TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Anarchists
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Anarchists

are idiots.

discuss.

haha

well, i dont think we'd be anywhere w/o government, seriously, and i dont feel like listing all the points, id be happy to discuss one by one though. funny thing: my history teacher is a libertarian

in some cases, i think that the government should slim down its role, but total elimination is a nono

Anarchy never works, for the simple reason that you generally need to organize something, to overthrow something else. And anarchism goes directly against that.

On a somewhat related note, I hate seing all those anarchy signs sown onto backpacks, or on bumperstickers of kids who listen to Metallica or wannabe punk.

Agreed. Period.

quote:

Originally posted by Nadi I hate seing all those anarchy signs sown onto backpacks, or on bumperstickers of kids who listen to Metallica or wannabe punk.

primarily lost teens trying to find themsleves and be different, stand out from the crowd, in this big world of confusion

>JM<

"ANARCHY IN THE UK" - THE EXPLOITED

the anarchy you are refering to is actually very organized, and hence, very ironic.

Anarchy = Communism = Ideal.

I'd define myself as an idealist anarchist, and realist socialist.

It asks people to be more than they are currently capable of, and you need to get humanity to a much more egalatarian, and peaceful way of existence before there's even a glimmer of hope for it.

It makes me sad to see people who equate Anarchy with Chaos, because Anarchy is actually equal to Utopia, with all that that entails (ie: perfect, but nigh, if not totally impossible to accomplish)

Sadly, this view of Anarchy as people running around torching things is the one that a lot of those people with patches seem to be pushing as the real deal, which is utter stupidity.

Ask those people about Bakunin and Kropotkin and I gurantee you'll get nothing but blank stares...

Communism is not Anarchy. Communism as excercised in the Soviet Union head a government, under Lenin several "soviets" were installed. Marxism would be more like Anarchy. Marxism seeks for a society of totaly equality where all the goods are shared by every1. Well both are in my opnion naive ideals/utopias. People are animals, just a tad more intelligent and self-aware. We're navigated by greed, looking for power...Sex! and emotions, specially jealousy and hatred but also love. Anarchy would also mean a society without a codex of justice. A horrible scenario. For Mister X stealing food when being hungry would be justified since "natural" for Mister Y killing Mr X as an act of revenge would be legitimate just the same.

Oh well...

Do any of you guys even know what anarchy is?

Have you read two pages of Marx or Bukenin?

What do you think Capitalism is Einstein!?

Capitalism is pure anarchy! That's the whole reason it's managed to flurish so much!

Anarchy is not disorder and caos. Anarchy is order without control.

Here you have nation states which have a monopoly on violence.
They keep order. Internal and external by using the police and army.

Then you have an economic anarchy that runs like blood through the globe. No limits! Anything goes! Now that's at the global scale.

Then we have anarchy at the nation level.

Is anyone familiar with the laws of Dialectical Materialism?
The laws of oposites in nature? If yes then you will have a good idea about what I'm gonna say next.

Anarchy at the global level is essentially crutial to the existance of Capitalism. But at the nation state level it becomes the exact oposite.

Certain mathematical formulas applied to different conditions can give equally oposite results.

This debate is far too complex and I don't think anyone's up for it here but if you're interested I can refer you to a few books.

All you need to know is that the topic of Anarchy is far too big to just dismiss it by saying Anacrhist are idiots. It just shows your own ignorance!!!!!!

Ack, just typed a response that didn't go through so I'll try again (in a more blunt form, because I need to go to bed).

Basically I'm familar with Dialectical Materialism, mainly with the Hegelian Dialectic but I understand how Marx modified it in his Communist Manifesto to justify the socialistic state he had envisaged.

But:

quote:

Anarchy at the global level is essentially crutial to the existance of Capitalism. But at the nation state level it becomes the exact oposite.

I don't get this.

I agree that anarchy is important to the propogation and survival of the capitalistic method, but why is it different on a global and national scale? Is anarchy essential to global capitalism, but more supportive of the dialectical antithesis of capitalism (i.e. Marxist socialism going by the Manifesto) on the national scale? Or are you merely saying that the antithesis of anarchy (totalitarianism in a way?) is more essential to capitalism at the nation level, as opposed to the global level where it is anarchy itself that supports capitalism?

I phrased it better in my last post, but yeah. Help me understand.

quote:

Originally posted by davinox the anarchy you are refering to is actually very organized, and hence, very ironic.

thats basically the point im making, most anarchists go agianst the way of "anarchy" and it is jsut funny to laugh at theyre all round wankerishness.

also the fac kids walk around with hoodies with them anarchy signs on and think theyre anarchists (my little sisters ex b/f of 14 years thoight he was an anarchist, maturally i laughed in his ugly face) and it i highly amusing, please feel free to vent some more!

If you believe in pure anarchy, you are a foolish idealist, and, hence, an idiot, I would agree. But incorporating elements of anarchy into our social, economic, and political institutions would actually be a very prudent idea in many cases.

As unrealistic as true Anarchy is, the idea itself is very appealing. Well, I mean it is very appealing to some. To myself it seems ridiculous, myself being a Republican, but I do understand the concept.

Most of the people in this thread would have their heads exploding if they were to read anything about Dialectical Materialism. Forgive me if I'm worng, but it took me 2 semesters and countless papers.

Anyway, I beleive that the concept is wonderfull for the human race in general, but as a whole, and on a personal level, it can never work.

but if you take into account vegatorian factor or post necromedial decreses in the rate of factorial alberisms then you will see the putronmy of the whole situation is kept at a satisfiable level.

quote:

Originally posted by Illusion Do any of you guys even know what anarchy is? Have you read two pages of Marx or Bukenin? What do you think Capitalism is Einstein!? Capitalism is pure anarchy! That's the whole reason it's managed to flurish so much! Anarchy is not disorder and caos. Anarchy is order without control. Here you have nation states which have a monopoly on violence. They keep order. Internal and external by using the police and army. Then you have an economic anarchy that runs like blood through the globe. No limits! Anything goes! Now that's at the global scale. Then we have anarchy at the nation level. Is anyone familiar with the laws of Dialectical Materialism? The laws of oposites in nature? If yes then you will have a good idea about what I'm gonna say next. Anarchy at the global level is essentially crutial to the existance of Capitalism. But at the nation state level it becomes the exact oposite. Certain mathematical formulas applied to different conditions can give equally oposite results. This debate is far too complex and I don't think anyone's up for it here but if you're interested I can refer you to a few books. All you need to know is that the topic of Anarchy is far too big to just dismiss it by saying Anacrhist are idiots. It just shows your own ignorance!!!!!!

hold onto your britches Karl...

how exactly is Marxism/Socialism the same as Anarchism. Organizing a class based social movement goes entirely against the ideal of having no structure in society.

sure, Marx strove for a certain uniformity and equality class-wise, but this has little to do with society run amok. it wont happen with out current society, we are just too organized, cause even if we try to be unorganized, we are think in an organized fashion to avoid that.

and besides, a Communist Manifesto is an organization of ideals into a political agenda...not anarchism.

OH, and you all should watch 'SLC Punk!' its a hilarious movie that tackles both the concepts of anarchism in its pure form, and all those fucksticks Ste is refferring to that use it as fasion|

quote:

Originally posted by biznology hold onto your britches Karl... how exactly is Marxism/Socialism the same as Anarchism. Organizing a class based social movement goes entirely against the ideal of having no structure in society.

It's the same in that the end goal is the same, Anarchy gets to the point of having no government being necessary immediately (One more strike against realistic realisation there...) while Communism builds over time to having no government be necessary.

Both of them are trying to accomplish the same thing, Communism just takes a more realistic approach.

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb It's the same in that the end goal is the same, Anarchy gets to the point of having no government being necessary immediately (One more strike against realistic realisation there...) while Communism builds over time to having no government be necessary. Both of them are trying to accomplish the same thing, Communism just takes a more realistic approach.

yes, possibly. but Communism is inherently flawed, as the centralization of a govt to implement the regime, and creation due to the recognition of class structure means an anarchistic goal is impossible. i think we all know how Communism in practice turned out|

quote:

Originally posted by biznology yes, possibly. but Communism is inherently flawed, as the centralization of a govt to implement the regime, and creation due to the recognition of class structure means an anarchistic goal is impossible. i think we all know how Communism in practice turned out|

One would have to argue that no one has really tried Communism as Marx envisioned it to date...all of the countries that refer to themselves as Communist to date have done a terrific job of ignoring the manifesto, with the most common mistake being skipping capitalism, which Marx & Engels defined as *critical* for a successful Communist state because you need to have the efficiency increased by the competition inherent in Capitalism before you can easily produce things for the entire country.

If you read the manifesto you'll see that the initial stages are more of a birthing stage for the concept, just because the government starts out centralized doesn't mean that it finishes that way; as Marx would have it the government would slowly fade away as people needed it less and less, the final stage being the complete dissolution of such, and hence, Anarchy for all intents and purposes.

Am I saying this is realistic right here and right now? Not even close. That's why I'm a socialist realistically, you have to start somewhere, and socialism (following capitalism) is the logical base on which communism can later be built as it instills people with the basic egalitarian values necessary for more advanced concepts like Communism and Anarchy.

The other flaw with anarchism even in the communistic/marxist terms is that, when you have no goverment people will do as they please when they please. In other words, people will be able to rob, steal, kill, and the only punishment they would recive would be street justice.

And while I hate authority sometimes, I sure as hell don't want to live in a world, were people can do whatever they want, because we as humans just can't handle that. I mean people could go rob us, kill us, steal from us, it's really quite scary.

Communism=Dictatorship of the proletariat

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I don't get this. I agree that anarchy is important to the propogation and survival of the capitalistic method, but why is it different on a global and national scale? Is anarchy essential to global capitalism, but more supportive of the dialectical antithesis of capitalism (i.e. Marxist socialism going by the Manifesto) on the national scale? Or are you merely saying that the antithesis of anarchy (totalitarianism in a way?) is more essential to capitalism at the nation level, as opposed to the global level where it is anarchy itself that supports capitalism? I phrased it better in my last post, but yeah. Help me understand.

You see at the lower level Anarchy seeks to eliminate the nation state, the very building blocks of global cpitalist structure.

quote:

how exactly is Marxism/Socialism the same as Anarchism. Organizing a class based social movement goes entirely against the ideal of having no structure in society. sure, Marx strove for a certain uniformity and equality class-wise, but this has little to do with society run amok. it wont happen with out current society, we are just too organized, cause even if we try to be unorganized, we are think in an organized fashion to avoid that.

You see that's the problem right there!
Most people have never read the works of the founding fathers.
Nearly a centuary of capitalist prapaganda has truned the ideology on it's head!
The second the name "Anarchy" is mentioned most people automatically picture disorder and caos! Anarchy is anything but that!

In an anarchist society you would still have police forces to protect people. You'd have all the various institutions of society, but they'r operated by the society itself. Governmental control is minimized and through time eventually faded away.

Through the eye of anarchy the government is seen as a big gun that can be hired to do all kinds of dirty work.
Just look at to what extend coprporate polocies are effecting government legislation? Virtually more and more of the decision that will effect our lives are being made in private and implemented through the invisible hands of the corporations.

Re: Anarchists

quote:

Originally posted by DuMonde TrAnCeR are idiots. discuss.

well, anarchy can not exist in modern man... ok maybe it can exist for .000000000000000000000001th of a second, then someone will form a temporary govt to take over after the brief period of anarchy. People need structure & rules.

quote:

Originally posted by Illusion In an anarchist society you would still have police forces to protect people. You'd have all the various institutions of society, but they'r operated by the society itself. Governmental control is minimized and through time eventually faded away.

oh you are funny... in an ararchist society you would have police forces. LOL Anarchy means no government. If you had no government, there would be no police forces. Anarchy can not exist, society can not govern itself, cept maybe local tribes of under 100 people or so.

quote:

Originally posted by Verona^My oh you are funny... in an ararchist society you would have police forces. LOL Anarchy means no government. If you had no government, there would be no police forces. Anarchy can not exist, society can not govern itself, cept maybe local tribes of under 100 people or so.

You can obviously read and write! That's great! *clap clap*

Now go read Bakunin, the founding father. Anarchy is order without control! you would have a police force governed and operated by society itself but no bigger than local forces. You don't need a government to have a protective force.
This was one of the major discussions with the founding fathers!

Remember folks! read!

Stops you from embaressing yourselves!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.