Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   OlympusMyco.com Olympus Myco Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  [ show all ]
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 51 minutes
Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world?
    #27236108 - 03/03/21 10:19 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Shivas, what do you think is one of the biggest reasons why some of the anarchist tenants have not taken hold within the world?

From what I can see, as a historical prospective, anarchy seems to be a short lived state after a revolution or failed state, that transitions and/or morphs into another political philosophy. Why is that?





Quote:

Kryptos said:
Not shivas, but my two cents:

Money and Power.

Revolutions don't happen for free. There's a certain (large) amount of mythology surrounding the US revolution, but the fact is that George Washington was the richest person in the US colonies at the time of the revolution. He wasn't interested in freedom for the common man, so much as he was interested in freedom from the British treaties that didn't allow him to expand his wealth violently westward into Indian territory.

Anarchists, on the other hand, are almost always peasants/peasant armies. Again, the two biggest militant anarchist movements of the 20th century were the Green Russians, who did somewhere between jack and shit, and the Black Army, who did a little bit more, but were decapitated and unable to reorganize afterward.

The people with money and the people with power have a vested interest in the status quo, which provided either the money or the power (or both). Anarchists throughout history have been table flippers and game changers, which is a direct threat to people that are interested in the status quo.

Anarchists are always the weak link. You can machine gun peasants and labor unionists with virtually no reprisal, because everybody that has the power to stop you hates them as well.






Pretty good assessment imo - here's my go:

I would identify lack of popular support as the main obstacle. Consider another peasant army, the Zapatistas; despite Chiapas being an historically impoverished and excluded region of Mexico, the MAREZ have achieved significant improvements in quality of life for their people since the 1994 uprising. A decentralized peasant army has been able to resist the money and power of the Mexican state because it has the support of the people.

Now, it's important to recognize that Zapatismo isn't anarchism - but that doesn't mean we can't still take inspiration. In the words of Subcomandante Insurgente Galeano,

Zapatismo is not an ideology, it is not a bought and paid for doctrine. It is… an intuition. Something so open and flexible that it really occurs in all places. Zapatismo poses the question: ‘What is it that has excluded me?’ ‘What is it that has isolated me?'… In each place the response is different. Zapatismo simply states the question and stipulates that the response is plural, that the response is inclusive…


One thing to remember is that anarchism is fundamentally different from state governance. A fascist army can take over a democratic state, and a democratic army can take over a fascist state - but you can't force someone to be an anarchist in the same way that you can force someone to obey a fascist dictator or democratic vote. Anarchism is rooted in individual autonomy - a large-scale anarchist society will grow organically through willing participants or not at all. This quote from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience has always resonated with me,

I heartily accept the motto, - 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, - 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.


So if anarchism works, why isn't it more popular?

The height of popular support for anarchism would have been revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish civil war. This was the closest we've ever been to the establishment of a large-scale anarchist society. There's entire books written about it's failure - and I'm definitely coming from a biased and ever-so-slightly-bitter anarchist perspective - but the basic idea is that it was a result of the presiding social context rather than any functional error in anarchist theory - and by 'social context' I mean betrayal by state-communist allies. This was the end of anarchism's classical period.

Afterwards, WW2 and the cold war politics that followed didn't exactly offer fertile ground for a resurgence of an anarchist movement. The USSR provided a beacon (and funding) for left-wing revolutionaries around the globe, leading to state-communism taking predominance among the left and bleeding off potential anarchists to the more successful ideology. Severely repressed by capitalists, stalinists, and fascists - the movement was a shadow of itself for decades.

Unfortunately, although you can't force someone to be an anarchist, you can definitely force someone to not be one. As Krypto's mentioned, anarchists have consistently threatened the power apparatus of the state directly, rather than merely forcing a revolutionary shift in power; because of this, anarchists have historically experienced significant repression by state powers. Ever wonder why 'anarchy' and 'chaos' are considered synonymous terms? That's the firm result of decades of anti-anarchist propaganda, my friends. Many people today are completely unfamiliar with the ideology, but still experience a knee-jerk aversion to the word that makes learning about it exceedingly difficult.

That's starting to change though. Globally, the anarchist movement is experiencing the highest support since WW2. My guess is that an increasingly precarious society is partly responsible - because in times of disaster and instability, what matters is what works - not the political label. For example, consider how often you may have heard about mutual aid via mainstream sources in the last few years - that's an anarchist tenet taking hold as changing circumstances start to make it a necessity. Flipping around all the way to the beginning of my response - anarchism is fundamentally different from state governance - it's all too easy to miss the anarchy we practice in our daily lives because we're so preoccupied looking for a revolutionary anarchist state.

I don't have the patience to wait for some future anarchist utopia - I wouldn't expect anyone else to either. Luckily, anarchy grows from the ground up - you don't need to wait if you don't want to. There is nothing stopping you from making, at any moment, the individual decision to 'neither rule nor be ruled' - that's the most basic anarchist tenet of all. As Renzo Novatore cried out,

You are waiting for the revolution? Let it be! My own began a long time ago! When you are ready (god, what an endless wait!) I won’t mind going with you for a while. But when you stop, I shall continue on my way toward the great and sublime conquest of the nothing!



Just my 2c and I probably rushed to complete it at the end but ask questions if your interested and maybe I'll develop the ideas further


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (03/04/21 12:00 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLynnch
Strangerer
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/29/09
Posts: 8,010
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27236290 - 03/04/21 02:42 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

I have a hard time envisioning anarchy. Would the trains run on time? Would we have trains?
:strokebeard:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Dalcassian
Dirty Druggie
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/04/17
Posts: 952
Loc: Emerald lsles
Last seen: 1 year, 28 days
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Lynnch] * 1
    #27236297 - 03/04/21 03:02 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

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.

An anarchist will do as they please, when they please  but often we wouldn't recognise one unless they go against the norm in such as way to attract media attention.

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.


--------------------
Here Lies This Individual




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTheFakeSunRa
Bitch Splitter
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/01/05
Posts: 16,449
Loc: Dirdy SOUF Flag
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27236355 - 03/04/21 04:50 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

It’s impossible to implement on any scale in this world because over 7 billion people are competing for the same resources.

Paradoxically, in a sense we do live in a state of a certain kind of anarchism. No law is legit but power reigns supreme. Obviously, this isn’t classical non-hierarchical Proudhon or Bakunin anarchism but if you take out the recognition of their authority, governments and the supremely rich enjoy an existence where no other can tie them down with laws, rules, or institutions. That is to say, one way of thinking about anarchism is it’s a return to the lawlessness of pre-agrarian man. A natural state. Well, you cannot go against nature because if you do that’s part of nature too. This is just the current manifestation of that kind of anarchism. It’s kind of like mindfulness meditation. For some, the ultimate goal is a constant state of mindfulness. As the layers are peeled off the illusion of self the end result circles back around to where enlightenment finally just means being what you are which is what you were doing before you started meditating.

I’m sure some who see this point will think the problem is I don’t know what anarchism or enlightenment are. Please try to see my point that they are both, at least in large part, circular concepts.


--------------------
[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]

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMach z 800
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 1,580
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: TheFakeSunRa]
    #27236469 - 03/04/21 07:35 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

All we need is some one to make a nice emp an take out our power gridd.than we can have a madd max like world.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMach z 800
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 1,580
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: TheFakeSunRa]
    #27236478 - 03/04/21 07:41 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

TheFakeSunRa said:
It’s impossible to implement on any scale in this world because over 7 billion people are competing for the same resources.

Paradoxically, in a sense we do live in a state of a certain kind of anarchism. No law is legit but power reigns supreme. Obviously, this isn’t classical non-hierarchical Proudhon or Bakunin anarchism but if you take out the recognition of their authority, governments and the supremely rich enjoy an existence where no other can tie them down with laws, rules, or institutions. That is to say, one way of thinking about anarchism is it’s a return to the lawlessness of pre-agrarian man. A natural state. Well, you cannot go against nature because if you do that’s part of nature too. This is just the current manifestation of that kind of anarchism. It’s kind of like mindfulness meditation. For some, the ultimate goal is a constant state of mindfulness. As the layers are peeled off the illusion of self the end result circles back around to where enlightenment finally just means being what you are which is what you were doing before you started meditating.

I’m sure some who see this point will think the problem is I don’t know what anarchism or enlightenment are. Please try to see my point that they are both, at least in large part, circular concepts.


we just gotta make a time machine an bring hitler back he would get the job done.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblestubb
Dahg Rastubfari
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/19
Posts: 1,382
Loc: Memory Flag
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27236497 - 03/04/21 08:00 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

A decentralized peasant army has been able to resist the money and power of the Mexican state because it has the support of the people.




And a steady inflow of cash from American coffee drinkers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,640
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Lynnch]
    #27236505 - 03/04/21 08:04 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Lynnch said:
I have a hard time envisioning anarchy. Would the trains run on time? Would we have trains?
:strokebeard:





Would trains people be left alone if they chose the bathroom that fit them?


I think anarchy is impopular because a) people are indoctrinated into thinking its nothing more than kids blowing up mailboxes and b) most people are submissive, thereby desire another to take the lead as opposed to being on their own or even, top dog.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

Edited by Asante (03/04/21 08:06 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,011
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #27237893 - 03/04/21 11:06 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Because it doesn't work, is temporary, and will evolve/devolve into a monarchy/dictatorship of some sort anyway.


--------------------



"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,389
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Loaded Shaman]
    #27240903 - 03/06/21 07:28 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

I think the key to anarchy is to let shit go.  You have to be willing to roll dice and let shit go.  It’s all about control tho and making sure things are structured under a well regulated and pre determined framework.  But this won’t serve anarchy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemetalfaith
Moron
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/30/11
Posts: 1,842
Loc: FL
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27241391 - 03/07/21 04:10 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Just started reading Animal Farm again 2 days ago. Been several years for me.

You want to know what anarchy AND communism can't even exist for the long term? Read Orwell.. He makes that shit about as simple as a childrens fairy tale but also as real as any burgeoning political revolution.

I'm serious, he may not make it explicit and explain each piece and how it relates to human nature, but instead he writes that poetically into the narrative of he story.

Anarchy is like the Beats phase(or maybe part of), every young male has a phase where it appears appealing. Then we grow up, get a bit more life experience and realize how completely untenable such ideas are.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTheFakeSunRa
Bitch Splitter
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/01/05
Posts: 16,449
Loc: Dirdy SOUF Flag
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: metalfaith] * 3
    #27241453 - 03/07/21 05:53 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Orwell was a socialist who believed that capitalism was oppressive by design. Animal Farm isn’t a warning against communism; it’s a warning against doing it wrong. Animal Farm is about avoiding past mistakes as we transition out of capitalism. It’s basically a let’s do it right this time manual. Read Homage to Catalonia
Read Burmese Days Read Down and Out in Paris and London

Quote:

Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it.



-George Orwell

Orwell saw socialism as a careful step toward anarchism.

:themoreyouknow:


--------------------
[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]

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemetalfaith
Moron
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/30/11
Posts: 1,842
Loc: FL
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: TheFakeSunRa]
    #27241473 - 03/07/21 06:45 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

I have actually read those, it's been quite a few years.

You are right, i likely forgot his personal views. While I don't think I agree that animal farm isn't a criticism of communism, I accept I barely remember anything except some of Burmese Days and could easily be wrong.

Nevertheless, regardless of his personal views, his development of the plot and it's example of human nature is a perfectly simple and right on the money example of how these things progress in reality, whether starting from anarchy or communism,  the same development of wealth, resources, and intelligence leads to the same development of hierarchy.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTheFakeSunRa
Bitch Splitter
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/01/05
Posts: 16,449
Loc: Dirdy SOUF Flag
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: metalfaith]
    #27241582 - 03/07/21 08:24 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

A story about a man who eats too much, gets fat, and dies isn’t an indictment against food. It’s about avoiding mistakes, not a statement that a certain chain of events is unavoidable. Your take on Animal Farm is right in line with basically anyone who teaches middle or high school English which is quite frankly wrong. Orwell would be sick that Animal Farm is used to reinforce our belief in American exceptionalism when in fact America is exactly the kind of tyrannical society he was warning us about.


--------------------
[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]

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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] * 1
    #27241736 - 03/07/21 10:52 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Nah, Orwell didn't predict US society at all.

Huxley did.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTheFakeSunRa
Bitch Splitter
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/01/05
Posts: 16,449
Loc: Dirdy SOUF Flag
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
    #27241764 - 03/07/21 11:28 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Nah, Orwell didn't predict US society at all.

Huxley did.




They both did.


--------------------
[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]

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemetalfaith
Moron
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/30/11
Posts: 1,842
Loc: FL
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: TheFakeSunRa]
    #27241869 - 03/07/21 12:41 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

I made no claim whatsoever about American exveptionalism? Where the fuck did you come up with that? Especially not using Aminal Farm in to do so.

Real confused where you got that.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemetalfaith
Moron
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/30/11
Posts: 1,842
Loc: FL
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: metalfaith]
    #27241878 - 03/07/21 12:47 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Additionally, I don't need nor do I particularly care about his personal beliefs. (Edit: I probably was a bit misleading in the phrasing of my initial post.) I was simply saying that the story and it's development of a revolution is a perfectly simple and accurate story that can be used as an extrapolation of what would happen in any world that could be remotely called anarchy.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but my point is power vacuums never stay vacuums. Power wealth and influence always produce a leader and someone in power.


--------------------

Edited by metalfaith (03/07/21 12:53 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTheFakeSunRa
Bitch Splitter
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/01/05
Posts: 16,449
Loc: Dirdy SOUF Flag
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: metalfaith]
    #27241963 - 03/07/21 01:53 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

I’m kind of down with what you’re saying because I don’t necessarily think a reader has to exactly extrapolate the author’s exact intent to find value in the story. I always think there’s layers of meaning in literature and it can be a kind of Rorschach test. Also, I may have over-reached concerning my assumptions of where you were going with what you said.

The following is outside of what you said so it’s not directed at you:

Orwell and Animal Farm in particular is commonly taught as specifically a warning about the dangers of communism with the implied message that capitalism or even Americanism is the preferred and correct political course. It’s not exactly surprising that American schools exploit Orwell’s message into American propaganda. However, I jumped the gun accusing you of the same crime.

My bad.


--------------------
[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]

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetowndaze
Diviner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 04/20/19
Posts: 363
Last seen: 1 month, 17 days
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27242635 - 03/08/21 03:29 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Anarchists have a bad track record being put in front of firing squads by their autocratic compatriots once they stop being useful as shock troops.
Eventually that kind of spoils everyone's appetite for the idea.



Most other ideologies have at least a theoretical safeguard against being CTRL+ALT-DEL'd at the nearest possible convenience once the dust has settled.

Anarchy's kind of failed to address the "useful idiot for the very people we want gone the most"-stigma.


--------------------
Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once.

Edited by towndaze (03/08/21 03:32 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


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,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTheFakeSunRa
Bitch Splitter
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/01/05
Posts: 16,449
Loc: Dirdy SOUF Flag
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]

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


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,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
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.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTheFakeSunRa
Bitch Splitter
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/01/05
Posts: 16,449
Loc: Dirdy SOUF Flag
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]

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
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



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
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?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: Kryptos]
    #27394033 - 07/19/21 04:23 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

I dunno I feel someone with no empathy whatsoever to that level in addition of being intellectual to KNOW you need to fake it to be the "pack" animal we are.../fit in/have relationships...etc.

That person should then have enough intellect to know they shouldn't and can't expect anything from other humans and also can choose to be alone..
why does a person with no empathy have to cause damage ina anarchic kind of path?
If given complete unfettered freedom to do whatever they would like from the jump quite possibly they wouldn't feel the need to hurt others or demonize others enough to go out of their way to pursue their happiness that way..
if they would do so they are sociopaths and should be dealt with as such.
In anarchy I like to think these things figure themselves out due to the survival nature of humans.
ok they cause mass whatever's but that is going to only happen ONCE. No prison to sit in just the end bc they would be rejected by the communal trust that would be the backbone of an anarchic rule..
And so I jus see it as those with those tendencies would be weeded out through communal pressure and/or death.

When someone ignores the rules that is what you get..
jus because the prevailing thought is not to use force,
does NOT however preclude a mfer from,
when provoked by a heinous act and human(your example of a person wanting to cause harm to many ppl) or the like,
from reaching out and touching that individual and solving the problem(the taken lives of the their loved one/neighbor/tennis partner) same goes for most violent offenses people tend to do like rape or robbery..People aren't going to let their loved ones suffer and jus go on like it's all roses. And they arent supposed to bc that keeps the "order" that existed prior to the heinous behavior


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: ashfiken]
    #27394259 - 07/19/21 07:18 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

ashfiken said:
That person should then have enough intellect to know they shouldn't and can't expect anything from other humans and also can choose to be alone..
why does a person with no empathy have to cause damage ina anarchic kind of path?
If given complete unfettered freedom to do whatever they would like from the jump quite possibly they wouldn't feel the need to hurt others or demonize others enough to go out of their way to pursue their happiness that way..
if they would do so they are sociopaths and should be dealt with as such.




What about people that aren't violent psychopaths. What about the people that just don't care when others get hurt along the way? What about people like the Sacklers? "Eh, who cares if the entirely of appalachia now has oxy withdrawals, we got paid"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: Kryptos]
    #27394737 - 07/20/21 07:11 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

I dunno if it hadn't been for the doctors' idiocy, those patients would have never been exposed to be addicted like tht.
So I dunno it's a whole complicit enterprise for the sake of greed and not otherwise able to be brought to fruition if it weren't for the fact it enriched ppl tht I wouldn't say we're necessarily out to hurt but def playing the game that it wasn't their first priority.. money was first.
Either way it was perpetrated by far beyond jus the Sackler fam and I think that makes it a different kind of example you have brought forth that may be mitigated from happening under a different system where money isn't top priority for all


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: ashfiken]
    #27396318 - 07/21/21 09:20 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

What about misguided altruism?

Like the people that will kill you in the name of Jesus, and say it was worth it because they saved your soul?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: Kryptos]
    #27396344 - 07/21/21 09:38 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Good question. Dealing with religious fanatics is a very touchy subject, now or in our speculations.. You don't wanna hinder their beliefs or step on their right to believe what they will, so... I would say that those situations are rare and isolated enough that there is really no precursory option one could take to stop, curb, or manipulate the outcome of such things..
Jus deal with them on a individual basis I reckon


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: ashfiken]
    #27396797 - 07/21/21 03:15 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

You realize that's inherently problematic, right?

It doesn't even have to be religious fanatics. Doesn't have to be greedy drug pushers. The whole point of this thought experiment is "How would an anarchic society deal with antisocial people?"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: Kryptos]
    #27397559 - 07/22/21 06:12 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Yes I do understand that . Humans can be inherently problematic more often than not..
However in the examples put forth the antisocial person is somewhat an antagonist, when I don't necessarily see them as such. Ppl can be antisocial and harmless more often that is the case.. however in all cases what are we "supposed" to do with problematic ppl? Even now.. not like the Sackler fam got punished by our capitalist overlords right.. and I don't see the big deal here. They get managed now in a certain way and in anarchy they would just be managed in a similar fashion. Jus bc one may not want to fit into a community doesn't mean one can't still live and thrive and be ancillary to the community. Some ppl will be that way and under anarchist ideals it would be their right to subsist however and to he left alone..


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: ashfiken]
    #27397741 - 07/22/21 09:24 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

ashfiken said:
Some ppl will be that way and under anarchist ideals it would be their right to subsist however and to he left alone..




And how do you stop them when they start killing people inadvertently? What do you do when some guy pollutes so much that the entire western half of the US catches on fire? Who hods them accountable?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: Kryptos]
    #27397800 - 07/22/21 10:10 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

They will get stopped. Instead of prison, prob loss of life.
Same tht happened to ppl that did nefarious shit in the wild west. Closest america has in its history to anarchy.. ppl acted with respect oftentimes bc they knew everyone had the ability, wherewithall, and freedom to solve problems as they see fit, at that moment.
Dunno what else to say really except individual or community rule would be tasked with stopping and holding bad actors accountable.
In the wild west if you stole a cow from the wrong mfer, he shot you.
If you robbed trains, the local coalition, put you in a dark cell or shot you.
If you raped and murdered or set things on fire, you would be stopped by ppl that don't wanna deal with the bullshit. There simply is no CENTRAL authority, doesn't mean ppl wouldn't act as their own authority in such situations. And I don't see how that is bad as long as nobody wears their justice cape too tight or becomes a justice warrior which isn't what it should be about. It's pretty easy when consensus is already established to recognize someone that needs to be dealt with for aggravating said consensus


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblechopstick
nobody
Male


Registered: 07/26/08
Posts: 5,252
Loc: Chin's Wok
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: ashfiken]
    #27397836 - 07/22/21 10:41 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

It's all fun and games until people start getting killed with your wild west "vigilante justice". This kind of thing leads to reprisals and gang wars that will be fought out on the street with nobody to stop them, with innocent people getting hurt as a result.

The reality is that if we tried to switch to a full anarchist system there would end up being factions formed that would arm themselves and go to war with eachother, vying for power and control over resources and territory.

The only way it works is if everyone in an anarchist society are reasonable, responsible people that respect eachother. Do you see such a picture in America at the moment?

Of course, what we have now isn't working either, so it's not like we don't need something to change. I'm not saying big government and centralized authority is the solution.

I think people have a tendency to see anarchism/communism as the "answer" to the country's problems because of how fucked up things are right now. But what is really needed is a shift at a spiritual level. A return to Oneness. People need to remember that we're all One and that to hurt another is the same as harming the self. People need to want to share resources and engage in fruitful co-operation to assist eachother in building a better world. Until this spiritual shift takes place little of consequence will change and humanity will be at war with itself for eternity.

We will never know world peace until three people can simultaneously look eachother straight in the eye.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: chopstick]
    #27398037 - 07/22/21 01:28 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

All fun and games? Is it better to have a burgeoning prison system or let idiots get solved by the mass consensus?

BTW already been mentioned that it would take ppl with a better grasp and understanding of the world and each other than what we have today, then kryptos started with the what if examples...


--------------------
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 (07/22/21 01:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: chopstick]
    #27398108 - 07/22/21 02:47 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

People need to want to share resources and engage in fruitful co-operation to assist eachother in building a better world



 
  You need give me $500 or just admit that you don't actually believe that .


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblechopstick
nobody
Male


Registered: 07/26/08
Posts: 5,252
Loc: Chin's Wok
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Psilynut2] * 1
    #27398118 - 07/22/21 03:01 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

It might be hard for you to believe but I do believe it.

I hardly have any money but even when I do I give out money to homeless people when they ask all the time.. even if it's my last $20 and I know I won't get paid for a week.

I know that it hardly makes any difference at a societal level but it's just an example.

That said, there is a difference between mutual sharing of resources that goes to a common good, or giving to someone who is truly in need, versus giving a stranger $500 on the internet who doesn't actually need it. We both know I'm not getting anything in return for giving you $500. I don't get anything from giving a homeless guy money either, but it does make me feel better knowing that now someone who couldn't afford to eat lunch today will be able to do so.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: ashfiken]
    #27398556 - 07/22/21 09:46 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

ashfiken said:
They will get stopped. Instead of prison, prob loss of life.
Same tht happened to ppl that did nefarious shit in the wild west. Closest america has in its history to anarchy.. ppl acted with respect oftentimes bc they knew everyone had the ability, wherewithall, and freedom to solve problems as they see fit, at that moment.
Dunno what else to say really except individual or community rule would be tasked with stopping and holding bad actors accountable.
In the wild west if you stole a cow from the wrong mfer, he shot you.
If you robbed trains, the local coalition, put you in a dark cell or shot you.
If you raped and murdered or set things on fire, you would be stopped by ppl that don't wanna deal with the bullshit. There simply is no CENTRAL authority, doesn't mean ppl wouldn't act as their own authority in such situations. And I don't see how that is bad as long as nobody wears their justice cape too tight or becomes a justice warrior which isn't what it should be about. It's pretty easy when consensus is already established to recognize someone that needs to be dealt with for aggravating said consensus




Again, you keep talking about violent people. I'm not talking about the guy raping and murdering, I don;t really care about the guy raping and murdering. I'm talking about the oil baron that literally kills the planet with pollution. You know, the one that sells you modern transportation? You gonna shoot him? You gonna give up gasoline?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: Kryptos]
    #27398715 - 07/23/21 02:15 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Quote:

ashfiken said:
Some ppl will be that way and under anarchist ideals it would be their right to subsist however and to he left alone..




And how do you stop them when they start killing people inadvertently? What do you do when some guy pollutes so much that the entire western half of the US catches on fire? Who hods them accountable?





Sorry didn't put enough emphasis on the inadvertent part...honestly I think we have that problem now.. there is the issue with oil spills and pollution in the current climate.. nobody is really held accountable we jus deal with the ramifications.and it's rarely "one guy". However similar, I do think in stripping the capitalist mindset there would be less propensity for this sorta thing to happen. Ie under anarchist rule little would be gained from polluting your most valuable resource to provide another. That ideal would be amplified and restricted by the fact there would so much less to gain (hypothetically) in that environ than in the current


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: ashfiken]
    #27398969 - 07/23/21 10:00 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

See, I disagree.

Fundamentally, oil barons don't exist because of profits. Oil barons exist because our world runs on oil. Now, oil barons did of course push that reliance on oil, but they are not the only example of a new and promising technological advancement having unfortunate and unforeseen side effects.

Capitalist ideologies definitely make the problem worse, but they do not define the problem entirely. The problem is the ability for someone to become so entrenched within society that they can escape punishment. Oil barons power the world, cigarette/pharma companies generate addicts, social media generates depressed addicts, etc.

I don't see how an anarchist society is better equipped to deal with those people. It seems that it is explicitly under-equipped, compared to modern society. That's why I brought up Rand earlier.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: Kryptos]
    #27399221 - 07/23/21 01:22 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Hmm I am keen to see what you are saying, that certain tenets of the world would not change ie the necessity for oil/phones/software/drugs will not go away.

And that idea brings forth the lack of structure in place to deal with the concerns brought about by these necessities in anarchic schemes.

I don't deny there would be little power over those that we will say "have made themselves indispensable". Why could we not just agree that they are necessary evils, combat the symptoms logically, and minimize damage that way best we can..

Is that not EXACTLY what we are doing now(or should/could be) except there are specific power structures that are supposed to deal with those things formidably and however don't..
May I pose this question then? if you think anarchy would be Ill equipped please explain how "better" equipped we are now moreso than if there was no structure in place? How are these things getting dealt with now that would lead you to believe we would be ANY worse off "then" I guess as I see it we suck now pretty bad at curbing these things so why not jus take a new shot in the dark kinda vibe ya know?


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: ashfiken]
    #27399361 - 07/23/21 03:51 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Cigarette companies are a pretty good example. After several decades of public, private, and everything in between programs combating cigarette use, smoking rates are falling.

I've seen Phillip Morris ads recently that say "here's to a smoke free future", with their CEO. Of course they're disingenuous, but the fact that the biggest cigarette company in the world is running "anti-smoking" (at least on the surface) ads, tells me that public opinion has shifted.

That shift did not happen on its own. That shift was the results of a lot of work between people and governments, taxation policy, and other generally hierarchical structures.

I think international relations are a good way to look at anarchism. Outside of various methods of forceful intervention, countries can essentially do whatever they want without anybody stopping them. One country can unilaterally decide to pollute the world so much that there are mass deaths planetwide, and there isn't shit anyone can do about it without starting a war.

Of course, starting a war is a pretty clear example of a centralized power compelling agreement in a winner-takes-all conflict. Not very anarchic.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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]
    #27399381 - 07/23/21 04:05 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
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?




As shivas poined out, anarchism seems less like a goal and more like a process by which to judge society.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


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]
    #27399506 - 07/23/21 05:57 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Last Saturday this young woman approached me while I was studying in the back of the bar. She's a labor organizer which is cool, with the I.W.W, which blew my mind. She found out my background and kept saying she can't wait to talk to me again. She's half my age, so oh well on that, but should make for an interesting friend.


--------------------
"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,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: Kryptos]
    #27399976 - 07/24/21 06:40 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
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?




As shivas poined out, anarchism seems less like a goal and more like a process by which to judge society.




I'd say that is absolutely correct it is a path not a concrete "solution". The course and actions of anarchy can contribute to a less centralized system and grow into a better means of governance, but it is not a means of governance itself, obvi bc it is somewhat a lack of that and a way for individuals to hold more of that governance themselves..it's not a switch to flip for sure, but I believe we can see how far we have made it as humans in a cooperating society, directly by seeing how much anarchic methods a population can get away with and continue to thrive.of course these will be examples of small time communal living atm as there is no way to judge this based upon the large scale citizenry of a country like the united states. Doesn't mean it will always be that way but...

The cigarettes are a good example but, I'm kinda cool with self determination.. if you wanna smoke hella cigs cuz the advertising workd til you develop lung cancer then that's your choice.. same with heroin (ab)use. We can functionally help these ppl better as far as addiction centers et Al, however they are still free to kill themselves with whatever substance and I dunno if govt should have any hand in curbing that. Public sentiment should be built off of individuals making their own minds up and then that becoming consensus


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


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: ashfiken]
    #27532251 - 11/06/21 08:52 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

I like the idea of some kind of anarcho-syndicalism at least for many industries. I've found idealism dificult to muster up the last couple decades, but I would support that. I have a harder time envisioning an anarchistic society, because even if worked well I don't know how it could defend itself from predatory rivals.

On another note I ran into an acquaintance at the bar's Halloween Party who said she's running for General Secretary of The International Workers of the World. I only met her a few times but she likes to talk to me because I'm the only one there that can speak her language. I don't know if she has any chance of winning but it would be interesting to know the chief executive of a worldwide social movement. I knew nothing of their modern history but after meeting her the first time I looked some stuff up. They were somewhat successful in trying to organize a general strike in Madison WI when they had that crisis situation. It sounded like they at least had some effect on how it played out.


--------------------
"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,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejet li
The One
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/09/07
Posts: 4,279
Loc: penis double yew
Last seen: 5 months, 29 days
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27546810 - 11/17/21 09:31 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Because anarchists don't use force to spread their ideas.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: jet li]
    #27547108 - 11/17/21 02:24 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Basically :thumbup:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejet li
The One
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/09/07
Posts: 4,279
Loc: penis double yew
Last seen: 5 months, 29 days
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Brian Jones]
    #27547126 - 11/17/21 02:37 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Anarchy is not fit for a society.  It is for an individual to choose not to be ruled.  There is no such thing as an anarchist society.  Society is for statism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


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: jet li]
    #27547686 - 11/18/21 01:50 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

I more or less agree, but groups can operate without hierarchy up to a certain size.


--------------------
"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,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Brian Jones]
    #27548455 - 11/18/21 02:55 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

jet li said:
Because anarchists don't use force to spread their ideas.



Summed up much of my OP in a sentence; but is force the most effective method of spreading ideas? If anarchy is for an individual to choose not to be ruled (or rule), why would an inability to force others preclude this decision?




Quote:

jet li said:
Anarchy is not fit for a society.  It is for an individual to choose not to be ruled.  There is no such thing as an anarchist society.  Society is for statism.



The building block of any society is the individual - I don't see any non-arbitrary distinction that can be made between the two. How many individuals can you put in a room before it becomes a society? There is certainly a spectrum between whether the individual should serve society, or if society should serve the individual, but I've always agreed with this line of thought:

Quote:

7. The individual and the social: individualism and communism, a false problem

We embrace what is best in individualism and what is best in communism.

Insurrection begins with the desire of individuals to break out of constrained and controlled circumstances, the desire to reappropriate the capacity to create one’s own life as one sees fit. This requires that they overcome the separation between them and their conditions of existence. Where the few, the privileged, control the conditions of existence, it is not possible for most individuals to truly determine their existence on their terms. Individuality can only flourish where equality of access to the conditions of existence is the social reality. This equality of access is communism; what individuals do with that access is up to them and those around them. Thus there is no equality or identity of individuals implied in true communism. What forces us into an identity or an equality of being are the social roles laid upon us by our present system. There is no contradiction between individuality and communism.





Humans are social animals, and the life of a true individual is pretty bleak compared to the possibilities when we work together. It's hard to flourish as an individual if all of your energy goes towards a subsistence lifestyle.




Quote:

Brian Jones said:
I more or less agree, but groups can operate without hierarchy up to a certain size.



Do you think that you might be conflating 'hierarchy' with 'organization' here?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


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: shivas.wisdom]
    #27548547 - 11/18/21 04:21 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

All I'm saying is that there are empirical examples of non-hierarchical groups of an intermediate size like autonomous work groups. There are also some medium-small companies that are employee owned, but I don't know much about their power structure. That is the best human beings have done to this point.

Maybe it's a complete weakness of mine, but I have no stomach for principles or philosophy, because they ignore context. I can't consider anything except through social context.


--------------------
"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,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Brian Jones]
    #27548591 - 11/18/21 05:01 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

But the implication was that hierarchy becomes necessary at a certain size, correct?

Social context isn't a permanent fixture. We can't ignore it, but neither should we limit ourselves to it. For a long time the social context held religious hierarchy as a necessary aspect of civilized society. I don't think many of us put much stock in this now, but in the past that argument held a lot of weight and there weren't many large-scale examples of non-religious groups to counter it. That only changed because people looked past the then-current social context. Is there any reason why state hierarchy should be considered differently?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: shivas.wisdom]
    #27548615 - 11/18/21 05:19 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

"That is the best human beings have done to this point."

After some reflection, I'm curious what metric you're using here. Is the 'best' non-hierarchical group the one with the most participants; the most viability within capitalism; or something else?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


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: shivas.wisdom]
    #27549020 - 11/18/21 11:19 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

The best human beings have done in recorded history would be the metric.


--------------------
"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,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


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: shivas.wisdom]
    #27549152 - 11/19/21 01:37 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
But the implication was that hierarchy becomes necessary at a certain size, correct?

Social context isn't a permanent fixture. We can't ignore it, but neither should we limit ourselves to it. For a long time the social context held religious hierarchy as a necessary aspect of civilized society. I don't think many of us put much stock in this now, but in the past that argument held a lot of weight and there weren't many large-scale examples of non-religious groups to counter it. That only changed because people looked past the then-current social context. Is there any reason why state hierarchy should be considered differently?




Yes to first question.

For the second question, not necessarily, but I'm not seeing any evidence of it. The non-necessity of religion was discussed by Dostoevsky in the 1800's, and seemed to be a common topic in intellectual circles. It's currently practiced by most in the Scandinavian countries, the Czech Republic, and Japan. I don't believe in immutable social laws and religion used to be considered a societal universal. I have seen no evidence that non-hierarchical social structure can work on a large scale, or even ambitious social experiments of it that have failed. Of course it's possible, but I don't get my head around concepts that only exist as ideals. And I think we all know there isn't a lot of time left.


--------------------
"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,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Brian Jones]
    #27549594 - 11/19/21 10:37 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
The best human beings have done in recorded history would be the metric.



But what makes them the best? That's what I'm asking.

You mentioned "autonomous work groups" and "companies that are employee owned". Do you consider these examples of the best non-hierarchical groups because of the number of participants; their viability under capitalism; their longevity; perhaps a combination of these qualities; or something else entirely?

The reason I ask is because I'm curious where informal non-hierarchical organization would place in your ranking. For example, the network of refugee squats across the northern mediterranean, mutual aid disaster relief in the USA, or the protest response to international summits like the G20. These aren't one single cohesive group, but there is still organization between them - and this type of decentralized and informal organization is probably more realistic than a single massive non-hierarchical group.


As for the second part about religion: when Dostoevsky and other intellectuals were discussing the non-necessity of religion in the 1800s, did they have evidence that non-religious social structure can work on a large scale?

Edit: I confused 1800s with 18th century. Late 18th was when we began to see the establishment of non-religious social structure (US and French revolutions providing two good, albeit imperfect, examples); but my point is that this change in social structure was made real by those who first imagined possibilities beyond its limits - not as an unreachable utopia, but as a guiding direction in which to focus their efforts in the present.


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (11/19/21 12:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


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: shivas.wisdom]
    #27550248 - 11/19/21 06:51 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Autonomous work groups are the largest functional non-hierarchical units that I'm aware of. Their performance can be measured and compared to traditional organization. This gives them a legitimacy that can't be ignored by outsiders. It wouldn't necessarily lead to their proliferation because capitalists may prefer control to profits.

My intention in mentioning Dostoevsky was just that anti-religous sentiment was taking hold in European intellectual circles 140 years ago. And it was a bigger movement than pro-anarchy sentiment has ever generated, that I know of. I recognize that popularity contests are a flawed metric, but they are what often passes for proof, and what other measures would be less flawed? I believe that non-religion is growing and anarchism is not, because atheism does not get in the way of capitalism. Max Weber made an interesting point about Protestant ethic in the orgins of capitalism, but dumping Christianity does not upset the system economically and the social changes are working themselves in large sectors of the world. Anarchism is a direct threat to capitalism, and I have difficulty imagining it taking hold except by force, and like the communist revelutions that did take hold by force, the end result may not work out as planned.

I can conceive of incremental movement to anarchism, but as I said, time is short, which is another way of saying too little, too late.  Anarcho-syndicalism, that I favor, has elements of anarchism and socialism, but it is only a blueprint/theory for medium sized scale, and I have no knowledge of how these groups interconnect or provide for defense. I think the prospects for social change in this type of arrangement are much more favorable in Europe and probably Canada, than in the U.S. The economic tournament model of winner take all is too much a part of American thinking about economy and society.


--------------------
"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,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOutsideOfMyMind
LSD Self Administrative Director
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/05/20
Posts: 5,546
Last seen: 3 days, 18 hours
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Brian Jones] * 1
    #27551592 - 11/20/21 07:30 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

True anarchism is self governance, not a complete absence of any government. When something needs to be done, we would organize for it to all come together and happen. It's more communal.

This is an excellent video on anarchism:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenooneman
Male

Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,700
Loc: Utah
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27551623 - 11/20/21 07:50 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Anarchists are naive. In a real state of anarchy, whoever is the strongest and most brutal will immediately seize power, kill everyone who opposes them, and form a dictatorship.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOutsideOfMyMind
LSD Self Administrative Director
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/05/20
Posts: 5,546
Last seen: 3 days, 18 hours
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: jet li] * 1
    #27551649 - 11/20/21 08:06 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)


Quote:

jet li said:
Anarchy is not fit for a society.  It is for an individual to choose not to be ruled.  There is no such thing as an anarchist society.  Society is for statism.



I'm actually pretty sure there are anarchist tribes on islands and the aborigine in Australia! There are anarchist societies but they are most likely a lot smaller in population than an entire country.


--------------------


Edited by OutsideOfMyMind (11/20/21 08:06 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: jet li]
    #27552112 - 11/21/21 07:38 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

jet li said:
Because anarchists don't use force to spread their ideas.




Not true, they fought for their ideas in Spain. https://www.nihilist.li/2018/02/11/anarchist-military-organization-during-the-civil-war-in-spain/

No one fights for them now because it's a failed idea.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: OutsideOfMyMind]
    #27552114 - 11/21/21 07:41 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

OutsideOfMyMind said:

Quote:

jet li said:
Anarchy is not fit for a society.  It is for an individual to choose not to be ruled.  There is no such thing as an anarchist society.  Society is for statism.



I'm actually pretty sure there are anarchist tribes on islands and the aborigine in Australia! There are anarchist societies but they are most likely a lot smaller in population than an entire country.




The indigenous in Australia are on the system to the tune of 30+ billion a year in welfare. Entire remote townships have no other means.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


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: Oz_Salvia] * 1
    #27552276 - 11/21/21 10:08 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Is that for the gas rights to their lands?


--------------------
"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,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Brian Jones]
    #27554562 - 11/23/21 07:23 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
Is that for the gas rights to their lands?




Huh?

Which mob are you inferring?

https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/map-indigenous-australia

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,640
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Oz_Salvia]
    #27556559 - 11/24/21 04:49 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

The oligarchy still rules completely. Only when it crumbles, will Anarchistic principles get a chance to prove themselves.

We might get a situation where all three branches of 911 get knocked out, where roads are blocked so there are supply issues, where the ATMs all stop working at once, when a whole lot of the structure of society breaks down.

At this point assholes of various kinds will run unchecked to commit the assholism they have been fantasizing about all their lives. Your local gangs, criminal syndicates and militia will smell opportunities.

Then, anarchist principles will come into play. Right now they are not in a condition to thrive because people don't feel a necessity to look for alternatives.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Asante]
    #27557249 - 11/25/21 07:21 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

When society breaks down people will reflexively grasp for fascism. People don’t respond to not having food, water, and medicine by rationally contemplating a better social model, they act like desperate animals.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,640
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #27557291 - 11/25/21 08:07 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Not necessarily. Some resort to fascism, others will oppose that.

Anarchism is a way to cope with a lack of powers that be.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Asante]
    #27557374 - 11/25/21 09:12 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

It is, but that doesn’t mean it’s the path of least resistance.

You take away the Church and people don’t suddenly start reading Spinoza or become atheists. Some might, but most others will desperately seek a plug to fill that hole, and others still will see the disappearance of the Church l, and the consequences therein, as an opportunity to seize power.

If we abolished all hierarchies today, and let the chips fall where they may, the world would devolve into a much worse place to exist.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: Asante]
    #27558443 - 11/26/21 01:08 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Asante said:
Your local gangs, criminal syndicates and militia will smell opportunities.




Quote:

Asante said:
Some resort to fascism, others will oppose that.




You might note that the people that are most likely to seize the opportunity are the ones most likely to favor some form of fascism. Or another form of government in which they get to be unilaterally in charge, because they have guns.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Brian Jones]
    #27558526 - 11/26/21 02:45 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
Autonomous work groups are the largest functional non-hierarchical units that I'm aware of. Their performance can be measured and compared to traditional organization. This gives them a legitimacy that can't be ignored by outsiders. It wouldn't necessarily lead to their proliferation because capitalists may prefer control to profits.

My intention in mentioning Dostoevsky was just that anti-religous sentiment was taking hold in European intellectual circles 140 years ago. And it was a bigger movement than pro-anarchy sentiment has ever generated, that I know of. I recognize that popularity contests are a flawed metric, but they are what often passes for proof, and what other measures would be less flawed? I believe that non-religion is growing and anarchism is not, because atheism does not get in the way of capitalism. Max Weber made an interesting point about Protestant ethic in the orgins of capitalism, but dumping Christianity does not upset the system economically and the social changes are working themselves in large sectors of the world. Anarchism is a direct threat to capitalism, and I have difficulty imagining it taking hold except by force, and like the communist revelutions that did take hold by force, the end result may not work out as planned.

I can conceive of incremental movement to anarchism, but as I said, time is short, which is another way of saying too little, too late.  Anarcho-syndicalism, that I favor, has elements of anarchism and socialism, but it is only a blueprint/theory for medium sized scale, and I have no knowledge of how these groups interconnect or provide for defense. I think the prospects for social change in this type of arrangement are much more favorable in Europe and probably Canada, than in the U.S. The economic tournament model of winner take all is too much a part of American thinking about economy and society.




Okay, I understand where you're coming from better now. I agree that autonomous work groups, since they still operate within traditional 'workers organizing' structures, are more familiar to the average individual - and this grants them a legitimacy that more informal structures won't immediately gain. Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say this familiarity provides us with the most effective examples. As you say, anarchism is a direct threat to the inherent hierarchy of capitalism - so while non-hierarchical responses to capitalism may be laudable, is this where we should expect anarchism to thrive?

I agree that measures of popularity - especially where this translates into participation - shouldn't be ignored, but another measure I use is 'how does the State respond?' The idea is that the State will reliably recognize effective threats to its structure - a small movement considered a threat is likely to be more effective than a large movement considered a non-threat. Since the early 90s (coinciding with the fall of the USSR), informal anarchist organizing has been viewed as a steadily growing threat - particularly due to the leaderless structure consistently able to coordinate attacks on State across national borders. Without spending too much time on this subject, an immediately recognizable example would probably be the severe response to informal eco-sabotage groups (like Earth First! and ALF) - basically treated like terrorists on-par with homicidal neo-nazis and jihadis - not because they pose a threat to random citizens, but because they pose a threat to the State. The biggest difference between this type of non-hierarchical force, and the revolutionary force of communism is simple but significant: communist revolutions seek to capture the State by force, and use the institutions of the State to create a new society - informal anarchist insurrection seeks to create a new society immediately and use it to weaken the institutions of the State.

To be honest, I think you can find parallels with resistance to religious hierarchy. You talk about religions role in a capitalist society, and I agree with much of it - but before capitalism defined the social context, it was hereditary monarchies built on the divine right of kings. Capitalism may not view opposition to religious hierarchy as a threat, but the monarchies it supplanted certainly did - to question the religious order was to question the rulers power. The history of anti-monarchism is intimately connected with opposition to religious hierarchy, and there are good arguments that early forms of anarchism (pre-dating the term itself) were represented in these movements - the Diggers are a great example, but the history of 'Christian anarchy' has lots more if you're interested. Like the classical anarchism we're familiar with, there were lots of failures and setbacks back then too, but today the once-inviolable divine hierarchy has been by-and-large shattered - a seemingly impossible feat from within the social context it occurred. I see the same cracks forming in the seemingly inviolable natural hierarchy of capitalism.

If you think time is too short for this process to complete, what options do you consider better? This is something that always confuses me - if not anarchism, then what?

Edited by shivas.wisdom (11/26/21 05:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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 Ecstatic]
    #27558536 - 11/26/21 03:09 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
When society breaks down people will reflexively grasp for fascism. People don’t respond to not having food, water, and medicine by rationally contemplating a better social model, they act like desperate animals.



What are you basing this on? It's a common assumption, but I don't think it actually holds up.

The two most likely ways we would see this sudden societal breakdown is through the outbreak of war or natural disaster. War has a lot of political subcontext that, imo, doesn't make it the best place to study human behaviour in response to this type of pressure - there are lots of different pressures to account for. Furthermore, considering much of the 'global west' hasn't experienced war within its borders in several generations or more, the discussion becomes mostly hypothetical.

Instead, let's consider the real responses we've seen to severe natural disasters that temporarily shut down the normal functioning of society - think hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, and ice storms. Yes, some people take advantage of the chaos that follows, but most of the affected people in these areas come together in mutual aid to survive and recover. This is an interesting wikipedia article to peruse: human response to disasters.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: OutsideOfMyMind]
    #27558568 - 11/26/21 03:40 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

OutsideOfMyMind said:
True anarchism is self governance, not a complete absence of any government. When something needs to be done, we would organize for it to all come together and happen. It's more communal.

This is an excellent video on anarchism:



It's a little more indirect, but I've always enjoyed this video of how nonsensical our government looks like from outside of the current social context:




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27558829 - 11/26/21 07:46 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
When society breaks down people will reflexively grasp for fascism. People don’t respond to not having food, water, and medicine by rationally contemplating a better social model, they act like desperate animals.



What are you basing this on? It's a common assumption, but I don't think it actually holds up.

The two most likely ways we would see this sudden societal breakdown is through the outbreak of war or natural disaster. War has a lot of political subcontext that, imo, doesn't make it the best place to study human behaviour in response to this type of pressure - there are lots of different pressures to account for. Furthermore, considering much of the 'global west' hasn't experienced war within its borders in several generations or more, the discussion becomes mostly hypothetical.

Instead, let's consider the real responses we've seen to severe natural disasters that temporarily shut down the normal functioning of society - think hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, and ice storms. Yes, some people take advantage of the chaos that follows, but most of the affected people in these areas come together in mutual aid to survive and recover. This is an interesting wikipedia article to peruse: human response to disasters.




Not sure you can just set aside that political sub context in favor of a far less political situation like a natural disaster. And yeah, in the West we will cheer on the genocide of the global south before we ever accept a sudden drop in standard of living. But, when our institutions crumble, the power behind them won’t simply wither away. Folks just simply won’t have the chance to build non-coercive, autonomous modes of social function. The weapons, the technology, the food, water, medicine, and other resources will be in the hands of those that the average person will quickly yield to, regardless of the terms. “Hey you’re all slave laborers now but I will be generous and give you food water and shelter.” Alright sounds good, beats starving to death.

To be clear, I’m not saying that people are stupid animals who can’t figure it out for themselves, I’m just saying that they won’t ever be given the chance to do so in the event of some social breakdown.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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 Ecstatic]
    #27558932 - 11/26/21 09:56 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

I'm not saying we should completely discount the reality of war - but war is essentially a disaster caused by human conflict, so the human response to this type of disaster will have conflict baked into it. If we want to examine how people respond to not having food, water, and medicine, then using war as the base disaster gives us a much larger amount of variables to control for - and it's much more difficult to make useful generalizations.

On the other hand, natural disasters cause similar societal disruptions without necessarily including baked-in social conflict; and as a result they provide a better place to start considering the human response to disaster. In these instances, when society breaks down people do not "reflexively grasp for fascism" - the exact opposite occurs.

Now, if you say 'when society breaks down people the State will reflexively grasp for fascism authoritarianism', I will wholeheartedly agree - but we shouldn't confuse the 'rational' actions of the State with the rational actions of humans; anymore than we should confuse the 'rational' actions of corporations with those of humans. The State responds to disaster with authoritarianism (under capitalism, this is usually fascism) - but humans respond to disaster with solidarity and mutual aid.

It's important to acknowledge this because 'protection from societal breakdown' is often used to defend the necessity of the State, when in reality countless examples show the much greater importance of human relationships in the aftermath of societal breakdown. We will be even stronger if we focus on cultivating these types of relationships before disaster strikes - but if we prematurely convince ourselves of their impossibility, will we even try?

Of course, the disaster of war will complicate this - especially considering the high possibility of future climate disaster causing widespread collapse, it's unlikely that natural disasters will occur in a vacuum. In these cases, maybe the goal isn't necessarily to fight for global anarchism - maybe we can't help people who are starving on the other side of the globe - but we can still have a positive affect in our own community.

There is a now-classic anarchist text, Desert, that asks the question "What could it mean to be an anarchist, an environmentalist, when global revolution and world-wide social/eco sustainability are not the aim?" - like, for example, if we find ourselves living in the global West at a time of environmental collapse and benefiting from the genocide of the global South without any clear way to prevent it. If we acknowledge that non-hierarchical methods of organization are more effective at disaster response, wouldn't making our local community less-dependent on the State for our needs still be a net-positive? We won't have a chance to find out if we preemptively convince ourselves it's impossible.

Even in an apocalyptic scenario where the State is turning its own citizens into slaves in response to an existential threat - in the absolute worst case where the vast majority willingly accept - where any resistance is almost guaranteed to be brutally snuffed out - should that be reason to not resist? First, I want to be clear that I don't believe there is much benefit in using absolute worst case scenarios to decide what is most effective - but if the hypothetical situation you describe became reality - what would you do? Give up or fight back.

I haven't read the book yet, but I printed it off recently and it's on my winter list: Blessed is the Flame - An introduction to concentration camp resistance and anarcho-nihilism. I'll leave you with a passage from the book, because I don't think it needs further explanation:

Quote:

At heart, this book is about tapping into the instinctual rebelliousness that resides underneath of every organization, affinity group, project, and action that we participate in; that reflexive spirit of resistance rooted in the basic existential understanding that recalcitrance is simply a more meaningful and joyous form of existence than docility. Too often our insurrectionary urges get bogged down in ideological costume, rhetorical mandate, and hobbyist paradigms. We channel our energies into dubious conduits of prefabricated dogma and inevitably burn out or become listless at the very mention of Revolution. Forms of resistance rooted in social obligations and lifestyle choices all too often fade into lives of despondency, alienation, boredom, or material comfort. It speaks to the very nature of our domestication that we only choose resistance so long as it feels like something we can win.

That’s where nihilism enters the picture. I am interested in the sort of resistance we pursue, not because we necessarily believe it will produce desired changes or lead us into a brighter future, but because it is the most meaningful response to this world we can imagine. Because we simply can’t stomach the idea of being passive in the face of a system this brutal, regardless of how far we may be from our dreams. Nihilism urges anarchists to embrace our feelings of cynicism around radical milieus, our feelings of boredom with prescribed methods of resistance, our feelings of hopelessness in the current landscape of domination, and to engage in forms of revolt that cultivate immediate joy and moments of liberation.

And that’s where the Nazi holocaust becomes particularly interesting.

Concentration camp resistance challenges nihilism to consider just how bleak it is willing to get. The resistance of those in the Lagers who were deprived of every vestige of hope, every morsel of inspiration, and every shred of comfort, poses rich questions about how much hopelessness we are willing to wade through for a chance to fight back. It reminds us that resistance is not just about getting results, but about our reflexive reactions to oppressive situations. Whether we succeed in overthrowing our oppressors and bringing about a brighter future can only be secondary to the visceral need to rebel against the shitty conditions of our lives.

Both topics — anarcho-nihilism and concentration camp resistance — challenge anarchists to realize a spirit of resistance that can endure horrific conditions, that can weather the storms of absolute futility, and that can still muster an exuberant desire to rebel.




--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (11/26/21 10:09 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27559228 - 11/27/21 07:33 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

What ought to happen and what will happen are two distinct paths, though.

We should be resisting the political ambivalence to climate change NOW, but the West is far too comfortable for that. Not to mention the underlying acceptance that, by controlling the resources of the world, we will be least affected when the chips are down, or that natural disasters are already being subtly transformed into a war-like situation. Refugees from the climate crisis will be treated no differently than the migrants fleeing war from a few years ago.

“While it’s sad that these people are dying, there’s only so many resources left and we can’t just go giving them away and letting these hordes of unwashed masses disrupt our last vestiges of civil society.”

That is the playbook, and judging by how effective it’s been, I don’t see reason to suspect there’s some mass awakening on the horizon amongst the most comfortable people on the planet.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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 Ecstatic]
    #27559426 - 11/27/21 10:54 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Do we need a mass awakening before we can start resisting the political ambivalence to climate change?

"What ought to happen and what will happen are two distinct paths, though."

Ok, so what ought to happen is a mass movement towards eco-sustainability and anarchy - but instead what will happen is the global West will cheer on the genocide of the global South before we ever accept a sudden drop in standard of living.

Will you join in the cheering or resist anyways?

Beginning to resist the political ambivalence towards climate change is as simple as forming a neighbourhood mutual aid group. It might not make it easier to help people who live thousands of kilometres away, but it will certainly make it easier to help those in your locality.

Getting started is as simple as you contacting a dozen people in your community - deciding on (multiple, redundant) methods of communication - finding out what skills people can offer, what needs people have - and then asking each of those people to talk with their neighbours, friends, and family. It's about building real human connections. Mutual aid doesn't have to be couched in anarchism or radical politics - people cooperating to take care of each other during times of disaster is taking advantage of the most-common human response to disaster and giving it the benefit of organization.

The hope is that if people personally experience the benefits of self-organization over State-dependence, they will be more likely to continue acting in this way. Maybe your community is able to help a neighbouring community, and the mutual aid project spreads just a tiny bit further. Maybe it doesn't ever spread, but you help the elder who lives on their own or the homeless person without any shelter. Maybe that elder or homeless person helps you and your family. We'll never know if we don't try.

So what's holding you back?




www.mutualaiddisasterrelief.org



Edit: mutual aid 101

- reach out to a dozen people in your community that you're closest too (family, friends, neighbours, co-workers)

- decide on (multiple, redundant) methods of communication

- identify the zone(s) you will cover (people on your floor, in your building, your block, your neighbourhood, or a non-location-based social community); it's better to start small and build up

- outreach! Invite people (flyers in community spaces, social media, knocking on doors, networking)

- find out what skills people can offer, what needs people have

- organize yourselves into groups of 10-20 based on a combination of skills, needs, and location - you can be in multiple groups (ie, one with your neighbours, and one for your specific skill)

- communicate and coordinate in response to the needs of your community (something best honed through experience and practice)




Some scenarios

You're too sick to leave your house, so you contact your local group and someone does a grocery run for you.

The power is out, so you check-in on the people in your local group that have health or mobility issues.

A hurricane hits, so you communicate with your local group to find out who needs help and repairs. You coordinate with neighbouring local groups where necessary, and coordinate with specific skill groups when you need outside equipment or knowledge.

Evacuation order for a wildfire, and everyone on your street knows who has a vehicle, who needs a ride, and who needs help getting into a vehicle.

The government collapses and fascist paramilitaries are marching - you already know who has your back.



The idea is that the simple connections build stronger relationships to help us prepare for disaster when it comes. Practice is better than any theory.


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (11/27/21 04:31 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27561659 - 11/29/21 07:51 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Do we need a mass awakening before we can start resisting the political ambivalence to climate change?




Yes, resisting the political ambivalence to anything really. Until material conditions change in the West there is no incentive for people to upset their relatively comfortable lives.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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 Ecstatic]
    #27561919 - 11/29/21 12:27 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

You understand that 'it's not worth starting something unless everyone is already doing it' is a self-fulfilling prophecy, right?

The basic practice of mutual aid outlined in my previous post doesn't need mass participation before becoming viable - ground-up organization begins with the individual - that's what makes it so beautifully radical.

If the mutual aid disaster relief project is successful, it will undeniably benefit your relatively comfortable life - if the project is an abject failure, your relatively comfortable life will still be there - low risk with high reward - so what's holding you back? - what more incentive do you need?

I'm not asking these questions to some impersonal monolith of 'the West' - I'm asking them of you personally because a non-hypothetical answer to the OP question will be interesting to me.


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (11/29/21 12:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27562326 - 11/29/21 07:42 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

You understand that 'it's not worth starting something unless everyone is already doing it' is a self-fulfilling prophecy, right?





Of course, I’m just saying we aren’t even close to being there yet, not that it’s not doable.

Quote:

The basic practice of mutual aid outlined in my previous post doesn't need mass participation before becoming viable - ground-up organization begins with the individual - that's what makes it so beautifully radical.




It doesn’t, but isn’t the viability we’re discussing here an alternative to the dependence on liberal democracy and the power therein? The ability to be independent is certainly a prerequisite to independence, but it isn’t the only factor. “Our subjects have developed mutually beneficial relationships in their community, guess our global hegemony is over.” Nah.

Quote:

If the mutual aid disaster relief project is successful, it will undeniably benefit your relatively comfortable life - if the project is an abject failure, your relatively comfortable life will still be there - low risk with high reward - so what's holding you back? - what more incentive do you need?




What’s holding me back is a 40 hour a week job, school, dogs, wife, housework, leisure, etc. Nobody in my community worries about disaster relief because I live in the suburbs and everyone has insurance. I’m not going to give up what little time to myself I have to develop an aid network that my community neither wants nor needs. If/when material conditions change, that might change, or if I suddenly hit the lottery and am no longer required to spend the vast majority of my waking life selling my labor to survive.

It’s nice to make a difference though. My local DSA chapter does vehicle repair events, food banks, clothing drives, etc, I’m some of the poorest areas of the city. That’s a thing people want and need and a thing my comrades and I can easily do.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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 Ecstatic]
    #27562403 - 11/29/21 09:07 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Apparently your comrades disagree with you regarding mutual aid - DSA: "We believe that mutual aid is a key component in building community power."

It doesn’t have to be disaster relief - although this type of mutual aid project isn't focused solely on rebuilding, it's also about responding to crises more quickly than either the gov't or insurance companies can. I focused on disaster relief because we were talking about how people would react if society breaks down.

You know your community better then I do. That's part of the joy of horizontal organizational structure - out of touch folks from across the country don't get to dictate your priorities. If people in your community need and want vehicle repair, food, and clothes more than disaster relief - focus on that!

The basic principles of 'social solidarity - not charity' can still come into play though! Do your community projects take the form of mutual aid or charity? Do they create a dependent relationship between 'haves' and 'have nots' - or do they create a mutual relationship of people helping each other?






I'm well aware that the conditions of capitalism don't leave people with an endless font of energy for activism. Whether by design or function, it's an insidious aspect of capitalism - we have to struggle rebuilding something that many pre-capitalist cultures have implicitly. I've made specific life choices to make it easier for myself, but I know they aren't realistic choices for many. That's why I think mutual aid is so radical! It's an activity that isn't out of reach - you're already putting in the necessary effort with your local DSA chapter! And the stronger your mutual aid network becomes, the more resilience your community will have in the face of the soul draining conditions of capitalism!

Something doesn't have to instantly abolish global hegemony to be worthwhile.  Waiting for that type of mass awakening is an endless wait. Working together to figure out the strategies and resources necessary to meet each other's needs, while also organizing ourselves against the unjust and oppressive system that created these shortages in the first place - that's something we can do while passing the time.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27562416 - 11/29/21 09:27 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Absolutely, I’m just saying we’re nowhere near a point where mutual aid systems can replace the current structures, and that people will be devoted to said structures until a better opportunity presents itself AND THEN the real fight begins. Because having an alternative isn’t enough, you have to have an alternative that can  defeat the status quo, otherwise we just descend further into dystopia, and I think at some point that affects people’s willingness to entertain alternatives. “If we keep pushing it might turn out bad for us, so let’s just accept the current paradigm since we (folks in the West) don’t have it so bad.”

That’s no reason not to push, obviously, and to build something now, but any realist has to accept that a leftist end goal society isn’t going to be achieved in our lifetimes, and then decide how to spend their life accordingly. Not to mention that those leftists make up maybe 5% of the population. MAYBE.


--------------------

Edited by The Ecstatic (11/29/21 09:40 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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 Ecstatic]
    #27562509 - 11/29/21 11:04 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

I think the anarchist alternative can defeat the status quo. Remember that anarchism is not a blueprint - it's not a system that would supposedly work if only it were applied right, like democracy - nor 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. Yes, an anarchist society could probably achieve much more than an individual anarchist can - but that individual is still just as much an anarchist, regardless of the type of society they live in.

Anarchism is both the ends and the means. I'm an anarchist because it gives my life more joy and meaning right now then the status quo offers - and I'm an anarchist because I think it will create a more joyous and meaningful society than the current status quo.

The DSA is big on workplace democracy. Did you know that direct experience is a more likely indicator of support than either ideology or class? This is why I think the anarchist alternative can defeat the status quo - the actual experience of having control over our own lives is enough to convince people that this is a better way to live.

The challenge is that you can't force other people to have this type of experience. The best I can do is always relate to others as an anarchist.

Unfortunately this is compounded by the compelling force of a lifetime of direct experience with authority. Social domination structures our experience so systematically that it appears to be 'just the way things are done'. Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but much of your prior posts seem to hold to this line of thought - "When society breaks down people will reflexively grasp for fascism."

But the current system doesn't adequately meet every need. So, as an anarchist, I go where the State retreats because that's where the opportunity to present a better structure exists - and I help build the kind of human relations that are more likely to give people the experience of having control over there own lives. 


"But we anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves."
-Errico Malatesta


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27562747 - 11/30/21 07:17 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but much of your prior posts seem to hold to this line of thought - "When society breaks down people will reflexively grasp for fascism."




I think that’s a fair assessment, but they’re grasping for a few different reasons; the social domination you mentioned, the hunger to maintain power by the fascists already running things, and the ignorance (in the purest sense) that a better world is possible. The latter might be the biggest obstacle. But I’m a communist because I believe that wrestling power away from the status quo requires the power of the state. I don’t think we’ll ever rid ourselves of the excesses and abuses of the human condition, it’s endemic, but it can be mitigated by developing a system in which human happiness and well-being is the end goal. Only then, imo, will we possess the capacity (on a large enough scale so that it’s feasible) to have decentralized communities based on mutual aid.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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 Ecstatic] * 2
    #27564800 - 12/01/21 02:03 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

If immediate, massive worldwide change is our only yardstick, the efforts of a small collective or affinity group will always appear doomed to fail.

From your perspective, the necessity of a mass awakening seems much more clear. We need to seize the State before we can create decentralized communities based on mutual aid - but how will we organize to seize the State if we can't even successfully organize within our own communities? A mass awakening leading to global revolution seems like the only route.

A question: I know the DSA's approach is to reform the State, rather than seize it outright. Do you agree with this approach; or is your participation a compromise between the ideal of mass awakening and the reality of what's immediately possible?



I want to zero in on your belief in the necessity of the State. Have you considered this belief might be a result of the 'ignorance' - born of a lifetime of social domination - that a better world is possible? Politics and revolution aren't an exact science - despite the best efforts of economists and sociologists to reduce human societies to predictable theories. In the end, our political views are based in belief - so what lies at the root of your beliefs? Perhaps the assumption that this is just the way things are done?

Let's start by considering the power of the State. What does this power look like? The police, the military, the courts, the prison system, and the bureaucracy - correct? Forgoing the anarchist critiques, Marxist theory of State holds that the State is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms; the State is an instrument of coercion and oppression used by the ruling class. State power is itself predicated on the class division of rulers and ruled - so shouldn't this built-in class antagonism result in the State being self-perpetuating? How do we create a system based on human happiness and well-being using instruments of coercion and oppression?

Where is your belief that we need the power of the State born?

Now let's consider the feasibility of decentralized communities based on mutual aid. We have current examples of these types of communities existing without first gaining the power of the State - I think what's been happening in India over the last year is a great one, especially considering the ethnofascist tendencies of the State these people are resisting. Judging by your earlier responses, I'll guess your response here would be to point out the difference in material conditions between India and North America. In that case, where do the recent Wet'suwet'en or George Floyd uprisings fit in? Clearly material conditions aren't enough to completely suppress insurrection - there is a significant willingness for self-empowered communities in North America. What would the power of the State offer this type of organizing?

Where is your belief that we need the power of the State born?



I don't know if it's limited to anarchist thought - are you familiar with the motivational orientations of duty and joy? Our reasons for doing particular projects can't always be explained intellectually.

Duty has been the traditional motive for radical projects - a heightened notion of justice married to a belief in a better world. This is undoubtedly due to a tragic history that for the most part has been a string of bitter defeats, repressions, and marginalizations. Those working within the duty model expect the work to be hard and unappreciated, but still feel it must be done. Little thought is given to whether the work is joyful or fulfilling.

On the other side of the spectrum, joy is a relatively new oppositional motivation based on the pleasure principle. Joy seeks to turn political work into play - it rejects the martyr and sacrifice tropes of the old and replaces them with carnival and celebration. Those working within the joy model expect projects to be exciting and empowering. Little thought is given to the long-term impact of projects.

But somewhere in the middle is that sweetspot where we find meaning. Motivations based on meaning contain both the public/objective/duty and personal/subjective/joy - meaning is determined by analyzing the external effects and testing them against internal feelings. Our efforts can now be judged on multiple axes - no longer is it simply a matter of how many hours a person works but also the enjoyment we can manifest from our activities - a project need not be judged simply on how exciting and fun it is but also by how effective it is.

I bring this up because your opinion - no way forward while you wait for a mass awakening - tends to lead to a focus on duty, and I believe that only meaningful projects that attempt to balance both external and internal needs will have any hope of providing lasting resistance to the meaningless miasma of everyday capitalist culture. "I’m not going to give up what little time to myself I have [while I'm] required to spend the vast majority of my waking life selling my labour to survive" about sums it up - but what if we could act in a way that didn't feel like giving up our time to the void? - if we could find joy in resisting?

I imagine it would be pretty difficult to find this joy if I were waiting for a mass awakening first - to quote Novatore, god, what an endless wait! - and so I think you should take a close look at this belief of yours. For the impatient, it will appear that we are too few and gaining only small victories - yet once we drop pretensions to mass supremacy, we can learn that smallness is not only beautiful, but also powerful. Another world is indeed possible, but it must be a meaningful one.


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (12/01/21 06:31 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27573314 - 12/08/21 08:08 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

If immediate, massive worldwide change is our only yardstick, the efforts of a small collective or affinity group will always appear doomed to fail.

From your perspective, the necessity of a mass awakening seems much more clear. We need to seize the State before we can create decentralized communities based on mutual aid - but how will we organize to seize the State if we can't even successfully organize within our own communities? A mass awakening leading to global revolution seems like the only route.




It’s not a matter of HOW we will organize, but WHY we will organize. Right now, there aren’t enough reasons for a critical mass of people on the West to “organize” in any meaningful sense.

Quote:

A question: I know the DSA's approach is to reform the State, rather than seize it outright. Do you agree with this approach; or is your participation a compromise between the ideal of mass awakening and the reality of what's immediately possible?




I won’t pretend to have the answer(s) to how we achieve my personal view of utopia, but I think DSA plays a role. You could argue that entryism into the Democratic Party only validates our bourgeois liberal democracy, but they do some good work. Yeah, I guess my participation is a compromise between the two, it doesn’t require much effort on my part and the good it yields is sufficient for the approach they have.


Quote:

I want to zero in on your belief in the necessity of the State. Have you considered this belief might be a result of the 'ignorance' - born of a lifetime of social domination - that a better world is possible? Politics and revolution aren't an exact science - despite the best efforts of economists and sociologists to reduce human societies to predictable theories. In the end, our political views are based in belief - so what lies at the root of your beliefs? Perhaps the assumption that this is just the way things are done?




I’m not sure what you mean by the root of my beliefs. I believe life is an accident, that human beings should have the most happy and fulfilling lives possible, and that an anarcho-communist society would go a long way to achieving that goal. But I also believe that there’s so much inertia behind our current socioeconomic paradigm that we can’t just flip a switch and go straight from liberal democracy to that anarchism. The state are the means the people must use to crush the power of capital, and then can be dissolved.

I’ll come back to this when I have more time.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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 Ecstatic]
    #27573812 - 12/08/21 04:45 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

When I ask "what lies at the root of your beliefs?", I'm referring to your specific beliefs regarding the necessity of the State - in particular, the beliefs that (1) wrestling power away from the status quo requires the power of the State and (2) decentralized communities based on mutual aid are not feasible under the current status quo.

The reason I ask you to reflect on the root of these beliefs is because I think they will be based in the assumption that the State is a necessity. The reason I believe this is because, in my life's experience, lacking State power hasn't prevented me from wrestling power away from the status quo using, instead, the power of decentralized communities based on mutual aid.

We both agree that ignorance (in the purest sense of the word) of the possibility of a better world is a significant obstacle, so I'm trying to ascertain if your beliefs regarding the State are born of actual attempts that resulted in failure, or the assumption that any attempt is doomed to fail (which results from ignorance of the actual possibilities).

After reading this last response of yours, I would also suggest you examine the beliefs revolving around the concepts of "critical mass" and "flip a switch". Why are mass movements that result in immediate change the only way to measure feasibility?

Of course take your time responding - I'm interested in your response, but these questions are intended to stimulate thought, not demand answers.


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (12/08/21 05:59 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: shivas.wisdom]
    #27574217 - 12/08/21 11:41 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

I just read this twenty year retrospective and it's pretty damn relevant to our discussion - plus, they use a mushroom analogy so it's definitely worth the share: Epilogue on the Movement against Capitalist Globalization


Quote:

But these summits were just plumes of smoke rising from a fire. To use a more precise metaphor, they were mushrooms emerging from a mycelial network. The network itself was comprised of a variety of participatory anti-colonial and countercultural spaces and movements spread all around the world: Indigenous revolts like the EZLN in Mexico, occupation movements like the Movimento Sem Terra in Brazil and the network of squatted social centers around Europe, movements of agricultural workers from the Indian subcontinent to South Korea, ecological movements like Earth First!, grassroots unions like the Industrial Workers of the World, do-it-yourself underground music milieus like the rave and punk scenes.

All of these were settings in which people could develop a shared discourse about their own lives and aspirations and problems - and, more importantly, in which they could experiment with ways to employ their agency collectively outside the imperatives of capitalism and state politics. (By contrast, today’s internet-based radical networks often provide a virtual space for discourse without offering a shared physical or temporal space for collective experimentation that breaks with the logic of the institutions that remain dominant in this society.) In the aforementioned settings, individuals were able to develop their ideas and establish long-lasting relationships before coming into outright confrontation with the assembled forces of state repression.

All this took place years before the massive summit protests that drew the attention of photojournalists. To continue employing the mycelial metaphor, the first step was for individual spores to find fertile soil in which to germinate. Decentralization preceded convergence. The next step was for individual scenes and movements to make contact, the same way that mushroom spores, when they germinate, send out fungal threads looking to connect with each other.

Long before we converged at summit protests, people spanning these different contexts brought them into contact with each other, demonstrating the virtues of what the Zapatistas called “A world in which many worlds fit.” Old anarchists who had survived the mid-20th century downturns and dictatorships made contact with punks; punks traveled to Chiapas and met Indigenous organizers; Indigenous organizers called for Global Days of Action; and the rest is history.




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27580899 - 12/14/21 08:44 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

When I ask "what lies at the root of your beliefs?", I'm referring to your specific beliefs regarding the necessity of the State - in particular, the beliefs that (1) wrestling power away from the status quo requires the power of the State and (2) decentralized communities based on mutual aid are not feasible under the current status quo.




The necessity of the state, in the shorter term, is a belief I hold because of how human societies have existed historically, and the mechanisms by which they’re dependent today (including the state). Put simply, I see the state as the one mechanism that can be used to effectively challenge the power of capital, and either force it to destroy the legitimacy of the state, or allow it to wither away. As things currently stand, people regard the state as the higher authority, I don’t see how we destroy capitalism without it. The alternatives seem to me to be far less feasible, especially given the short timeframe we have.


The reasons I think decentralized communities based on mutual aid are not feasible are the same reasons they’ve historically not been feasible. And what’s worse, is today there is such a higher degree of global uniformity in how economies are run. Virtually all of commerce is run on the whims of global capital, even ostensibly communist nations like Cuba, Vietnam, and China cannot exist apart from it. Look at what happens when the smallest little blips of decentralization like the WTO protests or Occupy hits the radar of global capital: they employ the state and their media allies to, both literally and figuratively, bludgeon them into obscurity. And although the public largely agrees with the basic sentiments, at the end of the day they accept the state’s authority and their monopoly on violence. I mean, to whatever degree it was an actual functioning community, CHAZ, in Seattle, was sabotaged by state and capital forces almost immediately. I just can’t imagine a scenario where the general public somehow (and this is a big somehow) begins to run an end around of global capital, and the most powerful force in the history of humanity simply acquiesces. And that’s not to say “well they’ll just kill us all” is my main contention here, it’s the parenthetical somehow. There are a ton of wonderful mutual aid networks run by wonderful, organized people, but it’s a far cry of what is necessary to tell your neighbor to go ahead and quit their job and let the bank take their house. People are wedded to this system, both because they can’t escape it, and because they’re afraid of what could happen if they try. Until things get substantially worse for Americans, the idea of going “off the grid” will remain a fantasy. But, although the idea of quitting your job due to exploitative practices might seem brash, having the state mandate certain democratic controls over their job is much more palatable. Or the state abolishing landlords and/or making housing a right by law. The state can bridge the gap between the horrors we face now and the society we want in the future, it’s probably the only mechanism that can and even then it’s a long shot. Say what you want about the Soviet Union but look at the lengths capital went to thwart the red menace, literally almost blew up the earth. And again, that’s if a legitimate resistance COULD be mounted, which, it can’t, and certainly can’t without any institutional legitimacy behind it.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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 Ecstatic]
    #27589780 - 12/21/21 05:53 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

… "a belief I hold because of how human societies have existed historically" ... "they’ve historically not been feasible" ...

Historically? Sure, today we live in the belly of a hierarchical leviathan which naturally tells the stories of other hierarchical empires as the history of the human race - but most of human history has not been spent at the battle of Hastings or the crossing of the Rubicon. Most of the time, human beings were - and are, today - just preparing food, flirting, daydreaming, playing or working on projects cooperatively. The times when slavemasters seized power and coerced masses of people have been exceptions - though Western civilization has seen a disproportionate number of these, to its discredit. Remember, our species has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, but this kind of centralized power and social control we see today is only a few thousand years old - and only became globalized in the last few hundred. If some of the earliest historical records are of wars and conquests, it's because the first peoples to catch the disease of so-called civilization were the first to conquer and keep tally. These records are the only ones taken seriously by historians - who usually discount the oral traditions and folklore common to all human communities - but we can tell by the very rarity of such records that they're not representative of what all human beings were doing in those days - let alone before then, or today.

Let's speak to proportions again. The human race has been around for over a million years, but centralized power and warfare as we know them have existed for less than ten thousand. Over those ten millennia, only a small minority of human communities have been as bellicose and coercive as this one - and even today, only a small part of human interactions actually express that violence and subservience. Fighting, commanding, and obeying comprise perhaps one percent of human history. If the accumulated knowledge of Western civilization has anything of value to offer us at this point, it's an awareness of just how much is possible when it comes to human life. Our otherwise foolish scholars of history and sociology and anthropology can at least show us this one thing: that human beings have lived in a thousand different kinds of societies, with ten thousand different tables of values, ten thousand different relationships to each other and the world around them, ten thousand different conceptions of self.

If history isn't void of stateless human societies, it's not as simple as referring to a historical record where the state proves necessary - your response contains the implicit question of 'what are the qualities of a feasible human society?' with a presupposed answer which only includes state-based societies. Why don't the stateless Zapatistas qualify as a human society? Why don't the decentralized protests currently happening in India qualify as feasible? I agree with you in regards to the challenges posed by global capitalism - late stage capitalism is an entirely different beast from the mostly-agrarian based societies of yesteryear - but I don't see how these challenges support the necessity of the state. Sure, using the state to mandate progress might seem palatable - but is it palatable because it's more realistic, or more familiar.


Consider the following,

Stateless: "Look at what happens when the smallest little blips of decentralization like the WTO protests or Occupy hits the radar of global capital: they employ the state and their media allies to, both literally and figuratively, bludgeon them into obscurity."
State: "Say what you want about the Soviet Union but look at the lengths capital went to thwart the red menace, literally almost blew up the earth."

Repression reflects negatively on decentralization, and positively on state communism. Now, perhaps this contradiction can be explained by the greater resiliency of the Soviet Union - but the history of US-led regime change has numerous examples of short-lived communist revolutions. For example, the Marxist revolution is Grenada lasted one week. Clearly, seizing the state doesn't necessarily grant increased resilience to capitalist repression. At the same time, while the Occupy movement can be measured in months, the Zapatistas have resisted for decades. Clearly, stateless isn't the equivalent of defenceless. Furthermore, Nazi Germany proved so resilient that it caused Western capital to cooperate with the Soviet Union - pretty much the one and only time in history - I still don't think either of us would say this resiliency suggests that fascism is an ideal means of revolution. Clearly, resilience alone is not sufficient - there must be other qualities present to explain this bias for state-based solutions.

I also want to briefly talk about a different metric of resiliency. Centralized systems are more vulnerable to fluctuations, less able to adapt to changing conditions - whereas decentralized systems tend to be more flexible and adaptable. What does this mean? Resiliency in disaster. The end of the Soviet Union was a near-total collapse of communist power in the region. Conversely, while the Occupy movement lost control of the occupied spaces, it was not a total collapse of power - the decentralized network was dispersed, but not destroyed, and over the last decade this decentralized network has continued to play a significant role in progressive politics over the whole spectrum; from state reform to insurrection. Considering the unstable future offered by climate change, don't you think think this type of resiliency will be valuable?


___ ___ ___

Stateless: "I just can’t imagine a scenario where the general public somehow (and this is a big somehow) begins to run an end around of global capital, and the most powerful force in the history of humanity simply acquiesces."
State: "The state can bridge the gap between the horrors we face now and the society we want in the future, it’s probably the only mechanism that can and even then it’s a long shot."

In order to use the state in this way, we would first have to seize it from the most powerful force in the history of humanity. I think it stands as a reasonable assumption that this force will respond to an existential threat more vigorously than it would to a 'dual power' run-around - at the very minimum, we should respect an equal response. Despite this, one scenario is unimaginable for you, while the other is the only option you can imagine. Is the inability to imagine something more indicative of its possibility or of your experience? Even your own language here doesn't seem very hopeful in your proposal, yet you've still hitched your cart to it. Again, is this palatable because it's more realistic, or more familiar. I'm sure you're aware of a common bias that presents itself with people having difficulty imagining non-capitalist economic systems - the same bias, for the same reasons, exists in regards to state-based social systems - how have you convinced yourself that this isn't behind your difficulty in conceiving stateless solutions?

The state does not meet every human need, and we can successfully organize within these spaces without immediately coming into direct conflict with the state. This provides us with the opportunity to learn how to live in spaces that operate outside the status quo - the opportunity to discover what is and isn't possible. When these communities inevitably come into conflict with the state, a developed decentralized network that can organize to meet our basic needs will be one of the pillars of resistance. As that retrospective I shared above said, decentralization proceeds convergence. Even if your goal is to seize the state, it seems like a decentralized network that suddenly converges would be more likely to escape the attention of global capital long enough to reach a point where global revolution becomes possible - much more so than a steadily growing centralized revolutionary organization would.


___ ___ ___

You know what's more intimidating than no path forward? It's the idea that all the dreams we have, all the crazy ideas and aspirations, all the impossible romantic longings and utopian visions can come true - that the world can grant our wishes. People spend their lives doing everything in their power to fend off that possibility - they beat themselves up with every kind of insecurity and sabotage their own efforts before the world even has a chance to defeat them - because nothing could be more heartbreaking than to fail if success was actually possible. We do everything we can to avoid trying in the first place - to avoid having to try - rather than risk that heartbreak. Despair and nihilism seem safer, projecting our hopelessness onto the cosmos as an excuse for not even trying - and there we remain, clutching our resignation, as secure as corpses in coffins (better safe and sorry). Despite all this we still don't successfully ward off that dreadful possibility - in our hopeless flight from the real tragedy of the world, we only heap upon ourselves unnecessary tragedy as well.

Perhaps this world will never conform perfectly to our needs - people will always die before they are ready, perfect relationships will end in ruins, adventures will end in catastrophe, and beautiful moments will be forgotten - but what breaks my heart is the way we flee from those inevitable truths into the arms of more horrible things. It may be true that every person is lost in a universe that is fundamentally indifferent to them, locked forever in a terrifying solitude - but it doesn't have to be true that some people starve while others destroy food or leave fertile farms untilled - it doesn't have to be true that men and women waste their lives away working to serve the hollow greed of a few rich men, just to survive - it doesn't have to be that we never dare to tell each other what we really want, to share ourselves honestly, to use our talents and capabilities to make life more bearable, let alone more beautiful. That's unnecessary tragedy, stupid tragedy, false tragedy, pathetic and pointless. It's not even utopian to demand that we put an end to farces like these.

If we could bring ourselves to believe, to really feel, the possibility that we are invincible and can accomplish whatever we want in this world, it wouldn't seem out of our reach at all to correct such absurdities. What I'm asking you to do here is not to put faith in the impossible, but have the courage to face that terrible possibility that our lives really are in our own hands, and to act accordingly: to not settle for every misery fate and humanity have heaped upon us, but to push back, to see which ones can be shaken off. We may or may not live to experience anarchy on a scale greater than our hard-won friendships, love affairs, projects, and uprisings. But in the meantime, the vision of that possibility can anchor and orient us in the present, informing our actions, the way a mariner navigates across the sea by the stars.


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (12/21/21 11:16 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27590374 - 12/22/21 08:19 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

I can appreciate the sentiment about the larger portion of human history, but I’m back to Plato’s Cave here. Selling one’s labor in order to eek out an existence is all people have known, it’s permeated into our very being to the point that the average person will reflexively defend capitalism as the natural state of things. Of course, this isn’t the case, but folks are either living in such precarity that entertaining an alternative is a luxury they can’t afford, or are comfortable enough under our current system that they need not bother entertaining an alternative.

As for the USSR, it’s a matter of utility, as is the moral argument for the existence of the state itself. If WW2 happened today, the US would side with Nazi Germany, the only reason we sided with the allies is to protect our investments with England, and to strengthen our position on the world stage.

Decentralized systems may be more resilient, but to what end? Occupy was dispersed but remained alive in order to….achieve what exactly? Volunteer on Sanders’ doomed presidential campaigns? I think one can measure the effectiveness of an organization by how hard capital fights it, and the Occupy folks are barely a blip on the radar. They fought/are fighting BLM harder than that.

Why is the Marxist revolution in Grenada the example and not Cuba? Would Cuba have survived it’s revolution without the existence of the centralized power of the Soviet Union? Not a chance. A countervailing power is necessary to achieve even tiny bits of progress. That said, the global power of the US is waning, so perhaps the need for a Red Giant to mediate international Marxist development isn’t as necessary as it once was. Look at our failed coup attempts in Bolivia and Venezuela, these attempts would not have failed in the fifties or sixties.

Quote:

In order to use the state in this way, we would first have to seize it from the most powerful force in the history of humanity. I think it stands as a reasonable assumption that this force will respond to an existential threat more vigorously than it would to a 'dual power' run-around - at the very minimum, we should respect an equal response. Despite this, one scenario is unimaginable for you, while the other is the only option you can imagine. Is the inability to imagine something more indicative of its possibility or of your experience? Even your own language here doesn't seem very hopeful in your proposal, yet you've still hitched your cart to it.




For what it’s worth I think the “use the state to vanquish capital” is a longshot, but it’s at least a shot. The response from capital would be predictable, but perhaps it would shine the light on the problems bright enough that the general public recognize the issue. The perceived legitimacy of our institutions is of the utmost importance, it’s why Roe v Wade wasn’t immediately axed over a year ago. If capital is forced to explicitly sack the state, that would change a lot of minds. I’m under no illusion that we could just vote away the power of capital, but we can mitigate its power MAYBE enough to make some headway towards something better, and negotiate a stronger political position for labor. That’s ultimately what the Sanders campaign aimed to do.

The last bit reminds me of a Graeber quote I’ve probably shared here before:

“The ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something we make, and could just as easily make differently.”



Perhaps I am subconsciously selling humanity short in order to protect myself from the heartbreaking reality of a better possibility that is not attempted, I couldn’t say. But I can say that we’re nowhere close to either a decentralized alternative to capital, nor a Marxist state aimed at direct confrontation with it, so I will probably continue to psychologically distance myself from it and view it all with cynical entertainment because that’s the only way to maintain my sanity.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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 Ecstatic]
    #27592442 - 12/23/21 10:06 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Sure, the allegory of the cave paints a great picture of why this isn't an easy objective, but remember that starting the process just requires us to suddenly "stand up and turn [our] neck round and walk and look towards the light" - it might be painful and challenging at first, and perhaps forcing others to follow us is outside the realm of ability, but the choice to leave the cave is absolutely within our power as individuals. This is what David Graeber is probably getting at with his quote that you shared - it's not the naivety of some 'the secret'-esque power of manifestion, but the cold hard truth that we have the power to change the circumstances of our own lives. This falls back on the idea to not use massive worldwide change as our only yardstick - if we consider change beginning closer to the 'individual' side of the spectrum (the bottoms-up anarchist method) there's a whole lot of possibility between 'accepting the status quo' and 'completely co-opting capital'.

There's a difference between life and survival. There's more to being alive than just having a heartbeat and brain activity. Being alive - really alive - is something much subtler and more magnificent - it's joy, wonder, love, all the things that make life really matter. If we can't imagine anything more valuable than physical safety, it's not surprising that so many people would be terrified of risk and change - their hearts may be beating, but they no longer believe in their dreams - let alone chase after them. To make our lives matter again - to really get the most out of them - we have to redefine life itself. As it stands, how much living do you have in your life? How many mornings do you wake up feeling truly free, thrilled to be alive, breathlessly anticipating the experiences of a new day? How many nights do you fall asleep feeling fulfilled, going over the events of the past day with satisfaction? If living is not a creative activity, but rather something that happens to us, that's not being alive - that's just surviving, being undead - "Et cependant tout le monde veut respirer et personne ne peut respirer et beaucoup disent, "Nous respirerons plus tard." Et la plupart ne meurent pas car ils sont déjà morts." (Meanwhile everyone wants to breathe and nobody can and many say, "We will breathe later." And most of them don’t die because they're already dead.)

But this is how the revolution begins: a few of us start chasing our dreams, breaking our old patterns, embracing what we love (and in the process discovering what we hate), daydreaming, questioning, acting outside the boundaries of routine and regularity. Others see us doing this, see people daring to be more creative and more adventurous, more generous and more ambitious than they had imagined possible, and join us one by one. Once enough people embrace this new way of living, a point of critical mass is finally reached, and society itself (not just the individual) begins to change. From that moment, the world will start to undergo a transformation - from the frightening, alienating place that it is, into a place ripe with possibility, where our lives are in our own hands and any dream can come true.

That doesn't mean I can bring down global capitalism if I just dream it first - and I still risk failure - but there's no need to wait for some revolution that's forever just beyond the horizon. I can start acting now! This isn't starry-eyed conjecture either - I've lived my philosophy as a daily practice for over a decade now. I can't say if my method would work for everyone on earth because I don't share their experiences (although I have my suspicions) - but I know that my personal circumstances aren't too radically different from the average North American - the greatest distinction between you and I isn't in our circumstances of birth, but in our choices and priorities as individuals. Some people live in such precarity that fighting for an alternative is the only option left - and some are so comfortable under our current system that the boredom drives them to seek alternatives. So do what you want with your life - whatever that is - but to be sure you do get what you want, think carefully about what that really is. The difference between 'it's impossible' and 'it's possible but I don't want to risk failure' is where trying anyways begins to have value. Our approach to risk is subjective and personal, and I would never try to convince a person that they are wrong to be risk averse in these matters - but when that aversion is externalized into the realm of inevitability? I can only accept that if I deny my own experience! (I can't!)

Psychologically, our conception of possibility absolutely influences how we perceive things. For example, when connecting Bernie Sanders to the impossibility of decentralized networks you see "Sanders’ doomed presidential campaigns" - but in an earlier conversation we had, when connecting Bernie Sanders to the possibility of state-based solutions you see "the material good that’s resulted from his own formulated balance between virtue and utility" allowing him to have "moved the ball forward."

The story here isn't in the conception of 'Occupy' as a formal organization - the story is in the individually lived experiences of those who came together in that time and space, everything they did beforehand, and everything they've gone on to do since. Occupy isn't an institution, it's just an arbitrary distinction that benefits us as a historical marker. There's no way to easily summarize this collection of lived experiences, the most accessible method is direct participation - but that's only true if we believe it's actually possible! I'll tell you this: I've participated in electoral politics, traditionally organized protest, and decentralized actions - only the last one has ever left me feeling more hopeful about what's possible! And I know I'm not alone in this, because my personal story is connected to untold numbers of other unique stories - sparkling diamonds reflecting the shimmering light of countless peers! Occupy wasn't unique in this - I wasn't able to participate in the anti-police uprising of 2020, but I'm extremely confident that the same process was unfolding then and there.1 We're out here, living life to the fullest, waiting for you - in the smoke of campfires and burning buildings.


___ ___ ___

Addendum:
The reason I bring up Grenada was to show the full spectrum of possibility behind Marxist revolutions. Cuba is a good example in it's own right, but brings up some different questions. We see how the state can be used to mandate progress, but we also see how this was achieved through the use of severe authoritarian measures - not really surprising, considering the power of the state lies in authoritarian institutions (the police, the military, the courts, the prison system, and the bureaucracy). We can also see how, after 50 years of using the state in this way, there is a stronger trend towards returning to state capitalism rather than achieving stateless socialism (in my opinion at least). This all raises questions towards the mutual nature of state and capital; and leads us in a whole different direction of conversation. Economics is only one of many spheres in which codified power differentials are imposed by means of social constructs - politics is another. Private ownership of capital is to economics what state power is to politics.  How can we abolish class society without abolishing the asymmetry between ruler and ruled? "We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."



1


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineviktor
psychotechnician
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand Flag
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #27592544 - 12/24/21 01:18 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

I can't speak for all anarchists, but the ones I know are immensely privileged middle-class kids just LARPing as revolutionaries, and who blatantly hate the working classes and consider us dumb racists.

No-one really wants to follow that.


--------------------
"They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: viktor]
    #27592548 - 12/24/21 01:30 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

How many anarchists do you know?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineviktor
psychotechnician
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand Flag
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #27592583 - 12/24/21 03:19 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

20-30, depending on how it's defined. I used to be part of an anarchist group here in NZ before I was kicked out for opposing the mass importation of cheap labour.


--------------------
"They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


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: viktor]
    #27592600 - 12/24/21 04:14 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
How many anarchists do you know?




Quote:

viktor said:
I can't speak for all anarchists, but the ones I know are immensely privileged middle-class kids just LARPing as revolutionaries, and who blatantly hate the working classes and consider us dumb racists.

No-one really wants to follow that.



Quote:

viktor said:
20-30, depending on how it's defined. I used to be part of an anarchist group here in NZ before I was kicked out for opposing the mass importation of cheap labour.




Cheap nonwhite labor


--------------------
"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,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: viktor]
    #27592919 - 12/24/21 11:21 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

viktor said:
20-30, depending on how it's defined. I used to be part of an anarchist group here in NZ before I was kicked out for opposing the mass importation of cheap labour.



Now c'mon viktor - we all know your political positions on this forum - I'm pretty sure there was more here than a simple disagreement over economic policy.

But regardless, which conclusion do you think is more reasonable: this group is representative of anarchists in general, or this group is representative of the social demographics you belong to?


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (12/24/21 04:21 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleModularMind
M.P.F.
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/09/10
Posts: 7,902
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Lynnch]
    #27593616 - 12/24/21 11:25 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Lynnch said:
I have a hard time envisioning anarchy. Would the trains run on time? Would we have trains?
:strokebeard:




No rails.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: ModularMind]
    #27594032 - 12/25/21 01:18 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27594062 - 12/25/21 01:35 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

What's the difference between anarchists and fascists when you all just want to kill the people  who disagree with you ?
  Anarchists will put me against a wall and shoot me for my beliefs too right ?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Psilynut2]
    #27594132 - 12/25/21 02:27 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

I don't know enough about your actions to answer that, but probably not. The nature of the trolley problem is an ethical dilemma involving choice and death; the joke is that anarchists see fascists and capitalists as an ethical equivalent, so the usual dilemma is no longer present in this scenario. Don't read into it too much - I just shared it because of a post about anarchist trains going off the rails. Historically, there's a much greater chance that anarchists will be against the wall, rather than shooting at it.

If you're curious about the difference between anarchist and fascist violence, you just need to go one step beyond "you want to kill the people who disagree with you," and consider the nature of the disagreement.

Fascism: a supremacist ideology willing to kill those who disagree
Anarchism: an egalitarian ideology willing to kill those who seek to enforce their supremacist ideologies


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (12/25/21 02:41 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27594189 - 12/25/21 03:24 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

I don't know enough about your actions to answer that, but probably not


 

    It's not you I'm worried about . I think if we were neighbors , the kind that has allot of space filled with wild game between them , we would be friends . I mostly just like to spend my time in the mountains doing really physically challenging shit.  It's expensive the way I do it though .
   
  My problem with what you want is the people we don't know .  People are tribal , everyone will have a different idea about what anarchy means .
  I don't see it turning into something that will provide freedom for the individual  , it will turn into what the native Americans had .
It will just be  a few thousand little groups , all with their own little rules , like little governments in competition with one another .

  That happens now , there are gangs all over the US , all with their own little rules just waiting for the govt to fall apart so they can kill me and steal all my shit .
  There's only one thing standing in their way at the moment and its exactly what you don't want .

  A whole lot of people I consider fucked up will need to die in order for me to consider anarchy a safe way to go . And that's what everyone will think. I can already see you thinking it .


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Psilynut2]
    #27594210 - 12/25/21 03:41 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

What prevents this type of person from holding positions of power in the current gov't?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27594355 - 12/25/21 06:27 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

The constitution allows people with felony convictions to hold position of power . So nothing  but their own shortcomings as human beings I guess .
  That type of person usually isn't very good at speaking to educated voters .  Leading an effective campaign is pretty difficult if all youve ever done is lead a life of violent crime .
 
 
  Anarchy equals death for so many of us for so many reasons . Even without violence .
We can't have the population we do without farmers and ranchers receiving help from a govt body .
  Anarchy  tomorrow will lead massive starvation by next summer . That by itself would probably cause allot of violence .

  You won't get what you want without witnessing an incredible tragedy . 


--------------------

Edited by Psilynut2 (12/25/21 06:31 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Psilynut2] * 1
    #27594365 - 12/25/21 06:41 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Now answer a question for me . Again please .
  I think every true anarchist knows deep down it's only possible if a massive reduction in the human population occurs .
  If you agree then what is the difference between an anarchist and a fascist really ?
  Both want me dead , they just have different selfish reasons for it . The fascist would like to shoot me , the anarchist doesn't really care how it happens .


--------------------

Edited by Psilynut2 (12/26/21 09:51 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Psilynut2] * 1
    #27595157 - 12/26/21 02:04 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

"That type of person usually isn't very good at speaking to educated voters."

From civil forfeiture to extraordinary rendition to drone strikes, your current gov't is able to (using some very flimsy legal justification) rob, kidnap, torture, and kill you. Perhaps you can be more clear on what type of thievery and murder you're specifically concerned about, because it seems to me that - considering every president in my living memory has supported the above programs - this type of person is very successful in holding positions of power in your current gov't.


___ ___ ___

"We can't have the population we do without farmers and ranchers receiving help from a govt body. Anarchy tomorrow will lead massive starvation by next summer."

This is more a testament to the precarity of the food network built by capitalism, rather than an inherent flaw of anarchism. Any sudden change "tomorrow" has the potential to massively disrupt the current system - we saw those ripples in supply-lines happening when covid shut down centralized processing facilities. Doesn't it make more sense to place our blame on the ideology that created this problem, rather than one that seeks to remedy it?

Gov't subsidies are a great example of this. Pretty much every economist agrees that agricultural subsidies cause more harm than good:

"87% of annual government support to agricultural producers includes both measures that are price distorting and those that can be harmful to nature and health." - https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/un-report-calls-repurposing-usd-470-billion-agricultural-support

"Supporters of farm subsidies have argued [...] However, economists who have tried to substantiate any of these benefits have been unable to do so." - https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AgriculturalSubsidyPrograms.html


___ ___ ___

"I think every true anarchist knows deep down it's only possible if a massive reduction in the human population occurs."

As you might have guessed from the above response, I emphatically reject this premise of yours. On the other hand, we know that anthropogenic climate change is almost certainly leading us to environmental collapse, and a corresponding collapse in human population. I should ask: what's the difference between a capitalist and a fascist? Both want me dead, they just have different selfish reasons for it. The fascist would like to shoot me because they believe I'm inferior, the capitalist doesn't really care as long as they profit. Which brings us back full-circle to the trolley problem that started this exchange.

I'll leave you with this question: you claim that an anarchist doesn't really care how it happens, but still wants you dead - why? Fascists want to kill the inferior, capitalists want to profit even if it kills - for what reason would an anarchist want to kill you?



--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (12/26/21 04:50 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27596035 - 12/27/21 07:45 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

This is more a testament to the precarity of the food network built by capitalism, rather than an inherent flaw of anarchism. Any sudden change "tomorrow" has the potential to massively disrupt the current system - we saw those ripples in supply-lines happeni




We can't grow crops where we live . The soil where I live is worthless clay for 70 miles in every direction .

  Farming is incredibly risky . Without govt ensured loans and subsides , without a govt to ensure roads and ports stay open  the business that supplies 80% of our calories will be abandoned .
  What will happen after that ?  Whatever it is , assigning blame won't keep people alive .

  You don't have to spend very much time hunting big game in North America to realize without govt protection ,  game wardens and the fees I pay to hunt  that funds them , it would all disappear .
  I imagine that's the case where you live too .
   
  We lost the ability to live off the land a long time ago .
  What's the alternative ?  We almost drove wild game to extinction before large scale farming and ranching came along .
 




Quote:

Which brings us back full-circle to the trolley problem



 
  Problem ? I kinda thought
you posted the trolley meme as a solution to a problem . 
 

Quote:

for what reason would an anarchist want to kill you?



 
  Your the one that wants me  to be run over by the trolly .  That's a question you need to answer .


--------------------

Edited by Psilynut2 (12/27/21 08:11 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Psilynut2]
    #27596050 - 12/27/21 08:02 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

As you might have guessed from the above response, I emphatically reject this premise of yours. On the other hand, we know that anthropogenic climate change is almost certainly leading us to environmental collapse, and a corresponding collapse in human population



 
Totally agree .
        Populations will migrate though and fuck up the place you live before people start to die off . We  are already seeing that .
   
If that happens ,  I'm going north to where you live .  I imagine allot of people will .  I'm already thinking about it .
    It seems to me you have something pretty special going on . I wouldn't want anything to change if I were you .


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Psilynut2] * 1
    #27596301 - 12/27/21 12:57 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

There's lots of space and potential in the north - I would welcome anyone who comes up here seeking a better life; assuming this was with the intention to build something new, rather than replicate the mistakes of industrial capitalism. (Which got us into this situation of climate collapse in the first place!)

I'd be interested in seeing some sources for your claim that "without govt ensured loans and subsides, without a govt to ensure roads and ports stay open, the business that supplies 80% of our calories will be abandoned." I provided a couple to back up my opinion re: agricultural subsidies, so I think it's only fair you do the same. I can imagine that industrial farms growing monoculture cash-crops would have difficulty remaining profitable without subsidies and global markets, but hunger has proven a pretty good incentive for humans to gather food in the past - I see no reason to assume farming would be totally abandoned.

I live in one of the least food secure regions of North America - the solution isn't seen as 'get Ottawa to subsidize Canadian wheat and build more roads to deliver it' - instead, the solution is 'use a combination of traditional knowledge and modern technology to increase our local food production'. If this is a practical solution up in the subarctic, I'm sure it's a practical solution where you are as well.

Although I'm curious, if you acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate collapse, and believe "assigning blame won't keep people alive" - why are you so quick to blame anarchism for a potential fallout ("Anarchy equals death"), but not the source of the issue: global capitalism.  800 million people experienced chronic hunger in 2020, 3 billion are unable to afford a healthy diet, 2 billion people are obese or overweight, and a third of all food produced is wasted.source Why is the possibility of starvation under anarchism more worrisome than the existing reality of starvation under capitalism? It seems to me like you hold anarchism to a much more severe standard.

As for the trolley problem (literally its name), it's an ethical dilemma that always involves death, and I shared a joke response to take one train down two tracks (an impossible decision). Do you think it's reasonable to use this as the basis of your understanding of anarchism? Perhaps joking about mass murder is in poor taste, but insisting that I want to run you over by a trolly isn't going to lead to much of a discussion - especially considering you're unable to elucidate a reason why I would want that. If you're truly concerned about revolutionary violence, I'll once again direct you to this far more nuanced response: https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (12/27/21 03:09 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27596502 - 12/27/21 04:29 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Do you want to abolish the state ? You want to see people voluntarily do the right thing and be as free as possible ?  Do you reject all forms of hierarchy ?
I think I understand what it is .  Absence of govt  and fingers crossed that everyone is as cool as me .
   

I can give you a real world example of this  that I've experienced .
  When I first started traveling in Colombia , back in the early 2000s at least 50%  of the country was outside of govt control .
    It just didn't exist in the remote places  and just like I said at the start of this exchange  it was full of
  of armed tribes  competing for power .
  Whole villages were massacred , they stopped cars on the roads constantly . Both my wife and her mother have been stopped on busses and robbed at gunpoint .
  I could write a whole page about people starving kids not going to school , no medical care , I think you get the point though .
 
  It seems to me the anarchy needs to be global , all govts have to be abolished ,
, otherwise fascists and capitalists will compete to control you.  You'll just end up like Catalonia .

Edited by Psilynut2 (12/27/21 05:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Psilynut2]
    #27596575 - 12/27/21 05:26 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

I live in one of the least food secure regions of North America - the solution isn't seen as 'get Ottawa to subsidize Canadian wheat and build more roads to deliver it' - instead, the solution is 'use a combination of traditional knowledge and modern technology to increase our local food production'. If this is a practical solution up in the subarctic, I'm sure it's a practical solution where you are as well.



 
  Production of food isn't the reason for that though . Poverty is .
    They subside housing right ?  Why is that ok and not food production ? People want  Basic Income in Ottawa .
  Maybe this is why Anarchy isn't being adopted .
  People like free housing and free money and there's only one place to get it from .

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-its-time-for-ottawa-to-seriously-study-how-a-guaranteed-basic-income/


Quote:

without govt ensured loans and subsides, without a govt to ensure roads and ports stay open, the business that supplies 80% of our calories will be abandoned." I provided a couple to back up my opinion re: agricultural subsidies, so I think it's only fair you do the same. I can im




  Ok , before I do that I want to point out that I live in the California Bay Area . The population density is pretty high . Real fucking high  it's a mess and its mostly concrete . 
  There's no gathering , farming or hunting . Food either keeps showing up on trucks or people just don't have it .

Now let's take a trip back in time and see what happens with farming when govt ignores it .


Quote:

The greatly expanded participation of government in land management and soil conservation was an important outcome from the disaster. Different groups took many different approaches to responding to the disaster. To identify areas that needed attention, groups such as the Soil Conservation Service generated detailed soil maps and took photos of the land from the sky. To create shelterbelts to reduce soil erosion, groups such as the United States Forestry Service's Prairie States Forestry Project planted trees on private lands. Finally, groups like the Resettlement Administration, which later became the Farm Security Administration, encouraged small farm owners to resettle on other lands, if they lived in drier parts of the Plains.[1]

During President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first 100 days in office in 1933, his administration quickly initiated programs to conserve soil and restore the ecological balance of the nation.




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

 
Now let's check out what's going on in modern  India .


Quote:

State intervention is needed to make farming economically and ecologically viable




https://www.google.com/amp/s/indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/rural-india-coronavirus-farm-trade-ordinance-apmc-act-6515414/lite/


And just for the fuck of it .

https://www.wri.org/insights/how-farm-subsidies-combat-land-degradation

Quote:

Smarter Farm Subsidies Can Drive Ecosystem Restoration




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Psilynut2] * 1
    #27596660 - 12/27/21 06:42 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

None of those things are "free" - they are based on government redistribution of taxes. The necessary labour to grow food and build homes already exists; but as you correctly point out, poverty means many can't afford them. Using the government to redistribute taxes in order to reduce economic inequality is a necessary counter to the tendency, under capitalism, for wealth to become concentrated. That's hardly an argument against anarchism: the idea we go one step further and remove the conditions that allow such extreme inequality to exist in the first place.

It doesn’t seem like any of your sources support the claim that "without govt ensured loans and subsides, without a govt to ensure roads and ports stay open, the business that supplies 80% of our calories will be abandoned." For example, the dust bowl was partially created by government policies (like the Homestead Act of 1862, the Kinkaid Act of 1904, and the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909). It seems dishonest to not acknowledge this, while using later land-management as an example of the necessity of government intervention. The success of later land-management doesn't mean a centralized gov't is necessary for successful agricultural policies.

Similarly, your example from India discusses how earlier government policies - intended to keep food prices low for consumers - made it very difficult for farms to be profitable. Once again, pointing out that gov't policy may provide a solution, while not also acknowledging that gov't policy created the initial problem, seems dishonest.

As for the final example - it appears very similar to the studies I linked earlier which conclude that current agricultural subsidies are causing harm. "Though well-intentioned, these farm subsidies sometimes work against their core goal: boosting crop yields and farmer incomes while developing rural areas." The proposed changes? Remove Farm Subsidies for Underperforming Fertilizers and Pesticides; Create Incentives for Land Restoration; Put Small Farmers First; Work Together. None of these solutions are incompatible with a decentralized approach, and certainly they don't describe a situation where absence of gov't means absence of agriculture.

"Absence of government" is an oversimplification anyways. There's no structural difference between the Colombian government, and the drug cartels or Marxist rebels who hold power in its place; except that the government is considered the legitimate power by most.  Absence of a legitimate government does not equal anarchy. Anarchy is better understood as an unwillingness to rule or be ruled. Against rulers, not just gov't.

As a counter, the real world example of Pinochet's Chile shows us that gov't control isn't the same thing as 'safety from robbery and murder' either. The inability of government to sufficiently respond to anthropogenic climate change is another example that can't be ignored.

It seems weird to use the threat that "fascists and capitalists will compete to control you" as a reason to avoid anarchy - considering my present reality is already one where fascists and capitalists control me. It's like, you recognize the shortcomings of our current reality (like starvation, theft, and murder), but decided this is a good reason to fear alternatives. Why does that make sense to you?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,640
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27596965 - 12/28/21 05:18 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)



--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Asante]
    #27597783 - 12/28/21 06:41 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

None of those things are "free" - they are based on government redistribution of taxes. The necessary labour to grow food and build homes already exists; but as you correctly point out, poverty means many can't afford them. Using the government to redistribute taxes in order to reduce economic inequality is a necessary counter to the tendency, under capitalism, for wealth to become concentrated. That's hardly an argument against anarchism: the idea we go one step further and remove the conditions that allow such extreme inequality to exist in the first place.




Saying capitalism causes problems is hardly an argument for anarchism .  I have to assume anarchism  would cause even more extreme inequality .  The strong will do what they can and the weak will suffer whatever they have to . Like women , all through history .
  In Colombia , before the drug war in the parts of the country that were outside the influence of the govt  ( due to there being no roads )  everyone was dirt poor and they mostly still are .
 
   


Quote:

It doesn’t seem like any of your sources support the claim that "without govt ensured loans and subsides, without a govt to ensure roads and ports stay open, the business that supplies 80% of our calories will be abandoned." For example, the dust bowl was partially created by government policies (like the Homestead Act of 1862, the Kinkaid Act of 1904, and the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909). It seems dishonest to not acknowledge this, while using later land-management as an example of the necessity of government intervention. The success of later land-management doesn't mean a centralized gov't is necessary for successful agricultural policies.




    I will admit trying to back up that claim with a  link is harder than I thought . It's my theory . Internet service where I'm at is terrible , I can't look for shit the same way I do at home .  Going to let that one go for now .

    On the other hand though the homestead act  wasn't an agriculture management policy . It just gave people land .  Seems dishonest to assume without a centralized govt Europeans would have just stayed on the east coast and not caused that anyway .
Humans migrate . 
  I still want to know how you think food will  get to me without functioning roads ?
Who will plow them when it snows ? Fix landslides , clean up car pile ups and scrape the bodies off the asphalt ? 
  There's no farming or hunting anywhere close to me and there's millions of people to feed.

Quote:

Absence of government" is an oversimplification anyways. There's no structural difference between the Colombian government, and the drug cartels or Marxist rebels who hold power in its place; except that the government is considered the legitimate power by most.  Absence of a legitimate government does not equal anarchy. Anarchy is better understood as an unwillingness to rule or be ruled. Against rulers, not just gov't.




   
    Every Colombian I have ever known would laugh at you for saying that .  Since legitimacy is a pretty significant difference .
  The drugs cartels forced poor farmers to grow coca plants for them .  The rebels did too , and they killed each other farmers . It's how they funded their operations .  That was pretty much the extent of their governing they didn't do much else .
  The Colombian  govt didn't do anything to or for these people at all . Completely ignored them .
  People here blame the lack of govt influence in these places for allowing these groups to grow into what they became .
      I don't think the drug would have happened if half the country had not been wild and lawless.

Quote:

It seems weird to use the threat that "fascists and capitalists will compete to control you" as a reason to avoid anarchy - considering my present reality is already one where fascists and capitalists control me. It's like, you recognize the shortcomings of our current reality (like starvation, theft, and murder), but decided this is a good reason to fear alternatives. Why does that make sense to you?




  Because I think theft , murder , and starvation is part of the human experience . It will happen under every possible political ideology and its in its absence .
  It just think it will be allot worse with anarchism .  We aren't egalitarians we are animals .
  Why do you think it wouldn't ?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Psilynut2] * 1
    #27599165 - 12/29/21 08:46 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

"Saying capitalism causes problems is hardly an argument for anarchism."

Well, luckily that's not all I've said in support of anarchism. You've made an argument here that state capitalism is necessary to prevent starvation and population collapse, and so I've responded to that argument by showing that state capitalism can create these problems as well - it's not a silver bullet. It's a specific argument against the assumption that we need to keep to capitalism in order to avoid death and tragedy.

As for your assumption that anarchism would cause even more extreme inequality, I don't think that holds true. More harm has been done throughout history by obedience rather than by malice. The greatest crimes against humanity were only possible because people were just following orders. Before we ever get into anarchism as a system of social organization, we should remember that the internal proclamation "I am an anarchist ! Wherefore I will not rule, and also ruled I will not be!" is the black seed from which everything else arises.


___ ___ ___

"On the other hand though the homestead act wasn't an agriculture management policy. It just gave people land."

It was government policy that subsidized the costs of starting a farm as incentive for settlers to choose land that was seen as less-ideal otherwise. Seems to fit the spirit of things.

Still, maybe the dust bowl would have happened anyways - maybe it wouldn't have happened, despite the gov't subsidies, if things like drought, revolution (Russia) and war (WWI) hadn't influenced agricultural conditions. My point is that it's not as simple of a relationship as 'government is life' and 'anarchy is death'.


___ ___ ___

"I still want to know how you think food will  get to me without functioning roads?"

Is there any specific reason why you don't think we can have both anarchy and functioning roads? Large-scale infrastructure projects do require some amount of coordination, but centralization is only one form of coordination.  For example, in the Taita Hills region of what is now Kenya, people created complex irrigation systems that were managed without government or centralization.

It's probable that widespread adoption of anarchist principles will be accompanied by a process of deurbanization, as cities shrink to more manageable sizes. Many people will probably return to the land as industrial agriculture decreases or ceases, to be replaced by sustainable agriculture which can support a higher population density in rural areas. This transitional period would undoubtedly have its challenges, but no less than the challenges we are currently being presented by climate change.

For an example of how this process could look, we can consider Cuba. For decades, the country had depended on trade ties with the Soviet Union - the collapse of the Soviet bloc in 1991 brought these trade relationships to an abrupt end. I feel like that's a good representation of the conditions you fear affecting you. Yes, there was a period of food rationing before stability was achieved, but imagine if we started this process before experiencing total collapse.


___ ___ ___

"Who will plow them when it snows? Fix landslides, clean up car pile ups and scrape the bodies off the asphalt?"

Work that is socially useful offers a number of incentives besides the paycheque - the idea that without wages people would stop working is baseless. In the broad timeline of human history, wages are a fairly recent invention - yet societies that have existed without them did not starve to death just because no one paid the workers. In such circumstances, work is a necessary social activity and an apparent obligation from every member of the community who is able. With the abolition of wage labour, only the kind of work that no one can justify as useful would disappear - all the time and resources put into making all the useless crap that our society is drowning in would be saved. As for things like fixing up your house, hunting, gardening, wandering in the woods identifying plants and animals, knitting, cooking a feast - aren’t these the things that bored middle-class people already do in their leisure hours to forget their loathsome jobs for a moment?

But if everyone is free to work as they choose, who will scrape the bodies off the asphalt? (Right?) Fortunately, in a localized, anti-capitalist economy, we could not externalize (hide) the costs of our lifestyle by paying someone else to clean up after us. We would have to deal with the consequences of our own actions. If a necessary service like body removal was being neglected, the community would quickly notice and have to decide how to handle the problem. People could agree to reward such work with small perks - nothing that translates into power or authority, but maybe something like getting to be first in line when exotic goods come into town, receiving a massage or a cake, or simply the recognition and gratitude for being a stand-up member of the community. Ultimately, in a cooperative society, having a good reputation and being seen by your peers as responsible are more compelling than any material incentives.

Or the community could decide that everyone should involve themselves in these tasks on a rotating basis. An activity like body removal does not have to define anyone’s 'career' in an anti-capitalist economy. Necessary tasks no one wants to perform should be shared by everyone. So instead of a few people having to scrape asphalt their entire lives, everyone who was physically able would have to do it for just a couple hours each month.


___ ___ ___

"Every Colombian I have ever known would laugh at you for saying that. Since legitimacy is a pretty significant difference."

That difference is one of perception, not structure - unless you can explain otherwise. Pinochet's legitimate government was responsible for much of the same violence that you accuse the illegitimate Colombian gangs of; and the organizational structure of the Colombian government is the same type of centralized organization that the Colombian gangs use. If the Colombian government was the less brutal in that power struggle, that still doesn't lead to the conclusion that legitimate government will always be the less brutal option. We're only ever one dictator away from that brutality.

Besides, there's no real benefit in focusing on specific cases that support your assumption, while ignoring those that don't. If we're going to be honest here, it's that the human element make a variety of results possible. The exact same governmental structure will operate very differently depending on the behaviour of those in power, and an anarchist society will see a wide variety of outcomes based on the behaviour of the participants. We're better off explaining our reasoning for choosing one over the other, rather than creating arguments where one or the other is the only option for a positive outcome.


___ ___ ___

"I just think it will be allot worse with anarchism. Why do you think it wouldn't?"

Because more harm has been done throughout history by obedience rather than by malice. Going full circle here but I think that's a fitting conclusion. I absolutely agree with you about things like theft, murder, and starvation as being part of the human experience - at any time, a single "strong man" can commit an act of violence out of malice - but what about war, genocide, or oppression? Could an act of violence on this scale ever be possible without people acting out of obedience?


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (12/29/21 10:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27599578 - 12/30/21 08:30 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

If a necessary service like body removal was being neglected, the community would quickly notice and have to decide how to handle the problem.




I honestly admire your faith in humanity . 

Do you know how to operate a jaws of life tool ?
  What about quickly saving people and flying them to the hospital ?  It's highly specialized expensive work that's very dangerous for you and I .
    Do you even own a car ?
 
    I have so many stories .
        Have you ever seen the way people drive when no one writes tickets and enforces the rules ?
  I have . It's terrifying too .  Motherfuckers in larger vehicles will run you off the road .  Did you know a bus can drift like a rally car ? I've been in them .
  No rules means enough people won't give a fuck to ruin it for everyone else .

  The first time I drove through the ungoverned parts of Colombia there were holes in the road bigger than the suv we were in . You had to be careful or you could go into one and tumble down a mountain .
  We came upon this  overturned milk truck  that had went off the road and the driver was trapped inside .  People were running away from and towards it and I thought  cool someone is going to help that poor guy but  that's not why they were running towards the truck .
  They were just stealing the milk .  I wanted  to help the guy so bad but my wife said it was way to risky to get out of the car  for any reason .
    People were also setting up roadblocks made out of logs and forcing us to pay to pass . They didn't build the road or have any claim to the land ,
  They just did what they could .

I actually think driving is a good example of why anarchy won't work at all . 
    Our govt does so much to try and make it safe but there are so many people who feel like they can't be bothered to follow the rules to save their own lives let alone mine or yours .

 
Quote:

My point is that it's not as simple of a relationship as 'government is life' and 'anarchy is death'.




  Perhaps not for the strong willed people with physically strong bodies , maybe not you and I , but for everyone else who you can't say that about . 
    If your expecting cities to depopulate I would like to point out that almost all of the good productive flat land is already private in CA , owned by heavily armed farm families that honestly despise you , and me , and what's left that's public is very steep , brushy , has a 10% success rate for deer even though only 1% of the population hunts deer and is totally worthless for agriculture .
    They aren't going to go anywhere they are going to die and think you know that . So we're back to the trolly .


--------------------

Edited by Psilynut2 (12/30/21 08:46 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Psilynut2] * 1
    #27599856 - 12/30/21 12:49 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

"I honestly admire your faith in humanity."

If people can't be trusted to rule themselves, why should people be trusted to rule others?


___ ___ ___

"Do you know how to operate a jaws of life tool?"

The claim that centralized organization is necessary to pass on knowledge and skills is baseless. Humans have effectively transmitted knowledge for longer than government has existed. As I've already stated (and gave examples of), centralization is not the only form of collaboration.


___ ___ ___

"I have so many stories."

For every anecdote you share, I have a corresponding anecdote to support anarchy - like the society that built irrigation channels in Kenya, but also from my own life. If we're going to be honest here, it's that the human element makes a variety of results possible. Instead of relying on specific examples, we should be able to elucidate an argument for one or the other. For example, I asked this question without seeing a response from you: What about war, genocide, or oppression - could an act of violence on this scale ever be possible without people acting out of obedience?


___ ___ ___

"No rules means enough people won't give a fuck to ruin it for everyone else."

No rulers ≠ no rules. There's nothing inherent to anarchy that prevents people from using consensus-based methods for community decisions.


___ ___ ___

"They aren't going to go anywhere they are going to die and think you know that. So we're back to the trolly."

Possibly, I don't envision this change arriving as a sudden revolution but rather through gradual adoption. Yet, considering how easily you shrug off the death that is presently happening under capitalism, I don't believe you bring up this risk in good faith. Why is the risk of death and starvation under anarchism more worrisome to you than the current reality of death and starvation under capitalism?


___ ___ ___

Just to make it clear, these are the three questions I'd be interested in seeing your answers to:

1) If people can't be trusted to rule themselves, why should people be trusted to rule others?
2) What about war, genocide, or oppression - could an act of violence on this scale ever be possible without people acting out of obedience?
3) Why is the risk of death and starvation under anarchism more worrisome to you than the current reality of death and starvation under capitalism?

Your answers to these questions would have a greater chance of swaying my beliefs, rather than continuing down the path of anecdotally connecting anarchy to chaos and gov't to order.


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (12/30/21 12:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekreg
Shoebox Enthusiast+

Registered: 09/14/21
Posts: 2,434
Loc: sloosination🏳
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27599864 - 12/30/21 12:58 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

I imagine anarchists probably have a hard time organizing much of anything, seems that would be contradictory right. If someone anywhere tells me they're an anarchist I'm just not going to take them seriously. I might steal something from them and wait for them to notice and then giggle and give it back and say something like "see that sucked didn't it"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: kreg] * 1
    #27599876 - 12/30/21 01:08 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Can you explain the contradiction between anarchy and organization?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekreg
Shoebox Enthusiast+

Registered: 09/14/21
Posts: 2,434
Loc: sloosination🏳
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27600162 - 12/30/21 05:47 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Really? I thought a lot of anarchists were anti rules and hence anti establishment anti crowd control type of thing. I understand sure maybe some are just in it for a law free point of view but even then it's establishing some sort of system that isn't really lawlessness. Have you seen SLC Punk? Aha I feel like that movie gives anarchy a good rundown, it's nice in theory but in execution it just doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe I'm being too closed minded.


--------------------
:shineon: Do what thou wilt x Love is the law, love under will. :shineon:

stop being an offtopic pube, the weed forum is that way!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #27600928 - 12/31/21 08:26 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

I feel that the biggest reason for the original question is simply fear. Fear is used to control and induce whatever flight path "capital" wants.

People are afraid(I'd say even more so with the responses)- of everyone being left to their own devices. Those that think critically have mostly been biased by living in a system and as previously stated feel there is little to gain from a change from status quo.

In my world people are afraid to work hard. Afraid to act with respect. Afraid of change!
Gradual change IS in fact the only way I see it going.
However
You couple fear with laziness( the western world starter pack) and nobody is willing to make things better, they would rather rest in sorrow and complain ad nauseum.

All that is more for those that can actually think critically for themselves which is where you would start for gradual change.
The rest of people with low ability to think critically and with little moral compass, will always look for the easiest way out. WE ARE PRIMATES. We make tools to make things easier we figure out how to do less and less daily. What you are proposing would require the masses to do MORE daily and I just don't see it in north America imo.
They want to live the undead life, not think, have it as easy as possible, and have their state/govt be their caretaker.
To give up that to help yourself and your fellow man, is, I fear, almost foregone. Or at least is the opposite way I could reckon the west has been moving.
Fascism is easy you follow.
Capitalism is "easy" you just trade your time for ones necessary creature comforts.
Anarchism is hard, and gritty, and ppl have to hold their own fucking weight.
All these grown children out here would need an about face and a school in resiliency and flexibility and a dose of comfort with change. I dunno how that is feasible. Ever. But if it were going to come it would be Bottom up and the masses would end up needing to adapt and follow a philosophy that is inherently foreign and difficult for them to conceptualize, and the fear would have to be stricken or lessened for them to ever bend their brains around it and the benefit it could bring to the earth we inhabit and the living things on it.

Fear is a huge hurdle that is almost constantly being raised, it seems, by those with the ability to inflict it.


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekreg
Shoebox Enthusiast+

Registered: 09/14/21
Posts: 2,434
Loc: sloosination🏳
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: ashfiken]
    #27601024 - 12/31/21 10:25 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

You know youre putting murder on the table too, right?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27601132 - 12/31/21 12:33 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

What about war, genocide, or oppression - could an act of violence on this scale ever be possible without people acting out of obedience?



 
Obedience to me implies people are doing something they don't really want to do .

  All throughout human history religion has given people the justification to do all of those things .
  The genocide in Rwanda didn't happen out of obedience . It was tribalism and desire , no one made them do it .
  Killing all the Tutsis was a sentiment that was already there . They wrote songs about it.
  All they needed was an enabler to recognize what was going on , a boatload of imported machetes and a radio station to tell them  it's ok .
  They didn't receive orders to kill , they received permission .
  Anarchy seems to ignore our tribal nature  humans do those things because they want to not because they are told to .

  There's a guy in a thread here right now talking about how he's creating fake facebook accounts in attempt to convince Aborigines to avoid the COVID vaccine in hopes that they die from COVID .
    If him and others like him had permission or no one to arrest them for murder they would arm themselves and go kill the people they despise .


--------------------

Edited by Psilynut2 (12/31/21 12:47 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Psilynut2] * 2
    #27606856 - 01/04/22 02:53 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

@kreg

That's a common misconception, but anarchy is better understood as 'no rulers' rather than 'no rules'. The association of anarchy with 'no rules' or 'chaos' is the result of a very effective propaganda campaign by the ruling class, but there's no contradiction in the notion that humans can self-organize without rulers. Acephalous, decentralized, horizontal, and stateless shouldn't be seen as 1:1 synonyms of anarchist organization, but they describe fundamentally similar concepts. If you're interested in understanding what anarchist organizing looks like, these are good places to start.


___ ___ ___

@ashfiken

I think this is probably one of the more honest answers I've seen - fear and laziness are definitely significant obstacles to anarchy - I'm still hesitant to attribute this solely to human nature ("WE ARE PRIMATES"). Yes, absolutely fear and laziness are aspects of the human condition - but these aren't the reasons that, for example, humans explored and settled the entire globe - nor the reason we're currently reaching out into space. Sure, human nature includes fear and laziness, but it also includes cooperation, compassion, altruism, curiosity, passion, and the ability to adapt. That doesn't mean we can ignore the reality of fear and laziness, but instead of just attributing this to the inevitability of human nature - or even worse, blaming people for their own oppression - we should ask 'what creates these conditions of fear and laziness?' and 'how can we change these conditions?'

Instead of blaming others for not choosing to live as anarchists, I in fact consider myself incredibly lucky for living a life that has allowed me to learn that more is possible and to take active steps towards that possibility. In this sense, it's similar to the Buddhist concept of reflecting on the rarity and value of encountering the dharma in ones life - the point isn't to look down on the masses, but to motivate myself to make the most of my circumstances. How do you changes these conditions? Well if, as I think, one of the biggest obstacles to anarchy is that people believe it's impossible, then an effective way to start changing that is to provide a living example.


___ ___ ___

@Psilynut2

That would be an atypical understanding of both obedience and the Rwandan genocide.

Obedience is a form of social influence in which a person yields to explicit orders from an authority figure - the dictionary definition is 'submissive to the restraint or command of authority' - personal disposition isn’t a factor here. A good way to illustrate this is how the soldier who eagerly enlists and the soldier who was begrudgingly conscripted both equally obey their commanding officer when they follow orders.

Secondwise, the genocide in Rwanda has been extensively studied and the event has greatly informed our modern understanding of genocide; the conclusion I'm about to give is not a controversial one. The Rwandan genocide, like all genocides, was a complex phenomenon that resulted from a combination of long-term structural factors as well as more immediate decisions taken by powerful actors – I won't go into all those details here but I will provide links to reports below if you are interested in reading further on how the Rwandan genocide was prepared. Otherwise, I feel these two quotes are sufficient to make my point:

Quote:

Many people outside Rwanda called the genocide a spontaneous outburst of ethnic violence on a massive scale. But this study makes clear how a relatively small group of determined killers planned the mass murder for months in advance and then enticed and intimidated others into following them. Other observers blamed the 'failed state.' But this history shows how organizers took over a highly centralized government and used its efficient machinery to carry the killing campaign into every part of the country.


https://www.hrw.org/news/1999/03/31/rwandan-genocide-could-have-been-stopped

Quote:

Organizers of the genocide used ideology to bring Hutu to fear and hate Tutsi. They then used the institutions of the state to transform the fear and hate into the myriad acts of hunting, raping and killing that made up the genocide. To make the ideology deadly, the leaders had to be able to give orders and see them executed – for this they had to control the military, the administration, and the political parties. They used the radio, too, to disseminate propaganda, but without the other channels of command, the radio itself would not have sufficed.


https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/africa/rwanda0406/index.htm


This isn't to say that sectarian violence would completely disappear in an anarchist society, but it does seem like acts of organized violence on the scale of genocide would become much less likely. It's just the other side of your argument that an anarchist society would have difficulty working together without rulers to maintain a functioning road system – except a functioning road system has a clear benefit to everyone that facilitates cooperation, whereas sectarian violence is inherently divisive.

You say that anarchy ignores fundamental aspects of human behaviour – I would argue that those tendencies you describe are exactly why I don't believe that any human is fit to rule others. You talk about conditions of "permission or no one to arrest them for murder" – you do understand that this describes the conditions of the ruling class, correct? Only in that case, "him and others like him" benefit from the use of the military, the police, the courts, the bureaucracy, the legitimacy of the state – and they can also revoke my permission to defend myself. Like what happened in Hitler's Germany… Stalin's USSR… Mao's China… Pol Pot's Cambodia… Belgian Congo… British India… Is it reasonable to look at these periods of history and conclude that anarchy is where the threat of genocide and famine lies?

Also, why did you choose to not answer the other two questions?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27607681 - 01/05/22 07:20 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Why is the risk of death and starvation under anarchism more worrisome to you than the current reality of death and starvation under capitalism?

Your answers to these questions would have a greater chance of swaying my beliefs, rather than continuing down the path of anecdotally connecting anarchy to chaos and gov't to order.




  I'm not really expecting to change your mind any more than I think you are expecting Anarchy to actually happen . Thought maybe I could wear you out and declare victory , wishful thinking I guess .


Wildfires , drought ,  general lack of food safety .
  Are we going to have an FDA ?  What happens with E. coli outbreaks ?
  It takes an incredible amount of water to keep California farming going .  It doesn't get to  these farms through natural streams , rain or ground water , it gets trapped in man made lakes and distributed through canals .
  All of this only exists because of massive govt investment . This shit doesn't maintain itself and keep the water flowing on its own  either .
  What will keep us from killing each other over access to water ?
  I really don't understand how you think resources will be managed without it devolving into violence given our massive population ?
   


Quote:

Also, why did you choose to not answer the other two questions?




  Was hoping you would give up , and I was trying to think of a new angle .


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 22 hours
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Psilynut2]
    #27608030 - 01/05/22 12:56 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

This has been very illuminating read thanks Psilynut2 and shivas.wisdom

I've been thinking what happens with the mega corporations like Chevron for example, large corporations running on the capitalist model, dealing with the transfer of power and how they'd function.
Nobody with any experience on say an oil rig, is going to want to work on them if they aren't getting paid a shit ton. The locations are usually remote and inhospitable.
Just wondering how those type of activities are meant to keep rolling without incentives like $
I purposely chose oil and gas as I see it as one of the biggest challenges, apart from the military.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 22 hours
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Stable Genius]
    #27610836 - 01/07/22 06:26 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Actually forget about the oil and gas industry, humans can't even agree whether or not a vaccine is worthwhile.

One thing covid has shown me though is that it is possible for huge shifts in political policy when governments are faced with a big enough problem.

Perhaps with the right mix of catastrophic events/circumstances anarchy may prove to be a logical answer?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecatcake1
Stranger

Registered: 10/03/21
Posts: 38
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Stable Genius]
    #27611308 - 01/08/22 07:05 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

:heart:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibler3volution.gurl
Female User Gallery


Registered: 10/20/21
Posts: 6,359
Loc: Canada Flag
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Stable Genius]
    #27613440 - 01/09/22 08:24 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Stable Genius said:
Nobody with any experience on say an oil rig, is going to want to work on them if they aren't getting paid a shit ton. The locations are usually remote and inhospitable.
Just wondering how those type of activities are meant to keep rolling without incentives like $




Oil and gas are still considered necessities. So I would imagine people would still work them in order to provide those necessities for themselves and those which help them with other necessities they need.


--------------------

"Souls love. Thats what souls do. Egos dont, but souls do. Become a soul, look around, and youll be amazed-all the beings around you are souls." -Ram Dass

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 22 hours
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: r3volution.gurl] * 1
    #27613661 - 01/10/22 12:24 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

But why would they choose to?

It's easy saying 3 weeks on 1 week off, actually doing it, living it, is soul destroying.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Stable Genius]
    #27613827 - 01/10/22 07:41 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

So long as the choices are

A) sell your labor
B) die


work will continue, regardless of wages or benefits.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibler3volution.gurl
Female User Gallery


Registered: 10/20/21
Posts: 6,359
Loc: Canada Flag
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Stable Genius]
    #27613906 - 01/10/22 09:19 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

They would choose to because they still want what oil and gas provides in their daily life.


--------------------

"Souls love. Thats what souls do. Egos dont, but souls do. Become a soul, look around, and youll be amazed-all the beings around you are souls." -Ram Dass

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 22 hours
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #27614124 - 01/10/22 01:14 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
the choices are

A) sell your labor
B) die







Ok so with that as a starting point isn't it sort of inevitable to end up here? Work, struggle, organise rinse repeat.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: Stable Genius]
    #27614335 - 01/10/22 06:02 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Well, it doesn't have to be a starting point, and knowing Ecstatic, they're really pissed that that is the default starting point in the world.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 22 hours
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
    #27614363 - 01/10/22 06:33 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

When covid first hit the government here implemented

*free childcare
and
*we may as well say a universal basic income(the unemployment benefit doubled)

Like BOOM! Hey Presto just like that, overnight almost, no haggling from the other side.

Maybe with the right catastrophe ideas that were previously unthinkable suddenly become options. I think that's my point? Yep.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: Stable Genius]
    #27614368 - 01/10/22 06:36 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

You're right.

Did it last?

How big of a catastrophe would it take to make it last?

If 10% of the world suddenly dropped dead tomorrow, you'd best believe there would be a lot more worker's rights going around. Until capital could recover.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
    #27614373 - 01/10/22 06:39 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Well, it doesn't have to be a starting point, and knowing Ecstatic, they're really pissed that that is the default starting point in the world.




It’s true


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 22 hours
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
    #27614374 - 01/10/22 06:40 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

No it didn't last and it cost the economy, but man it felt good to have that time off not stressing about money.

Yeah I'm not sure what sort of event would be enough to tilt things towards a horizontal power structure? That's the right term I think?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 35 minutes, 56 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Stable Genius]
    #27614377 - 01/10/22 06:43 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

It depends on the changing dynamics of the material reality of the classes.

So long as the ruling class has all the wealth, they have all the power. But, if things get bad enough for the working class (in the west), some wins can be had, lest the ruling class risk this entire charade imploding.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: Stable Genius]
    #27614385 - 01/10/22 06:53 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Stable Genius said:
Yeah I'm not sure what sort of event would be enough to tilt things towards a horizontal power structure? That's the right term I think?




Well, there's that now nearly ubiquitous line: last time it took 1/3rd of Europe dying and 200 years.

With the internet, we might do it faster.

I expect climate change will fit the bill, soon enough.

Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
So long as the ruling class has all the wealth, they have all the power.




The working class always has all the power. They just need to...not show up to work. Wealth only matters when we all agree it matters. The moment one cannot expect a dollar to buy you a dollar's worth of stuff is the moment that the billionaires become regular people.

They have nothing to lose but their chains.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 22 hours
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #27614386 - 01/10/22 06:56 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-work-hours/trade-union-membership/latest-release

Trade union membership has dropped here from 40% in 1992 to 14% today....... doh!

You know climate change maybe? It's changing government strategies and decentralising power generation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: Stable Genius]
    #27614389 - 01/10/22 06:58 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Nah man, climate change will change the system the same way the black plague changed the system.

By killing half the workforce.

That's when pay suddenly goes up. When there's a labor shortage.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekreg
Shoebox Enthusiast+

Registered: 09/14/21
Posts: 2,434
Loc: sloosination🏳
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
    #27614395 - 01/10/22 07:03 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

I know pizza delivery drivers that live alone and have it made in the shade. Yall fuckin up somewhere if you really think shits that bad. Just the general rhetoric of the past few posts. :shrug: Sure the labor market and the economy arent the best ever, idk where you are actually to be fair but in America even with things fucky right now the challenges bring on so many new opportunities. Like the door to cash in on Work at Home hustles is closing..

Edited by kreg (01/10/22 07:05 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 22 hours
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
    #27614406 - 01/10/22 07:13 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Nah man, climate change will change the system the same way the black plague changed the system.

By killing half the workforce.





That'd probably do it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 22 hours
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: kreg]
    #27614409 - 01/10/22 07:14 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

kreg said:
I know pizza delivery drivers that live alone and have it made in the shade. Yall fuckin up somewhere if you really think shits that bad. Just the general rhetoric of the past few posts. :shrug: Sure the labor market and the economy arent the best ever, idk where you are actually to be fair but in America even with things fucky right now the challenges bring on so many new opportunities. Like the door to cash in on Work at Home hustles is closing..




Just throwing a few ideas around

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekreg
Shoebox Enthusiast+

Registered: 09/14/21
Posts: 2,434
Loc: sloosination🏳
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Stable Genius]
    #27614411 - 01/10/22 07:17 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

tbh i was looking at posts from page before somehow missed the last one so ignore me im being irrelevant anyway. I understand things are difficult out now though, they are for everyone.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: kreg]
    #27614419 - 01/10/22 07:27 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Things get progressively more difficult until the working class fights back, or dies.

Fact is, things really aren't that difficult, if you're the right kind of person. I'm doing great. It's just that most people aren't like me.

The mark of a good society is that one should be willing to roll the dice and be born into anywhere in society. Unskilled worker, homeless, Bezos, where ever. Right now, I am not willing to roll those dice. That means we don't treat the minimum wage people well enough.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekreg
Shoebox Enthusiast+

Registered: 09/14/21
Posts: 2,434
Loc: sloosination🏳
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Kryptos]
    #27614445 - 01/10/22 07:47 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

I fucking hate saying this but... shouldnt that be part of it? If everyone was cozy at minimum wage then wouldnt we be just like the communists? Many would just wallow at the bottom.. I remember toying with the idea of communism when I was entry level because I worked with this one person who did the bare minimum everything I had to do so much of their work but they got paid more than me only because they started 1 year earlier. Now I realize how wrong I was because that person is probably exactly where they were before if not worse and Ive elevated myself up some.. but youre right its subjective..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: kreg]
    #27614814 - 01/11/22 07:43 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

I think of it from a moral perspective.

When you say that minimum wage shouldn't be cozy, you are making a moral judgement: The kind of person that works a minimum wage job does not deserve to exist in comfort. You are saying that they have not earned the right to a decent life. You are, in fact, consigning an entire swath of people to such a subhuman status, because there are a lot of minimum wage jobs out there.

That's what minimum wage means to me: it is the minimum quality of life that we, as a society, decide is the basics of being a human.

There are many people that will spend their entire lives at or below minimum wage, due to external or internal factors. Goodwill is famous for hiring mentally and physically disabled people, and Goodwill is also at the forefront of the movement to pay disabled people below minimum wage "based on ability". If it takes a disabled person twice as long as a "normal" person to do their job, Goodwill pays half of minimum wage.

And maybe that's me being a bleeding heart liberal, and I just need to toughen up and stop thinking about people who aren't on my level. Maybe morality shouldn't be a factor in my decisions, and maybe some people should be forced to scratch out a desperate living on minimum wage. Unfortunately, when you force someone to live like an animal, they start the behave like an animal, and then drug use and crime goes up, and my property values go down.

And I don't like that, either.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: Kryptos]
    #27614981 - 01/11/22 10:27 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

I think your morality serves you properly.
If equanimity is what we seek for our species(it should be) then those people are not any less than you or I and shouldn't be treated to the minimum, simply bc they produce less.
However, it is status quo to turn a blind eye to things like that and pretty natural For people to turn our capital gain we get from production to capital worth. Bc every success and failure is measured in dollars it leaves those less productive in a pretty bad spot


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibler3volution.gurl
Female User Gallery


Registered: 10/20/21
Posts: 6,359
Loc: Canada Flag
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: ashfiken]
    #27614988 - 01/11/22 10:32 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)



--------------------

"Souls love. Thats what souls do. Egos dont, but souls do. Become a soul, look around, and youll be amazed-all the beings around you are souls." -Ram Dass

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: ashfiken] * 1
    #27615082 - 01/11/22 11:54 AM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

ashfiken said:
I think your morality serves you properly.
If equanimity is what we seek for our species(it should be) then those people are not any less than you or I and shouldn't be treated to the minimum, simply bc they produce less.
However, it is status quo to turn a blind eye to things like that and pretty natural For people to turn our capital gain we get from production to capital worth. Bc every success and failure is measured in dollars it leaves those less productive in a pretty bad spot




I don't have a problem with people being given the minimum, it's just that I think our current definition of minimum is way too low. Minimum wage should be enough for someone to live on. Not survive on, but live on. There should be no shame in working a minimum wage job. Kinda like RG's chart. If minimum wage was 25$/hr, then most of these issues would go away. That was my first job out of grad school. That's a decent wage that someone could live on their entire life.

I do take issue with the second part of your point, however. I think there is a big disconnect between productivity and pay. In my experience, the more useless the job, the higher the pay. That's one of those things that was clearly laid bare by the pandemic: a lot of white collar workers don't really do much. I, personally, have never really accomplished anything productive in my life. I've written some papers on esoteric chemistry that will almost certainly never be useful, and I tell other people what to do with their day. And I am well paid. On the other hand, when the minimum wage cashier doesn't show up to work, the economy fucking stops. Suddenly, they become essential workers.

Though, I guess I was also classified as an essential worker. I just know there is no way I could be a cashier or stockboy or any of those minimum wage jobs. I wouldn't be able to hack it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: Kryptos]
    #27615111 - 01/11/22 12:23 PM (2 years, 4 months ago)

Absolutely, I agree. There should be a minimum for lower necessity jobs but that minimum shouldn't make them second class citizens.
Some people are meant to just pop in a widget all day long every day. And those people are needed just like a doctor. their services aren't as crucial as someone saving or giving life.
By equality I mean exactly as you say equally able to live rather than survive.

So what is to blame for the disconnect?
Why does it make sense for desk worker/email queens to make 100k/yr and I make all these businesses run/open/operate by installing the mechanical systems and make 40k/yr.
I was ignoring this fail for means of the lower income people. But it is , alas, another part of inequality to be sure


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Psilynut2]
    #27624055 - 01/18/22 10:46 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Psilynut2 said:
I'm not really expecting to change your mind any more than I think you are expecting Anarchy to actually happen . Thought maybe I could wear you out and declare victory , wishful thinking I guess .


Wildfires , drought ,  general lack of food safety .
  Are we going to have an FDA ?  What happens with E. coli outbreaks ?
  It takes an incredible amount of water to keep California farming going .  It doesn't get to  these farms through natural streams , rain or ground water , it gets trapped in man made lakes and distributed through canals .
  All of this only exists because of massive govt investment . This shit doesn't maintain itself and keep the water flowing on its own  either .
  What will keep us from killing each other over access to water ?
  I really don't understand how you think resources will be managed without it devolving into violence given our massive population ?
   


Quote:

Also, why did you choose to not answer the other two questions?



  Was hoping you would give up , and I was trying to think of a new angle .





You severely underestimate how much I enjoy discussing anarchist theory :lol:  From pedantic prose to paradoxal poetry, writing words is one of my favourite ways to pass the time - the fact I'm getting to argue for anarchy, rather than against some burgeoning ethno-fascist movement *cough* TRUMP 2020 *cough* Rise of the far-right in France and Europe *cough* on this forum for a change is all I ever wanted. Maybe I don't expect to see a massive worldwide adoption of anarchy in my lifetime but anarchy begins at the scale of the individual - I absolutely expect my personal experiment in anarchy to be a success! Why would I ever tire of talking about that?

I feel like we're circling back to your initial claim that large-scale infrastructure is only possible using a centralized government - but the last time you brought up the current-reality of farming in California, I provided an example of a decentrally organized system of irrigation and water rights. You may not have read this earlier part of the thread, but I had another discussion that largely revolved around the anarchist approach to disaster relief (like wildfires and droughts) - it's a practice called mutual aid, and it's used to great success in the USA today. As I understand it, some of the more significant groups in your country (of the 21st century) began as a response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans - as I'm sure you're aware, the gov't response to this disaster completely ignored the most poverty-stricken communities (at best - at worst, authorities were killing them), and so the people self-organized to help each other - it was so successful that these groups have only continued to spread since then - Common Ground Relief and Mutual Aid Disaster Relief are two that I'm thinking of in particular. You talk about government as if it was some sort of metaphysical entity with its own non-human intelligence that safely separates us from those human tendencies you fear - but it's a human system of organization as imperfect as the humans responsible for its functioning. It doesn't create anything beyond the underlying potential of human knowledge and labour, and this potential exists regardless of how we organize.

The FDA is something that I don't believe has been discussed so I'll go into more detail here - what would this organization look like in an anarchist society? First, we need to consider why the FDA is so necessary today: (1) the profit-motive has proven sufficient incentive for the selling of unsafe food products, (2) centralized distribution amplifies the risk by combining multiple batches from various areas before national/global redistribution, and (3) a massively-centralized global food network means that most people have essentially zero ability to influence or control the production of the food they eat. Taken together, we have a system of food production heavily weighted towards the need for a massive oversight organization because it would not be possible for the average individual to protect themselves sufficiently otherwise. Even so, the FDA still isn't able to completely prevent E. coli outbreaks - regulation is one part of its approach to reducing the risk of foodborne illness, but another part is that it facilitates recall of affected food products more quickly by tracking outbreaks (when they inevitably happen) to their source. However you choose to break it down, our current food network is incredibly precarious.

Things would be fundamentally different in an anarchist society - food production would shift towards a decentralized system (like the one developed by Cuban farmers) where people are able to be involved in the production of their food. Humans have a natural incentive to avoid unsafe foodstuffs, and there would be nothing preventing us from using some of that human knowledge to develop regulations intended to reduce the risk of foodborne illness - even if we can't unilaterally enforce them like the FDA. If we're producing our own food directly, not getting sick or wasting food is incentive enough to follow safe-practices, and informing those at risk of a bad batch is a simple task. If we step up a rung on the distribution ladder - getting food from other people in our community - community reputation is sufficient to ascertain safe sources, and tracing outbreaks to their source is still within individual ability. If farmer Joe lets the occasional carcass sit too long before butchering, it won't be long before the community knows to avoid his meat - compare that to the impossibility of knowing where my meat comes from today... a cow from anywhere in Canada... loaded onto trains and trucks... brought to a massive industrial slaughterhouse that processes 1/3rd of all Canadian beef... and then shipped to my grocery store in the Yukon. If we don't want farmer Joe's cows to get lost in that shuffle, we need some oversight organization with the authority to enforce regulations. What about one step further up the ladder - let's say I want something that isn't available locally - here's one way we could organize an international presence decentrally: a federation of communities that uses a process of consensus to decide on a series of rules - each member community is responsible for accrediting individual food-producers from their area - the federation is responsible for accrediting member communities. The federation, unlike the FDA, is unable to unilaterally force any community to follow the rules - it's only power of enforcement comes from revoking the membership of communities that don't follow the rules - and its only authority is derived from a social reputation for holding up the rules. There could even be multiple federations, with different sets of rules, operating at the same time - maybe I'm comfortable buying unpasteurized milk, whereas you aren't - there's no reason both systems couldn't exist concurrently.

The greater the inequality, the greater the amount of violence (or threat thereof) necessary to maintain it. The current system we live in is massively unequal (like the minority control of agriculture and water rights in California) - so if your approach to anarchy is 'how would we maintain the current status quo without the state?' of course you'll arrive at the conclusion that things would quickly devolve into violence. That's because our status quo requires violence to be maintained - although it might not feel like that to you. If you live in the Bay area and have stable work and housing, you likely occupy a position of privilege in today's global society where you are protected by state violence, more than you are harmed by it. The state, by merit of holding a monopoly of (legitimate) violence where you live, is able to maintain this inequality with less violence than what we would expect if multiple groups were competing for control (like what we saw in Columbia) - but reducing inequality is an even better way of reducing the amount of violence necessary to maintain a system of organization - and that's what anarchy is about.

I think you should really try and answer this question: 'If people can't be trusted to rule themselves, why should people be trusted to rule others?' I've tried to answer it myself over the years without ever reaching a satisfactory response - but considering that much of your presuppositions regarding the necessity of government have been shown to be incorrect, don't you want to investigate what lies at the root of your beliefs? And if you don't have a good answer, doesn't it make you uncomfortable to so completely believe it's truth anyways?


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (01/19/22 11:02 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: Stable Genius] * 1
    #27625076 - 01/19/22 09:18 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Stable Genius said:
This has been very illuminating read thanks Psilynut2 and shivas.wisdom

I've been thinking what happens with the mega corporations like Chevron for example, large corporations running on the capitalist model, dealing with the transfer of power and how they'd function.
Nobody with any experience on say an oil rig, is going to want to work on them if they aren't getting paid a shit ton. The locations are usually remote and inhospitable.
Just wondering how those type of activities are meant to keep rolling without incentives like $
I purposely chose oil and gas as I see it as one of the biggest challenges, apart from the military.

[...]

Actually forget about the oil and gas industry, humans can't even agree whether or not a vaccine is worthwhile.

One thing covid has shown me though is that it is possible for huge shifts in political policy when governments are faced with a big enough problem.

Perhaps with the right mix of catastrophic events/circumstances anarchy may prove to be a logical answer?




The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." - Rousseau


___ ___ ___

Before we dive into how an anarchist society could organize around these facets, I think we should take a closer look at the incentives that keep a capitalist society rolling. What allows a mega-corp like Chevron to exist? In one word, exploitation. Capitalism is built on a foundation of systemic inequality shored up by social conventions like private property and authority. Via a murky history of conquest and inheritance, the capitalist class has come to own access to the basic necessities of life - the working class must sell their labour if they wish to be granted access. One operates under the incentive of 'increase my capital' whereas the other operates under the incentive 'afford the necessities of life'. Both seek to profit, but one desires to profit from exploitation - the other needs to profit from their exploitation.  A mega-corp like Chevron can only exist in this reality - it can only exist because for millions - billions! - of people, the incentive to avoid poverty and destitution is stronger than any aversion towards exploitation, submission, drudgery, and danger.

What type of incentives could we expect to see in an anarchist society? The basic incentive would be social usefulness, but joy, passion, challenge, curiosity, and duty are other possibilities as well (not an exhaustive list). People were prospecting for gold up in the Yukon decades before there was anything to spend it on if they found it. There's a folk-legend up here that the unnamed prospector who struck gold on the Klondike never staked a claim of their own - they just told a few people and then continued on their way downriver - "Yet it isn’t the gold that I’m wanting, So much as just finding the gold." Of course, even if these incentives prove sufficient motivation we should still expect a radically different industry to arise.

One change we could expect: the form work takes will alter in response to these shifting incentives. I'm going to keep talking about the mining industry because I have some personal experience here, but I feel it's comparable to oil&gas. Up here, the most profitable mining operations are massive operations that feature significant division of labour and use efficient techniques that cause major disturbance to the environment - imagine driving a massive rocktruck up and down the same road of an open-pit mine 12hrs a day. Conversely, we have smaller 'artisanal' operations that use less invasive techniques and less division of labour - imagine several miners working together from prospecting to shafting to sifting to that first glitter of gold. In an anarchist society, without the exploitative and coercive incentives of capitalism, I would expect that very little incentive would remain for people to work in these massive soulless mines - and the mining industry would shift towards a form of labour that offers more opportunity for the type of incentives I listed earlier. There isn't much joy to be found in repeating one task over and over again, completely divorced from the actual process of finding gold - but if you've ever had the opportunity to try your hand at gold panning, I'm sure you can understand how some people would find the joy of the process incentive enough.

Another change we could expect: the amount of people participating in this industry will reduce. Sure, maybe some humans have the drive of an explorer who will push onward into the unknown - but a much large portion of people probably wish to be secure in their settlements. Maybe some humans will jump at the challenge offered by mining, but a much larger portion of people probably prefer to be challenged by something closer to home and less dangerous.  So what happens if the productivity of passionate prospectors is less than the amount of mineral ore society needs? This is where the incentive of 'social usefulness' comes into play. Society has a use for iron or gold? Then that need will provide the incentive for people to participate in the labour, or society will adapt to a point where it doesn't need that resource. Either the incentive to use steel as a material will be stronger than the aversion to mining iron&coal&chromium, or the aversion to mining for these materials will provide an incentive to find alternatives. The third option, that humans would do neither and just let a need remain unfulfilled doesn't seem anywhere near as realistic as either of the first two possibilities. Societal usefulness is a pretty strong motivator - but the irrational motivations of capitalist coercion and exploitation have built us up to a present-day equilibrium where profitability is more important than usefulness. For example, bottled water is profitable - clean tap water is useful. To bring it back to the mining industry, disposability in profitable - repairability is useful. I imagine it's incredibly unlikely that the incentives of an anarchist society would provide enough motivation to keep up with the wasteful consumption of modern capitalist society - but do we want to? As I said to Psilynut2, the question shouldn't be 'how would we maintain the current status quo without the state?' but rather, 'how could the status quo change without the artificial pressures of the state?'


___ ___ ___

How would an anarchist society respond to a pandemic? I think this can be separated into two question: (1) could an anarchist society develop an emergency vaccine, and (2) how would an anarchist society enforce rules regarding public health and infectious disease.

The first question seems like an obvious yes, to me at least. There's more than enough anecdotal examples of medical researchers who aren't motivated by profit - maybe it's a sense of duty to society, maybe it's a personal challenge, or maybe they were personally affected - the point is that profit isn't the only incentive for medical research. In fact, the profit-motive can be detrimental to medical research - a few examples, intellectual property and patents causing multiple teams to repeat the same research instead of collaborating together; recurring revenue via chronic therapies becomes more appealing than one-off cures; and exorbitant pricing can make existing treatments difficult to access. The bigger obstacle for an anarchist society would be the coordination of necessary resources. Although the motivations for where capitalists concentrate their resources isn't always intended to provide the greatest social usefulness, the centralized structure of its organization still means that a capitalist society can concentrate resources with relative ease, because these resources are held by a minority of individuals (all it takes is one Bill Gates). Conversely, an anarchist society would need to coordinate a much larger number of individuals - and it's unlikely that this process would be as ruthlessly efficient as what a capitalist society can offer. Still, efficiency isn't the be-all-end-all. Efficiency isn't the same thing as progress - the ability to efficiently concentrate resources doesn't mean as much if the motivation behind it is profitability rather than social usefulness. Consider how efficiently we are currently destroying our environment, for example. This isn't to say that an anarchist society would necessarily function better here (I can see it going either way), but merely to say that this type of technological objective wouldn't be out of reach for an anarchist society.

The second question should be obvious too - an anarchist society couldn't enforce vaccinations and quarantines like what we've seen happen with the state. Is that a problem? The authoritarian response hasn't been able to force every unwilling individual to follow basic rules of public health - how far in this direction are we willing to go? I imagine that the creation of a total police state still wouldn't be sufficient - so should we even see authoritarian enforcement as a viable solution? Instead of approaching conflict as a winner-takes-all challenge, we should approach it with the intention of understanding the various viewpoints and finding areas of compromise and cooperation. If we can't arrest and punish society into homogeneity, how should we approach public health matters when dissent is expected? One approach would be to focus on improving public education - create easier access to the tools for people to understand why such rules are necessary (rather than expecting them to just listen to an authority) - and build a more robust healthcare system that isn't so vulnerable to being overwhelmed (rather than adding seemingly-arbitrary rules to compensate for budget cuts by gov't officials). This different approach to conflict is fairly integral to anarchy, whereas it's pretty much anathema to an authoritarian society like the one we currently live in. The question isn't 'how can we force people to follow the rules', but rather 'how can we create a society with room for conflict, multiple-viewpoints, and compromise?' Without imposed power imbalances, people have an incentive to actually work out conflicts to our mutual satisfaction - to earn each other's trust. Hierarchy removes this incentive, enabling those who hold authority to suppress conflicts. That doesn’t mean we should seek consensus for its own sake (no compromise with fascists or racists, for example) - but so long as no centralized power is able to compel agreement or transform conflict into winner-takes-all competition, both conflict and consensus can expand and ennoble us. It's not a matter of being protected from the outside world, but of intersecting in a way that maximizes the possibilities - rather than breaking the world into tiny fiefdoms, it's about making the most of our interconnection.


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (01/20/22 12:08 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineoursoulsinmotion
Come Down To Us
Female Unread Journal


Registered: 10/04/21
Posts: 3,720
Loc: Deblois
Last seen: 43 minutes, 27 seconds
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27625249 - 01/20/22 01:03 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Anarchy leads right back into Monarchy rule Look into it


--------------------
Alikchi...., Alikchi...., Alikchi....

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 22 hours
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27625313 - 01/20/22 03:53 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

:hatsoff: Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts shivas.wisdom

I guess I could point out why society isn't currently able to shift in this direction, after all you said it only takes one person to get greedy, but that just re-enforces the current state of affairs.

Quote:

The authoritarian response hasn't been able to force every unwilling individual to follow basic rules of public health - how far in this direction are we willing to go? I imagine that the creation of a total police state still wouldn't be sufficient




Around 25 years ago anyone who was in a supervisory position with Bechtel had to do a 2 day leadership workshop. Mostly it was basic stuff however there wasn't one instance where a heavy handed approach was ever offered as a way to resolve conflict.
I've used these techniques over the years to keep things cool so your point makes a lot of sense.

Ratcheting up the state's power to mandate vaccination is a step too far I feel as that would divide society further, and it's about as divided as I can ever recall.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #27625839 - 01/20/22 01:20 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

After churning thru this last post of yours shivas, I guess I feel like another conclusion should be noted as well;

In order to topple capitalism, I believe, we would first have to topple materialism.

It would have to be yanked out of our human population before they would ever succumb to anarchical ways.

If we are talking about a decentralized yet interconnected population, a population, in fact that once aspired to have so much, to pile on so much debt, desire with all they've got to out do the Jones'.

This is ingrained into them. I know the majority of people I meet love the chase of money, love to be better than this guy and have the newer phone than that guy, or buy a house quicker or throw a bigger wedding, you name it, these ppl live for this shit.
If we have large swaths of ppl that are lazy, at which I alluded to in an earlier post, and large swaths of ppl so fucking bloodthirsty for the newest screen, caught up by having the most luxurious car, how are these ppl going to ever feel about living in a more egalitarian manner?

They will fight tooth and nail to keep what they've got and I'm not talking about the top 1%, more like the top 50. Let alone I can't fathom how to convince them to trade their toys and super privileged (to the majority of the world) lifestyle, for some usefulness and joy. These ppl are fucking addicts and they have taken the bait, hook, line,and sinker. Entrenched in their "chase". For what I surely don't understand. But I can tell how much their things mean to them, and for those things alone, it seems, they would die. Much less change the system to help everyone, in particular, the degenerate they have looked down upon and tread on their whole life as they purchase all their success.


--------------------
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 (01/20/22 01:22 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: ashfiken]
    #27625953 - 01/20/22 03:13 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I think the term you are looking for is the "Aspirational 15". not the top 1%, but the 2-15% right behind them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: Kryptos]
    #27626081 - 01/20/22 04:45 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I dunno man I know tons of blue collar workers and ppl even that are young enough to still be fooled or really jus anybody.
Tons of ppl love to parade their shit around and wear it proudly and value material wealth above all else. And it's not even just pure greed which is sad. It's greed of their overlords (the top%s) that is passed down thru the tactical web that is capitalism. And that web has pretty much everybody caught like a fly waiting to be eaten


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: ashfiken]
    #27626090 - 01/20/22 04:53 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I mean in the wealthy west, even kids are subject to this if you give them one toy they want two and so on. I mean like I said I'd say it's greed but people aren't really evil enough to call it that en masse, that's why I guess I said materialism. And I think it is much more far reaching than 15%. When success is measured in a society purely by wealth accumulated. And people are hungry for this kind of success.

This suggestion is widely accepted as the "happiness income":
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WHB-3576
I'd be happy with wealth being distributed to that amongst all... Fair. With adjustment for inflation ofc as I think that running number is a few years old methinks and I'd agree to a +15% scale for more skilled worker or something else agreeable. But that's fucking Communism Jesus Christ we all may die.
But I am using it a limit to what our "materialism" could be


--------------------
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 (01/20/22 05:00 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
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: ashfiken]
    #27626149 - 01/20/22 05:34 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

The aspirational 15 is the target of the marketing. That's usually the point where you have enough disposable income to spend a bit on luxuries, and you're kinda up there in the nice neighborhoods with the nice schools and the nice white fences.

The insidious bit is that once you're in the aspirational 15, you're almost expected to routinely splurge and try to keep up with the Joneses. That's when it becomes socially encouraged to live on credit for that "perfect" lifestyle. Someone in the 50% percentile rolling around in a BMW or an Escalade is what society considers poor financial planning, because they are almost certainly coming up short elsewhere.

Someone in the 15% that's rolling around in a rusted camry they haven't made payments on in ten years gets uninvited from the country club.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: Kryptos]
    #27626845 - 01/21/22 09:21 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I see what you have going on there now.
I get all that.
But theres plenty(the 50%) consumers driving luxury cars, whether they are coming up short or are not planning finances correctly doesn't really matter as I see it.
It's not what they may currently have that I see as the issue.
It's what they desire and what they yearn into their future for.


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTheFakeSunRa
Bitch Splitter
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/01/05
Posts: 16,449
Loc: Dirdy SOUF
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27629095 - 01/22/22 11:35 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Shiva

I can’t believe how many fucking words you’ve typed on this thread

Goddamn.

Sorry to say this but this is the biggest tl;dr I’ve ever come across


--------------------
[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]

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
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: TheFakeSunRa]
    #27631221 - 01/24/22 04:40 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Hah! :awedance: The biggest tl;dr in your 17yr shroomery career? - I consider that quite the achievement. What can I say, I really enjoy writing, and cranking out a couple pages in the morning is one of my favourite ways to start the day. I'm well aware that few people on this forum will share my intensity of interest on the topic, but even if these posts just end up being writing prompts for my own benefit - I'm okay with that - I like the challenge of formulating my thoughts into words, and I often use my posts here as inspiration for more polished pieces published elsewhere.

The tl;dr is 'anarchy works - you can do it yourself and learn as you go'.

Threads like this are the equivalent of asking someone to explain the physics of how bicycle locomotion works - it's going to involve a lot of detail and concepts, but won't do much to help you learn how to ride a bike - the trick is to just get on the damn thing and try - you might get a few scrapes and bruises at the start, but you'll also intuitively learn how to keep yourself balanced as you go.


___ ___ ___

@ Stable Genius

So when I talk about the power that a single individual can hold under capitalism, that doesn't mean that a single individual has the ability to create that amount of power on their own. It takes billions of people - some willingly, some coerced - accepting exploitative social conditions for power to become concentrated to this extent. A common way this is understood: the workers hold the power, but the bosses wield authority over that power. Bill Gates couldn't be Bill Gates if social conventions like private property and authority didn't facilitate the exploitation of billions. My point was more that, since capitalism concentrates power, it's a system that will create individuals like Bill Gates - and so instead of needing to coordinate the labour and resources of millions of workers, a single individual has the authority to control that power as they see fit.

The prisoner's dilemma is an interesting thought experiment for examining the value of selfishness and cooperation in human society. The basic question is as follows:

Quote:

Two members of a criminal organization are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge, but they have enough to convict both on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. The possible outcomes are:

        If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves two years in prison
        If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve three years in prison
        If A remains silent but B betrays A, A will serve three years in prison and B will be set free
        If A and B both remain silent, both of them will serve only one year in prison (on the lesser charge).




Now, most people would say that the best result is to betray a silent partner and be set free - an example of how selfish individuals prosper, right? Except that human society consists of more than just a single moment in time - how we act today will influence how other people respond to us tomorrow. What happens once you've gained a reputation as a snitch, for example?

With this is mind, Axelrod's Tournament was born in 1980 - the idea was for well-known game theorists to submit strategies to be run by computers, and hundreds of individual games to be played out. The results were surprising - cooperative programs were overwhelmingly successful - in particular, TIT FOR TAT (cooperates on the first move, and then does whatever its opponent has done on the previous move). Selfish programs would gain immediate benefits from the initial betrayal, but over the long-term cooperative programs would stop trusting the selfish programs while they continued to benefit from their reciprocal cooperation with other cooperative programs. These were the most successful traits: Be nice (cooperate, never be the first to defect), be provocable (return defection for defection, cooperation for cooperation), don't be envious (focus on maximizing your own 'score', as opposed to ensuring your score is higher than your partner's), and don't try to be tricky (clarity is essential for others to cooperate with you).

Returning to the idea of social conventions - under capitalism, we've created certain conditions that allow selfish individuals to hold power. In later-iterations of Axelrod's Tournament, one selfish program that has proved competitive is the Southampton strategy: 60 individual programs were designed to recognize each other through a series of moves at the start - once this recognition was made, one program would always cooperate and the other would always defect, assuring the maximum number of points for the defector - a fitting analogy for the power of authority. Selfishness requires exploitative cooperation to succeed - capitalism is a system that creates these conditions of exploitation, and mass-acceptance of the accompanying social conventions facilitate it's continuation.

For example, capitalism is considered to create object-first human relationships, rather than person-first human relationships - this means that a selfish individual can gain the cooperation of others if they possess sufficient material wealth, in a way that wouldn't be possible under the alternative. Object-first relationships: I use my money to buy an item from someone - in this encounter, my money and their item are the focus of this connection - who I am and who they are, is mostly irrelevant so long as my money is legit and their item is quality. Person-first relationhips: I borrow an item from a friend - in this encounter, my personal relationship to the other person is the focus of this connection - it doesn't matter how much money I have, if I have a reputation of borrowing and never returning or paying. Continued, we also both build a form a social wealth through the interaction that doesn't require the exploitation of one or the other - people will be more likely to lend to me, if I have a reputation of taking good care of other peoples things before returning them, and people will be more likely to lend to them, if they have a reputation of unselfishly sharing their own possessions.

But how do we build these types of relationships while capitalism still exists? Well, if we take a lesson from TIT FOR TAT - or follow the bicycle analogy above - we just need to start. We can't control how others act, but we aren't preprogrammed computer strategies - we can make a conscious decision to stop cooperating with selfish authority, and to start the process of reciprocal cooperation.


___ ___ ___

@ ashfiken

That's almost a chicken or the egg scenario - a hyper-consumerist society will create materialistic individuals, and materialistic individuals will create a hyper-consumerist society - but what came first? - and now that it's started, how do we break the cycle? This isn't even a problem confined to capitalism - Shiva and Buddha were talking about attachment to the material world thousands of years ago. I would say that I agree with the spiritual consensus (as might be inferred from my account name) - attachment to the material world is an intensely personal journey that can't be forced - only I can catch the ox of my mind. I don't have the power to necessarily influence materialism on a societal level, but I absolutely have the power to influence materialism on a personal level.

So the next question becomes 'how great of an obstacle do selfish people pose to an anarchist way of living?' I think we can take some insight from my above response to Stable Genius: reciprocal cooperation is a powerful force - but so is cooperation with authority. An authority who commands mass obedience might, in an ultimate sense, hold more power - consider the massive military power possessed by nation-states today, for example - but there's still a significant difference between being 'too strong to defeat' and 'strong enough to win' - the last two decades in Afghanistan shows us exactly what that means. Materialism might be too great an obstacle to ever completely remove, but it's not too great an obstacle to ever completely stop us either. None of the '-isms' of this world are. It's not a question of whether we can win, but of how we wish to live. I don’t participate in anarchist struggle because I think it'll save the world - I participate because I know that one day the whole world will be destroyed - and when that day comes, I want the story that ends to be a story of beauty and tragedy and resistance to tyranny - I want the story I lived to be a story of joy and courage and togetherness. I fight because I know that there's no guaranteed happily ever after, there's no salvation waiting for us at the end of history - there's just what we do together today. That's all the beauty and meaning in the world that there'll ever be, and it's more than enough.

But isn’t it more difficult to fight? Aren’t we setting ourselves up for gratuitous suffering, taking on such powerful adversaries? Wouldn’t it be easier to give up and go with the flow? Whether we choose to fight or not, we will suffer - that's the only certainty in this world - impermanence is a far more formidable adversary than either materialism or the state. What do we want the context of that suffering to be - will we suffer in pursuit of the things that are most precious to us? - or will we suffer meaninglessly, attempting to flee from pain and uncertainty, as if that could protect us? I’ve long made peace with the fact that I'm participating in struggles that can never be definitively won - it’s not a question of simply overthrowing a single government or destroying the state as a social form, but the never-concluded process of challenging hierarchy and oppression in all the different forms they can assume - this is not a project that will ever be complete.

For me, accepting that my actions cannot derive their meaning from some future goal is intertwined with the process of coming to terms with my own mortality. Recognizing death as inevitable, I don’t hurry any faster towards it - my attention shifts elsewhere, to everything that's not death, however small it may be - the germination of a single seed holds more meaning than all the swirling galaxies of dust dying a slow heat-death. We may be defeated by our enemies - we're certainly doomed to become dust ourselves - but if these things are so, then the entirety of what is meaningful consists only of those moments when something else is happening, something other than death - be it a loving interaction between two friends, the maintenance of an anarchist social centre, the development of a grassroots music tradition, an explosion of rioting, or the toppling of a government. The fact that each of these moments has occurred will remain forever, immutable, in defiance of the void. This is what enables me to take action - however humble, however imperfect - and to learn from my actions, make contact with others, and take action again. The history of anarchy as the lived experience of human beings is comprised of such actions, and it'll continue to live on in eternity - long after every empire has triumphed and been destroyed - long after the earth has been swallowed up by the sun. Everything else is just death and taxes.


--------------------

Edited by shivas.wisdom (01/24/22 08:53 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,640
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: TheFakeSunRa]
    #27631914 - 01/25/22 09:21 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

TheFakeSunRa said:
Shiva

I can’t believe how many fucking words you’ve typed on this thread

Goddamn.

Sorry to say this but this is the biggest tl;dr I’ve ever come across





Shivas.wisdom is one of those people who uses words after school too.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineashfiken
TotalCrazyasshole
Male User Gallery

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: shivas.wisdom]
    #27632451 - 01/25/22 04:39 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I can live with all that shiv.

In my awareness that this is something that will never be won, I would attest in congruence with you, that this sort of discourse, enacted irl, is about securing these sorts of relationships and doing our best to be loving and free, here and now.
Smart and emotionally saavy people build a good tribe(community) around them.

That's all we can really ask for.

We struggle against the status quo with our own independent means and ways and understandings, values and desires.

All in all selfish and materialistic ppl do little to threaten anarchic thought and means in the individual, but I feel the stranglehold it has on most is certainly a preventative for the masses. Subdued, which prevents the individual, from ever looking for the ox.


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleModularMind
M.P.F.
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/09/10
Posts: 7,902
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: Asante]
    #27632530 - 01/25/22 05:30 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Asante said:
Quote:

TheFakeSunRa said:
Shiva

I can’t believe how many fucking words you’ve typed on this thread

Goddamn.

Sorry to say this but this is the biggest tl;dr I’ve ever come across





Shivas.wisdom is one of those people who uses words after school too.




Let’s hope it’s profitable enough to pay off the loans.
No one else should be burdened to.
:peace:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePastywhyteMDiscord
Say hello to my little friend
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/15/12
Posts: 37,867
Loc: Canada
Re: Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world? [Re: ModularMind]
    #27639427 - 01/31/22 09:42 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I’m late to this thread but I’ve enjoyed it immensely. I don’t have much to add nor am I as well read or as eloquent as many in here but, I feel that anarchy is actually more within the grasp of modern humanity now than ever before. Our technology has attained a level of sophistication that can overcome a lot of previously insurmountable issues. Problems like scarcity and logistics are blips compared to what they were 80 years ago. Our biggest obstacle now is the capacity for people to see this.

For an anarchist society to be successful in our ever interconnected and shrinking world it needs to be able to survive in the face of those who would take and exploit. This can only be achieved IMO through a paradigm shift in the greater population. We need to get rid of the tools of exploitation that serve no other purpose than to divide and we need to see each other without the lens of tribalism distorting the image of our shared humanity.

Some things I feel are major obstacles are things like money and fiats. These are mere abstractions but as a species we are convinced they are essential. Money won’t ensure that the forces of lift and thrust propel a plane yet people think without them we wouldn’t have planes. We can produce technology without money being involved and it is through money that technology is used as a divider of the people. The issue is people cannot envision a life without it and so feel it’s a requirement for a technological society. They’ve forgotten that money itself was a technology developed to deal with specific issues. But we can mitigate those issues through more technology just as horses were replaced by vehicles. I feel that today we could utilize other concepts than money/fiats to deal with scarcity issues.

I know many will suggest that without monetization people in society would devolve into unmotivated couch potatoes and I fundamentally disagree. Many people would become slothful but many more would become even more industrious than before. Without having to toil at a job one hates they could be free to pursue endeavours with greater enthusiasm and contribute it back to society with flourish. Some of my greatest achievements were done without payment and I was happy to give the benefits of them to everyone who wanted them. It is true that some jobs might go unfulfilled due to the nature of said job but, there would be ways around that other than fear of starvation coercing people into accepting wage slavery. The solution at that point is to push for technological automation of those jobs which is happening regardless and, to find other ways to encourage people to do jobs that are not enjoyable (to most people).

Sure there are facets of social existence that would take a hit. But this happens under a state regardless and it could be argued that in the absence of coercion we could see this as more of a natural evolution of humanity rather than a social loss. I personally don’t feel that freedom means the choice between 172 brands of shampoo or to go out and buy the latest iPhone which is pretty much the same as last years model. The truth is that most of this “consumer freedom” is just waste and to participate in it means selling yourself (your time) at a discount (or a lower value than it’s worth).

IMO anarchy is going to need to be a balance of egoist principles and mutualism. I have ideas on ways we could deal with scarcity without fiats or money, where we could retain some of the attractive and appealing aspects of monetized society without enabling the greedy and the unscrupulous. Of course it will need people to change their values somewhat, valuing things like power and influence or the ability to control people will need to end. But in doing that we could end up finding new possibilities in cooperation rather than competition.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


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: Pastywhyte]
    #27659774 - 02/15/22 10:58 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I ran into my acquaintance Kelsey at the Superbowl party at the bar. She was just elected as the General Secretary of the Industrial Workers of the World. They don't have a huge membership, but it's still something. The next time I see her I'll give her a hard time about having the same title as Stalin.


--------------------
"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,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   OlympusMyco.com Olympus Myco Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Capitalism or Socialism?
( 1 2 3 all )
PotSmokinHippie 7,480 40 08/01/01 05:14 PM
by svoboda
* Recipes For Disaster an Anarchist Cookbook, by Crimethinc al_uh_looyah 2,914 10 03/03/07 05:55 PM
by Turn
* You May Already Be An Anarchist.
( 1 2 3 all )
FutureExPatriot 5,013 45 10/16/02 01:16 AM
by zeronio
* God is an Anarchist.
( 1 2 all )
Baby_Hitler 4,824 33 07/21/05 01:12 PM
by rogue_pixie
* Anarchists being harrased y police/ May Day Riots PGF 1,563 3 06/04/02 08:49 AM
by hongomon
* Tenet, Out!
( 1 2 all )
afoaf 999 22 06/06/04 10:38 AM
by afoaf
* The Reluctant Anarchist Evolving 2,020 17 06/12/04 09:27 PM
by RandalFlagg
* Some Iraqi Scientists Are Cooperating wingnutx 583 11 08/01/03 03:09 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,985 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.131 seconds spending 0.015 seconds on 14 queries.