-
My last post was a bit aggressive. Quitting smoking I a bitch
Anarchism is a lot like communism and socialism in that, to many people it sounds like a great idea but just can't possibly work. An anarchist system of any kind couldn't work because eventually someone would make a grab for power. Groups would form and fight and you would end up with the kind feudalism that was seen in the past. Eventually one group would win and you're back to square one.
If the fighting could be avoided, the only way would be to have an authority to keep the peace and then, too, you are back to square one.
I'm certainly not advocating voting Tories or any other parties but until a system is found that takes advantage of human nature better then capitalism all the other options are either ridiculous or causes of massive death tolls
-
Had a couple of days away from a proper keyboard, just catching up on thread.
And that made me an ignorant?
From my perspective, your comments made you appear as an ignorant person / an ignoramus. I'm not suggesting you come across that way all the time, but that your comments and responses to other views about the lack of food choice at an event, then playing up to stereo-types of anarchists (flipping police cars on their roofs) portrayed you as such in this thread.
I don't like people making up some kind of** "alternative circus" **of everything.
LFGSS could be described as an alternative circus within Cycling?pages and pages of anarchy related discussion
Very interesting. I joined the topic due to the Vegan bashing. Reading the subsequent discussion on "if anarchy could work or not" has been quite interesting. I know people involved in groups that some would pigeon-hole as anarchist, and the things I see them working on are all constructive projects towards making (influencing might be a better word?) their local area a better place to live for everyone*. I guess folks' experiences of and proximity to anarchist-type activities will help inform their views of what can be achieved, rightly or wrongly.
- up for debate as to if everyone will be able to agree on what is better
- up for debate as to if everyone will be able to agree on what is better
-
My last post was a bit aggressive. Quitting smoking I a bitch
Anarchism is a lot like communism and socialism in that, to many people it sounds like a great idea but just can't possibly work. An anarchist system of any kind couldn't work because eventually someone would make a grab for power. Groups would form and fight and you would end up with the kind feudalism that was seen in the past. Eventually one group would win and you're back to square one.
Can you give me an example of how you think this might play out, I am not so sure you have highlighted an insurmountable problem here.
Can you outline who these people might be, what power they would be trying to grab, how they would grab that power and so on?
If the fighting could be avoided, the only way would be to have an authority to keep the peace and then, too, you are back to square one.
There are numerous other ways to keep the peace apart from coercion/authority.
I'm certainly not advocating voting Tories or any other parties but until a system is found that takes advantage of human nature better then capitalism all the other options are either ridiculous or causes of massive death tolls
I'd say a version of anarchism might be an answer, quite what form it would take I couldn't say (but I'd think certainly more laissez faire capitalism/voluntarism than anarco-communism).
I am not quite sure what we mean by capitalism in this context ("...system is found that takes advantage of human nature better then capitalism") as capitalism as practiced tends to be anything but capitalism, it's statism steering a horribly distorted version of a free market.
-
there's a few stirrings of dissent going on in north Africa at the moment where the people are looking for a voice and representation without oppression, unless i am mistaken it's capitalism they desire?
jobs.
food.
the ability to generate personal wealth and perhaps have a bit of what the despots and their family's have indulged in
a democratically elected state where there is no fear of reprisals for speaking out.so where are the anarchists? now's their chance to get on their bikes and fill a power vacuum.
-
Can you give me an example of how you think this might play out, I am not so sure you have highlighted an insurmountable problem here.
Got to go to bed. How have I not highlighted an insurmountable problem. This inevitable result would then mean that you no longer have anarchy, just a different set of powerful people/groups than the ones you started with. As an example you only have to look at the history. Humans developed from a state of anarchy and this is what has happened. If you now want to go back to a time where no one holds power it would be even worse and happen even quicker since those with money con buy highly destructive weapons.
If all you want is a change from the way things are now then fine, but it couldn't stay anarchic
Can you outline who these people might be, what power they would be trying to grab, how they would grab that power and so on?
The alpha males, we are pack animals and the pack has a leader. Social leaders, the strongest and smartest, feudal leaders, kings etc
There are numerous other ways to keep the peace apart from coercion/authority.
Erm, no there isn't. Name one that can keep peace amongst an entire society without authority.
I'd say a version of anarchism might be an answer, quite what form it would take I couldn't say (but I'd think certainly more laissez faire capitalism/voluntarism than anarco-communism).
I am not quite sure what we mean by capitalism in this context ("...system is found that takes advantage of human nature better then capitalism") as capitalism as practiced tends to be anything but capitalism, it's statism steering a horribly distorted version of a free market.
In this context, a system which allows ownership of land and property, and the right to trade these things. And, unlike laissez fiare capitalism, the ability to tax the purchases and income. True, capitalism in most developed countries is far from free trade and highly controled by the state. But laissez faire capitalism, as natural a system as it may seem has no way to help those who are dissadvantaged. Maybe those with money would set up the necessary chairties but that has not been shown by history in any country.
-
there's a few stirrings of dissent going on in north Africa at the moment where the people are looking for a voice and representation without oppression, unless i am mistaken it's capitalism they desire?
jobs.
food.
the ability to generate personal wealth and perhaps have a bit of what the despots and their family's have indulged in
a democratically elected state where there is no fear of reprisals for speaking out.so where are the anarchists? now's their chance to get on their bikes and fill a power vacuum.
I don't see how the desire to not be oppressed is intrinsically linked to capitalism, nor that capitalism is the only way to produce food or jobs or protect individual rights. There are indeed stirrings, but capitalism doesn't seem to be a paramount reason.
-
there's a few stirrings of dissent going on in north Africa at the moment where the people are looking for a voice and representation without oppression, unless i am mistaken it's capitalism they desire?
Without a doubt.
so where are the anarchists? now's their chance to get on their bikes and fill a power vacuum.
You might say the same of any ideology, where are the Islamists, where are the communists, where are the libertarians, the conservatives, the ecologists, the cultural feminists, the ordoliberalists, the minarchists, the British New Labour party, the facists .. (and so on).
To be honest I am not entirely clear what point you are making here, is it that you feel because there is no anarchist thrust to the post revolution discussions then this is a sign that people don't want anarchism?
One thing worth pointing out is that if we understand anarchism to be at it's root to be a rejection of statism, it's interesting to note with Egypt (easily the largest of those 'stirrings of dissent') that the revolution was almost a definition of anarchism, people rejecting the state (the oldest state in the world) rejecting the rule of law and taking their future into their own hands.
Don't get me wrong I agree what they want is a piece of the cake, a piece of "what the despots and their family's have indulged in", but I fail to see how this is incompatible with anarchism? Are you thinking anarchism is a position where people would be interested in, perhaps even keen to go without things, this is a serious question I am not being facetious (just a little confused).
Sorry in advance if I have misunderstood you (the red wine, the red wine)
-
To be honest I am not entirely clear what point you are making here, is it that you feel because there is no anarchist thrust to the post revolution discussions then this is a sign that people don't want anarchism?
i'm not saying people don't want anarchism, but if you ask those people with bread taped to their heads demonstrating (or the students, or those in opposition) what they want it's freedom, choice and a better life.
where does anarchism fit in?[changes mind mid post]
actually i am saying that.
when it comes down to it people want mobile phones, laptops, more food, cheaper fuel and to not have their collar felt by plod, anarchism just isn't on the agenda for 99% of the population and the 1% are just a lunatic fringe lacking the organisation to effect any kind of 'revolution' **stick to the basic point without hiding behind iff's and but's
-
Got to go to bed. How have I not highlighted an insurmountable problem. This inevitable result would then mean that you no longer have anarchy, just a different set of powerful people/groups than the ones you started with.
I don't agree that it is necessarily inevitable, I could of course be wrong, but I think issues can be solved, systems have their challenges and most political systems resolve them by some means, western liberal democracies have numerous challenges from within and from without, they are resolved largely (but not exclusively) with (at root) coercion, force and war to some reasonable success, the idea that anarchism must be set up and left to run it's course without being kept on track might be at the root of the idea that certain outcomes are inevitable (I am guessing here, so correct me if I am what off what it is you are saying). Anarchism would face it's share of problems, as many as any other system and there would be a need to find solutions to keep the cogs turning.
When I said "I am not so sure you have highlighted an insurmountable problem" - I meant that I am not sure myself that this is a problem that cannot be resolved without leaving anarchism behind, the reason I asked you to walk me through an example of a power grab was to see if you really have hit upon a fundamental flaw, so far we have only made an assertion ('This inevitable result') - you might be right, but I would like to know if you are.
look at the history.
"This is the 21st century what do former XXXXX have to do with this"
: P
Humans developed from a state of anarchy and this is what has happened.
100% agree, I often point this out to people, all this, right here, the Queen, the taxis, internet, Nike, Michael Portillo, vaccines, all the result of anarchism.
If you now want to go back to a time where no one holds power
No real need (or ability) to go back in time - power is held by the people of a society.
If all you want is a change from the way things are now then fine, but it couldn't stay anarchic
(ignoring the traduction) You might be right, but I have not heard, as yet, an argument to establish that a free society would necessarily progress in any certain direction. I have heard it said, asserted as fact, and I suspect there is a good argument out the to support it but I have yet to hear it.
The alpha males, we are pack animals and the pack has a leader. Social leaders, the strongest and smartest, feudal leaders, kings etc
Again to repeat the question, in an anarchistic society, could you outline who these people might be, what power they would be trying to grab, how they would grab that power and so on?
Could you give me a simple example?
Erm, no there isn't. Name one that can keep peace amongst an entire society without authority
Sure, tell me what the nature of the problem is, furnish me with an unambiguous and clear example of the problem and I will, as best I can, take it from there.
-
i'm not saying people don't want anarchism, but if you ask those people with bread taped to their heads demonstrating (or the students, or those in opposition) what they want it's freedom, choice and a better life.
Agreed, nothing to dispute here, you could have this conversation with a right wing Texas gun lobbyist or a late 1970s union man and arrive at the same position, I am not saying this is demagogic (although that would always be my first suspicion with these kinds of 'better life' appeals even if not intended), just that it goes without saying, so yes I am with you 100% here, ask anyone do they want freedom, choice and a better life and the ticks in the 'no' box' are going to be fairly low.
What I do have a problem with is the inferred (and in what you post 'but' is operative here) is the idea that you are setting up a dichotomy, either "freedom, choice and a better life" or XXXX (XXXX here being whatever you intend to traduce without ever having to deal with).
So by way of example- all these play the same card, all seek to contrast 'X' - (insert what it is you can't be bothered to challenge but instead would rather collapse with demagoguery) - with "freedom, choice and a better life", I am not saying this is not good technique (the polit bureau would have work for you) just unreliable - anyhow those examples:
"i'm not saying people don't want capitalism, but if you ask those people with bread taped to their heads demonstrating (or the students, or those in opposition) what they want it's freedom, choice and a better life."
Inferred cut and paste conclusion shocker! capitalism = lack of freedom, lack of choice and a lack of of a better life!! OMG !!
"i'm not saying people don't want conservatism, but if you ask those people with bread taped to their heads demonstrating (or the students, or those in opposition) what they want it's freedom, choice and a better life."
Inferred cut and paste conclusion shocker! conservatism = lack of freedom, lack of choice and a lack of of a better life!! OMG !!
"i'm not saying people don't want socialism, but if you ask those people with bread taped to their heads demonstrating (or the students, or those in opposition) what they want it's freedom, choice and a better life."
Inferred cut and paste conclusion shocker! socialism = lack of freedom, lack of choice and a lack of of a better life!! OMG !!
"i'm not saying people don't want monarchism, but if you ask those people with bread taped to their heads demonstrating (or the students, or those in opposition) what they want it's freedom, choice and a better life."
Inferred cut and paste conclusion shocker! monarchism = lack of freedom, lack of choice and a lack of of a better life!! OMG !!
where does anarchism fit in?
In Egypt?
Nowhere as far as I can see, where do you think veganism or Reaganomics or the Euroseptics fit in ? Is there a point to where did XXX fit in ? And if there is a point is it this: because XXXX did not play a part in the Egyptian revolution then XXXX is redundant ? Or wrong ? Or something like that ?
Help me out here, am I way off course here ?
[EDIT] "where does anarchism fit in?"
The removal of the state in favour of the will of the ruled.
actually i am saying that.
when it comes down to it people want mobile phones, laptops, more food, cheaper fuel and to not have their collar felt by plod, anarchism just isn't on the agenda for 99% of the population and the 1% are just a lunatic fringe lacking the organisation to effect any kind of 'revolution' **stick to the basic point without hiding behind iff's and but's
I agree, people want iPads, sex, beer, friendship, exponentially increasingly interesting communication devices, holidays, love, children, happiness, nice trousers, farms, streamed music websites, pets, pet food, ice skates, curtains, charities, sofas, for others to be happy (reciprocal altruism), discos, cocaine, photoshop, Mr Kipling lemon slices, bicycles, hospitals and all the other good stuff +, of course, not to be interfered with by the state whenever reasonable ("have their collar felt by plod").
And I agree that any "lunatic fringe" (an idea you granted yourself free from any test) are just that, lunatic and fringe - by your own definition, not unlike commenting on "the mad".
The pity is that you seem to have a fairly robust and honest outlook but no clue as to what anarchism actually is, your admonishment to "stick to the basic point without hiding behind iff's and but's" suggests you have asked a question of something or someone ?
-
[quote="Loads of People"]
*pages and pages of anarchy related discussion*
[/QUOTE]and it goes on..
what about anarcho-syndicalism? What about post-modern critical theory? Come on guys!
-
This thread trolls itself.
NO JUSTICE NO LULZ
-
The pity is that you seem to have a fairly robust and honest outlook but no clue as to what anarchism actually is, your admonishment to "stick to the basic point without hiding behind iff's and but's" suggests you have asked a question of something or someone ?
yes. is anarchism relevant, does it have a place in the minds of the 99%*
*sticking to the main point not ...(you get the idea)
-
yes. is anarchism relevant, does it have a place in the minds of the 99%*
*sticking to the main point not ...(you get the idea)
Can you ask this question in a clear and non-ambiguous way ?
I don't have a clue what you are saying here, I don't know what "a place in the mind" alludes to or "sticking to the main point not" means?
Sorry, I do tend to get a bit lost with a lot of online conversations and often misinterpret stuff, can you just state your question as clearly as possible and I will have a go at answering it.
teome
Dammit
rhb
tynan
deleted
reulbg
judenonesuch
chris_crash-
Post a reply
About
Anarcho-Bicyclist Conference Manchester April 2011
Posted by
I'm not so sure that's true, like when a group of campers are attacked by a grizzly bear, to survive you don't have to be able to outrun the bear, you only need outrun the slowest member of the camping group, anarchism may not have all the answers to all the word's woes, but it may be better than statism.