Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Anarchism

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 4:50pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

3,950 posts

@danielo
I can't really quote parts of your post because it's kind of disorganized. You argued me and then agreed with me, but put the agreement into an argumentative format.

Anyway, it's not necessarily a "Right Vs. Wrong" type of ordeal. If someone takes something from you, you go and take it back, right? That's the type of vigilantism I'm talking about. It's not for vengeance or justice, it's just to get what you had back.

But yea, I totally agree on the leader thing.

 

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 7:17pm

danielo

danielo

1,367 posts

But dont you see?
The famous solomon trials. who is the mother? in anarchism, the one who hit first is the one who is the mother.

I say this is my land. he say its his.
I say he hurt my kid. he said he didnt.
I say this pile of wood is mine. He say its his.

I say i killed this person because he resist me while i took back my phone. he {well his family} say it was his phone. so they want to give me justice.

just like the endless "revenge" system of hammas and aal-quaida, revenging on a assasination we did as a payback on a terrorist attack which avenged a squad of rocket launchers who died by Israel, on a revenge mission because of bla bla bla...

so who say who start?
Like the beduians, it will only cause the creation of protection gangs, which will help you avenge and get back things, and sometime steal from the others.

and salvidian, sorry for the unorginaized posting style, i write from emotion. i hate the copy past argues. I love to chat. It could be much better if we all could sit in a room and talk about it.

 

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 7:24pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

3,950 posts

That's exactly the case. This is where Anarchism fails. One thing begins a huge chain reaction of unnecessary garbage, and that first things doesn't even have to be true.

 

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 8:31pm

danielo

danielo

1,367 posts

kein and ebale.

the problme with anarchy is the humans. The people.

dammet we suck at everything...

 

Posted Sep 29, '12 at 9:44pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,851 posts

Knight

The same way it's run today. Our current system involves appointing a handful of people to represent the majority of the people. Anarchism allows the whole of the people to represent themselves. Also, it's not just the workers, but the collective whole. Anarchism is not opposed to organization, just the bureaucratic or vertical structure of organization. With an adhocratic or organic structure, questions like "We need to accomplish task X, how do you think we should do it?" are asked, as opposed to "I'm the appointed representative and you will do X by...".

Wouldn't tasks still be delegated to maximize efficiency? If not, who decides what's best for them? Via voting? But that doesn't play to individual strengths, but wastes huge amounts of time caught up in voting that goes nowhere.

I don't see a group of people being able to decide with great hate and efficiency what is best for a city of a few million what is best for such a city via purely democratic means on every issue. We already have major fist fights over the occasional referendum, much less on a day to day basis.

I see your point but think about peoples' motives for committing crime. If, for example, the mutualist approach to anarchism was implemented, there would be no motive to commit crimes. You help out and you're taken care of. There would be no point to leading a life of crime if you get educated and fed for free.

There are multifarious motives for crime. Jealousy, affairs, politics, psychological illness, hate crime. we have seen systems that provide free healthcare, education, heavily subsidized utilities such as the USSR, yet that came to naught.

People are motivated by profit, companies and firms are. No one is simply going to be willing to trade off for free. And even if their labour is rewarded in turn by other goods being free, that wouldn't create a classless and equal society. Would a farmer be worth as much as say, a person who produces your iPhones?

Obviously, if anarchism was implemented overnight, there would be rampant chaos and disorder. This is not due to the faults of the philosophy itself, but due to the way of life we have grown accustomed to in recent history. We are so used to having the state act as a babysitter that we lost our individual self-sufficiency. Anarchism, however, could work if it follows a period of limited government influence such as Laissez-faire capitalism. If we relearn our ability to care for ourselves (as small groups not individuals), then we can serve a valuable function in an anarchist society.

I do not think it is a way of life we are accustomed to, but a primitive urge. We have always gravitated towards leaders and directions to better manage our lives, from the first tribes to the highly dysfunctional democracies today.

Laissez faire capitalism is a disaster without intervention as explained in my earlier post. It furthermore, doesn't always foster the idea of mutual help, but also fosters the spirit of vaulting oneself up the social ladder, to better oneself constantly.

 

Posted Sep 30, '12 at 11:12am

Skyla

Skyla

297 posts

I can see why Spaz abandoned his thread.

Anarchism will obviously fall short when compared to Shangri-la. I'm not saying anarchism will allow for a society with an idyllic state of harmony. It's our nature to disagree, just as we are right here. The point is to steer away from our current problematic mentality. Instead of bellowing at each other and expecting the state to maintain the peace, to a mature society where individuals can sort out their differences, with the help of the collective society of course. This will require a major revamp of the entire system we have grown accustomed to. With a change in parenting, education, and environment, we can become a species that doesn't need an overprotective nanny state.

Wouldn't tasks still be delegated to maximize efficiency? If not, who decides what's best for them? Via voting? But that doesn't play to individual strengths, but wastes huge amounts of time caught up in voting that goes nowhere.

To clarify, anarchism is not totally opposed to ALL forms of authority, but argues that it should be minimized to a far lesser extent than the current standard. Some tasks, such as those of an administrative nature, will still need to be filled. These tasks will be fulfilled by electing temporary committees. The committees will have no power over the people who elected them, so perhaps authority is an inaccurate word in this context.

As for delegating tasks, certain individuals will be put in charge of projects. They will not be put there, however, to order the people who put them in charge. They will be responsible for ensuring that the task which the people agreed upon is carried out in the way that was agreed upon.

There are multifarious motives for crime. Jealousy, affairs, politics, psychological illness, hate crime. we have seen systems that provide free healthcare, education, heavily subsidized utilities such as the USSR, yet that came to naught.

Sure there are other reasons for crime but anarchism focuses on prevention rather than correction. Obviously crime cannot be completely eliminated, but in a cooperative anarchist society, the fear of ostracism would deter crime and serve as a condign punishment. Passion-driven crimes are unique in that the perpetrator is highly emotional, these types of crimes might necessitate some form of incarceration to protect both the community and the criminals until they are deemed fit to function in society, if ever. This also applies to the psychologically ill.

Again, this is not a perfect system but neither is our current retributive method of constantly filling up correctional institutions. The key point in the proposed system is to reform the criminals and release them - not revenge.

People are motivated by profit, companies and firms are. No one is simply going to be willing to trade off for free. And even if their labour is rewarded in turn by other goods being free, that wouldn't create a classless and equal society. Would a farmer be worth as much as say, a person who produces your iPhones?

Meow.

Laissez faire capitalism is a disaster without intervention as explained in my earlier post. It furthermore, doesn't always foster the idea of mutual help, but also fosters the spirit of vaulting oneself up the social ladder, to better oneself constantly.

That's a whole other argument, which would be harder to argue seeing as how I'm playing devil's advocate here. I was stating that it's a step towards an anarchist society.

 

Posted Sep 30, '12 at 12:01pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,851 posts

Knight

I can see why Spaz abandoned his thread.

Why? :/

Anarchism will obviously fall short when compared to Shangri-la. I'm not saying anarchism will allow for a society with an idyllic state of harmony. It's our nature to disagree, just as we are right here. The point is to steer away from our current problematic mentality. Instead of bellowing at each other and expecting the state to maintain the peace, to a mature society where individuals can sort out their differences, with the help of the collective society of course. This will require a major revamp of the entire system we have grown accustomed to. With a change in parenting, education, and environment, we can become a species that doesn't need an overprotective nanny state.

But won't that still maintain at least a large degree of interference (collective society) that runs contrary to the vein of anarchism? I'm going to leave this as a hypothetical issue, we need to see a complete and radical alteration and overhauling of not just the system, but our political maturity, education levels, commitment and to a certain extent maybe our own instincts. If democracy is the first few infant steps of humans proactively and responsibly fulfilling their roles in society, then I don't see anarchism as a plausible idea at least in this period.

To clarify, anarchism is not totally opposed to ALL forms of authority, but argues that it should be minimized to a far lesser extent than the current standard. Some tasks, such as those of an administrative nature, will still need to be filled. These tasks will be fulfilled by electing temporary committees. The committees will have no power over the people who elected them, so perhaps authority is an inaccurate word in this context.

From the little I have gleaned over the years meddling in political science, yes anarchism comes in a myriad of forms, including authority to a certain degree such as nightwatchmen states. Yet authority without a viable source of power to enact some sort of order and direction isn't authority at all.

As for delegating tasks, certain individuals will be put in charge of projects. They will not be put there, however, to order the people who put them in charge. They will be responsible for ensuring that the task which the people agreed upon is carried out in the way that was agreed upon.

We would require incredibly mature and sincere individuals who can be trusted to fulfill such roles without hiccups if we are going to have a system where the leaders, if we can call them that, have little power and potency in the end to ensure such tasks are done. It is a fantastic dream which might be desirable, yet can skeptics be blamed for being cynical? Haha.

Sure there are other reasons for crime but anarchism focuses on prevention rather than correction. Obviously crime cannot be completely eliminated, but in a cooperative anarchist society, the fear of ostracism would deter crime and serve as a condign punishment

I don't think purely ostracism is a sufficient enough deterrent, then again, it might work in more conservative Sinocentric cultures where face saving is essential?

Again, this is not a perfect system but neither is our current retributive method of constantly filling up correctional institutions. The key point in the proposed system is to reform the criminals and release them - not revenge.

But many nations are moving in that trend...Norway's Anders Brevik case seems a fair example....

Woof woof! Hello Miss DA. Guessed you were, thank you!

 

Posted Sep 30, '12 at 6:03pm

Skyla

Skyla

297 posts

Why? :/

Because many of the pro-anarchy sources tend to hint at nihilism at least on a subtle level. There are, as you said, many forms of anarchism. Few if any give plausible solutions to the major questions that pop up when discussing the process of disestablishment.

 

Posted Sep 30, '12 at 11:55pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,851 posts

Knight

Why? :/

Because many of the pro-anarchy sources tend to hint at nihilism at least on a subtle level. There are, as you said, many forms of anarchism. Few if any give plausible solutions to the major questions that pop up when discussing the process of disestablishment.

Maybe we don't have enough contextual knowledge.

 

Posted Oct 1, '12 at 9:19pm

danielo

danielo

1,367 posts

So by what you skyla say the point is to cancle the 'judges"?
I realy start to get confused.

And arent educate all the kids to think the same is quite making the system work on brain washing?

And one more -  as the musical show "avenue Q" Said, everyone are alittle bit racist. Its in our nature to belive we are superior, to affraid from the diffrunte. When a small kid look at someone with diffrunte skin color or highet or wieght, they cry. Some shove thesr feelings deep under the carpet, some keep beliving in them. Humanity showed us that we are very very good at the game "find the diffrunces". The french and the british in 1040 hated each other. Yet they both spoke french, dressed almost the same, ate the same food and almost looked the same. Yet they were able to find in what they are superior than the other. Same as the Romans. And in the Imperialism. And in nazi germany. Even in Israel, made completly by immigrants, ther is tension between west europe jews and asia/north africa jews, russians and ethiopeans, from romania to Iran, from poland and USA. Some time its actualy come to hate, these say they dont accepet them for jobs, these say they are act in a barbaric way. Israel. Wher the jews of the world suppose to unit. In some places, only the love to Israel (and for some stuiped peoples, the hate for the arabs) keep them together.

We humans dont like each other very much. Try to change that. I dare you  ITS IN OUR BLOOD.

 
Reply to Anarchism

You must be logged in to post a reply!