Or did you do it once in college and that makes you legit? Or maybe you just run into annoying people who actually know what they're talking about on real political forums, so you have no choice but to post here?
You are obviously the outsiders in such a community. So seriously, of all places, why Shroomery?
Lol so people need to be part of the majority to participate in a community? [edit: you realize what your presumption indicates about drug users in america right?]
Additionally, did you just use the word "legit" in reference to the extent to which people use drugs? So I'm only a legit shroomery member if i do halucinogens frequently, with lots of tapestries on my wall and a TiT in my closet?
Your views on shroomery member credibility are as rediculous as your views on government role in civilian life
Edited by memes (05/19/11 06:49 AM)
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Anarchism [Re: Joe Joe]
#14478312 - 05/19/11 12:16 PM (13 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Presumably, one is equally welcome on these boards if they've never used a drug in their life, right? Your post is silly on a number of levels.
Furthermore, you realize that you just called someone who not only has been here 5 years longer than you and has over 10,000 more posts here than you, but also knows how to correctly reply to a specific post not "legit", right?
Edited by ChuangTzu (05/19/11 12:22 PM)
|
memes
Blessed



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 27,785
Loc: In a Tree
|
|
Quote:
ChuangTzu said: Furthermore, you realize that you just called someone who not only has been here 5 years longer than you and has over 10,000 more posts here than you, but also knows how to correctly reply to a specific post not "legit", right?
I love you too ChangTzu :hugz:
....but he was prooooobably not even talking about me, right? Clearly just referring to zappa
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Anarchism [Re: memes]
#14479010 - 05/19/11 02:37 PM (13 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
There are people who I know IRL who occasionally browse the forum and know my username. Some of them are my children. In the words of a wise sage, "I aint copping to nuttin'". And to Joeboy, in the words of another wise sage, namely Phred, "there is no evidence that mushrooms make you stupid". That's why we aren't all liberal bums.
--------------------
|
communeart


Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 1,021
Loc:
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
|
I despise anarchist, all they ever do is argue that we can achieve something politically without any hierarchy. That cops can be replaced by community watch bullshit. they systematically do this kind of crap. they also make good little antifascist thugs seeing as how they love bakunin's quote on the nationalisme of the oppressed. they will kick your ass and call you fascist because you are both white and an oppressed nationality. too easily do canadian anarchistf fall in the crypto-fascist trap of calling the quebec separatist movement nazi, most of them are nothing but the same thing as communist liberals, who are communist on the outside but when shit hits the fan they collaborate with the imperialists and their bourgeoisie because they are anti-nationalist. We live in a different world than 130 years ago where the communist and the anarchist represented something good like in the paris commune or the first international where both anarchist and communist would cooperate.
The only anarchists who ever achieve anything are those who gasp, organise themselves with a hierarchy. the other anarchist then sabotage this phony-anarchist organisation. it's a cycle. anarchists basicly come from petit-bourgeois background, and are as such, extremely irritated by the fact that radical activist who are children of working class parents actually prefer the nationalist to them simply because they see the nationalist as a true force that could achieve something to fight the corrupt plutocrats in power that they want to bring down
|
txlibertarian
Stranger
Registered: 05/31/10
Posts: 79
Last seen: 11 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Solomon Ash said: Do you feel that anarchism is a meaningful and relevant political philosophy?
Not really. Some people say that anarchy is the political extreme of libertarianism -- like communism is the extreme of socialism or such...
Community is good - at local and global levels. I can see why kids today think anarchy may be OK. But Anarchy doesn't really go anywhere except into a spiral... Just look at Mexico...
|
communeart


Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 1,021
Loc:
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
Not really. Some people say that anarchy is the political extreme of libertarianism -- like communism is the extreme of socialism or such...
Community is good - at local and global levels. I can see why kids today think anarchy may be OK. But Anarchy doesn't really go anywhere except into a spiral... Just look at Mexico...
taking the drug war as exemple of why anarchism is bad is truly misunderstanding the theory, between the theory and the people is 2 different thing. an anarchist in my opinion would never have a drug war for that is the basis of the anti-state movement, the communist agrees with anarchists but are progressive . and by that i mean that they go slowly toward a non-state society. no matter how wrong we say of communism, Mao said that society needs multiple cultural revolution before it can reach true communism which is a country without the limitation of a state. State oppression toward woman,stranger,ethnic minorities or even homosexuals if you are christians, all those pre coordinated oppression by the state which are inevitable under minarchism would be gone under anarchism or communism.
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
|
|
Anarchy is nothing more than a transitional phase between one form of government to another....kind like what Phred said with the whole utopian example.
In the end, at some point, a governmental body will arise.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
communeart


Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 1,021
Loc:
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
Anarchy is nothing more than a transitional phase between one form of government to another....kind like what Phred said with the whole utopian example.
In the end, at some point, a governmental body will arise.
That's because he played the game civilization. if at some point, a governmental body appear, then it will need to be fought by the people who made anarchism there in the first place, kinda similar as to how the united states no longer respect states rights, there are many people fighting for a constitutional country. The republican revolution of america is now corrupted due to bad elections, just like we can clearly see that the war on drugs is a deeply anti-american thing by essence.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
Hmmm, fighting against every government that might appear... shouldn't there be like an organization for this? You know, with meetings and planning and of course the group will have it's leaders. Although, this sounds familiar. Hold on, I think I've got it. Maybe there should be an anti-government govern.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
|
|
Can you please provide a specific example of a country, nation, nation-state, etc (other then a commune in buttfucked Egypt) where anarchy has taken root?
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
communeart


Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 1,021
Loc:
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
Hmmm, fighting against every government that might appear... shouldn't there be like an organization for this? You know, with meetings and planning and of course the group will have it's leaders. Although, this sounds familiar. Hold on, I think I've got it. Maybe there should be an anti-government govern.
i know, anarchist are self-loathing by essence. the only anarchist who achieve something are hated by everyone for achieving anything. eventually they join antifa because they can kick some ass and pretend their not doing state sanctionned beatings. girls love antifa too, they are feminist and still manly.
Quote:
Can you please provide a specific example of a country, nation, nation-state, etc (other then a commune in buttfucked Egypt) where anarchy has taken root?
i think russia had a good black army before the bolsheviks started crushing them or arranging battles between the white army and them so that both would be destroyed in the process. they declared free speech wherever they went.
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
|
|
Kinda supports what I was saying about the transitional nature of anarchism....
The Black Guards were a phase between the Bolsheviks (I believe at one time they were aligned with them as well).
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
communeart


Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 1,021
Loc:
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
|
They were not a phase, they were crushed by the bolcheviks. Anarchists and communist were both member of the first international, so it was natural that some alliance between both would exist. If you claim anarchists are a phase, then you should think twice about your own definition of the state.
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
|
|
To state that the Black Guard was a successful anarchist state and operated as one is quite the leap.
They were aligned with the Bolsheviks and got played in the end.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
communeart


Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 1,021
Loc:
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
|
they were under a state of war just like republican spain was, there is no proof of their success or failure. they did organise well when it comes to the military, they simply were played. Lenin often praised them and he was far more moderate toward them than trotsky or the unknown stalin at the time, the two possible sucessor.
|
memes
Blessed



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 27,785
Loc: In a Tree
|
|
Ooooh this talk of the black guard is interesting! i was previusly unaware!
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
communeart said: i think russia had a good black army before the bolsheviks started crushing them or arranging battles between the white army and them so that both would be destroyed in the process. they declared free speech wherever they went.
They were in Ukraine, yo.
Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine
|
communeart


Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 1,021
Loc:
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
|
I know, i think their actions overlapped in russia to fight the white armies though, i do believe they declared free speech in all cities that they liberated. they were not anarchists in the organisation of the army either, they were realistic.
|
|