Are you an anarchist?

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

On the one hand, the lack of private authority means that there are no groups that can effectively co-opt the state. In capitalist societies, you consistently see either the rich using the state to break strikes, fund corporate subsidies, etc. or the poor using the state to seek redress through welfare, etc. Wealth disparity has always lead to the growth of the state.

When a corporation is subsidised, it ceases operating in a capitalist system since capitalism operates through a level playing field - the marketplace - where people are free to exchange goods and labor. Subsidies are a form of favoritism... As for breaking strikes, depends on what "breaking" means. If I employ people and they walk off the job to seek redress, they have that right and we can discuss the grievance. But if I hire other people, am I breaking the strike? If the strikers try to inhibit my operation through violence or blocking entrances, etc., and the state uses force to free me from their tactics, that's an enforcement of capitalism.

[Kramerman]

Anarchy and anarchists are perhaps my greatest pet peeves!

I cannot stand it. A society of anarchy could never work in a progressive state. It would be nothing more than a hunting and gathering society... there would be no great art, archetecture, or scientific advances. There would be no modern convenieces, or leisure activities (ie grocery stores and internet forums)

Anarchy

May civilization forever rule our social endeavors!

[Ramo]

Berz, I don't define capitalism as a free market. Rather, I'm using a definition of the lack of worker worker ownership of the means of production to specify capitalism. Specifically, I associate wealth disparity with capitalism. The point I'm making is that the lack of socialism implies that a strong state will emerge. And no, I don't consider hiring replacement workers as using the state to break strikes. Regarding state force with respect to worker "violence," it would depend entirely upon the situation.

Anarchy and anarchists are perhaps my greatest pet peeves!
I cannot stand it. A society of anarchy could never work in a progressive state. It would be nothing more than a hunting and gathering society... there would be no great art, archetecture, or scientific advances. There would be no modern convenieces, or leisure activities (ie grocery stores and internet forums)
Anarchy
May civilization forever rule our social endeavors!

You clearly are ignorant about anarchist societies. There have been a number of modern one's. I again would recommend looking at Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War if you want to see a modern, industrialized anarchist society at work. I'd also recommend looking at their huge progress with respect to technological advancement, increases in literacy, etc.

Anarchism doesn't preclude civilization, although there are a few luddite anarchists.

[Kramerman]

You clearly are ignorant about anarchist societies. There have been a number of modern one's. I again would recommend looking at Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War if you want to see a modern, industrialized anarchist society at work. I'd also recommend looking at their huge progress with respect to technological advancement, increases in literacy, etc.

any good links?

the only major modern 'anarchist' society i am familiar with is the Catalonian one, and IIRC, it was flattened by the fascists (It wasnt even a true anarchist society, because it had loose governing bodies of committees. It was more of a uber-democracy). yes, the fascists di have alot of help, but no matter. they were outnumbered quite a bit, IIRC.

also, you must remember that the entire populace in this anarchist society was galvanized towards a single effort (the war to overcome the fascists). If they would not have had a unifying force, it would have been no time at all before they would be at each others throats, as in that society any one could basically do and say what they wanted... that is very dangerous, and lawlessness is surely around the corner.


EDITED gramatical errors so it makes sense

[Kramerman]

I do not advocate fascism mind you. I am a middle road sort of guy. I enjoy freedom and liberties, but I also enjoy law, order, adn stability, all of which can be provided in a society somewhere between fascism and anarchism.

[Ramo]

the only modern 'anarchist' society i am familiar with is the Catalonian one, and IIRC, it was flattened by the fascists (It wasnt even a true anarchist society, because it had loose governing bodies of committees. It was more of a uber-democracy). yes, the fascists di have alot of help, but no matter. they were outnumbered quite a bit, IIRC.

It was crushed by the Soviet-controlled Stalinist central government in Madrid, not by the Nationalists. And yes, it was "true" anarchism by an reasonable definition. Anarchism is "uber-democracy." I consider it to be democracy in all spheres of life.

also, you must remember that the entire populace in this anarchist society was galvanized towards a single effort (the war to overcome the fascists. If they would have one, it would have been no time at all before they would be at each others throats, as in that society any one could basically do and say what they wanted... that is very dangerous, and lawlessness is surely around the corner.

But it was the war that undermined their movement, not the lack of war. The war postponed the revolution in the rest of Spain in favor of maintaing the "Popular Front," the alliance between anarchists and the anti-Revolutionary Republican forces. And a whole lot was going on in Catalonia besides supporting the war. Why didn't all hell break loose then?

There's no reason to think Catalans would've been "at each others' throats" as soon as the fascists were beaten. There have been a large number of very stable anarchist societies. Hunter-gatherers, for instance. More recently, you have mid-Medieval Iceland. I'll have to call bullshit on your speculation.

You might want to check out "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell.

[Berzerker]

Hmm...I've read libertarians who referred to ~1200-1600 AD Iceland as more or less a libertarian state. I suppose the libertarians and anarchists would both lay claim to it so it must have been close.

[Az]

Ramo: where's the link?

Oh, and I see the expansion of humanity into space as a primary objective. Why? because it's our nature.

I could elaborate further.

[Ben Kenobi]

Azazel:

So you subscribe to the Matrix theory of humanity?

[Berzerker]

Oh, and I see the expansion of humanity into space as a primary objective. Why? because it's our nature.

Yup, government's wasting money sure is human nature.

[Blisterz]

Yes I am.
To me, Anarchism isn't no laws, it’s a system where everyone has a say in deciding the laws. Take stop signs, we all agree that they make sense, so we keeps things like stop signs 'cause we ALL agree that stop signs HELP everyone. On the other hand curfews, a lot of people disagree with curfews, so things like curfews would be dropped.

For the times that we cannot decide how or in what form a law should be implemented, we use formal consensus (those directly affected by the law take place in the consensus) as apposed to Democracy (which looks good on paper, but in reality turns out to be more about who can buy the most votes).

I don't really know how I feel about Anarchism on a 'National' (for lack of a better word) scale, I don't really think of it in those terms. To me Anarchism is something that works in Communities and has no Central core, like a city state system without the state.

The path to Implementing Anarchism is pretty simple as well.
Slowly bring laws down from a national level to a Municipal level, but instead of stopping there, just keep going. Inevitably you have Communities small enough to govern themselves through consensus.

I realise that I simplified it a lot, but you get the idea.

[badman]

Originally posted by alva


hmm, the illusion maybe....

No, competition lies in human nature and competition gives the best results. Only competition makes athletes achieve results that are nearly superhuman, only by competition we made our way through evolution from bacterias to humans.
Anarchy is all about competition but it not humane and it cannot guarantee the same starting opportunities for everyone (even democracy cannot do so but it works better than anarchy).

Of course there can never be total equality because then there wouldn't be competition.
That's why we have democracy, welfare, laws, and such things...
They to guarantee equality of opportunities, and even if they are not perfect, you wouldn't want to live in a different system.

[ThePlagueRat]

Hi badman... All respect to you, but I think it's kinda risky to state that something lies in the nature of mankind. It might be true for some, and false for others... Some philosphers state that cooperation also lie in the nature of man. When it comes to organizing the society and caring for others, this might be true.

For the sake of competition, I can agree that competing for a girl is one of the fun things we guys do. It's related to our nature of reproduction. There are always some guys who try too hard and fail. Competing very aggressivly can ruin things for oneself.

I would not compete in the manner of ape-like behaviour, like some young men do. Where they hiss and threathen to fight competitors and show their muscles and act very primitive. I can't understand that some girl can fall for this stupid trick. She must be really ape-like too.

The rest of us probably find ourself participating in this competition in the terms of gentlemanship, using our skills in e.g. flirting, intellectual talk, guitar playing, singing or dancing. We can dress in nice clothes and show our self-secureness. And of course... Always entertainig the female in some way. I call this the bird-like behaviour, since that's how the birds attract the opposite sex. Another variant is the crow-behaviour.
It's about collecting as many shining things you can get and offer the female some. Some still fall for that one, so expect a greedy partner if you do the crow.

And it's all competition... So tune your guitar, invest in oil, or read a book!

[Az]

Yup, government's wasting money sure is human nature.

expansion to space is the only way to ensure our existance and proliferation for the long time future.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Eating ice cream is a voluntary act, therefore it cannot be outlawed. Get the picture?

What if I force you to eat ice cream?

[badman]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Hi badman... All respect to you, but I think it's kinda risky to state that something lies in the nature of mankind. It might be true for some, and false for others... Some philosphers state that cooperation also lie in the nature of man. When it comes to organizing the society and caring for others, this might be true.
[...]

I don't think it's too risky since it really lies in the nature of mankind (and not only mankind), that is how evolution works.

Of course destructive competition is something we should not desire but that's why I argue against anarchy and in favor of democracy (and capitalism).

I think cooperation also lies in the nature of man but (most, perhaps all) humans only cooperate when they get an advantage out of it so the group or the individual is more likely to "win" the competition.
I think people like saints get a psychological bonus from helping others. (it's kinda hard for me to make my point in English)

In your post you also stated the reason why competition exists and I totally agree with you there.

[ThePlagueRat]

So what about the good Samaritan then?
When you give something to charity or help someone who is in desperate need of help, it's usually out of empathy and not to gain anything for yourself. Well, you gain the psychological feeling of being nice. Darwins theory fit well on reproduction and most businesslike behaviour, but it cannot answer everything. So I think this is a philosophical question rather than an evolutionary one...

[Az]

Good samaritan laws are against Freedom.

[jolair]

Originally posted by Kramerman


any good links?

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/spaindx.html

http://burn.ucsd.edu/~mai/iau/history.html

IMHO a good book in english about the begining of the spanish anarchist movement is " The Spanish Anarchists . The heroic years 1868 - 1936" by Murray Bookchin

About the Spanish Civil War the best book I have read about it is "Homage to Catalonia" by Eric Arthur Blair (AKA George Orwell) (good example Ramo )

A good film about the diference between Stalinist and Anarchists in the SCW is "Land and freedom" (Ken Loach).

BTW (quite late because of my recent holidays in Mingapulco) I am an anarchist (At least I would like to be )

[Ramo]

Ramo: where's the link?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=81792

Oh, and I see the expansion of humanity into space as a primary objective. Why? because it's our nature.
I could elaborate further.

Why is it our "nature?" And why should our societies follow our "nature?"

Hmm...I've read libertarians who referred to ~1200-1600 AD Iceland as more or less a libertarian state. I suppose the libertarians and anarchists would both lay claim to it so it must have been close.

By the 11th and 12th centuries, statism and wealth disparity developed to a sufficient degree that it couldn't be considered libertarian or socialist. Wealthy landlords and arbriters became the rulers of Icelandic societey.

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by Azazel
Good samaritan laws are against Freedom.

If so, then any law is against freedom.

[PeteH]

I cannot stand it. A society of anarchy could never work in a progressive state. It would be nothing more than a hunting and gathering society... there would be no great art, archetecture, or scientific advances. There would be no modern convenieces, or leisure activities (ie grocery stores and internet forums)

This statement sums up many of the myths of civilized people.

Why would there be no art/music/leisure in a hunter gatherer community? The free time in such a society makes even the most liberal country's vacation time look like a prison camp. While there is some variation by envoronment, in general it is no more than a couple hours a day to provide for your needs in a hunter gatherer tribe. The rest of the time is leisure, spent talking, singing, crafting, visiting neighbors etc. Why bother with a grocery store when the land around you provides all the food you could want? Why post on an internet forum when you have a group around you that is genuinely concerned with your well being and ideas to share with?

[Az]

TPR: I am not "against" freedom, per se, but I think that this is not the scale that things have to be judged upon.

[ThePlagueRat]

Ok, I just tried to argue that 'human nature' could be seen in a more philosophical way, rather than in the evolutionary way.
e.g. Social-Darwinism, which is too narrowminded in IMHO.
The good samaritan example was just to illustrate that it can be natural for humans to care for other people, without having to profit each time. However, in a desperate situation like a war, those who is close to eachother would care for eachother.