|
Advanced wasting of time... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Mike_B |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
You're obviously completely oblivious to what Anarchism is. You're either simply regurgitating the drivel that is fed to the masses, or you're insulting my intelligence. For your sake, I'll go with the former.
From the Wiki:
A society or part of a society that has no form of government, state, or imposed hierarchy, is not necessarily one that is chaotic. Furthermore, the term anarchist as I used it (as in anarchist organizations) is clearly not oxymoronic, since the term "organization" does not constitue anything equivalent to a "state", an "imposed or involuntary authority", or a coercive power. Finally, you still haven't shown me why their idealism is an oxymoron. I await your enlightenment. |
once again Epi your use of big words frightens me :rolleyes:
anyways, that's a bit of a ridiculus article. Anarchie is just that, anarchie. just because some moron tries to change its definition by calling it anarchism. doesn't change the fact that sociaty with no social organization doesn't work. how do you get anything done on the planet when anyone can just do what they want. why the hell would i go to work if nothing is pushing me to. And don't blurt out some bull because sociaty will do it for its own enlitenment cause that's bull. There are alot more lazy ppl then ppl who want to accomplish wonders for the sake of it. In an anarchist world nothing as you know it know would exist. simple toilet paper would not exist. who the hell wants to work in a toilet paper factory for a meisly 10$ an hour when he can do in an anarchist world. you would be reverting the world to a complete state of animal behavior. Its dumb, it has no merit. And most ppl that acclaim it, are a bunch of junkies and low lives who can make anything of their own live. Anarchie is rediculus and most ppl after reaching the age of 20 realise this
Gimmy a break anarchie is an unralistic dream |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mike_B
once again Epi your use of big words frightens me :rolleyes:
anyways, that's a bit of a ridiculus article. Anarchie is just that, anarchie. just because some moron tries to change its definition by calling it anarchism. doesn't change the fact that sociaty with no social organization doesn't work. how do you get anything done on the planet when anyone can just do what they want. why the hell would i go to work if nothing is pushing me to. And don't blurt out some bull because sociaty will do it for its own enlitenment cause that's bull. There are alot more lazy ppl then ppl who want to accomplish wonders for the sake of it. In an anarchist world nothing as you know it know would exist. simple toilet paper would not exist. who the hell wants to work in a toilet paper factory for a meisly 10$ an hour when he can do in an anarchist world. you would be reverting the world to a complete state of animal behavior. Its dumb, it has no merit. And most ppl that acclaim it, are a bunch of junkies and low lives who can make anything of their own live. Anarchie is rediculus and most ppl after reaching the age of 20 realise this
Gimmy a break anarchie is an unralistic dream |
I'm sorry about the big words Mike. I promise to dumb down my vocabulary next time to your level of incompetance, but bare with me for just this post.
I find it astounding that you trash the above article from an online Encyclopedia with such good standing as the Wikipedia simply because it does not fit your pre-conceived idea of what Anarchism is, a pre-conceived idea that is clearly based on absolutely no relevant knowledge of the matter, as you've clearly displayed in your little incoherant rant of a response. Get a hint: the above article defines the term as a politico-philosophical ideology. This has nothing to do with chaos. Chaos could be the result of Anarchism, but it would be an unintended result, since that's not the goal of the ideology nor is it representative of the concepts promulgated by it. If you don't like this article, go and google Anarchism and see what you get. I'll let you in on a secret: they all define it the exact same way, as above. So for future reference, do me a favour and enlighten yourself first before coming on here and spewing one-liners that reek of ignorance, confusion and primitive logic, and then attempting to defend your position like a 5 year old. |
|
|
| Tag |
| Thing about Anarchism and why I don;t think it would or ever should work is. First of all the majority of people are happy living with a government. Organising society is what humans do, it's what animals do you can;t change that fact of nature. People will always end up in some sort of organized society, for many reasons, mostly because people rather live in happy than in fear. With anarchy everyone would live in fear. We chose to live in an organized society with a government, thats just the way it is. Anarchist don;t loook at the entire picture of the world, the world is so over populated right now if we moved to anarchy it would be a complete disaster. Anyway, I most likely sound like I'm full of bs and I may be so I migth just go to that thing to learn a little more about how stupid anarchy is. |
|
|
| Mike_B |
for crying out loud. k fine
lets start by googeling Anarchist
well websters dictionary says "one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power"
now lets google group
"1 : two or more figures forming a complete unit in a composition
2 a : a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship b : an assemblage of objects regarded as a unit"
and lastly anarchy: "1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER"
so essentially, anarchy is a state of disorder and chaos, while anarchist is an advocate of this idea. A group on the other hand, is a organisation which is the exact opposite of choas.
hence oxymoron
now
about Anarchism
i understand that the encyclopedia says this. what im saying. is that just because an anarchist likes to define a world in this way doesn't mean its at all plosible
example
communism:
now you know alot about that right epi?
name me one true communist country where the real practice of everyone being equal was applied? none
why because the human race by its very nature cannot live like this.
communism has never work. Its always a dictatorship, with few ppl living much better then the rest.
Same way anarchie would never work. because ppl with no boundries in life will not magicly start to cooperate and build a paradish while still maintaning a state of anarchy. It just not humanly possible
done with this
anarchy makes no sence
thanks |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tag
Thing about Anarchism and why I don;t think it would or ever should work is. First of all the majority of people are happy living with a government. Organising society is what humans do, it's what animals do you can;t change that fact of nature. People will always end up in some sort of organized society, for many reasons, mostly because people rather live in happy than in fear. With anarchy everyone would live in fear. We chose to live in an organized society with a government, thats just the way it is. Anarchist don;t loook at the entire picture of the world, the world is so over populated right now if we moved to anarchy it would be a complete disaster. Anyway, I most likely sound like I'm full of bs and I may be so I migth just go to that thing to learn a little more about how stupid anarchy is. |
Tag, let's not obfuscate matters here. I was not debating the merits of Anarchism as an ideology. I was clarifying the meaning of the word. Semantics if you will.
Whether Anarchism, as defined or conceived above, works or whether it fails is completely independent of this debate, which originated in Mike's use of the term oxymoron to refer to anarchist organizations, which clearly required an explanation at the level of semantics.
However, with regards to your opinion about the merits of Anarchism, I have to first point out that Anarchism, according to it's theory, does not entail a lack of organized society. Read the following:
| quote: |
From The Encyclopaedia Britannica http://flag.blackened.net/daver/ana...defanarchy.html
ANARCHISM (from the Gr. an and archos, contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state. |
So on the contrary, it would be a society that is organized according to freely constituted agreements between various groups. The key to Anarchism is not no organization, but no coercing agent in the form of an imposed hierarchy, such as a government, a state or what have you.
Now the following question, of course, begs to be answered: if indeed we succeed at abolishing the state, will these "freely constituted agreements between various groups" form, or will they revert back to some form of autocratic hierarchical-like structures? The following is history's verdict (although note that history need not repeat itself, so the following is no "real" verdict as to whether Anarchism is possible or not):
| quote: |
From http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econ...lan/anarfaq.htm
Have there been any historical examples of anarchist societies?
There have probably been no societies which fully satisfy any anarchists' ethical ideals, but there have been a number of suggestive examples.
Left-anarchists most often cite the anarchist communes of the Spanish Civil War as examples of viable anarchist societies. The role of the Spanish anarchists in the Spanish Civil War has perhaps generated more debate on alt.society.anarchy than any other historical issue. Since this FAQ is concerned primarily with theoretical rather than purely historical questions, the reader will have to search elsewhere for a detailed discussion. Suffice it to say that left-anarchists generally believe that: (a) The Spanish anarchist political organizations and unions began and remained democratic throughout the war; (b) That a majority of the citizenry in areas controlled by the anarchists was sympathetic to the anarchist movement; (c) That workers directly controlled factories and businesses that they expropriated, rather than being subject to strict control by anarchist leaders; and (d) That the farm collectives in the anarchist-controlled regions were largely voluntary, and rarely exerted coercive pressure against small farmers who refused to join. In contrast, anarcho-capitalist critics such as James Donald normally maintain that: (a) The Spanish anarchist political organizations and unions, even if they were initially democratic, quickly transformed into dictatorial oligarchies with democratic trappings once the war started; (b) That the Spanish anarchists, even if they initially enjoyed popular support, quickly forfeited it with their abuse of power; (c) That in many or most cases, "worker" control meant dictatorial control by the anarchist elite; and (d) That the farm collectivizations in anarchist-controlled regions were usually coercively formed, totalitarian for their duration, and marked by a purely nominal right to remain outside the collective (since non-joining farmers were seriously penalized in a number of ways). For a reply to James Donald's piece, click here.
For my own account of the controversy regarding the Spanish Anarchists, see The Anarcho-Statists of Spain: An Historical, Economic, and Philosophical Analysis of Spanish Anarchism. For a reply to my piece, click here.
Israeli kibbutzim have also been admired as working examples of voluntary socialism. Kropotkin and Bakunin held up the mir, the traditional communal farming system in rural Russia, as suggestive of the organization and values which would be expressed in an anarchist society. Various experimental communities have also laid claim to socialist anarchist credentials.
Anarcho-capitalists' favorite example, in contrast, is medieval Iceland. David Friedman has written extensively on the competitive supply of defense services and anarchistic character of a much-neglected period of Iceland's history. Left-anarchists have occasionally criticized Friedman's work on medieval Iceland, but overall this debate is much sketchier than the debate over the Spanish Civil War. See Is Medieval Iceland an example of "anarcho"-capitalism working in practice?; for David Friedman's reply to an earlier draft of this piece , click here.
A long stretch of medieval Irish history has also been claimed to have pronounced anarcho-capitalist features. Other anarcho-capitalists have argued that the American "Wild West" offers an excellent illustration of anarcho-capitalist institutions springing up only to be later suppressed and crowded out by government. Anarcho- capitalists also often note that while the United States has never been an anarchist society by any stretch of the imagination, that before the 20th-century the United States came closer to their pure laissez-faire ideals than any other society in history. America's colonial and revolutionary period especially interests them. Murray Rothbard in particular published a four-volume history of the colonial and revolutionary eras, finding delight in a brief period of Pennsylvania's history when the state government virtually dissolved itself due to lack of interest. (An unpublished fifth volume in the series defended the "weak" Articles of the Confederation against the strong, centralized state established by the U.S. Constitution.)
One case that has inspired both sorts of anarchists is that of the free cities of medieval Europe. The first weak link in the chain of feudalism, these free cities became Europe's centers of economic development, trade, art, and culture. They provided a haven for runaway serfs, who could often legally gain their freedom if they avoided re-capture for a year and a day. And they offer many examples of how people can form mutual-aid associations for protection, insurance, and community. Of course, left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists take a somewhat different perspective on the free cities: the former emphasize the communitarian and egalitarian concerns of the free cities, while the latter point to the relatively unregulated nature of their markets and the wide range of services (often including defense, security, and legal services) which were provided privately or semi-privately. Kropotkin's Mutual Aid contains an extensive discussion of the free cities of medieval Europe; anarcho-capitalists have written less on the subject, but strongly praise the historical treatments in Henri Pirenne's Medieval Cities and Harold Berman's Law and Revolution.
The Enclopedia Brittanica article on Anarchism gives at best a cursory summary of anarchist theory, but does contain useful information on the history of left-anarchist political and labor movements. Click here to view the article.
|
|
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mike_B
for crying out loud. k fine
lets start by googeling Anarchist
well websters dictionary says "one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power"
now lets google group
"1 : two or more figures forming a complete unit in a composition
2 a : a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship b : an assemblage of objects regarded as a unit"
and lastly anarchy: "1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER"
so essentially, anarchy is a state of disorder and chaos, while anarchist is an advocate of this idea. A group on the other hand, is a organisation which is the exact opposite of choas.
hence oxymoron
now
about Anarchism
i understand that the encyclopedia says this. what im saying. is that just because an anarchist likes to define a world in this way doesn't mean its at all plosible
example
communism:
now you know alot about that right epi?
name me one true communist country where the real practice of everyone being equal was applied? none
why because the human race by its very nature cannot live like this.
communism has never work. Its always a dictatorship, with few ppl living much better then the rest.
Same way anarchie would never work. because ppl with no boundries in life will not magicly start to cooperate and build a paradish while still maintaning a state of anarchy. It just not humanly possible
done with this
anarchy makes no sence
thanks |
FFs, you're dense. Simply because you rebel against an authority, an established order or a ruling power does not preclude you from participating in a group or an organization, simply because it's (totally) possible that the group or organization in question be not coercive, with an authority, an established order or a ruling power within it's organizational structure. Now let's look at your definition of group:
| quote: | "1 : two or more figures forming a complete unit in a composition
2 a : a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship b : an assemblage of objects regarded as a unit" |
Where does it say here that being in a group necessarily (which is the condition you need to prove a paradox here) implies that it's organized with a form of authority, an established order or a ruling power within it? I don't see it, but in fact, I see the contrary: thus anarchist groups are unified in thwarting coercise hierarchies. If you can point out the contradiction, I'll slice off my left nut for you.
Now with regards to the merits of Anarchism, I never broached that topic, you did. I, on the other hand, was merely stating why your original comment of oxymoron with regards to the word is completely non-sensical, and proceeded to demonstrate to you, through the use of the definition of the word, which is where the level of the debate should be focused (since oxymoron is at the level of language), why that is so.
As for the merits of the ideology, and its potential success, I refer you the my above post to Tag, where I listed examples of Anarchist societies throughout the course of history. Now again, does that mean I espouse that ideology? No that doesn't, nor have I claimed anywhere in my posts that I currently adhere to it, nor have I proceeded to defend it (or oppose it for that matter). So do me a favour next time, and stop confusing issues. |
|
|
| Mike_B |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
FFs, you're dense. Simply because you rebel against an authority, an established order or a ruling power does not preclude you from participating in a group or an organization, simply because it's (totally) possible that the group or organization in question be not coercive, with an authority, an established order or a ruling power within it's organizational structure. |
how can an "Organization", as you say, not be organized, and still remaine anarchist. It just doesn't make sence. you're either organized, in which case you have some form of coordination between members. Or its an Anarchy, where by definition, its not organized. Just because your an anarchist aimed at a certain goal to knock down social structure, doesn't mean you're part of an organization. Once you are, your no longer participating in anarchy, but a movement with an organized nature.
Im not saying your definition of Anarchist and anarchism is wrong based on the articles you've read on them or dictionairy's you've check them in. Im saying they all don't make sence base on that fact that by definition, Anarchy is disorganition.
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
Where does it say here that being in a group necessarily (which is the condition you need to prove a paradox here) implies that it's organized with a form of authority, an established order or a ruling power within it? I don't see it, but in fact, I see the contrary: thus anarchist groups are unified in thwarting coercise hierarchies. If you can point out the contradiction, I'll slice off my left nut for you. |
"that its organized with a form of authority." I don't recall saying that. the fact that its organized at all is enough for me. because anarchy should not be organized. a any form of social group. whether it be liberal radicals or square conservative the fact that they are a group causes them to have nothing to do with anarchy. |
|
|
| Tag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mike_B
how can an "Organization", as you say, not be organized, and still remaine anarchist. It just doesn't make sence. you're either organized, in which case you have some form of coordination between members. Or its an Anarchy, where by definition, its not organized. Just because your an anarchist aimed at a certain goal to knock down social structure, doesn't mean you're part of an organization. Once you are, your no longer participating in anarchy, but a movement with an organized nature.
Im not saying your definition of Anarchist and anarchism is wrong based on the articles you've read on them or dictionairy's you've check them in. Im saying they all don't make sence base on that fact that by definition, Anarchy is disorganition.
"that its organized with a form of authority." I don't recall saying that. the fact that its organized at all is enough for me. because anarchy should not be organized. a any form of social group. whether it be liberal radicals or square conservative the fact that they are a group causes them to have nothing to do with anarchy. |
Hmm very true... |
|
|
| Stéphanie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
I'm sorry about the big words Mike. I promise to dumb down my vocabulary next time to your level of incompetance, but bare with me for just this post.
I find it astounding that you trash the above article from an online Encyclopedia with such good standing as the Wikipedia simply because it does not fit your pre-conceived idea of what Anarchism is, a pre-conceived idea that is clearly based on absolutely no relevant knowledge of the matter, as you've clearly displayed in your little incoherant rant of a response. Get a hint: the above article defines the term as a politico-philosophical ideology. This has nothing to do with chaos. Chaos could be the result of Anarchism, but it would be an unintended result, since that's not the goal of the ideology nor is it representative of the concepts promulgated by it. If you don't like this article, go and google Anarchism and see what you get. I'll let you in on a secret: they all define it the exact same way, as above. So for future reference, do me a favour and enlighten yourself first before coming on here and spewing one-liners that reek of ignorance, confusion and primitive logic, and then attempting to defend your position like a 5 year old. |
Well now you're just beeing an ...
Un peu de respect Epi quand même... |
|
|
| ImmyJ |
| OK, listen y'all, the idea that any system of government could possibly work independently of all other forms of governemnt is bull: capitalism can't really work without socialist communes allowing the occaisional blue collar dude to grow his own reefer. Anarchist collectives need the traditional governmental superstructure for fear of turning into one of their own right. Secondly, anarchy won't be reached, ever, because of latent human greed. Do you think Bakunin wouldn't have taken off worse than Reagan if he had "the reins of industry"? Of course he would (he would probably slaughter some Slavs just for the unadulterated hell of it, too). Listen, the point of this Bookfair is to get out some alternative ideas about how things are run: maybe find some better ways of trading with third world countries rather than being such jerks about it. Maybe cutting down on the amount of unfiltered that flows from our cities so our progeny can hit the beach without gasmasks. Maybe giving something instead of consuming all that surrounds us like the fat, bloated pigs we all are (including me!). To begin to do this, you have to know what the alternatives are, hence the Anarchist Bookfair, May 21 and 22, CEDA (2125 Delisle), 10 AM to 6 PM. And it's free. And vegans are really cute. |
|
|
|
|
