Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchy and the Black Bloc

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 11:40:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was listening to NPR earlier today, and in one of the programs, the Black Bloc, an anarchist's movement, was mentioned being active in Egypt. It got me curious to look it up, considering the numerous intelligent people on this website that seem to advocate anarchy:

http://english.alarabiya.net...

The "Black Bloc" movement stormed Egypt"s political scene on the second anniversary of the January 25 revolution. According to the conventional wisdom, the Egyptian Black Bloc models itself on anti-establishment, anarchist groups in Europe and the U.S. that go back to the 1970s.

Egypt"s Black Bloc demonstrates a wide array of ideas ranging from anarchism and liberalism to Trotskyist Marxism. The group represents the most radical elements among Egyptian revolutionaries. It includes different kinds of activists, who share a common objective; they are anti-Islamists. In their "official video" posted on YouTube, on January 24, the masked youths declared their mission to fight "against the fascist regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, and their armed wing," and to protect protesters from security forces and Islamist militias.

Like their Western counterparts, the Egyptian movement are anti-regime and seek to overthrow the "incompetent" state, but they are not anti-capitalism.

The Black Bloc is proudly willing to use violence against the security forces and the allegedly "military wing" of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the group involved in violent acts, clashes with security forces, disruption of metro services and road traffic and looting shops.


Are these political stances and tactics archetypal of the anarchist movement? What are the goals of such a movement, i.e. if they succeed in dislodging the state, what then?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 11:56:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
They don't sound too unified. I wouldn't put it against them to take down a government. There are a ton of radicals in that area in recent times. But I'm guessing another government would just take it's place.

In the amazing chance that they unified around something like syndicalism, government would be replaced with a union federation like was the case in Anarchist Catalonia.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:17:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It was V that said something along the lines of "Anarchy needs both destroyers and creators." First you have to destroy the current system, and then establish an anarchistic society- it's not as if the government will willingly and voluntarily disband itself. So yes, these actions are archetypal to the movement.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:21:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 11:40:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Are these political stances and tactics archetypal of the anarchist movement?

I wouldn't say "archetypal" but not uncommon.

What are the goals of such a movement, i.e.

Anonymity in protest.

if they succeed in dislodging the state, what then?
Good question. I don't think they know. But like "Anonymous" "they" are not a group of tightly knit people who meet every friday and discuss the best plan for the end of the state.

They are a loose group of anarchists, anti-statists, leftists, etc. who use a certain tactic (the black bloc) in times of protest in hopes for a revolution.

I don't think it's very successful but I can see the usefulness of it in a country with a government who holds an extreme opposition to protest. The anonymity, in that case, is very useful and perhaps even necessary. In places like America, it's just a way to get nothing done fast except maybe get maced in the face, be shot down by rubber bullets, get arrested, or have your picture taken and put on some FBI list for being an anarchist.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:34:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.crimethinc.com...

and onto the FBI list we go.....
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:40:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 11:40:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I was listening to NPR earlier today, and in one of the programs, the Black Bloc, an anarchist's movement, was mentioned being active in Egypt. It got me curious to look it up, considering the numerous intelligent people on this website that seem to advocate anarchy:

http://english.alarabiya.net...

The "Black Bloc" movement stormed Egypt"s political scene on the second anniversary of the January 25 revolution. According to the conventional wisdom, the Egyptian Black Bloc models itself on anti-establishment, anarchist groups in Europe and the U.S. that go back to the 1970s.

Egypt"s Black Bloc demonstrates a wide array of ideas ranging from anarchism and liberalism to Trotskyist Marxism. The group represents the most radical elements among Egyptian revolutionaries. It includes different kinds of activists, who share a common objective; they are anti-Islamists. In their "official video" posted on YouTube, on January 24, the masked youths declared their mission to fight "against the fascist regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, and their armed wing," and to protect protesters from security forces and Islamist militias.

Like their Western counterparts, the Egyptian movement are anti-regime and seek to overthrow the "incompetent" state, but they are not anti-capitalism.

The Black Bloc is proudly willing to use violence against the security forces and the allegedly "military wing" of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the group involved in violent acts, clashes with security forces, disruption of metro services and road traffic and looting shops.


Are these political stances and tactics archetypal of the anarchist movement? What are the goals of such a movement, i.e. if they succeed in dislodging the state, what then?

Well, if they truly aren't anti-capitalist that's quite unfortunate, as it means that their analysis of what ails human society and its possible remedies is quite shallow.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:47:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:17:06 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
It was V that said something along the lines of "Anarchy needs both destroyers and creators." First you have to destroy the current system, and then establish an anarchistic society- it's not as if the government will willingly and voluntarily disband itself. So yes, these actions are archetypal to the movement.

What POSSIBLE assurances could such a "new society" give that would distinguish it from other forms of governance?

The moment you say "establish an anarchistic society", I envision "TWO LEGS GOOD, FOUR LEGS BETTER". This is just Animal farm, the anarchist version.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:52:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:21:55 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/13/2013 11:40:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Are these political stances and tactics archetypal of the anarchist movement?

I wouldn't say "archetypal" but not uncommon.

What are the goals of such a movement, i.e.

Anonymity in protest.

if they succeed in dislodging the state, what then?
Good question. I don't think they know. But like "Anonymous" "they" are not a group of tightly knit people who meet every friday and discuss the best plan for the end of the state.

They are a loose group of anarchists, anti-statists, leftists, etc. who use a certain tactic (the black bloc) in times of protest in hopes for a revolution.

I don't think it's very successful but I can see the usefulness of it in a country with a government who holds an extreme opposition to protest. The anonymity, in that case, is very useful and perhaps even necessary. In places like America, it's just a way to get nothing done fast except maybe get maced in the face, be shot down by rubber bullets, get arrested, or have your picture taken and put on some FBI list for being an anarchist.

Reading this just made me recall that pure Marxism is indeed a "stateless society". I would imagine that anarchist movements probably share a lot in common with Marxist-Leninism, in that one revolution is not enough, it must spread EVERYWHERE in order to be viable. This is just another way of achieving hegemony through realism, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 1:00:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:52:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:21:55 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/13/2013 11:40:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Are these political stances and tactics archetypal of the anarchist movement?

I wouldn't say "archetypal" but not uncommon.

What are the goals of such a movement, i.e.

Anonymity in protest.

if they succeed in dislodging the state, what then?
Good question. I don't think they know. But like "Anonymous" "they" are not a group of tightly knit people who meet every friday and discuss the best plan for the end of the state.

They are a loose group of anarchists, anti-statists, leftists, etc. who use a certain tactic (the black bloc) in times of protest in hopes for a revolution.

I don't think it's very successful but I can see the usefulness of it in a country with a government who holds an extreme opposition to protest. The anonymity, in that case, is very useful and perhaps even necessary. In places like America, it's just a way to get nothing done fast except maybe get maced in the face, be shot down by rubber bullets, get arrested, or have your picture taken and put on some FBI list for being an anarchist.

Reading this just made me recall that pure Marxism is indeed a "stateless society". I would imagine that anarchist movements probably share a lot in common with Marxist-Leninism, in that one revolution is not enough, it must spread EVERYWHERE in order to be viable. This is just another way of achieving hegemony through realism, IMHO.

Replace Marxist-Leninism with Trotskyism.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 1:20:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:52:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:21:55 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/13/2013 11:40:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Are these political stances and tactics archetypal of the anarchist movement?

I wouldn't say "archetypal" but not uncommon.

What are the goals of such a movement, i.e.

Anonymity in protest.

if they succeed in dislodging the state, what then?
Good question. I don't think they know. But like "Anonymous" "they" are not a group of tightly knit people who meet every friday and discuss the best plan for the end of the state.

They are a loose group of anarchists, anti-statists, leftists, etc. who use a certain tactic (the black bloc) in times of protest in hopes for a revolution.

I don't think it's very successful but I can see the usefulness of it in a country with a government who holds an extreme opposition to protest. The anonymity, in that case, is very useful and perhaps even necessary. In places like America, it's just a way to get nothing done fast except maybe get maced in the face, be shot down by rubber bullets, get arrested, or have your picture taken and put on some FBI list for being an anarchist.

Reading this just made me recall that pure Marxism is indeed a "stateless society". I would imagine that anarchist movements probably share a lot in common with Marxist-Leninism, in that one revolution is not enough, it must spread EVERYWHERE in order to be viable. This is just another way of achieving hegemony through realism, IMHO.

The intention isn't currently "hegemony." I'm not even sure that makes sense or if I'm understanding what you mean. As the people in power would not, as LK pointed out, simply step down from power, "hegemony" via a worldwide anarchist revolution could only occur if most people favored it in which case.... who cares? Most people would favor it.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 1:32:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 1:20:45 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:52:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:21:55 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/13/2013 11:40:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Are these political stances and tactics archetypal of the anarchist movement?

I wouldn't say "archetypal" but not uncommon.

What are the goals of such a movement, i.e.

Anonymity in protest.

if they succeed in dislodging the state, what then?
Good question. I don't think they know. But like "Anonymous" "they" are not a group of tightly knit people who meet every friday and discuss the best plan for the end of the state.

They are a loose group of anarchists, anti-statists, leftists, etc. who use a certain tactic (the black bloc) in times of protest in hopes for a revolution.

I don't think it's very successful but I can see the usefulness of it in a country with a government who holds an extreme opposition to protest. The anonymity, in that case, is very useful and perhaps even necessary. In places like America, it's just a way to get nothing done fast except maybe get maced in the face, be shot down by rubber bullets, get arrested, or have your picture taken and put on some FBI list for being an anarchist.

Reading this just made me recall that pure Marxism is indeed a "stateless society". I would imagine that anarchist movements probably share a lot in common with Marxist-Leninism, in that one revolution is not enough, it must spread EVERYWHERE in order to be viable. This is just another way of achieving hegemony through realism, IMHO.

The intention isn't currently "hegemony." I'm not even sure that makes sense or if I'm understanding what you mean. As the people in power would not, as LK pointed out, simply step down from power, "hegemony" via a worldwide anarchist revolution could only occur if most people favored it in which case.... who cares? Most people would favor it.

Hegemony is an indirect form of government of imperial dominance in which the hegemon (leader state) rules geopolitically subordinate states by the implied means of power, the threat of force, rather than by direct military force.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Eliminate the word "states" and replace them with the words "worker co-ops". No question that there has to be some sort of violent revolution in order to usurp state control, so the "implied means of power, the threat of force", is ever-present in this movement - it has to be in order to challenge state control. Whoever starts the chain of events will be seen as the "purest" and thus "most dominant".

This is just another type of attempt at hegemony.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:38:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 11:40:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I was listening to NPR earlier today, and in one of the programs, the Black Bloc, an anarchist's movement, was mentioned being active in Egypt. It got me curious to look it up, considering the numerous intelligent people on this website that seem to advocate anarchy:

http://english.alarabiya.net...

The "Black Bloc" movement stormed Egypt"s political scene on the second anniversary of the January 25 revolution. According to the conventional wisdom, the Egyptian Black Bloc models itself on anti-establishment, anarchist groups in Europe and the U.S. that go back to the 1970s.

Egypt"s Black Bloc demonstrates a wide array of ideas ranging from anarchism and liberalism to Trotskyist Marxism. The group represents the most radical elements among Egyptian revolutionaries. It includes different kinds of activists, who share a common objective; they are anti-Islamists. In their "official video" posted on YouTube, on January 24, the masked youths declared their mission to fight "against the fascist regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, and their armed wing," and to protect protesters from security forces and Islamist militias.

Like their Western counterparts, the Egyptian movement are anti-regime and seek to overthrow the "incompetent" state, but they are not anti-capitalism.

The Black Bloc is proudly willing to use violence against the security forces and the allegedly "military wing" of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the group involved in violent acts, clashes with security forces, disruption of metro services and road traffic and looting shops.


Are these political stances and tactics archetypal of the anarchist movement? What are the goals of such a movement, i.e. if they succeed in dislodging the state, what then?

You know, when the Shining Path started taking over in Peru, it got so much support from left-wing intellectuals in the US and Europe. They're still praising it.
This anarchist website makes me laugh by saying that the Shining Path should have respected the culture of the local people. http://attackthesystem.com...

Yeah. Lining people up in the town square and shooting them in the head is not really respecting them, is it. It's not a joke not having a proper alternative to government. The Shining Path took on a democratic government and quite purposefully and systematically killed people, ordinary people, in order to create terror and bring down the system. 70,000 people ended up dead. Sure, they lost. But even if they'd won I don't see how Peru would be much better today. Ultimately, it would be the same sorts of people working in the mines and the same sorts of people in the city making money.

It really annoys me the way that people talk about anarchism here as if it's some sort of sweet, utopian philosophy. It only is until some idiot decides to take action. I think any political philosophy that's so sure of itself is dangerous. Nation states are definitely a problem. They don't make much sense any more. We need a new arrangement. Sure. Who can disagree? But to go from that to saying, let's destroy all forms of government is crazy. It feels safe in the US, but in the countries where people are acting it out it's horrendous.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 9:16:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
One thing to remember about anarchists is that while they claim to have the moral high ground, and sometimes they do, what would need to happen for anarchism to work is a lot worse than what we have now.

I'm sure that most people on this site would be all for, if given the option, to convert say the US into an anarchist society....except 99% of the population would immediately go back to making a government....
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 9:17:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 9:16:42 AM, OberHerr wrote:
One thing to remember about anarchists is that while they claim to have the moral high ground, and sometimes they do, what would need to happen for anarchism to work is a lot worse than what we have now.

I'm sure that most anarchists on this site would be all for, if given the option, to convert say the US into an anarchist society....except 99% of the population would immediately go back to making a government....

Fix'd.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 9:21:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:38:29 AM, rross wrote:
At 2/13/2013 11:40:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I was listening to NPR earlier today, and in one of the programs, the Black Bloc, an anarchist's movement, was mentioned being active in Egypt. It got me curious to look it up, considering the numerous intelligent people on this website that seem to advocate anarchy:

http://english.alarabiya.net...

The "Black Bloc" movement stormed Egypt"s political scene on the second anniversary of the January 25 revolution. According to the conventional wisdom, the Egyptian Black Bloc models itself on anti-establishment, anarchist groups in Europe and the U.S. that go back to the 1970s.

Egypt"s Black Bloc demonstrates a wide array of ideas ranging from anarchism and liberalism to Trotskyist Marxism. The group represents the most radical elements among Egyptian revolutionaries. It includes different kinds of activists, who share a common objective; they are anti-Islamists. In their "official video" posted on YouTube, on January 24, the masked youths declared their mission to fight "against the fascist regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, and their armed wing," and to protect protesters from security forces and Islamist militias.

Like their Western counterparts, the Egyptian movement are anti-regime and seek to overthrow the "incompetent" state, but they are not anti-capitalism.

The Black Bloc is proudly willing to use violence against the security forces and the allegedly "military wing" of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the group involved in violent acts, clashes with security forces, disruption of metro services and road traffic and looting shops.


Are these political stances and tactics archetypal of the anarchist movement? What are the goals of such a movement, i.e. if they succeed in dislodging the state, what then?

You know, when the Shining Path started taking over in Peru, it got so much support from left-wing intellectuals in the US and Europe. They're still praising it.
This anarchist website makes me laugh by saying that the Shining Path should have respected the culture of the local people. http://attackthesystem.com...

Yeah. Lining people up in the town square and shooting them in the head is not really respecting them, is it. It's not a joke not having a proper alternative to government. The Shining Path took on a democratic government and quite purposefully and systematically killed people, ordinary people, in order to create terror and bring down the system. 70,000 people ended up dead. Sure, they lost. But even if they'd won I don't see how Peru would be much better today. Ultimately, it would be the same sorts of people working in the mines and the same sorts of people in the city making money.

It really annoys me the way that people talk about anarchism here as if it's some sort of sweet, utopian philosophy. It only is until some idiot decides to take action. I think any political philosophy that's so sure of itself is dangerous. Nation states are definitely a problem. They don't make much sense any more. We need a new arrangement. Sure. Who can disagree? But to go from that to saying, let's destroy all forms of government is crazy. It feels safe in the US, but in the countries where people are acting it out it's horrendous.

I fully agree with your opinion, but I don't think the Shining Path is a good example of anarchism. They organized around a cult following similar to Mao. IMHO any REAL anarchist movement would not need a leader. There would be zero centralization. It would be a spontaneous eruption of popular sentiment based on some sort of moral perogative.

I also find it interesting that the article states that "The best plan is to simply leave ordinary people alone and let them go about their business, in the process seizing the holdings of enemy governmental and corporate institutions and placing them under popular control and setting up common law courts or arbitration panels for the sake of settling disputes arising from common crimes or economic rivalries." This is EXACTLY the mentality the US had while in Iraq. Exactly what is the difference here? What makes anarchy so much more desirable than state control?

I can see how anarchy appeals to an emotional element, labeling anyone that advocates any measure of statehood "System Pigs." Scarlet Letter, Star of David, "System Pig". Great. Sign me up please for this latest version of bigotry and intolerance.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 9:23:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 9:16:42 AM, OberHerr wrote:
One thing to remember about anarchists is that while they claim to have the moral high ground, and sometimes they do, what would need to happen for anarchism to work is a lot worse than what we have now.

Your argument in support of this claim is what?

I'm sure that most people on this site would be all for, if given the option, to convert say the US into an anarchist society....except 99% of the population would immediately go back to making a government....

I'm an anarchist but I wouldn't want to just snap my fingers and convert the U.S. into an anarchist "state". Things have to flow organically for a functional anarchist society to obtain. I'd much rather the intellectual zeitgeist continue to evolve towards an anarchist direction until dismantling the State actually becomes possible.

Violent revolution (while morally sound in some instances perhaps) or instantaneous transition isn't really something worthwhile if your goal is social stability.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 9:48:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:03:02 AM, FREEDO wrote:


This video is inaccurate. Catalonia may have been the closest thing the West has seen to anarchist society, but it was not an anarchist society. What DISTINGUISHES it from a real anarchy is key.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

In spite of the fact that Anarchist Philosophy was against centralized government of any form and that the CNT-FAI had always shunned parliamentary politics while attacking the Socialists for collaborating with the state, by September 1936 they had decided to join the Generalitat of Catalonia.

The Generalitat of Catalonia is the institution under which the autonomous community of Catalonia in Spain is politically organised. It consists of the Parliament, the President of the Generalitat of Catalonia and the Government of Catalonia.


---

There was a CURRENCY in this society:

In many localities, money was abolished and wages paid by coupons issued by the committee, the size of which was determined the size of the family.

Replace "coupon" with "ruble".

It was evidently not a very well-developed economy:

Money was only used in trade with regions that had not adopted this system, and trade with other anarchist regions was done by barter.

---

"Everybody created his own justice and administered it himself...Some used to call this 'taking a person for a ride' [paseo] but I maintain that it was justice administered directly by the people in the complete absence of the regular judicial bodies."

- Juan Garc"a Oliver, Anarchist minister of justice, 1936

During the initial fighting several thousand individuals were murdered by Anarchist and Socialist militants based on their assumed political allegiance and social class.

"We do not wish to deny that the nineteenth of July brought with it an overflowing of passions and abuses, a natural phenomenon of the transfer of power from the hands of privileged to the hands of the people. It is possible that our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who were listed as rightists and were linked to political or ecclesiastical reaction."

- Diego Abad de Santillan, editor of Solidaridad Obrera


What I bolded is what I believe would be commonplace in a true anarchy. Sh!t happens. Without some sort of neutral arbiter to dispense justice (state-administered courts), people would just take to their own judgment. Is our judgment perfect? Of course not. Some people will invariably get offended by some act of negative retribution. A critical mass of such negativity would invariably form. Anarchy would collapse upon itself in short order.

---

Finally, what I see as the real reason why any state model will trump any attempt at anarchy:

The militias suffered from a wide variety of problems. They were inexperienced and lacked discipline and unity of action. Rivalry between the various organizations exacerbated the lack of any centralized command and general staff. The appointed professional officers were not always respected. They also lacked heavy weapons.[38] Militiamen would often leave the front whenever they wished. Republican officer Major Aberri said of the militiamen he encountered at the Aragon front: "...It was the most natural thing in the world for them to leave the front when it was quiet. They knew nothing of discipline, and it was clear that nobody had bothered to instruct them on the subject. After a forty-hour week at the front they got bored and left it...."

Orwell himself states:

" In a workers' army discipline is theoretically voluntary...It is based on class-loyalty, whereas the discipline of a bourgeois conscript army is based ultimately on fear... The normal military punishments existed, but they were only invoked for very serious offences. When a man refused to obey an order you did not immediately get him punished; you first appealed to him in the name of comradeship. "

Frankly, what Orwell states is EXACTLY the framework of the US's currently voluntary military force, not some anarchist movement's militia. A real anarchist "military" would indeed lack any sort of discipline and organization. All Orwell is calling for is a more humane treatment of soldiers. This has been accomplished through the most hegemonic "statist" society the world has ever seen, the United States of America. These changes to the US military was instituted by the arch-statist himself, Richard Milhous Nixon.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:06:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:47:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:17:06 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
It was V that said something along the lines of "Anarchy needs both destroyers and creators." First you have to destroy the current system, and then establish an anarchistic society- it's not as if the government will willingly and voluntarily disband itself. So yes, these actions are archetypal to the movement.

What POSSIBLE assurances could such a "new society" give that would distinguish it from other forms of governance?

The moment you say "establish an anarchistic society", I envision "TWO LEGS GOOD, FOUR LEGS BETTER". This is just Animal farm, the anarchist version.

If something is morally and pragmatically superior in theory, then you are morally obligated to achieve this- no matter the consequences or possible ramifications.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:25:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:06:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:47:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:17:06 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
It was V that said something along the lines of "Anarchy needs both destroyers and creators." First you have to destroy the current system, and then establish an anarchistic society- it's not as if the government will willingly and voluntarily disband itself. So yes, these actions are archetypal to the movement.

What POSSIBLE assurances could such a "new society" give that would distinguish it from other forms of governance?

The moment you say "establish an anarchistic society", I envision "TWO LEGS GOOD, FOUR LEGS BETTER". This is just Animal farm, the anarchist version.

If something is morally and pragmatically superior in theory, then you are morally obligated to achieve this- no matter the consequences or possible ramifications.


Once you and your morally obligated brethren cease to exist, business will return to normal.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:28:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:25:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:06:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:47:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:17:06 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
It was V that said something along the lines of "Anarchy needs both destroyers and creators." First you have to destroy the current system, and then establish an anarchistic society- it's not as if the government will willingly and voluntarily disband itself. So yes, these actions are archetypal to the movement.

What POSSIBLE assurances could such a "new society" give that would distinguish it from other forms of governance?

The moment you say "establish an anarchistic society", I envision "TWO LEGS GOOD, FOUR LEGS BETTER". This is just Animal farm, the anarchist version.

If something is morally and pragmatically superior in theory, then you are morally obligated to achieve this- no matter the consequences or possible ramifications.


Once you and your morally obligated brethren cease to exist, business will return to normal.

This can happen by two routes:

1) You die out due to a failure to institute your sense of morality due to some form of overwhelming force that prohibits your ability to take power.

2) Your sense of morality becomes corrupted by the corrupting influence of power.

Either way, it's Animal Farm. I believe this to be a true dichotomy...there are no other options.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:38:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:28:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:25:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:06:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:47:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:17:06 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
It was V that said something along the lines of "Anarchy needs both destroyers and creators." First you have to destroy the current system, and then establish an anarchistic society- it's not as if the government will willingly and voluntarily disband itself. So yes, these actions are archetypal to the movement.

What POSSIBLE assurances could such a "new society" give that would distinguish it from other forms of governance?

The moment you say "establish an anarchistic society", I envision "TWO LEGS GOOD, FOUR LEGS BETTER". This is just Animal farm, the anarchist version.

If something is morally and pragmatically superior in theory, then you are morally obligated to achieve this- no matter the consequences or possible ramifications.


Once you and your morally obligated brethren cease to exist, business will return to normal.

This can happen by two routes:

1) You die out due to a failure to institute your sense of morality due to some form of overwhelming force that prohibits your ability to take power.

2) Your sense of morality becomes corrupted by the corrupting influence of power.

Either way, it's Animal Farm. I believe this to be a true dichotomy...there are no other options.

Or... success.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 1:33:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:38:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:28:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:25:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:06:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:47:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:17:06 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
It was V that said something along the lines of "Anarchy needs both destroyers and creators." First you have to destroy the current system, and then establish an anarchistic society- it's not as if the government will willingly and voluntarily disband itself. So yes, these actions are archetypal to the movement.

What POSSIBLE assurances could such a "new society" give that would distinguish it from other forms of governance?

The moment you say "establish an anarchistic society", I envision "TWO LEGS GOOD, FOUR LEGS BETTER". This is just Animal farm, the anarchist version.

If something is morally and pragmatically superior in theory, then you are morally obligated to achieve this- no matter the consequences or possible ramifications.


Once you and your morally obligated brethren cease to exist, business will return to normal.

This can happen by two routes:

1) You die out due to a failure to institute your sense of morality due to some form of overwhelming force that prohibits your ability to take power.

2) Your sense of morality becomes corrupted by the corrupting influence of power.

Either way, it's Animal Farm. I believe this to be a true dichotomy...there are no other options.

Or... success.

Let's say you "succeed" in achieving your "new world order". How would justice be administered? Would your world be perfect, without the need for justice? Would there be no accidents, no need for public communique for anything?

My answer is of course not. Accidents will happen. Sh!t happens. When it does, some sort of neutral arbiter will have to determine what exactly amounts to justice. Such an arbiter will require some sort of enforcement mechanism for their decrees to have any sort of validity, else people would just interpret justice as they see fit, neutral or not, right or not, moral or not.

All this requires a state apparatus. It requires some sort of entity, some sort of arbiter. This arbiter will have coercive powers behind it. This arbiter is the state.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 1:40:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 1:33:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:38:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:28:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:25:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:06:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:47:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:17:06 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
It was V that said something along the lines of "Anarchy needs both destroyers and creators." First you have to destroy the current system, and then establish an anarchistic society- it's not as if the government will willingly and voluntarily disband itself. So yes, these actions are archetypal to the movement.

What POSSIBLE assurances could such a "new society" give that would distinguish it from other forms of governance?

The moment you say "establish an anarchistic society", I envision "TWO LEGS GOOD, FOUR LEGS BETTER". This is just Animal farm, the anarchist version.

If something is morally and pragmatically superior in theory, then you are morally obligated to achieve this- no matter the consequences or possible ramifications.


Once you and your morally obligated brethren cease to exist, business will return to normal.

This can happen by two routes:

1) You die out due to a failure to institute your sense of morality due to some form of overwhelming force that prohibits your ability to take power.

2) Your sense of morality becomes corrupted by the corrupting influence of power.

Either way, it's Animal Farm. I believe this to be a true dichotomy...there are no other options.

Or... success.

Let's say you "succeed" in achieving your "new world order". How would justice be administered? Would your world be perfect, without the need for justice? Would there be no accidents, no need for public communique for anything?

My answer is of course not. Accidents will happen. Sh!t happens. When it does, some sort of neutral arbiter will have to determine what exactly amounts to justice. Such an arbiter will require some sort of enforcement mechanism for their decrees to have any sort of validity, else people would just interpret justice as they see fit, neutral or not, right or not, moral or not.

All this requires a state apparatus. It requires some sort of entity, some sort of arbiter. This arbiter will have coercive powers behind it. This arbiter is the state.

Let's carry this on even further.

Every time someone dies, all of the knowledge that person had is lost.

Every time someone is born, they are born without any knowledge and must be educated. In order to perceive the lofty morality that anarchists propagate, many kinds of reasoning skills and etc need to be taught first. Something can go wrong in this learning process.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 1:58:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 1:33:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:38:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:28:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:25:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:06:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:47:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:17:06 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
It was V that said something along the lines of "Anarchy needs both destroyers and creators." First you have to destroy the current system, and then establish an anarchistic society- it's not as if the government will willingly and voluntarily disband itself. So yes, these actions are archetypal to the movement.

What POSSIBLE assurances could such a "new society" give that would distinguish it from other forms of governance?

The moment you say "establish an anarchistic society", I envision "TWO LEGS GOOD, FOUR LEGS BETTER". This is just Animal farm, the anarchist version.

If something is morally and pragmatically superior in theory, then you are morally obligated to achieve this- no matter the consequences or possible ramifications.


Once you and your morally obligated brethren cease to exist, business will return to normal.

This can happen by two routes:

1) You die out due to a failure to institute your sense of morality due to some form of overwhelming force that prohibits your ability to take power.

2) Your sense of morality becomes corrupted by the corrupting influence of power.

Either way, it's Animal Farm. I believe this to be a true dichotomy...there are no other options.

Or... success.

Let's say you "succeed" in achieving your "new world order". How would justice be administered? Would your world be perfect, without the need for justice? Would there be no accidents, no need for public communique for anything?

My answer is of course not. Accidents will happen. Sh!t happens. When it does, some sort of neutral arbiter will have to determine what exactly amounts to justice. Such an arbiter will require some sort of enforcement mechanism for their decrees to have any sort of validity, else people would just interpret justice as they see fit, neutral or not, right or not, moral or not.

All this requires a state apparatus. It requires some sort of entity, some sort of arbiter. This arbiter will have coercive powers behind it. This arbiter is the state.

Here's an example of sh!t happening.

Let's say there are two parties, Albert and Bob, that trade apples and oranges with each other all the time. Albert loves his apples, and Bob loves his oranges. Albert also loves Bob's oranges, and Bob also loves Albert's apples. They trade their surplus on a daily basis.

One day, Albert no longer runs a surplus. Bob has more oranges than he knows what to do with, but no longer gets to enjoy Albert's apples. Something's wrong here. They go to some arbiter of some sort to figure out what to do. Neither of them know what happened, so neither does the arbiter. He just advises both to just make do without the trade until things get better.

Let's say that sometime later, Albert discovers that there is some sort of bacterial infection in his apple trees that has stunted the growth of apples. They go back to the arbiter, and explain the new evidence they have. Bob really likes Albert's apples, so the arbiter decrees that Bob should use his surplus oranges to fund some sort of research program to figure out how to get rid of this bacterial infection. Bob agrees to this because he really likes Albert's apples. Albert is thankful, even though he still doesn't get to enjoy any of Bob's oranges in the meantime.

Let's say that after a while of giving up his surplus, Bob gets disgruntled. Albert and Bob go back to the arbiter. Albert tells the arbiter about the progress made in combating the bacteria. Bob doesn't seem to think there's any real progress. The arbiter has to make a decision. He sides with Albert, and continues to advise Bob to give up his orange surplus to fund the bacterial research. All this time, Albert still doesn't run a surplus, and doesn't get to enjoy any of Bob's oranges.

Bob decides he isn't going to take it anymore. He stops giving up his surplus. Now what? An arbiter without any coercive abilities would not be able to do anything more in this situation. Both Albert and Bob will have to figure out how to make do without each others' apples and oranges. However, an arbiter WITH coercive abilities would be able to continue to extract Bob's surplus to fund the bacterial research.

Let's say the arbiter was correct in his judgment by siding with Albert. The bacterial infection is mitigated. With the coercive powers of the arbiter, Bob's surplus ended up in both Albert and Bob enjoying each others' apples and oranges again. WITHOUT the coercive powers of the arbiter, neither would be enjoying each others' products again. In fact, it's quite possible that the bacteria spreads and destroys not only Albert's apple trees, but Bob's orange trees as well.

---

This is why a state is required. The world is not perfect.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:32:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 1:33:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:38:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:28:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:25:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:06:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:47:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:17:06 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
It was V that said something along the lines of "Anarchy needs both destroyers and creators." First you have to destroy the current system, and then establish an anarchistic society- it's not as if the government will willingly and voluntarily disband itself. So yes, these actions are archetypal to the movement.

What POSSIBLE assurances could such a "new society" give that would distinguish it from other forms of governance?

The moment you say "establish an anarchistic society", I envision "TWO LEGS GOOD, FOUR LEGS BETTER". This is just Animal farm, the anarchist version.

If something is morally and pragmatically superior in theory, then you are morally obligated to achieve this- no matter the consequences or possible ramifications.


Once you and your morally obligated brethren cease to exist, business will return to normal.

This can happen by two routes:

1) You die out due to a failure to institute your sense of morality due to some form of overwhelming force that prohibits your ability to take power.

2) Your sense of morality becomes corrupted by the corrupting influence of power.

Either way, it's Animal Farm. I believe this to be a true dichotomy...there are no other options.

Or... success.

Let's say you "succeed" in achieving your "new world order". How would justice be administered? Would your world be perfect, without the need for justice? Would there be no accidents, no need for public communique for anything?

Law in anarchist society ->

My answer is of course not. Accidents will happen. Sh!t happens. When it does, some sort of neutral arbiter will have to determine what exactly amounts to justice. Such an arbiter will require some sort of enforcement mechanism for their decrees to have any sort of validity, else people would just interpret justice as they see fit, neutral or not, right or not, moral or not.

Essentially, most of the population will agree to a set of voluntary laws provided by their insurance companies that would be enforceable through a third party arbiter.

All this requires a state apparatus. It requires some sort of entity, some sort of arbiter. This arbiter will have coercive powers behind it. This arbiter is the state.

The arbiter doesn't need to have coercive powers if law is based on voluntary contractual acceptance. People who do not agree to this law may be dealt with violently and/or will likely be social outcasts in a society.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:32:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 1:40:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 1:33:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:38:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:28:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:25:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:06:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:47:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:17:06 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
It was V that said something along the lines of "Anarchy needs both destroyers and creators." First you have to destroy the current system, and then establish an anarchistic society- it's not as if the government will willingly and voluntarily disband itself. So yes, these actions are archetypal to the movement.

What POSSIBLE assurances could such a "new society" give that would distinguish it from other forms of governance?

The moment you say "establish an anarchistic society", I envision "TWO LEGS GOOD, FOUR LEGS BETTER". This is just Animal farm, the anarchist version.

If something is morally and pragmatically superior in theory, then you are morally obligated to achieve this- no matter the consequences or possible ramifications.


Once you and your morally obligated brethren cease to exist, business will return to normal.

This can happen by two routes:

1) You die out due to a failure to institute your sense of morality due to some form of overwhelming force that prohibits your ability to take power.

2) Your sense of morality becomes corrupted by the corrupting influence of power.

Either way, it's Animal Farm. I believe this to be a true dichotomy...there are no other options.

Or... success.

Let's say you "succeed" in achieving your "new world order". How would justice be administered? Would your world be perfect, without the need for justice? Would there be no accidents, no need for public communique for anything?

My answer is of course not. Accidents will happen. Sh!t happens. When it does, some sort of neutral arbiter will have to determine what exactly amounts to justice. Such an arbiter will require some sort of enforcement mechanism for their decrees to have any sort of validity, else people would just interpret justice as they see fit, neutral or not, right or not, moral or not.

All this requires a state apparatus. It requires some sort of entity, some sort of arbiter. This arbiter will have coercive powers behind it. This arbiter is the state.

Let's carry this on even further.

Every time someone dies, all of the knowledge that person had is lost.

Every time someone is born, they are born without any knowledge and must be educated. In order to perceive the lofty morality that anarchists propagate, many kinds of reasoning skills and etc need to be taught first. Something can go wrong in this learning process.

I don't see what this has to do with anything....
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:34:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 1:58:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 1:33:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:38:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:28:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:25:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:06:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:47:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:17:06 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
It was V that said something along the lines of "Anarchy needs both destroyers and creators." First you have to destroy the current system, and then establish an anarchistic society- it's not as if the government will willingly and voluntarily disband itself. So yes, these actions are archetypal to the movement.

What POSSIBLE assurances could such a "new society" give that would distinguish it from other forms of governance?

The moment you say "establish an anarchistic society", I envision "TWO LEGS GOOD, FOUR LEGS BETTER". This is just Animal farm, the anarchist version.

If something is morally and pragmatically superior in theory, then you are morally obligated to achieve this- no matter the consequences or possible ramifications.


Once you and your morally obligated brethren cease to exist, business will return to normal.

This can happen by two routes:

1) You die out due to a failure to institute your sense of morality due to some form of overwhelming force that prohibits your ability to take power.

2) Your sense of morality becomes corrupted by the corrupting influence of power.

Either way, it's Animal Farm. I believe this to be a true dichotomy...there are no other options.

Or... success.

Let's say you "succeed" in achieving your "new world order". How would justice be administered? Would your world be perfect, without the need for justice? Would there be no accidents, no need for public communique for anything?

My answer is of course not. Accidents will happen. Sh!t happens. When it does, some sort of neutral arbiter will have to determine what exactly amounts to justice. Such an arbiter will require some sort of enforcement mechanism for their decrees to have any sort of validity, else people would just interpret justice as they see fit, neutral or not, right or not, moral or not.

All this requires a state apparatus. It requires some sort of entity, some sort of arbiter. This arbiter will have coercive powers behind it. This arbiter is the state.

Here's an example of sh!t happening.

Let's say there are two parties, Albert and Bob, that trade apples and oranges with each other all the time. Albert loves his apples, and Bob loves his oranges. Albert also loves Bob's oranges, and Bob also loves Albert's apples. They trade their surplus on a daily basis.

One day, Albert no longer runs a surplus. Bob has more oranges than he knows what to do with, but no longer gets to enjoy Albert's apples. Something's wrong here. They go to some arbiter of some sort to figure out what to do. Neither of them know what happened, so neither does the arbiter. He just advises both to just make do without the trade until things get better.

Let's say that sometime later, Albert discovers that there is some sort of bacterial infection in his apple trees that has stunted the growth of apples. They go back to the arbiter, and explain the new evidence they have. Bob really likes Albert's apples, so the arbiter decrees that Bob should use his surplus oranges to fund some sort of research program to figure out how to get rid of this bacterial infection. Bob agrees to this because he really likes Albert's apples. Albert is thankful, even though he still doesn't get to enjoy any of Bob's oranges in the meantime.

Let's say that after a while of giving up his surplus, Bob gets disgruntled. Albert and Bob go back to the arbiter. Albert tells the arbiter about the progress made in combating the bacteria. Bob doesn't seem to think there's any real progress. The arbiter has to make a decision. He sides with Albert, and continues to advise Bob to give up his orange surplus to fund the bacterial research. All this time, Albert still doesn't run a surplus, and doesn't get to enjoy any of Bob's oranges.

Bob decides he isn't going to take it anymore. He stops giving up his surplus. Now what? An arbiter without any coercive abilities would not be able to do anything more in this situation. Both Albert and Bob will have to figure out how to make do without each others' apples and oranges. However, an arbiter WITH coercive abilities would be able to continue to extract Bob's surplus to fund the bacterial research.

Let's say the arbiter was correct in his judgment by siding with Albert. The bacterial infection is mitigated. With the coercive powers of the arbiter, Bob's surplus ended up in both Albert and Bob enjoying each others' apples and oranges again. WITHOUT the coercive powers of the arbiter, neither would be enjoying each others' products again. In fact, it's quite possible that the bacteria spreads and destroys not only Albert's apple trees, but Bob's orange trees as well.

---

This is why a state is required. The world is not perfect.

It's sad that I read all of this but the only way that an arbiter would actually be able to resolve any disputes would be through previously agreed upon contracts. I seriously doubt that Bob and Albert had a previous agreed upon contract that in case Albert's apples were infested with bacteria, Bob would give his surplus oranges to him. Furthermore, trade dependence =/= mandatory trade.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:37:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 9:23:23 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/14/2013 9:16:42 AM, OberHerr wrote:
One thing to remember about anarchists is that while they claim to have the moral high ground, and sometimes they do, what would need to happen for anarchism to work is a lot worse than what we have now.

Your argument in support of this claim is what?

Only way I can see anarchism being implemented large scale is through violent means. You know what that means.


I'm sure that most people on this site would be all for, if given the option, to convert say the US into an anarchist society....except 99% of the population would immediately go back to making a government....

I'm an anarchist but I wouldn't want to just snap my fingers and convert the U.S. into an anarchist "state". Things have to flow organically for a functional anarchist society to obtain. I'd much rather the intellectual zeitgeist continue to evolve towards an anarchist direction until dismantling the State actually becomes possible.


Which probably won't happen, but whatever.

Violent revolution (while morally sound in some instances perhaps) or instantaneous transition isn't really something worthwhile if your goal is social stability.

I agreed.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-