Quote:I can't help but be struck by the similarity between your rhetoric and that of Marxists in the early 20th century.

And as you should so rightfully bring up. I agree, most of it is related. Marx was no dummy, he was aware of what Anarchy really meant and intigrated some of it into his philosophies. From my studies so far I personally feel that communism IS anarchism. And when I say "communism" I do not mean Marxism, Leninism, or Stalinism of any other "ism". I mean the very basic meaning of communism. Some have taken that idea and added authority figures into the system. I argue against its corruption.

Quote:They too believed that the profit motive, which perpetuated class warfare, was at issue. They too believed that if you eliminated the profit motive, a utopian society would result.

And as they should rightfully bring up as well. I also feel like this is an obvious fact that everyone clearly should see. Some, like Stalin, did not abide by the non-authoritarian concepts. He made it a commune alright, but he made it in his image by force. I wonder how many anarchists Stalin killed in his lifetime?

Well what do you know. Anarchists were gassed by the nazi's and forced to wear a black triangle.

Quote:have you yourself experienced drug addiction? Your example of it seems strangely unreal

Yes I have and still do, personally and through my friends. I personally think my example was very multifaceted. I have gone through the justice system on manufacturing drugs charges. I speak from a very personal perspective of someone who has seen quite a bit of the system of drugs, jail, addiction, sales, and such

Quote:Second, your argument seems to combine rather idealistic assumptions about human nature with wishful thinking that once X is achieved, Y will magically result. I appreciate grand theorizers, and must confess that I am an idiot when it comes to political and economic theory, however, I think your model is entirely too speculative to bear the weight of argument in its favor.

I personally think you dont like the idea that I pointed out obvious problems with capitalism.

(January 19, 2012 at 3:10 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

Quote:People Behave Socially and 'Well' Even Without Rules

Im sure you expected this from me....



ANARCHY

(A)

(E)

Man, I thought you posted this article.

---

(January 21, 2012 at 9:58 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: I have...I get tired of typing what I feel is they same old shit in every post...although I admit i am not the best debater for anarchy... I am getting better.

Ah, yer fucking wonderful, Rev.

You keep it real, and have a real world sense of doability. On other forums I don't debate it so much as state, "I'm an anarchist," because there is such a depth of negative concept involved with the term. I got a utopian grand design in technocratic anarchy; but it's not exactly anarchy...

What I really got, that words don't illustrate, is memory. I've heard on this other forum some cat going, "you anarchy wannabes would piss yer pants, first sign of lawlessness..." Yet I remember doing time in the Big House telling the wannabes that they had to wait for me to draw my Gwynnies before I would draw their families. Being wannabes, they go and tell the shotcallers; and what happens? Everybody waited for me to draw my Gwynnies.

Because I am such a gargantuan motherfucking ass-kicking machine? No. Love, actually. I could only have six Gwynnies so I gave the excess to my fellow inmates as a sign of my love of Gwyneth - and they were everywhere. Another thing that's everywhere is morality; and no shotcaller let no wannabe mess with ellenjanuary and his Gwynnies.

The thing that many miss; is chemical context. Go rob somebody and take his wife and live like a king in his castle - none of that is real without the chemical context - thus the chemical context can prevent the need for any of that shit to manifest.

Didn't you know, John Lennon a prophet? Love is all you need?

'Gee, that sounds remarkably self-sustaining. I guess we can look up FAI and find something to inspect today.'

George Orwell lived in Anarchist Catalonia and said it worked well, not perfectly, but well. The Communists, sponsered by Stalin, got hold of all the propoganda and aimed it against the Socialists and Anarchists, helped says Orwell, by the lack of journalists within 100 miles who could actually get the truth to the population, so obviously FOXIUS EL NEWSIUS did there bit and turned the people against the Anarchists.Stalin supplied guns and much more, building his numbers and they purged the Anarchists and Socialists, almost all of the success againt Franco up until then was down to the Anarchists.

Self sustaining, not so sure, but it worked for a few years until Stalin stuck his fat Georgian boot in.

That points out another problem for this utopia. Even if you find some like minded folks to commune with, you can't control who your neighbors over the hill will be. If they aren't bought into your plan, they may just see easy pickings where you see home.

Finding a tribe's worth of like minded people is only the first hurdle. No matter where you set up shop there will be folks with a flag that already call your land their land. If you don't abide by their laws, they'll still haul you into their courts. But maybe I'm missing the scope of the hypothetical here.

Stalin did everything he could to stop the revolution. When the anarchists successfully threw Franco and the rich bastards to the streets (with little initial bloodshed at first) they put all of the power to the workers and the trade unions. Everything went right back to normal as far as working and production. the factories went back online. Employment shot up because the system was no longer based on profit. The people who were working before the revolution now didnt have to work as hard because they had plenty of help. I heard one story of a factory where the union set up a big meeting and invited the old bosses and owners. The union told the bosses that many more workers would be hired (something like 100). The bosses said "thats 100 people too many." the unions look at the 5 or so bosses and said "no, apparently we have FIVE too many." and sent them out the door for refusing to cooperate. Lets look at how these greedy bastards do it:

5 people in a company. One is the owner, one is the boss, 3 are regular workers.
Get rid of one worker, take his pay and give 80% of it to the owner and 20% of it to the boss in raises and bonuses, and scare the crap out of the two existing workers to make them glad they still have their jobs. You might even convince them to take a pay cut to keep their jobs.

For all we know, the factory owners quoted the right metric for forming a sustainable business.

Phrased another way, your uplifting story could easily be retold as a group of hicks taking over a industrial facility, asking for help and then rejecting it when it didn't taste good.

Furthermore, your emotional appeals at an "us versus them" atmosphere ignores one thing -- what if you're part of that business side and are functionally correct?

It sounds like your approach does away with whatever the mob doesn't like, regardless of correctness.

(January 23, 2012 at 5:17 am)5thHorseman Wrote: Stalin supplied guns and much more, building his numbers and they purged the Anarchists and Socialists, almost all of the success againt Franco up until then was down to the Anarchists.

Self sustaining, not so sure, but it worked for a few years until Stalin stuck his fat Georgian boot in.

Then anarchy is:

A) unable to defend itself against malicious state actors and
B) useless for dealing with larger-than-individual actors

Also, the only thing I really value in this discussion are real world examples. That means something other than an economics textbook or old bones buried under soviet-made tanks.

(January 23, 2012 at 10:24 am)whateverist Wrote: That points out another problem for this utopia. Even if you find some like minded folks to commune with, you can't control who your neighbors over the hill will be. If they aren't bought into your plan, they may just see easy pickings where you see home.

Because that NEVER happens with all the other types of government models. Democracy makes it to where a single homesteader can control those neighbors over the hill..

Oh wait...no it doesnt...

So why does anarchy get strongly attacked on questions like this, yet you act as if it doesnt already exist in a democracy, or any other govt model for that matter.

funny how you have all types of people who believe in all types of govt models living openly (or quietly) in all types of govt models.

Look dude, for once could you actually put forth a DECENT argument instead of these poorly thought out "what if" questions.

Quote:Finding a tribe's worth of like minded people is only the first hurdle. No matter where you set up shop there will be folks with a flag that already call your land their land. If you don't abide by their laws, they'll still haul you into their courts. But maybe I'm missing the scope of the hypothetical here.

Yes, because america is a tribe of like minded people, and so is the UK...

...wait a minute...no they arent...

And you dont think the Mexicans, natives, Spanish and french all still cling to claims of land for America? Honestly, like i said before... when you feel the need to ask me a "gotcha" question, please, just for one second, ask yourself that same question and apply it to YOUR economic and social beliefs before you go posting it and making me have to punk out an otherwise obvious reply to them.

REVOLUTION bud. Anarchism is ALL about the Revolution. If you did a small amount of homework on Anarchism you would realize that anarchists consider every bit of land belonging to ALL of the people, not the governments. So, necesarily, we dont give a shit about flags or claims or peices of paper saying a God or a court or a handfull of money gives me the right to "own" this land.

All land belongs to everyone equally

---

Quote:For all we know, the factory owners quoted the right metric for forming a sustainable business.

Lets switch over to Anarchy right now so we can finally prove who is right or wrong...until then i can play that game:

"For all you know you would love anarchy if you just gave it a chance"
or
"For all we know, anarcho-syndicalism works better than we ever expected"
My quotes are JUST as relevant and accurate as yours.

Quote:Phrased another way, your uplifting story could easily be retold as a group of hicks taking over a industrial facility, asking for help and then rejecting it when it didn't taste good.

Yeah, um...that really didnt make any sense to me

Quote:Furthermore, your emotional appeals at an "us versus them" atmosphere ignores one thing -- what if you're part of that business side and are functionally correct?

I was unaware that you were the only one allowed to make emotional arguments on this topic.
"what if you're part of that business side and are functionally correct?"
What? I cant understand what you are asking.

Quote:It sounds like your approach does away with whatever the mob doesn't like, regardless of correctness.

Yes, just like Democracy sounds like it takes away whatever the King of England doesnt like, and everyone knows that god has personally blessed his holy blood line to lead us all.

If you insist on making up these strange comparisons and anti-comparisons, then i will be forced to retort in like mind.

Eventually you will steer back onto the subject....hopefully.

Quote:Then anarchy is:

A) unable to defend itself against malicious state actors and
B) useless for dealing with larger-than-individual actors

"actors" huh... Like I said before, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure this out. When the workers rise up and form an anarchy, they are giving a very clear message to every single government in the world that "we do not need your politicians, your kings, your religious leaders, your wealthy land owners, your bosses, or your monetary system"
Which makes every single government in the world its instant enemy. Of course those governments do NOT want to make friendly relationships with an anarcho-community. They will do their utmost to knock them down in a concerted effort so they can say "see, you need rich and poor and politician and king and greedy land owners in order to survive."

Quote:Also, the only thing I really value in this discussion are real world examples. That means something other than an economics textbook or old bones buried under soviet-made tanks.

So the spanish revolution wasnt "real world examples" because they "are buried under soviet tanks"?
If you are going to move the goal posts back further and further..you might as well just tell me that I am unable to score in this discussion.

You can't sell a different world paradigm if we don't have something to evaluate in the here and now, right?

I'd demand nothing less from anyone else -- if someone tries to sell me a welfare state idea, it helps to examine the Scandinavian countries for example.

(January 23, 2012 at 3:03 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: 5 people in a company. One is the owner, one is the boss, 3 are regular workers.
Get rid of one worker, take his pay and give 80% of it to the owner and 20% of it to the boss in raises and bonuses, and scare the crap out of the two existing workers to make them glad they still have their jobs. You might even convince them to take a pay cut to keep their jobs.

I'd say this is a good argument against unchecked capitalism. I hope we are nearing the tipping point where the number of people who accept that capitalism can only thrive when left unregulated and unaccountable are insufficient to maintain the spell. It is not and never was true. In my 20's I may have said amen to anarchy. Now I think it is an unnecessarily reckless way to compensate for what is rotten in the system we now have.

---

(January 23, 2012 at 8:01 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(January 23, 2012 at 10:24 am)whateverist Wrote: That points out another problem for this utopia. Even if you find some like minded folks to commune with, you can't control who your neighbors over the hill will be. If they aren't bought into your plan, they may just see easy pickings where you see home.

Because that NEVER happens with all the other types of government models. Democracy makes it to where a single homesteader can control those neighbors over the hill..

Oh wait...no it doesnt...

So why does anarchy get strongly attacked on questions like this, yet you act as if it doesnt already exist in a democracy, or any other govt model for that matter.

funny how you have all types of people who believe in all types of govt models living openly (or quietly) in all types of govt models.

Look dude, for once could you actually put forth a DECENT argument instead of these poorly thought out "what if" questions.

I'm afraid I'd need a clearer idea of what you are talking about before I would know if I have anything I want to argue.

For the time being I find myself just dumbfounded by its apparent absurdity. Like most utopian schemes, it seems to be contingent on an inadequate conception of human nature. That isn't an argument, just an observation. I wonder if infatuation with utopian schemes is a kind of residue of a formerly theistic mindset, a search for paradise lost.

(January 23, 2012 at 8:57 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: You can't sell a different world paradigm if we don't have something to evaluate in the here and now, right?

I'd demand nothing less from anyone else -- if someone tries to sell me a welfare state idea, it helps to examine the Scandinavian countries for example.

What parameters will you allow? because I can show you some right now, but something tells me you will discount them for being "too small" or "That isnt a state or a country"

In reality size doesnt matter in this system, or any govt system for that matter. As far as a "state" goes, an anarcho-commune is stateless.

So if you want me to point out a state of statelessness, then you have already won.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw3_UOw0kV0

I expect you will agree with this video...LOL...

---

Quote:I'd say this is a good argument against unchecked capitalism. I hope we are nearing the tipping point where the number of people who accept that capitalism can only thrive when left unregulated and unaccountable are insufficient to maintain the spell. It is not and never was true. In my 20's I may have said amen to anarchy. Now I think it is an unnecessarily reckless way to compensate for what is rotten in the system we now have.

I will admit that it is a simplistic example, but I argue that this is basically the concept behind it. Anarchy is all kinds of people living together in harmony. Sure, some people go at each others throats, but NO govt model can stop that either. And i feel the opposite of what you said. In my youth I supported capitalism. I have even ran my own businesses. Then, as I grew older and learned how the system worked, I have lost all faith in it.

Quote:I'm afraid I'd need a clearer idea of what you are talking about before I would know if I have anything I want to argue.

For the time being I find myself just dumbfounded by its apparent absurdity. Like most utopian schemes, it seems to be contingent on an inadequate conception of human nature. That isn't an argument, just an observation. I wonder if infatuation with utopian schemes is a kind of residue of a formerly theistic mindset, a search for paradise lost.

Perhaps that is why you are dumbfounded. You keep suggesting that this is a utopian system. It is not utopian. Never said it was. If you are looking for perfection in anarchy then you do not understand anarchy.

Quite frankly I have no idea what a "true" utopian system is. Lets see what wikipedia has to say:

Quote:Utopia (/juːˈtoʊpiə/) is an ideal community or society possessing a perfect socio-politico-legal system. The word was imported from Greek by Sir Thomas More for his 1516 book Utopia, describing a fictional island in the Atlantic Ocean. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempt to create an ideal society, and fictional societies portrayed in literature. It has spawned other concepts, most prominently dystopia.
The word comes from the Greek: οὐ ("not") and τόπος ("place") and means "no place". The English homophone eutopia, derived from the Greek εὖ ("good" or "well") and τόπος ("place"), means "good place". This, due to the identical pronunciation of "utopia" and "eutopia", gives rise to a double meaning.

Anarchy is not an "ideal" system in that fact that it is pretty much void of ideals. In an ideal theocracy, everyone would truly believe in whatever god that theocracy puts forward. Obviously not everyone in an anarchy will agree with everything. That is why it has as little rules as possible. An anarchy does not possess a "perfect socio-politico-legal system" as for one, it is not perfect, two it is very lacking in socio rules as it has the bare minimum rules to sustain a community, and three it does not have a legal system, or hardly has one to be exact.

The term "utopia" does not even come close to an anarchy. In fact, from the anarchist view point, every govt model is trying to be a utopia.