Anarchism

[Fake]

What do u think about anarchism?? to my mind, its a very interesting political philosophy

[mouseman004]

What do u think about anarchism?? to my mind, its a very interesting political philosophy

Could never happen.

[XAdrenalineX]

Anarchism = nice idea in the abstract, in reality, it would just degenerate into a dog eat dog world, because there would always be those who don't respect others' freedom.

[Fake]

maybe its impossible
but i prefer anarchism more than politic of dictatorship
we can be out for it. for the new word. where everybody respect each other/

[straightXed]

maybe its impossible
but i prefer anarchism more than politic of dictatorship
we can be out for it. for the new word. where everybody respect each other/

Its easy to say you prefer it without living in the reality of it.

[Lifestyle_X]

for communism, you need the perfect leader. for anarchism, you need perfect people.

[x.Xmiss_SmogX.x]

One of my friends always goes on about anarchism, that it couldnt really exhist. Something about how once you sat your an anarchist you dont live by any rules but your living by the rule of NOT having rules so your not an anarchist anymore.

well thats what i picked up from what he was rambling!

the thought of anarchy is an interesting theory, but i dont think it would work

[xGriffox]

Anarchism = nice idea in the abstract, in reality, it would just degenerate into a dog eat dog world, because there would always be those who don't respect others' freedom.

because it currently isn't a dog eat dog world and freedoms are 100% respected by governments the world over? get real, times are desperate in the system we have, why not look to a better alternative?

[Sociocidal]

I think it should be the goal of humanity over a long period of time... we cant possibly have anarchism in the worlds current state. One misconception of anarchism is that its a world without rules, but rather its a system of society that functions without central government, rather by a system of voluntary cooperation. The key problem with this is the idea that all society will act for the greater good. Where as the bulk of humanity does indeed act with social conscience, taking the needs and rights of other human beings into consideration, there is a strong element of selfishness. Selfishness leads to crime and hardship for others. Where as a form of council will need to be developed to deal with crime, its not a huge leap before this becomes elected government. Once this leap is made, you have democracy. Not anarchism. The only remaining feature is economy. A barter system is unreliable, and a capitalist system leads to inequality. Even a socialist system left without a level of free market leads to inequality.

Should sum this up... Ehm... yeah it looks good on paper but cant happen anytime soon... We till need to evolve significantly as a species. Other than technology there hasnt really been a considerable amount of change in our species since or development of fire.... so yeah

[mouseman004]

because it currently isn't a dog eat dog world and freedoms are 100% respected by governments the world over? get real, times are desperate in the system we have, why not look to a better alternative?

I'm sorry but that is such a load of crap. We have governments, we have authority, and times are not desperate. Just because you don't like the way things are, doesn't mean times are desperate.

[x.Xmiss_SmogX.x]

I think it should be the goal of humanity over a long period of time... we cant possibly have anarchism in the worlds current state. One misconception of anarchism is that its a world without rules, but rather its a system of society that functions without central government, rather by a system of voluntary cooperation. The key problem with this is the idea that all society will act for the greater good. Where as the bulk of humanity does indeed act with social conscience, taking the needs and rights of other human beings into consideration, there is a strong element of selfishness. Selfishness leads to crime and hardship for others. Where as a form of council will need to be developed to deal with crime, its not a huge leap before this becomes elected government. Once this leap is made, you have democracy. Not anarchism. The only remaining feature is economy. A barter system is unreliable, and a capitalist system leads to inequality. Even a socialist system left without a level of free market leads to inequality.

Should sum this up... Ehm... yeah it looks good on paper but cant happen anytime soon... We till need to evolve significantly as a species. Other than technology there hasnt really been a considerable amount of change in our species since or development of fire.... so yeah


I find that really interesting, I honestly admit that i didnt know that much about anarchism and what it envolves. I was like many others under the influence it was about the no rules thing :) I totally understand how, as human beings the way we are now it wouldnt work.

when you spoke of how the selfishment of others would lead to crime etc, it got me thinking about how quick people start looting and desroying things as soon as the opportunuty arrises. Makes me kind of sad in a way :/ ah well

[xGriffox]

I'm sorry but that is such a load of crap. We have governments, we have authority, and times are not desperate. Just because you don't like the way things are, doesn't mean times are desperate.
says the person of privilege.
please go to talk to someone who has no job, is looking at losing their home, or doesn't know how they will pay for their family's next meal and tell them "times aren't desperate". After that maybe you can stop being so self absorbed in thinking that everyone enjoys the same level of comfort and privilege as you do.

[xGriffox]

I find that really interesting, I honestly admit that i didnt know that much about anarchism and what it envolves. I was like many others under the influence it was about the no rules thing :) I totally understand how, as human beings the way we are now it wouldnt work.

when you spoke of how the selfishment of others would lead to crime etc, it got me thinking about how quick people start looting and desroying things as soon as the opportunuty arrises. Makes me kind of sad in a way :/ ah well

people loot and rob in a capitalistic society in order to further their own standing in said society by accumulating more capital from the fencing of said stolen good. What good would stealing a stereo be if you then couldn't sell it for money? And why would you steal a stereo from someone who was a member of your community who you knew personally and relied upon for your own survival?

Read this and i think some questions will be answered for you when it comes to why many advocate for anarchism and total self-"governance" and why it makes perfect sense to them.
Mutual Aid by Peter Kropotkin
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html

[D1988]

says the person of privilege.
please go to talk to someone who has no job, is looking at losing their home, or doesn't know how they will pay for their family's next meal and tell them "times aren't desperate". After that maybe you can stop being so self absorbed in thinking that everyone enjoys the same level of comfort and privilege as you do.

But this is you bringing things down to an individuals level.

When you said times were desperate it made it look like you were talking about it on a much larger scale than times being desperate for individuals and their lives. I think this is what Mouseman was addressing, you should have maybe worded it better in the first place?

[xGriffox]

But this is you bringing things down to an individuals level.

When you said times were desperate it made it look like you were talking about it on a much larger scale than times being desperate for individuals and their lives. I think this is what Mouseman was addressing, you should have maybe worded it better in the first place?

and what is beyond the desperation in the personal lives of people if that same case of desperation is multiplied at least a billion times over?
times ARE desperate for most people in the world and most people do not enjoy the level of privilege and comfort of the middle to upper class of the first world. Times are desperate in terms of ecological devastation and the unchecked power with which capitalism allows these companies to destroy ecosystems and homes to both animals and the remaining non-civilized indigenous peoples. Times ARE desperate and to deny that is to be blind to anything beyond the privileged, first world, and oftentimes "white" way of looking at things.

[xsecx]

and what is beyond the desperation in the personal lives of people if that same case of desperation is multiplied at least a billion times over?
times ARE desperate for most people in the world and most people do not enjoy the level of privilege and comfort of the middle to upper class of the first world. Times are desperate in terms of ecological devastation and the unchecked power with which capitalism allows these companies to destroy ecosystems and homes to both animals and the remaining non-civilized indigenous peoples. Times ARE desperate and to deny that is to be blind to anything beyond the privileged, first world, and oftentimes "white" way of looking at things.

so, uh, when are you going to give it all up?

[straightXed]

says the person of privilege.
please go to talk to someone who has no job, is looking at losing their home, or doesn't know how they will pay for their family's next meal and tell them "times aren't desperate". After that maybe you can stop being so self absorbed in thinking that everyone enjoys the same level of comfort and privilege as you do.

You have described a scenario close to one i grew up in and i certainly would never champion the idea of anarchy.

[xGriffox]

so, uh, when are you going to give it all up?
first of all, need i really give up anything to make my points relevant or to work towards building non-hierarchical community? and second, you don't know me nor do you know where i stand economically, so your criticism here is basically a stab in the dark attempting to somehow make my points irrelevant rather than actually addressing the issues i brought up.

[xsecx]

first of all, need i really give up anything to make my points relevant or to work towards building non-hierarchical community? and second, you don't know me nor do you know where i stand economically, so your criticism here is basically a stab in the dark attempting to somehow make my points irrelevant rather than actually addressing the issues i brought up.

well, if you find a problem with how things are, living and adding to that system, does kind of make your statements worthless. I always love the "you don't know me" response. I don't need to. You're living in new york, are white and male, and want to complain about privilege, but as far as I can tell, you don't really seem to have any plans to give that up.

but, if you want to talk about your points, we can talk about low the unemployment rate is now in comparison to the past. how low infant mortality rates are now. How middle classes are existing in places like china and india where there never were before. So yeah, basically your points are bullshit, but it's more fun to ask you when you're going to give up your white privilege and comfort since it bothers you so much.

[mouseman004]

says the person of privilege.
please go to talk to someone who has no job, is looking at losing their home, or doesn't know how they will pay for their family's next meal and tell them "times aren't desperate". After that maybe you can stop being so self absorbed in thinking that everyone enjoys the same level of comfort and privilege as you do.

Person of privilege? Who the fuck do you think you are? You don't know me or how I live my life. I'm not the one sitting on the internet in probably my parents house spouting absolute bullshit about anarchism. You want to talk about freedom being infringed upon? Move to China, or Cuba, or an African dictatorship. You have no idea how good you have it in the United States, so don't sit on your soap box pretending like you understand a tough life.

And I meant times weren't desperate with governments and authority, which is the basis or an anarchist ideology. Tell me, how would anarchy help the current economic crisis. Tell me how a world with no form of authority would help these people support their families.

[mouseman004]

first of all, need i really give up anything to make my points relevant or to work towards building non-hierarchical community? and second, you don't know me nor do you know where i stand economically, so your criticism here is basically a stab in the dark attempting to somehow make my points irrelevant rather than actually addressing the issues i brought up.

Funny, you can make judgements about me living a life of privilege without knowing my economic situation, but its not okay for somebody else to make the same assumption about you?

[xsecx]

Funny, you can make judgements about me living a life of privilege without knowing my economic situation, but its not okay for somebody else to make the same assumption about you?

duh anarchists don't have to make sense or be consistent.

[xWiglex]

Anarchy.. the worst thing that could happen.


But Perfect Democracy ( which once happened in Ancient Greece in Athens if my memory serves my right ) is a great alternative.

Evryghting is decided by everyone and there are only people that are in charge of the law beeing brought to life. And you could easily be one of them.
That would be great.

[x.Xmiss_SmogX.x]

people loot and rob in a capitalistic society in order to further their own standing in said society by accumulating more capital from the fencing of said stolen good. What good would stealing a stereo be if you then couldn't sell it for money? And why would you steal a stereo from someone who was a member of your community who you knew personally and relied upon for your own survival?

Read this and i think some questions will be answered for you when it comes to why many advocate for anarchism and total self-"governance" and why it makes perfect sense to them.
Mutual Aid by Peter Kropotkin
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html


Hey thanks for that i really enjoyed reading it :)

[xGriffox]

well, if you find a problem with how things are, living and adding to that system, does kind of make your statements worthless. I always love the "you don't know me" response. I don't need to. You're living in new york, are white and male, and want to complain about privilege, but as far as I can tell, you don't really seem to have any plans to give that up.
once again, and i know you love to hear this, you really don't know me and really don't know what i do or what i am involved with.

I am beginning to help organize community food programs WITH (not for) community leaders (almost all of which who are non-white) throughout the new york city area in an attempt to ease the pains of hunger in poor and often non-white communities, and in doing this and i am at least, in a very slight way, working towards dismantling white privilege, something i want NO part of and would give up in a second if doing so was possible.

I consider myself a staunch feminist, put in 15+ hours a week as a volunteer at a radical/activist/feminist/queer space, and am working towards the dismantlement of the gender binary system within myself and within the people i come into contact with thus attempting to combat male privilege.

I put in a lot of my time and effort towards at least trying to dismantle a system of privilege that has been developed independent of myself for at least a millennium, and in some ways you are right, i could be doing more (and i hope to as time goes on). Perhaps my efforts are futile, but i know i couldn't sleep with myself at night if i weren't at least attempting to dismantle some of the fucked up thing that occur in our culture.

what do you do to try and change things you strongly disagree with? (and i mean this as a serious question, not as a mocking statement)



but, if you want to talk about your points, we can talk about low the unemployment rate is now in comparison to the past. how low infant mortality rates are now. How middle classes are existing in places like china and india where there never were before. So yeah, basically your points are bullshit, but it's more fun to ask you when you're going to give up your white privilege and comfort since it bothers you so much.

First, the unemployment figures are unreliable since they are based off of those who are taking unemployment insurance, not the true number of those who lack a job and are gaining no income. Many of those who are without work have either run out of said insurance or never received it to begin with (example being migrant workers within the United States).

Secondly, middle classes come at the expense of who again? oh yeah, the working class. There's a reason why there is historically so much flak directed toward the bourgeois, and it is primarily because they are the "vanguard of capitalism". They stand in a position of privilege and they benefit from a system which excludes the lower class in its spoils. As China and India gain a larger middle class the conditions seem to be getting worse and worse for the lower classes. You need only look to the example of South Korea to see that while the middle class certainly holds decent footing, the lower class has had their homes demolished and even been killed trying to defend them for the building of a shopping mall (a middle class institution if there ever was one). Source: http://indymedia.cast.or.kr/drupal/?q=ko/node/6 (which is directly sourced from within South Korea so don't try to shrug it off as unreliable.)

[xGriffox]

Person of privilege? Who the fuck do you think you are? You don't know me or how I live my life. I'm not the one sitting on the internet in probably my parents house spouting absolute bullshit about anarchism. You want to talk about freedom being infringed upon? Move to China, or Cuba, or an African dictatorship. You have no idea how good you have it in the United States, so don't sit on your soap box pretending like you understand a tough life.
You only serve to prove my point. We have it (comparably) good so why shouldn't we put our efforts towards making everyone have it great?


And I meant times weren't desperate with governments and authority, which is the basis or an anarchist ideology.

Times are not desperate with government and authority for you maybe; which is once again due to privilege. Go to Oakland and speak to people whose family has been killed by police within the past few months or go to a prison where an environmental rights activist is serving 25 years for destruction of property and tell them that there are no problems with the government or authority. Times aren't desperate for you personally but to fail to acknowledge the hardships that people are going through every day simply because it doesn't affect you is the exact problem with the institution of privilege and its "out of sight, out of mind" mentality.


Tell me, how would anarchy help the current economic crisis. Tell me how a world with no form of authority would help these people support their families.

By replacing capital with community.

[xGriffox]

Funny, you can make judgements about me living a life of privilege without knowing my economic situation, but its not okay for somebody else to make the same assumption about you?
I guess you are right, that is unfair of me.
So how are you working, or at least trying, to make the world a better place so that no one ever has to complain about the issue of privilege again?

[xGriffox]

Hey thanks for that i really enjoyed reading it :)
browse that site for more writings from a whole lot of different anarchist thinkers, it's very thorough and collects a lot of almost-impossible-to-find works.

[xsecx]

once again, and i know you love to hear this, you really don't know me and really don't know what i do or what i am involved with.

I am beginning to help organize community food programs WITH (not for) community leaders (almost all of which who are non-white) throughout the new york city area in an attempt to ease the pains of hunger in poor and often non-white communities, and in doing this and i am at least, in a very slight way, working towards dismantling white privilege, something i want NO part of and would give up in a second if doing so was possible.

I consider myself a staunch feminist, put in 15+ hours a week as a volunteer at a radical/activist/feminist/queer space, and am working towards the dismantlement of the gender binary system within myself and within the people i come into contact with thus attempting to combat male privilege.

I put in a lot of my time and effort towards at least trying to dismantle a system of privilege that has been developed independent of myself for at least a millennium, and in some ways you are right, i could be doing more (and i hope to as time goes on). Perhaps my efforts are futile, but i know i couldn't sleep with myself at night if i weren't at least attempting to dismantle some of the fucked up thing that occur in our culture.

what do you do to try and change things you strongly disagree with? (and i mean this as a serious question, not as a mocking statement)



and all of this is possible because you're not having to work 100 hours a week to have a place to live or food to eat. You're doing this all from the comfort of your own existence, so if this culture and privilege really bothers you, then when do you plan on discarding all of it and moving somewhere where if it didn't matter it would at least be significantly reduced? I'm sure you're planning on going off to college in the US and not in a foreign country. If so, then why wouldn't you go to school in place where your privilege wouldn't matter? I honestly do think everything you're doing is awesome and helping, however I think your mindset about the culture is completely fucked up and is a direct result of the fact that your life isn't that bad and you seem to be completely unwilling to discard your comforts. you want to take full advantage of your privilege while talking about how evil it is.

I actually give a fair amount of money to charities and my job has a direct effect on making the work a better and a safer place.



First, the unemployment figures are unreliable since they are based off of those who are taking unemployment insurance, not the true number of those who lack a job and are gaining no income. Many of those who are without work have either run out of said insurance or never received it to begin with (example being migrant workers within the United States).


sure, but it's also the only way to really track it. It still doesn't take away from the fact there are more and better paying jobs now globally than there were in the past.



Secondly, middle classes come at the expense of who again? oh yeah, the working class. There's a reason why there is historically so much flak directed toward the bourgeois, and it is primarily because they are the "vanguard of capitalism". They stand in a position of privilege and they benefit from a system which excludes the lower class in its spoils. As China and India gain a larger middle class the conditions seem to be getting worse and worse for the lower classes. You need only look to the example of South Korea to see that while the middle class certainly holds decent footing, the lower class has had their homes demolished and even been killed trying to defend them for the building of a shopping mall (a middle class institution if there ever was one). Source: http://indymedia.cast.or.kr/drupal/?q=ko/node/6 (which is directly sourced from within South Korea so don't try to shrug it off as unreliable.)

I guess it's lost on you that the larger the middle class gets, the smaller the the lower class gets. The lower class will always get shit on, regardless of the socio/economic model. Are you going to try and argue that lower class life is better in north korea than it is in south korea?

[xsecx]

Times are not desperate with government and authority for you maybe; which is once again due to privilege. Go to Oakland and speak to people whose family has been killed by police within the past few months or go to a prison where an environmental rights activist is serving 25 years for destruction of property and tell them that there are no problems with the government or authority. Times aren't desperate for you personally but to fail to acknowledge the hardships that people are going through every day simply because it doesn't affect you is the exact problem with the institution of privilege and its "out of sight, out of mind" mentality.


Or you could go and talk to the people who grew up in oakland and went to school, got good paying jobs and left the area.

are you seriously trying to argue that people blowing shit up isn't wrong?

[mouseman004]

You only serve to prove my point. We have it (comparably) good so why shouldn't we put our efforts towards making everyone have it great?
What does that have to do with anarchism?



Times are not desperate with government and authority for you maybe; which is once again due to privilege. Go to Oakland and speak to people whose family has been killed by police within the past few months or go to a prison where an environmental rights activist is serving 25 years for destruction of property and tell them that there are no problems with the government or authority. Times aren't desperate for you personally but to fail to acknowledge the hardships that people are going through every day simply because it doesn't affect you is the exact problem with the institution of privilege and its "out of sight, out of mind" mentality.

So you found a couple of extremely specific cases of an abuse of authority, but that calls for an abolition of authority all together? I am not suggesting there isn't abuse of authority in the world, but you are talking about creating a world in which people are free to do what they want when they want. What about situations with authoritative figures who do good. Look at Nelson Mandela ending apartheid. Or you made a case about police in Oakland killing people. Lets talk to the families of everybody in the world who have been SAVED by the existence of a police department. How many kidnappings solved, how many weapons taken off the streets? You can find negative examples of anything to mould to any argument, so forgive me for my heart strings not being tugged by the couple of examples that you provided.



By replacing capital with community.

Wow, what a wonderful world you live in inside your head. Are there rainbows and flowers and houses made of candy too?

[xGriffox]

What does that have to do with anarchism?
absolutely everything. The entire purpose of anarchism is to make things better for humanity as a whole; to truly liberate everyone and to allow for truly fulfilling lives free from coercion in any form.


So you found a couple of extremely specific cases of an abuse of authority, but that calls for an abolition of authority all together?
they are not extremely specific cases but rather specific examples drawn from the huge pool of abuses of authority and law that occur every single day.


I am not suggesting there isn't abuse of authority in the world, but you are talking about creating a world in which people are free to do what they want when they want.
yes, i am. Isn't this not the goal of every human? To have the freedom to do what they wish with their time and to make their lives fulfilling?


What about situations with authoritative figures who do good. Look at Nelson Mandela ending apartheid.
Nelson Mandela was imprisoned under the law for his actions in ending apartheid and was held in prison for well over a decade. I would hardly say at that point in time that he held a "position" at all, let alone a position of authority, other than being a popular voice of the oppressed.


Or you made a case about police in Oakland killing people. Lets talk to the families of everybody in the world who have been SAVED by the existence of a police department. How many kidnappings solved, how many weapons taken off the streets? You can find negative examples of anything to mould to any argument, so forgive me for my heart strings not being tugged by the couple of examples that you provided.
you need only look to history and headlines to see the abuses perpetuated by power over and over again. On the occasion that communities finally do decide to protect themselves and to manage their own internal affairs (for example, the Black Panthers) they are targeted by the system of authority as "dangerous" and "revolutionary", sought after by the police, and slowly killed off either in jail cells or by bullets in the street.



Wow, what a wonderful world you live in inside your head. Are there rainbows and flowers and houses made of candy too?
your mockery of that statement only shows how little you understand about any theories pertaining to social organization, even within moderate groups. One doesn't need a system of capital, insurance, etc. if a solid community is available to fall back on and to provide for one another.

[xGriffox]

Or you could go and talk to the people who grew up in oakland and went to school, got good paying jobs and left the area.
funny, because one of my better friends is from Oakland, grew up horribly poor, and tells me of how essentially everyone who is non-white and lower class in Oakland fears for their lives from abuses of the police. He made it out of Oakland and is incredibly well educated (by his own doing, not by the "education" systems there) and he still recognizes the injustices that have occurred and continue to occur there in terms of police harassment, abuse, and even killing. Simply because he made it out does not mean that the hardships of life there stop existing.


are you seriously trying to argue that people blowing shit up isn't wrong?
Are you seriously trying to argue that setting fire to a car that had no one inside of it, was later restored, and then sold, warrants a 25 year prison sentence?

we are not discussing the morals of property destruction here, but rather abuses of authority.

[xsecx]

funny, because one of my better friends is from Oakland, grew up horribly poor, and tells me of how essentially everyone who is non-white and lower class in Oakland fears for their lives from abuses of the police. He made it out of Oakland and is incredibly well educated (by his own doing, not by the "education" systems there) and he still recognizes the injustices that have occurred and continue to occur there in terms of police harassment, abuse, and even killing. Simply because he made it out does not mean that the hardships of life there stop existing.


How is one well educated by their own doing and not the education system? Your comments are about abuses for authority and why anarchy is necessary, but somehow people are able to learn, grow and eventually leave that area. Or, it could be that the people recognize the problems and are actively working to change things. I also like how you pick and choose local responsibility. You talk about the black panthers, but you blame the government and cops for why oakland is a shithole.





Are you seriously trying to argue that setting fire to a car that had no one inside of it, was later restored, and then sold, warrants a 25 year prison sentence?

we are not discussing the morals of property destruction here, but rather abuses of authority.

If you're going to speak about specifics rather than generalities, you might want to reference what it is you're talking about rather than assuming everyone will know the specifics of what you're talking about.

[xsecx]

you need only look to history and headlines to see the abuses perpetuated by power over and over again. On the occasion that communities finally do decide to protect themselves and to manage their own internal affairs (for example, the Black Panthers) they are targeted by the system of authority as "dangerous" and "revolutionary", sought after by the police, and slowly killed off either in jail cells or by bullets in the street.


you completely ignored his point because you know full well you can't counter it.

[xGriffox]

you completely ignored his point because you know full well you can't counter it.
bring up some points of your own then and let's make this a right-proper debate. Why can't anarchy work and why is government the ideal system of human management?

[xsecx]

bring up some points of your own then and let's make this a right-proper debate. Why can't anarchy work and why is government the ideal system of human management?

I already have but like usual you've ignored those posts, but awesome way to ignore his point again and try and shift attention.

anarchy cannot work because humans are not and will never be equal. greed will always exist and there will always need to be laws to keep parts of humanity in place and to punish those that don't. It has never work and there's really no reason to believe that it will ever work.

[xGriffox]

How is one well educated by their own doing and not the education system?
he dropped out of high school and is one of the most eloquent and incredibly intelligent individuals i have met. He educated himself through reading and interactions with others rather than through the traditional track of public education.


Your comments are about abuses for authority and why anarchy is necessary, but somehow people are able to learn, grow and eventually leave that area. Or, it could be that the people recognize the problems and are actively working to change things.
your point here is muddled here, but let me try to respond regardless.
Certainly people are able to grow and learn even in the most repressive of environments (see the Red Army Faction for example), but that does not mean that the repressive environment should continue to exist.



I also like how you pick and choose local responsibility. You talk about the black panthers, but you blame the government and cops for why oakland is a shithole.
I was merely stating that police repression is a very real problem in that specific community. Certainly there are other issues (drug dealing, drug homicides, gang shootings etc.) and these issues need to be addressed as well, but i think they should be addressed by the community and not by the state.



If you're going to speak about specifics rather than generalities, you might want to reference what it is you're talking about rather than assuming everyone will know the specifics of what you're talking about.
does the destruction of property in which no living being is harmed ever warrant a 25 year sentence?

[xsecx]

he dropped out of high school and is one of the most eloquent and incredibly intelligent individuals i have met. He educated himself through reading and interactions with others rather than through the traditional track of public education.

Then I'd have to question what he's actually educated in and what's he's actually qualified to do.




your point here is muddled here, but let me try to respond regardless.
Certainly people are able to grow and learn even in the most repressive of environments (see the Red Army Faction for example), but that does not mean that the repressive environment should continue to exist.


but they're not able to leave. in your example people are stuck in that system and in your example it's limited to a given geographic location.



I was merely stating that police repression is a very real problem in that specific community. Certainly there are other issues (drug dealing, drug homicides, gang shootings etc.) and these issues need to be addressed as well, but i think they should be addressed by the community and not by the state.


and yet, it isn't. There's nothing stopping the community from doing so, and some are, but if you take a look I'm sure you'd find government funding and assistance all over those areas. I'd like some sucessful examples of where communities have tackled problems like you listed without any government assistance.



does the destruction of property in which no living being is harmed ever warrant a 25 year sentence?
depends on the circumstances, depends on if someone has prior convictions, and it depends on what else the person is involved in. you can't talk about this shit in a vacuum.

[xGriffox]

I already have but like usual you've ignored those posts, but awesome way to ignore his point again and try and shift attention.

Or you made a case about police in Oakland killing people. Lets talk to the families of everybody in the world who have been SAVED by the existence of a police department. How many kidnappings solved, how many weapons taken off the streets?.
The police (and as a further extension, the army) serve the purpose of being the arm of the state and the way in which its laws are enforced in the physical plane. Certainly the police have saved people when it has synced up within the law but in the same manner they have repressed them when the law and the state has allowed it. Look to segregation, slavery, Bloody Sunday, the movement against Apartheid, the Angola 3, the entire anti-war movement, the Red Scare, the Green Scare, the January Uprising in Poland, and so many more than come to mind right now.

Every case of state repression has not been carried out by the ruler him or herself, but rather by the generals, armies, and police forces under his/her command. You have called me out for ignoring the good that police do for people and i continue to call you out for every case of state repression that could have never occurred without such a police force.
"There is a psychological deficiency in policing others."


anarchy cannot work because humans are not and will never be equal. greed will always exist and there will always need to be laws to keep parts of humanity in place and to punish those that don't. It has never work and there's really no reason to believe that it will ever work.

see: The Paris Commune, Rural Spain in 1936, The communes and non-hierarchical squats that exist throughout the world today and especially thrive in Europe, occurrences within everyday life in which decisions are made collectively and without coercion by groups of friends, many non-civilized groups of tribal peoples when (and where) they still exist(ed).

[xGriffox]

Then I'd have to question what he's actually educated in and what's he's actually qualified to do.
well then you would probably have to meet him. He is a competent mechanic, computer tech, essential encyclopedia on mathematics and radical theory, and a wonderfully eloquent speaker and writer.



I'd like some sucessful examples of where communities have tackled problems like you listed without any government assistance.
Though i have used this example already and though it was some years back, the Black Panther Party served this role for a decent period of time before they were picked off by the powers that be.



depends on the circumstances, depends on if someone has prior convictions, and it depends on what else the person is involved in. you can't talk about this shit in a vacuum.
The fact that you are considering locking a human being away for a quarter century for a non-violent crime astounds me.

[mouseman004]

absolutely everything. The entire purpose of anarchism is to make things better for humanity as a whole; to truly liberate everyone and to allow for truly fulfilling lives free from coercion in any form.

That is the most optimistic view of anarchy I have ever heard, and is completely naive and gives a false sense of the reality of the human mind. So child molesters should be allowed to have free access to whomever they want? I should have the ability to steal from anybody I want, because in anarchy, private property doesn't exist. This is no different than the Christian debate about sxe. You are taking parts of a beleif system that help your argument and ignoring the parts that you don't like.


they are not extremely specific cases but rather specific examples drawn from the huge pool of abuses of authority and law that occur every single day.

Once again, you are ignoring the benefits of authority and looking only at the abuses of power. You fail to realise that without authority of any kind, mankind would erupt into chaos. I am a firm beleieve in much of what Thomas Hobbes said about the state of nature and the evil of mankind.


yes, i am. Isn't this not the goal of every human? To have the freedom to do what they wish with their time and to make their lives fulfilling?

See my first point in this post.


Nelson Mandela was imprisoned under the law for his actions in ending apartheid and was held in prison for well over a decade. I would hardly say at that point in time that he held a "position" at all, let alone a position of authority, other than being a popular voice of the oppressed.

He used his position as president of South Africa to completely reform the country, how can you argue he never used a position of authority? Yes, the white government imprisoned Mandela and enforced a racist regime, once again I am not arguing that abuses of power don't exist, they obviously do. I am simply arguing that there are countless situations in which power and positions of authority are used for good and to help people.



you need only look to history and headlines to see the abuses perpetuated by power over and over again. On the occasion that communities finally do decide to protect themselves and to manage their own internal affairs (for example, the Black Panthers) they are targeted by the system of authority as "dangerous" and "revolutionary", sought after by the police, and slowly killed off either in jail cells or by bullets in the street.

The black panthers were a violent radical group so your example of the goodness of society coming through internal organisations is not at ALL enforced by that example. I supported the ideas that the panthers were fighting for, but their methods were violent and radical.




your mockery of that statement only shows how little you understand about any theories pertaining to social organization, even within moderate groups. One doesn't need a system of capital, insurance, etc. if a solid community is available to fall back on and to provide for one another.

You really need to stop making assumptions about me. I just finished a 4 year university degree studying politics, political organisation and political thinkers from Marx and Engels to Hobbes. I have taken classes taught by marxists, anarchists, capitalists, so I am fairly certain that my understanding of social organisation and political theories is quite extensive. I have studied anarchy, feminism, eco-feminism, capitalism, marxism, social democracy, and the list continues. So don't assume that I don't understand what I am talking about, because you are wrong. But wait, my education came from a school that is paid for by the government, so I suppose that doesn't really count? And Your naive outlook on the state of current affairs and on anarchy and community vs. captial pretty much shows me that you have a one sided view of these theories and have chosen to look at only what you want to look at.

[xGriffox]

You really need to stop making assumptions about me. I just finished a 4 year university degree studying politics, political organisation and political thinkers from Marx and Engels to Hobbes. I have taken classes taught by marxists, anarchists, capitalists, so I am fairly certain that my understanding of social organisation and political theories is quite extensive. I have studied anarchy, feminism, eco-feminism, capitalism, marxism, social democracy, and the list continues.

seems like you really didn't absorb much then considering the fact that you seem to totally misunderstand the tenants of anarchism and liberation ideologies as a whole.

Your generalizations about the black panthers being violent and far too radical are indicative of (from what i can observe) your status-quo ideological outlook.

[xGriffox]

P.S. I understand both sides of the argument for and against the state. We are debating here though so why would i be on your side of this argument?

[xsecx]

yeah you still ignored one, but hey.


The police (and as a further extension, the army) serve the purpose of being the arm of the state and the way in which its laws are enforced in the physical plane. Certainly the police have saved people when it has synced up within the law but in the same manner they have repressed them when the law and the state has allowed it. Look to segregation, slavery, Bloody Sunday, the movement against Apartheid, the Angola 3, the entire anti-war movement, the Red Scare, the Green Scare, the January Uprising in Poland, and so many more than come to mind right now.

Every case of state repression has not been carried out by the ruler him or herself, but rather by the generals, armies, and police forces under his/her command. You have called me out for ignoring the good that police do for people and i continue to call you out for every case of state repression that could have never occurred without such a police force.
"There is a psychological deficiency in policing others."


uh, they can't really save people when it isn't in scope of the law, if it did, you'd be crying the other way about abuse beyond authority just in a different direction. Can you also use things that are at least within the last 20 years if you're going to use them for examples, otherwise they aren't really relevant to what's in place and happening today. just about every case you listed has been corrected and actions have been put in place to keep them from occurring again. You completely deny the good that is done daily because it doesn't fit into your agenda but instead you choose to focus on limited abuse that isn't systematic and certainly isn't as wide spread and your point would lead people to believe.




see: The Paris Commune, Rural Spain in 1936, The communes and non-hierarchical squats that exist throughout the world today and especially thrive in Europe, occurrences within everyday life in which decisions are made collectively and without coercion by groups of friends, many non-civilized groups of tribal peoples when (and where) they still exist(ed).

and none of that is relevant when talking about a global or even country based system since it's never existed on any kind of scale and when it has, has been destroyed due to it's inherent weaknesses.

[xsecx]

Your generalizations about the black panthers being violent and far too radical are indicative of (from what i can observe) your status-quo ideological outlook.

so how were they not violent and radical?

[mouseman004]

seems like you really didn't absorb much then considering the fact that you seem to totally misunderstand the tenants of anarchism and liberation ideologies as a whole.

I understand anarchism fine, you are moulding the tenants of anarchism to fit your idealistic and unrealistic view of the world.

[xsecx]

well then you would probably have to meet him. He is a competent mechanic, computer tech, essential encyclopedia on mathematics and radical theory, and a wonderfully eloquent speaker and writer.


I'm glad you have such a high opinion of him, but I'd still have to doubt someone's qualifications if they're completely self taught since there's no real easy well to tell that someone is qualified without an independent and unbiased source such as a degree or a qualification.



Though i have used this example already and though it was some years back, the Black Panther Party served this role for a decent period of time before they were picked off by the powers that be.

I said successful.



The fact that you are considering locking a human being away for a quarter century for a non-violent crime astounds me.

I guess you didn't read what I said.

[xGriffox]

yeah you still ignored one, but hey.
uh, they can't really save people when it isn't in scope of the law, if it did, you'd be crying the other way about abuse beyond authority just in a different direction.
I was arguing that they are oppressing people in the name of the law in the same way they are helping them.


Can you also use things that are at least within the last 20 years if you're going to use them for examples
The Green Scare (currently still going on), The G8 Summit in '99, Sean Bell being shot over 50 times, the individual shot and killed whilst handcuffed in Oakland, the murder of union organizers by Coca-Cola, the already mentioned destruction of homes and murder of lower-class South Koreans, the continued targeting of radicals by governments world wide, and so much more than i can come up with just from memory.

[xGriffox]

I understand anarchism fine, you are moulding the tenants of anarchism to fit your idealistic and unrealistic view of the world.
really? tell me in which way i am corrupting the ideals of anarchism.

[xsecx]

I was arguing that they are oppressing people in the name of the law in the same way they are helping them.


but they aren't. Using the authority that the people gave them to protect them is totally separate from the abuses of the system you're talking about.



The Green Scare (currently still going on), The G8 Summit in '99, Sean Bell being shot over 50 times, the individual shot and killed whilst handcuffed in Oakland, the murder of union organizers by Coca-Cola, the already mentioned destruction of homes and murder of lower-class South Koreans, the continued targeting of radicals by governments world wide, and so much more than i can come up with just from memory.
and these all pale in comparison to the number of lives and property that are protected daily on a global level, you just ignore that because it doesn't fit your agenda. In most of those cases where the people responsible acting according to the law? No, they weren't. They broke the law and were punished for it. They weren't rewarded for it, which for your point to be valid, they'd have to be.

[rodrigo]

The fact that you are considering locking a human being away for a quarter century for a non-violent crime astounds me.

how is burning a car non-violent?

[Just-a-fool]

absolutely everything. The entire purpose of anarchism is to make things better for humanity as a whole; to truly liberate everyone and to allow for truly fulfilling lives free from coercion in any form.


I believe that was the original idea from Bakoenin, what i heard he was one of the founding people of the anarchistic ideas.
That idea was probably formulated for a good purpose but ,it has been said before, its pretty naive. It would demand of every human being to treat another like they'd be treaten themselves. (where did i hear that before... the Bible perhaps?)
Another scenario could follow the basic rule of the strongest, but then again the strongest would want more power and you'd end up in a system all along.

[Wicked Brown]

What do u think about anarchism?? to my mind, its a very interesting political philosophy

I like the idea, no affence to anybody who doesn't, but I think that the whole idea of "only the strong shall survive" is the totally best way to express idividualality.

[Sociocidal]

duh anarchists don't have to make sense or be consistent.
Very true. Most "anarchists" iv met could only loosely be called such, I personally do not consider armchair anarchists as true advocates of there chosen political ideal.


I like the idea, no affence to anybody who doesn't, but I think that the whole idea of "only the strong shall survive" is the totally best way to express idividualality."

The idea of only the strong survive is the mindset of the fascist, the Nazi and the totalitarian. When only the strong survive, the weak must die. Not fail to succeed, but must die. The disabled child, the mentally challenged, those with an IQ below average and the many other situations people cannot control, why should these result in there death? Why is it right for us as a spectacularly advanced species to leave anyone behind? We have the technology to end world hunger. To house every family and educate every child. But we don't. Because of the idea that only the strong survive. There is no reason for hardships in this world other than sickness and death and even sickness is one that we have beaten down to a minimum, but one human sees it fit to deny another the right to access of it. Did the inventor of the drug or treatment think to him self "Now to hoard these drugs and scientific miracles"? No. The business man did. The government man did. And on what basis? They are valuable. They can make money. What about the mother with no husband or partner to support her? Will she work her days so her and her child can barely survive, and then who will raise the child? Who will pay for school?

In this environment, how can any individuality be expressed? Who has decided what is strong? Don't you need to conform to this in order to survive? When a man decides that instead of working, he will dedicate his life to art, who will pick up there bill? Seems to me in a strong survive society, there is no room for this man. What about the musician? In order to get work to live they need to have an audience. Where is the individuality when they must conform to the marketable sound? Even the individual them selves, must not they dress appropriately to get a job to work in the strong survive world? No self expression allowed in this world.

[Segadoway]

Anarchism could work.
I also refuse to debate it, i am sick of being interrogated every time i voice an opinion.

[straightXed]

Anarchism could work.
I also refuse to debate it, i am sick of being interrogated every time i voice an opinion.

Yeah but that just looks like you can't back your opinion up. You want to say it can work but won't explain how it can work and wont explain why the reasons people are saying it won't work are wrong.

I don't see why you have such a problem with people questioning opinions you voice? You should be thankful that people are taking the time to point out elements that you may have missed that could change your opinion to one that holds more strength.

[mouseman004]

Anarchism could work.
I also refuse to debate it, i am sick of being interrogated every time i voice an opinion.

The pacific ocean is made of chocolate. But I refuse to debate it.

[mouseman004]

really? tell me in which way i am corrupting the ideals of anarchism.

that was a misstep on my part. I don't necessarily think that you are corrupting the ideals of anarchism, you are just holding them up to a standard that human nature will never allow.

[straightXed]

The pacific ocean is made of chocolate. But I refuse to debate it.

This made me laugh.

[xGriffox]

how is burning a car non-violent?

how is destroying a non-living object an act of violence?
no one died, no blood was shed, nothing was harmed other than the owner's wallet.
How does destruction of the non-living synch up with actual violence such as rape and physical harm inflicted upon sentient beings?

[xGriffox]

I said successful.

they were VERY successful in the run they had have before they were disbanded. They ran community education programs, community food programs, and even got drugs and drug dealers out of their neighborhoods.

Can you give me one example of capitalism in which EVERYONE benefited?

[xsecx]

they were VERY successful in the run they had have before they were disbanded. They ran community education programs, community food programs, and even got drugs and drug dealers out of their neighborhoods.


and ultimately failed miserably and the neighborhoods are still fucked up 30+ years later.




Can you give me one example of capitalism in which EVERYONE benefited?
you're asking something that's as impossible as anarchy working. There isn't an example of anything benefiting everyone in any system. It's a matter of making things as good for as many as possible. The undeniable truth is that regardless of the system there is always exploitation and talking about examples where everyone benefited is pointless.

[xGriffox]

you're asking something that's as impossible as anarchy working. There isn't an example of anything benefiting everyone in any system. It's a matter of making things as good for as many as possible. The undeniable truth is that regardless of the system there is always exploitation and talking about examples where everyone benefited is pointless.
but this was your chief criticism of anarchism, that it wasn't ever successful. If no system if ever 100% successful and the human condition is one of seeking full humanization for everyone than why not strive for something truly better? I believe firmly that the organization that would best benefit humanity would be anarchy. As you have said (and i do agree) it would not be 100% perfect (though it may get close :-P), but it would certainly constitute a step up from what we currently do have.

[rodrigo]

how is destroying a non-living object an act of violence?
no one died, no blood was shed, nothing was harmed other than the owner's wallet.
How does destruction of the non-living synch up with actual violence such as rape and physical harm inflicted upon sentient beings?

so it's only violence when its towards a living object? how do you know if the car had something important inside? i take that you wouldnt mind then if somebody goes and burn your house as long as nobody was inside. i'm sure your mom would be thrilled.

you got this pretty weird, same way as those anti religion guys who go and say that the catholic church sucks because of the horrors they have done, and forget every good thing they have done too... because its people who do it, not the institution itself

same way you go and say every bad thing made by the goverments all around the world, and forget every other good thing that goverments have done.

sure, i used to hate every cop because they were a figure of authority that tried to control people, and sure i have said fuck the cops a gazillion times, but all those fucking words came back when it was cops who helped me find my brother when he ran away during a depression attack. it was fucking cops who helped my family get our shit back together when we got robbed.

same way i could point out that an anarchist group threw molotovs at a bus where a little 4 year old girl got second grade burns.

and all that because its people who hide behind an idea, make it anarchy or capitalism, that got wrong perspectives and abuse their power and impose themselves over other people. shit has been done from every side, people killing each other here and there, you think that will stop magically if we all lived in anarchy?

dont get me wrong, i think the idea behind anarchy is really pretty, but i doubt it would work, maybe on a long long time it can and in small groups, but not now. and burning cars is not the way to achieve anything.

[xsecx]

but this was your chief criticism of anarchism, that it wasn't ever successful. If no system if ever 100% successful and the human condition is one of seeking full humanization for everyone than why not strive for something truly better? I believe firmly that the organization that would best benefit humanity would be anarchy. As you have said (and i do agree) it would not be 100% perfect (thought it may get close :-P), but it would certainly constitute a step up from what we currently do have.

I never said 100% successful, anarchism can't exist partially or in a vacuum. There's no way it could exist in the world today and the only way it could ever be tried is with the wide scale destruction of mankind which would also be against your goal. From a practical perspective I can't imagine how anarchy could work in anything but a world where people were subsistence farmers, anything else and you end up with hierarchies and rules which need to be in place for things to function and once that starts happening you no long have anarchy.

[Sociocidal]

Anarchism could work.
I also refuse to debate it, i am sick of being interrogated every time i voice an opinion.

Then why post it on a forum in the first place?

[mouseman004]

they were VERY successful in the run they had have before they were disbanded. They ran community education programs, community food programs, and even got drugs and drug dealers out of their neighborhoods.

Can you give me one example of capitalism in which EVERYONE benefited?

Can you give me an example of anarchism that never disbanded and exists today in the same form it existed at its creation?

[mouseman004]

how is destroying a non-living object an act of violence?
no one died, no blood was shed, nothing was harmed other than the owner's wallet.
How does destruction of the non-living synch up with actual violence such as rape and physical harm inflicted upon sentient beings?

So if I blow up a building on a weekend when there is nobody in it, and nobody gets hurt, that does not count as an act of violence?

[xGriffox]

So if I blow up a building on a weekend when there is nobody in it, and nobody gets hurt, that does not count as an act of violence?
I wouldn't really think so. You are destroying brick and mortar, not lives.

[xGriffox]

Can you give me an example of anarchism that never disbanded and exists today in the same form it existed at its creation?

that was the question dusty was already asking me previously so i finally decided to turn the question on him. You have seen my answers and going back and forth isn't going to progress our discussion any further. It is clear I have different ideals than dusty and yourself when it comes to what would benefit the human race the most. It seems (at least from the posts in this thread) that both of you favor competition amongst people so as to insure freedom where as i favor cooperation. We differ on this point, it's not the end of the world.

[D1988]

I wouldn't really think so. You are destroying brick and mortar, not lives.

That building could be someones office, someones store. Maybe that is a major part of there life and if they lose that then it could have a great impact on there life in a very negative way. It could destroy there life. But because nobody was physically injured it would be OK?

Acts of violence aren't limited to human beings man.

[xGriffox]

That building could be someones office, someones store. Maybe that is a major part of there life and if they lose that then it could have a great impact on there life in a very negative way. It could destroy there life. But because nobody was physically injured it would be OK?

Acts of violence aren't limited to human beings man.

As i said, it certainly could be malicious and in certain contexts it can be considered immoral but i don't think i would ever consider it violent. I am not attempting to justify property destruction, but in my mind violence equates to physical harm of sentient beings.

[rodrigo]

:(

[alex147]

Same as communism...great in theory, but could never work in the real world (or would ever gain acceptance)

[Segadoway]

Ezln

[mouseman004]

Ezln

?

[xGriffox]

?
Ejercito Zapitista de Liberacion Nacional

or in english:
Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

I can't believe i forgot about them. I would recommend both dusty and mouseman check this out and see just how possible living a community oriented and hierarchical-free life works on a large scale (the whole southern Mexican state of Chiapas) and has worked for the past 15 years.

[mouseman004]

Ejercito Zapitista de Liberacion Nacional

or in english:
Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

I can't believe i forgot about them. I would recommend both dusty and mouseman check this out and see just how possible living a community oriented and hierarchical-free life works on a large scale (the whole southern Mexican state of Chiapas) and has worked for the past 15 years.

Its not completely anarchist. It takes aspects of anarchy and combines it with other forms of social order and political thought.

Oh, and using an armed guerilla revolutionary force as an example of the benefits of anarchy, doesnt really convince me that the world would be a better place if it were an anarchy.

[mouseman004]

Ezln

Why do you bother posting. That would have been a good thing to post, if you at least explained what it was and used some sort of argument. I know you don't think there is a point in arguing...so then why bother posting anything in the first place?

[Segadoway]

Why do you bother posting. That would have been a good thing to post, if you at least explained what it was and used some sort of argument. I know you don't think there is a point in arguing...so then why bother posting anything in the first place?

I had no time to post a good explanation, and wanted to bring up the subject, i am currently in the middle of exams and need to divert my attentions elsewhere for the most part.

[xGriffox]

Its not completely anarchist. It takes aspects of anarchy and combines it with other forms of social order and political thought.

Oh, and using an armed guerilla revolutionary force as an example of the benefits of anarchy, doesnt really convince me that the world would be a better place if it were an anarchy.

it was an armed revolutionary force that never actually used any of their armaments. They merely had them as deterrents towards state-sanctioned attacks.
Do you find this kind of social organization favorable or no?

[mouseman004]

it was an armed revolutionary force that never actually used any of their armaments. They merely had them as deterrents towards state-sanctioned attacks.
Do you find this kind of social organization favorable or no?

Generally no. I am a capitalist and a generally speaking a left-leaning conservative. Well I am a capitalist in so far as I don't think there is a better workable option out there. And I am not going to debate about the EZLN because I don't actually know enough about them to form an argument. If I do some research I might come back with a response.

[xGriffox]

Generally no. I am a capitalist and a generally speaking a left-leaning conservative. Well I am a capitalist in so far as I don't think there is a better workable option out there. And I am not going to debate about the EZLN because I don't actually know enough about them to form an argument. If I do some research I might come back with a response.

fiscally or socially conservative?

[mouseman004]

fiscally or socially conservative?

Generally fiscally, but even then I waiver between the right and the political centre depending on the context. And I am conservative leaning (not full blown conservative, just leaning) on a select few social issues.

[Segadoway]

Well I am a capitalist in so far as I don't think there is a better workable option out there.
Workable for the 1% of people that are the ruling class you mean?

[straightXed]

Workable for the 1% of people that are the ruling class you mean?

is it really that awful for everyone here? Or are we all just a part of this 1%?

[mouseman004]

Workable for the 1% of people that are the ruling class you mean?

a) Easy there Karl Marx, that view is nothing but left wing propaganda. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that the whole world is in ruins because of it. Capitalism works for me and my family, and we are lower middle class. But you are right, only the rich benefit through capitalism.

b) and even if it was 1% then yes, because it is better than the 0% that would benefit from communism or anarchism.

[straightXed]

a) Easy there Karl Marx, that view is nothing but left wing propaganda. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that the whole world is in ruins because of it. Capitalism works for me and my family, and we are lower middle class. But you are right, only the rich benefit through capitalism.

b) and even if it was 1% then yes, because it is better than the 0% that would benefit from communism or anarchism.


So you are saying i am not in the ruling class after all?!

[mouseman004]

So you are saying i am not in the ruling class after all?!

Maybe we both are and just didn't know it!

[Sociocidal]

is it really that awful for everyone here? Or are we all just a part of this 1%?
Were part of the 10%.. For now... considering the median income of an American house hold is $50,233.00 For Ireland is $35900 and for England is $50,233.00, while for the likes of Ethiopia is $100. We don't live in a divided economic world any more, so the old capitalist ideas are highly out dated, they were after all developed in the 1700's.



a) Easy there Karl Marx, that view is nothing but left wing propaganda. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that the whole world is in ruins because of it. Capitalism works for me and my family, and we are lower middle class. But you are right, only the rich benefit through capitalism.

b) and even if it was 1% then yes, because it is better than the 0% that would benefit from communism or anarchism.

a) Capitalisms effect on the world is poverty, starvation, war and disease out breaks that are easily preventable. It may work for you and your family, but what about the other billions of people you share the world with? A fair price for third world distributors and farmers so the can feed and send there children to school at the cost of not getting a new car this year? Seems pretty small price to me. This is not "left wing propaganda", its moral responsibility in an ever shrinking world.

b)how would 0% benefit? surly if the 99% have there lot bettered then that's a much larger proportion of benefits??

[straightXed]

Were part of the 10%.. For now... considering the median income of an American house hold is $50,233.00 For Ireland is $35900 and for England is $50,233.00, while for the likes of Ethiopia is $100. We don't live in a divided economic world any more, so the old capitalist ideas are highly out dated, they were after all developed in the 1700's.




Out of interest how would anarchy help ethopia? What would change in the poor agriculture and drought issues? Would places with much less to trade become an underclass within this anarchy ideal or would there be a structure with caveats to avoid this?

[mouseman004]

Were part of the 10%.. For now... considering the median income of an American house hold is $50,233.00 For Ireland is $35900 and for England is $50,233.00, while for the likes of Ethiopia is $100. We don't live in a divided economic world any more, so the old capitalist ideas are highly out dated, they were after all developed in the 1700's.



a) Capitalisms effect on the world is poverty, starvation, war and disease out breaks that are easily preventable. It may work for you and your family, but what about the other billions of people you share the world with? A fair price for third world distributors and farmers so the can feed and send there children to school at the cost of not getting a new car this year? Seems pretty small price to me. This is not "left wing propaganda", its moral responsibility in an ever shrinking world.

b)how would 0% benefit? surly if the 99% have there lot bettered then that's a much larger proportion of benefits??

So there have been no diseases cured during the existence of capitalism? So there hasn't been any development in any third world countries? Technological development hasn't existed? So the world has crumbled under the tyranny that is capitalism?

I don't understand where you all get the idea that capitalism is the cause of all of the world's problems. There are hundreds of factors that contribute to the disease, war and poor economic conditions in places like africa, but you all choose to place the blame on capitalism. The problems that exist within capitalism are caused by people, not the system. These same people would be the ones who exist in a communist society, an anarchist society, or any form of political organisation. I don't understand why you have the idea that without capitalism, human nature and the human mind would suddenly be compeltely different and flawless. And I also fail to understand how you can claim that the majority of the world is hurt by capitalism, when that is not even close to being true.

And for curiousity sake, how is it moral responsibility to suggest the capitalism only benefits the ruling class, when that fact is not even close to being accurate?

[xGriffox]

So there have been no diseases cured during the existence of capitalism? So there hasn't been any development in any third world countries? Technological development hasn't existed? So the world has crumbled under the tyranny that is capitalism?
he's saying that it has benefited a few but left out many.


I don't understand where you all get the idea that capitalism is the cause of all of the world's problems. There are hundreds of factors that contribute to the disease, war and poor economic conditions in places like africa, but you all choose to place the blame on capitalism. The problems that exist within capitalism are caused by people, not the system. These same people would be the ones who exist in a communist society, an anarchist society, or any form of political organisation. I don't understand why you have the idea that without capitalism, human nature and the human mind would suddenly be compeltely different and flawless.
the human nature argument is moot. Human nature produces nothing definite. Humans can love just as easily as they can hate and they can cooperate just as easily as they can squabble. From my own observations it is the environment that has the true effect on the way humans act, not their species.

And I also fail to understand how you can claim that the majority of the world is hurt by capitalism, when that is not even close to being true.
are you kidding? Look at what imperialism (or "exploration" as it used to be called) and neo-imperialism (the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) have done to most "developing" countries. This isn't some fucking joke nor is it an abstract idea; people are suffering from these things and in some cases have been for centuries.

[Sociocidal]

So there have been no diseases cured during the existence of capitalism? So there hasn't been any development in any third world countries? Technological development hasn't existed? So the world has crumbled under the tyranny that is capitalism?

There has been development, but Germany went through ferocious development under Hitler, doesn't justify his regime. The curing of diseases is not however the result of capitalism, nor is technological development, that's the insanely fantastic miracle that is human invention and ingenuity. Capitalism would have you sell the technology, not share it. Under capitalism, a treatment is the profitable line of research, not a cure. Why do you think there are so many "treatments" and so few cures? The idea that capitalism gives good health care can be oh so easily refuted when you compare the Private health care system of the United States to the universal health care systems of Europe and Cuba.


There are hundreds of factors that contribute to the disease, war and poor economic conditions in places like africa, but you all choose to place the blame on capitalism. The problems that exist within capitalism are caused by people, not the system. These same people would be the ones who exist in a communist society, an anarchist society, or any form of political organisation. I don't understand why you have the idea that without capitalism, human nature and the human mind would suddenly be compeltely different and flawless.

What factors exactly? They're race?? Disease isn't caused by capitalism, but the reason why the poorest of this world don't have the cures and treatments they need to prevent simple illness killing millions, or why so many children die of starvation is capitalism. Its the pyramid of capitalism that causes poverty. What are you under the impression causes poverty? Without the the capitalist system the resulting poverty would not be there. The third world is in poverty because the first world lives in such lavish luxury.
This is a direct result of the archaic system that is capitalism, and its bastard child neo-liberalism.

The idea however that the world would be perfect without capitalism is incredibly naive. I have never once stated that human nature would change without capitalism, if you'll look at my first post you'll see i stated that's why it currently could not work. We are as a speices too selfish and violent, that selfishness is unfortunate rewarded in capitalist society, either way you look at it change is needed. Real change. Not Obama-this-will-get-me-elected change..

So far the most effective modern system of government and market structure is A Social Democracy with Free Market. The Banking system should be nationalised and a fund always available for the nationalisation of factories should the collapse, this to save jobs, not the pockets of the rich.

[xsecx]

There has been development, but Germany went through ferocious development under Hitler, doesn't justify his regime. The curing of diseases is not however the result of capitalism, nor is technological development, that's the insanely fantastic miracle that is human invention and ingenuity. Capitalism would have you sell the technology, not share it. Under capitalism, a treatment is the profitable line of research, not a cure. Why do you think there are so many "treatments" and so few cures? The idea that capitalism gives good health care can be oh so easily refuted when you compare the Private health care system of the United States to the universal health care systems of Europe and Cuba.


you automatically lose an argument. when you go straight to hitler. This isn't a fair statement since capitalism doesn't exist in a bubble and there have been many things that have been side effects of research that was funded by capitalism that has nothing to do with profit. Like everything that was created during the space race.



What factors exactly? They're race?? Disease isn't caused by capitalism, but the reason why the poorest of this world don't have the cures and treatments they need to prevent simple illness killing millions, or why so many children die of starvation is capitalism. Its the pyramid of capitalism that causes poverty. What are you under the impression causes poverty? Without the the capitalist system the resulting poverty would not be there. The third world is in poverty because the first world lives in such lavish luxury.
This is a direct result of the archaic system that is capitalism, and its bastard child neo-liberalism.


This is a massive over simplification of things. The actual reality is that living conditions across the world have improved year over year. Infant death rates are down and populations are living longer. If you think that things aren't getting better in the third world then I'd really like to know why.




The idea however that the world would be perfect without capitalism is incredibly naive. I have never once stated that human nature would change without capitalism, if you'll look at my first post you'll see i stated that's why it currently could not work. We are as a speices too selfish and violent, that selfishness is unfortunate rewarded in capitalist society, either way you look at it change is needed. Real change. Not Obama-this-will-get-me-elected change..

So far the most effective modern system of government and market structure is A Social Democracy with Free Market. The Banking system should be nationalised and a fund always available for the nationalisation of factories should the collapse, this to save jobs, not the pockets of the rich.

You can't have a free market with state controlled banks. What you're talking about isn't a free market at all. You can't say that you want a free market and then say you're going to have state intervention when the free market fails.

[xsecx]

the human nature argument is moot. Human nature produces nothing definite. Humans can love just as easily as they can hate and they can cooperate just as easily as they can squabble. From my own observations it is the environment that has the true effect on the way humans act, not their species.

sociologists disagree with you. humans are incredibly predictable and we're really not that different than any other pack animal.



are you kidding? Look at what imperialism (or "exploration" as it used to be called) and neo-imperialism (the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) have done to most "developing" countries. This isn't some fucking joke nor is it an abstract idea; people are suffering from these things and in some cases have been for centuries.
hey rodrigo and guys from eastern europe, how are things going for you guys now as compared to say 15 years ago?

[xGriffox]

sociologists disagree with you. humans are incredibly predictable and we're really not that different than any other pack animal. [quote]
wanna back up this claim with anything?


[quote]hey rodrigo and guys from eastern europe, how are things going for you guys now as compared to say 15 years ago?
a little bit over 15 years, but there was a brutal dictator running Chile to protect the United States' capitalist interests, in case you forgot.

[xsecx]

wanna back up this claim with anything?


sure, go look up what sociology is, since that's what it's about. Or are you going to argue that sociology doesn't exist?



a little bit over 15 years, but there was a brutal dictator running Chile to protect the United States' capitalist interests, in case you forgot.
and? that really has no baring on your statement that I was refuting. You come off as an arrogant privileged kid trying to tell everyone else how things are, so why not just go directly to the source? Or do you know better than the people actually living there?

[xGriffox]

and? that really has no baring on your statement that I was refuting. You come off as an arrogant privileged kid trying to tell everyone else how things are
Really? Because i wasn't speaking for anyone other than myself. I was merely interjecting with facts that you seem to love to overlook in contexts that you are bringing up.



so why not just go directly to the source? Or do you know better than the people actually living there?

Seems like you missed my point then. The fact that many countries have lived in totalitarian-type circumstance for years of course warrants the fact that things will have improved from there with the abolition of said totalitarian circumstances; doesn't mean that capitalism is benefiting most of the people there (or did at all if it had been instated for years prior like in Chile).

[xGriffox]

sure, go look up what sociology is, since that's what it's about. Or are you going to argue that sociology doesn't exist?
I was just wondering if you had a source to back up the "human nature is bad" statement, ya know like an actual source, not you calling me a stupid kid and telling me to research a huge and broad topic of study as opposed to being able to actually back up your statements. If you find a source i would love to read it.

[xsecx]

Really? Because i wasn't speaking for anyone other than myself. I was merely interjecting with facts that you seem to love to overlook in contexts that you are bringing up.


You were talking about how things are in a place you're not from and I doubt you've ever been. I don't see how that's a fact? I'd like to know how much of the third world you've seen and interacted with first hand? How many factories and villages you've lived and worked in?




Seems like you missed my point then. The fact that many countries have lived in totalitarian-type circumstance for years of course warrants the fact that things will have improved from there with the abolition of said totalitarian circumstances; doesn't mean that capitalism is benefiting most of the people there (or did at all if it had been instated for years prior like in Chile).

your point is baseless then, because during all of it, they were still within the capitalist system. If it's improved, it's also because of capitalism or at least capitalism had as much a hand in the improvement as anything else. For your argument to work it has to be absolute, that capitalism can only make things worse for better, when that simply isn't the case.

[xGriffox]

You were talking about how things are in a place you're not from and I doubt you've ever been. I don't see how that's a fact? I'd like to know how much of the third world you've seen and interacted with first hand? How many factories and villages you've lived and worked in?
You are right, i have essentially never traveled abroad (though i'm sure if i had you would write off my point as moot because i had the privilege to be able to). I have read writings from people who live and work in factories and villages there and i have read about the consistence organization of the state and companies against unionization and social organization/mobilization. I have talked to people in depth who have lived in these places about the social conditions there. You are right, my understanding is not one of someone who actually has lived in whichever places we may be talking about, but in some cases i have had a fair amount of interaction with the voices and ideas of people who do live there.


your point is baseless then, because during all of it, they were still within the capitalist system. If it's improved, it's also because of capitalism or at least capitalism had as much a hand in the improvement as anything else. For your argument to work it has to be absolute, that capitalism can only make things worse for better, when that simply isn't the case.
Not true at all. My argument, which i have been putting forth since the beginning of this topic, is that i believe that anarchism would be a beneficial form of societal organization, that i prefer cooperation over competition, and that such a form of organization is viable.

[xsecx]

You are right, i have essentially never traveled abroad (though i'm sure if i had you would write off my point as moot because i had the privilege to be able to). I have read writings from people who live and work in factories and villages there and i have read about the consistence organization of the state and companies against unionization and social organization/mobilization. I have talked to people in depth who have lived in these places about the social conditions there. You are right, my understanding is not one of someone who actually has lived in whichever places we may be talking about, but in some cases i have had a fair amount of interaction with the voices and ideas of people who do live there.


yeah but then you're only getting one side of the story and it's the one that already fits your world view. Talking like you are knowledgeable of living and conditions to places you've never been to is laughable and pointless.




Not true at all. My argument, which i have been putting forth since the beginning of this topic, is that i believe that anarchism would be a beneficial form of societal organization, that i prefer cooperation over competition, and that such a form of organization is viable.

but they've benefited in a competition model, or are you back to saying that things have never improved anywhere due to capitalism?

[xGriffox]

yeah but then you're only getting one side of the story and it's the one that already fits your world view. Talking like you are knowledgeable of living and conditions to places you've never been to is laughable and pointless.

So have you been living in Latin America and Eastern Europe? Because if not, your support of capitalism there is "laughable and pointless" since you have no idea how things really are!

This debate has become childish. Enjoy being a vanguard to capitalism. I'm done with this.

[xsecx]

So have you been living in Latin America and Eastern Europe? Because if not, your support of capitalism there is "laughable and pointless" since you have no idea how things really are!


no, which is why I asked the people that live there what their opinion on your statements was. There's empirical evidence that suggests that living conditions are improving globally so that's why I tend to think that your statements are unfounded at best and biased at worse. You take the voices that agree with you as gospel and simply ignore the ones that don't even if they greatly outnumber those that you agree with.




This debate has become childish. Enjoy being a vanguard to capitalism. I'm done with this.
enjoy taking your ball and going home!

[xsecx]

I was just wondering if you had a source to back up the "human nature is bad" statement, ya know like an actual source, not you calling me a stupid kid and telling me to research a huge and broad topic of study as opposed to being able to actually back up your statements. If you find a source i would love to read it.


your statement was that human nature didn't exist. Or are you trying change that now? Sociology is the study of human nature, so yeah, I don't see what you're asking me to back up?

[mouseman004]

Enjoy being a vanguard to capitalism.

Do you even realise how stereotypical everything you have stated up to this point has been? Down with the establishment, fuck the corrupt politicians and law enforcement! Down with the ruling class!

I half expect your next response to be "Viva la revolucion!"

[straightXed]

i'm invisable.

[mouseman004]

i'm invisable.

Maybe you asked a question that was unanswerable!

[rodrigo]

hey rodrigo and guys from eastern europe, how are things going for you guys now as compared to say 15 years ago?

pretty good, we have a better health system, better scholar system, programs dedicated to young kids, grown ups and old, old women withouth teeth are getting new ones since a bunch of years ago, we have more chances of growing up and having a decent job. social justice is working way better than years ago, sure it still has problems that needs to be adressed, and things still are fucked up big time, but we're trying to fix those things in any way we can.

[rodrigo]

i'm invisable.

i feel the same, i cant get a visa and also nobody replies my posts

[straightXed]

pretty good, we have a better health system, better scholar system, programs dedicated to young kids, grown ups and old, old women withouth teeth are getting new ones since a bunch of years ago, we have more chances of growing up and having a decent job. social justice is working way better than years ago, sure it still has problems that needs to be adressed, and things still are fucked up big time, but we're trying to fix those things in any way we can.


Wow, your health care sounds better than ours in some respects. Who would have thought!!

[straightXed]

Maybe you asked a question that was unanswerable!


Ooops, sorry.

[Wicked Brown]

i feel the same, i cant get a visa and also nobody replies my posts

i will

[straightXed]

i feel the same, i cant get a visa and also nobody replies my posts

ha ha, actually that was quite funny

[Segadoway]

Do you even realise how stereotypical everything you have stated up to this point has been? Down with the establishment, fuck the corrupt politicians and law enforcement! Down with the ruling class!

I half expect your next response to be "Viva la revolucion!"

Viva la revolucion!

[Sociocidal]

you automatically lose an argument. when you go straight to hitler. This isn't a fair statement since capitalism doesn't exist in a bubble .

You are right, this was a bit harsh, but I was just trying to make an example of how progress doesn't equal moral justification, I could very well have made the point of Stalin and "communist" Russia.



Out of interest how would anarchy help ethopia? What would change in the poor agriculture and drought issues? Would places with much less to trade become an underclass within this anarchy ideal or would there be a structure with caveats to avoid this?


I never said anarchy would, my initial point was that Anarchism is a currently impossible and impractical idea, a point I stand behind. Its the perfect "belief" for middle class white children in first world nations to flock to because it requires no thought, no action, no justification and no education in history or politics, just watch near on any interview with an "anarchist", ask how violence and destruction of property is benefiting any real movement. Though I do believe that's already been done in this thread..

Id also like to state that we seem to have gotten of the point of this thread, "What do u think about anarchism?? to my mind, its a very interesting political philosophy" I for one am very guilt of going off on a "the evils of capitalism" tangent as are a few here..

I'm not going to post in this again (not because its childish as some have said ;p) im just bored of the topic for now..

[straightXed]

You are right, this was a bit harsh, but I was just trying to make an example of how progress doesn't equal moral justification, I could very well have made the point of Stalin and "communist" Russia.



I never said anarchy would, my initial point was that Anarchism is a currently impossible and impractical idea, a point I stand behind. Its the perfect "belief" for middle class white children in first world nations to flock to because it requires no thought, no action, no justification and no education in history or politics, just watch near on any interview with an "anarchist", ask how violence and destruction of property is benefiting any real movement. Though I do believe that's already been done in this thread..

Id also like to state that we seem to have gotten of the point of this thread, "What do u think about anarchism?? to my mind, its a very interesting political philosophy" I for one am very guilt of going off on a "the evils of capitalism" tangent as are a few here..

I'm not going to post in this again (not because its childish as some have said ;p) im just bored of the topic for now..

Thanks for your reply, as the question isn't relevent to you i would welcome anyone else to answer it.

[Veskou]

Biggest utopia ever! Communism sounds better. And NO I don't mean socialism - I mean world communism and please there's no need for people who don't understant to write. I don't need stuff like "Well why is it gone?" "Why do the people hate it so much?!". Actually there never was communism (only socialism - communism is alot different), but it's very complicated and it would take me a hell lot more of time to explain.

P.S.
I don't wanna offend anarchists by saying anarchy is utopian. It's actually utopian FOR NOW! Maybr a couple of generations after our may realise what anarchy is all about, but for now it's utopian because there is still a lot of crime and people look at anarchy simply as chaos, vandalism, destruction and nihilism...

[lo0m]

if anarchism is utopic, than communism is even more.. plus, communism (as fascism) is a dictatorship from definition as it encourages violent change... anarchism does not... there is a reason why communists in Russia after revolution started to persecute anarchists...

[kid_ugly]

jeez that was one boring read, i can't believe i read nearly all of it... anyways

no anarchy can't work on a global scale because of greed. people are selfish and someone will always be after power.

[solitary echo]

well i dont rlly agree with it.. cuz u need gov. (im from u.s) it provides well fare, helps after natural diasasters, u have a police force.. and if u want a country with out a gov. just look at somilia there is no gov. and u see the drug lords and the pirates control everything... so gov. is needed

[JoeyX]

I believe that Anarchy in its entirety, is a contradiction.

[xMaggotAzzAx]

Anarchism in my opinion can only be used to overthrow an oppressive government or system. This can lead to disruption and hopefully remove the offending system. This links more however with revolution and a civil uprising and if anarchism can link with this then ut might succeed. A government or law system must be in place after this process or the new system created by anarchy will not work.

Anarchism should be used if a selection of the people are unhappy with the system as it can be a powerful weapon.