General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am an Anarchist. Not a "Libertarian" or a "Galtist" but an Anarchist.
That means I think we need to rid ourselves of leaders. Not laws.
Anarchism, the most misunderstood theory, argues that man does not need leaders.
They are fine with police, fire and medical.
But leaders? Fuck 'em.
All they do is bring down productivity, instill fear in their workers and act like a king.
I want a flat system, dammit
Egalitarian
All as one
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)
villager
(26,001 posts) 
burrowowl
(17,638 posts)But I don't think we are that evolved yet, hell we aren't even at the humanistic stage.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)That is, good that wouldn't have been done elsewhere?
Take the Civil Rights Movement.
Martin Luther King Jr, probably the best leader ever - especially because he didn't want it was not as much of a force to be reckoned with as the marchers themselves.
renie408
(9,854 posts)This thread reminds me of the ridiculous arguments all my stoned college friends would get into that made them feel so sophisticated, smart and cool.
Dude, you are so PROFOUND!!
You haven't seem to have forgotten OWS. The Elites were especially annoyed that there was no "head" person to shot.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I hope to GAWD anarchy isn't what the OWS is all about. That would make their movement look ridiculous and immature.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Or, as some might say, SSDD!
Nothing has changed in many, many decades, apparently!
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)and they never would have brought the power they did unless they had been trained and constantly reinforced by their leaders.
It took leaders (organizers) and it took marchers.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)And the more leaders you have, the more chance for despotism
Without a leader - a movement becomes a lot more powerful because it is set in motion by the participants, not the planners
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)their life. They were organized by trained people who marched with them. That is also "leadership", but a leader who feels "like" the people they are leading, not "for". ( fyi - the history of those leaders that tried for decades up to the point where they finally could organize the people is a matter of public record, in books, even people to talk to, if one is really interested.)
Without a direction a movement become a lot of people milling around, busy work, not really accomplishing as much as they want everyone else to believe.
I can't think of an instance where a movement suddenly became anything significant w/ planners, organizers, pushers, "awakeners".
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)It means no rulers, or self-appointed leaders.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)renie408
(9,854 posts)isn't a working societal system?
Well, enlighten me, oh profound one. Tell me how anarchy works in a world of 7 billion people. Tell me how anarchy EXISTS in a world with POLICE?? Tell me how this doesn't equate with a two year throwing a tantrum because they don't want to be told what to do?
Since you are the profoundly intelligent one, explain to me how it all works.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)well it worked and how the the Capitalists, the Fascists, and the Communists all got together to kill it before they went to war with each other.
There is a Spanish film available on YouTube, detailing the entire episode with probably the last interviews of the people that were there and lived it.
In the absence of power, people get together and make things work. and they work much better.
Your flippant, four word non sequitur prompted an equally dismissive response pointing out your apparent lack of knowledge on the topic the poster brought up. Now, extrapolate that into a real life situation where you can't just disappear and you might begin to understand.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Was it flippant or was it accurate?
I want a world where I could eat whatever I want and never gain weight, not have to work so I could read, ride and play with my family all day long and where there are no guns.
Guess what? Good luck with that. Not going to happen. And obviously, it DIDN'T work in Spain because it lasted three years. You can be as snootily dismissive as you want, it doesn't make anarchy work any better. I am sure it makes you feel better (Literally better as in you feel superior to me...you run with that. Ooops...was I being flippant again??) but none of the snoot changes anything.
And all of that is in addition to the fact that a lack of a specified leader is NOT anarchy. Anarchy is the total freedom of individuals without government or authority. If you have POLICE, you do not have anarchy.
What the OP wants is perfect, direct democracy; which is still a structure and which would still impose mutually determined societal values on the group.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)I.e. the philosophy of Nietzche-loving individualists and nihilists. Who usually condemn activists as "moralists".
renie408
(9,854 posts)Can you figure out how everyone can be self-governing (autonomic) AND have any kind of structure? I guess they could have some kind of self-imposed schedule that could be construed as structure, but the minute you have more than one person in the room, you are going to have some kind of social structure. That is what we are. Social animals. As soon as you have social structure, governance is not far behind. SOMEBODY always winds up leading and SOMEBODY always winds up following. Even situations where all members of the group are apparent equals, someone winds up leading. Maybe not all the time in all situations, but even if the group says, "John is the best tracker, so he is responsible for finding our meals and Suzie is the best tactician, so she will coordinate our defense..."etc, that is a form of a small group self-governing and selecting different leaders for different tasks. And THEN you have the subversive leader. The person who leads from behind, who manipulates the people and situations to achieve whatever end they have envisioned.
Face it, humans are not designed for anarchy. There is a REASON society and civilization have evolved the way they have. And the more of us there are, the more governance and structure we need. You cannot cram 7 billion people on this planet in a free form, every man for himself, we each get to make all our own decisions way and have it work.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)or whatever label you wish to place on it, makes coercion impossible, so cooperation is required, and that is much harder, though invariably more equitable, to accomplish. John may be the best tracker, but John has to agree to lead tracking activities. Should he decide that he doesn't want to or demands too much from the group in exchange. who's the next best or who wants to learn?
renie408
(9,854 posts)See, anarchy has a specific definition. If you change the labels, it becomes a different word with a different meaning. That is kind of how language works.
Banana spoon fed dog bone happy trail.
See??? That didn't make any sense because I used the wrong words. If you mean "Cooperative society", you should probably say "Cooperative society". Which still implies structure and some form of governance. Just because it is a mutually agreed upon form of governance doesn't mean it isn't governance. "Anarchy makes coercion impossible" makes about as much sense as "Banana spoon fed dog bone happy trail." I think that is one of those things that sounded, again, all profound in your head, but that isn't playing nearly as well out here in the open.
"...but John has agreed to lead tracking activities. Should he decide that he doesn't want to or demands too much from the group in exchange. who's the next best or who wants to learn?" Really? Like we FORCE officials to be elected to posts? Who held a gun to Barack Obama's head and forced him to be President? I did read today that Mitt Romney didn't really want to be President. Luckily for him, he didn't win. Or can we FORCE him to be President, even if he doesn't want to?? You really ought to think this stuff out before you write it. Especially if you are going to write in a supercilious tone. Because this shit just BEGS to be shot down.
This entire conversation is based on the original post in which the poster said that he was an anarchist because he wants a leaderless society...only with police and fire protection and one assumes garbage men and road crews and stuff like that. My comment which led to your apparent need to prove...whatever it is that you are trying to prove...was that he was not, in fact, an anarchist. He was basically saying that he does not want anybody to be the boss of him. He is actually a two year old. Or, as previously stated, a stoner trying to sound philosophical.
Come to think of it, you sound kind of like a stoner trying to sound philosophical, too. And if that is the case, the least you can do is hook a fellow DUer up.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)noun
a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
Your lack of understanding it does not define a word. You see, you set up a false premise: "Like we FORCE officials to be elected to posts? Who held a gun to Barack Obama's head and forced him to be President? I did read today that Mitt Romney didn't really want to be President. Luckily for him, he didn't win. Or can we FORCE him to be President, even if he doesn't want to?", and then proceed from there. You placed the use of force in exactly the wrong place. Anarchism makes force/coercion impossible, a concept that you seem to have difficulty comprehending.
In typically American fashion, you start with a misconception and build a completely erroneous argument based on your mistake. The leader, Barack Obama in your argument, seeks out the power to force others to do his bidding. See how that is completely backward from what I wrote? Probably not.
You really ought to think about these things before you try arguing them.
renie408
(9,854 posts)popular definitions and apply meanings that suit you? I bet it is!! You, rebel, you!!
No, friend, YOU placed the use of force in exactly the wrong place. YOU stated that in your Utopia John could "lead or not" as if that was somehow different from the real world. I was responding to that.
And you are right. I do have a difficulty comprehending why you think anarchy removes force and/or coercion. It might in a perfect world with perfect people. But not even in that glorious haven of 1936 Spain, a time and place I am sure we ALL wish we could live in, did that last long.
BTW...What is stopping you? Why aren't you living in that Utopia? I would be willing to bet that somewhere people are living a basically anarchist lifestyle and given the internet, I bet you could find them. Why didn't Chomsky? He chose to espouse this wonderful, anarchist view of life while working at MIT and living in Lexington, Massachusetts. I bet he had a nice, comfortable life with all the amenities our icky, structured, governed world provides. For all that you are trapped in this awful, structured world, you could choose to check out. But it is a lot more fun to sit at your computer and call other people profoundly ignorant, huh? And besides, this awful, horrible representative democracy that you find yourself trapped in already has the police, fire department and the garbage men.
Listen, because I am not profoundly idealistic does not make me profoundly ignorant. But calling me profoundly ignorant...repeatedly...while using an obscure, failed worker's revolution as an example from the safety of your computer chair as you participate in the same society I do does make you look like a sophist, arrogant ass.
Now, call me stupid again as if that somehow makes your argument more sound. Good luck with that.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)profoundly sick society beyond what is required.
The definition came from the dictionary, which I linked to, so that part of your hissy-fit can be dismissed out of hand. As you pointed out, words have meaning and your disagreement with those meanings is irrelevant.
I have not defined any Utopia, that is you own internal construct. But you have been most helpful in demonstrating exactly the greatest hurdle we face in making a better society, willful ignorance. You're not the first person I've met that reacts violently (as violently as the internet allows) when faced with facts that do not fit their personal prejudice. You have yet to show any evidence or make any argument that demonstrates any inherent violence in Anarchy, yet you continue to claim it.
Once again, you assert, ("...all the amenities our icky, structured, governed world provides."
that the benefits of the modern world are the result of coercive authoritarianism without any single shred of evidence to back it up. Is this a lack of imagination on your part? Perhaps you are simply withholding some profound understanding of the proper order of the universe from those you view as beneath you? Please, let us revel in the enlightenment that you've achieved, if any such exists.
That you are not idealistic doesn't make you ignorant, it merely identifies you as dull. The saddest part is that you don't even understand that a lot of us have seen what you advocate, have seen where it leads, have mastered the game you struggle with, and decided not to participate in it any further than coercion dictates. You are ignorant, you have made that abundantly clear. You didn't know what Anarchy means. You didn't know about the only modern example of it's success. You are not aware that the vast majority of human history was lived in just this sort of system. And what is really tragic, you have no interest in learning.
This is the point where you try to hit me, or in DU terms, put me on ignore, 'cause that'll show me who's boss.
renie408
(9,854 posts)I don't use it. I also don't really believe in removing posts or even posters.
How am I having a 'hissy fit'? Because I do not agree with you?
You referenced Spain from 1936 to 1939 as having been a model to which broader society should aspire. It has been referred to as an 'anarchist Utopia'.
How was I violent? And, out of curiosity, when you start a conversation by calling people names...what reaction are you looking for?
WHAT FACTS?? SOME of the workers in SOME parts of Spain managed to remain self-governing for roughly three years. How is that a FACT that supports your argument that anarchy would work as a model for broader society? It just doesn't.
No, I didn't assert that the benefits of the modern world are the result of coercive authoritarianism. I believe I can state with absolute certainty that I never misused a phrase as pompous as 'coercive authoritarianism'. You do get that even the phrase 'coercive authoritarianism' is simply your assumption, right?
You call me ignorant, dull, blah blah blah. And yet you extrapolate so much about me without any evidence. Since I do not agree with you, I must be dull and ignorant and trapped in my little coercively authoritarian world.
What do I advocate? Where have I advocated it?
How am I ignorant? I disagree with you. Are the only enlightened people the ones who agree with you?
I do know what anarchy means.
I do have ideals. Just not YOURS. That does not make me dull. It makes me different from you. Isn't it ironic that YOU are the one who started this whole conversation by attacking me, who is making all kinds of obnoxious assumptions about me, who appears to think that anyone who does not agree with them is ignorant...and who is railing against authoritarianism?? Ha ha...good one.
Lastly...three years...not successful.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)They were killed by both the Soviet Communists and the Fascist government (with the blessings of the British and Americans, the crux of Chomsky's addition), so it must be a bad idea.
So, to expand on that premise, in the practical, real world terms you seem to prefer, there was nothing wrong with the genocide of native Americans, or the European devastation and ongoing subjugation of the African continent. In a system of might makes right, corporations are absolutely entitled to devastate the globe wherever and however they see fit. But wait, when it comes to you being on the receiving end of that equation, it isn't so right. Is it?
Your four dismissive words, and the subsequent replies trying to justify them, demonstrate exactly where you are coming from. You are absolutely in the American majority, there's no debating that, but where you fail is in extrapolating where it inevitably leads.
We had this thing, about 300 years ago called The Enlightenment, where a bunch of opinionated, arrogant, loud mouthed, eggheads came to the conclusion that there is a better way. That maybe force is not the best way to nurture humanity's potential. That just maybe, people are not simply dumb brutes that respond only to force if given the option of deciding what they, themselves would choose.
Your argument, and along with it the whole of American society, eschews that idea. There is no middle ground in this debate. Either people are equal and we are morally required to move away from violence and coercion, or people are subject to the vagaries of fashionable hierarchies and political facades.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:47 AM - Edit history (1)
I have to go make pancakes, so this is a quick answer.
My position is that human nature will not allow something like what you are describing to survive for long. The lack of structure itself makes it hard to defend and eventually, given the number of us crammed on here, somebody is likely to look over and want what you have. Besides,I would guess that internal strife might also tend to rear it's ugly head. Yeah, you could expel those that do not work and play well with others, but you are still going to have a hard time keeping that kind of 'system' working.
I have not said it was not admirable, simply impractical. You have no idea where I am coming from because you started with the premise that I was ignorant and unenlightened and have never looked any further.
I have not made an argument. YOU are the one with the rigid position you are attempting (seriously poorly) to defend. I get that you think you are all that and a bag of chips, enlightened and superior, but so far that is the only thing you have managed to impart with any persuasion.
I am supposed to be putting my boots on and in the egalitarian system of our house, if I get busted on the computer, I am going to get yelled at. But, I wanted to throw in here that (theoretically) in the current democratic system we have, it is the duty of government to regulate corporations. Your disdainful cynicism aside, I believe that given all the information a democratic society will create rules and elect leaders who will act in their best interests in the long run. It is messy and it is flawed, but I believe that it works. I am not un-idealistic. I believe that what was initially set up in this country is a good, working governing model. I do concede that it is currently not working quite as well as I would like. But I also believe that the best way to fix it is from within.
You said somewhere that you are participating as little as possible in this society. You have passionately stated that we are morally responsible to move toward the anarchist ideal you espouse. What are you doing to promote that and what form does your lack of participation take? Do you pay taxes? Do you get your car plated and have a driver's license? Do you obey stated laws where applicable? If the sole form of your lack of participation is a refusal to vote...what good is that doing? (I am assuming you don't vote, if I am wrong, sorry)
Here's the deal....you may feel that your position is the right one, supported fully by some moral imperative. You may feel that your ideals make you superior to me. But in the end, it takes a practical person to implement ideals. At some point, if you really believe all this stuff, you are going to have to start walking the walk and not just talking the talk. And in the meantime, you might try not pissing on every person that does not share your beliefs. Because the other thing a movement needs is members. Driving everyone away who isn't just like you isn't exactly a brilliant way to start.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)We labor under so many false impressions, largely given to us by the bizarre theoindustrial idiocy of the 19th century, that it has becaome nearly impossible to fix any of the problems that plague our own society. Look at Schliemann's popularization of archeology. He was dead-wrong 99% of the time, but because he was favored and able to raise the cash and notoriety of this new "science", much of his misunderstanding of ancient cultures still haunts us.
Economics is another pseudo-science that plagues what we know to be facts.
The primary purpose for participating in this whole conversation has been to bring out that yours, and many other's, opinions on this topic are based falsehoods. It is not Human Nature to war. War is an artificial construct that we indoctrinate the tabula rasa of our children with because we were ourselves inculcated with this falsehood.
Homo Sapiens, thinking man, is not what we believe him to be. It's not that you don't know, it's that so much of what you do know is wrong. Our culture has evolved from a plethora of false premises that too many accept without question.
Look at all the lies that more than half Americans know to be true and which we rail against daily here on DU.
Lowering taxes creates jobs.
Social assistance breeds laziness.
The poor are poor because they; don't want to work/are lazy/are dumb/have no skills/etc.
Raising taxes forces employers to lay people off.
Shared sacrifice is required to fix our economy.
We can't afford to help working people get through this disaster.
Government is expensive and inefficient/private business is more efficient than government. And so on, ad infinitum.
More of us believe these lies than don't. The evidence doesn't matter because most people will never look at it, even if they hear that it exists. I assume that, since we are here, we don't wish to be like that.
renie408
(9,854 posts)but not in the nature of man? And what, exactly, is your evidence that war is not in man's nature?
And WHEN did we have that 40,000 years of communal culture? And what was the population of the planet during that time? Do you not think that maybe, just MAYBE, our lack of war for that period had more to do with low population density obviating the need to fight over resources than that violence is not within man's nature?
And why do you assume that the people that think that violence and war are part and parcel of the human experience are wrong when human beings have been going to war for 5500 years? They have evidence of large scale war in Syria in 3500 BC.
And still with the arrogant, patronizing tone. "It's not that you don't know, it's that so much of what you do know is wrong." Were you ruefully shaking your head with a pitying little smile on your lips as you wrote that?? *sigh* How hard it must be to be a towering intellectual such as yourself and having to deal with us mere plebeians. But you know, I would think a towering intellectual could manage to have a discussion without resorting to an ad hominem attack in his first response.
Look, I think you are full of shit. And pretty full of yourself, too. You want to present yourself as knowledgeable and wise and blah blah blah, but your first comment in this thread was an ad hominem attack, you formed assumptions about me with zero evidence and your arguments are, frankly, crap. You can throw around all the $10 words you want, if you are stringing them together to form sentences like "War is an artificial construct that we indoctrinate the tabula rasa of our children with because we were ourselves inculcated with this falsehood." then the only thing you are accomplishing is looking like a pseudo intellectual ass. Primarily because if you had ever had more than one kid, you would know that we don't have to write upon their blank slates the urge to do violence upon one another. Actually, it is pretty much the opposite. You spend all the first ten years telling them to STOP doing violence upon one another. Kids pretty much come programmed with territoriality and the urge to violently defend what is theirs. And since just about all OTHER animals also hit the ground the same way, it is not particularly surprising.
Or are we indoctrinating the tabula rasa's of the chimpanzee babies, too?? Jesus, man, you seriously need to get over yourself.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Even the definition of what we call war has changed. A few centuries ago war had "evolved" to a tightly regulated system that resembles nothing so much as a game. There was a play clock and referees, and there were time outs to gather the wounded and the dead. The time, place, and rewards were decided in advance and the opponents worked out any special rules for the given circumstances.
There is a large and growing body of anthropological work that challenges just the kinds of misconceptions you have presented. Graeber and Eisler are two good ones, off the top of my head, and both of them have done a lot of work regarding these large scale wars you cite, as well.
These Chimpanzee wars that you reference are similar to what was, we are both very aggressive species after all. But just as we used to, they have rules. No Chimp tribe ever rounds up the losing side and slaughters them. The females are invariably released, but the children are killed. There is reason even in that. Further, it should be noted that other simians do not engage in anything like that. Nature is violent, but our species is the only one that elevates it beyond what is required to achieve the goal, and ours is the only one on earth that has come to relish it.
Look, you're engaged in trying to justify the same mistakes that Schliemann, and so many others, have made. You start with preconceived notion or cultural prejudice and expend your efforts trying justify it rather than looking at other possibilities and seek only to alter or deny those possibilities or even evidence so that it can be fit into your perception. That's how we end up believing that we know things that simply are not so.
You've made what you think of me pretty clear, it couldn't matter less. The fact that you keep coming back, does. In my experience, it means one of two things. Either you are so heavily invested in maintaining an order to your world view that you are prepared to go to extreme lengths to argue it, or you have doubted the reality presented to you, yourself. If it is the former, oh well, maybe someone that reads this stuff will start to think about it, if it's the latter maybe it will spur you to reexamine some of the things that your perceptions are built on. Either way, it costs me nothing.
I am pretty full of myself, it comes from being right almost all of the time, for a very long time. What's the point of doing the things I've done and learning the things I've learned, if I don't use them? I once shared a lot of your misconceptions because that's what I had been taught during my excessive education and subsequent experiences. You don't seem to have any shortage of faults, yourself.
What is, is. The way to understanding is to constantly strive to find out what is, regardless of our perceptions or wishes. Once you do that, as well as anyone can ever do that, you can achieve the results you want.
I turned 51 on election day.
I'm not sure what your objection to tabula rasa is, but Chimps indoctrinate their babies.
renie408
(9,854 posts)I have been dying to ask this, but I figured it would not come off well. But after the way you patronize me in every post, I have decided what the hell.
How old are you?
Throd
(7,208 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)renie408
(9,854 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:11 AM - Edit history (1)
interested in. The film is about how well those that didn't run off to murder in the name of whatever did when they got rid of the powerful and the owners.
The government left and the people just took over, and did very well until they were noticed. As I was saying before, Noam Chomsky's lecture on it was quite enlightening.
The Fascist-Falange Nationalists under Franco and the Republicans under (sort of) Lerroux were killing each other and everybody else in their civil war, when the Anarchists simply went to work. For three years, life was astonishingly good. People just worked together and on their own with no bosses directing things. No police, no force, no money, no coercion.
I highly recommend the film, and if you can find Chomsky's lecture I would love a link. Pretty much all of the people that were there are now dead and this film may be the only remaining record of what people can do when they are freed from authority.
renie408
(9,854 posts)I read your links and watched some of the video.
Your initial premise is that I am an ignorant plebian because I do not believe that anarchy stands much of a chance in the real world. To back that premise up, you use a single reference to a situation in Spain which lasted for about three years during which the Spanish Revolution was fought. During that time, SOME of the workers of Spain in SOME provinces collectivized the economy and all its various functions in those areas. Basically they could do this because the people who wanted to run the country were busy killing each other to figure out who got to do that.
Let's pretend that I am not completely stupid. I know, you think I am an idiot. But for the sake of argument, let's just pretend that I am not. You offer THIS example of why anarchy can be a working model for society. But your example worked for 75% of three and a third provinces of Spain with the backdrop of a civil war that distracted the authoritarian types for three years. The minute the authoritarians got their shit figured out, it was back to "life sucks" for the Spanish worker. How many people do you think that represented, realistically? 75% of the population of three and a third provinces of Spain in 1936? I am getting all these numbers and statistics from the links you provided, BTW. Also, can you maybe acknowledge that this might have been a relative Utopia for these people? Given what they were coming out of and what they were going into, this little period when they got to get together and decide for themselves probably was GREAT.
What you have 'proven' is that anarchy can work in an isolated instance for a brief period of time for a limited number of people. I am not sure that has any global, real world implications. You called me ignorant (wait...not just ignorant, PROFOUNDLY ignorant) because I said "Good luck with that" to the OP after his statement that he wanted a leaderless, anarchist society....with a police force and a fire department and doctors and, like I said, probably garbage men. You always need garbage men. And then used this example as to defend your assumption that I am profoundly ignorant.
To me (maybe because of my profound ignorance) you have in no way proven your argument. Your only example didn't last. It worked for a brief period of time. It was not put to any global test. The people involved were basically in a bubble built by the surrounding revolution. Had I said "Good luck with that" to the Spanish workers of 1936, I would have been accurate. They needed luck and didn't have it. Francisco Franco eventually won and they got noticed again. You have brilliantly illustrated my argument that you are a sophist, arrogant douche, though, by repeatedly insulting my intelligence with zero initial provocation. You also tiptoed pretty daintily around the definition of 'anarchy'. There are seven accepted definitions from the source you provided upthread. Six basically mean "Oh shit!!" and one could have a less 'every man for himself' connotation. THAT is the one you chose to represent the word. I am no less correct, and more so given that it is the more popularly used variation, to assert that anarchy means chaotic lack of governance. But, you say toe-may-toe and I say toe-mah-toe.
I did watch part of the video and it was interesting (it's 3 am here and that thing could take the place of Ambien. I may go back and try to finish it later). It feels like propaganda, though. I would like to see or read something that gives a little broader view. This could have been an interesting little conversation if you were not so insecurely determined to establish your intellectual superiority. And were better at that.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)to dismiss the rest of the argument, to resort to personal insults rather than engage, and to complain about the entertainment quality of a film you only watched part of. But I'm the sophist?
noun
a person belonging to this class at a later period who, while professing to teach skill in reasoning, concerned himself with ingenuity and specious effectiveness rather than soundness of argument.
You are the one who declared that words have specific meanings and I agree. Apparently your declaration only extends to the definitions you agree with.
Your ignorance was apparent, it has now been shown to be self-inflicted.
I tried to point you to Chomsky's lecture on what happened to allow you to gain a further understanding of what happen, who was responsible, and why. You're not interested in learning, so be it. The Anarchists didn't fail, they were slaughtered for not participating in the game that has, apparently, completely consumed you.
Refusing to learn doesn't make you right, it just solidifies your ignorance.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Try this one:
Sophist:
Noun
1. A paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning.
2. A person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments.
You rummage around and find less popular definitions for words which suit you, but I am the one who is parsing meanings?
You gave an anecdotal reference to a Chomsky lecture with no link or evidence. How was that supposed to 'further' my understanding? I read your evidence. I did not 'fail to learn'; I disagree with you. If you do not think that the inability to maintain their system in the face of an authoritarian onslaught is a failure...what is? Is anyone who disagrees with you ignorant? Your total argument seems to be that I am stupid because I cannot see the brilliance and accuracy of what you are saying. How does that work? I am curious about what YOUR continuous attacks on my intelligence say about ME? They actually illustrate a great deal more about YOU.
And you say that I am completely consumed by this 'game', but where are YOU right now, my friend? What communal, anarchist colony are YOU posting from?
I would also like to add that I did not say their effort 'failed'. I said, basically, that it was unsustainable in the real world. How is that wrong? Anarchy is NOT a model for broader society. It has never proven to work for any length of time. Anywhere. Ever. You have offered no proof that it has. I would not even argue with you if you said that is actually a failure of the broader society. But it is reality. It is incorrect and, frankly, obnoxious to castigate someone as ignorant because YOU cannot support your thesis. Honey, if the main thrust of your argument is 'nahney nahney boo boo, you big stupid poophead', it isn't much of an argument.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)There is a reason that English dictionaries have multiple definitions of words. It is not your disagreement that is the issue, it is your willful defiance of the possibility that you might not understand as much as you believe.
Since you have copied some other definitions, perhaps you can demonstrate the speciousness or fallacies of my arguments.
I have not said nor implied that you are stupid. Ignorance is not equivalent to stupid, everybody born is ignorant and remains so their entire life. Some people just spend their lives trying to reduce the volume of it.
renie408
(9,854 posts)by calling you profoundly ignorant.
I do believe it is on YOU to demonstrate how I display profound ignorance in doubting that anarchy is a model for broader society. And NO, three years in some parts of Spain are not getting the job done.
I am assuming that YOU are an example of someone who is spending their life reducing their volume of ignorance?
Then I am just fine with being ignorant by your standard.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)It is ok with me.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The state form is a problem to the extent that it achieves transcendence over populations. But this is a contingent effect of the modern state form. It is not a necessary feature of states. Immanent governance is the goal of most anarchism, which is why it is not anti-statist in principle. It is anti-state if the modern state form is the only possible form, which it is not.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)And, in fact, the corporations have become our true leaders.
They have so much more say than your average government official.
You can have a state, a corporation, a whatever - insofar as there are no leaders.
Run EVERYTHING democratically, from the times an office is open to whether we go to war with country X.
That is all I ask.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This is not a coincidence.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)I don't see us going leaderless while still mired in our current caste system.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)who are all related to one another. (Literally; every Icelander is descended from Iceland's last Catholic bishop.)
Taverner
(55,476 posts)They could be all clones of Noam Chomsky, but that wouldn't detract from the fact that they are doing it.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)they have a prime minister, they have companies with managing directors, they have fishing boats with captains who tell everyone else what to do, they are not eliminating "leaders".
Taverner
(55,476 posts)If any country is posed for an anarcho-syndicalist future, it is them....
renie408
(9,854 posts)
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Why should he have to leave when he could try and make a better country here?
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)Remember the Socialist Party of the USA in the late 1800s.
Eugene Debs and what not.
Anarchism, within a Socialist construct, was VERY popular.
More popular than Communism or any other ultra-left philosophy.
Why?
Because it is the reconciliation between the individual and the collective.
Remember that Anarchism is very different than Anarchy.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Now, there were some anarcho-syndicalists.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)I can't believe I forgot them...
"Big Bill" Haywood!
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)Looks like the DU has it's own little wing of the Know Nothing Party.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Humans organise themselves in hierarchical societies. Anarchism and collectivism and pure socialism are never going to be workable unless and until human nature undergoes a significant change.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)You may say I am a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)I believe in Anarchy WITH Adjectives!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts) WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)FUCK YOU!
Hydra
(14,459 posts):evil grin:
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)And whether doing so turns them on, as well.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)
You might even say that we Trots are anarchists too as an ultimate goal. We just disagree on how to get to that point. Marx called it communism when the state withered away. Not to be confused with the Stalinist conception of Communism of course.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)I'm just wondering, because I've long considered myself a Libertarian Socialist, and in most circles the term is used interchangeably with "social anarchism", as they mean pretty much the same thing. You seem to be rejecting the term "libertarian", so I'm wondering what differentiates your views (it's honest curiosity).
For the curious, Wiki (pretty accurately) describes Libertarian Socialism this way: Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property. Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism, and by some as a synonym for left anarchism. Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Taverner
(55,476 posts)I just think the workers should own the production of capital
Anything else is a recipe for failure
And leaders never do ANYTHING right
They just lead...they know how to get people to follow them, but they have no idea what to do when those people DO follow them
This is why OWS seemed to me the perfect conclusion to neo-'liberal' economics, AKA supply side
OWS has split into many entities - some may view this as bad, but it's quite good
Occupy Sandy has mobilized volunteers to help the victims and provide shelter, food and what not
This is the kind of good thing that spawns off of a good idea
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)In fact the first use of the term "libertarian" came from anarchist socialists. It wasn't until the 50's that the term was adopoted by a right wing fringe movement in the U.S.
randome
(34,845 posts)Doesn't that go against the grain?
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Anarchism - that's not my job to define
randome
(34,845 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Why is an anarchist worried about productivity?
On edit: Nevermind...I see you're an "Anarcho-Syndicalist", which is diametrically opposed to my preferred flavor. Same shit, different smile.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)He or She is more emboldened to act in favor of their product
Isn't that what we want?
The reconciliation between consumer and worker?
Something that, at least in theory, can exist between the producer and the user.
It ends up helping the idea of "From each, according to their ability - To each, according to their need."
The society is a collective as well as the workplace, and the whole system.
Direct democracy, local control, national standards....
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The necessity of production, to the level we have achieved, is not necessary for life or the human condition. Rather, it has consistently proven to negatively impact both, and will soon lead to the decimation of human life as we own it. Enslaved producers by any other name really doesn't change civilization's paradigm and really doesn't ensure our viability as a species.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)There is not enough meaningful work to go around.
--imm
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)...that sounds something like what you're talking about.
Personally, I'd be happy with "half work," where you do your share for the community for half the year (or half the day, whatever) and go fishing or write poetry or whatever the other half of the time.
If it sounds like a Marxist utopia, it's because I think anarchism and communism share the same goals--a classless, stateless society--but differ on the means of achieving it. Anarchists say destroy the state and the corporations will follow; Marxists say install the dictatorship of the proletariat and the state will wither away.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Which is opposed to many flavors of anarchism and communism, though it would actually create truly stateless and egalitarian societies by discarding the failure of civilization instead of tinkering with its rotting corpse. There is always "work" involved, but only so much that is necessary to sustain life with minimal overhead. All such other remaining free time, as we observe in past and present gathering societies, is to be spent socializing or pursuing arts or whatever else one wants. There is no incentive for growth or production or subjugation of others.
And hey, big bonus, we wont destroy the planet that sustains our species!
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)How many people can't survive without modern medicine, for instance? We can use technology in a beneficial and responsible way. The problem is that capitalism encourages recklessness in its pursuit of short term profits.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)We are in a massive perpetual famine, with half the worlds population in nutritional deficit and almost a billion starving (killing ~25 thousand a day). And this status quo is acceptable?
We can shift to simpler horticultural societies of times past and have much more food for everyone without disparity strangling the supplies for the most vulnerable.
As far as medical technology is concerned, its all a trade-off. The more we revert, the healthier we become and less dependent on such technology (which mainly exists to correct the problems of civilization).
Oh, and did I mention we all won't die from ecological destruction!
The reality is that the technophile dominated society will never choose this so you must not worry. Rather, we will fly recklessly towards a population bottleneck from overproduction, and all of society will break down while billions starve. Only after all these walls will crumble from the excesses of civilization will mankind have the opportunity to pickup the pieces and pursue a new course that promises survival for their children and species.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Capitalism encourages reckless pursuit of short term gains. A Democratic Socialist society would use technology for the common good and would take environmental factors into account. You mentioned perpetual famine. We produce enough food to feed the entire world well. We simply don't distribute it properly due to the drive for profit. Under a socialist society everyone would be able to eat. You are looking at things within the framework of capitalism and of course things won't work out well in the long run under that framework. That's why we need Democratic Socialism.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:07 PM - Edit history (2)
I am looking at civilization as a whole (from the last 10K years, prior to the existence of capitalism). Even communism has created its own blights on the world.
Its about the following question: are humans a part of the world or owners of it?
Socialism vs capitalism is simply the question of how to distribute the spoils of exploitation of the earth. In both models, production and advancement are fundamental components. Liberalism is so far entrenched within the model of civilization that it cannot even see that its own answers are simply putting lipstick of a destructive machine, making it more friendly to the exploited worker while it grows infinitely. Frankly, democratic socialism has illustrated its ability to vastly increase wealth and production, and thereby, the velocity of energy and capital; a structure which succeeds for people fails for the very environment those lives ultimately depend upon.
BTW, for a challenge, please explain how a democratic socialist society would release significantly less atmospheric carbon while producing new smart phones for its consumers every 18 months and feeding 8 billion people with conventional farming?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)However, there is always someone who wants to fuck with you.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)illegitimate authorities. It's a good instinct.
The world's smartest man agrees with you.
You might like this interview.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Yours sincerely, an ex-anarchist.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)yours sincerely, an anarchist with adjectives
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I am no longer able to conflate being bossed around badly with bossdom itself. The current situation is stupid but chucking away the current bosses doesn't invalidate the concept of bossdom.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Hence, not a "boss" per se
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:24 AM - Edit history (1)
I am happy with the more ordinary term for a good co-worker that tells me what to do in a nice way that doesn't fuck things up and is empowered to make things difficult for me if *I* fuck things up, i.e. "boss". I think calling nice, useful versions of X, a thing that ordinarily you don't like, by different names is a way of avoiding the idea that maybe you shouldn't dislike X as much.
Tace
(6,800 posts)...but I don't feel like talking about it much on DU any more. I get the impression it's not the official religion. Best
I'll wave my black and red flag in the means...
patrice
(47,992 posts)with it were most taken advantage of.
I like the idea in theory, but in practice it needs some kind of fail safe.
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)I'm not, but thanks for sharing!
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
Stargleamer
(1,989 posts)They have some appeal to me.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Anarcho Communism should be the goal
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)Just sayin... I disapprove.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)So your average Russian was not a big fan - one of the reasons the Russian Orthodox church was destroyed after the revolution.
But I like his ideas on Anarcho-Communism - Communism without centralized control
Again, this was 1917 - a time of change about as much as it is now
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)But is definitely wobbly joked that the Irish Republicans would have been allied with the Left but the commies said, "how many priests have you killed?" and they replied "WTF none" because the Irish priests were on the side of the revolution at the time (1920s).
Of course we learned there are a lot of problems with the Irish priesthood but my attitude is that the problems with the Catholic Church stem from centralized control. Orthodox is even worse because they are essentially a state church. Catholic priests have not always served as a mouthpiece for authority, but often. The Irish church recently asked for autonomy to go after abuse cases in the Irish church and Pope Benedict of course said no.
Iggo
(47,549 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Spain 1937. As close to perfect as man has achieved.
We can talk anthropological economics some time. The entire pseudo-science of economics is based on an outright lie.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)Too tired now.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)... THAT'S WHAT."
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)As Clerk, I facilitate the group in our search for unity in the things we do as a group. In the larger world I am a boss, the two things can verge on being the same.
In the Meeting I can serve as Clerk because I do not seek control over the outcome. This takes more than having an agenda and hiding it, it actually requires not having an agenda, simply listening, and asking questions only to clarify for yourself and others.
As a boss I empowered staff to take control of the outcome. This works because it engages their minds and usually engenders cooperation, because all are more effective thorugh cooperation. Reality enforces itself over time, there is no need to help. Over time the need to be a "boss" in the formal sense dissolves because everyone assumes the role. The only problem I have had with the approach is upward, because I don't regularly flog the staff, they wonder what I am doing to "supervise". The fact that the group is very productive and seemingly happy compensates, but only so far.
I don't actually care too much about what those upward of me think, something which certainly has limited my progress in the career, but treating those I work with justly makes up for that.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)is that people tolerate when those who are supposed to be our "representatives" behave instead as though they were our "leaders."
I find your ideas very interesting and am not surprised that they are met with overt hostility and mocking in a society that is becoming more authoritarian by the day.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)We live in a republic, not a democracy.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Something to think about.
----
If it seems like people who would ordinarily support the Democrats are skeptical or are unenthusiastic, it is because we know that the political contest is a sideshow. The reason it is “Occupy Wall Street” and not “Occupy the Capitol” is because we know that Washington is a puppet theater and that gambling on change by playing party politics is a sucker’s game. Again, the idea is not simply to replace leaders or to enact specific reforms. OWS seeks to replace the entire political, social, and economic culture with a wider sense of human community. It already conducts itself in that manner. Rather than leaders with the prerogative to make decisions for the group, OWS operates on consensus. It is clear from the past ten or twelve years that there is no political, institutional solution for what ails us. Fortunately, we do not need one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100238810
renie408
(9,854 posts)You agree 1000 times with what was written. There are OWS encampments still in places, right? Are you there?
No one is stopping you from living that anarchist dream. Go do it. You are, after all, not a Galtist or a Libertarian. You are an anarchist. So, go be an anarchist.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts) Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)it out there.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Something to think about.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)the cream of crop .
Taverner
(55,476 posts)
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)Sorry, but wrong!
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)The guy was hardly an anarchist considering the fact that he held the city hostage with a nuclear bomb and pretty much ran the city himself.
Javaman
(62,517 posts)Anarchism looks great on paper until it burns up.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)and I am fine with leaders, as long as their insides are fluid.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)samsingh
(17,595 posts)try out a life of anarchy for a year or so.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)You are conflating the use of "anarchy" to denote chaos with the use of the term "anarchism" to denote a specific school of political thought. And I assume you know better, but I could be wrong.
samsingh
(17,595 posts)it's time to fulfill your dreams in an anarchist state. There are others to choose from: somolia, mozambique, Afganistan is lacking in any real leadership.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Anarchism is not against the state, per se, but against Undeserving Authority
I would point you to Noam Chomsky or some other famous modxern Anarchist thinkers, but I don't you've proven yourself smart enough to make any sense out them
samsingh
(17,595 posts)
intaglio
(8,170 posts)chrisknight02
(1 post).
Taverner
(55,476 posts)
