Anarchy and Such- A DAC split

[Ancient Oldie]

Pretty soon the whole world will be one giant metropolis and only the police and the criminals will remain.

EDIT: unless of course nuclear war or a giant fucking meteorite happens before our world shrinks to that extent...

 

[Wooz]

Ok. [toughass voice] I'm back [/toughass voice]

Long post.

En aperitif, messieurs dames, here's a link. Note that I do not agree with all within the document. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secAcon.html

Ancient Oldie wrote:

Quite frankly, the ultimate flaw in an anarchist's rhetoric is that they always underestimate the propensity for evil, greed, and all other sorts of misbehavior found in human nature.

Just as in any socio-political rhetoric. "Democratic" republics also underestimate the greed of their representants. Not only that, the political class is often untouchable by law. Corrupt politicians may steal millions without major consequences, but an ordinary citizen goes to jail if he steals anything.

AO:

Unless you're envisioning a future where human behavior is ultimately modified via artificial means, then it's really just a silly pipe dream that can only end in disaster.

It would end in disaster if it would be imposed on people, like Communism in Russia and neighbouring countries. The whole idea is to ultimately, slowly, build a society from "bottom" to "top", not ramming some kind of political ideology down people's throats, regardless of their opinion, in order to build an utopian society.

Behaviour modified by artificial means? "Artificial means" such as Fox News or you mean a cyberpunk vision of a population set on a one-track mind behaviour, their minds fusing into a giant borg?
Either way, it's immoral to control people's thoughts.

AO:

Not only that, but keep in mind that leadership does offer many organizational advantages and quite frankly, some people can't even rule themselves and need others to lead them. Although I don't agree with most of Nietsze's philosophy, he does make a good point in that some people truly are superior, and because of them, civilization has made remarkable advances.

Regardless of Nietsche's theories, I don't believe that civilization avances are made only by the people you name "superior". IMO it all resides in collaboration between people. To stick with socio political figures, who would Engels be without Marx and Marx without Engels?

AO:

Lastly, leader/follower group organization is inherent in human beings. No way around it. If we did eliminate all countries and religions, sooner or later people are going to form groups, whether on laws, religion, or just any opinion, it will happen, and a leader will be elected to spearhead their ideas.

Who cares? Groups could be fine, if they can behave and coexist peacefully. The leader wouldn't last forever, if people should know when to ditch him out as soon as he's done his role.

Megatron wrote:

. I don't see the down-side in having a leader, so long as they don't think they're superior and can order people around.

The person wouldn't be a leader anymore. One thing is to be submissed and do things out of fear and another to agree to do something because you agree with it.

Sander wrote:

A) Criminals will have a field day.
B) Small groups of people will organise, and institute mob justice/arbitrary justice.
C) Everyone will start to organise themselves in one way or another in groups.
D) Decisions will need to be made, one way or another, this will either cause leaders to stand up, or a certain form of democracy to form. Probably both, in a lot of small communities.
E) Those very communities will become miniature countries of their own, probably having some form of justice and law, but more importantly, having some form leadership, thusly eliminating the priniciple of anarchy.
F) ANarchy and small communities will give rise to the survival of the fittest and the rule of the strongest. That is bad. Minorities will be fucked, unless they are accidentally in a good community.
G) Small communities and groups always give rise to greater communities. At some point somewhere, some megalomaniac will get a bunch of people behind him, and start kiling people.
H) Extreme opinions and politics will flourish, due to the reasonable physical isolation of certain communities.

Probably I didn't express myself clearly enough. The quasi-utopian society based on a country/opression-free society isn't something that could work nowadays everywhere. It's more like a future vision. To achieve it you wouldn't impose a "people's dicatorship" or any of that sh*t the brilliant communists came up with to justify their terror state.
You can't build a society in a day. Or a year. Ok, maybe in Tropico or Civilization.

The point is that you can't impose an anarchic society either with a totalitarian regime or a revolution. It could be the product of a more "enlightened" society, after a good time. The thing is no country focuses their budget on education and culture (cultcher). Anarchy? Bah. Silly dreams. Nowadays, maybe. Imagine what would a 9th century person say to a society where nobody can get away with chopping your arms off because you stole a loaf of bread. Or imagine what a countryside woman in the 18th century would believe if you told her that she could fight for a society in which she would have the right to vote.

In conclusion, contribute to make your society more free *until* ultimately you reach that state.No imposing half assed rules to see if they work or not, just work one's way to a better society.

Megatron wrote:

Any of the extreme parties could work, they just don't take people into account. The world is too small and old for a decent society too exist that pleases everyone.

Every party would work if all the people would be in the same track of mind. Not only the extreme. And I believe there still are things common to each human being, on which a society could be based.

I think the best way to do it would be for political parties too be assigned a country. Instead of changing systems all the time to suit yourself, just move. There'd just be a few rules for the planet like allowing people in and out of your country, not attacking other countries etc.

Who would prevent the countries from fighting each other? Separating people and assigning them to territories, assign them a strong attachment to the land they live, a fervous love to their political system and voila, a good recipe for total war.

Ancient Oldie wrote:

Pretty soon the whole world will be one giant metropolis and only the police and the criminals will remain

Oh but it already is, isn't it? Only the Freedom Fighter countries and the Terrorists seem to populate the planet, With the "you're either with us, or with the terrorists" dogma leaving no middle ground.

 

[Sander]

First two small things: A) That link cannot be reached, too much traffic.
B) Could you point me towards a document where anarchy is decently specified?

Now, for the rest:
One thing I don't understand is why you keep comparing it to communism, communism is a completely different thing. Communism simply makes sure that everyone gets an equal amount of wealth, and that the state is in control. And in the case of STalinist communism, it's just about terror.
Anarchism on the other hand is about freedom, and working with eachother for the greater good(correct?). It could be described as socialist libertarianism, with the most extreme libertarianism you could find.

Now then, as for why it would never work, it would require the following things(note that a lot of these things go for socialism as well):
A) YOu need everyone to give up their dreams of great hopes, and do whatever job they need to do to make society work. As you can see, this will never work. Why not? Because some people think that when they are smarter, and can do smarter stuff, they should get more. Other people will just not give a fuck, and do the laziest simplest job they can find, with a lot of potential being wasted.
Certain jobs will also not be filled, unless you force people to do those jobs. There are always jobs noone wants to do.
B) Charismatic megalomaniacs will have great fun. They will simply be incredibly dangerous, since it's much easier to control a small group for such people than a huge country where you can't possibly visit everywhere. While this is one of the problems of democracy, anarchism can make it worse, since no constitutions and whatnot exist to prevent those people from just grabbing some form of power and going on a killing spree.
C) Arbitrary justice. That's one hell of a problem. There are countless occasions where someone may be thought of as the criminal , but isn't, and gets punished.

The only case where it will ever work, would be in an isolated self-sufficient community, where everyone thought the same way, and where everyone does whatever they're required to do to make things work. This is, quite simply, a pipe dream.
Part of this pipe dream was built on the accomplishments of on-line groups, who built such things as Linux(and a lot of it's builds), a huge amount of open-source programs, and stuff like nethack(woohoo!). The problem is that projects like these are fundamentally different from a full-fledged society.

Your last statement is bullshit, by the way. A lot of countries are opposed to Bush, and don't support terrorists, and it's not like Bush controls every mind in the entire world.

 

[Wooz]

I don't compare it to communism, I just mentioned it would turn into something compared to stalinism if it were imposed on people ( forcing a near-utopian/utopian concept)

Sander wrote:

Anarchism on the other hand is about freedom, and working with eachother for the greater good(correct?). It could be described as socialist libertarianism, with the most extreme libertarianism you could find.

Right.

A).... Certain jobs will also not be filled, unless you force people to do those jobs. There are always jobs noone wants to do.

Some utterly disgusting jobs could be done by robots. Stop laughing Some jobs, very hard and tiring for humans, such as chain car assembly have been through modernization processes which led to an almost complete replacement of humans by robots.

Because some people think that when they are smarter, and can do smarter stuff, they should get more. Other people will just not give a fuck, and do the laziest simplest job they can find, with a lot of potential being wasted.

Hey, I never said Anarchy was a recipe for every human vice...

Charismatic megalomaniacs will have great fun. They will simply be incredibly dangerous, since it's much easier to control a small group for such people than a huge country where you can't possibly visit everywhere. While this is one of the problems of democracy, anarchism can make it worse, since no constitutions and whatnot exist to prevent those people from just grabbing some form of power and going on a killing spree.

Ah, the difference here is that, theoretically, for an anarchist society to exist, the people should be aware of what's going on. You don't need a constitution to ditch a warmonger.
Besides, local despotism isn't anarchy. I can't really see how a society which decided by itself to collaborate with each other and abolish their governments, these becoming a nuisance, suddenly crave for being led like sheep to a slaughterhouse.

Arbitrary justice. That's one hell of a problem. There are countless occasions where someone may be thought of as the criminal , but isn't, and gets punished.

Yes, but it happens even in the most free democracies, doesn't it? Sorry, I can't find why it would be specific to anarchy. In a classic "big mess" anarchy scenario you could assume a mob would lynch a potential criminal, but we're not talking about mob rule, are we? Hm...

My last statement is bullshit if you take it seriously. Next time I'll write [sarcasm] or [yetanotherofmystupidjokes].

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Links are down BTW.

Ancient Oldie wrote:

Quite frankly, the ultimate flaw in an anarchist's rhetoric is that they always underestimate the propensity for evil, greed, and all other sorts of misbehavior found in human nature.

Just as in any socio-political rhetoric. "Democratic" republics also underestimate the greed of their representants. Not only that, the political class is often untouchable by law. Corrupt politicians may steal millions without major consequences, but an ordinary citizen goes to jail if he steals anything.

Hey, I'm not saying that Democracy is perfect, just that it's better than Anarchy.

Granted, there is corruption in our society, but at least there are controls over it. How would it be controlled in an anarchic state, especially when it's a large group of corrupt individuals, and there is no heirarchic structure to control said situation.

Is it going to be one larger mob fighting against a smaller one, or am I supposed to trust some cop without a boss to take care of it for us. And if that's the case, can we even trust the cop.

AO:

Unless you're envisioning a future where human behavior is ultimately modified via artificial means, then it's really just a silly pipe dream that can only end in disaster.

It would end in disaster if it would be imposed on people, like Communism in Russia and neighbouring countries. The whole idea is to ultimately, slowly, build a society from "bottom" to "top", not ramming some kind of political ideology down people's throats, regardless of their opinion, in order to build an utopian society.

Behaviour modified by artificial means? "Artificial means" such as Fox News or you mean a cyberpunk vision of a population set on a one-track mind behaviour, their minds fusing into a giant borg?
Either way, it's immoral to control people's thoughts.

I was thinking more along the lines of Brave New World via drugs, as can be seen now, in which every single negative thought that crosses our mind as well as all human ailments, are being catalogued by drug companies in an attempt to fix it. Before, if you had a bad temper or were a melancholy individual, it was just considered part of your personality. Nowadays, you're diagnosed with some disease, fed valium, and made "normal" again. I haven't looked at the exact stats, but it's no surprise to me that mental disease has skyrocketed in a world where these new psychological "disorders" are discovered at a record pace and all negative behaviour is considered crazy. It's funny how close we are to not being human any more.

Although brain chips that edit all unwanted behavior is realistic in this day and age, it's still too extreme to happen. Although that borg thing isn't that far off. Hell, everyone has cell phone's (not me ) and internet. How soon before someone comes up with the concept, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could communicate with anyone on this world, check any information resource we need, and with our minds only!!!"

AO:

Not only that, but keep in mind that leadership does offer many organizational advantages and quite frankly, some people can't even rule themselves and need others to lead them. Although I don't agree with most of Nietsze's philosophy, he does make a good point in that some people truly are superior, and because of them, civilization has made remarkable advances.

Regardless of Nietsche's theories, I don't believe that civilization avances are made only by the people you name "superior". IMO it all resides in collaboration between people. To stick with socio political figures, who would Engels be without Marx and Marx without Engels?

Well, if you would check all the great discoveries made in the past century, the majority of them were made by individuals. Do you actually believe a group of people would have come up with the theories of Einstein or Newton??? Not even a million of them working together could have IMO.

AO:

Lastly, leader/follower group organization is inherent in human beings. No way around it. If we did eliminate all countries and religions, sooner or later people are going to form groups, whether on laws, religion, or just any opinion, it will happen, and a leader will be elected to spearhead their ideas.

Who cares? Groups could be fine, if they can behave and coexist peacefully. The leader wouldn't last forever, if people should know when to ditch him out as soon as he's done his role.

In other words, all rep democracies can be fine, as long as they don't go to war with each other. ..

So what's the advantage of having an anarchy then, We just won't have an asshole for boss again (or at least until his role is finished... which is never if his role is to make sure that we're doing our jobs correctly).

Why do anarchists abhor leadership so much? It's as if they feel the heirarchical structure of society has ignored them, or spites them, and they want to lash back by destroying that very system. No offense, but evry single anarchist I have ever spoken to has always left me with an impression of resentment.

Megatron wrote:

. I don't see the down-side in having a leader, so long as they don't think they're superior and can order people around.

The person wouldn't be a leader anymore. One thing is to be submissed and do things out of fear and another to agree to do something because you agree with it.

Most leaders (and by leader's, I mean people who tell me what I need to do) aren't arrogant and they don't order people around for the hell of it, but because it needs to be done to get the job done.

I don't agree with many of my jobs policies, like not being an asshole to someone who is rude to me on the phone, or having to charge someone for a minor inquiry because it's part of the programs fee's, or not being able to raise my salary, or being able to give myself a "just because" bonus, but I'm not going to go rebel, knock out my boss and stick him in my car trunk, and try to start some pathetic uprising against my company just because things aren't going the way I want them too.

In life, you're constantly going to have to do things that you don't agree you should do, and often times they're the right thing. To go rebel and not do them because you don't want to is rather self-centered

Ancient Oldie wrote:

Pretty soon the whole world will be one giant metropolis and only the police and the criminals will remain

Oh but it already is, isn't it? Only the Freedom Fighter countries and the Terrorists seem to populate the planet, With the "you're either with us, or with the terrorists" dogma leaving no middle ground.

What middle ground? Anarchy? Communism? Quite frankly, if most people ever supported these views, then there would be a society out there under those rules.

There are also other problems that anarchy doesn't address. Like what would happen if people disagreed on certain issues that they strongly believe in, like gun control. Now we only need and have a look at any gun thread on this forum to know that this is an issue that is roughly split down the middle in supporters and detractors, people will never agree on, that can't be ignored without dire consequences and at the same time, can't be agreed upon without hurting feelings. How would that issue be resolved without some sort of leadership imposing the final say???

 

[megatron]

Who would prevent the countries from fighting each other?

All the other countries.

Separating people and assigning them to territories, assign them a strong attachment to the land they live, a fervous love to their political system and voila, a good recipe for total war.

Why? If everybody is happy I don't see why they'd suddenly leap too war. If you surrounded the extreme parties with moderate parties it should balance it out a bit.

And even if there is total war, would it be a bad thing? I know england could do with a bit of genetic trimming, I'm sure other countries are getting a bit crap too.

 

[Sander]

Some utterly disgusting jobs could be done by robots. Stop laughing Some jobs, very hard and tiring for humans, such as chain car assembly have been through modernization processes which led to an almost complete replacement of humans by robots.

GOod point. That takes care of that.

Ah, the difference here is that, theoretically, for an anarchist society to exist, the people should be aware of what's going on. You don't need a constitution to ditch a warmonger.
Besides, local despotism isn't anarchy. I can't really see how a society which decided by itself to collaborate with each other and abolish their governments, these becoming a nuisance, suddenly crave for being led like sheep to a slaughterhouse.

Because there are no limits. Yo'd think people would know that they had to stop him, wouldn't you? Well, think, if you will, about Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Noone thought that an evil megalomaniac like Hitler could get to power in a civilised country, I mean, they'd know that they had to stop him, right? Wrong. The reason it works better in Anarchy, is that there are no laws and no democratic voting to limit such a man's power(correct me if I'm wrong, though, I haven't read that site yet....). They may not crave for being led like sheep to the slaughterhouse, but the fact remains that a charismatic man can get a LOT done. Especially with the more discontent groups of society(those will always remain there. Unless the anarchism is created in a country with only like-minded individuals, and thus it would have to be a created country, or a really really weird situation(hence the utopian outlook of anarchism. The fact that it's utopian means that it's useless in reality).

Yes, but it happens even in the most free democracies, doesn't it? Sorry, I can't find why it would be specific to anarchy. In a classic "big mess" anarchy scenario you could assume a mob would lynch a potential criminal, but we're not talking about mob rule, are we? Hm...

YOu do realise that in the most free democracies this does not necessarily happen? Here we have the judge rule over the inoocence of a man, not a (basically amateurish) group of "peers". That changes a lot of things.

Well, if you would check all the great discoveries made in the past century, the majority of them were made by individuals. Do you actually believe a group of people would have come up with the theories of Einstein or Newton??? Not even a million of them working together could have IMO.

Partially bull. While discoveries have been made by individuals, it's almost always a case of working on previous material supplied by other's, and simply working together. A lot of people forget that there were several great scientists like Einstein all working on the relativity theory after Einstein has published it's principles. Niels Bohr, Eisenstein and others, for instance.

In other words, all rep democracies can be fine, as long as they don't go to war with each other. ..

So what's the advantage of having an anarchy then, We just won't have an asshole for boss again (or at least until his role is finished... which is never if his role is to make sure that we're doing our jobs correctly).

Why do anarchists abhor leadership so much? It's as if they feel the heirarchical structure of society has ignored them, or spites them, and they want to lash back by destroying that very system. No offense, but evry single anarchist I have ever spoken to has always left me with an impression of resentment.

It's the principle of anarchism. The principle of anarchism is that of a great society where everyone is equal, receives equal rewards, and where there is no greater body imposing rules upon someone else. This means that there is no superiority in any way.

Most leaders (and by leader's, I mean people who tell me what I need to do) aren't arrogant and they don't order people around for the hell of it, but because it needs to be done to get the job done.

I don't agree with many of my jobs policies, like not being an asshole to someone who is rude to me on the phone, or having to charge someone for a minor inquiry because it's part of the programs fee's, or not being able to raise my salary, or being able to give myself a "just because" bonus, but I'm not going to go rebel, knock out my boss and stick him in my car trunk, and try to start some pathetic uprising against my company just because things aren't going the way I want them too.

In life, you're constantly going to have to do things that you don't agree you should do, and often times they're the right thing. To go rebel and not do them because you don't want to is rather self-centered

That's not going to happen in utopian anarchism either. If it worked, what would happen, would be that people would just not take it anymore, and ignore the guy. Read Vonnegut's Lonesome No More, it has a great example of such a thing in it.

What middle ground? Anarchy? Communism? Quite frankly, if most people ever supported these views, then there would be a society out there under those rules.

The middle ground of opposing Bush's actions, but not supporting terrorists.

There are also other problems that anarchy doesn't address. Like what would happen if people disagreed on certain issues that they strongly believe in, like gun control. Now we only need and have a look at any gun thread on this forum to know that this is an issue that is roughly split down the middle in supporters and detractors, people will never agree on, that can't be ignored without dire consequences and at the same time, can't be agreed upon without hurting feelings. How would that issue be resolved without some sort of leadership imposing the final say???

Democratic voting and consensus, as happens with a lot of software projects within the open source community. This has it's problems, of course, and is probably a bit too idealistic to work as well..

 

[Wooz]

Ancient Oldie: I was supposed to reply to your posts, but I see Sander replied with arguments that mostly match mine. However...

Links are down BTW.

http://www.spunk.org/
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

Here are two more. I recommend the second one for a Q&A approach, the first one is more like a library

AO

In life, you're constantly going to have to do things that you don't agree you should do, and often times they're the right thing. To go rebel and not do them because you don't want to is rather self-centered

Before rebelling, one should carefully think if you really have a cause to "go rebel" and if it's the right way to react to a given situation. Rebelling just because you follow a "no rules" dogma is just as stupid as never rebelling in any situation (fear and obey authority at all times). And yes, in this last case it's rather stupid and self-centered.


Sander wrote:

You do realise that in the most free democracies this does not necessarily happen? Here we have the judge rule over the innocence of a man, not a (basically amateurish) group of "peers". That changes a lot of things.

What I meant was that I don't see why such a society excludes the possibility of trial besides amateurish peers. Check some of the links for more details on social regulations. In any case, as you mentioned,

Anarchism is about freedom, and working with eachother for the greater good. It could be described as socialist libertarianism, with the most extreme libertarianism you could find.

Ultra-democracy if you want.

The reason it works better in Anarchy, is that there are no laws and no democratic voting to limit such a man's power(correct me if I'm wrong, though, I haven't read that site yet....)

Of course, there should be regulations taken to limit an individual from imposing his will on others. The people shouldn't be on a one-track mind, just conscious enough to live in a free society and take the measures to continue to live in one.

However irrealistic it may seem,

people used to say the same thing about flying machines.

 

[Sander]

What I meant was that I don't see why such a society excludes the possibility of trial besides amateurish peers. Check some of the links for more details on social regulations. In any case, as you mentioned,

Without some kind of general ruling body, or group that is supposed to watch over others(and thus have superiority), this happens a lot faster than with such a thing.

Of course, there should be regulations taken to limit an individual from imposing his will on others. The people shouldn't be on a one-track mind, just conscious enough to live in a free society and take the measures to continue to live in one.

But such regulations mean that there is a form of government.

 

[Wooz]

But such regulations mean that there is a form of government.

"Regulations" as in "People are aware enough to know when to stop some power-hungry megalomaniac"

Without some kind of general ruling body, or group that is supposed to watch over others(and thus have superiority), this happens a lot faster than with such a thing.

How about everybody watching over everybody?
I know this may seem a bit of topic, but let's take a somewhat exotic example. In the general mess usually happening just beneath the scene during "heavy music" concerts, there's something called "pogo" or "mush". It generally consists of jumping to the music and pushing people around you. While it may seem extremely brutal and some people are afraid of it, in fact everybody's watching everybody's back. If a person trips and falls, *everybody* around that person immediately stop making a mess and help him up, the person would be severly injured otherwise.

In other words, even in the most intense moments you have to keep your head cool and be careful nobody gets hurt by your actions. Not to mention a trial, where the person's life is at risk.

 

[Sander]

"Regulations" as in "People are aware enough to know when to stop some power-hungry megalomaniac"

Wow. Again: Germany 1932.

How about everybody watching over everybody?
I know this may seem a bit of topic, but let's take a somewhat exotic example. In the general mess usually happening just beneath the scene during "heavy music" concerts, there's something called "pogo" or "mush". It generally consists of jumping to the music and pushing people around you. While it may seem extremely brutal and some people are afraid of it, in fact everybody's watching everybody's back. If a person trips and falls, *everybody* around that person immediately stop making a mess and help him up, the person would be severly injured otherwise.

In other words, even in the most intense moments you have to keep your head cool and be careful nobody gets hurt by your actions. Not to mention a trial, where the person's life is at risk.

Enter: vigilante justice.
Unfortunate coincidence, bad luck, or bad reputation can easily condemn a man in the eyes of the public. And the public is the common man, and not the nice people who invented Anarchism. Those "common people" tend to think a bit more in reputation than the people who invented Anarchism(although they're not free of it either).
Vigilante justice is a major, if not the major problem.

 

[Wooz]

Sander, still interested in debating this?

Here's a link, with a lot of resources concerning anarchy: definitions, history, ideology, yadda yadda.

 

[Sander]

Ehmm...you know, you should first provide a link, eh?

 

[Wooz]

Woops.

http://www.zmag.org/AWatch/awatch.htm

 

[Sander]

Right, I've read through a lot of that, and I've finally decided to reply here.
While I do agree with the Anarchists that their system would probably be one of the more perfect systems, if not the perfect, if applied correctly, I completely disagree with them on some points.

The main problem I see (besides the problems noted above) is that of human nature. They imagine a harmonious society, one where people can vote through a direct democracy and then help eachother. And if you think that the masses are imposing their ideas on you, you just don't pay any attention to the masses.
It, for some reason, still assumes, after the utter fiasco that proved to be utopian socialism, that Anarchism will work; that people will, regardless of their own needs, simply do what society requires them to do, and, more importantly, that this will somehow work.
"Human nature" stands in the way. Not the human nature of competition or whatever, the human nature of egoism. While most people who think of these theories and argue about them (like you and me) don't vote for their own sake, but for the sake of society (or the greater good of society or whatever) most people don't. Most people think "Right, I'm rich, so I'll vote for the people lowering my taxes." or "Fuck those rich bastards, I want more money for the state so that I can afford to regularly go to the hospital."
They do not, however, think "Right, we don't have someone doing (...), so I guess I can do that." and they do not think "How sad for that minority, they're getting all those disadvantages." or anything of the likes. They think for their own sake, and yes, I consider myself to be one of those who does not think like that. Call it elitist or snobby, I consider it a fact of life: people vote and act for their own sake, if you ask John Doe he won't say anything about the niceties of a socialist system, or how he loves the fact that he's working towards a free competitive environment, he'll talk about his taxes.

Frankly, from what I can see, Anarchy is mainly some kind of yearning for simpler times: a yearning for when man was still a hunter-gatherer trying to survive with his own commune.
These may have been nice times in an anarchist's view, and they are, ideologically speaking, probably very decent. But they do not work. And this is because we live in a technologically extremely advanced time: Communities cannot isolate themselves (and a small community is the only place where I can see Anarchism working) and the entire process of making decisions will take too long, and will take too much time from the people themselves to be useful. You cannot expect people to be willing to spend days in debates to try to reach a consensus or an educated opinion.

 

[Wooz]

You're mostly talking about a certain tendency in the anarchist thought, called "primitivism"

This school of thought rejects *any* kind of government, claiming, in a very similar way than the other "trends" in anarchism, that it restricts the individual's freedom. It's the oldest and less elaborate, utopian-style anarchism. Agreed on that.

The utopian "socialism" I suspect you mentioned, wasn't socialism. You're refering to the USSR, Stalin and Lenin's iron fist tyrannies. The "socialist" term in it is just part of the typical doctrinal doublespeak. It sounds nicer to name the stick used to whack the people "the people's stick", but it doesn't mean it is.

However, you forgot, my friend, to mention Anarcho-Syndicalism (He's repressing me! He's repressing me!). A form of up-down government that reduces government to a strit minimum.
Now, not only it's possible, it has already been done by the CNT during the Spanish civil war, and with spectacular results.

So much for "Decisions will take ages" and "Small communities". Open your history book and check it for yourself.

And I don't get your whole "human nature" argument. Of course people will always vote for the thing that suits them best materially, it would be *very* naive to think anybody would want a particular sociological system or party "because, promise, it's going to be better".
I don't see why particularly anarchism would be a system in which people wouldn't benefit from "selfish" interests.

 

[Sander]

The utopian "socialism" I suspect you mentioned, wasn't socialism. You're refering to the USSR, Stalin and Lenin's iron fist tyrannies.

No, I'm not. I'm referring to the utopian socialism that has been tried out in certain communes and small villages during the nineteenth century. I am NOT talking about Marxism.

And I don't get your whole "human nature" argument. Of course people will always vote for the thing that suits them best materially, it would be *very* naive to think anybody would want a particular sociological system or party "because, promise, it's going to be better".
I don't see why particularly anarchism would be a system in which people wouldn't benefit from "selfish" interests.

Think about it: Minorities will be mostly disregarded. In a parliamentary democracy where minorities do get a vote, and minorities are often needed to get a majority, those minorities cannot be ignored because of the nature of the system. But in Anarchy these minorities can be ignored. If you were to take a direct poll in the Netherlands about what should be done about immigrants, I dare say that you would probably have to shut the borders. That's only one example of many where this could and probably will go horribly wrong.

However, you forgot, my friend, to mention Anarcho-Syndicalism (He's repressing me! He's repressing me!). A form of up-down government that reduces government to a strit minimum.
Now, not only it's possible, it has already been done by the CNT during the Spanish civil war, and with spectacular results.

And the reason why I haven't mentioned it, is that the Anarchosyndicalism site is down. So I can't get any info on it. *grumbles*

 

[Wooz]

No, I'm not. I'm referring to the utopian socialism that has been tried out in certain communes and small villages during the nineteenth century. I am NOT talking about Marxism.

Well, as I said before, in one of my first posts in this thread, the movement has somewhat evolved since then. Some of the socialist founders of anarchism, like Proudhon, were directly connected to those social experiments, and re-structured some of their thoughts after the outcome of those experiments.

Yet and still, a lot has happened since the 19th century.

Think about it: Minorities will be mostly disregarded. In a parliamentary democracy where minorities do get a vote, and minorities are often needed to get a majority, those minorities cannot be ignored because of the nature of the system. But in Anarchy these minorities can be ignored.

Why do you assume minorities won't get a vote in a partially syndicalist socio-political regime? Who talks about abolishing useful laws?

Anarchy isn't chaos. Anarchy is order. The highest level of "socialist" liberal democracy, if you want.
Not national socialism, where minorities don't have a vote and should be exterminated.

Useful laws, like, say, a law for fenced playgrounds around highways isn't exactly a citizen rights-stripping draconian diktat.

And the site works fine, you just didn't do your homework See?

 

[Sander]

Ugh. I said that I couldn't get infor on syndicalism because the syndicalism site is gone. SO TELL ME WHAT SYNDICALISM CONSISTS OF ALREADY!
So, until you tell me what it is, I can't comment on your syndicalism comments.

Well, as I said before, in one of my first posts in this thread, the movement has somewhat evolved since then. Some of the socialist founders of anarchism, like Proudhon, were directly connected to those social experiments, and re-structured some of their thoughts after the outcome of those experiments.

Yet and still, a lot has happened since the 19th century.

No, a lot hasn't changed since the nineteenth century. If anything, the globalisation, technologicalisation (wow. cool word, if it exists) and the general interdependence of the world today has made it harder to make such an experiment succeed, rather than making it easier.

 

[Zaij]

If we were all brought up with different vaules, etc fitting to a type of government, it could/would work.