|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,455
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 5 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: TheFakeSunRa]
#27243222 - 03/08/21 12:17 PM (3 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Animal Farm and even some elements of 1984 can be applied to America. But Orwell wrote Animal Farm specifically about his disgust with the Soviet experiment. Orwell as a socialist and Emma Goldman an anarchist were both highly idealistic and felt betrayed by Stalinism because they thought it ruined a great opportunity for social progress.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 43 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Brian Jones]
#27243369 - 03/08/21 01:49 PM (3 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think Orwell was necessarily opposed to the Soviet experiment, his disgust seemed to lie in Stalin specifically.
Interestingly, Orwell wrote in his review of Mein Kampf that he could not bring himself to hate Hitler, even after WWII. That particular line is usually censored out of his book review, which I think is quite ironic given Orwell's thoughts on censorship.
Then again, Hitler's ideas and Mein Kampf were viewed quite favorably in the mid 30s, especially in the US and the UK, right up until 1939. Then suddenly nobody liked the guy anymore.
|
Asante
Omnicyclion prophet


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,640
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
#27243470 - 03/08/21 03:05 PM (3 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said: Hitler's ideas and Mein Kampf were viewed quite favorably in the mid 30s, especially in the US and the UK, right up until 1939. Then suddenly nobody liked the guy anymore.
You had the American Nazi Party and the British Union of Fascists.
Holland had the NSB, the National Socialist Movement.
It was everywhere.
Everybody likes the idea of a nation pulling itself up by the bootstraps, but when the news gets out that all deemed undesirable are herded into camps to either be worked/starved to death or more actively killed in death factories, the handicapped of the nation are killed and that nation starts to wage war on all its borders, yeah the sympathy for the idea wears pretty thin.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
TheFakeSunRa
Bitch Splitter



Registered: 03/01/05
Posts: 16,449
Loc: Dirdy SOUF
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
#27243534 - 03/08/21 03:50 PM (3 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said: I don't think Orwell was necessarily opposed to the Soviet experiment, his disgust seemed to lie in Stalin specifically.
Interestingly, Orwell wrote in his review of Mein Kampf that he could not bring himself to hate Hitler, even after WWII. That particular line is usually censored out of his book review, which I think is quite ironic given Orwell's thoughts on censorship.
Then again, Hitler's ideas and Mein Kampf were viewed quite favorably in the mid 30s, especially in the US and the UK, right up until 1939. Then suddenly nobody liked the guy anymore.
Do you have a source that the review is commonly censored and link to both the censored and uncensored version?
I’m not verifying this with any mainstream sources googling myself.
-------------------- [quote]Asante said: You constantly make posts thatr fling middle school insults at people you don't like mixed in with maladjusted psychopathic comments about wanting to beat up the other poster with a crowbar. You know how shit you are, you just don't give a fuck for precisely that reason. I disendorse you.[/quote]
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,455
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 5 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
#27244600 - 03/09/21 08:11 AM (3 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said: I don't think Orwell was necessarily opposed to the Soviet experiment, his disgust seemed to lie in Stalin specifically.
Interestingly, Orwell wrote in his review of Mein Kampf that he could not bring himself to hate Hitler, even after WWII. That particular line is usually censored out of his book review, which I think is quite ironic given Orwell's thoughts on censorship.
Then again, Hitler's ideas and Mein Kampf were viewed quite favorably in the mid 30s, especially in the US and the UK, right up until 1939. Then suddenly nobody liked the guy anymore.
True, but Lenin only lived a little over 6 years after the revolution, and most of that time was civil war years. Lenin and Trotsky were very ruthless but that can be explained/excused by the war. We will never know how much better the USSR would have been had Lenin lived, or his chosen successor Trotsky had ruled.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
DoctorJ


Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#27245580 - 03/09/21 07:37 PM (3 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
People are punitive and stigmatizing by nature. When they aren't, they are a rare minority that gets democratically exploited.
Simply put: anarchism doesn't pay.
In fact, very soon after you build any kind of wealth, you have to abandon anarchic principles to keep it. Capital will always necessitate a police state to guard the haves from the have-nots. Democracy will always need a police state, to quash dissent.
So even those with anarchic intentions will find themselves co-opted to one or both sides, in proportion to what they have, and what they value, in terms of social and financial capital.
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 36 minutes, 1 second
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: DoctorJ]
#27245735 - 03/09/21 09:25 PM (3 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
In the West, most people know that, all things being equal, they’d lose a considerable amount of status. It’s not worth the risk.
--------------------
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 43 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: TheFakeSunRa]
#27246388 - 03/10/21 09:45 AM (3 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TheFakeSunRa said:
Quote:
Kryptos said: I don't think Orwell was necessarily opposed to the Soviet experiment, his disgust seemed to lie in Stalin specifically.
Interestingly, Orwell wrote in his review of Mein Kampf that he could not bring himself to hate Hitler, even after WWII. That particular line is usually censored out of his book review, which I think is quite ironic given Orwell's thoughts on censorship.
Then again, Hitler's ideas and Mein Kampf were viewed quite favorably in the mid 30s, especially in the US and the UK, right up until 1939. Then suddenly nobody liked the guy anymore.
Do you have a source that the review is commonly censored and link to both the censored and uncensored version?
I’m not verifying this with any mainstream sources googling myself.
Uncensored
Quote:
They would not have backed him, however, if he had not talked a great movement into existence already. Again, the situation in Germany, with its seven million unemployed, was obviously favourable for demagogues. But Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches. I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power—till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter—I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity. The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him.
Censored
Quote:
They would not have backed him, however, if he had not talked a great movement into existence already. Again, the situation in Germany, with its seven million unemployed, was obviously favourable for demagogues. But Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches…The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him.
Just look for that ellipsis in the third paragraph whenever you see Orwell's review of Mein Kampf. They're quite common.
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 43 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Brian Jones]
#27246420 - 03/10/21 10:03 AM (3 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Brian Jones said:
Quote:
Kryptos said: I don't think Orwell was necessarily opposed to the Soviet experiment, his disgust seemed to lie in Stalin specifically.
Interestingly, Orwell wrote in his review of Mein Kampf that he could not bring himself to hate Hitler, even after WWII. That particular line is usually censored out of his book review, which I think is quite ironic given Orwell's thoughts on censorship.
Then again, Hitler's ideas and Mein Kampf were viewed quite favorably in the mid 30s, especially in the US and the UK, right up until 1939. Then suddenly nobody liked the guy anymore.
True, but Lenin only lived a little over 6 years after the revolution, and most of that time was civil war years. Lenin and Trotsky were very ruthless but that can be explained/excused by the war. We will never know how much better the USSR would have been had Lenin lived, or his chosen successor Trotsky had ruled.
A lot of whitewashing took place to make Lenin look like a good guy. However, I am reluctant to say that Lenin, or even Trotsky, would have been a better leader than Stalin. This is almost entirely with the benefit of hindsight however, knowing that WWII was right around the corner. Both Lenin and Trotsky were either explicitly or implicitly in favor of an agrarian communist society, which simply would not have been able to make enough tanks to stop Hitler's Wehrmacht. That would have been the end of both leftist and liberal thought worldwide for some time.
I do think that Stalin was the most important man of the 20th century.
|
TheFakeSunRa
Bitch Splitter



Registered: 03/01/05
Posts: 16,449
Loc: Dirdy SOUF
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
#27246556 - 03/10/21 11:17 AM (3 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
TheFakeSunRa said:
Quote:
Kryptos said: I don't think Orwell was necessarily opposed to the Soviet experiment, his disgust seemed to lie in Stalin specifically.
Interestingly, Orwell wrote in his review of Mein Kampf that he could not bring himself to hate Hitler, even after WWII. That particular line is usually censored out of his book review, which I think is quite ironic given Orwell's thoughts on censorship.
Then again, Hitler's ideas and Mein Kampf were viewed quite favorably in the mid 30s, especially in the US and the UK, right up until 1939. Then suddenly nobody liked the guy anymore.
Do you have a source that the review is commonly censored and link to both the censored and uncensored version?
I’m not verifying this with any mainstream sources googling myself.
Uncensored
Quote:
They would not have backed him, however, if he had not talked a great movement into existence already. Again, the situation in Germany, with its seven million unemployed, was obviously favourable for demagogues. But Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches. I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power—till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter—I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity. The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him.
Censored
Quote:
They would not have backed him, however, if he had not talked a great movement into existence already. Again, the situation in Germany, with its seven million unemployed, was obviously favourable for demagogues. But Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches…The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him.
Just look for that ellipsis in the third paragraph whenever you see Orwell's review of Mein Kampf. They're quite common.
Thanks for that. That’s really extremely interesting.
As far as the most important man of the 20th C Stalin is hard to beat. I think FDR is a good rival but Stalin is practically FDR plus Truman plus Nixon
But then there’s Mao. And Gandhi . And Einstein.
If you’re willing to be bothered I wonder what your top ten grand poobahs of the 20th C are.
-------------------- [quote]Asante said: You constantly make posts thatr fling middle school insults at people you don't like mixed in with maladjusted psychopathic comments about wanting to beat up the other poster with a crowbar. You know how shit you are, you just don't give a fuck for precisely that reason. I disendorse you.[/quote]
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 51 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Lynnch] 1
#27391254 - 07/17/21 12:06 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lynnch said: I have a hard time envisioning anarchy. Would the trains run on time? Would we have trains?
This appears to refer to the common claim that Mussolini made the trains of Italy finally run on time. It goes something like this: "Sure, fascism is an often brutal model of efficient government, full of poverty and corruption, but hey, at least the trains were punctual." This claim is a myth. Anarchism and fascism don't exist on opposition ends of an 'efficiency spectrum'.
You ask, would we still have trains in an anarchist society? We can look to the collectivization of buses, streetcars, and subways, by revolutionary Barcelona’s CNT union in 1936, for our answer. Over 6,500 workers from six private companies expropriated the city’s transportation system, managing the operations through workers assemblies, and serving over 200 million passengers a year. Freed from the hierarchy and profit-motives of the bosses, working conditions and benefits improved, long-standing technical inefficiencies were remedied, service was expanded, and fares equalized.

If you're interested in some further reading on the subject:
Homage to Catalonia - George Orwell - Classic account of Orwell's experiences in the civil war and its betrayal by the Spanish Communist Party.
1936-1939: The Spanish civil war and revolution - Short history and overview of the events that took place in the Spanish civil war and revolution.
Anarchists in the Spanish revolution - Jose Peirats - A lifelong member of the CNT gives his account and analysis of the Spanish civil war.
Workers' power and the Spanish revolution - Tom Wetzel - Historical article and analysis of the Spanish Civil War and Revolution, and in particular the activities of the Spanish anarchists within it.
The CNT in the Spanish Revolution - Jose Peirats - Extensive, three volume work chronicling the history of the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT - "National Confederation of Labour"), the anarcho-syndicalist union and largest workers' union in Spain at the time during the Spanish civil war and revolution 1936-9.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 51 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: The Dalcassian]
#27391330 - 07/17/21 01:17 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Dalcassian said: I've used to identify as an anarchist but really an anarchist state can't exist, as any type of group or community becomes something other than anarchy.
Imo anarchists can live in society, but society can't exist in a state of anarchy. You could be an anarchist and not break any laws ever, so long as those laws coincide with how that anarchist chooses to behave in any given moment.
And that's the crux of it, an anarchist makes his own choices every time. He can take into account the repercussions that his environment might impose on him but its his choice. If he accepts prison as a consequence as chooses to do it anyway, then prison isn't a punishment, its just an environmental change due to his choices.
Like most thing it's just perspective.
I'm curious how you define 'anarchy', because (based on my definition) there's nothing inherently incompatible between human societies and anarchy. Can you clarify your definition of the term?
My working definitions:
Anarchy is what happens whenever order is not imposed by force. It is freedom: the process of continually reinventing ourselves and our relationships.
Any freely occurring process or phenomenon - a rainforest, a circle of friends, your own body - is an anarchic harmony that persists through constant change. Top-down control, on the other hand, can only be maintained by constraint or coercion: the precarious discipline of the high-school detention room, the factory farm in which pesticides and herbicides defend sterile rows of genetically modified corn, the fragile hegemony of a superpower.
Anarchism is the idea that everyone is entitled to complete self-determination. No law, government, or decision-making process is more important than the needs and desires of actual human beings. People should be free to shape their relations to their mutual satisfaction, and stand up for themselves as they see fit.
Anarchism is not dogma or a blueprint. It is not a system that would supposedly work if it were only applied right, like democracy, nor is it a goal to be realized in some far-off future, like communism. It is a way of acting and relating that we can put into practice right now. In reference to any value system or course of action, we can begin by asking: How does it distribute power?
Anarchists oppose all forms of hierarchy - every currency that concentrates power in the hands of a few, every mechanism that puts us at a distance from our potential. Against closed systems, we relish the unknown before us, the chaos within us by virtue of which we are able to be free.
--------------------
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 43 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#27392694 - 07/18/21 04:58 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Anarchism is the idea that everyone is entitled to complete self-determination. No law, government, or decision-making process is more important than the needs and desires of actual human beings. People should be free to shape their relations to their mutual satisfaction, and stand up for themselves as they see fit.
This is a little...dangerously close to Randian libertarianism.
I think I've asked you before: How do you deal with someone that has both the means and the desire to cause great harm to a large group of people? Should their desire be unconstrained?
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 36 minutes, 1 second
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos] 1
#27393406 - 07/19/21 08:49 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Randian libertarianism leaves the power dynamics of capitalism in place and only removes the public check on that power via the state.
Imagine you got bullied in school and every once in a while you got in a fight and the teacher would break it up and sentence you to detention. Randian libertarianism removes the teachers, but the bullies are still beating your ass.
In my opinion, it’s gonna take several generations for human societies to adapt to the level of emotional intelligence that’s required for an anarchist society. But it’s always been the goal of the left, the major ideological split among anarchists and communists seems to be whether state coercion is necessary to bridge the gap between our current capitalist hegemony and an egalitarian society. There are obviously good arguments in both sides, but your concern about a person or group with the means and desire to do harm are not unfounded. I’m sure shiva could answer this better than I could but I think the idea is that that person or group would never have the means (or desire) to do harm. It seems a little far fetched, but that’s because we’ve always lived in a reality where this is the norm.
Sorta reminds me of this
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 51 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
#27393461 - 07/19/21 09:29 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I've always referred to objectivism - tongue-in-cheek - as selfish anarchism. Outwardly, they can have the appearance of similarity, but a closer analysis proves that thought incorrect.
Two particular sentences I'll isolate from my earlier post: "Anarchy is what happens whenever order is not imposed by force," and "Anarchism is the idea that everyone is entitled to complete self-determination." If the desire to cause great harm to a large group of people can be fulfilled without the use of force, it's fair game (maybe some form of consensual sadism?); but the requirement of not using force (both physical and coercive) to achieve your desires is absolutely fundamental to anarchism.
Conversely, objectivism is pretty explicit that pursuit of your own happiness is the moral purpose of life, and the only constraint to this pursuit is the initiation of physical force.
Still, that doesn't seem like a huge distinction until you consider how they manifest. The most glaring example? Objectivist philosophy concludes that "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism" is the only social system that recognizes individual rights - whereas anarchists consider capitalism to be predicated on a principle of coercive authority, and therefore illegitimate.
What may appear as minor distinctions based on slightly different interpretations of self-determination and force, quickly brings us to an unbridgeable ideological gap.
--------------------
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 36 minutes, 1 second
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#27393476 - 07/19/21 09:41 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
It’s difficult to imagine what order in the absence of force would even look like.
Can you provide an example?
--------------------
|
Asante
Omnicyclion prophet


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,640
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: The Ecstatic]
#27393507 - 07/19/21 10:04 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Mother nature imposes order by force though. Try to rebel against gravity.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 51 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Asante]
#27393636 - 07/19/21 11:36 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
'Force' in this context doesn't refer to the concept used in physical science. I don't think any anarchist considers gravity to be an illegitimate authority - it's a fundamental property of our universe that affects everything equally. Gravity is a constant - kings and prime ministers aren't.
Within anarchist theory, force is better understood as the result of human power dynamics. Hierarchical systems use authority to usurp individual power - force is when that power is used to subvert self-determination. The greater the imbalances that are imposed on us, the more force it takes to preserve them.
There are many different mechanisms for imposing inequality. Some depend on a centralized apparatus, like the court system. Others can function more informally, like good ol'boy networks and gender roles. Some of these methods have been almost completely discredited - few still believe in the divine right of kings, though for centuries no other basis for society was even thinkable. Others are still so deeply ingrained that we cannot imagine life without them - who can picture a world without property rights? Yet all of these are social constructs; they are real, but not inevitable (unlike gravity).
What would a force-free order look like? Well, certainly not conflict-free. We shouldn't seek consensus for its own sake, as both consensus and conflict have their roles to play. A good place to start, though, is ensuring that no centralized power is able to compel agreement or transform conflict into winner-takes-all competition. When every effort to exert leverage on the world must be channeled through the mediation of representatives or transfered into the protocol of institutions, we become alienated from each other and our own potential. You can only have power by wielding it - you can only learn what your interests are by acting on them.
There's no way to freedom but through freedom. Rather than a single bottleneck for all authority, we need a wide range of venues in which to exercise power. Rather than a single currency of legitimacy, we need space for multiple narratives. In place of the coercion inherent in government, we need decision-making structures that promote autonomy, and practices of self-defense that can hold would-be rulers at bay.
I think that might answer both your questions, but maybe you were hoping for something more specific. Personally, I don't think it's beneficial to create specific models of anarchism, because the core of anarchy is a process of continually reinventing ourselves and our relationships. Trying to pin that down will only have the opposite effect.
Anarchism is not dogma or a blueprint. It is not a system that would supposedly work if it were only applied right, like democracy, nor is it a goal to be realized in some far-off future, like communism. It is a way of acting and relating that we can put into practice right now. In reference to any value system or course of action, we can begin by asking: How does it distribute power?
--------------------
Edited by shivas.wisdom (07/19/21 11:49 AM)
|
ashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole


Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 3,224
Loc: SCranton
Last seen: 1 day, 18 hours
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: The Ecstatic]
#27393716 - 07/19/21 12:33 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I would say that due to moral guide (not force) bestowed upon us at birth that a type of order that would ensue without any force is this: in any situation a sustenance based or impoverished family/group may be in, they would allow their younger and older relatives/tribesmen to eat first before the full grown healthy adults do. I think that would be order without force
So instead it's based on compassion, which as you mentioned is the type of thinking required for future humans to create and thrive in a working anarchist environment
-------------------- hmm... "I'm naked and fearless... And my fear is naked." "life isn't worth living without the threat of death" "I got my plans in a ziploc bag, let's see how unproductive we can be" "nobody lives their lives fully except for bull fighters" My Trade List
Edited by ashfiken (07/19/21 12:36 PM)
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 43 minutes
|
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#27393990 - 07/19/21 03:59 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Ecstatic said: In my opinion, it’s gonna take several generations for human societies to adapt to the level of emotional intelligence that’s required for an anarchist society.
I don't know if that's something I can agree with. There are some truly broken people out there, and as I realized during my mass shooting experience, I'm probably one of them.
What do you do with someone who just doesn't give a shit about their fellow man? Someone who has to fake empathy on an intellectual level because they don't have it otherwise?
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Two particular sentences I'll isolate from my earlier post: "Anarchy is what happens whenever order is not imposed by force," and "Anarchism is the idea that everyone is entitled to complete self-determination." If the desire to cause great harm to a large group of people can be fulfilled without the use of force, it's fair game (maybe some form of consensual sadism?); but the requirement of not using force (both physical and coercive) to achieve your desires is absolutely fundamental to anarchism.
But what happens when someone ignores your rules of not using force to impose their will?
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: What would a force-free order look like? Well, certainly not conflict-free. We shouldn't seek consensus for its own sake, as both consensus and conflict have their roles to play. A good place to start, though, is ensuring that no centralized power is able to compel agreement or transform conflict into winner-takes-all competition. When every effort to exert leverage on the world must be channeled through the mediation of representatives or transfered into the protocol of institutions, we become alienated from each other and our own potential. You can only have power by wielding it - you can only learn what your interests are by acting on them.
There's no way to freedom but through freedom. Rather than a single bottleneck for all authority, we need a wide range of venues in which to exercise power. Rather than a single currency of legitimacy, we need space for multiple narratives. In place of the coercion inherent in government, we need decision-making structures that promote autonomy, and practices of self-defense that can hold would-be rulers at bay.
I know this is an imperfect analogy, but I keep thinking of international relations whenever you mention this. Ultimately, international relations up until WWI were a sort of anarchy in which there was no centralized method for resolving disputes. There were many venues for exercising power; military, economic, religious, etc. Ultimately, though, disputes usually came down to military might.
Post WWI, we've had the League of Nations and the UN, which were some semblance of world government (though their effectiveness is debatable, especially with the LoN). Ultimately, I do think that a world with a UN seems to be working better than a pre-UN world.
|
|